Analysis of the Reaction of Residents of Baton Rouge to a Series of Television Editorials
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been 63—76 microfilmed exactly as received PENNYBACKER, John Howard, 1930- ANALYSIS OF THE REACTION OF RESIDENTS OF BATON ROUGE TO A SERIES OF TELEVISION EDITORIALS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1962 Speech-Theater University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ANALYSIS OF THE REACTION OF RESIDENTS OF BATON ROUGE TO A SERIES OF TELEVISION EDITORIALS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By John Howard Pennybacker, B. A., A. M ick'k^c'k'k The Ohio State University 1962 Adviser Department of Speech ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer gratefully acknowledges the aid of Dr. Harrison B. Summers and Dr. Richard M. Mall in the planning, guidance, and writing of the study reported herein. Their guidance, assistance and encour agement was invaluable. This study was planned and carried out while the author was a staff member of the Department of Speech of Louisiana State University. In this period the cooperation of Dr. Waldo Braden, chairman of the Department, was most helpful. The cooperation of students and faculty members of Southern University was of great assistance. Dr. Blyden Jackson, chairman of the Department of English, was especially helpful in encouraging this cooperation and his aid is gratefully acknowledged. Tabulations and computations for this study were made possible by Dr. Bill B. Townsend, Director of the Computer Research Center, and his staff. Their assistance in the use of the IBM 650 and 1620 com puters greatly simplified and expedited all calculations. Space does not permit the writer to acknowledge the help of the students of Louisiana State University and Southern University who gath ered the data for this study. The writer is extremely grateful to them all for their assistance. Special mention is in order to Mr. Douglas Manship and the staff of WBRZ-TV for their invaluable aid in granting permission for the study and in providing the necessary financial assistance. ii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................ ii TABLES ........................................................... v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 Mass Communications in a Free Society The Federal Communications Commission and Broadcast Editorials II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................. 16 Prior Research Evolution of the Problem III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............ 30 Objectives of the Study Specific Editorials in Context The Questionnaire The Sample Survey Technique Analysis of Data IV. SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF LICENSEE EDITORIALIZING. 59 Introduction Regular Viewing of Broadcast Editorials Support for the Principle of Editorializing Responsibilities Placed on the Licensee who Editorializes Conclusions V. INFORMATION RETAINED FROM SPECIFIC EDITORIALS ..... 75 Introduction Community Awareness of the Editorials Discussion of the Editorials Retention of Specific Information iii iv Chapter Page VI. OVERALL REACTION TO THE SERIES OF EDITORIALS.......... 100 Introduction Effectiveness of Individual Editorials Support for the Entire Series Suggested Improvements and Restrictions Conclusions VII. CONCLUSIONS....................... 119 Community Support of the Principle of Television Editorializing Retention of Information in the Editorials Reaction to the Entire Series General Conclusions Suggestions for Further Study APPENDIXES . 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 209 AUTOBIOGRAPHY 212 TABLES Table Page 1. Program Setting and Opposing Programs of Eighteen Broadcast Editorials with Rating Figures for Each . 43 2. Share of Audience and Sets in Use Figures for Two Baton Rouge Television Stations ................... 45 3. Distribution of a Proposed Sample of 2,000 Classified by Race and Sex in Twenty-nine Areas of Baton Rouge . 51 4. Distribution of the Sample by Four Va r i a b l e s ............. 52 5. Percent of Respondents Stating They Would or Would Not Regularly Watch Editorials by Station Owners. 60 6. Percent of Respondents Answering Yes, No, or Don't K n o w ................................................... 62 7. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking a Station Owner Does Have the Right to Editorialize on the A i r ........................... 63 8. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking a Station Owner Does Not Have the Right to Editorialize on the Air......................... 67 9. Percent of Respondents Thinking a Station Owner Who Editorializes Is or Is Not Obligated to Offer Free Time for the Opposing Point of V i e w .............. 70 10. Percent of Respondents Fixing Different Degrees of Responsibility on the Station Owner Who Editorializes 72 11. Percent of Respondents Who Had and Had Not Heard of Anyone Editorializing on the Air. .......... 77 12. Percent of Respondents Answering "Yes'! to the Previous Question Who Have and Have Not Personally Heard Any Editorials ........................................ 78 v vi Table Page 13. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Identified Various Radio and Television Stations as the Source of Editorials............................ 79 14. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Identified Various Persons as the Man Who Delivered the Editorials . .............................. 80 15. Sources from which Respondents Learned of Editorials. 82 16. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Talked with Others about the,,Material They Heard. 83 17. Percent of All Respondents Identifying Various Issues Disc u s s e d ............................................... 86 18. Analysis of Distribution of Respondents Identifying Each Issue.................................. 89 19. Audience and Recall Figures for Thirteen Issues .... 98 20. Percent of Respondents Identifying Each Issue as "Most Effective". .............. 101 21. Percent of Respondents Knowing of Editorials Who Answered "Yes," "No," or "Don't Know" ............... 103 22. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking Editorials Should be Continued ............. 105 23. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Reasons for Thinking Editorials Should Not be continued . 108 24. Percent of Respondents Giving Various Suggestions for Improving the Editorials. ................... 113 25. Percent of Respondents Naming Various Subjects as Unsuitable for Television Editorials............... 116 26. Percent of All Respondents Wishing to Add, Reduce or Keep the Same Number of Seventeen Different Types of P r o g r a m ............................. 181 27. Percent of All Respondents Stating They Would or Would Not Regularly Watch Fourteen Different Types of Television Program. ........... ........... 182 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Mass Communications in a Free Society Mass communications in the United States developed in a liberal atmosphere in which individual reason and the "natural rights" of man were considered as paramount. This is well summarized by the late Carl Becker in the following passage: The democratic doctrine of freedom of speech and of the press, . rests upon certain assumptions. One of these is that men desire to know the truth and will be disposed to be guided by it. Another is that the sole method of arriving at the truth in the long run is by the free competition of opinion in the open mar ket. Another is that, since men will invariably differ in their opinions, each man must be permitted to urge . his own opinion, provided he accords to others the same right. And the final assum ption is that from this mutual toleration and comparison of diverse opinions the one that seems the most rational will emerge and be generally accepted.! In such an atmosphere the press was seen as a protector of indi vidual liberties. Basically the underlying purpose of the media was to help discover truth, to assist in the process of solving political and social problems by presenting all manner of evidence and opinion as the basis for decisions. It was charged with the duty of keeping government from overstepping its bounds. In the words of Jefferson, it was to provide that check on government which no other institutions could provide.^ Within this framework of freedom, the press developed as indivi- •^Carl L. Becker, Freedom and Responsibility in the American Wav of Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), p. 33. ^Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Shramm, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1956), p. 51. 1 $ 2 dual publishers saw fit, subject to little or no governmental interference. Although seen as the protector of individual liberties, the press was free to speak out as it wished and acknowledged neither moral limit nor respon sibilities to the public. A statement attributed to William Peter Hamilton of the Wall Street Journal describes the attitude of these early publishers: A newspaper is a private enterprise owing nothing whatever to the public, which grants it no franchise. It is therefore affec ted with no public interest. It is emphatically the property of the owner, who is selling a manufactured product at his own risk.3 If, as the result of such an attitude, a newspaper should vilify, lie, or distort, such a practice would be recognized by the public and the offender would be forced out of business from lack of support. In the early nineteenth century man was seen as a rational being capable of find ing truth amid a welter of conflicting ideas and capable of separating truth from falsehood. It was important that opinions