What’s New is Old Again

It’s simple marketing. If people want chocolate ice cream, then companies will make chocolate ice-cream.

Radio’s a consumer product, too, so if people want game shows, then companies will make game shows.

That basic fact eluded noted radio critic John Crosby, who complained about new shows debuting in the fall sounding like shows that were already on the air.

But in his column of August 12, 1946, he rightly takes the networks to task for their spin, as they claimed entertainment shows are really public service broadcasts. Just because Superman “teaches” kids right from wrong doesn’t make it an educational show.

“Shows of Tomorrow”
Every year “Radio Daily,” a trade publication, issues a “Shows of Tomorrow” edition, a hopeful title though it rarely ever lives up to its name. This year is no exception. Some 700 radio programs are listed in the current edition and, after running through as many as possible, I am able to report that radio tomorrow is going to be pretty much like radio yesterday or, for that matter, radio ten years ago.
Most of next year’s entries are just old shows with new names. Sometimes even the names are reminiscent. Musical programs head the list with 120 entries. Next come dramatic shows with murder and family stuff dividing fairly evenly. Also listed are forty—count them—forty quiz shows and countless other give-away programs which will next year present housewives from Weehawken, Missoula and Buffalo with an impressive array of iceboxes, nylon umbrellas, and form-fitting girdles.
* * *
“Radio Daily” has also assembled statements from representatives of all four major networks to defend the depressing array. I found myself in disagreement with all but the spokesman for the Columbia Broadcasting System. Let’s take him first.
C.B.S. news coverage has long been the most complete and most imaginative on the air. Yet it’s heartening to note that Lyman Bryson, counselor on public affairs at that network, views the C.B.S. performance with a distinct lack of complacence.
“All too often,” says Mr. Bryson, “radio offers clouded, incomplete or distorted reflections of the domestic scene . . . The superficiality of our informational public service is at times astonishing . . . News reporting through the media of radio should go far beyond the news itself . . .”
This is certainly sound doctrine, but beyond that, it reveals a welcome state of mind. The C.B.S. news bureau has won so many accolades it could very well rest on its oars. Still it is dissatisfied with its own performance and will try to do better.
* * *
I should like to contrast the spirit of that statement with that of C.L. Menser, vice-president in charge of programs at the National Broadcasting Company. Among other things, Mr. Menser said that give-away shows “meet the public interest”—a nice phrase—because there is a Cinderella aspect to them which appeals to listener and participant alike.
Broadcasters, I find, are extraordinarily ingenious at explaining the success of a program after it succeeds, but not nearly so ingenious at trying out new, and possibly equally successful formulas. I have grave doubts about Mr. Menser’s statements on give-away programs. Radio, it seems to me, is just going through a phase that newspapers got out of their systems twenty years ago. Most of us remember when newspapers gave away encylopedias and Frigidaires to gain circulation. Publishers started shying away from this sort of come-on when they found out the circulation lasted only as long as the gifts. The best way to build circulation in a newspaper is to build a good newspaper. The broadcasters will discover the same thing. But not next year.
* * *
Phillips Carlin, vice-president in charge of programs at the Mutual Broadcasting System, holds a theory on public service programs almost as illuminating as Mr. Menser’s theory on give-away shows. Mr. Carlin implies, without actually saying, that a public service program is any program which interest, diverts, or enlightens the listener. In that category, he places “Superman,” “Leave It To The Girls,” “Juvenile Jury” and, of all people, Gabriel Heatter [photo, left] “who kept millions of war wives and mothers in hope—which he sold tubes and bottles.”
I agree with Mr. Carlin that “Juvenile Jury” and “Leave It To The Girls” are original and entertaining programs, but I disagree that they’re public service programs or anything near it.
I you’re still seeking a definition for public service, Mr. Carlin, you might ponder my own. A public service program is one that elevates the public taste, informs the public mind, or stirs human emotions on some issue worth being stirred about. A program that merely diverts is not in that category no matter how worthwhile as entertainment.
“Is it public service,” asks Mr. Carlin, “to cheer up old men and widows with comedy or must we ask them to keep tuned while we dramatize the life of an ant eater?”
You don’t have to dramatize the life of an ant eater, Mr. Carlin. But how about restoring the “Newsweek” program which dramatized little-known news stories? It was both instructive and entertaining, despite which it was bounced off your network several months ago.

As promised, below you can read Crosby’s remaining four columns of the week. They are about shows lost to time. On August 13th, he griped about an American programme and one brimming with flag-waving. He looked at programs aimed at helping WW2 veterans on August 14th. He wondered on August 15th about whether radio was just noise, and on August 16th he looked at continuing drama series based on real events. Click on them to make them larger.