The Role of Leadership in Four Network Radio and Television Discussion Programs

Citation preview

TICE g_GLE OP LEAD&RSHIP IN POOH NETWORK RADIO AND TELEVISION DISOUSSION PROGRAMS

SCim/jGiffin

A dissertation submitted In partial fulfillment of the re­ quirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Speech and Dramatic Art in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa August, 1950

ProQuest Number: 10902163

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 10902163 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Th® writer wishes to acknowledge his sincere appreciation to th© following personas To Professor Orville A* Hitchcock, who directed the investigation. To Professor A, Craig Baird and H. Clay H&rshbarger, who offered constructive suggestions and criticisms* To Georg© V* Denny, Jr», Elizabeth Colclough, Theodore Granik, Leon Levine, Dwight Cooke, Charles Collingwood, George E. Probst and a large number of radio and television network officials and staff members, who kindly provided helpful information* To Elizabeth Giffin, whose constant encour­ agement and real assistance has made this project a reality. To Sue Carol, aged five, who long has endured many little dally inattentions.

iii TABLE Off CONTENTS PART ONE.

PART TWO.

INTRODUCTION

...... ........

..

Nature of the Problem ..... Previous Investigation ...... Method of Investigation ........ Plan of the Dissertation ...........

9 11 14 22

FUNCTIONS OF MODERATORSf STAFF MEMBERS AND SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE BROADCASTING- OF THE P R O G R A M S ..........

24

Introduction to Part T w o ...... I.

I

Selection of Objectives and Types of Discussion

25

........

27

Selection of Objectives of thePrograms • 27 * Selection of Types of Discussion ........ 40 II.

Selection of Topics and Participants .......... Selection of Topics ....... Selection of Participants

III.

Preparation for the Broadcasts

56

.....

56 90

.... *.....

117

Preparation of the Participants ......... 117 Preparation of the Moderators .......... 156 Preparation of th© Physical Conditions for the Broadcasts ..... 147 PART THREE•

I.

FUNCTIONS OF THE MODERATORS AND MODEHATOH-PARTICIFANTS DURING THE BROADCASTING OF THE PROGRAMS ......

155

Introduction to Part Three

156

........

The Function of th© Moderator of America’s Town Meeting of the Air During the Broadcasts

157

Introducing Topics end Participants ..... 157 Describing Mechanics of th© Program ..... 165

Iv

Giving th© Program Suitable Structure ..............,... Securing Clarity of Terminology and Ideas *. •«•................... Maintaining Interest of the Hadio or Video A u d i e n c e ....... Securing Effective Pertioipation by the Panel Members ........ ........ Securing Effective Partioipation by Studio Audience ...... ......... .. Closing the Forum Program Announcing Future Broadcasts ..... Summary ..... II.

Th© Function of the Moderator of the American Forum of th© Air During th© ........ Broadcasts Introducing Participants and Topics ... Giving th© Program Suitable Structure ........ Securing Logical Processes of Group Reflective Thinking ......... Securing Clarity of Terminology and Ideas ..................... Maintaining Interest of the Listening A u d i e n c e ....... Securing Effective Participation by Members of the Panel ...... Securing Effective Participation by Members of the Studio Audience ... .......... Closing the Forum Program Summary ..........

III.

Th© Function of th© Moderator of th© Radio people’s platform During the Broadcasts .

169 176 179 180 183 185 186 187

190 190 195 198 201

203 204 206 208 209 212

Introducing Topics and Participants ... 212 Giving th© Program Suitable Structure ......... ......... 219 Securing Logical Processes of Group Reflectiv© Thinking .............. 227 Securing Clarity of Terminology and Ideas ........... 233 Maintaining Interest of Radio Audience ......... 236

V

Securing Effective Participation Closing th© Discussion Program a*....** Summary ...... IV*

The Function of th© Moderator of th® University of Chicago Hound Table During the Broadcasts ...... . ................ ..

237 £58 £40

£45

Introducing Topics andParticipants ... £45 Giving the Program Suitable S true ture . £50 Securing Logical Processes of Group Reflective Thinking . £59 Securing Clarity of Terminology and Ideas a ® . # # . . . . . . . . * . * * * * . . . * * £55 Participating Directly in the ........ £65 Discussion Closing the Discussion Program ..... £67 Summary ...a.........®.......•••«...«.. £71 PART FOUR.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

...........

Role of Leadership Prior to the Broadcasts a............. «•*#*»..« Functions of Moderators and Chairmen During th® Broadcasts ........ Conclusions ..... BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A*

APPENDIX B* APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D.

274 £76 293 301

. . . . . . a .

310

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS STUDIED IN THIS I N VESTIGATION.........

341

America’s Town Meeting of the Air .... Araerioan Forum of the Air ..... The People®s Platform ................. Th© University of Chicago Hound Table *

342 355 364 370

GUIDE FOR ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS .............. OF MODERATORS

379

ANALYSES OF FUNCTIONS OF MODERATORS DURING REPRESENTATIVE BROADCASTS .....

384

PRIMARY M A T E R I A L S

391

• * 0 e . 0 o « e . 0 . . . . s . o .

. . » « * « « .

a 00.

Vi

APPENDIX E,

APPENDIX F.

CONCEPTS OF THE HOLE OF LEADERSHIP IN DISCUSSION ..........................

454

The Role of the Leader in Discussion • • Th© Role of Leadership in Radio and Television Discussion . •••........

455 470

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN D I S C U S S I O N ............................

489

i

Part One INTR ODTJCTION

2

Part One

INTRODUCTION Because th® functioning of a democracy depends upon popular participation, discussion may be said to be the heart of the democratic system. made the point in these wordss

Alexander Melkle John

"So far as minds are con­

cerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking inde1

pendently together.”

Political scientists tell us that the basic assump­ tion of American democracy Is that "We, the people” will be able to work out a cooperative political and social program, applying the process of reflecting thinking to our mutual problems.

Frederick A. Ogg and P. Orman Ray,

In writing of the essentials of American government, state: "Cultural progress and free government alike presuppose all reasonable liberty of th© people to engage in discus­ sion, to writ©, and to print; and in the first amendment to the federal constitution...will be found clauses intended to protect political discussion and criticism..." An even broader significance is assigned by 1. Alexander Melklejohn, "Teachers and Controversial Ques­ tions," Harpers. p. 19. 2# Frederick A. Ogg and P. Orman Ray, Essentials of American Government, p. 95.

3 Charles A. Beards Discussion of human affairs in all manners, forms, and tones is apparently a necessary part of civili­ zation. Some expression and exchange of knowledge and ideas are required for th© conduct of human * relations on any plan© above th© barest barbarism. John Dewey recently stated that the improvement of public discussion is the ’’most important public business we have on hand today,n

4

Walter Lippman, thus described the

need for mutual consideration of varying points of view in our free society: When men are brought face to face with their opponents, forced to listen and learn, and mend their ways, they cease to be children and savages and begin to live like civilized men* Then only freedom is a reality, when men may voice their opinions because they must examine their opinions*5 E* A* Ross, social psychologist, noted the value of discussion as follows: All losing sides dread discussion, for It shortens their lease on life* Silence is for them a kind of reprieve. Their instinct, then is to choke off 5* Charles A* Beard, The Discussion of Human Affairs, p. 5, /See also Floyd Allport, Social Psychology* pp. 289 ffj X. Craig Baird, Discussion: Principles and Types, pp. 22-24; Henry L. Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate, pp. 7-20jJ 4. Quoted by James H. M e B u m e y and Kenneth 0. ,-Hance, The Prin­ ciples and Methods of Pis cussion, p. 431. /Quoted from a lecture delivered by Mr. Lyman Bryson, Professor of Adult Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, as a part of the Symposium in Public Speaking, Northwestern University, 1938^/ mm 5. Walter Lippman, ’’The Indispensible Opposition,” Atlantic Monthly, p. 190.

discussion at all hazards,*. Seeing that no groat wrong can long survive ope: discussion, we may characterize free speech, free assemblage, and free press as the rights preservative of all rights. Safeguard these fundamental rights, and the rest must come .6 William Utterback summarized the significance of group discussion thus*

"It has usually been thought of as a

yeasty ferment, possibly important, but difficult to observe. During the past few decades, however, various forms of group discussion susceptible of description and analysis have been employed so widely as to challenge thoughtful attention.”^ It is difficult to state exactly how much of such discussion goes on, but "its volume is enormous and rapidly growing.”® Q Radio discussion has made a unique contribution 6 . Edward A, Ross,

Social Psychology, p, 307,

7. William H* Utterback, ’’Political Significance of Group Discussion," Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 32-40. hoc. c it. 9. The tern "discussion” is used here in the sense in which it has come to be used popularly in referring to such pro­ grams as the America’s Town Meeting of the Air, th© American Forum of the Air, the People’s Platform and the University of Chicago Round Table. Such programs collectively incorpor­ ate elements frequently associated with the forum, group discussion, and debate. More specifically, each of these programs has the following elements: topics or questions are considered by a number of persons in a face-to-face group; various viewpoints are expressed; the participants are sometimes aligned on "Aides” ; the formats may include short speeches, panel discussions and/or questions by mem­ bers of the studio audience.

5 to th® atiumlatlon of public thinking about important prob­ lems*

Each major network provides at least on© weekly

radio program disseminating and interpreting information on current public issues*

Television is yet in its infancy*

but has already shown promise in the discussion area*

In

1949 three networks started regularly televised discussion programs*

Many radio discussions are fostered by educational

institutions, by clubs and organizations, by the networks, and by a large number of local stations*

10

In issuing and

renewing th© licenses of broadcasting stations, the Federal Communications Commission gives particular consideration to "carrying of programs devoted to th© discussion of public issues*”

11

The attitude of the radio industry toward

10. See, for examples Waldo Abbott, Handbook of Broadcasting, pp. 69-71; Alice Keith, How to Speak and WrltsTTor Radio. pp. 90-91; Earle McGill, Radio Directing* pp. 222-223; Judith Waller, Radios The Fifth Estate, pp. 197-198; The American Radio/ Llewellyn White, ©dV, P* 192. 11* White, o$>. c i t .. p. 192. Th© statement of ?/illiam S. Paley, President of Columbia Broadcasting System, is sig­ nificants "We hold license by serving th© public interest, convenience, and necessity, and only adequate cooperation with all public spirited groups can we b© deemed to perform the conditions of our contract. Our constant eagerness to cooperate with ©very representative group that needs our facilities is sound policy, and important future security from the standpoint of public good will,” William S. Paley, Radio as a Cultural Force» How York, Unpublished Manuscript, 1934', p, 16*

6 discussion on th© air has been neatly summarized by Judith Wallers 1 2 The round table has com© to be the accepted method of presenting any material when more than on© point of view is to b© expressed. This is espec­ ially true when controversial subjects are under discussion.^® Social scientists have also attested the importance Of the radio discussion programs.

Kimball Young, in the

latest revision of his book on social psychology, has written as followss Those who listen to serious forums such as Ameri­ ca *s Town Meeting of the Air, the People’s Plat­ form, and University of Chicago Round Table may b© far fewer than those who tun© in popular var­ iety or dance programs, but we must not ignore the probable effect® of such discuss!ons.•.such programs give th© "opinion-raakers" material with which to operate. What they hear on the air they us© in talking over issues with their friends and acquaintances* Just as people say to one another, "Have you seen this or that in the morning’s paper ?*1 so they ask, "Did you hear such and such over the radio?" The effects of such conversa­ tional stimulation are difficult to detect and measure objectively, but no one doubts that poli­ tical and other views are passed on in this way.3-^ Those writers who present analyses of the principles of discussion are well agreed that the role of leadership is 12. Director of Public Service, Central Division, national Broadcasting Co. 15. Waller, op. clt.. p. 197. 14. Kimball Young, Social Psychology, p. 490.

an indiapenslble factor in almost all discussion situations, 1 BC including discussions which are broadcast over the air* McBurney and Kance have stated: Discussion typically takes place under the direc­ tion of a leader. In anything but very small and Informal face-to-face groups this leadership is indispensible, and it is generally helpful even there .16 Robert Leigh, in his book, Group Leadership, has written: It is evident that th© success of a group in effective discussion depends to a great extent upon the skill of its chairman. This Is true however the group may be constituted.1? Ewbank and Auer are equally explicit:

’’The success of a dis

cuss ion depends to a very great degree on the work of the 18 leader or chairman.”

Baird is more specific in his

reference to radio discussion: Whatever theory we may hold about the art of con­ ference or discussion, a specific discussion will almost Invariably fail or succeed according to the quality of leadership...Certainly a leaderchairman I© indiapenslble . .,19 Radio discussion,... is in general like similar speaking performances where microphones are absent. The same methods... should succeed in the radio studio...No distinctly 15* For a more detailed summary of the significance attached by discussion textbook writers to the role of leadership, see Appendix E. 16* James A. McBurney, and Kenneth G. Hance, op. cit.. p. 15 17* Robert D. Leigh, Group Leadership, p. 82. 18. Henry L. Ewbank, and J, Jeffrey Auer, op, c i t .. p. 520. 19. A, Craig Baird, op. c it., p. 09,

8 different principles are involved In the latter situation**^ If on© may conclude that discussion is important to the welfare of a democracy and that radio and television disousaion are consequently valuable, he is then faced with the problems

How should such discussions be conducted?

In

the absence of experimental evidence, no one knows exactly how this question should be answered.^*

We have the state­

ments of those who have had some experience with discussions on the air*

We also have certain outstanding examples of

radio and television programs which have been given the acclaim of the critics and of the general listening public. Many of th© writers who outline procedures for conducting radio discussion cite the examples of the techniques employed by the University of Chicago Round Table, America’s Town Meeting of the Air, the People’s Platform, and the American Forum of the Air.®®

If we are to follow the principles and

s o * hoc* cit,, pp. 261-62. 21* Of* McGill, o|>. cit.* pp. 221-23. 22. See Abbot, o p . cit,. pp. 69-70$ A, Craig Baird, Discus­ sion; Principles and Types, pp. 260-61 and pp. 275-87$ Hwbank and Auer, o p . cit.a pp. 34-35$ H. V. Garland and Charles F. Phillips, Discussion Methods. pp. 288-86$ Keith, ©js. cit* p , 90} McBurney and Ilance, op. cit* * pp. 294-405} McGill',' . cit*, p p , 221-23$ Alan Nichols, Discussion and Debate. pp. 445-441$ Waller, og, cit., pp. 198-208. For further details concerning the approval of the critics, textbook writers and general listening public, see Appendix

9

methods employed by these programs* It seems reasonable that we should know as muGh as possible about those princi­ ples and methods* Mature of the Problem

“ 1?he purpose of this study was to Investigate th© role of leadership In four major radio and television net­ work discussion programs. ' This study was concerned not simply with the duties of a moderator sitting at the head of a discussion table* but also with the broader aspects of selection of topics and participants and their careful preparation* both prior to and during the actual broadcasts.

In some discussion

situations these tasks are made the responsibility of a committee J in other cases th© leader may have the same authority that the dramatic director has when producing a play.

Occasionally the leader functions for a series of

meetings 5 In some cases a different leader Is chosen for each meeting.

Ho matter if one or many people contribute

to th© preparation and production of a discussion meeting, these broader phases of activity must be considered as a part of the role of leadership in discussion,^ 25, C f . Henry L. Ewbank and J, Jeffery Auer* Discussion and Debate, p. 524.

10 % it should be further pointed out that this study was not concerned with all types of leadership, nor yet with th© classification of so-called ’’leadership ’1 types; it was primarily concerned with what La Pier© and Farnsworth have described as ’'leadership activity in a social situation with th© purpose of solving a problem or putting a plan into act! on. The questions posed for investigation were th© foilowingj (1) What are the functions of the moderators, staff members, and sponsoring organizations prior to the broadcasting of th© programs?

What criteria are employed

in th© selection of objectives for the program series, in the selection of a type of discussion to be employed, in the selection of topics and participants?

Are such selections

made by the moderator who participates in the broadcast? If not, what are the qualifications of those who do perform these functions?

By what means are the participants, moder­

ators, or moderator-particlpants prepared for the part they play in the broadcasts? (2) What are th© functions of the moderators or moderator-participants during the broadcasts?

To what

24* Bicharch T. La Pi©re and Paul R. Farnsworth, Social ■EaychoXPCT, p. 325,

11 extent do they (a) introduce th© topic and participants to the listening audience, (b) stimulate interest In th© pro­ gram, (c) secur© unity In the discussion, herence and secure proper emphasis,

(d) maintain co­

(©) secure th© logical

process of group reflective thinking,

(f) secure effective

participation by the members of the group, (g) participate directly in the discussion, broadcast?

(h) close or round off the

What techniques do they employ in performing

these tasks? The boundaries of this investigation did not in­ clude criticism of the techniques of leadership employed on the selected programs: its purpose was to report and describe such techniques as they were found to b© employed* Previous Investigation

In the last thirty years there has developed a marked interest in discussion as a social and educational tool; this interest manifests itself in a growing body of literature.

Much of this literature is in the form of text­

books on methodology and philosophical t r e a t i s e s . I n addition to this didactic material, careful research students 25* The concepts of textbook writers concerning the role of leadership in discussion have been summarized in Appendix IS*

12 have determined that discussion has many desirable outcomes* By measuring the extent of occurrence, investigators can determine which outcomes result from on© technique only, and which are found in greater degree with one technique than with another*

There are fewer of those research studies

in the field of discussion than one might expect* Murphy wrote i

In 1937

wIn spite of our dependence upon the parlia­

mentary system, it Is surprising that practically no psy­ chological work on the processes of inter-stimulation in group discussion has been undertaken until recently.* However, several Important studies have been done since this statement was written*

A summary of these research

studies is presented in Appendix F* Previous investigation has Indicated that in at least two major radio discussion programs the techniques of leadership employed varied somewhat from the techniques suggested by recognised authorities in discussion*

Gregg

Phifer, in his M a s t e r ^ thesis at the State University of Iowa, wrote as follows concerning the University of Chicago Hound T able: The Round Table chairman Is not a ’’discussion leader” In th© full sense in which Elliott or 26* Gardner Murphy, Lois B* Murphy, and Theodore Iff* Newcomb, Experimental Social Psychology*

*

13

27

McBurney and Haneo use the phrase •

His attempt to account for this difference Is general and more descriptive than specifics The role of th© Hound Table chairman varies from week to week, now a moderator between two debates, then an authority expressing his own views* De­ termining factors are the chairman’s personality, and th© sharpness of conflict*28 In another M. A* study written at the State University of Iowa by this writer in 1946, the leadership of the American Forum of the Air was described thus s Theodore Granik, leader and moderator of the p ro­ gram, exhibits knowledge of the subject in his brief Introduction of the topic, but does not otherwise participate In the program* He does not attempt to secure cooperative Inquiry* develop a pattern of progression, nor s u m m a r i z e An attempt was made to account for this type of discussion leadership by pointing out briefly that a radio discussion program must stimulate Interest in a passive or mildly attentive a u d i e n c e i n

consideration of this factor, it

was shown that Mr. Granik believed that interest could 27. Gregg Phifer, An Analysis of the Logical Pattern in Representative Univeraity of ""Chicago Btound Table Discus's ions * p. 31* 28. Ibid** p. 32. 29* Kim Gif fin, An Analysis of th® Discussion Methods E m ­ ployed by the American Forum of the A ir* p* 204*

SO• Ibid** p* 13*

31

better be stimulated by ’'aligning participants on sides” with a *typical debate attitude of mind”

32

fostering a cooperative spirit of inquiry.

rather than by 33

The studies described above leave many questions unanswered.

The objective of this investigation was to make

a ”case-study” of four leading radio and television discus­ sion programs.

A merica’s Town Meeting of the Air, the

American Forum of th© Air, the People’s Platform, and the University of Chicago Round Table were chosen because of the following factors!

(1 ) their long period of continuous

i* i

broadcastings

(2 ) enthusiastic approval of th© listening jte radio audiencesj (3) awards and honors which have been

presented as educational p r o g r a m s (4) citations by writers of discussion and radio textbook 'writers as models 5I« J b i d * , p. 26. 32. Ibid.. p. 27. 33. Ibid.. pp. 30-31, and 200, 34. The length of service, audience acceptance, awards citation by textbook writers and critics, and imitation by small discussion groups is described for each of the four programs in more detail in Appendix A, 35* See Appendix A, 36. See Appendix A,

15

of radio discussion*

37

(5) imitation by thousands of ’’fans"

who conduct small discussions based in principle upon th© 37. See, for example, Waldo Abbott, Handbook of Broadcasting, pp* 69-71, /Abbott called the University of Chicago'TSo'urid Table the " outstanding example ’1 of radio round table discus­ sion'Ji A. Craig Baird, Pisous ai on? Prlncioles and Types, pp. 260-61, /Baird cited the People 1s Platform, the univer­ sity of Chicago Hound Table and America's Town Meeting of the Air as commendable examples of radio discussion and repfinted entire broadcasts of the University of Chicago Hound Table (pp. 2 75-87) and the American Forum of th© Air (pp. 307-23J/ ; Henry L. Ewbank and J. Jeffrey Auer, Discussion and Debate, pp. 34-35, /Ewbank and Auer cited th© People's Plat­ form, America's Town Meeting of the Air and the University of Chicago Round Table as "typical examples” of radio dis­ cussion, cited their techniques as methods to be followed in radio discussion (pp. 361-62 and 380-82) and printed ex­ cerpts from broadcasts of the Town Meeting, (pp. 359-60 and 362-65) and the Round Table (pp. 352-55)_yj H. V. Garland and Charles F. Phillips, Discussion Methods, p. 285, /Garland and Phillips cited the People's Platform and the University of Chicago Round Table as ’’well-known” examples of radio round table discussion and cited the America's Town Meeting of the Air as an outstanding radio forum (p. 282) | they r e ­ printed entire transcripts from th© People's Platform, (pp. 295-308) the University of Chicago Hound Table (pp. 135-46) and America's Town Meeting of the Air (pp. 2 1 8 - 3 8 ) James A. McBurney and Kenneth J. Hance, The Principles and Met hods of Discussion, p. 310, /McBurney and Hance cited America's Town Meeting as an outstanding example of radio forum and also reprinted entire transcripts of the University of Chicago Round Table (pp. 394-405) and the Town Meeting (pp. 406-24)_/; Alan Nichols, Discussion and Debate, pp. 438-41, /Nichols cited America's fown "Meeting, the University of Chicago Round Table and the People's Platform as examples of present day forums which, by virtu© of venerability novelty, or prestige of their programs, have achieved national recognition.” (p. 437)* he reprinted a transcript taken from America's Town Meeting of th© Air (pp. 469-96) /% Judith Waller, Radio t The Fifth Estate, pp. 197-208, /Waller pre­ sented an outline f ormerly used b y the University of Chicago Round Table participants and an abstract of a broadcast 5 she based her comments on radio discussion methods on the tech­ nique employed on the Hound Tabl©_»/

16

b r o a d c a s t (6 ) the selection of three of these programs by the networks for television. In the study of th® role of leadership In selected radio and television discussion programs the following tech* nlquea were employed to secure information* Survey of Literature on Discussion Leadership In carrying out the present study, th© role of the leader in the usual or ordinary discussion situation was of considerable interest, since discussion on th© air is es­ sentially a matter of adapting the usual discussion methods to the limitations and requirements of the radio or television medium*

Consequently, a survey was made of the literature

on discussion leadership, with special attention to discus­ sion on th© air*

This survey of discussion literature pro­

vided the basis for Investigation of the role of leadership on the four selected programs, and is summarized In Appen­ dices E and P* Survey of Literature on the Selected Radio and Television Pi'scus sTon ProWam's The next step in the investigation was to search out any published statements c o n c e m i n g th© role of leader­ ship on the programs* 38* See Appendix A. 39. See l o c . c i t .

Gareful search Indicated that very

17 little information had been published concerning the prepar­ ation and production of the selected discussion programs. In the ease of three of th© programs (America's Town Meet­ ing, American Forum of the Air, and the University of Chicago Round Table) transcripts of th© broadcasts are published, but practically no mention is made of the methods of produc­ tion of the program except to say they are ’’unrehearsed.’1^ Textbook writers who cite one or more of these programs as model examples of radio discussion refer to them briefly, giving very short descriptions which average less than a page, excluding reprinted broadcasts.

Such descriptive

statements as have been published were carefully searched out and included in the report of the Investigation. Observation of the Preparation and Broadcasting of the Programs Nine representative b r o a d c a s t s ^ of the four 40* Personal observation by this writer as well as personal interviews revealed that staff members stenotyp© the broad­ casts; this copy is then checked against th® recorded tran­ scriptions. Staff members edit th© typed version of th© broadcasts before they are published; all colloqualisms, and contractions are omraitted and participants 1 names are placed at th© beginning of each statement by them. (Cf. Wal­ ler, C£. cit.. p. 208). 41* The broadcasts observed were America's Town Meeting of th© Air for June 19, 1947 and November 29, 1949; American Forum of the Air for November 27, 1949 {and via television on December 4, 1949); the People's Platform on November 24, 1949 and November 27, 1949; and the University of Chicago Round Table on August 8 , 15, and 29, 1948.

18

selected programs were personally observed by the writer* Actual studio conditions were seen first-hand, and descrip­ tive notes were taken on the spot*

Observation was also

made of the preparation of the participants, moderators, and Ap producers of the four programs* Personal Interviews Personal Interviews were held with a large number of network executives, program staff members and with each of the moderators and producers of the selected radio and television programs 42* This writer attended the conference luncheon and dinner given b y Mr* Denny of the America’s Town Meeting of the Air, (November 29, 1949 at Town Hall, New York City) and took notes while Mr* Denny and his staff helped the participants prepare for that evening’s program* In a similar manner notes were made at the conferences held by Mr. Cooke of the People’s Platform, (November 27, 1949,,in Columbia Broad­ casting System Studio, New York City) Mr. Granik of the American Forum of the Air (November 27, 1949 in the Wardraore-Park Hotel, Washington, D. G.) and Mr* Probst, Executive Secretary of the Radio Office, University of Chicag, (August 8 , IS, and 22, 1948 in the University of Chicago Studios*) 43* For Information concerning the America’s Town Meeting, interviews were obtained w i t h Georg© V* Denny, founder and moderator; Elizabeth Colclough, Program Manager of' the De­ partment of Badio and Television, Town Hall, Inc*; William R* Traum, Business Manager of the Department of Radio and Television, Town Hall, Inc.; Thurston J. Davies, Educational Director of the Town Hall Inc* and Executive Assistant to Mr* Denny; Ruth Barash, staff member In charge of audience mall report; Roberta Masson, Production Assistant for Pub­ lic Affairs, American Broadcasting Company; Henry Cox, in charge of Production, American Broadcasting Company; and Richard Ritter, American Broadcasting Company’s Hproducer”

19 Analysis of Broadcast Transcripts Transcripts of the broadcasts mad© in 1949 ware obtained for America’s Town Meeting of the Air and American Forum of the Air; transcripts for broadcasts of 1948 and 1949 were obtained for the University of Chicago Round Table. of the America’s Town Meeting of the Air* In respect to the American Forum of the Air the following persons were interviewed; Theodore Granik, director and moderator; Betty Penuel, Mr* Granik’s Assistant; Hollis M. Seavey, Coordinator of News and Special Events, Mutual Broadcasting Company, Joseph F* McCaffrey, Washington Correspondent, Mutual Broadcasting Company; and Ralph L. Burgin, Program Manager, National Broadcasting Company (Television)* Per­ sons interviewed concerning the People *s Platform were the following; Leon Levin©, Dir©otor of Discussion Broadcasts, Columbia Broadcasting System, Dwight Cook©, Moderator of the radio version of the program; Charles Collingwood, Moderator of the televised version of the People’s Platform; Eleanor Pechulis, Secretary to Lyman Bryson, Counsellor on Public Affairs, Columbia Broadcasting System; Doris C* Lockhoff, Secretary to Mr* Levine; and staff members of Columbia Broadcasting System’s Reference Library* For information concerning the University of Chicago Round Table, the following persons were interviewed; George Probst, Executive Secretary of the Radio Office, University of Chicago; Mrs* Walter Johnson, Probst’s Assistant; Jerry De La Meir, stenptyplst on Probst»s staff; and Judith Waller, Manager Public Service Department, Central Division, National Broadcasting Company* 44* Since these transcripts had been stenotyped, edited, and published, it was deemed necessary to ascertain how much editing had been done. Consequently, this writer made wire recordings of fifteen broadcasts - five each of the above named programs, and compared these recordings with the published transcripts when they were obtained (In each case, about ten days later)* The changes made by editing were as follows; (1) Obvious grammatical errors were corrected; (2 ) repetition of words or phrases which were not made purposely (e*g*, for emphasis) were deleted; (5) names of participants were placed opposite their contributions.

20 Th® broadcasts of the People’s Platform are not published, but permission was obtained from the Columbia Broadcasting System officials to make wire recordings for study and analysis.

Thirty broadcasts, May 1 to November 20, 1949

were wire recorded and typewritten.

45

These transcripts were analyzed to determine the nature of the role of leadership during the broadcasts as portrayed by the moderator’s, participants, and "raoderatorpartioipants" (University of Chicago Round Table,|

As a

basis for this analysis, a "guide sheet" was constructed.4® The elements contained in the guide sheet were originally based on the concepts of radio discussion leadership out­ lined by textbook writers and authorities In the field .4 *7 These concepts were organized and used on fifteen of the transcripts as an experiment.

In cases where the moderators

performed duties not mentioned by the textbook writers, such additional concepts of leadership were added to the Hot once could be found a case of changing the meaning or emphasis in any statement mad© by participants on the broadcasts, 45. These typed copies were compared with the typed copies of the program on file in the Hew York Offices of Columbia Broadcasting System. 46. Copy of this guide sheet is included In Appendix B. 47. See Appendix S for summary of concepts of the role of leadership in discussion Is described by textbook writers and authorities in the field.

>

guide sheet*

21

As a final check on the validity of the con.*

cepts and their organization in the guide sheet, copies were sent to representative authorities4® in the fields of dis­ cussion and radio, along with a letter which explained Its intended purpose and asked for critical comments.

The sug­

gestions of these authorities were incorporated into the guide sheet, and then the entire collection of transcripts was analyzed.

Every contribution of each moderator (or moderator-

participant) was considered in relation to the contributions of the other participants and the developmental progress of the entire broadcast.

In order that this task could be per­

formed efficiently, an outline of each broadcast was made, Representative analyses and outlines (combined) are Included in Appendix C.

Special consideration was given to the for­

mat of the programs and to the development of the argument in the transcripts.

Data obtained by analyzing the transcripts

48* Baird, A* Craig, State University of Iowa; Crocker, Lionel, Denison University; Ewbank, H. C., University of Wisconsin; Gulley, Halbert, University of Illinois; Guthrie, Warren, Western Reserve University; Harrington, Elbert, University of South Dakota* Howell, William, University of Minnesota, Harshbarger, K* Clay, State University of Iowa; KSltner, John, University of Oklahoma, McBurney, James, Northwestern University, Phifer, Gregg, Florida State Uni­ versity; Thompson, Wayne, Chicago Undergraduate Division, University of Illinois; Thonssen, Lester, College of City of Hew York.; Whan, Forest, Municipal University of Wichita.

was collected, integrated and summarized to present an or­ ganized picture of the role of leadership during the broadcasts. Private Correspondence Correspondence with each of the persona with whom interviews were held ©llclted additional Information.

Cor­

respondence was received from those persons Interviewed, as well as from other program staff members,

network officials,

and other informed persons. Jgyjg of the Dissertation

The report of the investigation may be very briefly previewed as follows; Part One presents an introduction to the study. Part Two describes the role of leadership on the four selected programs prior to the broadcasts.

It presents a

description of the methods of selecting objectives, format, topics, and participants.

It also describes the techniques

employed by moderators, "producers," "directors," and other staff members in preparing participants and moderatorpartlclpants for the broadcasts.

It includes a description

of the role played by the networks and their staff members and any other sponsoring organization.

The preparation of

‘

23

the scripts la given special consideration. Part Three describes the role played by the moder­ ators, producers, directors, mOderator-particlpants and staff members during the actual broadcasts.

Special con­

sideration Is given to these elements of leadership:

(1)

Introducing topic and participants, (2) stimulating interest in the program,

(3) securing unity in the discussion,

maintaining coherence and balance of emphasis,

(4)

(5) securing

logical process of refleotlve thinking,

(6 ) obtaining ef­

fective participation by group members,

(7) contributing

Information and ideas, sion,

(S) closing or rounding off discus­

Part Four presents a summary of conclusions reached

in the investigation. In the appendices are included a brief history of each of the four programs, a copy of the "guide sheet" used in the analysis of the transcripts, sample analyses of the transcripts, primary materials such as data obtained from the files of program staff members and network officials, selected correspondence, and a summarization of concepts of the role of leadership In discussion as presented by outstanding authorities and textbook writers in the field.

24

Part two FUNCTIONS OF MODERATORS t STAFF MEMBERS AND SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE BROADCASTING OF THE PROGRAMS

25

Introduction to jgjmfc Two

This study is concerned with the task of radio discussion leadership in its broad aspects as well as the more limited role of the moderator during the specific air­ ing of the program.

It is the purpose of Part Two to de­

scribe those procedures which constitute the preparation of the four discussion programs considered.

With this broader

consideration in mind we turn our attention to the activi­ ties of the moderators* "producers," "directors," staff members and sponsoring organizations prior to the actual broadcast time.

In Part Three w© shall deal directly with

the rol© of the moderators and moderator-participants during the actual broadcasting of the discussion program. The activities of leadership with which we shall concern ourselves in Part Two includes objectives of the program, (or "format"),

(1) framing the

(2 ) selecting a discussion-type

(3) selecting topics for discussion,

(4)

selecting and preparing the participants and (5) preparing the moderators and the physical conditions in the studios.

36 We have necessarily limited the extent of de­ scriptive detail In Fart Two to those Item© directly related to the role of leadership of the programs*

The origin of

the programs, their development, their Influence, their aeeeptanee by the listening audience and the major changes In policy since their inception have been described In greater detail in Appendix A*

27

Part Two*

Chapter I

SmSGtflOH OF OBJECTIVES A HD TYPE OF DISCUSS I OH The purpose of this chapter is to describe the role of leadership played by moderators, producers and staff mens&ers in selecting the objectives and making de­ cisions as to the type of disousslon to be employed on four network discussion programs*

Selection of S & M & t M g £ fflft Sg£g£M& The selection of the objectives for a radio or television discussion program is a very important part of the role of leadership on such programs.

If consequent de­

cisions are made In a logically consistent manner, the objectives of the program will greatly Influence the se­ lection of type of discussion to be employed and the selection of the topic and participants, The following paragraphs present a description of the objectives of the four programs studied, the qualifica­ tions of those persons responsible for the decisions and the reasons given for the choices made.

28

jglMtamasstaMMtiaM. s£ £M.tauAsaJA l°m mstemM «& Alt' The objectives of Tovm Meeting are three-foldj they are as follows! (1) To present the views of authorities on both sides of on important issue, that is, to give people all over the world "the best that is being thought and said by lead­ ers In all fields and by spokesmen for the many divergent views on the great controversial questions before us."*** (2 ) To examine critically the views presented by authorities.

In discussing this objective of the program

with this writer, Mr* Denny stateds® My old geology teacher used to begin his lectures, "Young men, the first lesson In geology is that things are what they are because they are where they are, and that goes for folks as well as rooks*® Like minds congregate, and this leads to conflicts and misunderstanding. There ish a ten­ dency for like to go with like, and such groups tend to dislike each other for no reason at all except that they d o n H see the other personas point of view. Mr* Denny then pointed to a small sphere mounted on a metal Standard on his desk. one-half white.

One-half of the sphere was black,

As he rotated the sphere so that I could

1« George V* Denny, Condensed Annual Report of the Preai-

-&m& mi EismsMl

p*

2* Georg® V, Denny, Interview between author and, November 29, 1949,

29

m * m X j o m color* h© asked* "What color do you seat"

I

©aid that I a aw black* to which h® replied, "And I coo whit© 1" fhen fa© continued, "fh© aim of our program is to present different points of view In an atmosphere of controversy and debate * and to encourage objective thinking by giving v&r* ioua choices ,11 (3) dience,

To capture the interest of the listening au ­

This la desired as an aid to the attainment of the

first two objectives and has somewhat influenced the format

of America*s Town Meeting of the Air.

It is believed that

the program is welcomed by its listeners "because it is a stimulant regardless of the listener*® point of view. Georg© V, Denny, founder and present moderator of America*© Town Meeting;is directly responsible for the framing of the objectives of the program*

When asked for

reasons why the present objectives are held to be desirable,

4

Hr* Denny said, "The genesis of the program is basic to the answer to this question."

Then Mr. Denny briefly described

how the present objectives cam© to be selected fourteen years ago.

In 1934, Mr. Denny was disturbed by a friend* 183. Leon Levine* interview between author and* November 23* 1949. 184* The People *s Platform radio discussions were cancelled three times during 1949 for other Columbia special broad­ casts (February 20, April 17* and December 25 s £©e Appen­ dix D , ) 185*. See Appendix D for complete list. 186* Excluding the moderators.

102 group# having large representations war© aa follow® s on# (19

twenty-

percent) were TJhited State® Senators or Kepresen-

tatlvas; eighteen (IS

percent) wore reporters or colum-*

nists % fourteen (12 percent) were university professors or administrators; thirteen (11 percent) were authors; twelve (11 percent) were leaders of civic organisations#

Smaller

representations Included seven businessmen, seven lawyers, five labor union officials, four government officials or administrators, four university student®, three leaders of political parties, three editors of newspapers or periodicals, one member of the British Parliament and one radio news comment a tor •^ In selecting the participants first consideration Is given, says Mr# Levine, to the stature of the person as an authority#

Participants must have wopinions backed by

knowledge.1* Secondly, consideration is given to ltflu®ney 1QO and ability to ad lib,w Delivery must be clear and fairly rapid, with few hesitations#

Whan he invites pros­

pective participants to appear on People’s Platforms, Mr. Levin© says h© "play# one against the other to get them to 187# For a complete list of professional titles of the participants on 1949 radio People *© Platforms see Appendix

188* Leon Levine, interview between author and, November 03* 1949#

103 He indicates who will probably be the other parti* ©ipant, describes the need for the prospect to defend his point of view on the air and emphasises the need to secure a "balance" of weight between the two opposing sides ,189 Prospective participants usually are telephoned by SIT# Levine#

He explains the idea of the People*a Platform

and th© topi© under consideration, and ascertains if they favor the side which their former public statements have led him to believe they prefer*

According to Dwight Cooke,

the selection of participants follows the selection of the topic.

Sometimes as many as thirty or forty people are X©0 called before the program is ready to go on th© air. Mr* Levin© stated that he Is bothered very little

by pressure groups*

H@ ngets ahead of such groups,” he

said, by countering their requests with th© statement that the People*s Platform is committed to the presentation of both sides, and asks,*,1,Would your representative be willing to go on the air with so and so?tt

(Her© ho names the moat

articulate representative of the opposition he can call to mind*)

If th© answer is yes, he tries for a time, topic,

and other participants*

However, the answer is very often

189, Leon Levine, interview between author and, November 83, 1949#

190# Dwight Cooke, interview between author and, November 85, 1949#

104

n % which stop® the pressure,

Mr. Levine also stated that

the Columbia Broadcasting System*® Public Affairs Depart­ ment helps relieve such pressure by offering opportunities to such groups to have their representatives appear on other Columbia p r o g r a m s * * ^

Mr* Cooke commented on this problem

of pressure groups aa followst Columbia cannot afford to give any favors, could not possibly afford to be partial to one side or the other on a public issue* It Is the duty of Columbia Broadcasting System to demonstrate that they are not on any one aide* Columbia is vul­ nerable, and cannot afford to stack th© cards*19" Each participant receives one hundred dollars plus expenses for appearing on the People *s Platform unless he is the paid representative of an organization (e.g., legal representative of the 0*1*0*)

The entire cost of the pro­

gram is financed by Columbia Broadcasting System a® a pub­ lic service feature, according to Mr. L e v i n e * ^ ^ According to Mr. Levine, Household Finance Cor­ poration, the sponsor of the televised People*s Platform, has no right to veto the selection of participants of topics 191, Leon Levine, Interview between author and, November 23, 1049. 192. Dwight Cooke, Interview between author and, November 23, 1049.

193* Leon Levine, Interview between author and, November 26, 1949*

105 and has not, at any tine, attempted to put any pressure on Levina or hie staff to use any particular participants or topic*

However, within the broad range of th® objectives

of the program, It la CoXuvfola’s duty, according to Mr# Levine, to interest the listeners enough so that the spon­ sor will continue to put up the money for the show .***94 The actors who participate in the dramatic sketch which is a part of the televised People*a Platform are selected and coached by director John Pizer.

The

sketch Is usually a two and one-half minute preliminary part of the discussion show* The moderators of the People’s Platforms are chosen by Columbia Broadcasting System’s Division of Public Affairs. Dwight Cooke was suggested as radio moderator by Mr. Levine two years ago, and Charles Collingwood was chosen as tele­ vision moderator about a year later.

As to the qualifica­

tions of a moderator, Mr. Levine indicated that he must have a deep interest In public affairs and a very good general knowledge, but does not have to be an authority on all questions and should not get involved and take sides. He indicated that some moderators know too much on some questions, and therefore, get involved.

Th® purpose of the

moderator, according to Mr. Levine, is to "steer the boat." 194. Leon Levine, Interview between author and, November 25, 1949*

106

He must 3 ©our© balaaed and "pilot* th© discussion.

He must

respect both points of view regardless of his personal view and bring out both sides and keep th© discussion on th© topic.

He is responsible to the network to make the dis­

cussion fair, and to keep the discussion on the topic.

He

is also responsible to the listeners to present both sides of the question.

Actually, Mr, Levin© indicated, the moder­

ator represents the members of the public who want informat 1 on *2,95 Selection of Participants on th© University of Chicago Bound saa& Working with the University of Chicago Faculty Board of Badio, George Probat, Executive Secretary of the Eadio Office, Invites qualified participants to appear on the Hound Table,

Often a member of the Faculty Board of

Badio is asked to be on© of the participants.

Such a Board

member may suggest leading scholars and authorities who would make a significant contribution to th© discussion. However, Probst, in th© final analysis, makes the decision and has complete freedom in the determination of the participants ,3,9® 195* Leon Levine, interview between author and, November 23, 1949* 196, Bound Table Memorandum, p. 3.

107 As to th© number of participants, analysis of the tranattrlpts for 104 broadcasts presented during 1948 and 1949^ 7 shows that seven program® (7 per cent) had two participants; sixty**©ight (65 per cent) had three; twenty*, two (81 per cent) had four; six programs (6 per cent) had five participants; and one program had six participants*

°

the primary considerations in selecting partici­ pants are (1 ) knowledge, ability,

(5) attitude,

(2 ) intelligence end reasoning

(4) delivery and (5) use of language.

The objectives of the program call for informed members*

The problem arises as to how many of them should

be ^experts1* and how many should be participants represent­ ing intelligent lay opinion*

Over a period of years a num­

ber ©f men have developed abilities that make them excellent lay members of the Round Table

During 1948 and 1949,

Louis Wirth (Professor of Sociology) participated eleven times; Malcolm Sharp (Professor of Law) ten; Walter Johnson, (Assistant Professor of American History) seven; Herman Finer (Professor of Political Science) and Roy Blough (Professor of Economics) each five times; Robert Havighurst 197, See Appendix D for a complete list of participants dur­ ing 1948 and 1949, 198, These statistics Include the moderator-participant in each case* 199, James Whipple, How to Write for Radio, p. 400.

108

(Professor of Education) and Quincy Wright (Professor of l&tornational Law) and Edward Levi (Professor of Law) each participated four times*

twenty other University of Chicago

Professors participated two or three times during 1948 and 1949*®^

Forty-one per cent of the total participants dur­

ing those years were from the University of Chicago* Since 1938, when the Alfred P* Sloan Foundation made a grant to th® University

for experimentation in edu­

cational broadcasting, those persons in charge of the Hound fable have been enabled to obtain more widely known authori­ ties as participants*2®^

Broadcasts of a remote pick-up

nature are arranged when certain authorities are unable to come together to a central meeting point. According to a statement by Probst, an honorarium of fifty dollars Is paid to each participant.

This payment

of members has facilitated interest in th© program until a limited number of University of Chicago faculty members have become well-trained in radio discussion *2 ® 2

The

practice has been to schedule two such men with one speaker 900* See Appendix B for a complete liat of the professional titles of Hound Table participants during 1948-1949* 901* George B» Probst, in letter to author, March 22, 1950, 902* George E« Probst, interview between author and, August 9, 1948,

409 who is a nationally known authority in his field.

20$

Oc­

casionally the procedure has bean altered to Include two 004

authorities and on# layman.

These authorities are not

names and figureheads only; they are scientists or scholars ©r leaders In their own right.

For example, Dr. Louis N.

Katz, Director of Cardiovascular Research at Michael Reese Hospital, Chicago, and President of the Chicago Heart As­ sociation, participated in a discussion of "Heart Diseases What the Public Should Khow *n®05

Arthur Creech-Jones,

British Colonial Secretary, discussed, “Should a United Ration*# Artsy Enforce Partition of Palestine ? " 2 ®6

Pandit

Hehru, Prime Minister of India, participated in a discus­ sion ©f the problem of world government .®07

Theodor® W.

SChultz, economic expert for the War Department on a special mission t© study price policy and German currency SOB* Allen Miller, The Round Table. in Education on the Air. Fourth yearbook of the TnatTtute for Education by Radio. Josephine MacliatcTqr, © d . , "p 1 0 0 ’ Hound Table Memorandum, p. 4. 206. Transcript, University of Chicago Round Table. No. 517, February 15, 1948. 206. Transcript, Unlveralty of Chicago Round Table. No. 518, February 2 2 , 1948. 207. Transcript, University of Chicago Round Table, No. 524, April 4, 1948,

110

reform, discussed "The Problem of Germany*"

208

Mr* Probat aays that these authorities are people with radio personalities and are known for their research, writing, or administrative qualities*®0 ®

These "guest

stars" are not expected to take up more than their share Of the time*

The program is usually balanced equally among

the participants *2 1 0 Of the 542 participants selected on Round Table programs during the years 1948 and 1949, 214 (65 per cent) were university professors, deans or presidents

(41 per

cent) from the University of Chicago); thirty-eight (11 per cent) were government officials % twenty-seven (8 per cent) were tfoited States Senators and Representatives; also in­ cluded were one minister, seven medical doctors, fourteen businessmen, six psychiatrists, one rancher, nine editors, seven labor union officials, two newspaper correspondents, four lawyer®, six authors, four Members of Parliament, one radio commentator and one member of th© French Chamber of Deputies *211 008* Transcript, University of Chicago Round Table* No* 543, August 15, 1948* 009* Whipple, og,. clt* * p* 405* 2 1 0 * Round Table Memorandum* p* 9*

811* See Appendix D for complete list of professional titles of participants during 1948-1949.

Ill A aecond consideration in th© selection of parti-* elpants on the Round Table i® their ability to reasons

to

interpret facts, point out relationships, and draw infer­ ences*

They must be able to think logically, to consider

ideas reflectively, and to "analyze the persistent Issues of m o d e m llfe**1®*^

This is not meant to imply that facts

are not considered to he an essential part of the program* Probat has stated t A factual foundation is an essential part of an effective discussion**.Timlineas of data Is on© of th© great potential assets of radio and th® Introduction of new and important factual data enhances bgth the interest and the value of what you say *"15 A third consideration in the selection of parti­ cipants is their attitude toward the topic, the other parti­ cipants, and toward discussion*

The emphasis is always on

clarification rather than confusion, and the Hound Table seeks men and women of competence and Integrity who will place their main values on discussion rather than dia014 tribe. The questions involved are usually highly con­ troversial Issues, and there Is bound to be disagreement. However, a competent presentation of both or many sides is 012* Round Table Memorandum, p. 1* 21®* Ibid.. p* 01. 214. Decade Without Diatribe. p. 1*

112 desired*

Honest disagreement, carefully stated and explained,

la net discouraged, since disagreement is a natural conse­ quence of differences among Individuals amid the complexities of world problems*

Probst*s comment on this point is

significanti Ho effort is made to encourage controversy where none exists* Controversy, fdr its own sake, handi­ caps discussion* Controversy on minor points an­ noys rather than interests listeners* Controversy adds to the listener*s interest end enlightenment only when it I s a genuine disagreement over fundamentals *215 A fourth consideration in th® selection of Round Table participants is their oral delivery*

Allen Miller

once called the Round Table a "succession of amateur nights for radio s peakers*"^^

However, a large number of exper­

ienced members of the University staff are now used, and recognition is given to the techniques successfully adapted to the medium and to personalities which are capable of projection by the voice alone* the following iternst

Probst places emphasis on

(1 ) conversational approach, the

ability to speak as If to individual listeners In the home rather than a large audience; (2) alert timing and avoid­ ance of pauses; (3) "control” or ability to wait patiently Round Table Memorandum* p. 6 * 016* Miller,

clt. * p, 233.

113

tit&il others nr© through speaking# avoiding a wvoice-jam** j end (4) vote© quality and modulation .^1 *7 a fifth consideration In selecting Hound Table members is their use of language .

The terminology of the

classroom# involving technical vocabulary and complexity of ideas and explanations# is not thought to be suited to the medium of radio*

Rather# a graphic style with word

pictures# examples and illustrations is considered impor­ tant*

Probst states $ Speeches on the Round Table are (by definition) too long. Normal conversation is the ideal pat­ tern for a round table - normal conversation with normal interruptions* normal jokes and laughter, normal asides# etc*®1®

Special emphasis is placed on the following techniques: personalizing the material:

(1 )

participants should authorize

their 1remarks b y referring to specific things they# thera219 selves have seen or dene; (2 ) direct address: there must be frequent references to other participants directly rather than throwing of ideas in thin air or picking them out of space without attributing them to their author;22^ (3) human 217. Hound Table Memorandum* passim, pp. 14-31. m Voir i t / w Ur,t ktsb:17 iw*7"s;"so;--------Transcript. ins of ,the> Air!

Town Meeting. Bulletin of W T T i f f t o . ll, S H y ^ B T

America’s

Town Meet-

173 Pipresentative example Is as follows* Jgg* D e n n y *

Thank you#

The next question quickly.

La d y i I #d like to direct my question to Mr# Buie# You stated that our only safeguard Ilea In our maintaining superiority over fearful Russia# As Russia has been progressing as we have, how would you assure our superiority and how can we stop their progress from surpassing us? H r # Penny* one *1 0

You have ten seconds to answer that

Mr* Penny made a definite effort to discourage ir~ relevancies in the program#

Having read the prepared speeches

of the panel members prior to the broadcast Mr. Denny *s primary problem of irrelevant material during the program was posed by the members of the studio audience# His assistants, William Traum and Elisabeth Colclough, evaluated the questions which members of the audience proposed to ask.

According to Mrs# Oolelough, the

following items were considered* question to the topic,

(1 ) relevancy of the

(0 ) lack of personality considerations,

and (S) reasonableness of the question In spite of this screening, a few questions were asked to which Mr* Denny raised an objection on the basis Cf relevancy.

A representative example Is taken from the

40* Transcript, Town Meeting. Bulletin of America*s Town M e t i n g of the Air . vbl* i f . k © 7 26, ISoTSber 2 $, 194$.

41* Elisabeth Oolelough, interview between author and, Rcvewjber 29, 1949#

174 broadcast on the topic# nJa Profit-Sharing the Answer to labor-Manageraent Disputes?"

The question was not re

by Mr* Denny# but he Indicated disapproval as follows s Mane Well# I would like to ask Mr* Symington thisi do you believe that any war or any sort of conflict could be won as fast and easy with the soldiers getting as much pay as the generals? Pennyt Well# that’s an analogy that you may care to comment on* Would a war be won as easily if the soldiers got as much pay as the generals? Quite a different set of circumstances, and you don’t have to comment on that, Mr, Secretary, if you don’t care to* All right, let’s start with this young lady down here**® Another example is typical of Mr, Denny’s method of handling questions which he considered pointlessi l£* Dennv? Why my dear sir, he has just given a five-minute speech on that subject,* let’s have another question for Mr* Meyer*4® Occasionally Mr. Denny was more lenient, as In the following ease t

Mr. Denny I Be just answered that question a few moments ago. Bow can you tell? Go ahead and re­ peat it quickly will you please, Mr. Taylor?44 About ones per broadcast in about one-third of the broadcasts analysed# Mr. Denny briefly expressed approval 48. Transcript, Bullet,In Acert.^sToga Meeting of the Air* Vol. 15. No. 3 1 , November 29, 1949 , p, 17, 4B* Transcript, Town Meeting* Bulletin of America’s Town M a t i n g of jyjg, A l r r V o l . 14. HoT H , PeEFuary STTSiWTp. 19.

Transcript, 22BB jfofiMas, BuUetjff of AjMKtal*& fgga ite. M E * Vol. 14, Jfo. 44, March 1, 1*49, p. I V .

175 when A question w a s clearly related to the topic*

The fol­

lowing example illustrates his emphasis on relevancy: ♦ Fairbanks Well, could I Just ask Admiral 0ooke what positlve steps does he advocate? ®£. pennv: What positive steps do you advocate in this © onneot1an? I think the whole discussion centers around, is It possible that Communist China may turn to be a Tito ally of Russia?45 Mr. Denny attempted to limit the length of the questions posed by members of the studio audience to twentyfive words*

He also tried to limit the length of time used

by the panel member in giving an answer*

On an average of

once per broadcast in about cne-sixth of the broadcasts analysed, Mr* Denny objected to a question which would in­ volve a very long answer, as in the following cases Mans Senator Fullbright, what can Rotary Inter­ national do to achieve worldwide eternal peace? * Dennys Ah, yes* That’s one of those queaons that you can’t possibly answer in a minute, Senator* I don’t think you ought to try* Can we take another question? The gentleman Over here* Yes?4^

t

Mr* Denny likewise infrequently limited the time given to the person who answered a question: Mr* Strelts t£atbufc~

.,*1 should like to talk longer on

Mr* Dennyi Yea sir, that’s long enough. Thank you* Let ’s take the next question over on the IS. Transcript, Town Meeting, Bulletin of America’s Town Meeting of the Air. Vol. IS, Ho * &S, December 6, 1949, p* SO* 16* Transcript, Town Meeting. Bulletin of America’s Town M e t i n g 2l &js Aj£, Vol. 15, Ho. 7, jfune 14, 1949. p. 16.

176 ether aide of th© house*

ATf

Mr, Denny’s manner of handling the time element as related to questions and answers was the same as his attitude toward over-long speeches in the early part of the broadcast 5 it was kindly but firm*

Mr* Denny has stated!

If a speaker attempts to go unreasonably beyond his allotted time, the moderator puts a firm hand over the remainder of the manuscript at the end of a sentence and says, "Thank you, gr* Blank," and leads the audience in applause *48

atsHgtag gi&rity of atmteatax as& l a m On an average of one© or twice per broadcast in about one-third of the broadcasts analysed, Mr, Denny made deliberate attempts to secure clarity of terminology or ideas*

Obviously, the necessity for such activity on the

part of the moderator varied with the linguistic ability of the participants and the complexity of the ideas con­ sidered* In broadcast in

a few scattered instances, I.e., about once per about on©-sixth of the broadcasts analyzed,

Mr. Denny presented information which clarified a contri­ bution made by a participant, as in the following examples 4?* Transcript, Town Meeting. Bulletin o£ /Lmarlca*s. Tjgwn Meeting of the A l ^ V o l . 14. No. ItTllaroh 8 ,iSI&T p* 16, 48# Sew York

Times, November 24, 1946, IV* p. 1.

177 M* you* Mr# Grimm# As a matter of S o t V i lfiink^*-1 hope you will allow me to make this statement— the Marshall Plan, if you remember, happened as a result of a statement made by the Secretary of state, General Marshall, in which he said if the nations of Europe got together first and decided what they could do for themselves cooperatively and presented a plan to the United States* the United States would give it considerstion. That is the way the Marshall Plan evolved* Just as a question.gf fact* Mow* the gentleman on the second row#** On an average of once per broadcast in about onethird of the broadcasts analysed* the moderator requested an explanation or illustration of a term or idea not clearly presented, as in the following case:

"Thank you*..Mr.

Guademo, will you tell us what the ECAFE actually stands fort

These initials are a little confusing."

SO

pour times during the broadcasts of 1949 Mr. Denny called for clarification of an argument advanced by a parti­ cipant#

One of the few examples Is as follows:

Senator* will you and Mr# Falrbank come up here, because I*m confused# I ’d like to have you all straighten us out on this* Now* these people on my right here, Dr* Falrbank and Mr. Cobean, main­ tain the recognition would mean contact with the Chinese people# You and Admiral Cooke seem to think that that would not* Will you just straighten us out on that? What is your opinion of this particular question* because that’s what w e ’re discussing tonight— the recognition of the 49* Transcript, Town Meeting* Bulletin of America’a ^ o m Meeting of the, A^r* vol* 15. No# 21,' September 20* 1 9 W , p. 19. 50, Transcript, M e t i n g , Bulletin °£. ggHB Slating , £ tha Air. Vol. 18, Ho. 21, September 20, 1949, p. 20.

.178

Chinese Communist Government? Will it give us the contact that wo want, or will it nott6l In slightly more numerous instances Mr. Benny clar­ ified terminology i M a n s Mr* Linton, what do you propose as an ade­ quate plan for the car© of these displaced persons? P e n n ? : What displaced persons? king about displaced persons.

W@*re not

Man: They are displaced persons, because of age, in industry. MT* Dennys

Well * you mean the people over 65.

Stl right.5®

In a very few instances the moderator clarified an argument advanced by a participant, as in the following examplej Well, General, Just so the radio audience which might not know what the question is all about, M s general conclusion is, isn*t it, that the bomb is Just another weapon and is not nearly as dangerous as the people her© on the platform, tonight, think it is ?55 Hot more numerous were the occasions when Mr. Denny repeated a question or statement contributed by a participant. All of these various techniques of securing clarity considered SI. Transcript, gown Me© t ing, guiletlfl of Americans Toro Meetiag pTf the A i r . Vol. lo. Ho. 32, December 6 , 1949, p. 21. 68 , Transcript, lag of the Air,

Town. Meeting. Bulletin of America's vol. 15, Ho. 34, December 20, 1949,

T o m Meetp. 21.

53* Transcript, J M SL &M. Air.

Town Meeting. Bulletin of Am©idea*a Town MeetVoTT 14, to. 42, February 15, 1949, p. 17.

179

together, the moderator employed any one of them less f r e ­ quently than an average of one® per broadcast during 1949*

MtollttwaiBI la te ,11 St jfaa EMte °£ m s.a Jumwm. Humor was used on an average of two or three times during each broadcast by the Town Meeting moderator*

At no

time was Mr* Denny*a humor boisterous or sarcastic; it might be described as gentle, with a point involved.

Consider

the following examples} g m f e t t ItiSE&rezi In 1940 our Army, Itfavy, and Air Force were so small that the total number of people in the civilian employ that was serving them was a negligible quality* & • S f B B X ' . All right, now, you mean negligible quantity, don*t you— quantity? I was sure you didn*t want to get a hundred thousand letters on that * Sanator. Occasionally, the significance was less pointed, and the humor less involved} Dady t

Senator Mahone. ..McMahon.

M r . Denny 8

I*m sorry.

You could call him 0*Brien if you like.

55

Infrequently Mr. Denny made a remark d e s i r e d to maintain interest in the personalities presented by the program*

Two examples are as follows}

14* Transcript, Town Meeting, Bulletin of America *9 Town K b.ting of the Air. Vol. 15, Ho. 27, November 1, 1049, p. 19. Transcript, Town Meeting £f the A & .

n of Americafs Town.

f ’. W S r ifbbruary 15, 1949, p. 15.

180 Jlr. Pdiynri

Hm

here fsH*bsra we have two Harvard

men at swords' p o in ts .

& > Penny* For the benefit of our television a u d i e n c e I might toll thorn that that lovely lady on Major Eliot »s loft is his lovely wife.5” Such remarks occurred on an average of once or twice per

broadcast in about one-fourth of the broadcasts of 1949. S»oig»lng Effective lwf1ii.olp.tlon ggr

gaapj Members

'The Town Meeting moderator made a definite effort to secure effective participation on the part of the panel members during each broadcast analyzed. Mr* Denny discouraged over-long speeches.

During

1949 the short prepared speeches by panel members were limited to five minutes.

It was not impossible# however#

that they would wish to interpolate additional material or speak more slowly than they had anticipated.

Mr. Denny’s

assistants carefully timed each speech and signaled the speaker and Mr* Denny (as well as the studio audience) when the allotted time was up* speaker stop*5®

Mr. Denny then Insisted that the

Such techniques were necessary twice during

8 6 . Transcript, Town Heating. Bulletin of partes.'.a. IgEa Meeting of tha Air. Vol. 15. Ho. 3, May 10, 1949, p. 6 .

I?> Transcript., Town Meeting* Bulletin of America’s Town of the Air. V o l . 1 5 # Mo-. 4/'1 E y 24# IWlt, 'p. S *

$&% Boston Sunday Globe, March 20, 1949# IV# p. 1.

181 each broadcast observed by the writer* Mr* Denny* infrequently encouraged a non-talkative member of the panel during the broadcasts analysed*

During

the panel discussion part of the broadcasts the problem frequently was that of giving the less talkative member® a chance to apeak*

Mr. Denny attempted to secure balance of

Opportunity among the participants. nique is as followss this discussion.

A n example of his tech­

"Well* l e t ’s get Admiral Cooke in on

We haven’t heard from him yet*"

Such

remarks were made by the moderator on an average of once daring one-fifth of the broadcasts. During the audienoe-participation period of the program Mr. Denny took questions for each of the panel mem­ bers in turn* attempting to get distribution of opportunity among the panel-members.

The following remark* made upon

one occasion when the signal system became confused, indi­ cates the importance attached by Mr. Denny to this technique! All right* Thank you. Mo the gentlemen..*no the lady back there. Mo* Mr. Traura, you said you had a question for a lady with lumber Three. Where is it? There’s a gentleman there with Number Three, a question for Mrs. Purcell. These people in the audience are holding up question card® and the question card indicates the name of the speaker to whom the question is directed .60

.jpg of the

Town Mg.ey.rn, Bullet In of Amgrloa'^ Town MeetAir, vol. 15, No. 32, December 6 , 1949, p. 15.

Transcript, Town Meeting, Bulletin of Araerlca’ja Town MeetJsBE of the Air, foT7 147 Wd. 49, April #7 1949, p. 17.

182 fell® designated panel member gave his answer, however, ail ®f the other panel members were allowed to make contri­ butions if they so desired*

Mr* Denny encouraged such con­

tributions in the following manner* lte« B S S M * Would any on© of the speakers like to comment? Dean Hottel?

Palm H ottaH

M£* E8SEI*

...

(statement.)

Any other comments?®'**

Mr* Denny thanked the panel members for almost ©very contribution*

He frequently complimented them briefly and

sometimes added a touch of humor, as in the following ex­ ample j

"That was a good answer for an anthropologist % X

wonder if these two psychiatrists would Ilk© to comment on that question?*®® Mr* D e m y designated which person should speak before almost every contribution made by a panel member* did this, he says, to avoid overlapping of voices and to /&«* identify the speakers to the radio audience *00 His manner was not arbitrary or determined, but fair and reasonable, as in the following example*

63. Boston Sunday Glob©, March 20, 1949, I?, p. 1*

He

183 All right, Senator Gain, hut in fairness to you, sir, X think we ought to call on Mr# Farrington to comment directly on the question you asked him# would you like to have Mr# Farrington comment first or do you want to comment?®^ Frequently he designated the next speaker on the basis of experience or familiarity with an idea under consideration, as In the following cases

*fI think that lsn*t Mrs# Samp­

son*® question#

I t ’s probably Dr# Rao*s question because 65 h»*s the one who spoke about that. Dr# Kao?** Only upon extremely rare occasions did Mr# Denny caution his panel members against name-calling or diatribe* On only four occasions during the broadcast of 1949 did he make statements similar to the following!

"Now, Miss

Peterson, watch your name calling.”^® Securing Effective Participation by studio Audience

Questions which members of the audience proposed to ask were screened b y Mr, Denny *s two assistants.

Con­

sequently, his major problem in obtaining effective audience participation was to have the audience members ask their

id# Transcript, Town Meeting:# Bulletin of America*^ Town Meeting of the A i r # Vol. 15, Mo* 30, Kovember 22, 1949, p. 10,

184

questions without offering additional comment.

On rare

btbaslms he meet a a situation such as the followings Mant Iffy question is directed to Mr* Roth* I ’d like to preface my question with this remark... Ifr. Dennya Ho, just the question, please. question ?67

The

Hr* Benny’s attitude, however, is not always this arbitrary. About once in every two or three broadcasts he allows a member of the audience to make a statement or clarify his question, as in the following examples!

ttH© says h e ’s not

satisfied.

Take the microphone back to him.

talk back.

All right*

broadcast, nThank you* to talk back*

T h a t ’s good .tf68

He wants to

And in another

Just a minute, the gentleman wants

All right, l e t ’s have a discussion.

Go ahead,

i l r , " 88 In the broadcasts of 1949 Mr. D e m y discouraged the practice of audience members giving their names along with their questions, in the following manners

ttHow when

you’re asking questions, never mind your name, just the name 87. Transcript, Town Meeting. Bulletin of America Ts T o m jesting of the A l r T "Vol. 1^, Ho. St, October 11, 194$, p.

Si*

$8 * Transcript. Town Meeting. Bulletin of America’s T o m ........... 9 A l ^ v S i ^ ^ Ho; i T ~ e 5 F e S b e r SO, 11117 Meeting of pTi? . " 89* Transcript, Town Meeting. Bulletin of America’s T o m of t:fee Air,^ oi,. X4V H o . AprTl T$, i$49, 18.

Sb ,

p.

185 ©f the syedtoer*

Fir© ©way.”

70

Mr. Denny attempted to

th* menfiber© of the studio audience to identify by name the panel member to whom their questions were directed*

Only

a w r y few in stance a were observed in the broadcasts during l#4f where Mr. Denny deemed it necessary to call upon hi© studio audience for a more cooperative attitude* Upon almost every occasion that a member of tbs studio audience signified that he wished to ask a question he was recognised verbally by the moderator.

This practice

aided the radio listener who depended upon sound alone for his mental images.

This recognition took the form of a

short verbal picture of the person asking the question, such as the following exampless

W e ’ll have a ques71 tion from the gentleman back in the center of the hall,” or* "Thank you.

"Thank you*

The gentleman in the aisle, in the whit©

coat."78 Closing the Forum Program

It was Mr* 70, Transcript, ing of the A i r .

D enny’s custom to close the forum

Town Meeting. Bulletin of America’s Town Meet, Vof." 14™ "Wo* 44, March 1 , 1949, pi 18*

U . TrMMcrlpt, Town Mstlim, Bulletin of Arorlo.ala. Toro Meeting of the A ir. Vol. 15, So. 13, July 26, 1949, p. 19. 78. Transcript, Toro Meeting. Bulletin of tom Seating of the A i r . Vol. IS. so. 18, August 50, 1949, p. 19.

186 program by c a llin g upon each panel member for a on©'•half minut© summary,

On all except four broadcast© during 1049

this procedure obtained*

He designated each panel member In

turn* and thanked each one for M e

statement.

Mr* Denny

then thanked all of the participant® for appearing on the program. ^ m g ^ ^ | n g Future Broadcasts,

Hear the close of about three-fourths of the broad­ casts analysed Mr* Denny described the nature of future broadcasts to be presented by Town Meeting.

An interesting

example was the following statement* How next week* my friends* we begin our 16th year on the air* Actually* this is the final broad­ cast on our 14th year* We are celebrating it by launching th© most ambitious program in our e n ­ tire experience. With your help* w© ar© taking Town Meeting around the world.7" At the close of almost ©very broadcast during 1049 Mr* Denny announced the topics and names of participants for tbs Town Meeting the following week,

Dsually this announce­

ment was as short as the following example 5

"Hext week w©

continue our discussion of tonight*® situation with th© ,74 subject, npp we Heed a Hew Approach to Peace?**______________ 75, Transcript, Town Meeting. Bulletin of America*® Town M a t i n g & £ t^© Air* Vol. l’S?' Ho. 4, May*T4* 1949* p . 22, ■74* Transcript*. Town Meeting. Bulletin of, America*®, Town Iteming of the Air, V o l T 14, Ho, 40* February 1 * 1940* p , 25.

187 Mr* Benny *a concluding statement in almost every broadcast was th© following invitation?

**Plan to be with

m next Tuesday night at the sound of the Crier*© bell ***75

In summary we may note that th© moderator of America*s Town Meeting of the Air engaged In certain acti­ vities during the broadcasts of 1949, Be Introduced the topic early in the program by presenting background information which ordinarily consisted Of a brief history of the question and/or a short analysis of the causes of the problem*

He usually emphasized the

Importance of the topic during its introduction*

Occasion­

ally he delimited the area which he expected th© discussion to cover, defined terms briefly, stated th© major issues which were to be considered, and/or outlined th© opposing lines of argument* Mr. Denny customarily introduced the panel members after he introduced th© topic*

He described their qualifi­

cations, occasionally presenting their point of view con­ cerning th© topic*

Infrequently h© introduced distinguished

members of the studio audience who asked questions during ?5. Transcript, Town Meeting,, Bulletin of America's Town Use ting of the A i r , VSl* 14; H ^ 7 ^ 7 ^ anua^ T 2 ^ 1 ^ 4 W ^ p * 23

188

audience-parti cl pat ion part of the program* Th© moderator described the mechanics of th® pro­ gram*

He frequently included descriptions of the objectives

Of the program and the Town Meeting Bulletin (which contains transcripts of the broadcasts *) The program was given structure by the moderator* Me made transitions between each major division of the broad­ cast, limiting the time given to each section.

(These

divisions are differianted on the basis of spaaker-audienee relationships, e.g*, panel-discussion, studio-audience participation, etc*; they are not to be confused with the Dewey steps of reflective thinking.)

Mr* Denny discouraged

Irrelevaneies and limited the length of time given to panelmembers» speeches, studio audience members 1 questions, and pane1 -members» answers• Sir. Denny made only infrequent attempts to secure clarity of terminology and ideas.

On infrequent occasions (

bo presented information clarifying a contribution, requested an explanation or Illustration of a term or idea not clearly presented, called for clarification of an argument advanced by a participant, clarified terminology, and/or clarified an argument advanced by a participant. The moderator attempted to maintain th© interest of the radio or video audience by frequently using kindly

but pointed humor and occasionally remarking upon th© per­ sonalities presented by the program. He made a definite effort to secure effective participation by the panel raeuibere and th© studio audience members by discouraging over-long speeches, encouraging nontalkatlv© members, calling upon panel members in turn, thank­ ing panel mestoera for their contributions, and designating the person to speak next on the program.

He discouraged

the practice of studio audience members giving their names along with their questions, but encouraged their us® of th® panel member’s name to whom the question was directed. Th© moderator closed th® forum program by calling upon ®ach panel member for a short summary.

He frequently

described the nature of future broadcasts, and nearly al­ ways announced th© topics and names of participants for the following week.

190 Part Threes Chapter II THE FUHCTXOH OF THE MODERATOR OF THE AMERICAN FORUM OF THE AIR DURING THE BROADCASTS The purpose of this chapter Is to describe the activities of the American Forum moderator while the program is on the air.

Theodore Granik m s

moderator of all but

five*1* of the forty-six broadcasts during 1949.® introducing

gg| Topics

Hr. Granik customarily presented background informa­ tion concerning the topic early in the broadcasts presented during 1940.

Forty-three of the forty-six broadcasts analyzed

were begun in this manner*

Prior to May 23, 1949, Mr, Granik 5 stated the topic for the broadcast* After that date, the studio announcer stated the topic at the beginning of the program, and Mr. Granik occasionally restated the problem incidentally as he developed the background for the discussion.

.

____________________________

X* For names of guest-mode raters see Appendix B, 0* The American Forum of the Air was not broadcast from September 19 to October 30, 1949. 3* This change in procedure resulted from a change in Sponsorship of the broadcasts.

191

This background information ordinarily consisted ©f sitter a brief description of ©vents leading up to the e x t e n t critical situation or an analysis of th© current political scene as it was related to th© problem. A typical example of a statement of th© history of ©vents leading up to the problem is th® followings In order to refresh your memories , let me say that an executive order of June 25, 1941, declared it to be the policy of the U.S. *To encourage full participation In the national defense program, by all citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin; in the firm belief that the democratic way of life within the nation can be defended successfully only with the help and sup­ port of all groups within its borders.* The authority of ITSTO did not at any time extend b e ­ yond government agencies and management and labor in war industries. The committee had no powers of enforcement and no recourse to the courts. But th© end of th© national emergency was the end of th© temporary PEPO. Since then, three bills banning discrimination in employment have been reported to the last two Congresses, but the whole Congress has never voted directly on any of these measures .4 An example of a description of the current political scene as it is related to the problem, analyzing the opposing points of view, Is as follows; Good evening ladles and gentlemen. There Is a fine battle brewing on Capitol Hill in Washington over the international Trad© Organization* You tear it referred to as ITG and frequently also as the Eavanna Charter. Developed by 54 nations, the Charter awaits the approval of th© United

4* Transcript, The American Forum of the Air., Vol. 12* Ho. 84,

3wm

is, i © O T 7

prsrr~----------------

192 ;

v

States Congress * An American Idea In th© first place# the XT© would be a specialised agency of the United Nations, th® first effort in history to combine# In one agreement among th® Important trading nations of th® world, all questions about trade in goods and commodities. Now, here is how the battle Is shaping up. Charter proponents claim it will reduce governmental barriers and restrictions in an orderly fashion to give the greatest opportunity to private competitive trade. However# opponents claim that it more firmly es­ tablishes government control and trad© restric­ tions * they say it will not $xpand trade but Instead will greatly curb i t .0 In his presentation of background information# Mr.

Granik frequently employed quoted materialj for example, on May £3, 1940, he statedt Gentlemen# you both well remember that President Truman enunciated what has come to be known simply as *Point 4* in his Inaugural Address; I quote from his address; "We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for th© Improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas... Our aim should be to help th© free peoples of the world# through their own efforts, to produce more food# more clothing, more materials for housing and more mechanical power to lighten their homes*.. It must be a worldwide effort for th© achievement of peace, plenty# and freedom .1*6 Ordinarily, the length of Mr. Granik*s Introduction of th# topic was about the length of the example® cited. Occasionally It was shorter and more direct; Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen.

On Friday

3* transcript, the American Forum of .the Air, Vol. 12, No. t&* May 30, 1 9 4 9 , p. 3. transcript, the American Forum jg£ the Air,. Vol. 12, No. 31, May 23, 1 9 4 9 , p. 3.

193 last* the governments of th© Horth Atlantic area made public the contents of a pact for mutual aid and security* Soon to follow is the Worth Atlantie Rearmament Program* These two projects make our topic tmight-**-”What Are the Prospects Wow for Peaoa with Russia ?"7 Frequently the opposing points of view were pre­ sented*

When such was the case, the amount of time given to

each line of argument was carefully equateds As the Communist armies advance in China, Washing­ ton is rooked by conflicting opinions of what our policy should be* Some friends of China think help to Chiang Kaishek1® government can still be effective} that th© amount of the United States aid since Fwy Day has been totally inadequate* Others believe it is too late to impose th© will of any foreign power upon the war-weary Chinese} that the victorious new leaders will allow neither the Soviet Union, nor the United States, to de­ termine what China shall b e *8 In more than one-third of the broadcasts during 1949 the American Forum moderator emphasized th© importance of the topic to the members of the listening audience*

Such

statements were more than mere background information} they were comments designed to make th© problem more sig­ nificant, as in the following example I

Every one of us— landlord, tenant, you and I— must have a roof over our heads, so every one of US must be vitally concerned with tonight1® question, *What does rent control really mean

V. Transcript, The American Forum of the Air, Vol. 12, So. %$§ March 21, '1949,‘ p.""'3* 9* Transcript, The American Forum of the Air. Vol. 12, So. 19, May 9, 1949, '

194 to the ©©unbry?*® In About one-fourth of th© 1949 broadcast© Mr# Ar*nib briefly indicated th© various Issues which were pertin­ ent to the discussion of th© topic. In the following manners ©tar subject tonight is the hottest one In Wash­ ington these days* ‘What shall we do about the faft-Hartley law?* Should it be repealed? Should Senator Thomas* bill be enacted in its place? What will bring industrial peace?10 Mr# Qranik customarily introduced the participants after h© had Introduced the topic.

In each of the broadcasts

of 1949 the American Forum moderator briefly described the qualifications of the panel members as experts upon the topic under consideration#

His statement was typically brief?

The American people want to know ‘What*® ?ft*ong With Our national Labor Policy?* We have with us today two very able gentlemen to discuss these important questions: Fred A# Hartley, Jr., for­ mer Hepublican Congressman from lew Jersey, CoAuthor of the faft-Hartley Law, and James B# Carey, Secretary-Treasurer of the C»X»0#, who Is leading the fight for repeal of the Tart-Hartley Law#11 During the audience participation part of th© Amer­ ican Forum broadcasts, Mr# Oranik occasionally recognised a distinguished person who was about to present a question# 9# Transcript, The American Forum o,f th®- A i r . Yol# 12, Ho# 7, 1 9 4 ^ 7 p# s .

m b v w n t 14,

19* Transcript, The American. Forum

j2£

ihs. AiE*

Vol. 12, Ho#

9* February 2 1 , I9?9, p#

11* Transcript, ghe American Forum of the M r , Vol. 12, Ho, 49, December 18, 1949, p# $*

195 §m % instances, however, were rare, occurring about once in each ef ene-third of the broadcasts*

Such recognitions ©us*

tdaarily were very short * Gentlemen, let us take another question* I see a distinguished diplomat in the audience, a former tJhder Secretary of State and former ambassador to the Netherlands, Mr* H o m b e c k # ^ ® giving the Program Suitable Structure — mmuSS ■»— ..... .... . — — iwfci»«....i«nii.«

..w n y

Mr* Granlk introduced each major division of the program*

The divisions were clearly discernible on the basis

of types of speaker^audience relationships.

Little difference

was apparent on the basis of approach to the problem, such as analysis, consideration of proposals,

or evaluation of

a plan for action. The major divisions of 96 per cent of the broad­ casts during 1949 were? members by the moderator,

(1) introduction of topic and panel

(2) panel discussion, (5) studio

audience questions answered by the panel members, (4) sum­ maries by each of th® panel members, moderator.

On© broadcast

(5) conclusion by the

during 1949 omitted the audience

participation feature, and one omitted both audience parti­ cipation and summaries by the panel members 12# Transcript,' The American Forum of the A i r . Vol. 12, No. 19, May 9, 1949, p. W l 13# January 11, 1949, 14. December 1 1 , 1949*

196 The moderator made transitions between each divi­ sion of each program.

After hi® introduction# Mr. Granik

customarily started the panel discussion by posing a pro­ vocative question designed to immediately get into th© heart

of the problem $

for example# in the July 11th broadcast he

said* Wow Senator Kem# let us open th© discussion with a question to you. On th© floor of th© Senate re­ cently you said that American money is being used as a slush fund for th© purpose of promoting th© interests of th© Socialist Party in England. Would you car© to explain that ?***5 U p* Granik invariably directed such a question to a particu­ lar panel member, turning to the other member or members after receiving a short answer.

Usually Mr. Granik *s ini­

tial question was concerned with an over-all approach to the problemj for example, in a broadcast on th© topic, wDo We Weed More Taxes?” Mr. Granik posed th© following ques­ tions And now# gentlemen, tell me, do we need 4 billion extra dollars for the Fair Deal program? If so# how should the government raise this additional tax? Senator# what do you think ?*6 Occasionally his initial question concerned the terms employed in th© statement of th© topic; for example, in reference to 1$, Transcript# The American Forum of th© Ai r , Vol. IS, Wo. 8 S* July 11# 1949, p . 4 .

lb. Transcript# j&© American Forum of the Ai£# Vol. 12# Ho. S# January 51# 1949, p. 2.

197 the topic , "Should th® Tto-American Activities Commit tea be Abolished?" Mr. Granik stated 5 And now, gentlemen, on with our discussion* Some* one very kindly has provided us with a pumpkin* t don*t find any microfilm in it, but here is a leading question for you. Senator Mandt. What is un*Amerlcan?17 Ifpon a few occasions his question focused upon the causes of the problemj

"lew let*# open the discussion with a question

to you, Senator Cain, What do you consider some of the ills, if any, of rent control ?"^8

Most frequently, however, Mr,

8 ranlk*s Initial questions called for arguments in support

of a view concerning the topic for the broadcast j

"Senator

Humphrey, what do you see as the advantages of the Adminis­ tration bill over the Taft-Bartley Act ? ^ 8 Mr* Granik*® transitions to the audience partici­ pation part of the broadcasts typically were very brief i "let us pause now to give our studio audience a chance to ask some questions*

I see my assistant, Miss Fenuel, has a

question for one of our speakers*

Will you go ahead?®

go

17* transcript, The American Forum of the A i r , Vol. 12, Ho* 8 , January 18, 1949, p. 3. 18# transcript, The American Forum of the, M Z * Vol. 12, Ho. 7, February 1 4 , 1949, p* 3. It# transcript, The American Forum of the Air* Vol. 12, Ho. 18, April 11, 1949, p* 3, 80, Transcript, the 4ffsp|..cari Forum of the Air, Vol. 12, Ho. 40, Hovember 0, 1949, p, 0.

the moderation*# transitions to the section which presented airamaries by panel members were brief and called upon a particular panel number to begin the summarization, a# in the following example?

fm

"Gentlemen, let*® pause now

a brief summary from each of our distinguished speakers.

First, the summary from Senator Capehart,

Senator, your

01

summary, please*®

MF. Granik *s conclusion® are treated

separately in a later section of this chapter* Approximately once In each of one-fourth of the broadcasts analyzed Mr* Granik limited in terns of available time th© consideration of a subtopic or issue Involved in the discussion*

In each ease he made it apparent that he

believed there were other issues which ought to be considered. A typical example is as follows? civil rights,

“Gentlemen, let*s leave

Mr* Baker, how does the economic philosophy

©f the Democrats differ from that of the Republicans?"^® ttBBlttl Lo^ieftiL Procd,##©# of Group Reflective I h j n k l m In the panel discussion period of the American Fbrum broadcast#, Mr* Granik occasionally posed question#

81, Transcript, Jg& American Forum of th& 12, January 11, 1949, p. 1 1 .

ME,

U, »°*

it* Transcript, The American Forum of the Air* Vol. 12, Ho. 25, # w w 0, 1949, p* Q* ™

199 which we*® designed to emphasis® various elements of the re­ flect Ive 'thinking process.

These efforts did not follow a

pattern* smote a® (1 ) analysis of th® problem,

(2 ) considera­

tion of proposals designed to remedy the problem* and (3) evaluation ©f selected proposals.

The questions posed by

Hr. Granik at various times in the discussion period were concerned with analysis, proposals, or issues involved in evaluating propositions.

tn about one-fourth of th® broadcasts of 1949 Mr. Granik called for information concerning the problem under discussion* upon occasions other than in his Initial ques­ tion designed to open the panel discussion period. example is as follows?

A typical

!*Senator* does freight absorption

occur most frequently in th® large industries or the small nf

ones according to the testimony you have heard ? 1*®0

The

above question was asked near the end of the panel discus­ sion period.

(The questions which we are here considering

are not ones which are asked simply to clarify a point not clearly made by a participant*) MT* Granik called th© attention of th© panel mem­ bers to an issue which was involved In th© problem at least

if. Transcript* The American Forum of the Air. Vol. 11* Mo. 12* January 11* 1949* p. 10.

200 mm in each of approximately one-fourth of the broadcasts • A typical example may be taken from the broadcast on the topic, "Progress Report of th® Eighty-first Congress," In which Mr, Granik asked, "Gentlemen, how about the legisla­ tive p r o g r a m * " ^ Pour times during the 1949 broadcasts Mr. Granik called the attention of the panel members to a possible solution of the problem under discussion.

On each of these

very rare occasions Iffir* Granik presented the proposal as one advocated by some expert in the area under consideration rather than as a solution which he advocated himself, in th® following manners Chairman Graniks I have a clipping in front of me from the Washington Post which says, ’William K* Davis, former chairman of the War Labor Board, yesterday asked Congress to authorise government selaure of plants when a strike Imperils th© country’s health or safety.’ What do you say about that, Congressman Bartley ?25 Upon slightly more frequent occasions Mr. Granik called for argument for or against propositions advanced or im­ plied*

A n example Is as follows:

Bepre sen tat lve Brown: Of course, that Is exactly the same argument that the Labor government has 94* Transcript, The American Forum of the Air, Vol. 12, No. 14, April 4, 1949, p. 6 *

25* Transcript, The American Forum of the Air* Vol. 12, Ho. 8, February 21, T M o V ' p V ^ . 111

201 used In Or©at Britain...Ho longer i® th© fro© enterpris© system In America capable of looking after the people} some government agency has to do it for them. Chairman Granik t Has national ism of industry in G r e a t B r i t a i n been a success, senator ?06 tTpon other rare occasions,

(once in each of about

OB©*>fourth of the broadcasts) Mr. Granik called th© atten­ tion of the panel members to a possible argument concerning a proposition under consideration.

Such arguments were ad­

vanced as being sponsored by some authority upon the topic, In th© following way t Gentlemen, today*® 'Hew York Times' refers to recent recommendations of th© national Foreign TTade Council regarding 'Point 4.* I quote from th© 'Mew York Times'? 'With respect to implemen­ tation of the program (of 'Point 4»), th© Council declared that 'guarantees' b y the United States Government are not essential to full participa­ tion of American private enterprise in the program. ' 'Guarantees would tend either toward undue Govern­ ment regulation of American private enterprises operating abroad or toward undesirable involvement of the Government In business...' How do you feel about that, Senator?®” Securing Clarity of Terminology

Ideas

Infrequently throughout the broadcasts of 1949 Mr. Granik made deliberate attempts to secure clarity of

Si. Transcript, 8, February 21,

The American Forum of th© Air, Vol. IS, Ho. 1949,c"p. 7."'"

27. Tranacript, The Amerlpap Forum of the A i r . Vol. 12, Ho. 21, May 83, 1949,

W2

terminology or ideas*

In a few scattered instances (once

or twice in each of about one-third of the broadcasts) he requested clarification Of an idea presented by a panel mem­ ber*

About on©-half of such requests Involved clarification

of an argument or line of reasoning# rather than definitions of terms, as in the following examples Congressman Cellar s Mow# 1 d on’t want a situation developing in this country where it would be like the followings ’Every man for himself, ’ said the elephant as he danced among the chickens.,.! would develop a situation whereby Congress would enunciate a general principle that if a corpora­ tion has so much power that it no longer can operate efficiently# then there must be some cutting down in also. naan Granik; Would you base that entirely on question of efficiency, Congressman ?"8 In extremely rare instances (seven times during 1949) Mr. Granik clarified an idea or argument which was not Clearly presented by a participant.

Th© following example

is a representative one s Congressman Cellar; Mr. Sokolsky mentioned th© tJnite'd States Steel Corporation. Mr. Sokolskv;

Ho, s i r t

Congressman Caller; M r . Sokolakya

I didn’t.

X did not.

I thought that you did.

I never mentioned G. S. Steel.

tS* Transcript# The American Forum of the Air. Vol. 12, Ho. 41# Hovemb©r 13# 1949V"p. 6.

203 said a typical steal company #20 IfolntalniiyE Intere&t gg tyg^ Mjiteninig Audience

Humor was used upon a few occasions by the American Forum moderator during the broadcasts of 1949*

such instances

©eeui*re& fewer times than an average of once In each of onehalf of the broadcasts*

In all cases th© point of th© com-

meat was directly related to the topic being discussed*

An

example of the type of humor employed by Mr. Granik is as follows s M r * Sokolskv: Hitler is dead and I don't like to have him*.. ft. Granik:

You are sure of that, Georg © ? ® 0

In rare oases when such humor occurred, it often followed a caustic remark made by a participant: Mr* Hartley: ...I object to an interpretation on the part of the Wag©-Hour Administrator which says, for example, that a window washer Is in interstate commerce because he washes a window in a building that houses an Insurance eompany which is in interstate commerce... Chairman Granik:

Is there a window washer in the

29. Transcript, The American Forum of the A i r , Vol. 12, Ho. 41, November 13, 1^49; p. ^* 30. Transcript, The American Forum of the Air* Vol. 12, Ho* 41, Hovember 15, 1^49, p. 4.

204 house?

Lettake

another question .31

.securing M f e o t i v e f a r t l M j m t i o n by Members ©£. t&* Panel

mSSSw «ESSSSSSSQwXSSSfS5SS38SS Z55E5 mSSSSESE* SSaSSESeSeSqi

The Arm riean Forum moderator made specific attempts to secure effective participation on the part of the panel members during each broadcast.

He thanked or complimented

the panel members for a specific contribution.

Such com*,

ments usually occurred once or twice during each panel dis­ cussion period.

They were typically briefj

”Senator Malone,

you are always so clear-cut in your position .”32 8&*. Granik attempted to divide th©

betweenthe panel members; though

time equally

one participant occasion­

ally spoke for as long as a minute, Mr. Granik discouraged longer contributions *33

Three or four times during each

panel discussion he designated the next speaker, typically calling for another panel member’s point of view concerning the idea being discussed at the moments t o K a q s w m Bsti££k« ...In other words I would like to let the people have a little more of the money to spend and not quit© so much down '**■*— -“M r *

j-.-.-r -I, I- -—

- Tr

.1

1

- F

ri ;

1

1 --------------- — —

,— , -----------

$1« Transcript, The American Forum of the A i r . Vol. IS, Wo. February Si, 1949, -p. 9•

990 Transcript, The American Forum of. the A i r , Vol. 12, Wo. 84, August 22, 1949, p. 4. 08* Theodore Granik. Interview between author and, November 28, 1949.

205

be iMi f or th» bureaucrats to spend. f £*

Senator Douglas, what about the

ureaucrats During the audience participation part of the pro­ gram, Mr. Granik frequently encouraged the panel meirfbers to

mate* further contributions after on© panel member had given his answer to a question*

The following example is typical}

Question i My question is addressed to Senator McMahon. Senator McMahon, isn*t this pact an act of aggression because it allies one group ,©f nations against another? Senator MoHahon> Ho, I think not. Tfhat wo do is to bind ourselves, one with the other, to re­ sist an act of aggression (etc.)... MT* Granltet

Senator Donnell .255

If one panel member was unable to answer a question, another was encouraged to try: Question! This question is for Senator Spark­ man. What are the essential differences between the President*s steel program and that of H o m a n Thomas, the Socialist Party leader? Senator Sparkman t Thomas * program*

I know nothing about Mr.

nhft? tnaiiw Granik: Congressman, what do you know about Herman Thomas ’ program ?**6 imm

i.in

'iW Hi m iii i m i m mw— nmmmtm

i . uri

M ( Transcript, The American Forum of the Air* Vol. 12, Ho. B, January SI, 1949, pp. 2-3.

M * Transcript, The American Forum gf the. A i r * Vol. 12, Ho,

U,

March 14,

p, 8 .

$6. Transcript, The .American Forum of the Air* , February 7, 1949, p# 4,

Vol. 12, Ho.

£ 0 6

jKtfittglrat Effeetlve Participation by_ jgrib^a S £

J lfi

Audience

Mr. Granik asked the members of the studio audlenoe to make their questions brief.

Occasionally he stressed

this requirement when he made his transition to th© audience participation part of the broadcasti

11L e t ’s take the first

question over there in the left aisle,

we have limited time,

25*7 so please make your questions brief.” The moderator attempted to eliminate confusion by recognising members of the studio audience who indicated a desire to ask questions. impersonal!

Typically, his recognition was

”We will take another question; th© gentleman

In the rear.*5® another question.

Another example is as follows! Th© young lady there.

"Let’s take

Go ahead, please .”39

Mr. Granik required that a question b© directed to a specified panel member, and Insisted on this requirement as follows! Chairman Granik! L e t ’s take th© first question in ^ i S s e c o i ^ a i a T e , that gentleman over there. 37. Transcript, The American Forum of the A i r . Vol. 12, Ho. 7, February 14, 1949, p. 8 . 3&* Transcript, The American Forum of the A i r . Vol. 12, Ho. 10, larch 28, 1949, p . 9.

39* Transcript, r ihe American Forum of the Air. Vol. 12, Ho. 44, December 4, 1 M 9 , p. 9*

207 question}

I b not the acoeptanoe of— «

ChalnMui Q ranlhi Siai questlon?*w quas

To whom are you directing this

As w© have noted previously, upon rare occasions Mr* Granik gave recognition to a distinguished member of the studio audience; on a fev occasions h© encouraged such per­ sons to present a questions

"We have an eminent member of

tbs press Georg© Fielding Eliot*

Will you ask a question,

Hr* Eliot ?"41 In on© broadcast during 1949 Mr* Granik called for a more cooperative attitude on the part of the studio audience s Senator Myers s *,*W® c a n ’t remove this last bar­ rier to our inflation and expect to stabilise our economy} it lust can’t be done— (interrup­ tions) Chairman Graniki Please. We are all guests of this room* Please remember that our speakers here came as our guests,42 this isolated ease serves to Illustrate a function which Mr* Granik is prepared to perform, but, fortunately, usually finds unnecessary* 40* Transcript, The American Forum of the Air. Vol. 12, No. 9 , February 2 1 , 1949, p. 8 . 41, Transcript, The American Forum of the Air,* Vol. 1 2 , No. 11, larch 14, 1949, p. 9* 42. Transcript, The American Forum of the Air. Vol. 12, No. 7, February 14, 19*49, p. d*

208

Invariably Mr. Granik called for the discussion

t# conclude when ho noted that the time for the program to end was drawing near.

Customarily each panel member w a s

called upon for his summary statement, and then, almost without exception, Mr* Granik stated that the broadcast must conclude and thanked the persons who participated.

His 43 concluding comments wore usually similar to this example s Sorry, Senator McMahon and Senator Donnell, our time Is up. 1 know our studio audience Joins me in thanking you for being with us tonight and helping us to better understand this Important issue On a very few broadcasts Mr. Granik concluded by stating the name of the panel members and the topic considered? Chainaan G r a n i k t Thank you very much gentlemen. Our speakers were Congressman Clarence J • Brown of Ohio, and Herman Ihomas, the noted Socialist leader, discussing BAre We Sneaking Into Sosialism ?1*45 43, The studio announcer follows with a statement of the topic and the names of the participants to be presented on The American Forum of the Air the f ollowing week. 44. Transcript, The American Forum of the A i r . Vol. 12, Ho. 11, March 14, 1949, p." 11.

46. Transcript, The American Forum of the Air. Vol. 12, Ho. 44,* December 4, l¥49,p. 12.’

209 ffummairy In the American Forum of the Air broadcasta during 1949 tbs moderator introduced the topic early in the program by presenting background information which ordinarily con­ sisted of a brief description of events leading up to the current critical situation or an analysis of the current political scene as it was related to the problem#

This

introduction frequently described opposing points of view. Occasionally the moderator emphasized the importance of the problem and/or indicated the issues which were pertinent to the discussion# i£r* Granik introduced the panel members following his introduction of the topic*

He briefly described their

qualifications, and occasionally introduced a distinguished member of the studio audience who asked a question during the audience participation period. The moderator gave th© program structure by making transitions between each ma^or division of the broadcast and by infrequently limiting the amount of time given to coasl derat ion of a sub^topic or issue involved in the discussion# An attempt was made by the moderator to secure certain elements of the logical process of group reflective

210 Such efforts included infrequent occasions when Sr* Granik called for information concerning the problem under discussion or called the attention of the panel mem­ bers to an issue which was involved in the problem*

He

very rarely called the attention of the panel members to a possible solution to the problem*

He more frequently called

for argument for or against propositions advanced by the panel members*

Upon very rare occasions th© moderator

called the attention of the participants to a possible ar­ gument concerning a proposition under consideration. Infrequently Mr* Granik attempted to secure clarity of terminology or ideas*

He very rarely requested clarifi­

cation of an idea presented by a panel member,

Cn similarly

infrequent occasions he clarified an idea or argument pre­ sented by a participant, Mr, Granik employed humor on infrequent occasions in an apparent attempt to maintain th© interest of the radio or video audiences* He made specific attempts to secure effective participation by the members of the panel and th© studio audience*

He attempted to provide an equal amount of time

to each of the panel members and discouraged contributions over on© minute in length*

He frequently encouraged dis­

cussion among the panel members after one of them had

211 answered & questIon from a member of the studio audience* H© requested that auch questions be brief, and sought to Svoid contusion by reecgniaing individually the studio aud­ ience members*

He required that each question be directed

to a specific panel member*

The moderator closed the American Forum broad­ casts by calling for summaries by the panel members and thanking the persons who participated in th© program.

, 213

Part Threej Chapter III THE FUNCTION OF THE MODERATOR OF THE RADIO PEOPLE*S PLATFORM DURING THE BROADCASTS The purpose of this chapter is to describe the ac­ tivities of th© People*s Platform moderator while the pro­ gram is on the air*

Dwight Cooke was moderator of twenty-

seven of the thirty broadcasts which were wire-re corded, typed, and analysed in this studyj he was moderator of all but three of the forty-nine People*s Platform broadcasts presented during 1949.1

•

| n t ^ ^ ^ i n g Topics gnd Participants

It was Mr* Cooke*s custom to open th© People*s Platform broadcasts with a challenging statement or question which was related to th© topic for discussion.

This state­

ment was usually followed by an informal statement of th© topic Itself*

These comments were typically very brief and

directi In spite of what th© United States has den© to stop them, th© armies of th© Chines© Communists ar© slicing through China lik© a hot knife through butter* Is there nothing we can do to stop this, to keep the Iron Curtain from clanging down on Asia? In other words, what should b© our policy 1* For names of guest moderators see Appendix D*

213 &

toward China? Hr« Cooke*® opening comment was often in the form of a ques­ tion which posed the issue to be debated during the broadcasts How much freedom must we give to Americana who want to speak against democracy? Does our free­ dom of speech mean any American has the right to preach pro-Fascist or pro-Communist or proaiHrthing-else, lies and hatred ?35 Mr. Cooke's short opening statement or question ordinarily was followed by & statement by the studio an­ nouncer f who gave the name of the program* formally stated the topic to be presented* and indicated the place where the broadcast was originating and the names and official or professional titles of the participants.

The announcer

then turned th® microphone back to Mr. Cooke 9. Transcript* May 8 , 1949, p. 1. (The transcripts to which reference is made in this chapter were wire-recorded by the author and typed by Elisabeth Clffin and the author.) 3. Transcript* June 5, 1949, p. 1. 4. A representative example of the role of the announcer in the introduction of the People's Platform broadcasts Is as follows s MT. Cooke: ”As part of this Fair Deal Program, President Truman's Administration has proposed a new kind of aid for agriculture. Would this plan bring farmers a fair income and city dwellers cheaper food? Or is the idea impractical and dangerous?” Announcer: ”You have just heard Dwight Cooke, the regular chairman of Columbia's weekly discussion program. People's Platform, open today's debate on the question: "Should the Hew Farm Plan Be Adopted?” Again, the People's Platform comes to you from Washington. Mr, Cooke's guests are Ralph 8 . Trigg, Adminis­ trator of the Product 1cm and Marketing Administration Cor­ poration; and Republican Francis Case, Republican of South

214

Following th© statement by the studio announcer, Mrv Cook© customarily presented background Information con­ cerning the topic*

This background information ordinarily

consisted of either a brief summation of ©vents leading up to the current problem or an analysis of the current poli­ tical, social or economic scene as it related to the topic. A typical example of a statement of the history of events leading up to th© problem is as follows? At long last the very controversial question of Federal aid to education is coming to a head. The Senate has again passed Mr, Truman *s proposal for Federal aid. It is again being argued this week in the House committees. So what*s the real disagreement here? Everybody*® for th© best possible education for Americans. Is Federal aid to education the only way to get it?, • .A couple of weeks ago the Thomas Bill for Federal Aid to Education was passed by the Senate. It provides Federal grants, subsidies if you will, to make sure each state spends no less than #55.00 a year per each child in its schools. Every state gets a minimum of #5,00 as a subsidy for each child. And the poorer states, principally in the South, can collect on up to whatever is needed to make sure they spend an average of #55.00 per pupil. It»s estimated th© bill will cost about 500 million dollars a year .5 An example of a description of the current politi­ cal scene as it is related to the problem is as follows: yw. ni .i n. mi

i

i.i.

if l .............................. ................... . ..

. . .

--

. ....

Dakota, rancher and member of the House Appropriation Oomalbte©. And now, to begin the debate on th© farm plan, w© bear from Bright Cooke.” /Transcript, Sunday, May 1, 1949, p. i , j

8, Ij-anaoript, May 22, 1S49, p. 1.

—

215 Our two world headaches are, of course, th® two centers of the cold war that X*m taking up on the Platform this week and next week, China in Asia, Berlin in Europe. And the connection between these two headaches is pretty obvious, these two areas are in a sense two doors into the house of Demo­ cracy. And it*§ no use holding shut to Communism the front door of S w o p e , with twenty billion dol­ lar padlocks, like the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the Atlantic Pact, if at the same time the back door, the Orient, falls right off its hinges at the first push of Communism- So, Miss Russell and gentlemen, all of you have been in the Par East, have lived there a great deal, l e t ’s see what we can find out about this, what w© can dp, if anything, to get a better American policy towards China.® Occasionally (in about on®-half of th® broadcasts analysed) Mr. Cooke presented a breakdown of the problem, with an outline of the pertinent issues: The Berlin blockade is over; Russia seems to be weakening on some of her other claims; the Greek Communists want a TJ* N. arbiter to settle the Greek mess, so, perhaps, gentlemen, w© might start focusing on what this all means. Is Russia withdrawing in Bur ope so she can switch her attention to the Far Bast? is she just chang­ ing her tactics to win more power in Europe, or, is her position so much weaker she has to back down? Mr. Phillips, have you a choice ?7 When the broadcast presented a debate (which occurred In about 50 per cent of the broadcasts during 1949) Mr* Cooke briefly outlined th© opposing points of views Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bloch, some people say busi­ ness should take care of a depression, other

5. Transcript, May 8, 1949, p. 1. 7. Transcript, May 15, 1949, p* 1.

216

people say*.••'Oh well, leave It to the govern­ ment* ' Mr. Simpson, that word, 'leave It to the government» ought to be a good Introduction to what you would do to avoid the depression .8 In his introduction of th© topic Mr. Cooke occasion­ ally included a definition of terms, as in the case of the broadcast on the topic, "Should the Administration's Farm Plan Be Adoptedt"

In his Introduction of this topic Mr.

Cooke stated i Well, gentlemen, we might try to skip both th© broad speeches and the complicated technicalities of this idea and get right down to th© meat and, for that matter to th© eggs and th© vegetables and th© milk of this new farm idea. Briefly, where It's completely different from anything we've been doing in this area is in the area of perishable crops - these meats and eggs and milks and vegetables. Instead of holding the price of eggs up to a certain level, the way th© present farm price support program works, th© idea is that these things we buy and need to eat in cities would fall to their regular demand and supply market price, whatever the farmer could get. But, whenever this market price to the farmer was too low to give him a fair profit, the De­ partment of Agriculture would pay the farmer cash to make up the difference *9 In a few of the broadcasts analysed Mr. Cooke limited the scope of th© problem in his Introduction of the topict ooke t Well, gentlemen, as we start this ©, I think there are two points that we can

S* transcript, June 10, 1049, pp. 1-2# t* Transcript, May 1, 1940, p. 1.

217 eliminate m m begin. First of all, as I under­ stand it, neither you* Mr. Hays, nor you, Mr. Levine, propose to outlaw the Communist Party as such, and so far as I know, both of you are ant 1 -Communist • Is that a fair. •. Jfe* L e v i n e s

that*a correct, certainly.

M r . Cooke: All right, then going on from there, this trial has raised a number of issues which in­ volve the constitutionality of the Smith Act, under which the men were convicted, freedom of speech in this country, and the connection between American Communists and a foreign power. So let's start, if you will, Mr. Levine, with the trial as such. Do you approve of it? 60 you think th® verdict was good and fair and wise for the Ameri­ can Government and for all of us?l° In on© of the programs analyzed, Me*. Cook© did not present background Information, but presented only a state­ ment of the problem, ”When you're trained and willing to work, does anybody owe you a j o M w^

Discussion by the

participants Immediately followed this question. Although the topic was formally presented by the studio announcer, as we have noted, Mr* Cooke usually re­ stated the problem Incidentally as he developed the back­ ground for the discussion.

In about one-fourth of the broad­

casts analyzed, the moderator emphasized the importance of the topic to the members of the radio audiences

^How, this

strike Is 0 0 sting both your sides millions of dollars, but &G« transcript, October 30, 1949, p. 1. 11. Transcript, August 28, 1949*

218

wt*pe

t o u t equally concerned in that It's going to ooat 12

all of us untold millions of dollars if it goes on.H

I82t** Cooke customarily made a very brief comment upon the qualifications of the panel members when he presented his transition from introductory remarks to group discussions Mr* Smith, ten years * t overnment o to keep

I *11 start with you. You have over experience as a Journalist and as a official* Is there anything we can the Chines© Communists from winning?^*

Am he turned from on© participant to another* posing leading questions to got the discussion on its way, the moderator customarily commented briefly upon th® qualifications of ©ash participant*

" M s s Russell* you spent something like

twenty-six years, I think, y o u ’ve been In most of the major eitles of China.

Do you think a billion dollars a year would 14 atop the Chinese Communists?" In about one-half of the broadcasts analyzed, Mr. Cooke made this transition by calling for a statement of the over-all point of view of the participant in relation to the problem being discussed* Mrs* Kingsbury, you flew down lat© last night from Montana, from your ranch out there, so y o u ’re Just barely in town* But y o u ’ve probably collected

l$r Transcript, October 16, 1949, p. 1* IS* Transcript, May 8, 1949, p. 2. 14* M p . eit.

219 your breath enough to know where you stand on the countryf» Fair Deal ?1 5 giving tja& Frogram Suitable* S t r u c t ^ ©

fhe Feople’s Platform broadcasts which were analysed contained the following major divisions* of the topic and the participants,

(1 ) an introduction

(2 ) group discussion, and

(9) a conclusion or rounding off of the discussion*

Since

the function of the moderator In introducing topics and par** tioip&nts and in concluding the program are described in separate sections of this chapter, our major concern in this section is with the structural aspects of the group discussion period* Mr* Cooke customarily started the group discussion by posing a provocative question directed toward a particu­ lar participant.? How much use would battleships and aircraft-car­ riers b© in a future war? Do we need a Marin© Gorp? And what about the huge B-36 bombers? Gould they break through air defenses, reach any city in Kussia and drop their atom banbs, if need be?*** Mr. Pratt and Mr. Combs, l e t ’s not rehash any of the backfenee squabbling that went on during some of the hearings. Let’s pick up where the big wheels left off. Mr. Pratt, what does the Navy really want ?16 19. transcript, June 12, 1949, p* 1* ,/The topic for discus sien was "President Truman’s Fair Deal Program.^/

Transcript, October 23, 1949, p. 1.

220 A# we have noted previously, about one-half of such transi­ tion questions dealt with an over-all approach to the problem* Within the group discussion part of the broadcast, ttr« Gook© introduced certain structural elements of the re-

fle e t ive thinking process.

17

During the thirty broadcasts

analysed he called the attention of the group to the neces­ sity for considering tho following elementsi

(1 ) definition

of terms employed in the statement of the problem,

(2 )

statement of goals of society as related to the problem,

(3)

analysis of the conditions and causal factors basic to the problem, (4) statement of the various proposals which should be considered,

(5) evaluation of a specific proposal

or proposition, and (6 ) comparison of two proposals or propositions which were most highly favored. The Introduction of these elements by Mr, Cooke followed no specific pattern; however, certain sequential arrangements occurred more frequently than others.

In 30

per cent of the broadcasts analysed he called for considera­ tion of a specific proposal and later called for statements of various other proposals which might bear consideration. In 20 per cent of the broadcasts he called for consideration m

m

*

_____________ ^..r_r -rrrrr_r.r

.f| n

m ur— -f -

JIIU

- -r ■

..n.„*__ ■H.flT

1

: I

~

1

T—

~r

j~~r

— ■ — t:

r-~i

nriw

17, For an explanation of the reflective thinking process as it is related to discussion see Appendix E.

- 221

Of ft specific proposal and mad© no specific effort to bring out other proposals.

In 13 per cent of the broadcasts he

called for various proposals and mad© no specific effort to concentrate the attention of the group upon any one solu­ tion to the problem.

In 10 per cent of the broadcasts he

called for analysis of the problem and later called for possible solutions* In each of the other broadcasts analyzed he called for on© of the following groupings of elements in the order here presented!

(1 ) definitions, evaluation of a specific

proposal, statement of goals, and evaluation of another proposal;

(2 ) analysis, evaluation of a specific proposal,

and statement of other possible solutions;

(5) analysis,

possible solutions, and comparison of two proposals favored by th© participants;

(4) definition of terms, ©valuation of

a specific proposal, and statements of other possible solu­ tions; (5) analysis, statement of possible solutions, and evaluation of a specific proposal;

(6 ) evaluation of a

specific proposal and comparison of two proposals favored by th© participants. It'should be pointed out that while the attention of th© group was centered for a time upon one structural element of the reflectiv© thinking process, there wore frequent references to other elements during that period, Th© sequential orders outlined above, however, were, for

222 fch&t part of ttys discussion indicated, given primary consideration* A clearer picture of Mr. C o o k e d method of calling attention to these elements may be obtained by consideration of the following representative examples.

He typically

called for analysis of the problems Suppose we start with the question of what w e ’re faced with* w h a t ’s the situation in China, and then each of you, in turn, can suggest what speci­ fically you would do about it. Mr. Smith, do you want to start ?18 When Mr. Cooke called for statements of possible solutions, he usually restated the problem a® viewed by the participants s Well now, let via, gentlemen, use our freedom to tell the truth to our superior, namely the Ameri­ can public, in terms of what you would propose to do. You agree that we are in a situation which, whether we anticipated it would come sooner or later or not, has come sooner than wo expected. This world has become a more serious place for us, the problems for us at home and abroad are much greater. Specifically, then what would you have us do next?3.9 Mr. Cook© typically called for ©valuation of a specific proposal in th© following manners Well, l e t ’s b© specific here now. L e t ’s take the outstanding thing which concerns this part of the country and maybe the outstanding thing as of 18. Transcript, May 8 , 1949, p. 5. 19, Transcript,

October 2, 1949, p. 8 ,

223 today which bores the urban part of th© country, th© farm plans of th© future and, most •specific­ ally, this Brannan Flan, which, I believe, Secre­ tary Brannan is going to give a very important . speech about right here in Dos Moines in a few hours. As a Republican, how do you feol about the Brannan Plan ?^8 The People’s Platform moderator clearly stated the two proposals to be considered when he called for a compari­ son of their relative values 5 usually the need for such di­ rect comparison grows out of th© discussion, as indicated in the following examples The division, as 1 hear it going on, is a division of degree between you. As I heard Mr, Keating say­ ing it, on, for instance, Federal aid to educations he wants the Federal Government to step in on a certain minimum amount of aid where i t ’s absolutely necessary, and Mr. Klein wants to go on from that point. He considers that is not sufficient ac­ tion by the Government for the general welfare of the people .21 On very infrequent occasions Mr, Cooke emphasized the importance of considering one of the above elementsj The question of whether or not B-36*s can deliver atom bombs and the question of whether or not strategic bombing and an atomic war would suc­ ceed is a certainty, not a detail, then?'0* At no time is he arbitrary or insistent if the members of the group do not wish to follow his suggestion. 20, Transcript, June 12, 1949, p. 3. 21, Transcript, Uovember 6 , 1949, pp. 6-7, 22, Transcript, October 23, 1949, p. 5.

224 Th© moderator presented an internal summary on an average of one© or twice during each broadcast.

These were

usually in connection with his introduction of on© of the above-named elements.

In these Internal summaries, Mr.

Cooke attempted to clarify areas of agreera©nt and disagreement: f r. Cooke:

Well, now, l e t ’s get more specific, in © r m s o f t h a generalities about which you hold such firm convictions, gentlemen. Mr, Hays, are you saying. In th© first place, that you would be against th© type of law proposed by Mr* Levine, having a law whereby if any party can be shown to be run from abroad that it Is Illegal? Mr.

Hays t Ho, I d o n ’t object to that at all.,.

Mr, Cooke aTo that eactent we have an agreement. How, Is "our disagreement in the area of how much of a treat to us today American Communists and American Communism is?2S In his internal suaanaries Mr. Cooke restated the opposing

lines of argument.

Later in the broadcast cited

above he

again attempted to locate areas of agreement and

disagreement, and summarized opposing arguments 2 M r . Cooke; Well, now, gentlemen, as this thing focuses down, the first thing y o u ’re disagreeing on and so strongly is a future threat of the American Communist Party. Mr, Levin© feels that it can go the way of Communist Parties in European countries, which meant the complete defeat and overthrow of democratic governments in those countries. You, Mr. Hays, feel that there is no real parallel between the Czechoslovak, for in­ stance, Communist Party and the American. On the other hand, Mr, Levin© is saying the danger from guns of American Communists in the long run

23, Transcript, Qctobex* 50, 1949, p, 5,

835 is so diuagerous w® cannot fight them with ideas, hut with force* And on the other hand, you*re saying, Mr. Hays, th© danger to ideas can never be from guns j that only by a free flew of other Ideas against the American Communist ideas can you really defeat them. Mr. Ha v e t That'© expressed better than have expressed it myself* Mr. Cookei

Then going on from here, gentlemen?

24

The modera t o r s internal summaries frequently attempted to focus attention upon the central issue or issues t |£r. Cookes It seems to me that without wanting in anyway to make a criticism here that you gentle­ men have been oircling around the central point that might come out via a statement I think both of you would agree with and then, from there on, I don't think you would be in such unanimity. Hamely, that of avoiding a depression or anything else, government should only do what people can­ not do for themselves otherwise. I think that would please you, Mr. Simpson. Mr.

Simpson: That is my fundamental idea.

Mr. Blochi I'd be with it. of governments*

That is the function

M r . Cooke: Well, now, you see that's where the confusion starts in these areas. You both agree wholeheartedly, but you certainly wouldn *t do th© same things and you don't agree what govern­ ment can only do. Mr.

Bloch: Thatfs right.

M r . Cooke t What's the chief thing you think government must and can only do, Mr, Bloch, as contrasted from Mr, Simpson here?^°

2

Ibid. . p, 9.

25, Transcript, June 19, 1949, pp. 9 -1 0 .

226 Frequently Mr. Cooke employed a simile in his in­ ternal summaries s As I was listening to you, I was searching for some kind of a simile which might bring out what seemed to b® the main difference between you and maybe this one would work. It's a beginning anyway. You see the American economy as a fairly heavy train that has to b© pulled up a hill at th® moment. Th© question is whether th© engine pulling it is enough to get It up over the hill or get it up to a higher plateau of prosperity again. Now, it seems to me thatMr* Roberts is saying - 'No, you've got to put on a second engine, called Government spending. With that extra pull (and It may not take a great deal more) you can get it up where it belongs and then you can unhitch the engine, * whereas it seems to me, Mr. Paries, that you are saying - 'if you would let the engine of private property, private initiative, private investment, if the Government would stop putting grease on the tracks in front of that engine and let it do its pulling job, you don't need to pull It another inch. Occasionally, about once In each of one-half of th© broadcasts, Mr. Cooke asked the participants to avoid digres­ sions by turning their attention back to th© central points in the discussion: Oorobs: 'Not even the carrier is clean. She Hoes hot'fall within the definite*, .her definition limits of true ship of the line. If battle fleets of carriers move farther and farther away from each other, all naval tactics are reduced to absurdity,' And th© 500-mile figure, I think, was studded in a sentence which appeared immediately before that. Perhaps It was hypothetical only... M r . Cooke : I wouldn't say, gentlemen, that you were 500 ~miles away from the center of this

26, Transcript, July 24, 1949, pp. 10-11*

337

discussion, but y o u ’re certainly steaming at full speed away from the center of it. Gould you r©g„ orient yourselves upon this single target here ?27 His maimer at this point was not dictatorial, but insistentj Y o u ’ll forgive me, gentlemen, if I pull this sub­ ject away from that favorite area of th© TaftBartley Act and com© back to what seems to me th© primary question both of you have raised here and taken different positions on, and that is whether or not it is necessary to take any kind of strong action by the Government today in terms of the present economic situation*2® Securing Logical Froceasea of Group Reflective Thinking

As we have seen in our consideration of Mr* Cooke’s method of giving the discussion period internal structure, th© People*s Platform moderator made a definite effort to direct the attention of the group toward certain fundamental processes of reflective thinking*

Apart from directing the

attention of th© group toward these fundamental processes, Mr, Cooke also made specific attempts to aid the process of reflective thought. In about two out of three of the broadcasts analy­ sed, Mr* Cooke called at least once during the broadcast for information concerning the problem under discussion, as followsi

"Gould a case where he was restrained in one of

these cities, could this case have been taken to the Supreme

£7* Transcript, October 25, 1949, p* 10, 28,- Transcript, July 24, 1949, p* 5.

238 Court because it was restrained?"

29

Such cases were not

bread suggestions that the problem should be analysed, but requests for specific Items of Information* In almost every broadcast, and usually three or four times during its progress, Mr. Cook© called the atten­ tion of th© group to an issue Involved in the problem. These contributions were not argumentative! they merely called for th© consideration by th© groups Let me ask you to focus on this. I t ’s related to th© Spanish problem, whether i t ’s the center of it or not. We ar© in a democracy, we believe In certain standards of democracy, political democracy especially. Then the question for any honest and sincere American Is to what ex­ tent he should interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. How, I ’m putting that sharply interfere in this sense, if I as an American do not like th© kind of government Tito has or Peron has or France has, then should I make it my busi­ ness to try to overthrow that government or re­ fuse to help It? Or should X say, as long as I t ’s another government, In another place, and as long as It i s n ’t waging war against me, it Is not my concern as a true believer In democracy ?00 In about one-fifth of the broadcasts analyzed Mr. Cook© requested information concerning th© causes of the problem; Mr, Smith; ...I think the reason for that defeat Tof China) is not so much political, in addition to military, as economic, in addition to military. 29, Transcript, June 5, 1949, p, 4* 30, Transcript, Hovember 15, 1949, p. 11,

229 Jfe* Quite fc* Mr, Smiths agreement•

I include that, Mr, Smith, You do?

Well, then w e ’re In entire

M r , Cooke t Well, I d o n ’t knew whether you are or hot. There are three nioe big words the r © ; military, political, and economic. What Is the reason for the defeat of th© Chiang Kai-ahek regime?51 Such requests as we are considering here were incidental to th® discussion and were not broad suggestions for analysis of the problem which were treated in the previous section of this chapter. In approximately one-half of the broadcasts Mr. Cooke made a definite attempt to have the participants con­ sider more than one proposal for solving the problem.

tJsu-

ally he attempted to get each participant to present the plan he (the participant) favored t Well now, Senator Pepper, you, in favor of this Thomas Bill, have one specific way of aiding in this equalization of education all over the country. Dr. Miles, I know y o u ’re in favor of positives, rather than negatives. Positively, what would you propose instead of this?52 Mr. Cooke presented a proposal for group considera­ tion in about one-half of the broadcasts.

A typical example

is as follows: There’s another side of tills whole Cold War pic­ ture, Russia and the United States, if you’re 31. Transcript, May 8, 1949, p. 3. 32, Transcript, May 2, 1949, p. 10.

230 b a l i n g In power politic®, (as w© do a good deal of th® time.) By staying in a tough policy, by creating the airlift In Berlin, by all the pres­ sures we brought against Russia, at least Mr* Phillips and Mr# L e m e r agree that w e ’ve achieved Bom© kind of a victory# $o that extent do w© have th© Russian® on the run? A good many Americans might argue when y o u ’re winning is no time to negotiate; wait until y o u ’ve really won. Why not put In more pressures? Why not continue more blockades?33 At no time did he attempt to sponsor such propositions*

His

attitude toward these contributions Is Illustrated by the following excerpt? Mr* Collins ? Well, Mr* Ward, the California legislature agreed with the point of view of Mr# Cooke and they.** Mr* Cooke t Oh, I ’m sorry, I have to cut right In there Mr* Collins? I hadn’t a point of view* That was a question, seeking for information. You, gentlemen, show th© points of vlew#5^ Mr* Cooko frequently called for argumentative sup­ port for propositions advanced or implied, as In the following example: Mr* Mather, w hy do you believe that a Jugoslavian Communism under Mr# Tito Is going to do less dictatorial, less of a dictatorship, loss of the Russian brand and, therefore, more desirable?35 Infrequently the People’s Platform moderator called for 53# Transcript, May 15, 1949, p. 12. 34# Transcript, June 26, 1949, p. 8# 55, Transcript, September 18, 1949, p# 14*

231 evidence in Support of an argument presented by a participant 5 M r # French I true. Mr* Cooker

••♦The record shows that this Is not How does it show that, Mr. French ?36

Once or twice in each of about one*.half of the broadcasts Mr. Cooke called th© attention of the group to a possible argument concerning a proposition under considera­ tion.

He did not attempt to argue the point, but presented

it for consideration in the following way? M r . Cooke ; What do you want to do Instead of the Bonn Constitution, then, Mr. Stout? f E* Stouts

I want to let the Germans decide. I o n ’t want to Impose a Bonn Canstltution or any form of democracy on them. Let th© day come when the Germans will take democracy because they want it, not because t h e y ’re coerced into It. Mr. Cook© : Fair enough, t h e m Suppose tomorrow you let the Germans decide and they decided on a dictatorship?37 Upon very infrequent occasions th© moderator called

attention to a fallacy in an argument advanced or implied by th© participants.

In such cases his manner was kindly

and somewhat detached; never was It satirical or personal; Mr. Pratts .*.*1 d o n ’t know what the war plan Is, but th© allocation of th© parts in that war plan is, it seems to me, clearly a matter for the Secretary of Defense,.. 36. Transcript, June 1, 1949, p, 2. 37, Transcript, May 29,, 1949, p. 5,

233 M r * Combs i

Where th e r e ’s disagreement or conflict?

m > ie&sii

Where there *s disagreement or conflict.

Ufa1* Cooke; Well, then, w h a t *3 all the shooting about, Mr. Pratt? If that be true, there*s an obvious disagreement and conflict and I t ’s up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to settle it. Why is it being aired in front of a Congress committee?58 As we have noted previously, Mr. Cook® placed con­ siderable emphasis on the group aspect of the reflective thinking process In his broadcasts.

Upon this point Mr.

Cooke has stated that he believes this function is a very important part of the role of leadership in radio 39 discussion. In almost every broadcast, and approximately two or three

times during the program,

Mr, Cooke asked partici­

pants to state whether or not they

agreed or disagreed con­

cerning an argumentative point.

Frequently he clarified

the amount of agreement and located th© points of disagree­ ment in the following manners Mr. Cookes Well now, l e t ’s see how far there’s agreement around the table on this. In terms of getting a job, do you all, except Mr, McDaniel, say that, first of all, you should try to do it via a cooperative operation with employers? I have this to offer, my sweat and my brains, and the employer should bo able to pay me so much for doing it. That, you want to happen, if It will? Right? 38. Transcript, October 23, 1949, pp. 11-12. 39. Dwight Cooke, interview between author and, November 25, 1949.

233 g&- Desmondi

That

correct.

& • Ssska= . Then step two.•.How, Mias Rogers says, and although that system is not working well enough today, still If public opinion would get up off what I described before as its overstuffed laurels and get to work in here that it could force all sections of our economy--labor, busi­ ness, and everything else--to get down to work a little better and supply more jobs and think less selfishly of all of us as a group. Am I mis-stating you? I2BS2S.S

Ho, you*re not,

Mr. Cooke t Again, do I get an agreement from two of you on that? Mr.

Homer: That*s right.

MT.

Cooke: Do you agree, Mr. Desmond?

Mr. Deamondi Public opinion cannot force such an agreement... Mr. Cooket Well, then it»s fair enough to let you develop your point a little more.How then create that consumer demand, a big way of saying people want to buy goods, so that there are jobs for you to make the goods?40

do you

Securing Clarity of Terminology and Ideas On an average of four or five tines during a broad­ cast, and in all but two of the broadcasts analyzed, Mr. Cooke requested explanations or illustrations of terms or ideas presented by participants.

His requests were typically

courteous t

40# Transcript, August SB, 1949, pp. 7-8,

234

M r . Case: Well, Mr, Cook©, there’s no difference in objections, so far as I know, between sincere people on trying to establish a proper relation­ ship between the producer of food and the con­ sumer of food*

ML* Cooke s

Is it fair to ask you what 11prop©rn

means?41 Almost as frequently Mr. Cooke presented information which Clarified or illustrated an Idea presented: You’re referring to Mr* Ford's suggestion that the wage scale for the CIO Auto Workers in all his plants be frozen at its present level and nobody ask for more from th© labor side and nobody try to givo them less from the management side* Mr* Bl o c h t' That is c o r r e c t . ^ Frequently Mr* Cooke clarified terminology employed by the participants: Well, translating that, then, into simple and non-cconomic terms, Mr. Bloch, you're not too worried about a depression breathing down th© back of our necks right n o w , 45 On an average of six or seven times during each broadcast Mr, Cooke asked a participant to clarify an argu­ ment advanced: Mr. French, do you feel that the industry is say­ ing "no” to th© fact-finding board's being a relatively fair measure of how to settle the

41* Transcript, May 1, 1949, p. 5. 42. Transcript, June 19, 1949, p. 7, 45, Transcript, Juno, 1949, p, 4,

235 atrik©? Is th© argument, in other words, over what th© fact-finding board put down? Ar© you saying whatever they say, that is now what we want to go along with? I'm trying to narrow at least In a small way the area of disagreement her© As noted In th© above example, Mr* Cooke's objective was to locate areas of agreement and disagreement.

Almost as fre­

quently as he called for clarification of an argument, Mr* Cooke attempted to clarify the arguments advanced and to show their relationship to the topic, as in the following case: M r . Cooket That means, Mr. Fertig, you're coming back to your original point, your conviction of a labor monopoly, because the injunction was an idea... Mr. Fertigs

For the public protection.

Mr. Cooke t But In terms principally of nation­ wide strikes or even industrywide strikes?

AC i£* H M t r t W s

That's correct*

Mr. Cooke made more contributions to the program designed to elicit clarity of ideas and terminology than for any other purpose.

His most frequent comments were:

"How?" and "Such as?"

44, Transcript, October 16, 1949, p. 7. 46, Transcript, September 4, 1949, p. 13.

236 Maintaining Interest of the Radio Audience

Humor was used by the People*a Platform moderator one# or twice in each of the broadcasts analyzed. use was made of similes and metaphors* is a representative ones

Frequent

The following example

"You ar© attempting again to im­

pale Senator Pepper upon one of these two horns*

He in­

sists h e ’s sitting very comfortably on the head of tbs -46 steer*”

Occasionally Mr. Cooke employed humor to relax

a tens© situation: Mr* Cooke: so far.

Mr. Stout has been quiet about this

M r . Stout;

Yeah, partly because I fm so mad.

M r . Cooke: That’s a rare thing to have happen on the" Platform, M r , Stout; quietness and madness don’t go together a 3 a r u l e . ^ At no time was Mr. Cooke’s humor boisterous or sarcastic. Mr* Cook© often used figures of speech which are not ©specially humorous, but designed to maintain audience interest through word-images: this subject*

"That’s the trouble with

It so quickly gets down to:

Would you rather 48 have your.**throat cut from the front or th© baek?" 46. Transcript, May 5, 1949, p. 12. 47. Transcript, May 29, 1949, p. 11* 48. Transcript, Mb.y 8 , 1949, p, 13.

237 Securing: TSffeotjvs Participation

Mr. Cooke made a definite effort to secure ef*» feptive participation on the part of the program’s guests. He frequently designated which person should speak next during the broadcast, although members were not required to receive formal recognition before making each contribution. He occasionally requested that they speak one at a tiroes hNow, gentlemen, l e t ’s talk one at a time, please, v/ithout

interrupting each other until, at least, we get to a comma*"4^ Mr. Cooke did not make an issue of gaining a friendly feeling of relaxation at the discussion table, but he occasionally requested a more cooperative attitudes I expect you to speak out forcible, but that, I expect you to speak out clearly at a time as you discuss things in this where your convictions aro running very

not only and on© strike high .50

Such requests were made only when Mr. Cook apparently felt they were necessary, not as a routine approach on the part of the moderator* Th© Platform moderator attempted to divide th© available time among th© participants as evenly as pos­ sible without constricting the development of ideas, as was indicated to the radio audience on the following occasion?

49, Transcript, May 29, 1949, p. 14, 50* Transcript, October 16, 1949, p* 2*

238 Mr* l & v l m : Mr*. Hays will have to give me a little bit more time, just In order to match his eloquence.., M r * Cooke: Just a minute, Mr, Levin©, just a mo­ m e n t * Y o u may go on. X am attempting to allocate the time fairly evenly between you; even the audience cannot see my signals, I am watching a watch* How, go ahead I°1 Mr. Cooke’s problem of obtaining effective parti­ cipation was ordinarily that of restricting an over-talka­ tive or exuberant member.

Infrequently, however, he found

it necessary to encourage a non-talkative persons Mr* Cooke:

Is the fact altogether bad?

Mr* Russell;

I w o u l d n ’t say so, no.

M r . Cookes I think you might say three more go words* Don *t stop at that point, Miss Russell* About once In each of approximately on©-third of the broadcasts Mr* Cooke complimented a member on an effec­ tive contribution? I think a useful service has been performed by hauling these fears out on the table and facing them frankly rather than leaving them concealed behind the subject .55 Closing the Piscussion Program

Mr* Cooke’s conclusions were very brief. 01* Transcript, October 50, 1949, p. 8 . 58, Transcript, May 8 , 1949, p. 2.

55*, Transcript, November 6, 1949, p. 16.

H©

239

m m l l 7 reserved enough time to present a short summarizing Statement, such as the following examples It seems to me, Congressman Klein and Congressman Keating, that y o u ’ve given us on© of th© most dif­ ficult problems for American citizens to solve because fundamentally y o u ’ve not given us a choice of green versus blue, but a question of degree, the extent to which we would do one thing, where it goes out of balance, and where it becomes dangerous, and In this discussion today I would think this were | preview of the 1950 con­ gressional elections * ^ Mr* Cook© seldom stated agreements reached In his final summary| such statements occurred in only three of the thirty broadcasts analyzed.

In one broadcast h© stated:

The People’s Platform is never intended to give you a final answer on any question, but you cer­ tainly have in the old French phrase, give us to think this morning* Thank you for being with me on the Platform* His final emphasis was usually placed upon the need for the listening audience to give further consideration to the prob­ lem and the arguments presented; Well, now, gentlemen, y o u ’ve certainly under­ lined one point. In terms of sincere and strong conviction, you are bringing out a fact, I think, as a safe prediction for the future, that anyone who thinks labor and business as two great groups are going to be able to sit down and go ringaround-the-rosy Is crazy. The depth and the division between th© two sides has been firmly again introduced today. There are a great many 54. Transcript, TTovomber 6 , 1949, p. 16. 55, Transcript,

October 9, 1949, p, 17,

unsolved problems for everybody to consider be­ fore we can have ^ny true and long-range labormanagement peace.0® Without presenting the names of the participants, which is done by the studio announcer after the final state­ ment by Mr. Cooke, the moderator briefly thanked th® parti­ cipants for participating in the People’s platform. In five of th© thirty broadcasts analyzed, Mr. Cook® concluded with a brief description of the general problem to be presented by th© next broadcast.

The follow­

ing example is representative of these statements; Hext week on the People’s Platform, I think w e *11 turn back to the foreign affairs. The Council of Foreign Ministers will be meeting Monday. By next Sunday there ought to be some very Important things to all of us about the future of Germany, and I will discuss them here on the People’s Plat­ form .57 Summary

In the thirty broadcasts analyzed for this study th© moderator of th© People’s Platform customarily opened th© program with a challenging statement or question which was related to the topic for discussion.

This was followed

by an Informal statement of the topic itself. 56. Transcript, September 4, 1949, p. 15. 57. Transcript, May 22, 1949, p. 15.

Mr. Cook© then presented background information tttiich ordinarily consisted of a brief description of events leading up to th© current problem or an analysis of the current political, social or economic scene which was re­ lated to the topic.

Occasionally the moderator presented a

brief analysis of the problem or an outline of the pertinent issues.

When the broadcast presented a debate, Mr* Cooke

outlined the opposing points of view.

Occasionally he d e ­

fined terms and infrequently narrowed the scope of th© problem.

Upon a few occasions, the moderator emphasized

the importance of the problem. Although th© participants were formally intro­ duced by the studio announcer in the first few minutes of the broadcast, Mr, Cooke usually commented briefly upon the qualifications of the panel members when he made his tran­ sition from Introductory remarks to group discussion.

In

this transition he posed leading questions which occasionally called for a statement of the over-all point of view of the participant. The People’s Platform broadcasts analyzed contained the following major divisions j and participants,

(1 ) introduction of the topic

(2 ) group discussion, and (5) conclusion.

Within the group discussion part of the broadcast, Mr. Cooke introduced certain structural elements of the reflective

242 thinking process*

Th© introduction of th.es© elements fol­

lowed no specific pattern*

In a large share of th© broad­

casts , however* Mr* Cooke called for (in this order) analy­ sis of the problem, consideration of specific proposals and Statements of other proposals which might bear considera­ tion,

The moderator presented an internal summary one© or

twice during each broadcast.

These summaries nearly always

Included a definite attempt to clarify areas of agreement and disagreement; they occasionally restated the opposing lines of argument and frequently focused attention upon the central issue or issues*

Occasionally Mr. Cooke asked the

participants to avoid digressions. The People»s Platform moderator made a definite effort to aid th© process of group reflective thinking. H© frequently called for information concerning th© problem under discussion and called attention to issues involved in the problem*

Occasionally he requested information

concerning th© causes of the problem.

In about one-half

of the broadcasts Mr* Cooke encouraged th© participants to consider more than one alleged solution by calling for statements of various proposals and presenting proposals for group consideration.

He frequently called for

argumentative support for propositions advanced or implied by these participants, and occasionally called the attention

243

Cf tba group to possible arguments in support of a proposi­ ti an under consideration*

Infrequently he called for evi­

dence in support of arguments advanced* and upon rare occasions he called attention to fallacious arguments* Mr* Cooke mad© a definite attempt to secure clar­ ity Of terminology or ideas.

Ho very frequently requested

clarification or illustrations of ideas presented by the participants, and he frequently presented information which accomplished this purpose.

Almost as frequently he requested

clarification of arguments presented, and he often assisted in the clarification of such arguments* Humor which Is designed to maintain the interest of the radio audience was employed by the moderator once or twice in each broadcast* and metaphors;

Frequent us© was made of similes

such word images were also apparently use­

ful in maintaining interest. The moderator made a definite attempt to secure effective participation.

He frequently designated which

person should speak next during the broadcast and occasionally requested that one person spoak at a time.

He attempted to

divide the available time as evonly as possible among the participants without constricting the development of ideas. He occasionally requested a cooperative attitude and in­ frequently encouraged a non-talkatlve participant* MT* Cooke closed the discussion program with a

summarizing statement.

He usually emphasized the need for

the listening audience to give further consideration to the problem, and infrequently described the problem to be pre­ sented on the next broadcast •

245 Part Threei Chapter XV THE FUNCTION OF THE MODERATOR-PARTIClPANT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ROUND TABLE DURING THE BROADCASTS The purpose of this chapter is to describe the activities of Round Table moderator-participants while the program Is on the air.

Although only one or two references

ware made to the moderator-participants as chairmen of the group during the broadcasts of 1949, It is customary at the University of Chicago Radio Office to call these moderatorparticipants nchairmen *11 Introducing Topics and Participants

In four-fifths of the Round Table broadcasts dur­ ing 1949 the moderator-participants gave an introductory statement presenting background information on the topic. In the other ten or twelve broadcasts the chairmen did not do so.

Over half of the chairmen stated the topic for dis­

cussion incidentally as they developed the background for discussion.

In twenty broadcasts the chairmen stated the

topic before presenting background information, A few of these statements presented a brief analy­ sis of the current political, social, or economic scene as related to the topic: Chairman Gottachalks

The Truman Administration

^ 246

had asked Congress to appropriate one billion, four hundred and fifty million dollars for military aid .to the signers of the North At­ lantic Pact, Greece and Turkey, The opposi­ tion to the request Is expected to be stubborn. Today we propose to discuss the pros and cons of this issue *1 A larger number of these statements gave a brief description of events leading up to the problem to be discussed j Chairman Talbot i In the violent age In which we live» probably no act of violence has produced a more profound shook than the assassination, ' eighteen months ago, of Mahatma Gandhi--the apostle of love and non-violence* The world paused, and newly independent India awoke in cold horror to a realization of how far it had drifted from his ideals. How that two years have passed since India became independent and a year and a half since Gandhi was killed, which road has India Itself chosen to follow— the Gsndhian one, or another one? This great country has more people under a single government than are found today anywhere else in the world. Its early prob­ lems have been very, very large. Food is short % inflation Is severe? military expenses ©at up nearly half the central government*s budget* At the same time the leaders of India have es­ tablished high ideals and made great strides to­ ward national stability and a place of leadership in Asia, Where does India stand today--India after Gandhi ?2 The length of the statements of background Information usually ranged between that of the two examples given above. In about one-third of the 1949 broadcasts the 1, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round, Table, Ho. 587, June 197^1949,' p* 1. %* Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table, Ho, 588, June 26, 19?^, p. 1,

2#7

Chairmen limited the scope of the topic in their Introduc­ tions , as in the following cases d h a i m y Sharps And we are not going to argue about dollars and cents of profit because we will get into *12 per cent in 1949,* *4 per cent, 1939* * and so on. We will get into all sorts of difficulties if w© try to dispute the statistics, will we not?* The chairman indicated issues to be discussed in their introductory statements in about one-fourth of the 1949 broadcasts: Chairman Johnson: People are disturbed over the condition of liberty in America today. People on both sides of the meaning of the word *liberty* are worried over what is happening today. Many people are disturbed because Alger Hiss was not acquitted this past week. Many people feel that liberty is endangered because Mr. Hiss was not found guilty. Many feel that the loyalty inves­ tigations, the teachers* oath laws, and the cur­ rent trials are a menace to liberty. Many be­ lieve that the opposition to these measures re­ veals an unawareness of the dangers facing America. But even these measures, they believe, are not sufficient. Senator Mundt, are you alarmed or confident about the condition of American liberty today ?4 Although the studio announcer presented the topic for discussion (as well as the names of the participants) at the beginning of the broadcasts, the moderator-participanta usually made short references to the qualifications of the panel members.

Often these references were made as

3* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table9 Ho* 599, September 11, 1949, pp. 6-7. 4* Transcript, Th© University of Chicago Round Table * Ho* 890, July 10, 1§4§, p. 1.

248 fcbs chairman turned to each participant with a question de-

signed to start the group discussions Chairman. Williams t ,*#Kaplan, you have written a book called Small Businesss Its Place and Its Problems. and I suppose you know™*as much about small business as anyone In America can know* How is small business doing? Mr* Kaplan;

**• (answer*)

Chairman Williams: McCoy, you talk to a lot of small businessmen, I suppose that as the director of the Office of Domestic Commerce you must be face to faoe with hundreds of them all the time. What do you think, from your talking with these people? Is this the golden age, as Kaplan says, or are these signs on the ..horizon that small business is going to pot? As we have noted In another chapter, the Univer­ sity of Chicago Round Table occasionally presents a program which is designed to present Information rather than the consideration of a problem*

In such broadcasts during 1949

the chairman stated the topic upon which the report was to be given: Chairman Kenyon: We plan to tell some thing of the story of an extraordinary event In medical research, ACTH and cortisone relieve the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis* This was unforeseen* We have moved into a new world In research and in practice*® In these broadcasts the emphasis was placed upon the meaning

5* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Tablea No* 594, August 7, 1949, pp* 1-2, 6* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, No, 611, December 4," X'949, p. 1*

•

249

or significance of the Information presented and a discussion

developed conoeming the question: of this information? cited above*

What is the Importance

Such was the case in the broadcast

In such programs this objective is not simply

implied but is usually specifically pointed out by the moderator In his introduction, as was don© by Professor Wirth in the following examples Chairman W l r t h : *»*What does this new government, If ii is forined, mean for Prance, for Europe, and for the world? W© are looking today at Prance not merely because we are interested in Prance but for what it means as a symbol of Europe and of the ©merging new world*.*7 Round Table chairmen occasionally stated the im­ portance of the topic as related to the current economic, social, or political scene*

Such statements presumably

served to make the topic more significant to the radio audience*

These statements occurred In about one-fifth of

the 1949 broadcasts*

The example which follows is repre­

sentative of such statements s Chairman Qgburn: ***Bufc to what kind of standard of living can Americans look forward? Now, this is a really important question* If we do not have the resources and possibilities for a great Im­ provement In the American standard of iiving, we cannot reasonably blame any political party, or business leadership, or government policy for failure to achieve higher living standards* But

7# Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table * No* 604, October 16", i'94§'/ p * 1 *

250

■ ^

if great economic progress is still possible, If careful examination shows much greater prosperity can be achieve^* then we can all have a yardstick and an idea of a goal to use in measuring our suc­ cess or failureQin creating an abundant life for every American *8 During 1949

the Chicago Round Table presented

one

Connected series of broadcasts on the topic, "How’s Business?”® 1/hile this series was in progress the chairmen typically sum­

marized preceding broadcasts; Chairman Blough; Last week the Round Table discus­ sion of business prospects reached agreement on three basic facts on the present slump in business 5 First, we are in a business recession. Unemploy­ ment has doubled in six months and Is now about four million* Manufacturing and mining production are down 15 per cent. Wholesale prices are down 7 per Gent; and the cost of living is down 5 per cent. Secondly, last w e e k ’s participants agreed that, despite these declines in prices and pro­ duction, business activity and employment are very high. Fifty-nine million Americans have jobs. Feraonal income is about the same as a year ago at this time; and retail sales are only slightly off* Third, last w e e k ’s participants agreed that we are not in a depression and that it is practic­ ally impossible to have, in the rext year or two, a collapse of the 1929-52 variety.1° Giving the Frggrag Suitable Structure

The 1949 Chicago Round Table broadcasts were usually 8 , Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, No. 608, November 13, 1 9 4 9 , p . l 7

9* July 24, to August 21, inclusive. 1Q« Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table. No. 593, July 31, 1949, p T X

251 f$v©n th& following structural elements by the chairmens (1 ) an Introduction to the topic and the participants,

(2 )

group discussion, and (3 ) (in most of the broadcasts) a con­ clusion*

Sine© the moderator-participant’s role pertaining

to introductions and conclusions are described in other sec­ tions of this chapter, our main concern at this point Is with the structural elements during the period of group discussion® It should be made clear, however, that not all of the 1949 Round Table broadcasts presented a group discussion. Two b r o a d c a s t s ^ during 1949 presented a series of two or three prepared speeches, which averaged seven to ten minutes in length.

In such cases the chairmen Introduced each speaker

and made transitions between speakers*

The following intro­

duction is representative: Chairman Talbot s Thank you, Your Lxcellency* Tour words reflect the great traditions of India and the way in which her leaders look on thair present circumstances and their great hope for the future. Now we are to hear from an American who has followed the growth of independent India with close and perceptive attention* Mr. Shoean was standing on the lawn at BIrla House, in New Delhi, at the moment that the assassin killed Gandhi* He returned to India last winter for further travel and study* Next month Mr. Shoean will publish a volume on Gandhi and India, Lead Kindly Light* To present Mr* Sheean we take you to Springfield, Massachusetts*1^

11* June 86, and December 4, 1949* 12* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table* No* 588, June 26, 1949, p* 5*

252

Two broadcasts

IS

presented two or three short

{thro© to five minute) speeches followed by panel discussion* 14 and two broadcasts*^ presented panel discussion followed by a short speech*

Such speakers were usually presented by

remote pick-up, which was announced by the chairmen.

In

each case the chairman introduced the speakers and made transitions between speakers, which usually included an internal summary* Such broadcasts were usually presented In connec­ tion with scan© special events,

(e.g., Gandhi’s death, Baster,

or Christmas) and did not follow the customary pattern, of Round Table broadcasts* In the usual Round Table program the chairman customarily made a transition from his introductory state­ ments to group discussion by presenting questions to one and then to the other of the panel members; Cbalrman Johnson: ... Senator Mundt, are you alarmed or confident about the condition of American liberty today? Senator Mundt;

(answer*)..*

Chairman Johnson: Senator Kefauver, are you alarmed or confident about the condition of IS. September 11, and December 11, 1949.

14. April 17, and December 25, 1949.

253 American liberty today?

15

In about one-third of the broadcasts during 1949, theft© transition questions called for analysis of the prob­ lem designated in the topic and developed by the chairman’® Introductory remarks.

An example is as follows?

Chairman Johnson; Hoover, you have had considerable experience working with the Economic Coopera­ tion Administrati on as well as other important government posts related to It. How does the crisis appear to you ?!0 In about one-fourth of the broadcasts the transi­ tion questions called for consideration of a proposal de­ scribed in the chairman’s introduction? Chairman Bavi&hurst; ...At the University of Chi­ cago we have been studying older people, trying to find out what makes some of them happy and some of them unhappy...W© find four things to b© most productive of happiness* * .What do you think of this prescription for a happy old age, Doctor ?*1 In about one-fifth of the broadcasts the transition questions of the chairmen called for definitions of terms basic to the discussion: Chairman He n r y : The meetings of the American Orthopsychiatric Association, this next week here 15* Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table. Ho. 590, July 1 0 , 1949, p, 1 , 10. Transcript, The University of Chicago Round T able, Ho. 595, August 14, 19197 p V T . /Tlie topic was, "World Trade and the British Crisis*2/

17. Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table., Ho. 697, Hovember 6, 1$49, p. 1,

254 In Chicago, are focusing attention on the prob­ lems of childhood and adolescence# Today*s dis­ cussion is devoted to the problem of the adolescent* Miss Ross, would you give us a definition of adolescence ?*® 1® a few broadcasts the transition questions of the chairmen

Called for statements of proposals to solve a problem de­ scribed in his introductions Chairman L a c h i What should we do about China1? What attitude should the United States assume toward China which is rapidly being taken over by Communists?19 Within the group discussion part of the broadcasts, the chairmen occasionally introduced certain elements of the reflective thinking process

The group outline, which we

have described in a previous c h a p t e r , ^ served as a guide for the progress of the discussion#

22

Occasionally on© of

the structural elements of the reflective thinking process was introduced by one of the other participants.

Over two-

thirds of them, however, were introduced by the chairmen. 18* Transcript. The University of Chicago Round Table, Ho. 576, April 5, itiWj p7 1. ~ 19* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Tab l e 9 Ho. 589, July 5, 19497~p. 1 . 20* For an explanation of the reflective thinking process as it is related to discussion, see Appendix U, 21* Part Twos Chapter III* 82. George IS* Probst, interview between author and, August 9, 1948. This practice was followed on the broadcasts ob­ served by the author on August 8 , 15, and 29, 1948*

255 The broadcasts of 1949 contained the following structural elements of the reflective thinking process t (1 ) definition of terms employed in the statement of the problem# (2 ) analysis of the conditions or causal faotors basic to the problem#

(3) evaluation of a specific proposal

or proposition, and (4) comparison of two proposals or propositions* The sequence in which these elements were intro­ duced followed no specific pattern*

Twenty-five sequential

combinations were employed during the Round Table broadcasts Of 1949. The following five sequential orders appeared more often than once or twice.

In eight broadcasts during

1949 the sequential order was analysis of the problem followed by consideration of possible solutions.

In seven broadcasts

the problem w a 3 stated b y the chairman and the group discus­ sion period considered various proposals.

In five broadcasts

the sequential order was analysis of the problem followed by evaluation of a specific proposition.

In four broadcasts the

evaluation of a specific proposition occupied the entire dis­ cussion period..

In three broadcasts the entire discussion-

period was given to the analysis of a problem. It should be pointed out that while the attention of the group was centered for a time upon one structural

256

of th® reflective thinking process , there were fre­ quent references to the other elements during that period* fh© structural elements outlined above, however, wore, for that part of the discussion indicated, given primary consideration, A clearer picture of the emphasis given by the chairmen to these structural elements may be obtained by consideration of the following representative examples.

A typical example was furnished by Chairman Simpson when he called attention to the need for definitions as follows: *V. .But we are talking about an experiment without even defining it.

Abrams, how would you define the welfare state?”

Chairmen called for analysis of the problem in the following manner: Chairman Shultz: You have just in a few words, Senator Aiken, tried to tell us a little about the Agricultural Act of 1948j and the Secretary has also very briefly said a few words about this new proposal. Now, in a few minutes* discussion, it seems to me, we have to got a little deeper into both of these. But, for the moment, I would like to ask, Senator Aiken, why in the deuce does the government have to be concerned about farm prices ?24 The following quotation is an example of a chairman calling 23* Transcript, The Univer 3 ity of Chicago Bound Table. No* 597, August 28,

24, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, No* 584, May 29, 1949, p. 4*

23

257 f m statements of possible solutions to a problem; MW© Should, I think now turn to a discussion of remedies for the PR British ©risis*1*

A typical example of a chairman focusing

the attention of the group upon a specific proposal is as followss (Thairman Shultz; X presume that both of you see a larger number of limitations to what cam© up as agricultural policy as w© came out of this postwar period* Now, in an attempt to correct some of these shortcomings and overcome them, you say, came the Agricultural Act of 1948. Senator Aidken:

That is right.

Chairman Shultz g What is really basic and im~ port ant ab out that ? Let us stop on that for a moment .26 Frequently the chairman's introduction to one of these structural elements was accompanied by a very brief in­ ternal summary; Chairman Gotta chalk; As I understand you, gentlemen, then, you think that, though there are risks involved, the program on the whole presents a d ­ vantages which we cannot overlook* Let m© raise, however, another point ..,217 Such internal summaries occurred at least once in each of three-fourths of the broadcasts during 1949. 25, Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table, No, 595, August 14, 1949, p. S. 25. Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table» No. 584, May 20, 1949, p 7 1 H

27, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table* No. 587, June 19, 19497 p.“157"

258

On a very few occasions,

(in five broadcasts dur­

ing 1049) the chairman asked the participants to avoid di­ gressions by turning their attention back to the sub-topic indicated In the group outline.

A typical example is as

follows s Chairman Sharps What w© are c oncer nod with im­ mediately is some of the issues which the Board has been discussing. Suppose we get back to them for a moment .28 One of the responsibilities of th© Round Table chairman was to note the amount of time given during the broad­ cast to each subdivision of th© group outline .22

How that

time was to be apportioned was a group decision made prior to the broadcast time; cnce the decision was made, however, the chairman was relied upon to keep the group within th© •atr\

determined limits.

Ordinarily th© chairman moved along

to th© next structural element without reference to times Chairman Blough: Let us leave this local regional sit ua 11 Gn~~t o dis c us a another proposal which has been made recently. What about the proposal that the thing to do in a case like this is to have another round of wage increases? 28. Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table, Ho. 599, September 1 1 , 194'$, p. 7. 29. George E. Probst, interview between author and, August 9, 1948. 50* Th© amount of time to be allotted to each subdivision is noted on the chairman's outline. For a reproduction of a sample chairman’s outline see Appendix T), 31, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, Ho, 593, July 31, 1949, p, 1$,

259 Occasionally the chairman Indicated that the time limitations required the consideration of the next division of th© outline: Chairman $ironson; 1 would like to expos© th© background to th© Soviet-Jugoslav break further, but we obviously do not have time. Let us raise this Interesting question: ,

g e g w ^ g teSlSSi

o£ ji£ggg> H e f ^ c t i v e

We have noted how the Round Table chairmen intro­ duced structural elements into the discussion which are basic divisions of the reflective thinking process . ^

Apart from

these efforts to introduce these structural elements, th© chairmen occasionally attempted to assist th© process of reflective thought. In almost every broadcast analysed the chairmen requested specific items of information concerning the problems Chalrman Levi g Possibly the first question which we should try to answer in this discussion on monopoly is It increasing In this country. De Chazeau, is monopoly increasing?^ In more than one-half of th© broadcasts the 58* Transcript. The University of Chicago Round Table, No. 610, November 2 T949, pp. £-6 • 33. For an explanation of the reflective thinking process as It Is related to discussion see Appendix E. 34. Transcript, Th© University of Chicago Hound Table, No. 665, January 16/ T E W ; ‘p 7 T . ----- ------------------

260 chairmen called the attention of the group to issues which are Involved In th® problem: Chairman Linford: One of the questions with which a lot of people are concerned, in respect to this problem, is whether the nation can a f ­ ford th© compulsory health insurance system. How much will it cost?35 About one-third of th© Round Table chairmen called for consideration of more than on© possible solution to the problem: Chairman Linfords Th© American Medical Associa­ tionopposes compulsory health Insurance, al­ though, Dr. Plshbein, you agree that there is a problem here. What do you propose? What does the A*M.A. recommend as a program to meet this problem? Although It is true that most of th© chairmen ar­ gued for their own point of view, about one-third of them called th© attention of th© group to alleged solutions to th© problem without assuming responsibility for their worth. A typical example Is as follows; Chairman L a c h ; ..*1 just waider in that connec­ tion, when we aro discussing doing business, whether or not it 13 possible that the United States can drive a wedge between China and Russia? In other words, Is It possible that th© Chines© Communists under the leadership of Mao Ts©-tung will develop ’Titoism’ in China ?*57 ___ 65, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, No. 566, January 23, 1949, p. I4» 56, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table. No* 566, January 23, 1949, p, 9.

37, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, No* 589, July 3, 1949, p7 8*

261

About on©*-third of th© chairmen, on an average of twice during th© broadcast©

which they moderated, called

for arguments for and against propositions advanced or implied! Senator Tafjjr: My own feeling is that this budget should be definitely reduced this year, that w© are trying to do too many things at on© time,, Surely the expense for defense and for interna­ tional services, which runs up to some twenty billion dollars, is not going on forever; and it seems to me that we have to wait on some of the other increases until w© can see how the general field can be decreased by relieving of the international pressure* Chairman Clough: Galbraith?*^

TIow does this look to you,

Approximately one-half of the chairmen called for group consideration of a possible argument for or against a proposition under consideration (without assuming respon­ sibility for the line of argument thus opened*)

Such con­

tributions were mad© on an average of once per broadcast in about one-half of the broadcasts analyzed*

Such argu­

ments were called to the attention of the group in the following manner: Chairman Linford: ***It has been said by some that it would be impossible or unwise to put a national health insurance system into effect until w© have enough doctors* What do you 33* Transcript,'The Wnlvorsity of Chicago Round Table„ No* 567, January 30, 1949, p ? 1*

262

think about that?^9 About on©-fourth of th© chairman asked th© other participants to state whether they agreed or disagreed with a point of view advanced by another participant.

Such re­

quests occurred on an average of twice per broadcast during approximately one-fourth of the broadcasts analyzed* example is as followsj

An

"Do you agree, Senator Humphrey, or

are there any other points which you think are a part of 40 th© heart of this program?11 Occasionally the chairmen stated the aroas of agreement and disagreement in an internal summary or tran­ sition between divisions of the group outline? Chairman Schultz; I take it that both you, SenaAiken, and you, Secretary Brannan, do subscribe to a procedure which we might call letting the market prices channel things to the consumer, when you are dealing with a perishable product* In that case, if the support price which is agreed upon Is higher, the difference is covered by some types of payments to the farmer* There is no difference here, really, in principle*41 59* Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table, No* 566, January 25, 1949, p* 15* 40. Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table. No* 568, February 6, 1949, p* 1.

41* Transcript, Th© University of Chicago Round Table * No* 584, May 29, 1949, p. 9*

Ularity of, Teminology, and Ideas

Approximately one-half of the Hound Table chairmen requested explanations of terminology employed by other par­ ticipants ; they

did this on an average of about three

times per broadcast in the broadcasts in which they parti­ cipated, In the following manner; Chairman B1 ought Senator Taft, you say that the budget is too big and all that. How do you measure "too big"?4® About as frequently (i.e., approximately three times per broadcast during the broadcasts in which these chairmen par­ ticipated) the same number of chairmen called for clarifi­ cation of ideas presented; Secretary Brannan: And I would like to add, too, t h a t t h e r e is this other matter of which you and I speak, called the "market basket." Chairman Schultz: This is from the consumers* point of view now?^8 Not quite as frequently as in the cases cited above th© chairmen contributed information which helped to clarify a contribution made by a participants Senator Mundt; ***It Is bound to make headlines when an Assistant Secretary of State Is even messed up in a smelly business like that.

42* Transcript, The University of Chloago Round, Table., No, 567, January 50, 1§49, p. 2." 45. Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table, No* 584, May 29* 194” p. 6.

264 fffol&mail Johns on ;

It Is the question of an assistant to an Assistant Secretary of State*

Senator Mundtt

I think that Is correct *44

Approximately one-half of the chairmen called for clarification of a line of argument advanced by a participants phftirman L e v i t Reel, is your point that the law In the international sphere does no good's Is it that no good can come out of having a declaration that atrocities are bad, even though that declara­ tion is mad® by the victor over th© v a n q u i s h © d?45 Approximately one-fifth of th© chairmen clarified a line of argument advanced by a participant (without assum­ ing responsibility as a participant for the point of view clarified*)

They did this approximately twice per broad­

cast during the broadcasts in which they were chairmen* Such contributions are illustrated by this typical example; My. Ruttenberg; Higher prices would result in the inability of the people to buy these products, and consequently industries would have to cut production and employment, and therefore wag© in­ creases would result in a declining purchasing power . *. Chairman Sharp; That ig to say, prices would be higher than otherwise .46 Approximately one-sixth of the chairmen clarified 44. Transcript. The University of Chicago Hound Table* Ho. 590, July 10, { S W T p T X "" -------------46* Transcript, The Urdversi ty of Chicago Hound Table* Ho. 600, September 10, 1#4§, pp. 4-10.

46* Transcript, The University of Chicago Hound Table * Ho. 599, September 11, 1949, p. 9.

265 terminology employed by participants at least one© per broadcast, in the broadcasts in which they participated.

A

typical example is as follows: Jfe B i M f t t ...How, In the case of Jupiter w© have to expect an internal constitution quite differ­ ent from that of the earth. Strang© to say, th© planets Jupiter and Saturn are extremely light bodies. M M growni You mean light in this case. Wildt, In the sens© of density, do you not?^? Fartiojpating Directly in the Piscussion

All but six of the Round Table chairmen partici­ pated directly in the broadcasts of 1949 by arguing in sup­ port of propositions.

They presented arguments on an aver­

age of six or seven times per broadcast during the broad­ casts in which they participated.

A typical example of a

chairman assuming responsibility for a point of view is as follows i Chairman Schultz a And 1 think that the most severe indictment of what is involved when w© try to hold the prices in the market is what has really been shown to us in the potato case. I should argue, re al ly , that If you take the approach seriously, you ought to use it on all products, except where you have to build up stocks against weather~-as in th© feed grains; that you ought to do it in cotton; that you ought to do it in wheatj and that you ought to do It in wool. I would say that your real problem is that you do 47* Transcript, The tJnlver&ity of Chicago Round Table. Ho. 598, September 4, 1*949, p. 5,

266

not get th© price too high.4® Approximately th© Bam© number of chairmen cited evidence in support of their arguments? Chairman Talbot t It certainly is true that there are vast changes. In India* for example* ten years ago there was still a fairly substantial* fairly we11*controlled British authority functioning* Today* India is completely Independent* It has a government which has overcome tremendous early troubles* with communal riots and everything else* and it is now fairly stable. Pakistan is very much the same way* Ceylon has the functioning government. Southeast Asia may be a little different*4® In a few isolated instances the chairmen agreed with another participant concerning a point of view advanced, as follows t Chairman Havighurst? I would agree; for in the studies on retirement which we have been making at the University of Chicago as w© have concluded that present institutional retirement policies-the retirement policies of universities* school systems, many businesses, and so on— retire people either too early or too late *50 In about one-sixth of the broadcasts Hound Table chairmen argued that a certain issue was basic to the discus­ sion in the following way?

’’But it would be the effect today

48* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, No. 584* May 29, 194i“ p« 49* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table * No* 585, June 5, 1 9 4 p, 3*

50* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table9 No. 564* January 9* 19497 pp.' 1-27

267

which, would perhaps determine whether th© war crimes were sueeessful or n o t »w51

Only In a few rare Instances did the chairmen re­ fute arguments presented or implied by other participants, as in tbs following case; S£* Hornbook: ...Manchuria is today no longer the great Industrial part of China, as it was before the Russians came In and received Japanese eapitualatl on— because everything which made Manchuria an industrial area has now disappeared... Chairman h a c h : Jfc* H o m b e c k :

I would disagree with that. ...and has not been reconstructed.

Chairman L a c h ; I would disagree, Mr. Hornbock 2 The very fact that machinery and equipment were removed does not mean that the coal deposits and other natural resources of Manchuria have been removed.52 Closing the Piscussion Program

As w© have previously noted in our description of the chairman’s efforts to secure suitable structure for Round Table broadcasts, In most of the broadcasts analyzed the chairmen closed or rounded off th© discussion program. In over one-third of th© broadcasts during 1949

51, Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table. No. 60Q, September 10, 1949, p. 2. 5g. Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table. No. 589, July 3, 1.949, p. 11.

368 th© ©h&irnwm briefly summarized th© discussion.

Frequently

these summaries included a statement of agreement reacheds Chairman U r e y i •♦♦We have had an interesting discussion in regard to this problem, and X think it might be well to sum up our conclusions. In the first place, I think that we are all agreed that Dr, 31aekett has presented a book which is interesting, but which, in many ways, is a good apology for the Communist point of view in regard to the matter, I think that it can hardly be trusted to give us a good summary of the atomicenergy situation. On the positive side, it seems to ua that we should review our whole position in regard to the atomic-energy problem and how it is handled in this country. Such a review should Include both the method of control of domestic peacetime uses of atomic energy and the interna­ tional control of this important power,53 In a

very few instances these summaries

contained

a

statement

of the issues left unsettled: M r , Sharp: We have considered the arguments for and against the recommendations of the Steel Board* Are these findings consistent and sound? Have we given up wag© and price competition in the Industry? These are some of th© fundamental questions that may well be remembered during current concern about a possible strike in the steal industry,54 The length of th© two examples cited above is typical of the summaries given by the chairmen. In more than one-half of the broadcasts analyzed, each of the participants aided in the final summary. 53, Transcript, The U niversity of Chicago Round Table, No., 575, March 27, '1929 ,~p. 10, 54, Transcript, The Halveraity of Chicago Round Table, Ho, 599, September 11, 1949, p, 12,

269

According to Mr, Probst, Executive Secretary of the Radio Office of the University of Chicago, the chairman in each broadcast is responsible for the timing of the concluding section of the program ,65

In the three Round Table broad--

oasts observed by this writer,

56

at a prearranged signal

from the chairmen, the other participants started to give their prepared summarizing statements. In most of the broadcasts in which the participants aided in the summary the chairmen gave no verbal indication that it was time to give their final statements.

In a few

broadcasts analyzed the chairmen verbally indicated that the participants should present their concluding remarks s Chairman Bloughs We have reached the stage where w© ought to summarize and to see where we have been and what we think about this problem of ex­ panding business activity, Mr , Meechana

,,»

Mr, Ross ? ,„• Chairman Sloughs Up to now, then, in this busi­ ness slump, there has been no downward spiral of income and employment. Consumption is outrunning production! excessive inventories are being liquidated. When this process is completed, production and employment should rise, although not necessarily to their peak level. Our hope is that this process will be completed before a

55., George E, Probst, interview between author and, August 9, 1948, 56, August 8, 15, and 29, 1949,

270

downward spiral of deflation sets in so that more strenuous government action than has already been taken will not be necessary. In more than one-half of the cases where the partieipants aided In the conclusion of the program, their con­ tributions were not summaries of what had taken place during the discussion period, but continuations

of the arguments

which had been

the chairmen

presented. In such cases

usually presented his point of view last, as in the follow­ ing case ? Ghalrman Shultz; As I see it, farm policy has come to a fork in the road and a lot depends upon which way we go. Like travelers in a desert, we can easily be victims of a mirage--the mirage of the high prices which reflect the war and the food shortages of the recent past. I feel keenly that we need to see the hard realities which lie ahead which mean that farm products are not nearly so valuable to society as the current policy dis­ cussions take for granted— and I say this, you see, to both of you. Secretary Bran n a n : of us agrees*

And I do not think that either

Chairman Shultz: I know that you do not* I would put it down as a basic proposition that, when the economy is in a good state of health, at or near full employment, support prices to farm pro­ ducts should be low enough to clear the market.58 In about one-fourth of the broadcasts the final 57, Transcript. The University of Chicago Round Table, No* 585, July 31, 184S7 pp. 16-14. 58. Transcript. The University of Chicago Round Table, No. 584, May 29, 1 9 4 ^ p 7 ^ r T --------

271 abatement was mads by one of the participants,, after the ehaltfraan had called for final summaries* as in the following example *

ff&ayma aggggg* Would you gentlemen oar© to summarize your views at this point? After all, w® may be on the eve of a now labor act* Senator Ta f t :

My feeling is this

Senator Douglas: (statement*

(statement*)

I think that wo should *.*

Summary

In the Round Table broadcasts of 1949 the moderatorparticipants introduced the topics and participants,

In most

cases they presented background information on the topic b y briefly analyzing th© related current political, social, or economic scene or by giving brief descriptions of events leading up to the current problematical situation.

Occasion­

ally they limited the scope of the topic, indicated the per­ tinent Issues, or emphasized the importance of th© topic. Although the participants werd formally introduced by the studio announcer at the beginning of the broadcasts, the chairmen usually indicated briefly the quel ifications of the panel members,

59* Transcript, The University of Chicago Round Table, Ho, 571, February 27, 1949, p."137

0^0

Th® broadcasts ordinarily contained th® following aiajor divisions? participants,

(1 ) introduction of th® topics and th©

(2) group discussion, and (3) conclusion*

111© chairman usually mad© transitions between thes® major

divisions*

In their transitions to group discussion they

very often posed leading questions to each participant which Called for analysis of the problem, consideration of a pro­ posal* or definitions of terms* Within the group discussion part of the broadcasts the chairmen occasionally introduced the following elements of the reflective thinking process s (2 ) analysis of the problem,

(1 ) definition of terras,

(3) ©valuation of a specific

proposal, and (4) comparison of two or more proposals*

The

sequences in which these elements were introduced followed no specific pattern*

Frequently th© c h a i rman^ introduction

of one of these structural elements was accompanied by a brief internal summary*

The chairmen noted th© amount of

time given to each sub-division and made an effort to keep the group within pre-determined limits* Hound Table chairmen occasionally attempted to aid the process of reflective thinking*

They frequently requested

information concerning the problem*

Occasionally they called

th® attention of the group to pertinent issues*

About one-

third of them called for consideration of more than one

273

possible solution to the problem and occasionally directed attention to alleged solutions not previously considered. Occasionally they called for argument for and against pro­ positions advanced or implied* and in a few instances directed attention to a possible argument for or against a proposi­ tion under consideration.

About one-fourth of the chairmen

attempted to locate areas of agreement and disagreement. About one-half of the Round Table chairmen attempted to secure clarity of terminology and ideas by occasionally re­ questing explanations and contributing information.

They

Sometimes called for clarification of arguments advanced and infrequently they personally attempted to clarify such arguments, Almost all Round Table chairmen participated di­ rectly in the broadcasts by arguing in support of proposi­ tions,

They frequently cited evidence in support of their

arguments and infrequently agreed with other participants concerning a point of view. Tbs moderator-participant was responsible for timing the concluding section of the program.

Occasionally

a summary was presented only by the chairmen.

In more than

one-half of the broadcasts each of the participants presented a short summary*

Frequently these summaries included con­

tinuations of the arguments which previously had been presented.

274

Part Pour SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

275

Part Four SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to obtain a descrip­ tion of the role of leadership on America’s Town Meeting of the Air, the American Forum of the Air, the People’s Plat­ form and the University of Chicago Round Table.

The investi­

gation covered the activities of the moderators, chairmen, producers, program staff members and sponsoring organiza­ tions both prior to and during the broadcasts and telecasts. It did not include a critical evaluation of the leadership. The methods of Investigation included a survey of the published literature describing the four programs, ob­ servation by the writer of the preparation and presentation of nine representative broadcasts or simulcasts, twenty-four personal interviews with moderators, chairmen, producers, program staff members and network executives, private cor­ respondence, and the analysis of thirty transcripts of radio broadcasts of the People’s Platform (May to November, 1949) and of transcripts for one year (1949) of the broadcasts of the three other programs.

In preparation for the study,

a survey was made of toxtbdok concepts of the role of leadership in discussion.

The part of this body of concepts

dealing with radio and television discussion leadership

276 £#na©d the basis of a guide sheet used in th© analysis of the transcripts. Th© information presented in this study primarily

describes leadership techniques employed during the year 1949«

Interpretation of data presented should consider this

factor because, over a period of years, techniques employed on these programs are subject to change.

For example, In

January, 1950, the program time of America’s Town Meeting was out from an hour to a half hour and the usual number of participants was reduced from four to two. 1949 was a year of transition in which two of th© programs studied became radio and television simulcasts and ©n© of the programs became two separate programs, one on radio and th© other on video, each presented on different days of the week, but both having th© same title and identi­ cal objectives.

Adaptation to th© newer medium was reflected

in the technique of leadership employed on these programs. The report of the investigation was divided into two parts:

leadership techniques employed (1 ) prior to the

broadcasts (or simulcasts) and (2 ) during the broadcasts. Role of Leadership Prior to the Broadcasts

Investigation revealed that during 1949 a large number of persons were engaged in a great many preparatory

277

activities befor® the broadcasts, telecasts, or simulcasts were presented.

These activities included the selection

Cf objectives, formats, topics and participants, and th© preparation of the participants, moderators, chairmen, and the physical conditions for broadcasting or telecasting. Moderators, producers, and staff members usually began to prepare for the broadcasts three or four weeks ahead of a specified date 5 normally three or four future programs were in various stages of preparation at any one time* In the case of each program, the selection of ob­ jectives, formats, topics and participants, and the prepara­ tion of the participants and moderators were primarily the responsibility of one individual. George V* Denny, Jr., moderator of Americans Town Meeting, was responsible to the Board of Trustees of the Town Hall, Incorporated, an adult education institution serving the New York City area*

The Town Hall produced the program

over the facilities of the American Broadcasting Companyfs network.

Mr. Denny was assisted In a general way by his

Program Director, Elizabeth Colclough.

She gave special

attention to the selection and procurement of participants* A staff of thirty-one other persons also assisted Mr. Denny in collecting information concerning topics and participants,

278

preparing and producing th© program, publicizing and manag­ ing Town Moating tours, and reading and answering Town Meet­ ing mail.

These staff members worked under the directions

of the moderator and the program director* Theodore Oranik, moderator and producer of th© American Forum of the Air, had responsibilities similar to those of Mr* Denny.

Ho was similarly assisted by a smaller

staff which was under the direction of his special assistant, Betty Penuel.

Prior to October, 1949, th© American Forum

was broadcast over the facilities of th© Mutual Broadcasting System; it then became a simulcast over th© facilities of the Hational Broadcasting Company* George E. Probst, Executive Secretary of the Radio Office of the University of Chicago had similar responsibili­ ties, although he did not moderate the broadcasts.

He was

directly responsible to th© administration of the University, which produced the Round Table over the facilities of the Rational Broadcasting Qompany*

In the selection of topics

and participants, Probst typically considered suggestions offered by members of the University of Chicago Faculty Board of Radio*

Program staff members assisted Mr, Probst

by performing tasks similar to those performed by the Town Meeting staff members* /0 r ^

The officials of the networks to which reference

v 279 fee* been made have, without exception, left the selection

®f topics and participants and the preparation of the modera­ tors and participants to those people which we hav© indicated were In charge of the programs*

The chief role of the net­

work officials in relation to these programs was to supply the technical equipment for broadcasting or telecasting. The People’s Platform was unique among the pro­ grams studied in two respects:

it was produced and adminis­

tered by a network company and it was broadcast on radio and video as two separate programs, presented on different days of the week with separate moderators, but with th© same title and identical objectives*

The objectives of the

People’s Platform were selected by the Columbia Broadcasting System’s Division of Public Affairs.

The Vice-President

In Charge of Public Affairs In 1949 was Davison Taylor; Lyman Bryson was Counsellor on Public Affairs, and the Executive Producer of Public Affairs Programs was Leon Levin©. Mr* Levine was directly in charge of the program, and was chiefly responsible, with the assistance of the two moderators, for the selection of topics and participants and the preparation of the physical condition® for broadcasting and telecasting*

Dwight Cooke moderated the radio broad­

casts and Charles Collingwood moderated the telecasts* moderators, aided by consultations with Mr* Levine, were

These

2 8 0

reaponslbl© tor the preparation of th© participants on their respective programs* Selection of Objectiveq By 1949 th© programs studied had been produced for long periods of time, ranging from twelve to more than twenty years; consequently, the objectives of th© programs had be­ come established through long experience and tradition# The four programs had the following stated objectives in common:

(1 ) to present the views of authoritative persons

on more than one side of important public issues, and (2 ) to interest the audience# Other stated objectives of Americans Town Meeting were to give participants an opportunity to examine critically the views presented by other participants and to concentrate attention on two opposing sides of an issue#

It placed

special emphasis upon interesting the audience#

Other aims

of the People’s Platform wore to leave any ultimate decision to the audience and to relieve the pressure of groups and organizations which were trying to get time on the air#

The

Chicago Round Table placed special emphasis upon the presen­ tation, clarification and Interpretation of information. Salection of Format During 1949 America’s Town Meeting was usually

281

an hour program#

It customarily presented four guest speak-

ors# two on each aide of a controversial question#

Each

speAker gave a five minute prepared speooh| this series of speeches was followed by panel discussion among all four speaker®.

With the exception of the last two minutes of

the program, which were devoted to summaries by the speak­ ers, the last half of th© simulcast typically was given to questions from members of the studio audience, with answers by the guest speakers#

The reasons given by Mr. Denny for

the adoption of this format were that (1 ) it was interesting to the audience,

(2) it stimulated them to think, and (3)

it provided equal opportunity for the presentation of both sides of a question# The American Forura of the Air presented, during most of 1949, a forty-five minute broadcast 5 in October it changed to a thirty-minute simulcast.

The first half of

the program typically was devoted to panel discussion and last half was given to questions from members of the studio audience with answers from th© panel members 3 short summaries by the participants usually concluded the program#

Mr#

Granik offered two reasons for the selection of this format! (1) it presented the "inside” of Congressional arguments and (2 ) it offered laymen an opportunity personally to question Congressmen.

The Peoplefs Platform radio format consisted en­ tirely of round table discussion which usually presented two guest participants aligned upon opposing aides of an issue# Reasons given by Mr* Levin© for th© use of this format wares (1 ) it foeused upon an issue,

(2 ) it stimulated interest on

th® part of the participants, and (3) it stimulated interest on th® part of the audience# The P e o p l e d Platform television format was th© same as for radio except for a two and one-half ml nut© drama­ tic sketch early in th© telecast.

Th© reasons given for

the use of this device were that it showed th© Importance ©f the topic and initially captured the Interest of the audience. The usual University of Chicago Round Table format was a thirty minute round table discussion which rather closely adhered to a previously prepared outline.

In de­

fense of this format, Mr. Probst has stated that it (1) aided clarification and interpretation of information and (2 ) minimized controversy. 3©lection of Topics In the selection of topics three of the moderatorsMr. Denny (aided by his Program Director), Mr. Granlk, and Mr# Levine relied primarily upon (1) current reading of

283 books, magazines and newspapers,

(2 ) consultation with legis­

lators, government administrators, news commentators, edi­ tors and well-informed persons, and (3) suggestions mailed in by the members of the audience*

Mr. Denny also obtained

suggestions from members of the studio audience#

Mr# Granik

made a special effort to keep in very close touch with Congressional Committee members#

Mr* Levine gave special

consideration to the topics selected throughout the year so that the areas covered made a well-rounded picture# In the selection of topics for the Chicago Round Table, the broad area for discussion on any one broadcast was chosen by Mr# Probst; he then received suggesticns con­ cerning various topics within this area from members of the University of Chicago Faculty Board of Radio* Persons responsible for the selection of topics on all four of the programs employed the following criteriat (1 ) current importance to the general public, and (2 ) popu­ lar appeal to the listeners# Special consideration was given b y the Town Meeting moderator to th© availability of authorities on the topic who were good public speakers and who had national or inter­ national prestige as an authority*

The moderator of the

American Forum gave priority to questions currently important in Congress*

The producer of the Round Table gave special

284

consideration to thoa© recurrent Issues which arise again and again to perplex the nation and the world# Selection of Participants Persona in charge of all four of th© programs ordinarily selected the guest participants after they had chosen the topic# were as follows?

The methods used in selecting participants for Town Meeting and the People’s Platform,

the decision was based upon th© authoritative knowledge, public speaking ability, and audience interest value of possible choices; the American Porum moderator customarily offered leading proponents and opponents of currently pro­ posed Congressional legislation the opportunity to air their Views on his forum; Mr, Probst customarily asked qualified members of the University of Chicago Faculty Board of Radio to participate and other authorities in the fields related to the topic were frequently suggested by these Board members. The criteria for selection of participants on all four programs Included (1 ) authoritative knowledge,

(2 )

.speaking ability, and (3) appeal to the listening public. In the selection of Round Table participants the following „ criteria wex4e also given consideration?

ability to reason

and integrate facts, desire to clarify issues (i,e,, Interest In discussion rather than diatribe) and ability to use in­ teresting language#

285 of t M Participants The technique a of preparing participants varied B& widely on the four programs that they will be summarized separately*

Two or three weeks before a Town Meeting

simulcast# guest speakers were sent a brief analysis of selected Issues involved in the topic (prepared by Town Meet­ ing stiff members} along with a list of suggestions for making their prepared speeches Interesting#

Each speaker

was required to submit a rough draft of his speech# copies Of which were sent to the other guest speakers* The speakers were requested to attend a conference on the day. of the broadcast# at which the Town Meeting moderator made technical suggestions concerning length of Speeches# language# audience interest devices# and ways of relating the speeches to one another# *

Th© order In which f

the speakers were to appear was established through mutual suggestion and agreement# During this conference the moderator attempted to help the speakers locate the major Issues involved in the topic and to agree on pertinent facts (statistics) unless conflicting statistics constituted part of the argument. Me usually suggested that during the simulcast the speakers should use names and direct questions# indicate areas of agreement and disagreement# and make transition references

286

to what had bean said by previous speakers*

The speakers

wore given a description of the format of the program, told that their contributions would be timed, and urged to write their summary statements before air time.

The moderator

read his introductory statements and invited constructive criticism.

The speakers were then shown the auditorium In

which the forum was to be produced and were given an op­ portunity to record and revise their speeches. The Town Meeting moderator gave special attention to the preparation of th© members of the studio audience in a thirty minute "warm-up" session immediately preceding the simulcasts in which he presented instructions for asking questions during the latter half of the broadcast and led an informal discussion in a manner designed to create in­ terest in the program. Participants on the American Forum of th© Air were requested to meet for dinner about two hours before the simulcasts.

The American Forum moderator customarily ex­

plained th© program format and presented an opportunity for the panel members to ask questions concerning radio or television techniques.

His answers typically consisted of

suggestions to pay no attention to cameras and to speak in a direct and conversational manner* The moderator usually read his opening statement

387

&jxd asked for constructive suggestions.

He then, with the

advice of the participants* selected a question which he would use to get the group Immediately into the heart of the topici

He customarily invited the participants to help him

make a list of major points which should be discussed in the %

simulcast.

These items became the basis of questions pre­

sented by the moderator whenever the discussion seemed to stray from the topic.

Before simulcast time the participants

were given a voice level check by the studio engineers and shown to their places on the auditorium platform. The People*s Platform radio participants were asked to meet with the moderator about one hour before broadcast time.

Ordinarily the moderator emphasised the importance

of keeping on the topic, and invited the participants to help him make a list of major points which should be Included in the broadcast.

As in th© case of th© American Forum,

these items formed the basis of the moderator’s transitional contributions to th© program.

Th© participants were requested

to make their contributions short and to us© last names in addressing other participants and were usually given a voice level check.

As broadcast time approached, the moder­

ator led the conversation into an easy, informal approach to the topic. The People’s Platform television participants were

288

4 i!t£i*A to pay no attention to the camera 5 otherwise, prepara­

tion of discussion participants for television followed the

m m pattern as for radio*

The dramatic sketches used in

People*s Platform video programs were written by Columbia*® staff writers and the actors were coached and directed by JohnPizer, Columbia*a producer of public affairs telecasts. Standard procedure in the preparation of Round fable participants included four stops : research by program staff members, preliminary discussion, the making of a group outline, and rehearsal*

About a week before the broadcast,

each participant was sent memoranda (prepared by the pro­ gramme research staff) which included a two-thousand word statement on the background of th© topic, reasons for select­ ing the topic, excerpts from fifty replies to letters ask­ ing listeners what they wanted to know about th© topic, a suggested outline for th© discussion, a dozen articles selected from technical periodicals or books, several pages of authoritative statistics, a brief memorandum prepared by selected authorities on the topic, and transcripts of former Round Table broadcasts on related topics* Participants were asked to meet on the day before th© broadcast and to spend the evening informally discussing th© topic from all angles*

After four or five hours of

cbnference, a group outline was constructed embodying the

289 point# considered most significant for the program.

Defini­

tion# Of terms wore selected, and alleged facts, unless agreed upon, were discarded. :

After this meeting was concluded, copies of the

grpo$> outline were typed and presented to the participants i

early on the morning of th© day of the broadcast.

Further

discussion often resulted in minor changes in the outline. The amount of time to be devoted to each major point was allocated by group agreement; the participants then made a recording of a rehearsal of the broadcast.

This recording

was played back for them and they usually made additional notes on the margins of their outlines. Mr. Probst made technical suggestions from the standpoint of radio broadcasting which usually emphasized the use of names, shortness of contributions, us© of ade­ quate voice loudness level, presentation of factual data, specificity of language, and conversational manner of speaking. The preparation of participants for all four programs included th© following elements;

(1 ) instruction

in the technical requirements of the broadcasting or tele­ casting media, (2) selection and arrangement of the major points which should be discussed on the program,

(3) consider­

ation of the moderator*s introduction of topic and

290 participants, and (4) suggestions designed to make the program more interesting to the audience by relating con*, tributtons of participants one to another, using names of participants, relating ideas to their contributors, and using Illustrations or stories to make ideas more concrete. Preparation of Moderators find Chairmen Long experience in moderating radio programs of the type investigated in this study (ranging up to twentytwo years) constituted a part of the preparation of the moderators,

Each of the mod© rat ora studied carried on a con­

tinuous program of reading and "keeping up with the news” and had a considerable amount of contact with well-informed persons. Moderators and chairmen of all four programs cus­ tomarily wrote their introductions of topics and participants prior to broadcast time with the exception of Mr, Cooke who made rough notes from which he extemporized his introductions. The Town Meeting moderator wrote scripts for the announcer who introduced the program.

The moderator of the People *8

Platform telecasts also wrote a conclusion for his program In which he customarily suggested that the viewer do his own summarizing, further thinking, and reach his own conclusion. The Poopl©?s Platform radio and video moderators

291 usually consulted with the prograta*a producer concerning th© important issues involved in the topic; the objective of thia conference was to provide the moderators with ideas ©rgeniaed well enough to keep th© program moving along, coveting the moot pertinent issues. Bound Table chairmen were actually moderator*, participants, and the previously described preparation of Bound Table participants applies to the chairmen as well. In view of oertaln special responsibilities during the broadcasts, however, the chairmen usually noted th© time limits set by the group for each Item in the outline; the majority of the chairmen also prepared notes from which to extemporize a summary and conclusion of the broadcast. Preparation of Physical Conditions for Broadcasting The preparation of physical facilities for discus­ sion were the responsibility of Mr, DOnny, Sir, Oranik, Mr. hevine (with the assistance of his moderators) and Mr. Probst,

Cameras and microphones were actually handled by

network engineers and supervised by network executives. Scenery properties for the dramatic sketches on th© People*s Platform telecasts were the responsibility of a network television producer. Town Meeting, when not on tour (approximately one-half of th© time) was simulcast from the Town Hall

298 Auditorium, Hew York City.

Th© American F o m m

(a® of

Howaber* 1949) was simulcast from a conference room In the Hardman Park Hotel, Washington, D.C*

Both the television

and radio People's Platform programs usually originated in Columbia*© Hew York City studios#

Round Table broadcasts,

when the program was not on tour (approximately on©-half of the time) originated in th© Mitchell Tower studios on the University of Chicago campus# Discussion facilities for th© American Forum, the People*® Platform, and the Round Table consisted of a small table with one microphone, and several straight-backed chairs# Town Meeting employed a speaker's stand with one microphonej the guest speakers were seated in large chairs a short dis­ tance behind the podium#

Both the Town Meeting and the

American Forum used an auditorium with a raised platform for the panel members and rows of seats for the members of th© studio audience, to which program staff members carried small hand microphones# The video cameras for each televised program were placed one on each side of the group of panel members.

Town

Meeting had on® placed high above the panel, and both Town Meeting and th© American Forum, used another camera which could b© focused upon various sections of the studio audience #

293 When the programs were on tour, network officials provided studios and assisted In the arrangement of physical Conditions*

Announcers and engineers were furnished by

local stations affiliated with the network* Pupations,

^oderatags and Chairmen During;: the Broadcasts

During 1949, three of the programs studied, Town Meeting, the American Forum, and the People’s Platform, employed permanent moderators*

Few of the Round Table moderat or-parti­

cipants were chairmen for more than one broadcast during the year; 91 per cent of the chairmen of Round Table broadcasts during the years 1948 and *1949 were chosen from the TJniver-

city of Chicago faculty. The moderators or chairmen of all four of the pro­ grams studied were engaged in the following activities dur­ ing the broadcasts

(or telecasts or simulcasts)}

introduc­

ing topics and participants, giving the program suitable structure, securing clarity of terminology and ideas, and closing or rounding off the programs.

Various other func­

tions were customarily performed by moderators of two or three of the programs. Introducing Tonics and Participants The moderators and chairmen of all four programs

294

introduced the topic at the beginning of the program*.

These Introduction* usually were lea* than one

minute in length and customarily included an informal state­ ment of the topic plus a brief description of events leading up to the current controversial situation, and/or an analysis of the current political, social or economic scene as it was related to the problem. A statement designed to emphasize the Importance of the topic to the listening audience was included frequently by Mr. Denny, occasionally by Mr. Granik and the Round Table chairmen, and infrequently by Mr. Cooke.

A statement out­

lining the area which the discussion could be expected to cover within the available time was Included occasionally by Mr* Denny and the Round Table chairmen, and Infrequently by Mr. Granik and Mr. Cooke.

The pertinent issues which

were involved in the topic were indicated occasionally by moderators and chairmen of all four programs. When their broadcasts presented an alignment of participants on sides with decidedly opposing points of view, Mr. Denny, Mr. Granik, and Mr. Cook© customarily outlined the opposing lines of argument.

In such cases

they frequently presented an analysis of the problem and its causes. Although the participants on the People » & «

iSS.

SM

guides of Discussion, trrbana* Illinois* Agriculture Extension service, university of Illinois, 1936. 164.

Lindstrom, B. S.* and A. D. Huston, Conducting Croup Discussions. Urbana, 111inoi»* Agriculture Extension Service* University of Illinois* 1934.

165.

Lippman, Walter* The Method of Freedom. Hew York, Macmillan Co., 19lf7

166.

Lippman* Walter, Public Opinion. Hew York, Haroourt* Brace & Co., 1923.

167.

Lyman, Rollo La at Work in Stu< UJ.V J j a V., V . , The AilCT ^Mind I J L U U V^ and Reading} A S o u r o e B o o k and Discus sign Manual. Chic ago,' Scot t'Tpor e sman and Co., 1924.

168.

Maclin, E, S., and P. T. McHenry, Conference LeadTraining. Beep River* Connecticut, Rational feute, 1945.

322 Stew York, 170*

A Manual for Conference leaders, Baltimore, DlvlA i m A t X&Qfitilvml Education, Maryland State De­ partment of Education, 104A*

«171;

McBurney, James H., and Kenneth a* Hanee, fjjfc aanalBilM. and Method; si Dlaooaaion. Hew York, Harper & Brothers, 1939•

*172*

McDonagh, Richard P., "Television Writing Problems,"

•5*173•

McGill, Earle, Radio Directing* Hew York, McGrawHill Book Co*, Inc#, T W O *

*174*

Miller* Allen* "The Radio Round Table,” Education.

m

AM

B

3iagftggA 2L J M lU A lO M !

Education by Radio. Josephine j j i u n o ja MacLatchy, a u ju a .i'c u y , ed wu* , Columbus, Ohio State university, 1933, p. 105*

175*

Miller, Allen, "Talks Programs,” Educational Broad­ casting* 1 9 3 7 : Proceedings of the Second Matlocal Conference on EducationsuL B r y i i m e ^ f n a T 0* S. Marsh, ed*, Chicago, University of Chicago Pro as, 1938, pp* 197-201*

*176.

Miller, Allen, ’‘Techniques of Presenting Dialogues,” M m g M m m &l£ A M l&aio m £ Education, Lever­ ing Tyson and Josephine MacLatchy, ©ds., Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1935, pp* 149-57,

ol77*

Miller* Allen, ”The University of Chicago Round

T a b le/ M m A tlm m the Msu

mmMk laaiikqoJk of

£g& g t o t l l m , kx Josephine MacLatchy, ed., Columbus, Ohio State University, 1936, p. 179* *178.

Miller, Allen, "The University of Chicago Round Table,” Radio and Education* Levering Tyson, ed., Chicago, Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1934, pp. 230-037.

179.

Mills on, William A. D., "Analysis of Audience Reaction to Symposium and Debate,” University De­ baters Annual. Edith M. Phelps, ed., Hew York, H. W. Wilson Co., 1933-34, pp. 251-60*

323 *xso*

Murphy* Gardner, Lois B* Murphy and Theodor© M, M*JCYork

Pay°h °^OCT. (rev.)

m . jw« wxwiic*j.

jDuv*v«.bjivu A»fl»wu.s.tii*xu!ag Department of Secondary School Principal®, 1988#

*188.

,

H iohols, Alan, Dlaeuaalon m & Debate . Saw York, Hareourt, Brace & Co#, 1941*

185*

Horthrop, P. 3. C., p a Lggla of ttoaqLeaijeg. an a the Humanities* lew York* The Macmillan Company* 19?7,

184*

Ogg, Fredrick A*, and P* Orman Ray, Essentials of American Government * (4th ed.) Mew York, D. Appleion-Century Co., 1943.

185*

on Groups Round _

J S m & m „ Columbus, Ohio State

University, 1986. 186*

O ’Heill, Barnes II., A Manual of Debate and Oral Dlacusalon. Mew Yorfc, Century C o 7 , TSfsOT

187*

0*Heill, James M., and Rupert L. Cortright, Debate and Oral Piaousslon. Mew York, Century Co*, 1951.

188*

0*Helll, Barnes M . , and James H. McBurney, The Working Principles of Argument. Mew York. Macmillan ----------

*189*

Overstreet, Harry A*, Influencing Human Behavior i Mew York, Morton & Co. , Inc *, 1 9 9 6 .

*190*

Overstreet, Harry A., and Bonaro W., The Story of Americana Town Meeting of the Air. Mew York, Bar* per and Brothers, 1958*

*191*

Overstreet, Harry A*, and Bonaro W . , Town Meeting Come® to Town. Mew York, Harper k Brothers, 19387

. 324 m .

Peatman* John 0** Badly Research. Reprinted from pglffiMtflto $& la£choloiy/ p, hi Harriman* ed*, Hew York, Philosophical Library, 1946*

its*

Peatman* John G** end Tore HollanCLuest* The Pattgr^ |SE S£ ^ ^ t a n a r Attitudes toward Radio Broadcasts, London* Oxford Unlvora1ty Press, 19457

194.

Pellegrini* Angelo and Brents Stirling* Argumenta|lg| B i M M M L m * Hew York* S s X l e a ®

its*

Pollard* Elisabeth * "Suggest! ons on Broadcasting to High Sehoole and Adult Groupst With Special Reference to Its Use With Discussion*” Education

m

Airi £&$&

s£. &&. M m M

5b~

M u n i t i o n to Radio. Josephine MacLatchy, ed.Tcolurnbus, Ohio State University* 1934* pp. 356-47*

*196.

Proceedings of the Fpurth Annual Meeting School Broadcast Conference . ■George J ennlngs,'ed,," 'Chi ca go * School Broadcast Conference* 1941.

107.

Relse, Earl, 4 Reading List on Forums and Gr o m Die cue el on a Hew York* Hew York University* 1956.

198*

Rlganano* Bugenio* Tbq Psychology of Reasoning. (Translated by Winifred A. Ball) Hew York* Hareourt* Brace & Co.* 19274

199*

Robinson, D. S., Illustrations fi£. tto M Reasoning. Hew York, D. Apple ton-0 © n t u r y C o ., 1987.

.

200

Robinson, V, S., The Principles of Reasoning,

May, 1927.

806*

Inquiry, (The), ‘‘Management of Discussion,“ Occam m l l S E S a U December, 1927*

897*

Inquiry, (The), “Suggest!one for Discussion Leaders," Occasional Papers, March, 1929.

e&9&»

Jenkins, David H . , "Feedback and Group Self-Evaluafclon," SiB d m m X of $ml&X Issues, vol. IV, 1948, p. 51*

c-899*

Jenness, Arthur, "The Hole of Discussion in Chang­ ing Opinion Regarding a Matter of Fact," Journal of 22 £ h 2l£E 2> Vol. XXVlS,

#800*

Johnson, Alma, "An Experimental Study in the Analysis and Measurement of Reflective Thinking," Speech Monographs. Vol. X, 1945, pp. 85-96.

4801.

Johnson, Alma, "Teaching Fundamentals of Speech Through Group Discussion," Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. XXV, 1939, pp.' 4?6-447.

502.

Johns cm, Hoy 1., "Standards in Round-table Discus­ sion," School Review. Vol* XXXVII, 1929, pp. 44-48.

505.

Judson, Lyman S., "Group Discussion Leadership," The Gavel. Vol. XIX, 1987, p. 3.

304.

Judson, Lyman S., and Ellen M., "Bibliography of Group Discussion," The Gavel. Vol. XIX, 1956, pp* 4-10.

508*. Keltner, John W*, "Goals, Obstacles, and Problem Formulation in Group Disoussion," Quarterly Journal £? Speech. Vol. XXXIII, 1947, pp. 468-74^, 306.

Keltner, John W. , "Trends in Discussion Research," Adult Education Bulletin. Vol. XXIX, 1949, pp. 91-95.

507#

Lawton, Sherman P., "Principles of Effective Radio Speakirig," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. XVI, 1930, pp. 8 6 6 - W .

333

«&©8 i

Lazar afold, Paul F., "The Change of Opinion Dur­ ing a Political Dls cussion." Journal of Applie d S m M l m * Vol. xxin,

309*

"Leadership Training Institutes for Disc us al on fiO^gl ^ Vol. I, 1942, pp.

310.

Lewln, Kurt, K. Lippltt, and R. K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created •Social O U « a t . . . , » jfemmO, s i Social Psychology. Vol. X, 1959, pp. 271-99.

511.

Llndeman, Eduard C., "Social Methods for Social P r o b l e m s Progressive Kducatlon. Vol. X, 1953, pp. 253-55.

o312.

Lippman, Walter, "The Indispenslble Opposition,"

m S ^ M . Monthly. Vol. CLXIV, 1939, pp. 186-90. #313.

Lohmever, Donnasue, and Balph R. Ojemann, "The Effectiveness of Selected Methods of Radio Education at the School LSvel," Journal of Experimental Edu­ cation. Vol. IX, 1940, pp. llfTgo*

#314.

Marple, Charles E*, "The Cooperative Susceptibility of Three Age Levels to the Suggestion of Group Ver­ sus Expert Opinion,” Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. IV, 1933, pp. 17^-86.

315.

Mason, John B., "Personality and the Forum Leader,” S£ vol. xxiv, isse, pp

316.

Mason, John B*, "Psychological Aspects of Forum Leadership^” Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol, XXV,

#517.

McBurney, James H., "Some Contributions of Classi­ cal Dialectic Rhetoric to a Philosophy of Discussion,” Quarterly Journal off Speeph, Vol. XXIII, 1937, pp. 1-13.

#318.

Meikleiohn, Alexander, "Teachers and Controversial Questions,” Harpers. Vol. XLXXVIIX, 1938, p. 19.

#319.

Miller, D. G*, "Evaluative Research In Group Dis­ cussion," Sociology and School Research. Vol* XX v, 1941, pp. 215-25.

334 «3S0.

Miller, D. C., "Experiment In the Measurement of Social Inter-Action In Group Discussion," American SSSlSl SgXifflt Vol. IV, 1939, pp. 341-61.

«321.

Millaon, William A. D., "Audience Reacti on to sw>p°aiua," flMxiagit Jsasaai sL Sssssh* vox. 1935, pp. 43-63.

xxx,

322.

Mills on, William A. D., "Experimental Work in Audi­ ence Reaction," quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol, XVIII, 1932, pp. ir

323 •

Mills on, William A. D., "Problems in Measuring Audience A u d i e n o e RReaction," e a c t i o n ," quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. XVIII, 1932, pp

324*

Millaon, William A. D., "A Review of Research in Audience Reaction," Quarterly Journal oft Speech. Vol. XXIV, 1938, p p . T f t - W 655-72. '

*325.

326*

*3 27.

Moore, H. I., "The Attention Value of Lecturing Without Motes," Journal of Educational Psycholo* Vol. X, 1919, pp. 467-69. Murphy, Arthur J., "A Study of the Leadership Pro­ cess, ^4 r*1 ITT 10^1 e. 8 B .» ^Aasrlonn 0 Sociological Review. t Vol. VI, 1941, pp. 674—i Melson, E., "Attitudes," Journal of General Psyqholq&y. Vol, XXI, 1939, pp. 300-0l.

328.

O ’Brien, Joseph, "A Definition and Classification of the Forms of Discussion," Quarterly Journal of Speaoh. Vol. XXV, 1930, pp. 236-43.

329*

O ’Brien, Joseph, "Discussion In Difference Resolv­ ing," Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. XXVII, 1941, pp. 42i3-29.

330.

Overstreet, Harry A., "Constructive Discussion an Art to Be Developed," Michigan Educational Journal. Vol. X, 1932, p. 134.

331*

Overstreet, Harry A., "Reason and the ’Fight Image,’" Mew Republic. Vol. XXXIII, 1922, pp, 94-97.

335 Robinson# .Karl P . , "An Experimental Study of the Bffoots of Group Discussion Tjpon the Social Attitudes of College Students,* Speech Monographs. Vol. VIII, 1941, pp* 35*57. 333#

Roper# R. C. and John w. studebaker# "Role of Govern­ ment in Public Discussion#" Forum. Vol; Cl# 1939, pp. 277-81*

334#

Ross# Edward A*, "Principle of Balance in Leader­ ship of Society#" American Journal of Semiology. Vol. m i l # 1918# p p T W - 2 0 .

333#

Ross# Edward A*# "Social Control#" American Journal of Sociology. Vol* III# 1897, pp. 256-47.

336.

Settlor# William M.# "Socratic Dialectic and Modern 2r?u p ^ ou” 1.2n »" 3ass£»£3jg i m » i s L SsafisSL# Vol. m x # 1945# pp. 152-57.

*357*

Shaw, M. E*. "A Comparison of Individuals and Small Groups in the Rational Solutional of Complex Prob-

i s a f ^ a e i c g ? ™ 1 * 338.

—

—

^

Sheffield, Alfred, "Discussion, Lecture-Forum, and Debate," Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. XVIII# wm ^1 A-ttrt tf*t n Van 1952# pp. 517-31* - .m

.....

n irrT -.irn rr-.-T rrrr-

rrrirr.ut

lUJjiiJiw.ur ' huju«uu

*559.

Simpson# Ray H., "The Effect of Discussion of Intra­ group Divergencies of Jud&nant," Quarterly Journal Of Speech* Vol# XXV, 1939# pp. 541-Si*

*540.

South# Edward B*# "Some Psychological Aspects of Committee Work#" Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. VI# 1923, pp. 38-4$•

*543..

Spence# Ralph B.* "Lecture and Class Discussion in Teaching Educational Psychology," journal of Edu­ cati cnal Psychology. Vol. XIX, 1928, pp. 454-627

*548.

Stroop, J, R*, "Is the judgment of the Group Better Than That of the Average Member of the Group?" Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. XV, 1932, pp. 550—62.

345.

Studebaker# John W.# "Discussion and Education," Watlonal Educational Association Journal. Vol. xxv, is$e 7 pp • T o t 3 8 ; t

336 344.

Studebaker, John W . f "Liberalism and Adult Civic Education*" Annate of the A f r i c a n Academy. Vol. CLXXXIX, 1935* pp. 83-727

345.

Thanssen, Lester* "The Social Values of Discussicn i2afflai ■ * * “ * * ■ m

*

*346.

Thorndyke, Robert L., "The Effect of Discusaicaa upon the Correctness of Group Decisions when the Factor of Majority Influence is Allowed For*** jSg£9Sl J§£ Social Psychology. Vol. IX, 1938, pp. 345—CJ5.

*347•

Thorndyke, Robert L., "On What Type of Task Will a Group Do Better?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Fgycholo^y. Vol. xScirx, 1958, pp." 409-13.

*348.

Timmons, William J., "Can the Product Superiority of Discussers Be Attributed to Averaging or Majority I n n ^ n o 9 ? " Jp.urnal of Social Psychology, Vol. XV, 1942, pp. 23-38.

349.

Timmons, William J., "Discussion, Debating, and Research," Quarterlv Journal of Speech. Vol. XXVII, 1941, pp. 415-21.

*350.

"University of Chicago Round Table Broadcast," School and Society. Vol. XLVIII, 1938, pp, 747-48.

*351.

"University of Chicago Round Table and the Sloan Foundation," School and Society. Vol. XLIX, 1939, p. 728.

352.

Utterbaok, William B,, "Group Discussion," Adult Education Bulletin. Vol. XIII, 1949, pp. 67-68.

353.

TTtterback, William S., "Measuring the Reaction of the Audience to an Argumentative Speech," quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. VIII, 1922, pp. 180-85.

*554.

355.

Dtterback, William E., "Political Significance of Group Discussion," Angela American Academy of Poli­ tical and Bpcjtai ScicnceT vol. CCL, 1947, pp. 32-40. Wagner, Russell H., "An Experiment in Discussion," Emerson quarterly. Vol. XV, 1935, pp. 18-14.

337 *860.

W .

s a rs 'W s s .f

Wats cm, Goodwin B., "Do Groups Think More Efficiently "

'

1

Wheeler, D,, and H. Jordan, ’’Change of Individual Opinion to Accord with Group Opinion,” Journal of M a g m a . p Z s i s M ^ s z # vol. xxiv, pp# 205-06.

m & S& M X

388#

Willis, Edgar E., "The Relative Effectiveness of Three Forms of Radio Presentation in Influencing Attitudes,11 Sme_ch Monographs. Vol, VII, 1940, pp*

41-47. *359.

860*

C.

wrightstone, John W., "An Instrument for Measuring Group Discussion and Planning .11 Journal of JMucatlonal Research. Vol, XXVII, 1954, pp. ell-TOT*'

Ziebarth, Edward W * 9 "Radio and Rational Understand*?§»" ftuarterlv ^oarnal, £ f 3Bg.ggh, Vol. XXXIII, 1947, pp. 528-34.

Government Document a *561,

Congressional Becord. Vol* 8 6 , No. 87, May S, 1940, pp.8304-06.

*362.

Congressional Record. Vol. 95, No. 51, July 7, 1948, p* 21709.

*563.

Congressional Record. Vol. 95, No, 12, January 27, 1940, p. 28489.

P. Manuscripts 564.

Behnke, E, A,, "Cultural Trends in Radio," unpublished Master *s thesis, State University of Iowa, 1941.

565.

Bird, Winifred W,, "An Analysis of the Aims and Practices of the Principal Sponsors of Education b y Radio in the United States,” unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, 3tate University of Iowa, 1958*

366.

Cowley, William H*, "A Study of the Traits of Faceto-face Leaders,” unpublished Ph* U# dissertation, University of Chicago, 1931.

338 •fif#

Di&on, D. S«| "Plato's Views of Public Discussion,” unpublished Master*a thesis, Cornell University, 1938 *

f$ 8 «

Dudley, Lloyd, "The Relation of Formal Logic to Debate Theory and Pr act lee,” unpublished Master's thesis. University of Southern California, 1934*

8 6 ®.

Elfenbein, Josef Aaron, "An Investigation of Edu­ cational Radio in the Secondary Schools of Louisi­ ana," unpublished Master's thesis, Louisiana State University, 1948,

0070.

Foster, Eugene Stuart, "A Classification for Analyz­ ing the Content of Informal Croup Discussions," unpublished Master's thesis, Syracuse University, 1941,

$71*

Fulton, A. M*, "A study in Modes of Oral Style in Radio Broadcasting," unpublished Master's thesis, University of Wiseonein, 1931#

378#

Seating, B* 8 *, "An investigation of Historical Vehicles of Free Oral Discussion In the United States i The Current Open-Forum Movement and Public Educationi and Pattern of Forum Procedure," unpub­ lished Ph. D* dissertation, University of Southern California, 1939*

*373#

Glffin, Kim, "An Analysis of the Discussion Methods Employed by the American Forum of the Air," unpub­ lished Master's thesis, State University of Iowa, 1946*

#374.

Uulley, Halbert E*, "A Study of the Relative Effec­ tiveness of Debate and Discussion Upon Audience Opinion," unpublished Master's thesis, State Uni* varsity of Iowa, 1941.

375*

#376*

Henning, J* H*, "An Experimental Study of the Hole of Presumption and Burden of Proof in Problem Solving," unpublished Ph* D* dissertation, Worthwestern University, 1946# Horn, R. M*, "A Compilation and Analysis of Various Types of Intercollegiate Debates and Discussions," unpublished Master's thesis, Northwestern Univer­ sity, 1938.

» 339 #§77*

Howell, J# M#, "The Contribution of the Platonic Socrates to Modern Principles of Discussion," un­ published Master's thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1943#

378*

Howell, William 8 #, "The Effects of High School Debating on Critical Thinking," unpublished Fh* D* dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1942*

#379*

Howell, William S*, "The Relative Effectiveness of the Radio Round-table and the Radio Forum," unpub­ lished Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1938 *

#380*

Johnson, Alma, "An Experimental study in the Analysis and Measurement of Reflective Thinking," unpublished Ph* D* dissertation, Northwestern university, 1943*

#381*

Kearney, Mary, "A Method by Which the Degree of Effectiveness of a Problem-Solving Group Discussion may be Described and Measured in Terms of Agree­ ment - Disagreement," unpublished Master's thesis, Syracuse University, 1942*

#382*

Knight, Harold C#, "A Comparison of the Reliability of Group and Individual Judgments," unpublished Master's thesis, Hew York, Columbia University, 1921.

#383*

Lester, Jlarjorle L*, "A Descriptive Analysis of the Changes In the Use of Language in Original and Printed Versions of Selected University of Chicago Bound Table Discussions," unpublished Master's thesis. State University of Iowa, 1940*

384*

Links, Eleanor, "A Comparison of Two Methods of Using Radio for Changing Certain Social Attitudes," unpublished Master's thesis, State University of Iowa, 1945*

#385*

386.

McBvoy, Jim S., "An Experimental Study of the Pro­ cess of Group Discussion in Small Groups," unpub­ lished Master's thesis, Syracuse University, 1940* Nelson, Harold E., "A Com or ©he naive Survey of the Radio Listening Audience, unpublished Master's thesis, State University of Iowa, 1939*

340 9387*

Faley, William S., "Radio as a Cultural Fore©," Hew York, unpublished mahuscrl.pt, 1954,

©388.

Phelps, Emma S*, "The Place of Deduction in Repre­ sentative Works of Argumentation, Debate, and Public Ulscuaslon," unpublished Master*® thesis. State University of Iowa, 1946,

389.

Phelps, Waldo, HA Comparison of Debate with Dis­ cussion for Aliness Behavior , ’1 unpublished Master*a thesis, University of Denver, 1941.

©390*

Phifer, Gregg* "An Analysis of the Logical Pattern in Representative University of Chicago Round Table Discussions," unpublished Master’s thesis, State University of Iowa, 1941.

©891*

Poison, R. K., "Discussion in the Junior High School," unpublished Master’s thesis, Cornell Uni­ versity, 19 4S.

©398*

Rickard, Paul B., "An Experimental Study of Group Discussion In the Teaching of Factual Content," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern Uni­ versity, 1946.

©395.

Robinson, Karl P . , "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Group Discus si bn Upon the Social Atti­ tudes of College Students," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1940.

©594.

Smith, R. W*, "An Analysis of Farm Programs of Two Representative Iowa Radio Stations Over a Selected Gne-week Period for Each Station," unpublished Master’s thesis, State University of Iowa, 1947.

©395.

Tatum, G. L., "Preliminary Investigation of a Pro­ cedure for Conditioning for Discussion," unpub­ lished Master’s thesis, Northwestern University, 1948.

©396,

Timmons, William M., "Decisions and Attitudes as Outcome© of the Discussion of a Social Problem," unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Colorado Univer­ sity, 1939.

397.

Whitehead, A. E., "An Objective Study of* Oral Styles in Radio Broadcasting," unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1930.

Appendix A ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS STUDIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION

‘ 342 Appendix A ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS STUDIED IN THIS INVESTIGATION Many references are made throughout this disser­ tation to the^long period of service given by the four sel­ ected network discussion programs, the approval of critics and the listening public, and certain changes In policy throughout the years* The purpose of this appendix is to present briefly a description of the origin and development of each program studied*

Specific attention is given to the selection of

objectives and types of discussion employed, the selection of topics and participants, the role played by the modera­ tors and moderator-partloipants, and the administrative techniques used in adapting discussion to the radio or television media*

The major changes made pertaining to

format, administration, staff, network affiliations and sponsors are described.

Evidence is offered of the ap­

proval of critics and the general listening public.

Atten­

tion is also given to the Imitators of the four programs. Amarlca's g a m Megtl^g g £

M S

America’s Town Meeting Is produced by the Town

' 343 Hall, Incorporated, an adult educational institution of a non-partisan nature. In New York City*

1

it la located at 125 West 43rd Street

Ita policies are set by a Board of Trus­

tees | on this Board are such people as Peter Grimm, Harry Woodburn Chase, Mrs* Richard C. Patterson, Jr. , sira. Theo­ dore Roosevelt, Jr., and Joseph M* Levine.^

The Board names

a President| at present he is George V. Denny, Jr.

The

Town Hall was founded in 1824, and was then known as the League for Political Education .3 Town Hall has four departmentss Course* Concert, and Radio and Television.^

Lecture, Short The Radio and

Television Department consists of thirty-two people, and is responsible for doing research on subjects and speak­ ers, originating and producing programs, publicising and managing Town Meeting tours, answering audience mail and 5 preparing the Town Meeting Bulletin. The Original Town Meeting Broadcasts An interesting story of the origin of Town Meeting Welcome to T o ^ Hall. p. 2. 2. |bid., p. 14* 3* Claire C. Deane, A Short St pry of Town Hall, p. 3. 4. Welcome to Town Hall, p. 2* 5. George V. Denny, "The First 500 Hours," in 500 Hours,

m » v . ■-*.

344 Isrn h m n written b y Marty and Bona.ro Overstreet s On an eventful winter night in 1954,.##a young man named George Denny was walking home after listening to a broadcast by President Roosevelt ###He met a friend# ..The friend made a remark about a neighbor* who lived across the street##. What the friend said was this* 'Our neighbor across the way would rather be shot than be caught listening to Roosevelt on the radio#' Suddenly he (Denny) was pulled up short* 'But here's a man who just won't listen. Even with the ra­ dio right there in his room and a chance to hear what the other side has to say for Itself* he deliberately closes his mind# And, if he is like the rest of us, he reads the newspapers he approves and doesn't read the othersj he lis­ tens to friends who believe as he does and doesn't listen to others# Talk about danger to democracy— there's the real danger!' Out of that night's thinking^eame the plan for the Town Meeting of the A i r #6 According to Mr# Denny, the format of the original Town Meeting was designed to attract and hold the attention of those passive American citizens typified by the previously mentioned Roosevelt hater#

He says

that four speakers

were presented

instead of two, because

two might

grow wearisome

in their irreconcilable

opposition, but four

would be a source of constant surprises#

easily

He points out

also that most problems are not two-sided but many sided. Another listener-appealing device was the bringing in of the audience where they were Mgiven a chance to pepper the 6 * Harry and Bonaro Overstreet, Town Meeting Comes to Town. RPt 3*4#

345 .Speaker* with questions."

7

The original Town Utootinga were broadcast at the expense of the National Broadcasting Companyj the first broadcast was produced on May 30, 1935, and the first regular series began on October 31, 1935.

8

The moderator of the original broadcasts (and 9 moderator since that time) was Mr* Benny. The original role of moderator, according to Mr* Benny, was to intro­ duce the speakers, allow them to discuss the topic briefly after they had presented their prepared speeches* and im­ partially to offer various members of the audience an op­ portunity to ask questions .^0

As moderator, Mr* Benny says

that he attempted to present an attitude of impartiality toward both sides of controversial issues.

11

The topics and participants for the original Town Meetings were selected by Mr. Bennyi the first program was nWhich Way America...Fascism, Communism, Socialism or Democracy?* with Lawrence Dennis, A. jr. Muste, Norman Thomas, 7 * Xbld. * p. 15. 8 . Loo. clt.

9. Welcome to Town Hall, p. 2.

10. AB»rloa»8 t o m Meeting £f the &££• P* 211. Loo. clt.

346 m & fAymond Moley an guest speakers.

jBPtfflMaa m & jtelmaM a£

is Sam UsaUas

Since town Meeting’s inception* Denny has pre­ sided as moderator on more than 470 broadcasts.

A few

broadcasts have been conducted by guest moderators* among them H* V. K a l t e n b o m * Clifton Utley* Lyman Bryson* and IS Senator Irving M. Ives* Concerning his task as modera­ tor* Mr* Denny has stated: It goes without saying that tact* diplomacy and firmness, when necessary, are essential qualifi­ cations for a successful moderator. Be should be serious but good humored and never lose his temper* He should be reasonably familiar with every subject discussed and must possess enough mental agility to jump from subject matter to the technical aspects of the production if he*s go­ ing to keep the program moving at a lively pace and with proper order* He must quietly control* but not dominate each discussion. And, above all, he must be scrupulously fair in his deeisl ons *** Town Meeting has originated programs in coopera­ tion with many national organizations, notably, the follow­ ing!

American Association of School Administrators, National

Federation of W o m e n ’s Clubs* American Library Association, Botary International, KIwanis International, League of If* Denny* ©jj. clt.. pp. S-S. 13. Ibid.. p. 5. 14. Hew York Times, Hovember 24* 1946, p. 14*

34? Voters, and Junior Chamber of Commerce,

Town Meet*

|HS baa bean broadenst from the campuses of scores of uni­ versities and colleges.

The program currently is "on the *1K road" approximately one-half of the time* During the war years, an abridged version of the Town Meeting was sent by the Armed Forces Radio Service to more than on© hundred stations where American troops were quartered in other parts of the world.'5*® •7,-v

Seven annual Junior Town Meetings have been pre­ sented as part of the regular Town Meeting series.

The

Junior Town Meeting League, founded under the Impetus of America's Town Meeting, now has more than five thousand members consisting mostly of high school students, teachers, 1*7 and radio station managers* Radio wT o w n .Meetings* patterned after America's Town Meeting of the Air are being produced regularly on many stations throughout the country and in Canada, Aus­ tralia, Japan, the Phillipin© Islands and Germany.

These

programs were Inspired by Americans Town Meeting and, in 15* 50p Hours Old* pp. 5-6. 16, George V, Bonny, Condensed Apnuajt Report of the Fresljapt* p* 5. 1*7, m o Hours Old, p. 6 , The Junior Town Meeting League Is sponsore a i n p a r ¥ by the American Education Press, Columbus, Ohio, who publish The Town Meeting Bulletin,

348 m t t oases, were given direct a s s i s t a n t by Town Hall, The Columbus (Ohio) Town Mooting has been a weakly radio featore for ten years At the instigation of the Town Hall, thousands of Town Meeting discussion groups have been organised in homes, Churches, synagogues, clubs, schools, and colleges to listen to the program and carry on their own discussions after 19 the Town Meeting broadcasts. During its fourteen years of operation--through October 18, 1949--America »s Town Meeting had been broad­ cast S8 S times and had presented 9300 leadens in of government, labor, management,science,

the fields

thearts,

and

education ,®0 America*e Town Meeting celebrated the beginning of its fifteenth year of broadcasting by undertaking a global tour, holding Town Meetings in twelve world capitals; London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Ankara, Tel Aviv, 91 Cairo* Karachi, Hew Delhi, Manila, and Tokyo, Mr, Denny and his Town Meeting staff were accompanied by a party of 18, Freedom 1a Beil Rings Round the World* p, 18, i®* JgSSL* clt * Welcome to Town Ha l l , p* 3,

81, Welcome to Town Hall, p* 10.

34:9 twenty-eight leaders representing national organisation® in the fields of labor, management, agriculture, educa­ tion, culture and civic activities.

This group was known

as Town Hall World Seminar and met dally with their opposite members in each country to hold round table discussion® on world problems and topics of peculiar interest to the coun­ try itself*

The over-all theme for these discussions was

"peae© with individual freedom and w e l l - b e i n g . I n oach capital city (except Berlin) Mr.

Denny conducted a Town

Heating on a subject of world interest, with two speaker® from the host country and two Americans, followed by un­ censored questions from the audience.

In many countries

these broadcasts, frequently conducted in two languages, were transmitted over the national radio directly*

The

programs were then broadcast from recordings at a later day in the United States over the American Broadcasting »«twork .2 3 Major Changes In Policy on America,’3. Town Meeting of the Air There have been four major changes in policy since the original Town Meeting broadcasts each of these changes 2 2 . hoc, clt.

25. George V. Denny, Chester 3. Williams 'and Brooks Bmeny, Report to the President of the United State®,, p. 2.

i 350

Is of interest to a study of the role of leadership on the program.

These major changes have been In relation to (1)

frequency of the broadcasts*

(2) sponsorship of the program*

(5) attitude toward clash of argument* and (4) television. The first regular aeries of twenty-six Town Meet­ ings began October 31, 1935.

For the next six years only

twenty-five to twenty-seven programs were produced each season*

In May* 1942, Town Meeting was broadcast once each

week and has \ continued on this basis ever s l n c e » ^ During the first eight years of its existence, Town Meeting was a sustaining program and was financed entirely by th© network* the first six years by the National Broadcasting Company, then by the American Broadcasting Company, until September, 1944, when it cam© under the sponsorship of the ReaderTs Digest. tinued until November, 1945.

This sponsorship con­

The program then went on a

Sustaining basis until January, 1947* when the program was offered for sal© to sponsors in each city which the Ameri­ can Broadcasting Company had an outlet.

Town Meeting was

locally sponsored in 265 radio and five television stations 25 of th© American Broadcasting Company during 1949. 24. Freedom*® Bell Rings Round the World, p. 12, 25. 500 Hours Old, p. 5.

»■ 351 After the program had been broadcast for a number of years and had caught the attention of a large number of listeners, Mr# Denny and hi® staff decided to place greater emphasis on dissemination of knowledge and information.

In

1941 in a conference at Chicago he said; Sow to be perfectly concrete about America’s Town Meeting off the Air this year, we are determined to sacrifice if necessary our margin of listeners, those people who are interested only in a dog fight, in order to try to get some kind off unity through understanding In this country...since we have been concentrating on evidence, w© find that the more people know about a subject, the less they are inclined to disgrace and fight each other .26 Regularly televised broadcasts off America’s Town Meeting of the Air over five major stations began in 1949.27 At the beginning of 1950 the program format underwent stream­ lining ”for th© purpose off enabling th© program to meet th© 28 requirements of television.” Its air tlm© was cut from an hour to a half hour, and th© number of speakers decreased from four to two; about the same proportion of program time as during 1949 was allowed for questions from the audience. 26. Proceedings of the Fourth ^nnual Meeting School Broad­ cast Conference. Georg© Jennings, © d., p. 85. 27 * Welcome to Town Hall,

pm 5.

28, Chicago Sun-Times, December 4, 1949, p. 29.

22 * Dbg. c it .

29

352 Several experimental changes In policy were mad© temporarily during the fourteen years of broadcasting. are of special Interest to this study:

Two

(1) during 1946

tto of the "guest speakers* were replaced by "interrogators* Whose function was to help the audience to understand th© basic Issues of the discussion by presenting a two minute analysis of the prepared contribution of each "guest speaker" and asking pointed questions at any time during the question period that the interrogator thought a speaker 30 had not properly answered a question! (2 ) research data for the aid of participants was collected by the Town Meeting staff members and sent to the prospective guest speakers.

31

Both of these practices had been discontinued

by 1949. Approval of the Listening Audience Since 1935, America’s Town Meeting of the Air has won thirty-three major citations and awards for public service and public interest, including two Peabody Awards th© top honor in radio .32

These awards include nine

30. Instruction Brochure for Participants, p. 7, 31. Elizabeth Cole lough, Interview between author and, November 29, 1949*

58* §33 Hoars SM>

P* 9 *

353 »ABBual Award®" of th® Women*® National Radio Committee* five "First Award®" in the annual American Exhibition of Educational Radio Program® sponsored by th© Institute for Education by Radio* Ohio State University} thre® 11AnUtUal Radio Daily Awards” resulting from a poll of 1,091 radio editors of the nation who voted "America*® Town Meeting 11 their "favorite educational program1*} two George Fester Peabody Awards for being the "Outstanding Educational Radio Program" for the year; two

Radio Certificates of

Merit from the National Federation of Press Women? a "First Award" from the National Council of Teachers of English} and an "Annual Award" which was presented to the National Broadcasting Company by the American Legion Auxiliary. Secretary of the Treasury John Snyder recently Advocated more "town meetings" for America and for the world.

He stated that one of the best contributions Ameri­

ca can make to international understanding Is th© encour­ agement of the free exchange and discussion of ideas among 34

all peoples. Mr* Denny estimates the program*® listening 35 audience at between five and ten million persons. Its 35* Ibid... pp. 9-10. 34. The Washington Post, October 19, 1949, p. 14.

500 Hour® Oj,d* p. 6.

t 354 "leeperating ,*■ a coincidental telephone survey of a samp­ ling of the radio listening audience in certain large cities, varies between three and six.

When the shew goes on tour

as many as 86 per cent of all listeners in the broadcast 37 town have tuned in the program. Town Hall receives more than two thousand let­ ters from listeners each week,

A particularly lively dis­

suasion may bring In twelve thousand letters .**8

During

the 1948-49 season {twelve months) a total of 116,869 letters and cards were received in response to the broad­ casts.

This la an average of 2,891 letters and cards per 39 program. Listeners have written a total of 904,777

pieces of mail to Town Meeting since the program started 40 in May, 1935. A Town Meeting Bulletin containing the complete text of each meeting is published for sale each week* This transcript is a verbatim account taken from recordings 36, 0. S. Hooper, Hooperatlngs. Network programs, (Quarter­ ly Reports) 1940-49. 37* America's Town Meeting of the Air. Cooperative Program Department, 1947, 38. Freedom' a. Boll Rings Round the World,, p. 51. 39* Welcome to Town Hall, p. 2 .

40* 500 Hours Old, p* 5. 41. Freedom*® Bell Rings Round the Worjd, op. cit., p. 31.

355 «T the broadcasts.

During the 1948-49 season, 789,715

transcripts were sold and 101,194 people attended the 42 broadcasts• More than three and one**half million copies of these transcripts have been distributed.

425

Mr. D e m y has com© to the following conclusion concerning Town Meeting*® listening audiencess All over America and in many foreign countries the Town Meeting idea is growing and spreading. While Town Meeting la but one of our four Town Hall departments* it is the moat significant in terms of the size of the audience it reaches .44 The American Forum of the Air

In 1928* while still a student in law school serving as assistant director of a local New York radio station, Theodore Granik conceived the idea of presenting a program under the title* Law for th© Layman. ing civic leaders,

Outstand­

judge®, legislators, and attorneys dis­

cussed legal questions in simple terms that the layman Could understand*

Later, while a member of the bar in New

York City and Assistant District Attorney of Hew York* 42. Welcome, to Tow?* Hall, p. 2. 43. Freedom*s Bell Blnrea Bound the World, p. 1. 44. George V. Denny in 500 Hours Old, p. 4. 46. C onzresaional Beoord. Vol. 8 6 , Ho. 87, May 2, 1940, pp.

8504-05.

> 356 this young man continued his program over station WGR. But* Judging by the letters from the listeners* Mr. GranIk 46 concluded that people wanted both sides of the question®. Consequently, he founded the WOR Forum which presented men and women in debates on vital questions of the day.

This

program was heard over station WOR until 1937, when that station became th© key station of the Mutual network in th© Bast.

By that time Mr. Oranlk had come to Washington

to practice law, but he continued his forum program over the Mutual network*

During 1937-38 the program was pre­

sented as a half-hour feature.

According to Granik, fan

mail became so insistent that the program be lengthened that In 1939 he originated the American Porum of th© Air.

47

The Original American Forum of the Air Broadcasts Granlk made a definite effort to obtain as parti­ cipants the Senators, th© Member® of the House, or the Cabinet officers who were moat vitally interested in th© subject to b© discussed.

The full hour of broadcast made

It possible to add additional speakers in th© form of a panel, and to have impromptu discussions following th© 46. hoc, clt.

> 357 i n d e n t a t i o n of the first two debaters .^8 It was suggested to Granik that he present these programs in an auditorium In Washington to which people from all parts of the country who might be visiting Wash­ ington could come to witness th© broadcasts free of charge. Since the program was non-commercial, there were no funds to pay for an auditorium or meeting place.

However, because

the topics discussed affected government and people and because the speakers were usually officials of the Govern­ ment* Granik believed that the public should use one of its own buildings for this purpose.

Consequently, h© and

officials of th© Mutual Broadcasting System persuaded Secre­ tary I ekes to allow th© us© of on© of th© Government auditoriums.

49

In selecting his participants, Granik checked with leaders of both parties In th© Senate and th© House*

50

To maintain a complete and fair presentation, he asked the opposing speakers to send him their suggestions for remarks they might like to have him include in his Intro­ ductions, and when Granik prepared his introductory 48* h o c , clt. 4®. koc. clt»

358 r&m&rk* he measured what he said about th® proponents and Opponents line by line, giving the same number of quota­ tions , the same number of phrases pro and con .51 A symposium format was used on th© program* of several speakers

Each

(usually four) presented short speeches,

without interruptions.

Usually two speakers were aligned

against two other speakers on "aides" of a clear-cut issue.

In these set speeches the various aspects of the

problem unfolded.

When the set speeches were concluded* ct*se an informal colloquy followed.

Expansion and Development of the American Forum of the Air In twenty-one years of radio and television broad­ casting Granik says that his forums have presented "prac­ tically ©v e r y prominent American and hundreds of foreign spokesmen on issues of the day ,"^4

Congressmen have made 55 up the greater part of the guest list. During on© sea** sion of Congress alone, 75 per cent of the Members of

51 • IjSB* Pi t .

58. A* Craig Baird, Representative American Speeches. 1959-40* p. 8 8 . 63* |jO£. clt . 54. D o c * cit.

58, J?ew York Times, September 15, 1940, p. 4*

359

C o n g M a a appealed on the program .86

During tha more than

two decades Granik has conducted his programs* two men who became President of th© United States and 90 per cent of all Senators* Congressmen and Cabinet Members have been ry BIT* Granik*a guests .0 Verbatim accounts* including station announcements* of weeny broadcasts have been read into the Congressional Record.

This practice was begun* according to Mr* Granik,

by interested legislators who wanted their speeches put into the record as broadcast.

Another purpose of the procedure,

he explained* is to permit further discussion on th© radio topics to be carried to th© floors of th© Congress.

The

broadcast record also serves as the basis for rebuttal .69 Major Changes in Policy on the American Forum of the Air There have been six major changes in policy since the original American Forum of the Air broadcast. These major changes have been in relation to (1) type of discussion employed,

(2 ) usual number of participants, (6 )

length of time on the air per broadcast*

(4) network

56* Congressional Record. Vol. 95* Ho. 51* July 7* 1948, p. 21709. $7* Mew York Daily Mews, May 29* 1949, p. 14. 68 * Mew York Times* September 15* 1940, p. 4*

360 the- program* (5) sponsorship of the program* and {$} television. The original American Forum broadcast was a sym­ posium in which four participant© gave short prepared speeches (about seven minutes) which were followed by a collo­ quium in which the four guest speakers participated in

CSq round table discussion.

This format was changed in 1948;

the guests opened w i t h a round table panel discussion which was followed by a period of questions from the studio 60 audience* The number of guest-participants was reduced from four to two

(for all but a very few special broad­

casts) in 1948, The reason given

by Mr. Granik for these

changes was that they made for less confusion and profusion of Ideas* thus sharpening th© Issues being debated; these ©hangss also

more time for questions from the studio

audience .6 1 The length of time on the air per broadcast was increased to one

hour in 1939.69

reduced to forty-five

In 1948 the broadcast was

minutes and in 1948 to thirty

89. Baird, p p . alt,, p. 8 8 * #0* Sam Chase* The Billboard, p. 14. 61. Leo. Qift.

68, $6w York Times* September 15, 1940* p. 4,

361 minutes .6 5

During 1949 the thirty minutes of broadcast

tin© were equally divided into a period of panel discussion followed b y a period of questions from the audience* Th© American Forum was originally presented by the Mutual Broadcasting System with Washington, D* C., as 64 Its origination point* * In October, 1949, the American Forum made Its debut on a now network, th© national Broad­ casting Company *6 6 During the first eight years the American Forum ran sustaining on th© Mutual network without sponsorship *66 6*7 Sine© 1947 the program has been sponsored* Concerning th© sponsorship of his program, Mr* Granik stated, nWe have always had good sponsors who give us complete freedom *” 68 Ralph Burgin, Television program Manager for the National Broadcasting Company, stated in an interview that no contracts or agreements had been made by Mr. Granik with either the network or sponsor concerning his methods of 63* Chase* oj>* olt, * p* 14* 64* Th© Washington Post, October SO, 1949, XV, p* 1* 65* Hew York Dally Hews, May 29, 1949, p* 14. 6 6 * Doc* o it*

67* Chase, ogu clt* * p* 14*

68* Hew York Daily Hews, May 29, 1949, p. 14*

« 362

*diilaia$©Fl»g th© program*

I© indicated that all decision*

#«na»*iiing format, participants, topics and method of moder­ ating the program were Granik*a responsibility*6® The first attempt to televise the program occurred in 1948| on May '2 2 , the premiere telecast was aired in Washington under the title of the American Television Forum, and was a separate broadcast from the radio version, being Offered on a different day of the week over a different TO network* The radio program was broadcast on the Mutual network and th© television version over the facilities of th® National Broadcasting Company*

In October, 1949, th©

American Forum became a simulcast over th© latter network*

71

Except for occasional excursions to campaign areas or to Mew York, th© Forum originates from the Wardman Park Hotel in Washington.*^®

Television has brought at least on© new

- problem to Granikls role as moderator*

According to Bfic*

Granik h© has always mad© a point of being impartial;^® now that he is seen as well as heard, he states that he @9, Ralph Burgin, interview between author and, November 28, 1949. 70. New York Times, May 9, 1949, p. 21. 71* San Diego Union, October 30, 1949, p. 21* 72* Th© Washington Post, June 19, 1 9 4 9 , IV, p, 1 .

73* Theodor© Granik, interview between author and, November 28, 1949.

363 Wirn t© to© even more careful, attitude

As for the problem of what

a moderator should exhibit - a choice of ”smiling

at the Jokes or looking as if h©«d d i e d / as Dwight Cook© puts it - Granik says that be tries to keep himself so in74 conspicuous that th© audience will forget he»s there* Agprwl «

of the Listening; Audlenoe The American Forum of th© Air has received a

number of awards, including the Georg© Foster Peabody Award and several nAnnual Awards’* from the Institute for Education by Radio, the W o m e n s national Radio Committee and th© United States Junior Chamber of Commerce ,76

Congressmen,

Government officials and even President Truman have com­ plimented the program *76 Th© tthooperating” of th© American Forum of the Air has over a period of years, ranged from three to five, 77

averaging about four* Transcripts of th© program are published in th© form of a weekly pamphlet, which consists of a atenotyplst*s 74* The Washington Post, June 19, 1949, IV, p, 1* 75*^Congresaiqnal Record* Vol* 95, no, 51, July 7, 1949, 76* Washington Post, November 16, 1947, XV, p, 4* 77* 0, K* Hooper, Hooperatings * Hotwork programs (Quarterly Reports) 1940-49,

364 report of th© debate*

It is distributed free to libraries

and schools throughout the country *7 8 $ M People [n Platform •33B33* •B5SJSSS55553#3IB!SSEi!3 |9E5959H5C!2ES2£a3ffi The origin of th© People*s Platform la unique among the programs investigated in this study in that its objectives and format were devised by officials of a radio network. «h». Original Peop l e ’s Platform Rroadoaata. Leon Levine produced th© first People*© Platform 79 on the Columbia Broadcasting System in July* 1938* ififhen the program made its debut and for many years afterward* Lyman Bryson* now Columbia Broadcasting System’s Counselor QA on Public Affairs* was its regular chairman. According to Leon Levine, the Board of Adult Bdueafcion of Columbia Broadcasting System called for a forum with the following objectives*®* tore sting program*

(1 ) it should be an in*

(2 ) it should show more than one point

of view, (3 ) it should not give "the answer,n but leave the 78* Congressional Record. July 7* 1949, vol. 95* no. 51* p* 21709, 79* Columbia Broadcasting System News Release* August 5, 1942. 80. Columbia Broadcasting System News Release, August 5* 1942. 81, Leon Levine* interview between author and, November 23, 1949,

'

365

decision up to the listener, and (4) It should relieve the pressure of groups and organisations who were trying to get on the air* The program planners weekly presented Mr* Bryson, the program*s moderator, with his guests— -four typical citizens of both aeaces, of all shades of political opinion, and from all classes of society*

They met around a dinner

table and talked in an informal fashion about current topics of interest.

At a time unannounced to the wguests,’* a

microphone was ”tuned on 11 and th© program went on th© air.

82

Reasons for selecting people from common walks of life and seating them around a dinner table have been given by Mr. Bryson as follow ® 3 In the first place, they are likely at least once or twice In the evening to ask a question which will strike some of our unnumbered listen­ ers...The other reason for having them there is that if you*re an expert and right across the table from you is somebody who really is actually that kind of person, you are going to speak in definitely less technical terms*.*8® Expansion and Development of the People *g Platform In over eleven years of broadcasting Columbia’s 82# byman Bryson, Columbia Broadcasting System Rows Re­ lease, June. 1038# 83. Lyman Bryson in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meet­ ing Sohool Broadcast Conference* George Jermings, ed., p. 85*

366 tt#pX®*a Platforms have presented m a r l y six hundred dis­ cussion programs and about two thousand guest participants .84 According to Mr. Levine* the only interrupt!ms during the period were due to cancellations for important news or war broadcasts .85 Althou^i the P e o p l e d Platform usually originates in Mew York* the program has traveled to two dozen American cities for closer coverage of the subject at hand.

It also oc

has been broadcast from Havanna* London# and Canada. M a i m Changes in Policy on the People*a Platform There have been two major changes in policy since th© original People’s Platform broadcasts| these changes have boon in relation to (1 ) qualifications of participants# and (2 ) television. In the original broadcasts, the People’s Platform participants were two authorities and two Individuals repro* senting the ordinary citizen*

Today, th© dinner*.table ia

no more in evideno© and the participants are recognized authorities on the topic, varying in number with th© type of topi© discussed.

According to Mr* Levine# three or more

@4. Columbia Broadcasting System Mews Release, August 5, 1949. 85. Leon Levine, interview between author and, November 25# 1949. 8 6 . Columbia Broadcasting System Hews Release,

July 12# 1949.

367 pwmm

are used with & discussion topic, that is, a "how"

problemj and two for a debate topic, that is a "proposition." Th* program is no longer looked upon by Mr. Levine as a reflection of th© thinking of two authorities plus two "men in th© street"; instead, it is viewed as an opportunity for the leaders of the country to engage In free discussion* Th© reason for the change as given by Mr. Levin© is that the listeners objected to participants who were not a u t h o r ities.^ Th© latest development on the Peoplefs Platform Is the adjustment to the advent of television.

In 1948 the

program was simultaneously broadcast for radio and tele*, vision audiences

In 1949 a separate broadcast was in-

stituted for television.

The Producer, Mr. Levine and

John Pizer, Television Director, have experimented with dramatic sketches, documentary films, charts and other visual aids .9 0

The purposes of the sketch, according to

Mr. Levine, were to stimulate Interest in the topic and to present more vividly the background nature of th© 87* Leon Levine, Interview between author and, November 23, 1949. 8 8 . Columbia Broadcasting System Hews Release,

July 12, 1948.

89. Leon Levine, interview between author and, November 23, 1942. 90. Charles Collingwood, interview between author and, November 25, 1949.

368 problem*

In November of 1949, Mr. Levin© abated that he

felt meat hopeful about the use of a two and one-half minute sketch early in the broadcast .91

2l & & Iii&SgBilag Audlenc^. The People *s Platform has received a number of

awards, including the George Foster Peabody Award and several "Annual Awards1* from the Institute for Education by R adio.92 Listeners to th© People *s Platform are a respon­ sive audience i more than two thousand letters have often been received in reference to one broadcast*

95

According

to Mr. Levine, the letters from listeners follow no pat­ tern and few generalizations can be made.

There Is much

of what he calls **opinionated1* mail; recently many listen­ ers have expressed appreciation of "balance1* in the program, referring to stature of participants a® authorities and the work of th© moderator In allowing both sides to present in equal fashion their opposing points of view.

Mr. Levine

stated that there definitely is, according to the mail 91. Leon Levine, Interview between author and, November 05, 1949* 92* Columbia Broadcasting System News Release, July 12, 1948. 95* Leon Levine, interview between author and, November 25, 1949,

369 received, a growing appreciation of the problems involved Jit setting up a radio program such as the People's Platform* Mr* Levin© recalled the stormy protests that poured in following lively debates on vital issues during the pro­ gram’s early yearsj the letters and telegrams had one thought in common - why should the opposition speaker have been put on the program?

The f’antis* di d n ’t want to hear

the "pro* side and the "pros* didn’t want to hear the ’’anti* side of a question*

"The listeners are more tol-

•rant today,1* state Mr* Levine, "they not only are willing to listen to two or more points of view on a problem 04 tbey insist on hearing both sides **1 The radio People’s Platform'1* *Hooper at ing” re­ mains fairly steady, it varies generally between three and five, usually down in the summer and up in the winter} 95 however, it fluctuates very little* The MHooperatlngw of the TV section of the People’s Platform is around nine*96 94* Columbia Broadcasting System Hews Be lease, July 12, 1048* 95* 0* B* Hooper, Hoooeratings* Network programs* {quar­ terly Heports), 1940-49* 96* Loo* clt*

370

Sag, trnivarslt? of Chicago Bgaa& yabla

In 1930, Judith Waller, founder and manager of

radio station WMAQ, Chicago, approached the University of 9*7 Chicago wit h the Idea of adult education by radio* Out of a aerie a of conference® cam© the notion of a round-table discussion of subjects of current interest, presenting 98 outstanding authorities at the University of Chicago* The first program went on the air over WilAQ in February, 1981." The Original University of Chicago Round Table Broadcaata The objective® of the first Round Tables were outlined by Judith Waller and Allen Miller, first "Radio Director” of the University of Chicago Round Tables

(1)

to inform the public on current problems of contemporary affairs|

(2 ) to interpret the meaning of current event®

and Ideas; and (3) to hold the attention of a large

audience*^® In consideration of the type of discussion to 97* Judith Waller in Report of the Committee on Operating Broadcasting; in Radio and Education, p. 225, levering Tyson, ed« 98. Ibid*, p. 226, 99. Round Table Memorandum, p. 3, 100* James Whipple, How to Write for Radio, pp. 390-406.

371 be employed on the original Hound Table broadcasts, the "starting principle *1 settled upon by Allen Miller and tfhdiih Waller was that the educator on the air was to be a wguest in the home of the listener*n

It was determined,

therefore, to have a conversational program.

101

Speeches

were decided against for the fear the lecturer would lose his audience if he were to appear ’’armed with weighty 102 academic dissertation*•.read at considerable length *11 Before the broadcast the participants met, thoroughly dis­ cussed and then prepared an outline; a "moderator-partielpant” timed the subdivisions**^®

Manuscripts were decided

against, for it was felt that manuscripts would result in a stilted, dull presentation.*^^ The topics discussed on the original Hound Table broadcasts were selected by Allan Miller and Judith Waller*^®

Miller believed that the Bound Table should

not be "limited to a conversational reporting of the news"; 101. Allen Miller, in Radio and Education* levering Tyson, ©d«, pp* 230«*37 * 102. Allen Miller, in Education on the Air? Fourth Yearbook of the Institute for Education by. Radio, Josephine MacJateny, ed*, pp* 98••108. 105* Whipple,

c i t .. p. 401.

104. I b i d .* p. 400. 105. dudith Waller, interview between author and, August 8 , 1948*

372

rather, In the light of Its educational objectives, topics should be chosen "with the view of Interpreting for society the cultural problems of the times ."106 Participants on the original broadcasts were three professors from the University of Chicago who were selected by Allen Miller on the basis of (1) their ability to speak well and {2) their stature as authorities on the topic*

107

Expansion and Development of the University of Chicago Hound a o a Sherman Dryer followed Allen Miller as "Director of Radio Production" at the University of Chicago.

Oeorg©

Probat, present "Executive Secretary of the Radio Office ,n replaced Dryer in 1943.

Slight changes in emphasis on ob­

jectives have been apparent in statements made by these three men* however, the method of selecting topics, parti­ cipants, and format to be employed has changed little. On October 15, 1935 the Round Table became a network feature of th© Rational Broadcasting Company, an arrangement which has lasted to the present 106* Allen Miller, in Education on the. A i r 2 levent% Yoajv book of the Institute for M u o a t i o n by Radio. Josephine MacLatchy, ©d., p, 179* 107* Allen Miller, in Education on the Air? Fourth Year­ book of the Institute for E d u c t i o n by Radio, Josephine MacLaTchy, ed., p. 165* 106# Rew York Times, February 2, 1941, p. 10®

373

According to Probst, the University of Chicago Round Table was the "first regular network program to b© produced en109 tirely without script *11 Concerning the number of participants, the gen­ eral procedure has been to select three people to take part In the Round Table.

However, this number was only

arrived at after many experiments, which have been reported by Millerj it was shown that two speakers had difficulty In maintaining a smoothly flowing conversation, and four or more were too many for the listener to identify quickly .1 *'0 A grant of $40,000 yearly since 1958 has been given to the University by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to be used to improve education by radio *111

This ha®

enabled the University to publish transcripts of the broad­ casts, and to supplement that text with additional mater­ ial, as well as increase the number of outside authorities HP who take part in the program. x

At the present time over

50 p e ^ cent of the broadcasts are made from out of town.11® Bound Table Memorandum, p. 3. 110. Allen Miller, in Radio and Sducaticn. Levering Tyson, ©d«, PP* 930—5*7* 111* George S* Frobst, in letter to author, March 22, 1950. Loc* clt.

113* George B. Probst, interview between author and, August 9, 1948*

374 Since March of 1038 printed copies of th© broad­ casts have been published* 1 1 4 copies have been sold*

°

To date, over three million

Over the years the publication

has come to Include more than th© printed broadcasts ; additional supplementary documents and materials, sug­ gested readings, and frequently reprints of significant articles by a Round Table participant or an other authority have been included.

Special reading, hints, graphs, illus­

trations and questions lend interest and clarification! the aim is education, however, rather than entertainment.

*116

According to Probst, many thousands of Round Table listeners conduct small group discussions based upon the printed transcripts of the broadcasts and the supple­ mentary readings

During the war, 54 per cent of the

discussion programs selected by the Armed Forces Radio 118 Service for overseas rebroadcasts were Round Tables. U4,

School

and Society.

Vol. XLIX, 1939,

p. 728.

115* Ibid. . pp. 4-5. 116. Ibid.. pp. 4-5. 117. A, Craig Baird, Representative American Speeches; 1959-40. p. 261. 118. Round Table Memorandum., p. 1*

375 jgyor Ohaiijya lij, PgMffZ S& £ J & ttolvarsity sJL ghlssao Round

yable Ho major changes have taken place in the poli­ tics concerning the Round Table during its many years of broadcasting* The Round Table has never been a radio discussion program in the ordinary sense of the term*

It is not a

commercial or network sustaining p r o g r a m * ^ ®

It is a uni­

versity program, originated by the University of Chicago, administered by that university, produced by that univer­ sity, and presenting primarily scholars from that universlty as regular participants*^®

Hence, the Hound Table

la the University of Chicago on the air* Great Importance is attached to the objective© of informing and clarifying certain issues in our culture and there is high value placed upon ttreasonable talk in the form of discussion rather than in th© form of debate Georg© Probst recently made the following statement 9 The Round Table la dedicated to th© proposition that th© American people desire and need intel­ ligent discussion of the great issues which they must decide***it provides an opportunity to pub­ lic understending of important problems in our Decade Without Diatribe* p* 2. ISO* Sherman Dryer, Radio in Wartime* p« 174* 1S2U Decade Without Diatribe* p* 1*

376 society; it Is Informative and clarifying rather than contentious*10® The choice of objectives and methods is In the immediate hands of Probst, Executive Secretary of th© Radio Office, who is directly responsible to Chancellor Hutchins and the President of the University *153 Approval of the Listening Audience Many awards and honors have been given to the Round Table for its outstanding merit as an educational pro­ gram*

The Eleventh Institute for Radio in Education awarded

the Round Table an annual "First Award"; the Cleveland Plain Dealer In radio polls has three times found that the Round Table was considered th© best educational program on th© air during a given year; a poll taken by th© Radio Daily has three times awarded the Round Table first place among discussion programs and the Women's Rational Radio Committee has twice selected the Round Table as "radio's most effective forum among programs which in on© way or another help safe­ guard our essential freedom*"

In 1942 th© Round Table was

given the Peabody Award, on© of th© most desirable honors in radio.

124

5#®* Ramad Table Memorandum* p. 1* dit*

124* Ralph Bur gin, interview between author and, November 28, 1949.

* 377 th® Round table *s nHoop 0 ratingn has generally been between three and six* fluctuating only slightly.3*0®

the

Hound table is currently broadcast over more than one hun­ dred stations*3-0® and its listening audience has been es­ timated as more than ten million people by the National Broadcasting Company .3*07 The circulation of Round Table pamphlets has steadily grown since 1958, when they were first published, and sales have reached thirty-three thousand copies per week .3,00

Since March, 1938, over three million Round Table

pamphlets have been sold .3-00 Almost a million letters have been written by listeners in response to more than seven hundred Round Table 130 programs. As many as 3,500 were received in a single 131 week. According to Probst, radio audience interest in 125. C. E* Hooper, Hooneratings. Hetwork programs, (Quar­ terly Reports) 1940-49. 126. Judith Waller, interview between author and, August 8 , 1948.

127. Decade Without Diatribe, op, clt., p. 4. foound Table Memorandum, p. 2, 129. Ibid.. p. 4. 130. Rounft Table Memorandum, p. 2, 131. Loc, cit.

378

the Hound Table is not maximised by controversy alonej he has stated, wRoun& Tables which draw the largest mail are not controversial or debate programs,

Th© largest Round

Table audience response is to discussions which offer ex­ planations of difficult problems or the exposition of

id,*.,-138

182, Ibid.. p. 6.

379

Appendix B GUIDE FOR ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS OF MODERATORS

380 Appendix B GUXB8 FOB ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS OF MODERATORS 1 A*

Introduce participants and Topic to Audiences 1* Introduce participants. 2* Describe qualifications of participants* 5. Ask participants for Information about themselves* 4* State topic* 5. Ask participant for over-all point of view regarding topic* 6 * State known over-all point of view of participant. 7. State importance of topic {as related to current political, economic or social scene.) 8 * Present background material on topic. 9* Partition topio, indicating divisions or issues to be discussed* 10* Summarise preceding broadcasts leading into topic* 11* Show relation of topic to a specific audience.

B*

Describe Mechanics of Program! 1* Describe nature of series of broadcasts* 5. Tell where broadcast originates* 3* Describe remote pick-ups, if any. 4* Describe probable radio audience. 5* Describe relation of current broadcast to previous broadcasts or series*

C*

Give the Discussion Adequate Structure! 1* Introduce subtopic or major division of th© program. 2. Suggest that a subtopic introduced by a participant be held for discussion later in the broadcast. 3* Emphasize Importance of a subtopic. 4. Give Internal summary or transition. 8 . Call for Internal summary by participant* 6 . Ask participants to turn their attention back (avoiding digressions) to main topic or subtopic* 7. Ask participant to show relationship of contribution to topio or subtopic under consideration. 8 . Show relationship of a contribution to topic or

1* This outline is not Intended to list the functions which the moderators should perform, but to provide a means cf analyzing and describing the functions which the moderators actually perform according to the transcripts of the pro­ grams studied*

381 subtopic under consideration, 9* Limit (in terms of available time) the considera­ tion of a subtopic* 10* Ask for further (adequate consideration of a sub­ topic or division of the discussion* L*

Secure Logical Processes of Group Reflective Thinking! 1* Call for information concerning the problem tinder discussion* 2. Call for statement of the Issues which are involved In the problem under discussion* 3* Call for statement of goals of group as related to the topic* 4* Call the attention of the group to an issue which is involved in the problem* 5. Call for consideration of the causes underlying the problem being discussed* 6 * Call for proposals (possible solutions to th© problem^ 7. Call the attention of the group to a possible solu­ tion to the problem. 8 * Call for argument for and against propositions ad­ vanced (or implied*) 9. Call for evidence in support of an argument advanced (or implied.) 10. Call attention of group to a possible argument con­ cerning a proposition under consideration* 11. Call for group evaluation of an argument advanced. (Aid group in detecting fallacies.) IS* Gall for evaluation of evidence offered in support of an argument. 13* Call attention to fallacies in arguments advanced. 14* Ask participant to state whether he agrees or dis­ agrees with a point of view. 15. State that the participants are in agreement or disagreement concerning an argumentative point. IS. State areas of agreement or disagreement,

E,

Secure Clarity $ 1. Present Information which clarifiesa contribution. 2. Request explanation or illustration of term or idea not clearly presented. 3 . Gall for clarification of an argument advanced by a participant, 4. Clarify terminology employed in thediscussion. 5. Clarify an argument advanced by a participant, 0, Repeat a question or statement previously contributed.

382 P*

Maintain inter®st of listening Audience? 1* State importance of some elements of the discussion to listeners# 2* Indicate relation of some elements of the discussion to listeners* 3* Use interest-catching devices, such as humor# 4* Indicate value to audience of a speaker’s contri­ bution# 5* State that members of audience are probably inter­ ested in hearing same specific contribution (such as the answer of some authoritative participant to a question presented.} 6 . Assume role of inquiring member of audience.

G.

Secure Effective Participation by Members of Panelj 1* Call for cooperative attitude on part of members. S. Encourage non-talkative members. S. U s courage over-long speeches or too many speeches by csae participant. 4. Thank or compliment members for contributions. 5. Ask participant to make adjustment to mechanics of broadcasting (e.g., !,Com@ closer to microphone,** et c . ) 6 . Discourage name-calling and diatribe on the part of members. 7. Designate which member shall speak next on th© broadcast.

H.

Secure Effective Participation by Members of Studio Audience: 1. Call for cooperative attitude on part of members* 8 . Encourage non-talkative members. 3. Discourage over-long speeches or too many speeches by one participant. 4. Thank or compliment members for contributions. 5. Ask participant to make adjustment to mechanics of broadcasting, (e.g., "Gome closer to microphone,” etc*) 6 . Discourage name-calling and dlatrib© on the part of the members* 7. Designate which member shall speak next on th© broadcast*

I.

Participate Directly in the Discussions 1* Argue that an Issue is Involved in the problem basic to the discussion* 2. Agree with a participant concerning an argument advanced,

383

5* Argue in support of a proposition. 4. Cite evidence in support of a proposition* 6 * Refute argument presented (or Implied.) J.

Close Discussi on t 1. Call for discussion to conclude. 2. Summarise the discussion. 8 , Call upon participants to aid in final summary. 4* State agreements reached during the discussion. 8 . Indicate issues left unsettled* 6 . Describe program of action desired by group* 7. Describe program of action desired by moderator* 8 . Indicate need for further consideration of th© problem. 9* Thank persons who participated in the broadcast.

K.

Announce Future Broadcasts a 1. Describe future broadcasts in series. 2 . Invite listening audience to tune-ln future broad­ casts. 3. Describe relation of current broadcast to future broadcasts. 4. Announce topics or participants for future broad­ casts •

Appendix 0 ANALYSES OF FUNCTIONS OF MODERATORS DURING REPRESENTATIVE BROADCASTS

385

Appendix 0 O USSBS OF FtWCWOBS OF MODERATORS DURING REPRESENTATIVE BROADCASTS Th© page number® refer to the page in the trans­ cript of the program corresponding to the function listed* Th© letters and numerals in the parentheses refer to th© key to the list of functions as they occur in th© Guide Sheet for Analysis of Transcripts, which is given in Ap­ pendix B* America's Town Meeting of the Air, Vol. 15, No. 11, July 12, 1942, "Does the Socialist State Tend to Destroy Indivi­ dual Initiative?tt (George V. Denny, Moderator.) I•

XI.

III.

Introduct ion. p. 3. (B2) Tells from where the broadcast is originating. p. 4. (AS) Presents background material on topic. p. 4. (A4) States topic for discussion. p* 4. (A6 ) Briefly describee over-all points of view of participants. Indicates divisions of broadcast to 4. (A9) p. be presented. Describes qualifications of participant. p. 4. (A2) P* 4. (Al) Introduces participant. Speeches by p. 6 . (G4) Thanks participants. p. 5. (A2) Describes qualification of next speaker. p. 6 . (Alj Introduces speaker. p. 7. (G4) Thanks participant. p. 7. (A2) Describes qualifications of next speaker. P. 8 . (Al) Introduces speaker. P. 9. (G4) Thanks participant. P- 9. . &it., p. 202.

475

achieves ©van greater importance for two additional reasons. First, television is a visual medium, and moving out of the range of the camera must be prohibited .45

A further r e ­

stricting factor in respect to the cameras is the neces­ sity for adequate lighting; there must be a definite amount of light and this amount cannot be achieved over more than

a limited area .45

Secondly, the camera demands that a sub­

ject give a sustained performance which has vigor and vi­ tality; the imagination of the audience cannot give physical animation to a dull personality on the screen as it can for radio broadcasters who depend upon the voice alone (3) The psychology of radio and video audiences. The nature of the audience acts as a further restriction upon those persona who employ these media.

Cantril and

Allport report the results of experiments conducted In radio broadcastings The interdependence of interest and comprehensi­ bility apparent in this experiment and in other studies reported*• •is of considerable theoretic significance...In everyday Ilf® people deal only with meaningful material, some of which interests them and some of which does not. If even the 45. Thomas H. Hutchinson, Here 1 b Television, p. 118; Hoyland Betfcinger, Television Techniques. p. 15. 46. Bettinger, o&. clt.* pp. 15-16; Richard Hubbell, Tele­ vision Programming and Production, p . 125. 4 7 . Leonard Hole, "Television,” in Max Wylie, Radio and Television Writing, p. 412, Hettinger, o&, clt.e pp. 16-17.

476

simplest material is found to be uninteresting# it will probably be absorbed slowly if at all*.* The effectiveness of any method of presentation depends# therefore# above all else on the interest aroused in the listener by the subject matter *48 The same problem of capturing and holding the atten­ tion of a small group of listeners applies to television. The various listeners are able to stretch out in their favor­ ite chairs# take off their shoes# enjoy a drink, a smoke# or other luxuries of the living room, "not the least of which is the privilege of switching to another program if

49

the first one drags .n

Consequently# we may conclude that

the radio and video audiences have a rather passive attitude. For the most part# persons who attempt to use these media must make a special effort to win the attention of listeners. A further limiting factor becomes apparent when we consider the psychological effect of the unseen audience upon the performers in the studio*

The speaker Is unable

to know if he is actually stimulating his passive listen­ ers*

This factor robs him of the visual cues so helpful

40. Hadley Cantril and Gordan Allport# The Psychology of R ad i o , p • 203• 49* Hubbell# o&. c lt*. p. 29; also see Bettinger, o&. oit,# pp« 1 1 -1 2 *

477 in ordinary communication situations .50

"Circular response"

and "polariaation® of speaker and crowd are impossible and the stimulus which comes to ordinary forum participants "who visibly stir visible hundreds" Is utterly lacking.

*51

Possibly this difficulty may be offset wto some limited extent,® states Hubbell, by the presence of a studio aud­ ience } but he further states that, even under these condi­ tions, those persons responsible for programs must give the problem careful consideration.®® One other factor deserves recognition in our con­ sideration of the video audience.

Television requires more

concentrated attention of its audiences than does radio. Pull-hour length programs, fairly common to radio, ar© be­ lieved to be too long for the video audience.

Allan states

that "unless the subject matter...is extremely fascinating... interest is quite certain to lag after a half hour, even more so after forty-five minutes* The nature of the radio and video media is thus 50. Ibid.. p. 28} Bettinger, op. cit., pp. 46-48, 51. A. Craig Baird, Discussions

.

Principles and Types, p.

262

52. Hubbell,

o i t *, p. 28,

53. Ibid.. p. 23} Bettinger, op. cit., pp. 12-13. 54. Doug Allan, How to .Write for Toi i.eyl®.iona p. 33.

478 seen to b© essentially s Imilar to any other speech situa­ tion with these specific differences 5

limitations or re­

strictions as to value of time, physical requirements and the psychology of the audience.

Consequent adjustments must

be made by participants in such discussion situations*

JEfaHMflgtfS & £&di& or Television Discussion Various writers suggest methods of planning radio and video discussion*

Keith outlines the following proce­

dure for radio* An ideal way to prepare a round table discussion is for the participants to gather around a table with a stenographer present to take down the ad libbed remarks**.First, an outline is made of th© points to be discussed, with introduction, body of material, and conclusion...Each person then decides the point of view he is taking and the discussion begins with th© leader *s introduc­ ing the subject and outlining to the radio aud­ ience th© purpose of th© discussion .55 Abbot presents virtually th© same plan, adding that w in or­ der to observe th© time limitation, it is advisable to show in this outline the time that Is to be allotted to a dis­ cussion of each of the points.**

Waller presents a

similar plan, with a sample outline, adding this stipulation? Written or ad-libbed, a round table must first be outlined* This helps the participants to organise their materials to convey an ordered 55. Alice Keith, How to Speak and Write for Raflio. p. 90* 56* Waldo Abbot, Handbook for Broadcastin^* p. 69.

479 discussion to the listener. ..without an outline too much time may "be devoted to one point* so that a final and possibly more important one may be left out completely .57 One other factor should be emphasized in this connection: the broadcasting media do not lessen the need for sound principles of logical r©ascaning.

"Radio places a greater

emphasis,M according to Abbot* "upon what a man has to say and less emphasis upon his manner of saying It.

logic in

arguments and the worth of proposals must be examined go closely by the speaker before they are broadcast.** At th© time of this writing* few persons have outlined methods for preparing video discussion.

Th© at­

titude of those writers who give some treatment of th© subject is typified by the statement of John F. Royal* written in 1948: Television will show th© same consideration (as that given by radio) for public interest in the handling of controversial affairs. It is true that we have much to learn about the proper techniques to be used for the presentation of such programs...By cooperative thinking* a suit­ able programming technique will be found to present controversial subjects of public inter­ est in a free and open manner b y means of this new medium .59 57* Judith Waller, R a d i o s

Th©, Fifth Kstate* p. 800.

56. Abbot, o p . o it.. p. 9 9 j Of. Sherman Dryer, Radio Wartime, pp. 16S3L77. 59. John F. Royal, Television Production Problems. pp,

10-11.

480 More specific directions have been given by MeDanagh concerning number of participants s Most television work is done with close-ups or semi -clos©-ups • A maximum of two people will come through best in a close-up 5 a maximum of three in a semi-close-up. When a large number of people are shown together* they will either be out of focus If a close-up is used or lack definition if long shots are u s e d .®0 The selection of participants is to be mad© in view of criteria familiar to radio discussion writers; Sobol statess In presenting discussions or forums* wherever possible use should be made of well-known or at least dynamic personalities. This fact or .may often be used as a substitute for motion .01 Th© use of visual aids is believed to b© Important; specific directions for their use in discussion programs is not given* but Allan suggests that* 11in preparing any type of program* on© should strive to make

as much us© as

possible of visual effects.”^ Types of Radio and Television Biscussions In a report of th© Committee of Nomenclature in the Field of Discussion of th© National Association of 60. Richard P. McEonagh, "Television Writing Problems,” in jrohn F* Royal, Television Production Problems, p. 42. 61. Edward Sobol* "Production of Dramatic and Variety Pro­ grams,” in Television Production Problems« ifohn F. Royal, ed., p. Q 6 t aea a l s o H o y l a n d Bet tinger. Television Tech­ niques. p. 132. 62. Doug Allan, How to Write for Television, p. 61,

481 Teachers of Speech, J. V* Garland and Charles F. Phillips state that two major types of discussion programs have made up the bulk of the discussions on the airs

the forum with

Its prepared speeches followed by studio audience partici­ pation and the round table with its give and take manner among a small number of participants.®®

According to

Garland and Phillips, "tremendous popularity has been en­ joyed by a few outstanding forum programs, notably America’s Town Meeting of the A i r . H o w e v e r ,

th© forum, unless well

organized and carefully managed, is rather difficult to pre­ sent over the air.

"The listener must not be allowed to

feel that the station is biased,” writes Abbot ,®5 and "unless the forum is a well-known weekly affair, such may be the result."

The round table has come to be an equally

acceptable method of presenting material "when more than ftA one point of view is to be expressed." Some writers hold that the round table is the more desirable method of pre­ senting a well-rounded view of a subject with different 65* J. V. Garland and Charles F. Phillips, Discussion Methods. p» 284, 64* Ibid*, pp. 287-88. 6 6 . Abbot,

pp. oit,, p. 197,

6 6 , *Tudith Waller,

Radio:

The Fifth g s M M , p, 197.

482

aides more adequately presented.

67

The same two types of discussion have found great­ est popularity with the video network*} In selection of types of discussion as well as In other areas of program­ ming, television has given a fairly clear indication that, at least temporarily, it will h© a continuation of radio *

methods.

68

The Qbieotlves of Radio and Video Piscussion In consideration of th© limitations and require­ ments of the media outlined above, th® question may b® posed* Are the objectives of discussion on th© air th© same as those of discussion off th© air, *l.e., th© cooperative 69 solving of a mutual problem? Baird states: 67. Miller states that "Conversations are most satisfactory In presenting a well-rounded view of a subject with th© dif­ ferent sides most adequately presented," Allen Miller, Techniques of Presenting Dialogue. In Education on the Air, p. i51. See also A. Craig Baird, op. olt.'T P . 26^; Abbot, op. c l t ., p, 69. 6 8 . Richard Hubbell, Television Programming; and Product!on. p. 44. " ,

69. Pour outstanding authorities In th© field of discussion define the objectives of discussion as follows t Cl) A. Craig Baird, Discussion: Principles and Types, p. 9, de­ fines discussion as art or reflective thinking and communication, usually oral, by members of a group, whose aim la th© cooperative solution of a problem,” Jeffery J« Auor and Henry L. Ewbank, Discus si on and Debate. p. 4, describe discussion schema tleally as inv©stigation, con­ sisting of (1 ) "the location and definition of the problem,

483 Your discussions! aim on the air, as elsewhere, should b© to further the cooperative solution of a problem. Since, however, your time is limit* ©d, you will have to keep in mind other objectives as well* You will no doubt attempt to stimulate your group to further investigation of a question «». I n a d d i t i o n your program should provide informa­ tion .70 Abbot agrees with Baird on the emphasis on problem solvings The purpose of these spontaneous discussions is to permit the exchange of Ideas, to attempt to arrive at some solution of a problem, and to avoid the formality of a lecture by using con­ versation *7 1 Waller gives primary emphasis to Informing the unseen aud­ ience : Pacts and examples are always of first importance. Facts stated simply invariably stick, and exam­ ples always tend to impress any point on the mind of th© listener. The more facts that can be per­ sonalised, the more acceptable the broadcast, Th© listener is always interested in facts ob­ tained first-hand, in hearing from someone who hobnobbed with important and famous personages (2 ) exploring the problem, (S) examining solutions,” and debate, consisting of (4) "choosing th© best a elution, "5 James H. M c B u m e y and Kenneth G. Hance, Principles and Methods of Discussion, p. 16, state 1 "Discussion may be defined as a cooperative deliveratlon of problems by per­ sons thinking or conversing together in face-to-face or co-acting groups under the direction of a leader"j Alan Nichols, Discussion and Debate, pp, 14-17, looks upon the discusser as a scholar searching for truth and defines dis­ cussion as "essentially a cooperative enterprise, in which all participants pool their contributions toward the achievement of a common end." 70. A. Craig Baird, Discussions 265,

Principlea and Types, p.

71, Waldo Abbot, Handbook of Broadcasting, p, 69,

484 in the news# It is well to remember that one reason a round table Is being broadcast is to present factual Information to the listener.7S Sherman Dryer, besides emphasizing the objectives of inform­ ing and interesting the audience, describes a third objec­ tive - to Interpret factual Informations The discussion program 1s...job is to get behind the Issues, and to the fundamentals of th© news* Its job, ideally, Is a deeply educational one. And this means that it should deal with values and with policies consistent with values* It should ideally be concerned with justice, morality, and integrity, and should evaluate events in the light of these., *A good discussion program should deal with matters that arc perpetually timely, not with ©vents of transient importance.7* Of

course, since there is no medium of communica­

tion between the various members of the unseen audience, one can hardly expect to reach a group consensus of opinion among audience members.

It is possible for the studio

panel to come to some conclusion, but the advisability of this procedure is questioned by Wallers It Is better not to draw conclusions at the end of a round-table broadcast. Instead, the chair­ man should draw together the threads of the discussion in a brief summation, thus allowing each listener to carry forward the discussion to suit himself *74 Abbot is less conclusive!

"For some topics it is wiser to

72. Judith Waller, Radios

The Fifth ffstate, p. 201*

73* Sherman Dryer, Radio in Wartime,, p. 174. 74. Waller, op* c i t ., p. 210.

485

start th© listener thinking, without arriving at a conclu­ sion for him on such programs."7®

There seems to be general

agreement that the solving of the problem should b© advanced, but that conclusions drawn# if any, should be carefully described as tentative. Concerning the objectives of video discussion, there is a general desire for experimentation as typified by Kelly*s statement in 1048? Th© present la truly a period of experimentation for the builder and producer of television pro­ grams, one In which he is free to determine stan­ dards, evolve techniques, and establish operating principles for his own guidance, and to explore, perhaps even contribute to the formulation of, public taste with regard to the television p ro­ grams of th© future .76 As an example of such experimentation Hutchinson cites the early attempts to simulcast the America1© Town Meeting of the Air, stating that the experiments were "very success­ ful ." ^7

The basis for such experimentation are th© es­

tablished customs of radio discussion.

Royal*s comment Is

typical? All the precautions that have been thrown around sound broadcasting. • .may be automatically 75. Abbot, op. c£t., p. 60. 76. H. Ray Kelly, "Television Production Facilities," in Television Production Problems. John F. Royal, e d . , pp. 49-50. 77. Thomas H. Hutchinson, Here is Television, pp. 113-14.

486 assumed to b@ equally essential for television... Later, as experience ripens, It will be practic­ able to lay down more specific and detailed rules and regulations.”” In summary, w© may conclude that the objectives of radio discussion are to provide information, to clarify that information, and to stimulate interest in a problem. The same objectives have become the basis for experiments in television. The Role of the Moderator in Radio and Video Discuss ion It Is generally agreed that radio and video dis­ cussions are not entirely new types of discussion, but are primarily adaptations of the general discussion procedures to the limitations of th© media.

Similarly, radio and

video discussion leadership methods are largely adaptations of ordinary discussion leadership techniques. In addition to the usual duties of moderating th© lively give and take of a group of enthusiastic participants, the moderator of a radio discussion

must make certain that

the participants are close to the microphone, that they do 78. John P. Royal, ’’Introduction," In Television Production Problem s . John P. Royal, ed., p. 7. Also see Doug Allan, How to Write for Television, pp. 29-33$ Richard‘Hub­ bell, Television Programming and Production. pp. 23-24; Hutchinson, op,. clt.. pp. 115-18; Kelly, 0£. cit., pp. 4950; William Htuart, "Writing for Television," In Max Wylie, Radio and Television Writing, p. 486.

487 not make email annoying nolees with elbows, pencils, or tya

not ©cards, and that their voices do not overlap.

Keith

suggests that the leader should "call the participants by name whenever that can be don© Inconspicuously in order OA to avoid confusion in the minds of th© listeners.” The moderator’s Introduction should be written out before going on the air, and an outline, previously con­ structed by the members of th© group should be marked, show­ ing the time to be allotted to each of the divisions of the rn topic for discussion. Waller states that it is the duty of the chairman to see that the outline Is followed, and that only the ”nmnber of minutes decided upon ahead of the broadcast be given to presentation and discussion of each go point.” * The leader*s summary should also be written out, Th© leader's summary should also b© written out, and should review the points which have been presented in the course of the discussion.8^ 79. Waldo Abbot, Handbook of Broadcasting, p. 72. 80. Alice Keith, How to Speak and Writ® for. Radio, p. 90. 81. Abbot, pp. clt., p. 69 j Judith Waller, Radio % Fifth Exalte. pT~iS7.

The

82. Waller, op,, clt., pp. 197-98. 85. Abbot, 0£. clt. . p. 69j Earle McGill, Radio Directing, p. 226j Waller, 0£. cit., p. 205.

488 McGill suggests that the program director may help the chairman to close on time.

This person would bo in th©

studio, and "moving quietly and freely about...whisper direcn

tlons where they are needed #n

j

Today we are becoming aware

of new demands which television makes upon this serene picture of genial discussers and whispering directors. At the present time, moderating techniques which have proven successful in radio discussion are bolng employed in experiments with the newer medium#

Textbook writers oc have briefly noted the experiments in progress and have called for further experimentation with the known liraitations and unknown possibilities of television# In summary, the leader of radio and video dis­ cussions is advised by textbook writers to be an unobtrusive guide; he should attempt to secure group unity and coopera­ tion in the consideration of all aspects of th© problem; he should try to stimulate each member of the group to ade­ quately present his point of view; and he should b© respon­ sible for the adjustment of the entire procedure to the limit­ ations and requirements of the radio and television media.

8 4 * hoc, cit. 85. Thomas H. Hutchison, Here, is Television, pp. 113-18. 8 6 . Kelly, o&. cit-, pp. 49-50; Royal, 0£, cit#, p# 7; Allan, op. cit., PP. 29-33; Stuart, o£, cit#, p# 486; Hubbell, 0 cit., pp. 25-24,

£.

489

Appendix F SUMMARY OP PREVIOUS RESEARCH IK DISCUSSION

490

Appendix F SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS M3SEARCH IN DISCUSSION In th© introductory chapter of this study there is presented a brief summary of research which treats di­ rectly the problem of the role of leadership in radio dis­ cussion programs#

The purpose of this appendix is to

summarize research in tho broader area of discussion. Included in this summary are studies which have collected original data, either recent or ancient, the in­ terpretation of which was made according to sound research principles*

Rather arbitrarily excluded are the reports

of experience of various teachers where there has been no careful control of variable factors, no isolation of such factors, or where no accurate description of obtained results has been given# The studies have been divided into two groups as they are more or less related to the present Investigations (1 ) studies of discussion techniques, and (2 ) studios of radio discussion techniques. Studies of Discussion Techniques

Investigations have been mad© of the contributions of the Creelc writers to techniques advocated by present-day

491 theorists.

1

Th© results of these studies have indicated that

there are broad relationships botweeii classical dialectic and rhetoric, and the present discussion techniques. Studios of the outcomes of discussion have been mad© as related to techniques involving (1 ) the participants, (2 ) the audience, and (5) the educational situation.

In a

few oases discussional outcomes were compared with those of debate and of lecturing or public speaking, of investigators

Th© findings

concerning the outcomes of discussion

1* James H. M c B u m e y , "Some Contributions of Classical Dialectic and Rhetoric to a Philosophy of Discussion," Quarterly Journal of SpeechB pp. 1-13; J, M. Howell, "The Contribution of the Platonic Socrates to Modern Principles of Discussion," Master*s Thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1943; D. S. Dixon, "Plato’s View of Public Discussion," Master’s Thesis, Cornell University, 1938; / M c B u m e y analyzed Aristotle’s contribution to our modern theory of discussion; Howell studied the similarity between our contemporary theory of discussion and th© Socratic method of dialectic; a summary of Plato’s views was made by Dixon./ 2. Floyd H. Allport, "The Influence of the Group Upon Asso­ ciation and Thought," Journal of Experimental Psychology, pp. 159-182; /Allport compared the mental processes when alone with his reactions to similar stimuli when a member of a group; the work to be done was th® production of ideas/; H. 33* Burtt, "3ex Differences in the Effect of Dis­ cussion," Journal of Experimental Psychology, pp. 390-95; /Burtt expe 'iraehteT**with Judgment of guilt/; H. T. Moore, ^Th© Comparative Influences of Majority and Expert Opinion," American Journal, of Psychology, pp. 16-20; /Moore recorded choices-of speech and morali/; H. C. Knight, "A Comparison of the Reliability of Group and Individual Judgments," Master’s Thesis, pp. 372 ff., /Knight compared judgments of Intelligence, sales effectiveness of advertisements, and room temperatures/; E. B, South, "Some Psychological Aspects

493 Ha related to the participants may be briefly summarized as of Committee Work,1’ Journal of Applied Psychology« pp. 38-43; /South compared efficiency of matching photographs with name of emotions, solving bridge problems, judging merit of English compositions, and solving multipie-choice problems/; Kate Cordon, "Group Judgments in the Field of Lifted Weights," Journal of Experimental Psychology. pp. 398-400; /Cordon compared weights of ob jects/; J. R. Stroop, "Is Judgment of the Croup Better than that of the Average Member of the Group?" Journal of Experimental Psychology, pp. 550-62; /Stroop made an experimental clneck of Gordon 1s experiment and concluded that Gordon's results were a m is­ interpretation of statistical manipulations, and not true evidence that people In groups give more reliable judg­ ments/; W. Bechterev and M* Lange, "Ergebniss© des Experi­ ments Suf dem Gebiet© der Lollectivln Reflexogie," Zsch. f • angrew Psychology, pp. 224-54; /Bechterev and Lang© made a series of studies comparing memory for details of pictures/; George B. Watson, "Do Groups Think More Efficiently than Individuals?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. pp. 328-336; /Watson compared proficiency In word-bullding/; James F. Dashiel, "Experimental Studies of th© Influence of Social Situations on the Behavior of Individual Human Adults," A Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by Carl Murchison^ 1935, /Dashiel compared jurors versus the jury's ability to reconstruct a case/; Marjorie E. Shaw, "A Com­ parison of Individuals and Small Groups In the Rational Solutional of Complex Problems," American Journal of Psy­ chology . pp. 491-504; /shaw compared efficiency" In solving complex problems having only on© type of "best" soluticn/; John P. Guilford, "Unitary Traits of Personality and Factor Theory," American Journal of Psychology, pp. 673-80; /Guil­ ford compared group versus individual abi 1 ities to solve complex "one-best-solution" problems/; H. Gurnee, "A Com­ parison of Collective and Individual Judgments of Facts,1' Journal of Experimental Psychology, pp. 106-12; /Gurnee compared sel©ctions ojjf*true and fals© statements/; Robert L. Thorndike, "On What Type of Task Will a Group Do Well?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, pp. 409-13; and Robert L. Thorndike,^ rThe' '§ffect of Discussion upon the Correctness of Group Decisions F/hen the Factor of Majority Influence is Allowed For," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, p p . 543-62; /A very competent series of studies/; William M. Timmons, "Decisions and Attitudes as Outcomes or A Social Problem," Doctor's Thesis, University of Colorado,

493 followss

(1 ) group judgments, on the whole have been found

to be superior to individual judgments in most of the in­ vestigations involving judgments; there were, of course, always a few individuals whose

Judgments were better than

1939; /Timmons compared the ability of groups with indivi­ duals to evaluate characteristics of alternative solutions to complex social problem, prison reform/; D. Wheeler, and H. Jordan, “Change of Individual Opinion to Accord with Group Thinking,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, pp. 803-06; /Wheeler and Jordan studied "the effect of group opinion on the discussers, and concluded It to be roughly thre© times chance/; Charles H. Marple, "The Comparative Susceptibility of Three Age Levels to the Suggestion of Group versus E x ­ pert Opinion,” j f f m a i o£ PP. 176-86; /Marple found similar results^/ Alfred Jenness, "The Role of Discussion in Changing Opinion Regarding a Matter of Pact,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, pp. 2934; /Jenness studied the effect of a group-differing opinion on an individual member of the group, and obtained results roughly comparable to the other two. studies/; Karl F. Robin­ son, "An Experimental Study of th© Effects of Group Discus­ sion Upon the Social Attitudes of College Students, Doctor*s Thesis, Northwestern University, 1940; /Robinson made a very competent study to determine experimentally th© ef­ fects on the group of discussion of social problems/; Karl F. Robinson, "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Group Discussion Upon the Social Attitudes of College Stu­ dents," speech Monographs„ pp. 55-56; /Robins on fs con­ clusions were as foliowsT "All discussion groups showed significant changes of attitudes• •.experimental subjects (1 ) shifted from initial positions to a greater number of final positions, (2 ) mad© a greater percentage of changes In each initial attitude division, (3) made a greater range of shifts, {4) became more "opposed"..*(5) became more In favor (of originally held attitude.) No pattern of shifts...was found to occur as a result of group discus­ sion^/; Raymond H. Simpson, "The Effect of Discussion of Intra-Group Divergencies of Judgmenta" Quarterly Journal of Speech, pp. 541-52; /Simpson experimented with problems in estiie^ic&*/

494 those of the group#,

(2) a group is more likely to reject

bad suggestions than to accept them, and more likely to accept good suggestions than to reject them,

(5) individuals

who have correct answers to a problem tend to hold to thorn more strongly than do individuals who have incorrect answers, when both are placed in the discuasional situation,

(4)

group thinking resulting from some form of consultation or discussion is superior to individual thinking whenever they are

(a) a variety of poirts of view on a problem,

(b) a

large number of suggestions for solving a problem, (c) a large number of reasons to be considered in accepting or rejecting a proposal* Studies of the effect of selected discussion tech­ niques upon the attitudes of audiences have drawn heavily on the experiments of many investigators in the field of attitude measurement*

%

The students of audience attitude

change in a carefully controlled discussion situation 4 5* Cf« George W. Allport, "Attitudes,” Chapter 17 in Charles Murchison’s Handbook for Social Psychology* pp* 798-844j Richard Bain, ^Theory and Measurement of Attitudes and Opinions,” Psychological Bulletin* p* 3595 D* 0* Droba, "Topical Summaries of durrent Literaturo on Social Atti­ tudes," American Journal of Sociology* pp. 513-54j E* Nelson, hAttitudea.trTournal of General Psychology* pp* 300OX 5 Gardner Murphy, LolV B , M u r p h y snd T, M, Newcomb, Ex­ perimental Social Psychology * (rev* e d , ) pp, 889-90* 4* William A, D. Millson, "Audience Reaction to Symposium," Quarterly Journal of Speech, pp, 43-52} £Millson measured

495 have found results which way be briefly summarized as followst

(1 ) even relatively short d i s c u s s ! m s may change

audience opinions or attitudes of as many as 40 per cent of the listeners,

(2 ) discussion seems to leave its aud­

ience more undecided than does debate under similar cir­ cumstances, and it causes less over-all shift of opinion than does debate. Closely allied to the studies to which reference has been made are a number of studies dealing with discuse sion techniques as they are related to education. In audience reaction to a symposium./} Paul F. Laz&rsfeld, "The Change of Opinion During a political Discussion," Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 131 ff.j /Lazarsfeld studied shift of opinion on a much larger scale during public discussions of Justice Black’s qualifications for membership in the United States Supreme C o u r t H a l b e r t E. Gulley, nA Study of the Relative Effectiveness of De­ bate and Discussion Upon Audience Opinion," Master’s Thesis, University of Iowa, 1941j /Gulley compared the changes of audience attitude in relation to a debate and a discus­ sion under more comparable situations and controlled con­ ditions than had been previously attempted./ 5* William A. Barton, "The Effect of Group Activity and Individual Effort in Developing Ability to Solve Problems in First Year Algebra," Education Administration Supplement, pp,. 512-18; /Barton found dTscussing student'a slightly superior in problem solving ability to similar students who worked individually •/; C. L. Bane, "The Lecture Versus tho Class Discussion Method of College Teaching," School and Society, pp. 300-02; /Bane found that college classes taught' by the discussion method were superior in delayed recall to similar classes taught by the lecture method^/; R* B. Spence, "Lecture and Class Discussion in Teaching Educational Psychology,” Journal of Educational Psychology, pp. 454-62; /Spene© compared students by 1© ctur© and class

496 ©0313ideration of the results of these investigations* the discussion*/; J* R* Gorberich and K* 0* Warner, "Relative k Instructional Efficiencies of the Lecture and Discussion Method in a University Course in American National Govern­ ment, ” Journal of Educational Research* pp* 574-79; /Gerberlch and Warner con due ted an"*exp erlme n t in the relative instructional efficiency of the lecture and the discussion method in teaching a college course in American government^/; William 5* Howell, "The Relative Effectiveness of the Radio Round Table and the Radio Forum ,’1 Master’s Thesis, Univer­ sity of Wisconsin* 1958; /Howell studied the relative ef­ fectiveness of the radio round-table and the forum for teaching factual material to high school students^/; Alma Johnson, ”Teaching Fundamentals of Speech Through Group Discussion,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, pp* 440-47; /Alma Johnson studied the use 'of discussion for teaching a beginning speech course*/; Donnasue Lohraeyer and R* R* Ojemann, nThe Effectiveness of Selected Methods of Radio Education at the School Level,” Journal of Bxperimental Edu­ cation* pp* 115-20; /Lohmeyer and Ojemann measured the relative effects of the straight talk, informal discussion, and dramatization as heard over the radioj/; D* C* Miller, ’’Experiment in Measurement of Social Interaction In Group Discussion,” American Social Review* pp* 341-51; /Miller studied the use of discussion In classes in educational psychology_j/| R* E* Poison, ’’Discussion In the Junior High School,” Master’s Thesis, Cornell University, 19^2; /Poison prepared a course of study for discussion classes at the Junior high school leve W j D* K* Smith, "An Experiment in Teaching Critical Thinking in a High School Speech Class,” Master*s Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1943; /Smith measured the increase in ability to do critical thinking after an experimental unit In a discussion course*/; William H* Ewing, "An Evaluation of the Individual Versus {/" the Group Speaking Methods of Teaching the Beginning Col­ lege Speech Course,” Speech Monographs* p* 80 ff.; /®w 3-n S* in an experimental study of the group method of teaching the beginning college speech course, reported that the dis­ cussion method resulted In superiority in general'speech, in the interpretation of data, and In solving of social problems*/; Paul B* Rickard, "An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Group Discussion in the Teaching of Factual Content,” Doctor’s Thesis, Northwestern University, 1946; /Rickard found by experimental study that the discussion method, enables a student to learn more factual content in the basic speech course than does the lecture method^/*

497 following tentative conclusions may be offered:

{1 } dis­

cussion Is superior to public address with reference to problem solving, scientific thinking, information on con­ temporary affairs, and decisions on controversial social problems,

(2 ) discussion is equal to working alon© in solv­

ing a controversial social problem and evaluating the char­ acteristics of alternative solutions,

(5) discussion Is

equal to public address when the outcomes measure are dis­ criminatory ability, information acquired, and personality changes, and (4) discussion is superior in teaching factual information to average and below-average students; the lecture method is superior in teaching factual information to graduate or above-average students, A number of more recent studies have attempted to evaluate very specific discussion techniques.

The object

of a very technical investigation by Alma Johnson0 was to construct a test of reflective thinking whereby the problemsolving technique could be objectively measured.

Another

6 . Alma Johnson, "An Experimental Study in the Analysis and Measurement of Reflective Thinking,w Doctor’s Thesis, northwestern University, 1943, pp# 83-96*

7. Alma Johnson, "An Experimental Study in the Analysis and Measurement of Reflective Thinking," Speech Monographs. pp. 83-86; /Johnson devised a "paper and pencil" typo of tost, revised it for reliability and validity, and experimentally administered it to a large number of students to obtain norms and deviation range. Prom the

498 Q test was devised by Wrightstone

to measure statistically

pupil planning and participation in discussion.

Kearney 9

devised a method by which the degree of effectiveness of problem-solving group discussion may be described and mea­ sured in terms of agreemont - disagreement.

Horn 1 0 made

data collected she drew the following conclusions! (1 ) Forms A and B of the test devised by the writer and en­ titled "Do Y o u Think Straight?” are sufficiently valid and reliable to b© used experimentally in diagnosing difficul­ ties and measuring proficiency in reflective thinking. (2 ) Those habits and attitudes which are here assumed to con­ stitute reflective thinking are learned behavior and may thus be affected by training. (3) Although proficiency in reflective thinking, In those aspects measured by the test, is dependent upon normal intelligence, It varies widely among individuals of th© same general intelligence, thus indicating a dependence upon other variables. (4) The test is of some value as a teaching device and study outline./ 8 . James W. Wrightstone, ”An Instrument for Measuring Group Discussion and Planning ,’1 Journal of Educational Research,

pp. 641-50; /the author claims that his fVt e s t I s reliable and valid, but since the items are to be observed, recorded, and tabulated by an "expert” (the teacher), and judgment of th© "expert” seems to be a rather weak link In th© claim./ 9* Mary Kearney, ”A Method by Which the Degree of Effective­ ness of a Problem-Solving Group Discussion may be Described and Measured In Terms of Agreement - Disagreement,” Mas­ t e r ’s Thesis, Syracuse University, 1942; /This device, as in W r i g h t s t o n e t © s t , depends primarily upon subjective evaluation; Its significance lies in its emphasis on th® reaching of a consensus of opinion^/• 10. Richard M. Horn, ”A Compilation and Analysis of Various Types of Intercollegiate Debates and Discussions,” Master’s Thesis, northwestern University, 1939; / H o r n ’s study Is particularly valuable for Its description of discussion debate combinations,*/

a compilation and analysis of various types of inter-colleglate debates and discussions.

An experimental study of

th© process of group discussion as related to small groups was mad® by McEvoy.13- Phelps 3*2 investigated the place of deduction in eight representative textbooks on argumentation, debate, and discussion.

The two investigated which dealt

with discussion were by Ewbank and Auer3-'-’ and McBurney and Hanc®.

14

A classification system for analyzing and

11. John E. McEvoy, "An Experimental Study of the Process of Group Discussion in Small Groups,” Master’s Thesis, Syracuse University, /McEvoy drew the following conclusions; (1 ) the discussion process involves (a) several individuals in proximity, (b) talking one at a time in alternation, (c) directing remarks mostly to one other individual, and (d) generally listening to th© others * remarks when not speak­ ing; (2 ) the remarks of the several individuals in a dis­ cussion occur in ideationally related sequences peculiar to the discussion process; (3 ) the discussion process is characterized by the phenomenon of closure 12* Eraraa S. Phelps, "Th© Place of Deduction in Representa­ tive Works of Argumentation, Debate and Public Discussion," Master’s Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1945, pp, 183-87; /Phelps investigated and found that the texts of these writers were characterized "by a vigorous insistence upon the formulation of finding a proposition and then marshall­ ing proof of Its infallibility, and demands instead that we locate an irritation; define, discuss, Isolate symptoms; and approach In ordered steps tentative solutions of the difficulty.” She concluded that ”in large measure many... believe that deduction Is no source of knowledge; it appears at best to be an ©x post facto check on Investigation of Inductive nature. V 13. Henry D. Ewbank and Jeffery J, Auer, Discussion and Debate. 14. James H. McBurney and Kenneth G. Hanc©, The Principles and Methods of Discussion. '

500 evaluating the content-material of informal group discussion was devised toy Foster*

15

Tatum

16

described a procedure for

conditioning persons for participation in discussion "where 17 conflict is expected.” Studies of Rad ^.0 Discussion Techniques Of tremendous interest to the' student of discussion 15. Eugene S. Foster, "A Classification for Analyzing the Content of Informal Group Discussions,” Master*s Thesis, Syracuse University, 1941, /The validity of this device is dependent primarily upon th© judgment of a critic; however, it should prove to be a useful technique for further experi­ mentation in evaluating content - material of group dis­ cussion*/ 16. George L* Tatum, Preliminary Investigation of a Pro­ cedure for Conditioning for Discussion,” Master*s Thesis, Northwestern University, /The procedure analyzed was a technique developed by Major Charles Estes of the Federal Mediation Service; See Estes, Charles T., "Speech and Human Relations In Industry," Quarterly Journal of Speech, pp. 160-70 jJ 17* For a more detailed description see Estes, Loc. cit* /Tatum tried this method with five different groups of stu­ dents interested In various topics, and concluded that "qualitative data indicate that if the procedure is adhered to rather closely, quite considerable beneficial effects may be expected In the following areas t (1 ) learning of the material read, (2 ) diminution of social barriers, such as those of religion, or race, (3) establishment of rapport, or conditioning for later participation In discussion.” These conclusions must be considered as only tentative, however, since (1 ) the groups selected wore not "persons participating in discussion where conflict Is expected"; (2) Tatum did not state clearly who observed the effects described and what mot hod was used to measure such effects; and (3 ) no control groups or methods observed as a basis of comparison, A further coramont may be offered; the study is written in what Is fondly called the "terms of general

501

are th© nationally known radio programs offering on© type or another of group discussion*

These programs have been

th© subject of investigation by three research students* Lester***® wrote a descriptive analysis of the changes in th© us© of language in original and printed ver­ sions of selected University of Chicago Round Table dis­ cussions*

Her procedure was to record a series of programs

and chock their language usage against the printed edition* On the basis of the evidence collected, sh© concluded that the language U3ed in spontaneous discussion differed from printed versions in the following waysr more freely contracted;

(2 ) sentences were longer, with many

coordinating conjunctions; more direct address;

(1 ) verbs were

(3) many more interrogations,

(4) more transitory phrases, illus­

trations, and sentence beginnings of an abbreviated nature. Involved sentences, slang and looseness of syntax were not necessarily more noticeable in the spoken discourse. 1Q Phifer made an analysis of the logical pattern semantics,” making it very difficult to be read and under­ stood by those who are not initiates 18. Marjorie L* Lester, nA Descriptive Analysis of the Changes In the Us© of Language in Original and Printed Ver­ sions of Selected University of Chicago Round Table Discus­ sions,” Master*s Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1940. 19. Gregg Phifer, ”An Analysis of the Logical Pattern in Representative University of Chicago Hound Table Discussions,” Master*s Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1941*

in twenty University of Chicago Round Table discussions. On the basis of this analysis, ho offered this conclusions Irregularities and inconsistencies considered, the Chicago Round Table follows the broad outlines of the logical pattern. The systematic check furnished by this study seems to indicate the value of the logical pattern of discussion, not as an arbitrary set of directions to b© followed to th© letter, but as a valuable framework guiding construction of th© discussion outline. Adapt­ ing to the broadcast situation, the Round Table modifies the logical pattern by including Intro­ duction, problem-statement, conclusion, and an occasional partition, by excluding the action step, and by suppressing definitions*2 ® This writer

21

mad© a study of the American Forum

of the Air, in which he critically analyzed the discussion methods employed.

From an Inspection of twenty represen­

tative broadcasts he drew these conclusions; (1) The American Forum of the Air had the charac­ teristics of a debate in an informal situation which resembled a symposium* (2) Theodore Granik, leader of the program, exhibited knowledge of th© subject In his brief Introduction of the topic, but did not attempt to secure cooperative In­ quiry, develop a pattern of progression, nor summarize. (3) The topics were suited to the participants and the radio audience. (4) The logical pattern of progression received scant attention. (5) Participants on the American Porum of the Air showed knowledge of the sub­ ject and had effective oral delivery. At times they did not exhibit an attitude of cooperative SO. Ibid.. p. 70. 21. Kim Giffin, "An Analysis of the Discussion Methods Em­ ployed by the American Forum of the .Air," Master* 3 Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1946.

503 Inquiry, and at other tiroes they neglected the principles of reasoning**^ These studies of radio discussion have attempted to evaluate radio programs, and have, in general, found that the techniques used in radio discussion programs follow the principles set forth by authorities, with some slight variations#

One of these variations Is the role of dis­

cussion leadership#