Broadcasting - As I Imagined It ...
February 1939 Radio-Craft

February 1939 Radio-Craft [Table of Contents] Wax nostalgic about and learn from the history of early electronics. See articles from Radio-Craft, published 1929 - 1953. All copyrights are hereby acknowledged.

Dr. Lee de Forest might have had something like National Public Radio (est. 1970) in mind when he penned this article in 1933. In it, the famous vacuum tube amplifier inventor lamented and criticized the commercialization of broadcasts because of all the paid product announcements (aka commercials) that had been steadily increasing over the years. He also was critical of the "hit-or-miss, higgeldy-piggeldy mélange program basis" of programing; i.e., the same station playing a mix of jazz, opera, swing, syndicated story-telling, etc. The good doctor did not elaborate on where funding for such dedicated, uncorrupted broadcasts would originate if not from paying advertisers, and I do not recall ever reading about a  de Forest Radio Network paid for by his vast fortune. I don't like commercials any more than the next person, but a company deserves time to pitch its products and/or services if it helps deliver a source of entertainment to you that you evidently desire to have.

FYI, the National Educational Radio Network (NERN) preceded NPR, having run from 1961 through 1970. Before that, the National Association of Educational Broadcasters (NAEB) ran from 1925 through 1973. 

Broadcasting - As I Imagined It ...

Lee de Forest

On his 65th birthday, the inventor of the vacuum tube which made modern radio possible, looks back down the years and comments: "I seldom tune in ... The programs, all swing and croon, are not only poor, but the interruptions for commercial announcements are maddening ... Isn't it sickening? It isn't at all as I imagined it would be." (Quotation is from Time magazine.)

This article is special to Radio-Craft

In season and out, from the early days of commercial broadcasting, I have seldom missed an opportunity to criticize the quality of the average radio program and to inveigh against the crudities, lack of showmanship, and plain bad manners of the majority of the commercial advertisers or their program directors.

In 1930, when, I was President of the Institute of Radio Engineers, my Inaugural and Farewell Addresses were devoted in large part to this aspect of radio which, on account of its extreme public interest, has received unfortunately all too little attention from the radio engineering profession. Like most engineers, we assume that if we perform our technical duties to the best of our ability we have fully discharged our public and civic obligations, a narrow minded and selfish attitude which is not particularly creditable to the noble profession of Engineering.

In some of my early interviews or articles on the subject of radio programs I outlined what appeared to me a happy solution, while fully realizing that in the United States there is at present no possibility of introducing such a reformation.

Briefly the idea is as follows: In every metropolitan district a certain station should be devoted to a definite type of program. For example, one to a higher class of music - symphonic and opera; another station to more popular types of music, with certain definite hours devoted to dance programs; another station to drama, serials and the like; one station devoted wholly to crime suppression stories, bedtime thrillers, and miscellaneous hysteria; another to educational themes of popular interest and adapted to popular presentation. This latter station could appropriately be the news outlet for the district, with news bulletins every two hours or so. This station might appropriately be devoted to political harangue, during the open season for candidates. Another station (and this would undoubtedly be the most popular of all) devoted wholly to crooners, jazzers, swingers, and jitter bugs. And finally, one station devoted wholly, 100 per cent, to undisguised, unadulterated advertisements! I do not believe that very short sponsoring announcements introduced every half- or quarter-hour into any of these programs would be seriously objectionable provided these under no conditions exceeded 30 or 45 seconds in length.

Picture what a relief to the radio listener's nerves such an arrangement as I have above outlined would afford. If any listener wished to hear a certain class of entertainment at practically any time he would know exactly where to dial to obtain it, and he would be certain of obtaining that kind of entertainment from that station so long as he cared to listen. He would not, as at present, having after considerable patience found a pleasing program, seat himself to enjoy same only to have to get up at the end of 15 minutes at most to twirl his dial to find relief from the altogether different material to which the original station had unceremoniously switched. After one does this several times and is more or less maddened by the blatant commercial plugs which he is forced to listen to, he turns off the "relief" switch in disgust, and that is the end of his radio for the evening. Undoubtedly he thereby misses a lot of good entertainment which he would have been delighted to hear had he been freed from the infernal necessity of repeated explorations of the dial to find same.

When one goes to a theater he knows in advance exactly what he is going to see, or to a concert or public address, to hear. If he elects to go to a Catholic church he is quite sure that he will not hear a sermon on Baptism, nor find himself in a congregation of vociferous Holy Rollers. Why then should radio be run on the present hit-or-miss, higgeldy-piggeldy mélange program basis? Montage is frequently very thrilling and effective in a motion picture, but it does not follow that the present audible montage of American radio broadcast is either thrilling or pleasing.

As stated above, I do not believe that such an arrangement as I have outlined could he put into effect in these United States without Congressional legislation, accompanied probably by Government subsidy. Such is conceivable however, and I daresay that there are at least a million radio listeners in the United States who would prefer to be reasonably taxed for their radio entertainment provided this was consistent and predictable, rather than to endure the present situation.

I believe that such a situation would result in a great increase in listening hours throughout the United States; to the everlasting benefit of the average American nerves, peace of mind, contented home life - and the radio industry.

But I may be wrong.

Posted December 9, 2020
(updated from original post on 12/5/2015)