. 1‘ 1. .1I.N1I._\IP.I .111... . 1 . \ 91. 1‘. .. 1 V" .11... 1...: 1V. I . 1 .\ I ‘0.1.".¢WI-0.“ o. . .1 .1 . ‘ O J )2 1 I" “:3 od\9 J' o I ..- I 'J ‘I'. "I; 9' 1 S?! ¢0H? .I . M 4 .11. . . . 1 I. m...‘v. I”.-. 1 . ...I I ...1. .1 11.1. .1 1V1 1 . 1‘ . .. .31... “.4..? . 1.4.." (...... ...... .11»... I.. n. 11. 1U ... x.... . 1 1| .1- . 1 I 1 1 1’ 11. 1 II 1 . . 11 I u . 1 3 . ~ ... o 1.. 1 .. . . . 1 ...1111 . I A I . .. 1 . .. 0 1,1 .._‘.’u1 . 1 I.. § . 1") 5 . .I .1 . ..1. 1 . . .1 .I I ... 1 .1 . 1. . . 1. r. .. 1. .1 IL I .)I1.. 1 I ..UUII \‘nlh '1‘. I1; 1. . 1 1 1 § 1 I . I II \ 1 . 1 . .4....J I -. . :1: ... . ... ... .. ,..1.....2.f.. ........1....- 1.1.1.1....rm....1l.. 1.. .a .. . . . m . . 1. .. o 1 .1 1 ......V . 1.. ,_ 11 711.11. 110 11/1I.ILI’¢.6.1.~ 11...! No1f0 .‘I 1. ¢ 4.. 14 1 .1. . 1 . . 11 . 1 1 I I o. J I. . 0.111 11’ f 1 II' .‘I‘ .1 I 11 1 l . 1 I 1 I O ‘1». 1 I «I 11 o a. I I f I. If- . 111.0‘ I.'\I/. 01‘ ‘IDHI Iv ‘mI ‘01.. 1 l .1 1 1 I 11 . . . 1 1. . .I. I 01 . 1 1! . II 1 . .1 . . i. 1 10 l.- 1..I1...I.11.11. ...1..lv. ., O1 .. 1 ... 1 1 1 1 . .r- .. .1 .1/0 I ... I .. ...".«Iu .- ..u‘o."avfifin.,'11 v 1 :51. ..a.. O .. .1 . . 1 1 1.1 11 1 .1 .r.1 r .l1 . .I J. 1.1. I .. I1 .1...\ 1 . I . 1 1 1. . I o 1 1 1 1 o . . 1 I J . 1 1 A »\ OIJII '1 '3’ 9".1 I II .. . . .. I. .. . .. 1711...; -121, 1 .1! I 1 4 11 I.’ I. l 1 I .fl I 1 D ) I 1 I.I I «- 1II I O HO 1. ' - I. 1 ...‘w..v‘m$‘.1I....n . . 11. .... ,1 ‘ 0 I. {A 1‘ , I" \ I "‘ 1 O 1 J 1' I . .. 1 1‘1. 1 I 1 1'- .- OI - I 1(_ ‘0 I I 1 1 '. 1 Q ). 4‘ I 1 I I 'l .‘ 1.? ... ,I I ,V I 1 .. 1 I ... 1 I I 11 .p I 8. 11V . . . 1 1 1 .u I 0 I 1 I . . . Mir-.14 . 11 U 1f I t J. I 1. I. o . 11 a I .I Il‘."a~‘1 I91! . 1‘ I 1 . . I... I 1 1 11 I 1 Id 9 1 1 If r l 1’ ' 1 .v' I‘1l1 J ’I I II . v .‘I 1 .1 I I . 1 1 11 II " III1.1 1 U‘ '“v. .1 1 la 1‘ I I o 14 . I II. I 1 11 I ‘1 ’ w. 11.. 5.1‘ u. p on.“ I 1.111 . 1.; 9'11 1' 1 . .\ . I. 1 I 1 . . 1 1.11. 11 o 1 II 11 0110.1 . 1. .0 III) . 1 550,. s. 1 1 . KC 11 . .I M 1 I 1~ 1 11 . I . 11 I I. 1 I . . 1 I lo .11 . .I J . 1 1! I. 11v 1o a I 1 1 III III 3... . . r...b..11 . 1 .1 1. 11 .1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.11 1 nII .0 .a u. r .1 1 _ I I . . 1 I I 1 I 1‘ .0. . 11 d.){.’ .1) . 1 II .1 >1 1 .. 1 I 1 1 1 . 1‘ 1.1. Q. 1 I 1 1 1 1 1/1. .. r1 1 I 1. {I91 1— I *(I It \I 1.1. 1‘ . V I 1 . ‘11 w v . [1.1 1.1 u . I .1 1.. 1 .Q 1.1 1 r O r )1. 1.1 . P1. . "1.. 1‘10r/4 1v».- r 1 I .51 .11 I 1 1 . I 1 I 1!! I 1 . I I u v . 1 .1 1 u 1. .. 1 1 Cl v.11... 1. . .1.. .II 1 .11 1III\11IFI.. \11 . 1 I . V I. 1 . . 1 I O1 11 . Q 0 {I ) 1 I l? 0.... I "II I O- ' 4' .. "C . ' I—I .' I‘. ' '\ 1 (I 1 1‘ I D I O I l I I I ’7. I1 .' ‘ . '01 ‘~ 1 1 ..‘O 11. 1N. . . I I .. ..w-.. . . .. . _. . . I .. . II U . 1 . .. 1 1 . I 1 I I1 . O . . .1. 1 . 1 11.1 . r. 1 . 1 1 . I 1.1 '1 1 1 I1! ..1 I. ..J 1.... .... .. ‘1 v1.1. . . 131! ...u\ 1 .I '9 1 u I . . o 1 J b r 1. 1 . ~ 1 . 1 1 'I:1IL 1.. . 1 1 . 1 II 11.1 1. 11 I 11 ..MI. .. .1I . 1.1! a. a. 1 I 1 .. 1.1. 1 I1 . . '1 1. I... 1.1 1 ...1. .-.. 11 . .. 11 1 . 1.5 1. . I. 1. ...: 11. ...III .I 1. 1/ Ir . . ..O . 1 1'; I‘l.’ IIIII'I‘. .. . . . I I..I. I """Q'-Qp--- 'v“ . . I. I I. . I 1.. . 1 . . . . 1 II. .0. .. 1 5 1 .v . 1 .. . . \ I .. u . 1. 1.1 .d .. . 1 1 .c . 1 . 1 i 1 1 I1 1 I . 1.1144 1. 1 Q I 1 . 1 1 . . . I 1 fi 1 1 1 1 1 a In. 1 1 ..1. U1 . .1. ..., 1 .. . . .. I 1 .1 1 .... 1. ...1 . . .. v. . 1 1. . .1 .1 .. . 1 111 .... . I1 1 1 1 .1 .11 1 Ifig II-II 011' I .—I [a 1.01 . (l0 . \I .J .I 1. I 1.). . .. II .1 11 I '1‘ 1. 1 .1\1. 1. 1 . 1 ..1 . I 1 .l 1 O I 1 c I 4 I I 1 r o. 1 11. 1 1. I ... .‘00411. I . 1 1. J .. 1“ 1.1 1 c .11. .1 .. 1 . . 1 1 11 .1 1 1 1 1 11 . I IO! h‘. 1 1 \ . . 1v ‘ ‘1 .I .\ .... .l \I 1 I 1 I. . 111 .. II I 1 1 1 . a 11 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 \ I1 1 I .I .1 l O . I n O ‘1 Q )‘1 .l..\ I...I I. 1...! f JI . I 1‘11 1 1 I .. .DI . 1 1 1 I 1 . II. L 1 I IV \I 1 .I I I . o. I I. 1 1. 1" 1 I I. I ..I J' 01.1..II . .I .. . . . 1. 1 . . . . s . 1 I . . . . . . III . . 11 1 . '0 \. 1 1 9 1.. I 1. .1... I ...I . 11.. I1...» 148 I1‘\TIII‘ I II I 1 ..\ or. .1. 1.1nnld 111 11' . . . .1. .1 1- 11 . W. ..I «I 4 _ 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 .I o I t ‘ 11 II ( I. .’11 III" 11 1 I p 1 .1 I]! 0‘1 . | ’0 .TI 1 1 II I 1- 1 .1 I 11.01. .1 .1 1 . . 1 . ‘ . 1 Q I I — I A 1 II _ I 1 . I 1 1 ‘ I, I I . J . 1 1 _ Q I . .1 .\ I 01.11 1 o . . d ...-1.. 1 .1 1 I1 .\ . I .11 1 1 1. 1 1 . ‘1 1 [Ix 1 .‘I . \1 1 K .1 I 11*1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 I 11 1 1 l 1 r \ . II . . . 1 . I I 1 1 . 1 1 1 I 10110011 I II. ‘11 9,: w . .. _- 1.2.1.. .....r...!..., .-.1...1 ................ 5.1. . ...... . .1 ......1 .. _ ...-.. . . 1 .-. :1 ...... . 1.- 1.111. 1 1 . 1 .1 1 1 1 1 . II 1 . II 1 . .. . I. I 1 I 1 I .010 1 1' I ...-11 1 1 I... . 1 (I1. L111... stool 1 1.\ ‘11. pl1l11 11. 1 nos: u‘ .1 . 1.0 1 . . \O .1. . J. .. 1.1 1 1‘1 . 1 .I1 I . . 1. r . 1 . . I . )III311 I SI .1 Q 1 1 I1 .I ' . Iv 1,! 1 Il'.. . I \ I .0 o . 1 1 .1 o 1 I 0 J 1I 1 O . .I 1 1 1. 1 .. .1 (11 . . III 11 a 1 . 1. I I . .11 I 1 a I I I ‘ I . 1 . .... I . .11 1 ... ”I. 1 1 l1. 1 ..I 1 1.11 . 1 11 1 .. . 1 . . .. 1 111 .1 .. 1 . . .1. 1 I11 ... 1 1 1 1r I. J 1... 1 J 11 c . I I ‘1 II L . 11. I111. 'I1.I.. '1 J .1 I; . 0 c ‘1 11; 1 1. 1 1 . v I. 1I1 .1 I 1 1 .I I . A .l . 11 1- p. 1 '4 III. . . r 111 I. . , 1.1 . . 1 1 .. 1 .3 . . \11. . 11 1 . 1 . . 1.. . . . . . .1 1. I 1 I I . 1 1 . 1 I II 1 s 1 . ‘11.. 4| \i‘v 1‘ 10.!”‘1QI .. A0. I 1 1.“..’.1 1 .1 011 ‘1 (I. .1 1’. IA A121 1 1.111 I I . I 1.. 1 1 I 1 I L 1 1 111‘ I . O I. 1' 1 I II.I1 1' § II)‘ a 1 .1 I .11 1 \(‘r .r . I 1. 1 o O 1Q . . I I1. . \ . 1 ~ {I ‘11 ' 1 1 1 _ . I II .1 I11 I O .I . 1 I I 1 .. l1 . . ’I I . .1 II I . P5 .1 .\‘. I“ O. I I '1 . 1 11 1. A I . 1 1.1 I . 1. 1 I) 1 I 1 I 4 1 1 1'1 v I v . I 1 1 11 ‘11. ‘ \(‘ -I 1‘ ... .11 -‘1‘... I 1“. . . . '1 . 1 P 1r 1. V V- '1. ..‘1. r I .1..— 1. .U 1. . . 1 I I 1 I. I .I 1 I 1 I o . O 1 ' Q s 1|. 6 .1 I... I . .1 1 1 1 11 ... . .. . . 1 II I 1 P I . '1‘]- I I11 1 1.5 ...”. .a1\1 1 I KfiIUMVfiI..V‘II' 1" O1 01.0 [5,“. 1 I '9‘: 1 11 DI . .. ..11 . . 10 I .1 I . I ' I .1 11 .u. . 11 . .1 IIUDI’I‘va1 III I II . 1‘ 1. .1121- I. 111. .> I. 11 p .1 . 1. I 1 1. I_1 .I . I 1 1 . . 1.1 1. 1' . I1. . . I. 1 . - I I 1 0' II.."I . 1’ - \ I “:19 n I . Hosqu uk~1a.I’II 1 '11 .1\.1 ~ ~ .’ I 1 .n L .1 I I ... I. ’11!le I 11 I 1 I .4 a 1‘ .‘ I . 1 I I I 1 4., I . .I. 1 . II‘ .1. ’1 I I 1. '1 1.11 I I 9 I.. 1.1 1 1 1 I q 10.. 1 I . .11 .r. . .I1 1 1 o. .11 I 1 11 11 II 14 .I 1 1 ‘. 1 If . 11‘ I .. . 1 I I ‘13 I’LI bf‘. 11. I 11 . 1 I 11 1 .o u 1 .. 1 .. I . I .' 1 I 1 1 1 ..I 1 1 . .1 D 1 I I I .1 1III‘1 I .\ ..A- I.I..' III-I '1 1.11 ..l . . 11 . 11" I 1 . .n./I~.. I . I . l J I 11111 1 I . . r I n It I L.. I 1. I . . o 1‘.-1 I .1 I11. .1 I .11 1 I. .. I t I .\ 11.. .. . s 1 ..... s .. .9 1 .J . I 1 . 1 1. ~ 1 11 . . 1 o 1 13.. 11 10.1 1 . . 1. .117 .30. I..I.1 .1111 1Q 1. .11 1 .I I I 1.... ...1 .11 ... .I 1. i... .I. 1 \- 1 .. Q 1 . s . . . 1. . \I 1 .r. 1 I 1. 1 . III .1 (11. 1 . I 1 1. 1 1 .. . . 1 I . . .. . 1 1 11 I .l H I .1 . . I 0 (II III. .. III. \ \11 1 01.1 .11, 1 I 1 \11 I I I W .1 I .... 8 I 1..\. ‘fl. . .. C _ . ‘ 1 I . 1‘ I.I . o . 1 I . II '0 l f'1 . I. 1 I II ‘ I II I I I ’3‘...‘ 1 I IQ. . I. 1 \ \II (1/ n III; 1 ‘ .I/ 1 . \ .1 11 .. . I 1. . . \ .. . l1 1 .1. I 1 I .1. I III. 11 I. 1 (I II 514 u 1 11. J. 1 1 a 1.II.\ 11011.: d ..A 1 .1. . ... .8 1. 1 . 1.1 I I. 1 111 111 ..I .1 .1 .1 . 1 1 1 .I I 1 I 1.11 I . 1 . I I . 1 . I 1 Ir ‘1 If . 1 1 I A I 1 1 I 1 1 . I . 1 1 1. I \ 1 o 1 I I I .1 . I 1| 1 11 I. 1 I9”... 1| 1 I.4 \I1&1 I s: ..Iu11 I II 151.4 ...1 I 1 11 1 1 1 . . 4 1! o I. U .1 . II V I I 1 I1 1 . . ‘0‘ III 1 . I 1 J 1 \11 . 1. .I L .0.1 15M . 1 I110 1 .. 1 .11. I. I I. 1 .1 .1 .I _ D 1 I 1 1 11 1 ' .( 1 1 . I ’6 . 1 101 v 1 v I 1 1 1 1... A \1 II". F 11 1 \1.. 1‘ d . .s 1 111. 11 1 II 1 n. . 1 a .I . . s 9.1. I 1 a 1 111 1 I 1 1 . 1! ..I11I 1 111.1 I 1’ I 1 11.0 4 .I1 1. ‘ 1 I I 1 I . 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I . .1 1 1.1. I11 1 \I... 11. I.. (1...! «~15. . 0‘ ..1A 1I ..s 11 1...? f.I . .1. .. 1 I 1 . 1 I 1. . 1 . 1 1.11.1 11. I .1. 1.111 11.31 .Il1 1 v 1 I ‘ \ I I. 1 _ I .O 1 1. I. 1 III I I CEO-I) I I. .I 1 .1 1 A 1 \1 ’ SI 1.- 1 1 . . 1‘11 I 1 I 1 II I .” 1. 1 . .1. 4.14 I III ‘IIKI —.I IR- I I . ‘\1.I( 'In1U... '- [1.1 I is .c . (11.5 .1 1. I 1 I II 1 1 I (I1 01‘ . 1 . I I I I 1 1. I 1 I 1 . . I .II. ’ II \I' I 1411') .../.1. 1 1 1‘ I . 1 I . . I. 1 I . y I 1 O I 1 1 I . . I 1 . I 1 1 I -.. I I1.1 I. .... 1-...102VI ‘¥1|‘1 1 I’IIrIOI ’H» .....1.’ 1 1 \IWII. I11 11 L.\ I II. 1 .01 .J I I. . . 1 I II 1 S . 1 I 1 ..l I . 1 1 _ I v .I 1'1 O1’IQI . 1.11" 1. 1 I 1 I . I 1 1 . . 1 I I 111 . . 1 . A .1 I.1 II.1.IIII)11 (11!. f.- .rAI’b‘ItlII 1 111111 c 1 . .1... ... 1 IL)I . ‘1 n 1. o . 1* I 1‘ 11 1 . . .h. I 1 ‘ .11 1 I 1 I II II 11' .1 1' .I I 11 01.11 r ‘. 1 ..II I. I I1 I1 1. I IN. ' . .1“ . ' 1 V I. .1 I I ... I I . .‘ . . I I O 4' 91 r ' V W6 . . .1 . 1.1.r ‘. 11 1 ...I .... 11s 11. .1V ‘1. 1 1 . I .....1. , . c .1 1 .11 I 1. . . .11. 1. .1 1 1 I. I- . 1 . 111. . 1 1 1 J I I 1 I331 .1 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 I I 1 II . I 1 1 I II 1 1 I 1 .... u.11\ . I I. 1 ... . 11‘111..w. .1 .1“. a». . . . .10. .b . ..I 1 P 1 1 \ 1 . \o 11. .' 1 II. a (I v .1 (I. 1 1 . 11v 1 1 I Q 1. . 1 1 I. I 1 l I 1 I V I I]. ’ . 1 . : . u. 1... .1”... . ..1. ..1. 1 1 1 -. 1 . . 1 -1. 1 1.1!» .1 r. z I. . 1 £1. ‘1 I. 1’5. . . . I..14. I) . .11 I 1 VIII 1. II 11. 1 . ('11 I111 1 1 . 1 I . I1 1 n I I .I I 1 II I v. I . 1' . RI .1 ... I \ II I. .0. 1 \ . a I ..III .4- 1. $\..I.I1III 11 . 1 I . 1”.- 1 1 . 1 11 1 . . .1 . l O 1 . 1 . I I .1- I 1 o . 1 1I1. 1 1“ I 1 II .1 I 'a\ II III I V 1. .1 .11 1'1 I I n v I I I D I .1 . . ' 1 .. (I. 1 1V 1. 1 1. I II I I I IV 1. 31¢ 1.1 I U . . .1 .1. I . .1 . I1 I 1.... ’. . 11I.‘1 . 1 I I . 1.1 1 l1 . 1 1. a 11 f V1.1 . o O I 1 1 1.11.1 I I 1 I K 1 1 I .. '1 I II 0 1’ I III ‘1 1 . S.’ ‘ I I. . ‘ . ¢ 1 a f I 1 1 .1 Q I III" ' 1 . 1 . I 1 I . I . x 1 I.. 1 I 1 I I 1 1’ II. 1 II 1 01 I u. 111 .\ Q 1 I1 ‘ I I I. 5 II II\1 II If.I1 1 I.. 1’ 16 ‘I! \la . )1 -9 . 1 ._ 1 1 . . I. I1 . I1 .1 1 I . 1 I... I 1 i 1 ~ .1 11' _ ‘ Q . 1I I 1 I 1 1...}. . . 1 O1I 1 1 1511 1 1. I1 1 I I O II I 1 11 \. I I ".1' 1 . . I 11 I 11 II 1 I. v 1 O 11 I . 1 1f 110.I 10.11“. ,1 . I. 1... .. c I I I 1p v I I I ‘ “I 1 1 1 II 11 I ‘ III I I II I.I . 1 I I1 . 1’ I I .9 1O I I 1 II I I I . \‘ I o. 1 . 1 . 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1. 1" 90 I1 1 I 1 1 . I I II .. . I .4 II- 1 1 1 I .1 .l’II 11 I I A d . I. I I1]- I ‘11 11 ’5 .I . 0’11 \. 1II 1. I1 I 1.11 . 1 .I11 . 1 1' a II 1 I I11 I .11 o I . a! [I I I1 .1910 v . II . 11" I I 1 . I \ e O 11 II . . ) 11 Q . II I.I .I 110 I 1 1 1 1 1 11 CI . I I 11 1 1.1{11 V 1 I 1 . .111 A. o .I ‘\‘ Io. I IIII 1 PI I.I11’1R ‘11001..\1I1 1‘ 1,1! 1‘ 1 “ I 1 1. u ‘1‘! Q t 1 O. l . I v 1 1 1 01.1 I I I. o ' ..II: 1 ‘ '1 1' ’ ... 1 I . 1 . I. 1 . 1 I 1 . 1 . I 0‘ 1‘1 1 . 1 . . I 1 1 . .. 1 I .1 1 .. I. I I 1 1’1 I We 11\ 11. . c ‘41L11111 1 1 1.I_1IVII .. 1 0'11 .. 1 I-I 0,101 .k 11’. $10 ‘III-PO .IoV .14. 1 J_1 .1... Q .. ’1... 1 . . . 1“I1 1 ¢ .1. ..IIQI 1.10 . 1 11’ I 1.. . I 1 ”1'1 1| III- .Irl ’. ’IIIIIIIII’ ' 1 ' - I I . I1. 1 '1 . I I I I I . ...1. O 11' .111 IPI 1411.. I1 IIII1 11111.11, .11..I11.1. II. 1 .... 1 . 1I1J1.1s1.1\1 I .1. ‘111111umf u.. 11 1 1 1 1 1.1 II”... 1. .1 .J 1 1.1}.s. 111 r 1 .11.I II.» .b . Qd 1..- .I1I I 1 II 11 I. 1 . 11L I. > 1 I I1 ' 1 1 I 11‘ \ I. V1 '. 1 I 10 I. II. II. O 1... I I . .1 . . I..1 1 I . . 1 I . 1‘.1 .91 1 I I ..1.1 (.1 1 I.‘ I 1 .. . 1o 1 11 I I I II I'1IJ' VI 111 I1. 1v.l . I‘.‘I..O I\.141 1 I .11 11.. 11.111..II.NUI 11111 .1 I 11 o 11... \.. \1 ...I 1t 1 .1 . 1. .Ir111 Pr. .0. I1 .I_. .1 I . II; 1 Mn. 1. 11 1 . \ 1 . I .) I. I 1 . I. .1 L11 . 1 1 ‘11.. II . '11 {I I I'll. 11 I I I... 1 C II. IIII.‘ I. 1. 1. I‘ I \ 1 / . I. 1. .. f I. ...1 . 11 1 I .1 I1 I v . 1 a x 111 I I1 \ 1 . 1 .. . 1 1 I .. . I 1 I I1 1 I . I I I \‘I . I; . .II. I .4! I ‘1 ‘ O l I 1 1) I . I... 1 up i I J51 '0 III I 11 IO. ( I1 1 I. o . I I 1 I I1 I It. 1 I . I, o 1 I ' 'I ‘ 1‘ 11 1 1 I 1 1‘11. 1 \1 I .1A1I1Nl. 1.11107, 1. r31 .I. |\ .10 \. .IWJAIJ JV} 1&1. .1\ .HIIII 1.111111 ’11I1v11tk .. 11.111“. I1. . N . . 11.1 . r '.I _. 1.. 141 (1. 11 i110 I .. 11 I.... 1 11.... . \ I .1 IIIV. 1 111.1 1 I I .I 1 1 ‘ 1. ‘1 . I I It II. I. . o 1 .\1 . x O .’11 (a I‘ I1 H.‘1 11 1 J 1 I . . I 1. 1 1 0‘1 01‘ 1 I 1 . .1 I 1 I 1 .1 I 1 . 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I . I. . 1 1. 1. 1 14I 1.I. 1 h )1 11(1 \ (R. I: I..111.I JII. .1 I IMO. 1 . 1111 1 111 II II11.II\ 1.11.1 ..I. 11 . I. 1 . 1 \II...I £5} ‘ 1 .11 1 1 . I “11 1.1 II II 1.. I<1I I. 1 r1 1 (.1 1I 111 1 1 1 1 1 -fi( 11 1 1. I 1 I! .1 III I 1’ I Il1 II‘III 1 )II..I..II I. .I’ 0.11II\VII\ III. 1 1“. II 1 II .00. ‘4' ‘ 1 I.I4 1 1.. .1 I .114 1”}. I. I\ IS 5. u _ I 11'“. n 1 1 11. ’9 11.1 o.l.I I0 I I II I. I ‘ rfi I I ..| I I1 I 1 1 1 II 1 1 I 1 1' I ‘1 .I. I 1 1. I 0‘1 1 1 11 Q! \ I \ I I 1 I. 1 1‘ 1 If. 1. ‘ 1 II I I I b I 1 1. I 1 11 1 1 I . . II 1 I 1 . ..II . 1 1.91111 I 110 .1... .n I I 1 f1 I .1. \JII. 11 H.; .I I../.. 11.1.11. I 1 s” ....I. .11.“ I.‘.. I .10 .J...l.. I 1 11.1 \1 ...-1.. 1 1.I 1 11.11 . 1.21 1r. .. Q . 1. .1 11¢. 1 11.. .1 I I) J . 1 09‘ I 11 .Yl.r,.I\ . . I . 1 \1 . \ I \I 1\ . 1 1 1 I 1 I ‘1 I \11 1. 1 I . I 1II.II . . II .I I. I I I . I I I1 1 I _ 1 . 1 1 . 1 1- I, I F .‘ \ 1‘0.) 1 ‘1. \1- I III. .h.lI .II I \.\'1 1.0. 1' It” '1 . 1d .11‘ I. 1 .. I: O ‘.J '1‘1 191’ ”I 1 Ir\I. ‘ II 1‘1 1‘ I 1?\1 .1 II I 11 1 .4.. I1. I o ’1 11 l 10 .I 1 P V 7 5O 1 III I \ I! I II ’1- II r II 1 I . \ 1 ’ III. I \.11 1 I I'Ivv. . 1 .I.. 111II.111 I.11 .. .II .IOI.II. I I I 1 1 . ..I u 1 I I «I. . I II 191.1 H11 1114 1 11 I1 . 1 . .1 I 1 1 I. I 111' 11 1' 1.. .1 III .I ”I .I. 11. 1 1 I I 1 . '1 . 11 1 l 11 I. 1 1 . I. 1 1 1. . III! 1 1.1.50 . I 1 11 1.. a 1‘ 1.511 1I 111 I .. 1 I . 1. 1 1 1 1. . ..1 I I1 1.11 I1 . . .1 .1 I I J . . P. 1. 11 I 1 1.11. . 1 1 I .1 1 '11.. 1 1. III I I.\1 I .. 11 .1 . .. .3 1 .1 J . 1. 11. I 1. 1 . 111 1.1.. a .1 )1 I1 1 w. 11 11 I . 11 1 ..L III . . L O I." .I 1‘. I 1‘- .0 .011]. I11. ’ II 1.1 '11 I 1 ‘l I: .I n . 1. 1 9 . ... 1 .11 1 1 11 1 I 1 .1 I, II 11 I 1. 11 O 11 '1 ' I .1 1 . 1 I I I 1 1 1 \1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I. 1 II:5.11 0 PI I 11 ‘1. .1 . I \ 1I 1 I 1 1.. I . 1 1 .I 1 I I II .. . 1 I 1 I. II..- Q I ‘ I (.1 1 1 ‘| of ‘1 \ 1 a 1 I. C \o I ‘I .. 1 I .0 . I 1 I I 1 II 10 1 1 I 1 p '1 I . . . 1I\r 1 15 I1 1. I \11 . .u .I 1 1 1 1 I1 . II 1 I1 1 . r1111) 1 I 1.55IJII. 1“ LJ. \ \ . I 1 I. . x . .51 .I 1 . I Am ...! \r1 1 I 1 . (I. I . .1. 11 I 110.1 01 _ I . .1 II 119‘ 1 1. 11 I 1 I II I. I\ 01. I I .III 0": 1‘ III: 1 I 1’ 0". .11 g .“1 1 . ‘1 ‘1 1 1‘1 1 1 II I '11 II 1 .I .1) 1 t1 1 I .11 I 1.) \. l1..I. .I ’.\1 I 1 II . D I 1 I6 .1 1 I 11 1 1 . \I1.I 111 . .1 11,1 1 1‘3 .\1‘V \1 11. I101? (1 .‘.N1I)I 1 1 11 1d. I11).I. 1. 1I . III 11 111 I 1... I1 11.1111 I 1. I I .1 1 I51 1 I 1 I 1 III. I 1 I. .11 1. I. .. .11 . 1. I I I (I . 1 1 . 1 .. 1 . I .. . 11 II . 1 ..1 .. (I \I 1 1 I .. . 1b 1 I 1 1 I1 . 1 I1 II 1 . 1 1 1 I 11I . 11 I01: 1 1. I10 ‘1? .1 II \I_\ I 0‘ ’J l 1 .. I Is‘ (11 I I 4| 1 . 11 11116.. O 111.)? r I 11 \a 11~(. (I .u 1 .I I. .11 I I I II I I... .1 1 1 H I . 11 1 «I r 1nI1 . I 11'. 1 I 1.11 ..I II. 1 I II 1 t 1 1II.I;‘ _ d I 11 1 ‘ d I I o . . 1 ‘01.- .I. ..v 1I11 1 11 5.1.1.:- I o .{J/ 1 .I 1 ..I 1 .. 1 . 1 1 ..1 . . .1 II 1 1| 1 I . 1 I I. 1 . I 1 . . ..I. II.1 I . V I. 1. I1 I .i' 11* . I 6’10 I 'II1) .I 1. .II 1 . I I II 1 91‘. $ 111.0 5 .(19 .1 1 n 1.1 I [1.110 I . 1 I . P 1 .1 no 1 II I J 0'. I\ .116 1 0-01 . .I‘ 1 I I. '0‘ 1 1 J I 1 1 t . I 1 1 . 1 I I 11 1 I 1 11 . .1 . 1 I 1 I I 1‘ . 1 1 I . I. 1 1 I v 1 . II I II 1 1 1 I I \l ‘0 V 1‘ J 1 1. ..1 .o I. '1 .1 I II\ 01. 0. '1‘ ‘51.”. .4) II I II 1‘1 I! 11 I. I .1 . 1 1 III I1111I 1 I 1 11 II. I\ .011 1 I10 . I1 I O .I I 1 1 I III I .1 1111 1 II .1 I 11 I1 I 101841 1 II ..I. 1 . 1 x 11 . IJI1|.511 .10 ‘1’: . I 0.1 . I I It 1.1 .1 1 )1 . I 1‘ 11 .f. .1! I11! 1 1 1.11 I I 1". I II . . 1 . I 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 . \ I n 1 ‘1 . .l, . II 1 11.5‘JII 1.31. .av. 11 11 1. I '1 0.1 1 .1J1..\I.. 7Q‘. 1| \.. I 1. 11 . I 1.1 . 1 0. .1I 11 1 A 1 1. . .1 1‘ 9.1 1.1 11.! .11 11!. I1II 11 1 I 1.1 ’1 III . .I I I . H I. O. I. - 1-. 1 I. .1 .1 -0 I .1 I In 11 II. 1 1 I I . I I I “5 0 II .‘c ’10 I 1 I. I“ O I IIQII I 11,0 1 1 O. I. I I1. I III I It I In! I m'III. ,1IPPII II 0" 1 . 1 . 1 I .1 . . . . . 1 I1 1 . I I 1 . . . 1 I. 1 I. . .. 11 . I 1 1 1 1 I 1 . I 1:11 c O 1 1 - 1 1 | .51 1 I. O I o O I I 1 1 1 1. '1 I D I O 1 I 0 0'1 I I1 .II.|. . ’1‘. .J 11 Jo It s o! 1’0! '1 1 . I. I I \ 1 la! .70 I. 111' 1 1 I.) 11 1|. I I. . 00'0- 11 I II 1 ' 1 I 1 II. I I l I .1 1 ‘. 1 I . 1.. I . I fl 1 1 0 . I II. I I- I f 1 r .0 1r 1 I II I . I I. 1 . ll-. 1. I 1 I I \ I I 1. 11 .1 £1 1 1 .1 1 . ‘I I. I 1 I I | l 1 1.1 I I I I 11.1 0 .I I I I Ia 1 I 1 t 1! 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 V ‘ 1 o . 1'1 \f I \ 1. II _ I V 1 ‘ II 1" LII 1 I . IIII 1 1 1 . 1 1 I I I I 1 u I I 1 1 1 I 11 I 1 I I. 1 . I1 1 1 II III I II .1 _ 1 1 I I . I . . 1 1 .I1. 1 I 1 1 . . 11 1 1 11 .1 I! O I .1. fl . . .. 111111 .111 1,. 1. 1.. 11 «I. .. l1 1. .1 11 .1 1 I 1 .... 1 1 . . . 1. 1 .1 I I .. I . .1 . ... .(11 11 1 I . I1 1 I 1' 1 .I I 1 II \ 1 1 1 h 1 I 1 I .. . 1 1 1 I“- I 1 1 J . I 1 I I .1 1 . 1 1 1 I. 1 I . 0.1 1. 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 o 2" J I _ A I! I I II II I . I1 \ I 1 1. 1 u I 1 I II I I 11 1 II . ’ I. \ I IO. 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 I30 . 111 I . I 1 I 1 p. .. I 1 14 1 1 I 11 I .11 I1 I 1 I 1 1 1 .1 1 . III.11 I 1 . 1 I. . II 11 .1 (.1 In 1‘11 1 . 1 1 1 .\.I . I 1 1.1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1110.1 1 1 1 1 .. I. 1|- . I 1 J. I. 11 1 O I 1 1 61' I I I I 1 I . . 1 1! I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I. 1 .1 1 1 1 1 11 (1. I .1 I 1 1r .1 1 11 I III . I . 1 11 I .11 1. 1 1 I..II 1f1 1 1 . .1.11. . 1. .1 . - 1 I . . 1 - 1. . 1. I1. .1 .. .. .... .I 1 .0 ¢ 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 1 I . I 1 I II . II 1 I\ 1 1 1. I 11 I r 11 II I I 11. I. v I . 1‘ I 1 I III I I o a X 1 o 1 I r 1 I I I \1 I11 1 1 111 I . I I 11 l 1 II I C .II. 1. I. . 1 1 I L I II I 1 1 I I 1 1 .1 1 1 . . . 1 I I II . 1 1 1. I 1 I I1 . 11I\ I 1 1 1 I I .I11. 1 II To ... 1 1. 11 1 I s .1. 1 I 1 1 11 1 I 1I I . . 1 I | I. 1 . II .I I .. 'I I I. 1 I 10 1 1 I 11 1 l' . I I . 1 I 1 . . 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I . . r I I... . I 1 I 1 I 'I 1 1 1 II 1 . I {I1- II 1 1 . 1 I 1 1 I II I I ..f'I 1 1 1 I 1 1 l 1 . 1 I1 I I . 1.1”..le .3..- I 1.. - . . . 1.. , . I I III 1 !)II_1 1 II . . . , 1 . . 1 O 1 IV) I .11. 1 .1.1 *III \I..I. .‘ 14 6111‘. . ...-I .111 .3. f../. 1 . W Iv1 . 1 .1 1 . I I ‘ . I 1' 1 I1. I. 1 I} 1" 1 I . (4.. N. .J . ... I . .1 . If I . .3 1 A. II“ 0 11 .. . . v s... .... ...) 1.17.21.11.12. 11.111 ..1 Lb... . 4511...... .. . .. . . _- . . . .. .... .1....1I..1:1.... _. . - I I II 1 1 . . .II 1. 1 1 s’ I I. 1.11 .‘s 1‘ 30". 1 r . I. .1 a L . 11 . . 1 . I: .1 I 1 . .1 . ’1‘. .A .11". IV! 1' I» o 1 . 1 I 1 p I 1 .1 .1 1 a I I . 1 v I r» 1 r ’ 1 I I - . ... I . .... . .. (11 1. . .. I . . I I. 1 . 1. .1 . .. I... 1». 1. 1.3.111]. 1 W71. 111... 2.9.1.. 1.1.1 kq‘r. . . ’14” 11’ III II . .l 1 . 1 I I I ‘1... 1. I“ I'. 1| I 1 II III II 1 1 I I . I I 1. 1 III 1 'fi’HEF-af? This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Selective Analysis of Labor and Non-Labor Spon305,991.:[13.331151-l News Ronald Ray Nicoson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _M_'_A_'__ degree in __S_Reic_h_ Wm/flfl Maerofessor/ Date WES— 0-169 A SELECTIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOR AND NON-LABOR SPONSORED RADIO NEWS .By Ronald Ray Nicoeon ‘III— AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech Approved . Ronald Ray Nicoson 1 ABSTRACT The communication of news by radio is an important and influencing factor in the listener's understanding of current events. One major complaint against radio news has been the problem of news emphasis. The complaints expressed the opin- ion that the treatment of labor news items on labor-sponsored programs were particularly favorable to the views of labor; whereas, non-labor newscasts placed less emphasis on news items of interest to labor. This study attempted to determine the treatment of news items (which were a portion of the UAW CIO labor policy of 1955) as offered by a selected group of commentators. This measurement and evaluation of the current situation in radio news, as qualified, served as evidence to justify the com- plaint against labor-sponsored newscasts. The following process was utilized in obtaining an accurate analysis of the content of these two classes of programs: (1) Fourteen available programs appearing five times weekly, as a fifteen minute program each time, were studied before the final selection of three programs for this analysis. Availability of these programs was of prime importance in this selection. (2) The three programs chosen were: John H. Vandercook, Guy Nunn, and Morgan Beatty. These were chosen be- cause they represented the totality of labor sponsored news of regional and national scope for the Lansing, Michigan area; and in the case of Beatty, represented the highest audience rated prggram for at least the year l95h through June, 19 . on: Shm OXC. of it, Ronald Ray Nicoson 2 (3) The analysis included a total of 57 recorded . programs. (Nineteen from.each sponsor) The recording schedule began on January 3,.1955 and finished on April 25,.1955. Each program was typed into script form.for content analysis. (h) All news items of interest to this study were classified into three basic categories of in- formation: Attention, Subject Matter, and Direction. These three groups in turn were further sub-divided into fact, opinion, and quoted reference. The treatment of these news items in terms of the above classification and frequency of use formed the basis of recording the data used in this study. (5) After all data had been recorded, the tabulation . of the facts was entered on Analysis Forms -- g calculated to measure the content of news between the two basic programs. (6) A summary of the recorded information followed, using the Analysis Forms. The forms, which were divided into the basic categories of Fact, Opinion and Quoted Reference, offered a summary of facts from which the conclusions were drawn. The conclusions of this study were: (1) On the Labor-sponsored programs (Vandercook and Nunn) labor news items appeared nearly twice as often as on the non-labor show of Morgan Beatty. (2) Labor-sponsored programs utilized more time per show to present the labor items than non-labor. (3) The number of different items offered by labor exceeded the number offered by non-labor. (h) At least two news items were emphasized by each of the labor programs while the non-labor show offered these items only once. The presentation of these items as offered Ronald Ray Nicoson 3 by Vandercook and Nunn, was consistently more favorable to the CIO policy than the presentation by Morgan Beatty, (5) Vandercook consistently reported pro-labor items more frequently than did Morgan Beatty. However, when Beatty ggg present pro-labor items, they were treated favorably 80 percent of the time; Vandercook's treatment was only 50 percent favorable to the CIO policy. The difference in the comparison lay in the numerous times the items were repeated by Vandercook versus the consistently pro-labor treatment of a fg!_items by Beatty. (6) The general conclusion drawn from these facts was that the accusations against labor in the treatment of selected news items may have been justified. A SELECTIVE ANALYSIS OF LABOR AND NON-LABOR SPONSORED RADIO NEWS By Ronald Ray Nicoson A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1955 In sincere appreciation to my parents this thesis is dedicated. My thanks also to the committee members; Dr. Robert Crawford, Dr. Max Nelson, and Mr. Erling Jorgensen, whose guidance made this thesis possible. 362973 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . Importance of this Study . . . Definitions of Terms Used . . . . Limitations of Previous Studies . Limitations of This Study . . . . II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of the Test Sample . . . Criteria for the Selection . . Labor-Sponsored Programs . . . Non-Labor Sponsored Programs . Tabulation of Facts . . . . . . Recording Procedure . . . . . . Analyzation of the Content . . . . Analysis Record Sheet . . . . Explanation of the Record Sheet Example Applied . . . . . . . . Page 0 \0 ~o ~o a> a: o~ U1 U1 \n \b k‘ +4 t4 O O O O 0 O P4 re P' rd P‘ +4 x» n) +4 ta c> C) 535 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) III. COLLECTED DATA FOR THE ANALYSIS IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . The Summary . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . Specific . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Study . APPENDIX Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . Sample Radio Script Used in This Page 27 A7 A7 53 53 55 57 ii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM.AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Introduction Background. On November 28, 1951, one of the most re- vealing examinations concerning the use of American radio as a medium.of personal propaganda was terminated. The Federal Communications Commission ended the longest series of inves- tigations in radio history, placing on record the documented picture of bias and misrepresentation in the handling of news.1 In 19h5, Leila Sussmann reported in her analysis of the treatment of labor in radio news, that labor news presentation on most programs and networks was overwhelmingly unfavorable. Among other things, Sussmann found that ”labor was presented as being morally wrong five times as often as it was morally right." (Morally wrong meant that the news was contrary to the ethics of public opinion.) Furthermore, labor was pre- sented as being on the winning side of an issue just as many times as it was not. (Winning meant the side which prevailed in the final decision.)2 1Lawrence, Edmund. ”Radio and the Richards Case,"l Harper's Magazine, pp. 82-87, July, 1952. ZSussmann, Leila. "Labor in the Radio News," Journaligm Quarterly, 22:207. March, 19h5. An editorial, written by Gabriel S. Range, in 1951, charged one news commentator, who was sponsored by a labor union, with using "loose sneers and distortions.“3 In.August, 19Sh, a prominent news commentator claimed that his union sponsor attempted to impose censorship of his ,newscasts. In a memo to the commentator from.the union, the following policies were set forthzh Whenever the established policies and views of the Union are pertinent to an issue in the news they should be brought to the attention of the public. Background information, which helps to illuminate the bare facts and cast them.in their true light is permissible, but opinions should be clearly labeled as opinions and interpretation. Among the group of duties listed for the editor of the program.were these statements: To determine what news items must be covered in each program; to check the accuracy of the script; to check the opinions expressed to make certain they conform'with the Union policy; to exercise the usual final authority of an editor over the entire script in line with the principles herein stated. The memo contined to state that all news and information the commentator wished to use for broadcast, be first channeled through the editor of the Union radio news. The commentator objected on the basis of his claim of censorship, and the union dismissed him from.the position. 3Hauge, Gabriel 3. "Merchandising Verbal Poison,u ‘Business Week, New York: September. 29, 1951. h g__, Broadcastingand Telecastin , p. 33. August lb , 193E. John Crosby reported in the State Journal (of Lansing, Michigan) that There's probably not a news program on the air that doesn't strike somebody or other as viciously slanted, no matter how fair the newsman try to be. No two guys view or report a news story exactly alike, and one ‘must allow the boys to report the news as they see it.5 The issue of the treatment of news reached newspaper headlines on July 21, and 22, 1955. At that time the UAW (010) was indicted for alleged violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The union was accused of spending UAW treasury-appropriated funds for political purposes; v . specifically to purchase broadcast time over local radio and TV stations in the fall of 195h. Thus, in the words of Walter P. Reuther, the issue of presentation of news becomes: ...a test cf the constitutional right of a labor union to express its points of view on political issues and other matters of broad public policy through the pgrchase and use of radio and tele- vision time. At the writing of this Thesis the outcome of this case had not been determined. Nevertheless, this served as another example of an accusation that labor-sponsored news may have treated selected news items in a manner favorable to their policy. Review of the Literature. Throughout the history of content analysis almost every kind of verbal communication 5State Jougnal, November 8, l95h, p. 15. 6 State Journal (Lansing, Michigan), p. 1, July 21, 1955 (as reported from the Associated Press Wire). content has been studied. Increasing from an average of two studies a year during the early portion of the Twentieth Century, content analysis has grown to an average use of about 25 studies per year. Early studies (which proved the reliability of careful planning with content analysis) were conducted by the Experi- mental Division for the Study of War-Time Communications, under the direction of Lasswell during the Second World‘War.7 As early as 1938, studies appeared on the content of radio programs.8 In 19h5, two studies appeared which exam- ined labor in the news. One was conducted under the direction of Sussmann9 and the other under the sponsorship of Fortune Magazine.10 Both.were incomplete in their coverage of come mentators and brief in the period of examination. Since that time, little has been done to analyze the content of labor news items or the treatment of labor in the presentation of news. 7Lasswell and Nathan. Language of Politicg, New York: George W. Stewart, Publisher, Inc., l9h9. 8Albig, William. The Content of Radio Programs, 1925-1935. P90 338s 3399 19380 9Sussmann, Leila. "Labor in the Radio News“ , Journalism anrterly, 22: 207, March, l9k5. rfiu51Q_* ’ "Labor and th° “9"!"3 Fortune Magazine, October The Problem Statement Qf_the Problgg. It was the purpose of this study (1) to compare the treatment of news items presented by laboresponsored broadcasts with a non-labor sponsored program; and (2) to show evidence either £93 or against the accusation that labor-sponsored news may have treated selec- Egg news items in a manner more favorable to the CIO union policy, than a non-labor sponsored program. A In view of this objective, the nature of the problem was twofold: (1) the selection and recording of the programs were necessary; and (2) the information so gathered had to be organized by a predetermined process into meaningful facts within the limitations of this study. Importance of thigvStudy. Specifically, this study would offer distinct information on the following points: 1. Present the total amount of time and emphasis spent on selected news items, by two sponsors --the CIO union and Alka-seltzer. 2. Show the directional influence (pro and con treatment) of the news as presented by three different commentators on 19 different broad- casts. 3. Produce the variations in content of news pre- sented by the three sponsors. h. Detect the presence of a trend in labor news items (selected items) emphasized by the spon- sors, during the period of this study. Definitions of Terms Used Content Analysis: (Quantitative) Bias Presentation: (Emphasis of news items) Direction: Item: Fact Item: Opinion Item: Quoted Reference Item:- Favorable Item: Unfavorable Item: Neutral Item: Content analysis is a research tech- nique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication. The lack of impartial and responsible reporting on the part of the commen- tator or the sponsor. Distorted and non-objective. Direction refers to the “pro" and “con" treatment of an item. Item.is defined as one or a series of sentences about the same subject or events with a distinct pause be- fore and after, indicating that the commentator is coming to something neWe A fact item is an item which is purely descriptive of an event which has happened or is happening or which is predicted to happen - pgglculated to be straight news. An opinion item contains a judgment or prediction whether explicit or impliCit e A quoted reference item is a judgment or prediction attributed by the comp mentator to some other source, whether named or unnamed. A favorable item presents labor as "right". The item is in agreement with the CIO labor policies. An unfavorable item.is news contrary to 010 policies. A neutral item has a zero value in terms of 010 policies; ”pro" and "con" are equally represented. Items are further limited for the purposes of this study to the subjects or events listed below: they represent the policy of the CIO union, January, 1955.11 4 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. gnk Federal Housing Project Federal aid to Education Federal and State Health policies Safe-Highway programs Parking problem.program Federal aid to Resource Development and Flood Control Fair Employment Practices Legislation (state, local ' and national) Federal farm program Increased and Extended Unemployment Compensation Benefits Minimum Wage Laws and Coverage Extended Increased Social Security and Extended Coverage Tax Program Based on Ability to Pay Debt Moratorium for Unemployed Surplus Food, Aid to other Countries United Nations leadership and Economic-Social Construction International Fair Labor Standards (lowered tariffs). Effective implementation of Employment Act of 19h6 11Publicationg319, UAW-Clo Education Department, Detroit, Michigan, 195E. Limitations of Previous Studies All other efforts to study this problem.from.the quanti- tative view of the news were found to have been incomplete or brief surveys of the problem. None offered any concen- trated effort at analyzing the news. The most recentthorough study was made by Leila Sussmann in an analysis of the treat- ment of labor in radio news in 1915.12 Even this study offered no true conclusions in terms of this problem and was limited to a period four months. Limitations of This Study The obvious limitations placed on a study of this type were timg and coverage. Analyzing 57 news programs represented far more facts than used in past studies of comparable length. In this case, the study period ranged from.January 3, 1955 to April 25. 1955. The problem of what to analyze and who to listen to was a grave consideration in terms of coverage. Needless to say, time available, expenses, and accuracy by the one person doing the analysis, all limited this investigation to three basic news programs. If all available news programs could have been analyzed the results might have been even more conclusive and directive. 12See page 1 of this Thesis. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY Selection of the Test Sample Criteria for the selection. In order to guarantee the availability of the news programs over the entire period and to provide accurate news comparison, the following criteria were established. 1. The final test group of programs had to be evening programs appearing five times weekly, Monday through Friday, for a duration of 15 mdnutes each broadcast. (This.provided an opportunity to record the greatest number of consecutive programs in a brief four months.) 2. 3. All programs in the test group had to occur as close to each other in the radius of time on air, in order to guarantee approximate equal access to the same news items by each commentator. That is, one news program at 7:30 in the evening could not be compared with another at 11:00 the same evening with justi- fiable results. ~ The programs were selected from the national and regional networks levels because of the increased guarantee that sponsorship of the program.would continue. Another reason for this criteria, was the safety factor of being able to change to another station for the same program in case re- ception was distorted. Following this list of criteria, seven different news commentators (or sixteen programs) qualified. They were: Joseph Hainline WJR 6:00 P.M. Lowell Thomas WJR 6.hS P.M. Fulton meis WGN 7:00 P.M. WKHM 7:00 P.M. CKLW 7:00 P.M. 10 John Vandercook ABC 7:00 P.M. Guy Nunn WILS 7:15 P.M. CKLW 7:15 P.M. Morgan Beatty WWJ 7:30 P.M. . HGN 7:30 P.M. WJIM 7:30 P.M. WFDF 7:30 P.M. E. R. Murrow WJR 7:h5 P.M. WLAC 7:h5 P.M. John Vandercook WXIZ 8:30 P.M. KXEL 8:30_P.M. Labor-spongored Prqgggmg. For the Lansing and East Lansing area, only two programs in the proceeding list were labor-sponsored. They were the John W. Vandercook and Guy Kunn programs. In order to be as complete as possible in this study, both programs were included throughout the anal- ysis (wherever the conditions made this possible). Both of the programs were sponsored by 010 unions and the 7:00 P.M. and 7:15 P.M. programs were used. Non-Labor Sponsored Programs. The selection of the non- labor program was not as limited. In consideration of the second criteria, Lowell Thomas and Morgan Beatty were the two logical remaining possibilities. Hainline appeared too early for comparison (or too late) and Lewis was aired at the same time as Vandercook. The problem of choosing between Beatty and Thomas was solved by examining the popularity rating of the two programs. A There were six basic program rating services in the nation at the time of this study -- of which only two offered positive 11 indication of audience preference. A. C. Neilson, which apparently did use biggest dollar volume in business ser- vice, showed that Morgan Beatty was the nation's choice in listening time week by week for any period during 1953, 195A, and 1955 up through April.13 Beatty was chosen on this basis. His sponsor was Alka-seltzer. Tabulation of Facts The pattern for recording the programs from day to day was largely determined by the conditions affecting reception of the shows. A total of 57 programs were recorded among vandercook, Nunn and Beatty programs from.January 3, through April 25, 1955. Recording without a break between these dates was unnecessary since the purpose of this study was to use a natural cendition of listening or selection and needed only to be accurate in the final analysis of the content presented -- regardless of when the program occurred. RecordingProcedggg. Preparation for the quantitative study began with individual recordings of each program. In order to assure accuracy in transferring this information from the tape to a written form, the first recording was transferred to a second tape recording but with pauses between 13 , Broadcastinggand Telecasting. any issue in 1953, 195K, and 1955Ithrough April (er the period of this Stildy e 12 the phrases (or ideas) in the presentation of the news. The second tape then, contained the original speech (or news) broken into phrases spaced along the tape. This process enabled the analyst to turn the recorder 9n and then proceed to type the script without interruption. The artificial "pauses" on the tape allowed time to type as. fast as the news was being presented. This type of work is also performed professionally by the Tape Recording Inc., of New York City for a price of approximately $15.00 per script. Analyzation of the Content By following the basic ideas of previous recognized quantitative studies (not necessarily on labor news) a set of analysis record sheets were drawn to collect the informa- tion.”4 Page 13 represents samples of the Daily Record Sheets used in the analysis. The records were divided into three basic categories of information: Attention, Subject Matter, and Direction. The full explanation of the meaning of this classification of the information follows these forms on pages 1h through 18. luSee Appendix, Bibliography section. 13 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATQB_ NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: (1) 7:00 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook Nunn Beatty B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook Nunn Beatty 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook Nunn Beatty II. Subjegt Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 123115678910111213111151617 Nunn 123h56789101112131h151617 Beatty 123115678910111213111151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? 1 2 3 h,5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 l6 17 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? ~ 123h56789101112131h151617 III. Direction: te Explanation of the Record Sheet. The following informa- tion explains each quastion appearing on the preceding form. Included are the possible directions for each answer insofar as this study is concerned. QUESTION I. Attention: A. Total number of programs, to date, presenting news items: Vandercook Nunn Beatty EXPLANATION Attention'§,prosents the total number of programs (out of 19 for each sponsor) which offered labor news items. There were times basic'possible directions in the answer in relation to this study. 1. Equal number for all three 2. Non-labor had more (Beatty) 3. Labor group had more (Vandercook and Nunn) QUESTION 1. Attention: B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook Nunn Beatty EXPLANATION Attention‘B presents the percentage of time spent on labor news items on that date for each sponsor. These figures were then totaled for each of the sponsor's 19 programs to give the average percentage of time spent on labor news items over the entire period of this study. There were three possible directions in the answer. 15 1. Equal number for all three programs. 2. Non-labor program had greater time percentage. 3. Labor group had the greater time percentage. QUESTION 1. Attention: C. Number of different items offered, on this date, by each sponsor: Vandercook Nunn Beatty EXPLANATION Attention'g presents the number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor. These figures were then totaled for each of the sponsor's 19 programs to give the average number of labor items offered by each sponsor during the entire study. There were three possible direc- tions in the answer:. 1. Equal number for all three. 2. Non-labor program had offered more items. 3. Labor group had offered more items. QUESTION II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program. Vandercook 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 l6 l7 Nunn l 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Beatty l 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 lh 15 16 17 EXP LAN ATI ON Subject Matter A named the news items appearing in each program analyzed._ These figures were then totaled for each of the sponsor's 19 programs to give the items repeated by each sponsor during the total period of this study. There were three possible directions in the answer. 16 1. Items will or will not be repeated by each sponsor. 2. Labor group will repeat certain items. 3. Non-labor will repeat certain items. QUESTION Subject Matter: B. What news items were offered by all three sponsors on this date? 1 2 3 “,5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 EXPLANATION Subject Matter‘g named the news items covered by all three programs (or by both sponsors). Thus, a day by day record was available during the period of this study of all items repeated in common to all programs. QUESTION Subject Matter: C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not non-labor? l 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 EXPLANATION Subject Matter Q_named the news items not offered by the three sponsors but offered by the two labor programs only. This information was used to show the emphasis (if any) placed on certain items by more than one labor program in contrast to the single non-labor sponsored program. QUESTION Subject Matter: D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 17 EXPLANATION Subject Matter 2 presented items which were considered important by only one sponsor - and then compared to the amount of time, the treatment and re-emphasis placed by that sponsor upon that item(s). QUESTION III. Direction: The Direction portion of the analysis sheets provided the following information and summaries of facts. 1. The DIRECTION question represented the total statis- tics of FACT, OPINION and QUOTED REFERENCE categories with each of their sub-divisions,Favorable, Unfavorable, and Neutral. 2. This DIRECTION portion presented the treatment of the news selected on each date, for each item, by each sponsor when common to both labor and non-labor pro- grams in terms, of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral for each factor of FACT, OPINION, and/or QUOT REFERENCE. . 18 3. The question presented for each sponsor (V) Vander- cook, (N) Nunn and (B) Beatty, the precise.division of attention given by each sponsor on each item in terms of FACT, OPINION, and/or QUOTED REFERENCE. Precise division meant that the total amount of time for any given item was analyzed further into time fractions I/3, 2/3, 3/3 relative to use total cate- gories. All 19 programs for each program.were totaled to see if any emphasis was placed on any of the named Attention divisions. h. The direction division presented the evidence showing the consistency or lack of it, in terms of Favorable, Unfavorable, or Neutral treatment of the news items by each sponsor. S. It presented the names of the sources quoted and the type of evidence they presented. This also showed their consistency or lack of it in terms of use study. Example Applied. The following is a portion of the script from the Vandercook, Nunn, and Beatty news programs of April 15, 1955. The complete program was recorded (and is available) and then the itmms specifically mentioned by each commentator were singled out for transfer to script form and analysis as previously outlined. The analysis proceeded in this fashion. If the items were short (being only 30 seconds in length) it was possible to analyze the entire statement as one unit. Short items were easier to classify as FACT, OPINION, and/or QUOTED REF- ERENCE, without sub-dividing the item. Such items were imme- diately classified and entered on the Daily Analysis Record Sheets. If, however, the item.was longer than a minute in presen- tation, it became necessary to analyze the item in its own logical sub-divisions of emphasis. In other words, questions, 19 quoted information, personal interpretation, and recorded interviews were analyzed as a separate element within the specific item.-- and than the total classification of the elements was reported on the final record sheets. Of course, the experiment was set up to correctly report any split of FACT, OPINION, and/or QUOTED REFERENCE within the same item. (Recall the 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 method of recording the class- ification on page 18.) Vandercook opened his program with a headline review. One of these headlines dealt specifically with a labor news item. He said: 2 Senator Douglas gains an admission that in many industries a dollar an hour minimum wage could be absorbed. This item was marked as number 10 since it clearly referred to a minimum wage law. On the Daily Analysis Record Sheet, the Direction of the item.was recorded first. This statement was a fact -- an event reported as having happened, or as straight news. Therefore, it was checked off in the V column as fact. Since the entire statement was reported as a fact, a 3/3 notation was entered on the sheet opposite the Fact column below V on Item.# 10. The next question: was the item favorable, unfavorable or neutral, in relation to the CIO policy defined previously? .Since the obvious goal of the Union was to Obtain at least a dollar minimum wage, and since the statement of fact is in 20 harmony with the aims of the policy this statement was marked as Favorable, under the V column of Item.# 10. A somewhat lengthier report on this same item (number 10) appeared later in the program. A separate analysis breakdown was entered for the second entry of number 10. The total time, however, was figured from both entries. Today's witness before the Senate labor subcome mittee which is holding hearings in.Washington on the proposed increase in the basic minimum wage rate, was the administrator of the Labor Department wage and hour division, -- Mr. Stewart Rockman -- and committee chairman, Senator Doug- las of Illinois, who seemed to have every rele- vant fact stored neatly in his head. These were the opening statements on number 10 by Van- dercoOk. It is rather obvious again that up tq_the phrase following Senator Douglas of Illinois, this was the reporting of straight news, -- an event of the past. It contained no direction either favorable or unfavorable to the Union pro- posed platform. Thus, it was checked as Fact, Neutral. However, it is equaus'apparent that the qualifying phrase following Senator Douglas's name -- ”who seemed to have every relevant fact stored neatly in his head" -- is a conclusion or Opinion expressed about that event or fact. The phrase is not defined as "quoted Reference" since it was net expressed as such. By definition, then, the phrase was entered as an Opinion presented through the mouth of the commentator. The question as to further classification of this statement in the subsequent categories of favorable, 21 unfavorable or neutral was more involved. A background explanation of current events is necessary here. Rockman represented the Labor Department's bill for a proposed 90¢ an.hour minimum wage. This was contrary to Union wishes for their employees. The job of Congress was to either accept or reject the administration's preposed bill. The cross- examination exposed Rockman in favor of a 90¢ an hour minimum wage, and in effect, with Senator Douglas on the opposite end of the issues. This opposite view comprised the question of why the higher mdnimum.wage cOuId not be absorbed by the in- dustries. Thus, the questions from Senator Douglas, (whether he :Lntended to or not), parallel the policy of the Union for a 'higher minimwm‘wage. This short statement of opinion was marked, then, as favOrable. Since this was only a portion of the over-all item it wasnot recorded immediately on the record sheet; rather, each of these separate components were listed separately and totaled for a complete picture of this item (and all others) before being entered in the respective column of the record sheet. The program.continued: Mr. Rockman encountered a formidable cross- examination. It was the job of the labor department's spokesmen to defend the alleged peculiar writing of the base figure of 90¢ an hour which the administration has asked Congress to make the new minimum wage rate. Mr. Rockman performed his assigned task con- scientiously but with difficulty. 22 This report was still a portion of the item.number 10. Was the above paragraph Fact, Opinion, or Quoted Reference? Is it as fact that Mr. Rockman encountered a formidable cross- examination? This was a matter of interpretation. Was the wage rate of 90¢ an hour an alleged peculiar writing? This was also a matter of interpretation by somebody. Who was able to judge whether or not Mr. Rockman performed his assigned task "conscientiously but with difficulty"? Such statements may have been facts -- but also they were the opinion of the commentator (or at least his words were) and not a straight news report of the event. The above paragraph was classified as an Opinion and checked as Eavorable to labor views on the policy.. Notice, the words “formidable", ”alleged peculiar" and "conscientiously but with difficulty" which do not constitute straight news reporting nor neutral views. Senator Douglas asked the witness if he was not a too fearful doctor -- in expressing the opinion that six industries might not be able to absorb an increase in a minimum wage of more than 90¢ an hour. This statement was obviously to be classified as an indirect opinion (a reference) -- or as Quoted Reference. Thus it was checked. Although the question was about an item of great importance to the Union it could have envoked an answer in either direction on this item. At this point, the question remained neutral insofar as being favorable or contrary to Union beliefs. Thus, this question was classified as Neutral. 23 Mr. Rockman's reply to this question was: Mr. Rockman reluctantly admitted that many industries might without being ruined be able to pay at least a dollar an hour minimum. This answer by Mr. Rockman was qualified by the words of the commentator when he said, "reluctantly admitted" and then continued with an answer which favored the proposed Union policy. This was checked as OpinionI Favorable. Asked why the labor department estimate of a minimum subsistence income for a family of four was about twice the sum.of a worker who was earning only 90¢ an hour could bring home. . . . The witness said that the subsistence figure was like justice in our court - a goal which we seek but do not al- ways achieve. This was another indirect quotation expressed here as a report of the event in the news. There was no opinion exp pressed and hence this was classified as Fact, Neutral. Senator Douglas won the witness's agreement to his contention as probably most textile mills, in which 22% of the workers now get less than a dollar an hour in pay -- could manage to meet that scale? Senator Douglas also won- dered out loud, why it seemed that only bankers and business men were worrying about a possible increase in the cost of work clothes, notably, blue-jeans, that were not ordinarily their attire. The increased cost might result from increasing the minimum wage rate, when the people who'd wear those clothes were urging a minimum of $1.25 per hour through their labor spokesmen? The Opening statement (above) by Vandercook would seem to indicate that the winning of the witness's agreement to the opposite contention of Senator Douglas was more or less a triumph for labor views. All of the information as re- ported was given as 2323 with some qualifying phrases. The facts were indirect statements of Douglas, but qualified by comments by Vandercook. This included such statements as "Senator Douglas won the witness's agreement to his con- tention”, and "Senator Douglas also wondered out loud why --". Since there is a possibility that the news source did report the event with these comments, the item was recorded as Fact, Favorable (but there was some question as to how much of the item mayliave been spiced.with Vandercook's own Opinions). This concluded the report on this particular item (number 10). The only other item reported which mentioned some subject close to the items (defined as a portion of the CIO policy) was the following statement. "There is though, no actual sign that the month-long strike against the Southern Bell Telephone Company largely over welfare benefits was today any closer to a settlement," --was a brief statement classifiedflas item.number 9 since it dealt with'WeIfare Benefits. The item was given as a [Eggt and certainly had no bearing on labor policy (CIO) and therefore, was listed as neutral. 8 The final step in the Direction portion of the analysis was to total the facts (or data collected) and check the item or column which best classified the information. The total of these facts equalled a 2/3 figure entered opposite FACT 25 on the sheet with both Favorable and Neutral marked under this 2/3 entry. Opinion accounted for the other 1/3 of the total report on item.number 10, which was sub-classified as Favorable. Item.number 9 was marked as FACT 3/3 of the total time, with the entire item being reported in a Neutral fashion. All items were classified in this manner. with all of the information of Vandercook's program classified in terms of Direction the remaining portion of this analysis was a regular process offlrecording data in the respective section of the record sheets. Starting at the top of the sheet, the Attention section was filled out reviewing the previous analysis sheets and adding (or counting) the programs to give the information requested. (A, B, and . 0.) Under Subject Matter, a specific notation of the item was made by circling the number of the item. In this case, items 9 and 10 were of flmportance to the questions under Subject Matter. The Direction portion contained the 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3 notation of the way the news was treated. In this case, item 9 was 3/3 FACT and Neutral. Number 10 was 2/3 FACT, Favorable and Neutral; 1/3 OPINION, Favorable. Each of the analysis sheets contained information of this nature. Following the completion of this study, the informa- tion was totaled according to the methods outlined on page 17. 26 The important fact was that all of this tabulation of items was merely a means to an end. The end, as such, was the question of this study; what was the comparative emphasis of labor items by non-labor and labor sponsored programs? CHAPTER III COLLECTED DATA FOR THE ANALYSIS 2'] DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 1/3/55 (1) Vandercook " ABCHI “OIO No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: (1) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook o Nunn O Beatty 0 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 0 Nunn 0 Beatty ° C. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: , vandercook 0 Nunn ° Beatty 0 II. Subject.Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 123h567891011121311l151617 Beatty. 1 23 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 l6 17 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. That news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123u56789101112131h151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1231;5678910111213114151617 III. Direction: 28 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD QQMMENTATOR NETNORK SPONSOR DATE: 1/5/55 (I) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 2 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAw-CIO Time: (1) 7:60 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook I Nunn o Beatty 1 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 22 Nunn 0 Beatty 23% 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: vandercook 4 Nunn 0 Beatty 1 II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook123(45578910111213114151/617 Nunn 123h567g91011121311+151617 Beatty 1231:567 9101112_1,31h15 1617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h.1516 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ’ 123h56789101112131h151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123h5fi7¢9l0111£131h15¥>17 III. Direction: DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATQR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 6 55 (l) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 3 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 115 7: 50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7: 15 P.M. (3)7 :30 P.M. 1. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 2 Nunn 0 Beatty B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items‘ Vandercook 100% Nunn ° Beatty 100% 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 3 Nunn " Beatty 5 II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 113,45 S§7§ 91611 1’2 1311115 161W 8910111 13111151617 Beatty i1 23”? 115 9116 13 m 15 16 17 B. What news items were offered on all three programs‘P: (on this date) 123115678910111213111151617 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123115678910111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123Asfi7fl9101112131u15163/7 III. Direction: 30 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: Lflv55 (l) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 3 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CID Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook Nunn Beatty B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook Nunn Beatty 0. Number of different items Offered on this date by each sponsor: vandercook Nunn Beatty II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook l 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 u s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Beatty_ 1 23 u 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12_13 1h 15 16 17 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) ‘ 123115678910111213111-151617 C. What news items were Offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? l 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 16 17 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? ' 123115678910111213114151617 III. Direction: 31 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD CLOMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 3/28/55 (1) Vandercook ABC 610 No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 11) 7:60 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 3 Nunn 1 Beatty B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook " Nunn 100% Beatty 31 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: 1 vandercook " Nunn Beatty 2 II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 123115678910111213111151617 Nunn 1231156789Ml112131h151617 Beatty 123h567fl91p111213111151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123.u56789101112131h151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123h567fl9'lo11121311115161? III. Direction: 32 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD OOWTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 3/29/55 (1) Vandercook ABC CIO No: 5 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CID Time: 11) 7:60 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 3 Nunn g Beatty g B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 100% Nunn 100% Beatty 1% 0. Number of different items Offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 2 Nunn 1 Beatty 1 II. Subjegt Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vander cook 1 g Nunn 1 Beatty. 1 2 3115678 10111213111151617 3115678 10111213111151617 3u56789’1o1112_131u151617 B. What news items were Offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 123115678710111213111151617 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123115678910111213114151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 113h5678910111213111151617 III. Direction: tem tem . te tem tem V 33 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD (355 QQWTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 3/3 / (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 6 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook a Nunn 3 Beatty 5 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 2f Nunn 1922 Beatty 1% 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 2 Nunn 2- Beatty 1 II. Subject Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 123h5678fl10111£l3ll11516l7 Nunn 1231:5678 111213 151617 Beatty 123u5678g161111131nfi151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1231.15678910111213111151617 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? 1231156789101112131L11516l7 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 1g 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 III . Direction: 34 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 3631/5!” (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 7 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CID Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 5' Nunn 4 Beatty B. Percent of today's prOgram.time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook .11 Nunn 1292 Beatty 0 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 2 Nunn 2 Beattyo II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 3 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 )0 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Beatty. 123115678 1.0111213111151617 B. What news items were Offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were Offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123h5‘67871p111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 III. Direction: 35 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD OOWTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: ”:6“ (l) Vandercook ABC .010 No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: ‘ A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 5 Nunn 5 Beatty 5 B. Percent of today's prOgram time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook o Nunn 1993 Beatty O C. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: ' ‘ Vandercook 0 Nunn 3 Beatty 0 II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 12311567811611121311151617 Beatty 1231567891011121311115 1617 B. What news items were Offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 123115678910111213111151617 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 12315678910111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? _ ,w - 123u567-87mn1213m151617 III. Direction: ‘ t ..tc in- I,.. q: 36 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4/5/55 (1) ‘Vandercook ABC 010 No: 9 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to‘ date presenting news items: Vandercook 5 Nunn 5 Beatty B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 0 Nunn 42 Beatty 0 C. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 0 Nunn 1 Beatty 0 II. Subject Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h,5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn lg3u5678910111213111151617 Beatty 1 3115678910111213111151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs‘h (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123115678910111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this 1.373115678910111213111151617 date? III. Direction: 3'! DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD comTENTATQR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4/__§____/55 (l) Vandercook ABC 010 No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-GIG Time: (1)07 :50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2)7 :15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 6 Nunn '7 Beatty B. Percent of today' s program.time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook j§1_ Nunn lgz Beatty o 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercoek 2 Nunn 3 Beatty II. Subject Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 1231156'789’16111213111151617 Nunn 123115678716111213111151617 Beatty 123115678910111213111151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were Offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ‘ 123u56787m1112131h151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123115678910111213111151617 III. Direction: DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: V__3___/55 (l) Vandercook ABC CIO No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CID Time: '(‘1 )7 :50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2)71:5 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number Of programs to date presesnting news items: Vandercook 7 Nunn. 3 Beatty5 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items' Vandercook Nunn 1% Beatty ° 0. Number of different items Offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 1 Nunn 1 Beatty 0 II. Subject Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 0.56 78‘; 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 123115678910111213111151617 Beatty, 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 B. What news items were Offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 123115678910111213111151617 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ‘ 12315678310111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 III. Direction: DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4/11/55 (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 12 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-Clo Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook - Nunn 9 Beatty 5 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook, - Nunn 19! Beatty 0 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: 0 vandercook " Nunn 2 Beatty II. Subject Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1231156189140111213111151617 Beatty 1.23115678910111213111151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123115678910111213111151617 D. What news items were Offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123115618910111213111151617 III. Direction: DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 443/55 (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CID Time: 115 7:60 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 3 Nunn 1° Beatty B. Percent of today's program.time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 14% Nunn 7‘ Beatty ° 0. Number of different items Offered on this date by each sponsor: vandercook 1- Nunn 1 Beattyo II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 1p 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 Beatty‘ 1 2-3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12_13 11 15 16 17 B. What news items were Offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 1p 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123115678910111213111151617 III. Direction: 41 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD comTENTATpR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE : 4715/55 (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: 14 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CID Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 9 Nunn 11 Beatty B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: 0 Vandercook 1‘ Nunn 25‘ Beatty 0. Number of different items Offered on this date by each sponsor: Vandercook 9: Nunn 1 Beatty 0 II. Sub ect Matter: A. ews items Offered by each program: Vandercook 12315678910111213111151617 Nunn 1.23115678910111213111151617 Beatty 1231567891011121311151617 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were Offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 12311567891011121311151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? lZ3h§6789’101112131h151617 III. Direction: 42 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD OOWTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4513155 (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: (1) 7:60 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 10 Nunn 11 Beatty 5 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news item : Vandercook f4 Nunn ° Beatty O 0. Number of different items Offered on this date by each sponsor: ‘ Vandercook l Nunn 0 Beatty 0 II. Subject Matter: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 1.5 6 7 8 9 16 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 Beatty_ 1 2_3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 123115678910111213111151617 C. What news items were Offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In 15 16 17 D. What news items were Offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 III. Direction: 4:3 DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD OOWTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4/19/55 (1) Vandercook ABC C10 No: 16 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 11) 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook n Nunn jg Beatty g B. Percent of today's prOgram time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 1g; Nunn £22 Beatty 35% 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: 1 Vandercook 1 Nunn Beatty 2. II. SUbIIBCt M‘ttfir: A. News items Offered by each program: Vandercook 12311567891153.11213111151617 Nunn 12311567891011121311151617 Beatty. 123115678910111213111151617 B. What news items were Offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 l6 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-1abor?~ 1231:5678916111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123115675910111213111151617 III. Direction: tem DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD comrENTATbR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4_{1______"/55 (1) Vandercook ABC 010 NO . (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO ' Time: 111)7 :50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2)7 :15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 12 Nunn 13 Beatty B. Percent of today's program.time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook 31 Nunn 42 Beatty 0 C. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: 2 1 Vandercook Nunn Beatty II. Subject Matter: News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 1.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 Beatty 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10.11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 III. Direction: 45 DAIBY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATQ§_ NETWORK SPONSOR DATE:4/zu%5 (1) Vandercook ABC 010 No: (2) Guy Nunn. Regional UAW-C10 Time: 115 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 12 Nunn 14 Beatty 6 B. Percent of today's program time utilized in presenting these news items: W vandercook, o Nunn sgg Beatty 0 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: O 5 0 vandercook Nunn Beatty II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 £75 6 7 8 9 lb 11 lg 18 1h 15 16 *7 Beatty. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12_13_1u 15 16 7 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. what news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ' 123115678910111213111151617 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123115678911011121611151617 III. Direction: DAILY ANALYSIS RECORD COMMENTATOR NETWORK SPONSOR DATE: 4/25/55 (1) Vandercook ABC 610 No: 19 (2) Guy Nunn Regional UAW-CIO Time: 115 7:50 P.M. (3) M. Beatty NBC Alka-seltzer (2) 7:15 P.M. (3) 7:30 P.M. I. Attention: A. Total number of programs to date presenting news items: Vandercook 12 Nunn 14 Beatty 5 B. Percent of today's program.time utilized in presenting these news items: Vandercook Q Nunn o Beatty' O 0. Number of different items offered on this date by each sponsor: ' vandercook O Nunn 0 Beatty-O II. Subject Matter: A. News items offered by each program: Vandercook 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Nunn 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 Beatty. 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 B. What news items were offered on all three programs?: (on this date) 1 2 3 h.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 C. What news items were offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor? ‘ 1 2 3 u.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 D. What news items were offered by only one sponsor on this date? 123115678910111213111151617 III. Direction: CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS h? CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Summary The facts contained in the Daily Analysis Record sheets were tabulated into the following totals. Under I. Attention: A. Total number of programs presenting news items: Vandercook 12 Nunn 1g Beatty B. The average percent of program time utilized in presenting these news items during the period of this study: Vandercook 16.82 Nunn 33.QZ Beatty 8.8Z C. Average number of items offered by each sponsor during the period of this study: Vandercook 1,5 Nunn‘_l;3__ Beatty __,1_ Under II. 'Subject Matter: A. .News items repeated by each sponsor: Vendercook Number 10 nine-times number 9 six. times number 12 three times numbers 2, 6, 17 twice numbers 1, 3, 3 once numbers 5, 7, , 11, 13, 1h, zero 16 Nunn number 10 eleven times number 9 six times number u twice numbers 2, 7, 11, 12’ 13' 17 once numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 86 1h, 15, zero 1 hB Beatty number 8 three times numbers 1, 10, 12 twice numbers 2, 3, 9 once numbers a, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13. 1h. 15. 16, 1? zero Numbers 5, 1h, 15, 16, did not appear at any time on any of the programs and therefore, theywwere elimdnated from further consideration in this study. Numbers 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, appeared on only one program and never by more than one sponsor. There was no basis for comparison (except through negation) and, therefore, these numbers were eliminated from the summary of information. They were entered on the daily records for reference only. This left numbers 1, 2, 3, h, 9. 10, 12, 17 for complete analysis. under II. Subject Matter: B. .News items offered in common with all three sponsors: Number was the item.which appeared only once on all t as programs. 1 C. News items offered by both labor programs and not by non-labor: Number 9 which appeared in this manner four times. Number 10 which appeared in this manner -six times. 7 D. The news items which were offered by only one sponsor during the entire study. Numbers 7, ll, 13 were offered by Nunn. 119 SUMMARY OF DIRECTION ("PRO" AND "CON") - 57 PROGRAMS J. W. Vandercook Guy Nunn Morgan Beatty ITreatment Treatment ITreatment general specific Ageneral specific general specific Item.10: "Minimum wage Laws and Ex- tended Coverage" (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) FAVORABLE 71 100 100 Fact 30 11 Opinion 5 25 Quoted Reference 65 61 100 UNFAVORABLE 7 0 0 Fact - 100 Opinion Quoted Reference NEUTRAL 19 0 0 Fact 80 Opinion Quoted Reference Item.9: "Increased and Extended‘Unem- ployment Benefits" FAVORABLE '16 83 0 Fact 38 Opinion %0 Quoted Reference 62 UNFAVORABLE O O 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference NEUTRAL 51 17 100 Fact 60 100 100 Opinion Quoted Reference 10 50 SUMMARY (Cont.) J.%!. Vandercook .;_Guy_Nunn Mgrgan Beatty Treatment Treatment Treatment general specific general specific general specific ‘7??? 1%) ‘TRI' (i) 1%) 775 Item.l2: "Tax program based on ability to pay I! FAVORABLE 33 0 50 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference 100 100 UNFAVORABLE 33 O 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference 100 NEUTRAL 31 - 50 Fact 100 100 Opinion Quoted Reference Item.l: "Federal Heusing Projects" FAVORABLE O - 100 Fact 50 Opinion Quoted Reference 50 UNFAVORABLE 100 - 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference 100 NEUTRAL O - 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference 51 SUMMARY (ContJ J. W. Vandercook Guy Nunn Morgan Beatty_ Treatment Treatment Treatment general specific general specific general specific 7%) 17) (W W (7) my" ' Item 2: "Federal Aid to Education" FAVORABLE 50 100 100 Fact 50 Opinion 100 Quoted Reference 100 50 UNFAVORABLE O O 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference NEUTRAL 50 O 0 Fact 100 Opinion Quoted Reference Item 3 : ”Federal and State Health Policies" PAVORABLE 1OO - 100 Fact ' Opinion 50 Quoted Reference 50 100 UNFAVORABLE O - 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference NEUTRAL O - 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference SUMMARY (Cont.) 52 J. W. Vandercook Treatment general specific Guy Nunn Treatment general specific Morgan Beatty_ Treatment general specific 7%: WT WT Item.h: "Safe Highway Program” FAVORABLE 100 100 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference 100 UNFAVORABLE O 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference NEUTRAL O 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference Item.17: "Effective Imple- mentation of Em- ployment Act of 1916" FAVORABLE O 100 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference UNFAVORABLE 50 0 Fact Opinion Quoted Reference 100 NEUTRAL 50 0 Fact 100 Opinion Quoted Reference VV—vfi “—..—fl; _.-. fl.“ 1%) 1%) (i) 33 100 53 Conclusions General. Recall, that the purpose of this study was, (1) to compare the treatment of news items presented by labor-sponsored broadcasts with a non-labor sponsored program; and (2) to show evidence either £23 or against the accusation that labor-sponsored news may have treated selected news items in a manner more favorable to the CIO union policy, than a non-labor sponsored program. Under ATTENTION of the analysis sheets, the following con- clusions were drawn: 1. The two labor-sponsored programs (Vandercook and Nunn) presented nearly twice as many programs with labor-items as the Beatty programs. This was the first fact indicating that there was a tendency for these two labor programs to report labor-news items more frequently than the non-labor sponsored show. 2. Labor-sponsored programs utilized more time per show to present the labor items than non-labor. The time spent on news items as such was roughly a ratio of one to £39 to £232. That is, Beatty represented 8.8% averaged time on these news items; Vandercook, 16.8%; and Nunn, 33.1%. There was evidence that the two national programs (Beatty and Vandercook) showed less tendency than Nunn, to elaborate on labor news items. 3. The number of different items offered by labor ex- ceeded the number offered by non-labor. Labor sponsored shows Sh each contained an average of twigg the number of items pre- sented by the Beatty program. Under SUBJECT MATTER of the analysis sheets, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. At least two news items were emphasized by each of the labor programs while the non-labor show offered these items only once. The presentation of these items as offered by Van- dercook and Nunn, was consistently favorable to the CIO union policy. This conclusion was based on: repetition of number 10 by Vandercook -- nine times; Nunn-w eleven times; and Beatty -- twice. Vandercook repeated number (item) 9 -- six times; Nunn -- also six tmmes: but Beatty only once. The fact that Beatty treated item.nmmber lO Favorably 100% of the time (Vandercook equaled 71%, Nunn - 100%) is mis- leading unless the number of times these items were repeated is taken into consideration. Under DIRECTION of the analysis sheets, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Vandercook spent 50% of his time reporting news items favorable to the labor policy. Beatty reported such items favorably to labor 80% of the time, and Nunn an average of 96%. The major consideration in the interpretation of these figures lay in the number of times these items were so repeated by each sponsor. Even though Beatty reported more favorably a given item, than Vandercook, Beatty presented only one-half 55 as many items for consideration. Thus, the treatment of these items is an important factor when viewed from the number of items offered. 2. Specific treatment of these items (favorable, un- favorable and neutral) showed evidence of Vandercook and Nunn to present the Favorable news items from.a "quoted reference”, or from.”opinion", in the case of Nunn. Beatty based most of his material on "fact" or "quoted reference” and never during this study qualified his own opinion as such. Out of this group of facts came the conclusion that Vandercook and Nunn used fact and quoted reference to support most of the items reported as favorable, or at least they did not openly qualify their statements as other than straight news reporting. Items reported as such were nearly all favorable to the union policy, by Vandercook and Nunn. Thus, these selected news items were presented in a manner which supports the accu- sation placed against the union-sponsored news programs. Specific. As a result of this study, the following specific conclusions were drawn: 1. The labor news items appeared nearly twice as often on the Vandercook and Nunn showszas on the non-labor program of Morgan Beatty. 2. Labor-sponsored programs utilized more time per Shaw to present the labor items then non-labor. 56 3. The number of different items offered by labor ex- ceeded the number offered by non-labor, a fact which tends to support the accusation that labor presented selected news items at least more frequently than non-labor. h. At least two news items were emphasized by each of the labor shows while the non-labor program offered this same item only once. The presentations of these items as offered by vandercook and Nunn, was consistently favorable to the CIO union policy. This was true also for Beatty -- however, he reported these items one-half as often as the labor groups. This shows evidence which supports the accusation against the treatment of selected news items of labor-sponsored news shows. This study has shown in a systematic fashion the focusing of attention and treatment of selected news items by two spon- sors. labor and non-labor. Two specific thoughts remain: (1) evidence has been collected which shows a more favorable treatment of selected news items by labor than by non-labor, and (2) this evidence stands only in relation to the limitations of this study.15 igSee page 8 of this Study for the "Limitations of This Study." 57 Suggestions for Further Study The problems of news presentation on radio cannot be analyzed completely in any one content analysis study. This thesis, "A Selective Analysis of Labor and Non-Labor Sponsored Radio News" was limited by the total area analyzed, as well as the time spent conducting the analysis. Therefore, recommendations for further study of this problem (the comparison of labor sponsor's treatment and em» phasis of selected news items on radio, with non-labor spon- sored programs) is recommended: 1. A comparison of several (as many as practical) labor- sponsored news programs with several non-labor sponsored news shows should be conducted. An investigation of this scope would have to include recording facilities and a staff for the analysis much larger than in this study. The results, however, would be a:more completeindication of the true nature of news presentation. 2. The analysis of this problem need not be limited to radio alone. Television programs and newspapers, lend theme solved easily to this type of study. Investigation should be performed including other media than radio. 3. This thesis pointed out (or at least suggested) that within the single area of labor-sponsored radio news, the treatment of news varied. This presents the possibility of comparing the treatment of news items by several labor- sponsored programs. This would exclude non-labor sponsors. 58 1. Another area of this Study which has presented itself for consideration is the possibility that non-labor sponsors are selective in.thgig treatment of news items. A separate study, not involving labor, could be conducted to determine the objectivity (of straight news reporting) by a group of non-labor sponsors. This would exclude labor sponsors. Suggestions for any future study using content analysis are of little value unless a complete understanding of what has been accomplished in the area is reviewed. It is there- fore recommended that the bibliography section of Bernard Berelson's "Content Analysis", be studied.16 His bibliography contains most of the content analyses published through 1950. 16Berelson, Bernard. Qpntent Analysis in Communication Research, pp. 199-220, 1952. APPENDIX Selected Bibliography Atkins, Willard E., and Lasswell, Harold D. Labor Attitudgg and Problems. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I921. Berelson, Bernard. Qpntent Anal sis in Communication. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Hauge, Gabriel S. ”Merchandising Verbal Poison," Business Heeg, New Yerk: George‘w. Stewart. -Sept. 29. 1951. Lasswell, Harold D., Leites, Nathan. Language of Politigg. New York: George W. Stewart, Publisher, Inc., 1919. Lawrence, Edmund. ”Radio and the Richards Case," Harper‘s Ma azine, pp. 82-87, July, 1952. . Nafziger, Ralph 0, Marcus, M. H. An Introduction to Journalism Research Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1919. Pfaff, William. "News on the Networks," The Commonweal, 60: 11-11, April 9, 1951. Sechafer, E. F., Laemmar, J. U. Successful Radio and Television Advertising, New Yerk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19 1, p. Sussmann, Leila. "Labor in the Radio News," Journalism Quarterly, 22:207, March, 1915. Webster's Comperhensive Encyclopedic Dictionary, Chicago, Illinois: olumbIa Educational Books,’Inc., 1911, p. 68. . "Ethical Standards," Annals of American Academy, 280:1169121, March, 1952. I. . "Sponsor Trouble," Business Week, p. 32, . "What Unions Want Next," U. 3. News and World Report, 37:83, October 1, 1951. . "An Indictment to Test the Law," The Detroit FreePress, p. 8, July 22, 1955. . "Grand Jury Raps 010." State Journal (Lan- sing,‘Michigan), p. 1, July 21, 1955.. ii Sample Radio Script Used in This Study April 15, 1955 (Friday) VANDERCOOK reporting: Senator Douglas gains an admission that in.many industries a dollar an hour minimum wage could be absorbed. Today's witness before the Senate Labor Sub-committee which holding hearings in Washington on the propoSed increase in the basic minimum.wage rate, was the administrator of the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division -- Mr. Stewart Rockman -- and Committee Chairman, Senator Douglas of Illinois who seemed to have every relevant fact stored neatly in his head. Mr. Rockman encountered a formidable cross-examination. It was the Job of the Labor Department's spokesman to defend the alleged peculiar writing of the base figure of 90¢ an hour which the Administration has asked Congress to make the new minimum wage rate. Mr. Rockman performed his assigned task conscientiously but with difficulty. Senator Douglas asked the witness if he was not a too fearful doctor -1 in expressing the Opinion that six industries might not be able to absorb an increase in minimum.wage of more than 90¢ an hour. Mr. Rockman reluctantly admitted that many in- dustries might without being ruined be able to pay at least a dollar an hour minimwm. Asked why the Labor Department estimate of a minimum subsistance income for a family of four was about twice the sum a worker iii who was earning only 90¢ an hour could bring home. The witness said that the substance figure was like justice in our court -- a goal which we seek but do not always achieve. Senator Douglas won the witness's agreement to his contention as probably most textile mills, in which 22% workers now get less than a dollar an hour in pay -- could manage to meet that scale. Senator Douglas also wondered out loud why it seemed that only bankers and business men were worrying about a possible increase in the cost of work clothes -- notably -- blue jeans, that were not ordinary attire. The increased cost might result from.in- creasing the minimumlwage rate, when the people who'd wear those clothes were urging a minimum of $1.25 per hour through their labor spokesman. There is, though, no actual sign that the month-long strike against the Southern Bell Telephone Co. largely over welfare benefits was today any closer to settlement. April 15, 1955 (Friday) NUNN reporting: The Senate Labor committee held its second day of hearings on the minimum wage. Several bills are under consideration. iv They range from.emasculation of even the feasable wage con- trol exercised over a limited sector or the economy by the Department of Labor to a C10 and AFL proposal that the Federal Minimum.wage be increased to $1.25 an hour. The Labor De- partment was still testifying today, through Stewart Rockman, Department Solicitor who picked up today where Secretary of Labor Mitchell left off yesterday in attempting to defend the Eisenhower Administration's contention that the minimum.wage should go no higher than 90¢ an hour. Committee Chairman Paul Douglas of Illinois who obviously knew his subject better than the Department Solicitor, Douglas drew from Rockman the admission that many industries -- most in- dustries, even those industries allegedly sick can absorb at least a minimum of $1.25. "What will the head of a family do if your proposal becomes law?" Douglas asked. He noted the Administration proposed minimum law would provide a gross annual salary of $1800.00 a year. "This," he said, "is only 10% of the income which the Department of Labor itself says is essential for bare subsistance for a family of four. Well, to this Mr. Rockman replied slickly that, "I believe that the legislative policy in the Fair Labor Standards Act, like justice in our courts, is a goal we seek but do not achieve." He admitted under pressure that a minimum of $1.25 would help to achieve the goal of the act. There is no way of knowing just how much attention the foreign press will be paying to these hearings but one thing is certain and that is, those persons active in picturing the U. S. abroad as a land of guilded economic opportunity, the least of its citizens must be hoping that the attention is the bare medium. The testimony has brought out that today deep in what Secretary of Commerce, Sinclair Weeks, has announced as the best econ- omy year in this country's history -- an announcement which is still more than 8 months short of proof. Six and one-half percent of all the workers employed with a manufacturing industry are paid less than 90¢ an hour. Twenty—one percent of all such workers are paid less than $1.25 an hour. A striking thing about the debate on the higher minimum wage is that the "say lengths" of industrialists and the political spokesmen of industrialists has sounded off practically without exception against raising it to a livable level and that it has been the representatives of working people who have agreed hardest for raising it. The industrialist argument is generally coated with a deep gloss of concern about the impact of raising the wage on prices on consumer prices. Well, at one point this afternoon, Senator Douglas asked if a higher minimum wage in textiles might result in increased vi prices for -- say -- overalls and coveralls in whose production labor cost amount to about 20% of the price. "Oh, yes," he was assured, "very probably." "Well, then," said Douglas, "we could hardly expect any jus- tifiable complaints from bank presidents since overalls and coveralls are not their usual mode of attire."” "The group most affected would be working people yet the repre- Sentatives of a great number of working people have urged a $1.25 minimum." The discussion then went to the shoe industry -- another so-called side industry. "Do you think", asked the Senator, "that it would increase the number of barefoot boys in the canyons of Wall Street if we raised the minimum.wage by about 3% which is what it would mean to this industry?" There was no answer from the Republican Department of Labor. April 15, 1955 (Friday) BEATTY reporting: No items reported in common with this study. ~_\ -‘ \ NOV M25 12% flint/181020 {a D£c2 1959.1 /f‘ A "TIT/117147111111fifijrizfltiliuiflfljmfiflrmi'“