'vvvvv-va' . NALE FOR AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT PRODUCED . a THE RATIO TELEVISION SERIES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY _. .. THESIS FOR THE DEGREE 0F NI. A. UNIVERSITY MICHIGAN STATE ...... ...: . .. ELLIOT B. SANDERSDN 42-.ns 1969 . .. a. .l-v ..srta...-.:_.:.Ora...: fl... . I .0... a 1.4.“ . . ...: ...... 1 . o .. r..o;. 1/. o a . . 1. .m....l. .4. .. .. .. A, ....As . .. ... a.. l. .f.-.. c.” _ i; av... . -.V-".W’n“, . .n . , . . ,..du..o.n..o .0 o. . .Ju ... o ‘Iv-A ..{‘- ... .. 0,. .. a o. ... ....I.‘.. «q . . o cl. - . ..f,’.-p..f .11! I ..a ¢.~.... . . :» ... . _‘.ro. 41;].-. .. . A ... . o .. .. v n u .c .A, .o. «1.01; .’ . o. I.” 4. fl 4 . a. u.. ..(i .01... .1..A.na Sund- o.'.oo . '0‘ a (I..- . . n.4o. 0.0 .... ., I .. 5.. ..I... ....f. u. i... 00 .. .. . o... c... . ’ tool-v). ‘2 .... .. ... 0‘ .. ‘\.f. L. . .‘ . . u o u o v .. ..-_. ... z E... tn '.I..l .... . o.r. c . ... ... . . ...:.J. A. . . x .. ,1. ... ...I.;. 7.,.a .o .94...” .a . ....O.. . ..00. ac . ... ¢.u. l. t. .d..L c. a. o - . . ..1. ,_ 5:3. . .a ...: o o... of.“ 4 ..o o . . ..Il .n .0! . .a 4 It! .. .... ....l I . r .. ,. .. (at... .p, . ...... . In. . .or.. .....r: -. c l:... . , . 3..., 1' . 4': cl —/ r. .lJv o. . 1.... . . o. .. 1. I, .. ...; a. .JI ..v. I. 1.: A I l ... .1). Yr. 0. .. a . . . . .. n . a .. . cl ...... I I . .u c 1.. .1; - I l I -.. a . . -¢ 1 ’ o . . ... . . f . E. . . 'v . I . y u I . I'. _ ..I‘ aukoa...ub'..- “A'bhd ‘ "- ' (44.. -l‘§ £0'u... ‘4 o 0 w“ ..- .. .r a....wcxci..fi§?..,.+£...f$:pw. 35.»? .J LIBRARY Michigan State Universi‘Y TITLE NO. DATE VOLS. LOCATION HEIGHT EOLOR 00 NOT comma DO NOT REMOVE ADS AND COVERS NONE BOUND BEFORE CRITERION THIRD PANEL VOL. MO. YEAR DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE BINDING CHG. HAND SEWING CALL NOS. EXTRA THICK EruamNG HINGING CALL NO. LETTERING IMPRINT EXTRA TIME ‘3‘ (a, ' fiES‘zt'm- ’i . THE RATIONALE FOR AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT PRODUCED TELEVISION SERIES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY I ABSTRACT {...-‘35 1.13.21} 2'") Y BY Elliot B. Sanderson This thesis deals with GAMUT, the student television production, and Michigan State University Broadcasters. It provides historical background on the growth and the organizational structure that has evolved during the series's existence as an extra-curricular activity. The intent is to trace GAMUT's development and relate this to some of its strong points and weaknesses. The hope is that the history will provide the insight for the main objective of this thesis. namely, a thorough analysis of the GAMUT organiza- tion. its relationship to the Television and Radio Department. the curriculum. WMSB(lO) Michigan State University television. the Michigan State University Broadcasters, and the television and radio students. Also. some mention has been made of how GAMUT relates to the community as a whole. Because this study was designed to present a systematic account of the past events which have led to the establish- I ment and development of the series, it was determined that a thorough inquiry be made of the pre-GAMUT years in order Elliot B. Sanderson to understand what need the series fulfilled, and to obtain the prOper perSpective of the subsequent events. Using past correspondence, personal interviews with involved faculty members and WMSB(lO) personnel, and other avail- able documents, an attempt has been made to examine various organizations and programs which preceded GAMUT, such as AERho and the TR Department's work participation requirement at WKAR-TV and CCTV. With regard to the first years of GAMUT the same procedure of interviews with involved individuals, and an extensive use of past reports, as well as available ’correspondence, was used to reconstruct the organizational structure of both the series and the MSU Broadcasters. Other areas of interest are: programming and production Iconcepts, and intra-organization communications. There, also, has been an examination of how these have evolved over .a period of years, as well as contrasting the various changes. .A GAMUT Questionnaire was sent to all program pro- ducers in order to obtain a better understanding of the problems they faced, and how they perceived their programs and the series as a whole. This provided the feedback necessary to measure some of the attitudes about the series, its usefulness to the students, and improvements that are needed. The final area discussed is that of future recommen- dations which have been broken down into two general groups, those dealing with broad changes in the program and those ‘which should be made in the very near future. THE RATIONALE FOR AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT PRODUCED TELEVISION SERIES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . BY Elliot B. Sanderson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Television and Radio 1969 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Television .and Radio, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. [gm émw Director of Thesis ACK NOWLEDGEME N'I'S I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the people who contributed their time and energy to aid in the writing of this thesis. For his advice and guidance, Special thanks are ex- tended to Dr. Robert Schlater who served as my thesis advisor. For their contributions in providing me with the necessary background information and Opinions I would like to thank Dr. Colby Lewis, Robert Page, Richard Brundle, Kay Ingram, and all the GAMUT producers. Sincere appreciation is also given to Mr. Leo Martin for suggesting this thesis topic, Dr. David Lewis, the 1968-69 GAMUT Faculty Advisor, and Thomas—Callahan who served as proof reader extraordinary. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I O IMRODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Work-participation Program Alpha Epsilon Rho II. EARLY HISTORY OF GAMUT . . . . . . . . . . . The TR-WMSB(lO) Project (GAMUT) IIII. EMERGENCE OF AN ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM SERIES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Intra-organization Communications Seminar Organizational Structure Development of Programming Concept and Formats Production Concepts, Organization and Procedures Promotion and Publicity IV. STUDENT, FACULTY AND WMSB(10) INVOLVEMENT . . Student Participation Faculty Participation and Department Commitment WMSB Participation Community Involvement V. SUMMARY'AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . BIBIJIOGRAPIIY o o o o o o o o o 7 o o o o o o o o o o o o APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O iv Page 16 19 31 34 38 -41 48 55 64 66 66 7O 73 75 78 89 91 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This thesis was written to provide the Television and Radio Department, as well as interested students, with an historical account of the development of their student .television series and broadcast organization. The histori- cal information used has been obtained through investigation of department documents, correspondence, personal inter- views, and a GAMUT Questionnaire which was sent to all the producers. -The formation of the GAMUT television series and Michigan State university Broadcasters occurred in the Fall of 1966. In order to understand the need for this program series and student organization, it is necessary to re- construct the events and circumstances leading up to their creation. The work-participation Program With the formation of the Television and Radio .Department at Michigan State University [hereafter referred to as TR Department] in July, 1958, and until the fall of 1962, student production participation was required at WKAR-Tv, later designated WMSB(10), the educational station operated at Michigan State University. "The department production course requirement was for students [taking TR-352 and 353] fto work at WKAR-TV four hours per week in addition to the laboratories and lectures."1 TR 352 and 353 are courses offered in the TR Department:2 "TR-352 - Basic orientation to television studio with laboratory assignments in studio Operations and workshops in staging and lighting.” "TR-353 - 4 Television control room study with laboratory assignments integrated with those in 352. Regular assigned experience on WKAR-TV." According to Richard Brundle, Production and Facilities Manager of WMSB(lO), the work participation program involved:3 Two studio supervisors and one staging supervisor who were in charge of staging and lighting. The tie-in with the academic program was that the senior studio supervisor and staging supervisor would teach the production laboratory periods [TR-352 and 353], as far as lighting and staging were concerned. At the end of the course there was an examination by the instructor on studio techniques. There was also a practical examination, which required that students devise floor plans and lighting plots of those plans. During the early years of the participation program students worked at WKAR—TV, the university station which operated full-time on channel 60. Because there was a 1Interview with Robert Page, Station Manager of WMSB(10) Michigan State University television, April 2, 1969. 2Michigan State University, Michigan State University Catalgngl957-58, Michigan State University Publications, East Lansing, Michigan, p. 189. 3Interview with Richard Brundle, Production and Facilities Manager of WMSB(10), April 4, 1969. full-time broadcast commitment and the fact that the pro- gramming was live, student involvement was desirable; students were able to work as floor managers, lighting and staging assistants, as well as assist in set construction. When WKAR-TV was on the air the station attitude appeared to be, that, because of their Ultra High Frequency (UHF) designation there were few people watching so they could afford to take some chances with students doing some important production jobs. When the change-over occurred from WKAR-TV to WMSB(10) [October 30, 1958 was the last operating day for WKAR-TV; WMSB(10) signed on March 15, 1959. The delay in time was accounted for as time needed to change over from UHF to VHF transmitter.], there was a professional staff to do the work and the students were standing around with nothing to do.4 As Robert Page, WMSB-TV station manager, described it, "The need for student help declined with the shared-time arrangement [Educational WMSB(10) shared broadcast time with commercial WILX-TV]: and the advent of video tape changed program production scheduling. This enabled WMSB(10) to make better use of staff people."5 When WKAR-TV was broadcasting, there were no shared time limitations; more studio time was available, and there were fewer students in the Television and Radio Department. These conditions contributed to an acceptable learning situation from the standpoint of the TR Department, as well as a good working situation for WKAR—TV. However, as the student body grew, it became impractical to supervise and 41bid. 5Page, op. cit. If 7;._ . teach the increased enrollment. Another contributing factor to the phasing out of the work participation program was the shift in the WMSB(10) administrative staff and the increase in responsibility of the studio supervisors who became responsible for both lighting and staging.6 At the time of the change-over from WKAR-TV to - WMSB(10) the work participation program was moved to Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) where it remained until 1962. One noticeable difference in the work program under CCTV was the grading procedure which called for the CCTV directors to file progress reports with the TR Department evaluating the student in various areas, such as interest and competence. This report was used by the Department as one basis for the TR—352 and 353 grade. According to CL D. Davis, Operations Manager of CCTV, ”One of the difficulties in the work program was the inability of CCTV and the TR Department to get students to work because of class conflicts."7 The final solution to the various problems that were beginning to make the work program impractical and unworkable was reached in the fall of 1962 when the work requirement was dropped as a requirement in '“Tthe TR curriculum. 6Brundle, op. cit. 7Phone interview with J. D. Davis, Operations Manager CCTV} April 16, 1969. A a si 0 During 1958 the Delta Chapter of Alpha Epsilon Rho, ’Mtthe honorary television and radio fraternity, began a series of television programs on WKAR-TV in conjunction with the honorary theatre fraternity, Theta Alpha Pi. These pro- ductions were treated as Specials in the sense that they were not done daily or weekly but usually on a monthly basis. Kay Ingram, program manager of WMSB(10) recalls:8 .AERho and Theta Alpha Pi combined as a joint group to produce dramatic programs on a once a month 'basis. AERho would assign a producer and television director, while Theta Alpha Pi would provide a dramatic director. The crew would be furnished on a joint basis and rehearsals would run for a month prior to broadcast. The Saturday before the production would be dress and camera run-through with everyone returning Sunday for the live broadcast. The moving force behind this joint project appeared .to be a group of students who wanted to do something above and beyond the normal daily routine fare which they were allowed to do at WKAR-TV or WMSB(10). This program series allowed the students who were really interested in television production or acting to come together in a common cause to do something on their own. The series, however, was short- lived, beginning in 1958 and ending sometime in 1959. (Due to the laCk of adequate records, it was impossible to ascertain exact dates for any AERho activity.) Once the play had been selected and cast by the producer and the production crew staffed, the grind of 8Interviewwith.KayIngram, WMSB(10) Program Manager, March 28, 1969. rehearsals would begin. A great deal of use was made of the WKAR-TV facilities because of their accessibility to the students. Although many of the rehearsals took place at WKAR-TV, other places on campus were used as well. wa— ever, when WMSB(10) implemented its shared-time arrangement with WILX-TV, this easy access to the facilities diminished because of the demands of a compressed program schedule. The procedure for the full production rehearsals called for a camera run-through on the Saturday a week prior to the broadcast. At that time Dr. Colby Lewis, Professor in the TR Department and AERho advisor, would be present to conduct a shot-by-shot analysis of the production. After this in- depth analysis, the producer and director would have a week to make whatever changes were necessary. On the Saturday afternoon before the live broadcast, another full camera rehearsal and analysis was held. This was followed on Sunday by the live broadcast and final critique. All of these people, particularly the television group, were very critical of their product. There was a great honesty about saying something to someone or doing something about changing it so that the product was fairly acceptable or that the standard was relatively high. When they [the staff] were finished with it [the program], they knew that they had gone through a very realistic approach and had tied together a lot of elements. Planning and standards were an important part of all ‘TAERho productions. The producers kept a very heavy hand on 9Ibid. the programs; if they were not satisfied with the technical and dramatic quality, they worked on it until it reached acceptable standards. As stated earlier, AERho was an honorary fraternity with rigid membership requirements. Requirements for full membership were: (1) 2.5 or higher all-college grade point average, (2) 3.0 or higher average in all radio—television courses, (3) a minimum of two radio-television courses taken, (4) minimum of forty participation points for aired Iradio or television programs, and (5) approval of active membership. Associate membership required: (1) radio and television majors of at least sophomore standing, (2) a 2.5 all-university average, (3) no voting power, but the right to sit in on meetings at the discretion of the officer board of Delta Chapter, (4) two academic terms in which to complete their provisional status and apply for full member- ship;10 ' At the time of the AERho-Theta Alpha Pi project, the active membership of AERho numbered thirty full members 11 The positions of producer and eighteen associate members. and director were reserved for the AERho membership, although some members did serve in various other production capacities. loAERho--Delta Chapter Convention Report, $961, AERho vertical file, TR Department, Muchigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. , 11Qe1t§_Chapte;_Convention Report, 1958, AERho vertical file, TR Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. an-members could work only as cameramen, stagehands and other crew jobs. There appeared to be little difficulty in finding crew members outside the fraternity membership on a voluntary basis because the TR department was so closely knit. Most of the students who were enrolled in the department television production courses, TR-352 and 353, were also actively involved in the work program at WKAR-TV and were readily available to participate in the AERho dramatic Specials. Even with this participation on the part of the non-members, there was a desire to do more for non-member involvement in production work, eSpecially among under- classmen._ First off we offer them an opportunity to just walk into WKAR-TV if nothing else. This to a freshman or sophomore is a great thrill. And if you were to let them roll up a cable, they would be eternally grateful. They want a taste of radio and TV, they want experience, and, as they get deeper into their sequence of courses, they want supervisional help with running the equip- ment, etc. This we can give them at the same time that they're helping us.1 . The attempt to broaden the base of the production element of AERho by including underclassmen in the pro- duction crew was probably never completely successful be- cause the program series lasted only one year. It would seem that this attempt to fill a gap in the creative 12An Open letter to the members of Delta Chapter of AERho, from.Katherine M. Klotzburger, President, AERho,vertical file, TR Department, Michigan State Universityr East Lansing, Michigan, no date. ' opportunity offered to students by both the Television and Radio Department, and WMSB(10) was just not destined to succeed: a combination of circumstances and organizational problems contributed to the failure of the series and the eventual phasing out of the fraternity. WKAR-TV considered the AERho programs as specials, ‘that is non-regularly scheduled programs which had to be screened and approved by WKAR—TV before broadcast. This lack of a regular commitment to broadcast the programs appears to have eventually worn down the student interest. Later, when WKAR-TV converted to very High Frequency (VHF) on a shared channel basis and became WMSB(10), the broadcasting of the AERho series became even less regular. With fewer hours to broadcast in and the possibility of more people. being reached by the station's programming, WMSB(10) had to make immediate revisions in program scheduling and ‘quality. .The result was less of a commitment to the series by WMSB(10) and more disinterest by the AERho membership. Toward the end of the first year the series began to have difficulty obtaining original dramas that they could present on the air. An unsuccessful*attempt was made to solve this problem by finding material at other uni- versities. I An apparent problem from the very beginning of the series was that the Jobs of produCer and director were taken by a select few at the expense of others. 10 .The up-coming television shows are a step in the right direction - if they go and if they are success- ful. I use the term successful loosely here, for these shows are not to be successful at the sacrifice of AERho members in favor of other members, or in favor of non-members. . . . 3 These negative factors: the lack of available time and commitment from'WMSB(lO); the lack of student opportunity within AERho: and the lack of program material combined with the restrictive membership policy, that omitted many production-minded individuals, and high national dues required by AERho made it impossible for the series to ever reach complete success. The concern for production involvement of the non- member appeared to be an outgrowth of a more basic organi- zational dilemma, the need to expand AERho's membership or maintain the restrictive membership policies. In an Open Letter to the Members of Delta Chapter, AERho, Katherine ‘ ,“ Klotzburger indicated that the active and inactive member- “_N_ship had fallen off to a new low. "Is Delta to die out with you people? . . . Why is it that no one seems able to join AERho.until their senior year? . . . Where is Delta to get new blood? . . ."l4 The solution offered by Miss Klotzburger, was to seek out underclassmen, freshmen, sophomores and juniors. "These are the people with two or three years left on campus to carry the organization - to lock at AERho with 131bid. ' 14Ibid. 11 the same interest, drive and determination for.success that we now look to the commercial world with."15 There was a need for new blood and more workers to rejuvenate all aspects of the organization. We need those people, but at the same time they need us. We need them because we are all busy people: and when it comes to AERho activities, we should be placing our energies into a supervisional category. Delta needs these younger people to be workhorses-- someone to write the newsletter and address the envelopes,someone to dash off for a prop. If we had these workhorses, our time would be better spent in building something for Delta that we could really be proud of and loyal to - we all would be freer to con- centrate on the leadership activities. Without these legmen our AERho activities will continue to bog down.16 In short, there appeared to be too few chiefs and fewer Indians. The prime obstacle to a less restrictive membership policy seemed to center around the interpretation of Article x of the Constitution of Alpha Epsilon Rho which states: "Members are to be selected on the basis of quality and quantity of service to the school and/or commercial broad- casting and/or telecasting service."17 A more liberal membership policy was advocated on the grounds that Article X did not indicate that membership was restricted to seniors. The criteria for membership was based on the quality of service performed in the broadcast 1sxbid. 16Ibid. l71bid. 12 area, which was determined by the approval of active members: the quantity of service completed was fulfilled by the accumulation of forty participation points. Although there was little or no argument against the participation point requirement, as such, there did appear to be a desire to liberalize the method by which they could be earned, there- by offering the opportunity for membership to more under: classmen. AERho has the work to afford a number of people such a quantity of service as they never dreamed of, and there is no earthly reason why the parti- cipation points part of this work can't be completed long, long before the senior year. It is not known, due to the lack of records, whether this attempt to revise the membership require- ments was successful or not; but between 1958 and 1961, there was a noticeable drop in certain membership categories, For example, in 1958 there were thirty active members, eighteen associate members and twenty-three newly initiated members.19 However, in 1961 these figures declined to fifteen active members, a drop of half the 1958 membership, whereas, the only increase was in the number of associate members which rose to twenty-three. Another area of sub- g'”stantial decrease was in the new initiates which fell to ten, a reduction of over half in the number of initiates for 1958.20 lerid. 19Delta Chapter Convention Report, 1958, op, cit. 20Delta Chapter Convention Report, 1961, op. cit. 13 This evidence indicates that the attempt to liberalize the membership policy failed, eventually resulting in the de- cline of active membership, people needed to administer the organization, and the loss of potential new members, people needed to continue the life of the fraternity. The 1961 AERhoL Delta Chapter Convention Report bluntly voiced a dissatisfaction with the national organi- zation of AERho in a number of areas: . . . the Delta Chapter has received only two communications in the past year from the National. One was concerned with the results of chapter voting on motions put forward at the last con- vention, and the ther was about plans for this year's convention. 1 This complaint was bnought about by the fact that other local chapters had recently approved a five dollar ,per member assessment for the purpose of "strengthening 22 The dis- national structure and chapter organization.” enchantment with the national organization was candidly expressed: "It is difficult to justify to our members the initial eXpenditure of $11 for national dues, plus the $5 per year fee for no other reason than being listed on the national roll."23 Another criticism with the national organization was the lack of recognition on the national level. The local membership became increasingly aware of the hard fact that 2libid. 221bid. 23Ibid.' "”“tt- 14 membership in AERho was not as effective in getting them jobs or personal recognition as they had anticipated. In 1961 these negative elements resulted in the . following statements:24 , In light of the above factors [lack of cor- respondence from the national organization and little recognition on the national level] the members at Michigan State seriously question the benefit of affiliation with the National. If and when reason to continue this affiliation can be found, Delta Chapter will make plans for the future. This ended Michigan State University's affiliation with .AERho. It was not until Nbvember 6, 1963, that any positive interest was shown for reactivating the Michigan State - \ university chapter of Alpha Epsilon Rho. On that date, seven television and radio majors met with R. D. Rightmire, an instructor in the TR Department, to discuss this possi- bility and consider various factors, such as interest, time, 25 The cost, membership, activities and responsibilities. consensus within the inquiring committee was that there was a sufficient interest among the students in the Television and Radio Department to warrant investigation of reactiva- tion procedures. The committee also felt that:26 241bid. 25A letter from Sherilyn K. Zeigler to the Television -and Radio Department, Subject: Reactivation of MSU Chapter of AERho, AERho vertical file, TR Department, Michigan State university, East Lansing, Michigan, no date. 26Ibid. 15 A) TR Majors need this kind of association to help them become better acquainted with students of similar interests. B) An AERho organization could lend a hand in placing interested members in responsible positions at WKAR Radio, WMSB-TV and Closed Circuit Television. C) Such a fraternity would be capable of performing a large number of services to the university and to the community: and the experience would be both beneficial and enjoyable for all concerned. According to Mr. Rightmire the reactivation investiga- tion revealed the same conditions existed which brought about -AERho's 1961 dispansion, namely: high membership dues, and a lack of membership recognition within the broadcast: industry. As a result, interest was lost in continuing the reactivation procedure and the AERho issue at MSU was dropped. CHAPTER II EARLY HISTORY OF GAMUT Between the years of 1962 and 1966, there was no extrafcurricular production outlet available to the television and radio students other than part-time work at WMSB(lp) or other area television stations. This void was the i - result of AERho's discontinuing its dramatic series and _later phasing out completely. Thus. the only extra-curri- cular organization with the potential of supervising and sponsoring this type of project was eliminated. In 1962 athe Television and Radio Department abolished the student work participation requirement which had existed in the _department.since 1958, thereby relying completely on the curriculum to satisfy the needs of the students in the area of television production. It appears that this need may not have been filled adequately. For example. it was estimated that students only averaged about two hours of camera time per quarter in TR 352 and TR 353. This situation of growing student enrollment. lack of sufficient faculty, limited studio time and generally overtaxed facili- ties may have made it impossible to meet the increased de- mands of the interested students. It should be noted that the TR Department did not have its own studio facilities 16 17 .but used facilities at CCTV and WMSB(10) for laboratory classes, TR 352 and TR 353, as can be seen in the following catalog course descriptions:27 TR 352 - Basic orientation to television studio ~ with laboratory assignments in studio operations and workshop in staging and lighting. Assigned experience at Closed-Circuit Television: ,a-whereas TR 353 involved, Television control room study with laboratory assign- ments integrated with those in TR 352. Regular ‘assigned experience on WMSB(10). For a period of four years, 1962 to 1966, there was no formal way of providing students with an opportunity for being as creative as they might be in a studio situation. Although there were laboratory assignments, these were limited by the very structure of the curriculum and class plan. The need for another production outlet. possibly outside the curriculum. was the motivation for a group of graduate students taking on a personal project which involved doing some extra-curricular production work at WMSB(10). Sometime during the Spring of 1966. the group of students informally discussed the need of doing something in the way of television production on an extra-curricular basis, and finding some way to get it aired. At this time WMSB(10) was producing a series of programs called "Polygon", a potpourrie of campus activities, and it was decided that Tom Meador, a graduate 27Michigan State University Catalog l960-l9gl_., Michigan State University Publications. vol. 54, No. 13 (mYI 1960), p0 A-1520 18 student. would approach David Markus Rolland. the producer of ”Polygon” with their idea. Although Rolland approved of the proposal. provided the segment was acceptable. and agreed to give the group program credit as "graduate students of the TR.Department”, final arrangements would have to be made through Dr. Colby Lewis. Station Manager of WMSB(10). This led to several program segments including a combination studio and film documentary of the Orchesis dance group. and a jazz show which was a full studio production. This was the beginning of a totally new student pro- duced project. The undertaking did have its problems: the competition between extra-curricular activities on one hand. and individual's academic program on the other. There were just not enough hours to devote any great amount of time to one particular show. We informally banded together and said this is what we want to do and selected by choice. majority vote, who would direct, who would produce, and who would do lighting and staging. It worked out well except that there was no formal organization and so it was difficult to communicate,among ourselves. I was working here at the station [WMSB(10)], also going to classes; other students were full-time and they were involved in their own course work. a The estimated studentfinvolvement was eight or ten people. There was also a noticeable lack of some production skills:' ” . . we found that.when we came into the studio “*~ - there wasn't time to train a man to effectively run a camera."29 28Brundle, op. cit. 291bid. ‘ * 19 With the formal involvement of WMSB(10) and Dr. ’Colby Lewis in the ”Polygon project." the participating graduate students found a sympathetic ear to their calls for more production opportunity. Brundle recalled a memo he had written to both Dr. Colby Lewis and Dr. Robert Schlater. assistant professor of Television and Radio. dealing with a formal student organization to relieve this problem. "The point of the memo was -- this was something we had in the past [AERho series], Why not now?"30 This was rebutted by 'the argument that there just were not as many students interested in production as there were back in the early days of live television when everything was new and exciting. As valid as this rebuttal may have been. it did not appear that Dr. Lewis or the WMSB(10) staff were completely convinced. 'The TR-WMSB‘lO) Project (GAMUT) In a letter to Mr. Leo Martin. Chairman of the TR 3Department. Dr. Lewis reaffirmed WMSB's(lO) commitmentto provide laboratory facilities for the TR Department and also suggested the need to do more for those students interested Vin production.31 As we both know. one of the purposes of WMSB is to provide training for Television and Radio majors. To a degree the station does this. According to its last annual report. “ during the 1964-65 academic year. 3OIbid. 31A letter from Dr. Colby Lewis. WMSB(10) Station Manager. to Leo Martin. Chairman. Department of Television and Radio. March_l4. 1966. GAMUT vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. ’4’“ -.~' 1"" 20 WMSB provided 1.000 hours of studio time for laboratory use by classes and enabled 200 students to gain 10.000 extra-curricular hours of experience in actual telew ' casting operations." But there is a feeling among station staff people that we could do more. And we have noted students who say that one reason they came to MSU wee their understanding that they could gain a lot of practical experience here. but now they are disappointed in the amount and kinds of experience available to them. The experience is limited in kind largely to staging. lighting and floor directing assignments. And although some'students work as assistants to promotion directors. producers. etc.. they do not have as much direct authority and creative responsibility as they would probably like to have. From time to time. we have provided facilities for pick-up teams of students who wanted; to experiment with the medium on their own. but these groups have fallen apart for a number of reasons: the "spark-plug" leader left. or grabbed the good jobs: the work produced was not broadcast. Another consideration in favor of an extra- curricular production project shared by some of the TR faculty members was that “less time in the curriculum had to be devoted to the teaching of operational skills so that more time would be available for teaching discrimination 32 The belief was that if the students had and ideas." access to a “. . . well-organized production activity of their own. . . . more advanced students might be able to .teach the skills to less advanced. and there would he more incentive for students to learn for themselves."33 .With this preamble. Dr. Lewis specified a detailed plan of action to be considered by the TR faculty and WMSB(10) 321bid. 33Ibid. 21 staff. This project. dubbed the TRrWMSB Project. was to be a student broadcast thirty minute in length. aired every Saturday morning ". . . throughout the fall-winter- spring period. and continued from year to year."34 As can be seen from the previous project. the AERho series. a definite station commitment to_broadcast was essential in avoiding any morale let-down by the participating students. The proposed series. as Dr. Lewis suggested it, would be aimed at the student audience. if desired. Although no definite format restrictions were enumerated. it was recom- \‘ mended that it be . . . loose enough to give necessary focus. restrict impracticable demands for time. facilities and materials: be flexible enough (be division into segments. for instance) to give all applicable students maximum opportunity for participation.35 Other considerations were: a policy that would protect WMSB's(10) license. the university reputation. as well as comply with the operational procedures and program purposes of WMSB(10). Supervision requirements could besti be fulfilled by a joint arrangement with the station: however. a faculty member would serve as executive producer ‘while WMSB(10) would furnish a studio supervisor. video control engineer and video tape operator. Students were to assume all other operating positions.§6 22 The suggested video taping session would.take place 37 . . . sometime on a Saturday. one week previous to air time.” This would allow previewing and critiquing to take place prior to broadcast. With regard to who would actively participate and the relationship between the project and the curriculum. Dr. Lewis had several recommendations. Presumably. the most involved students would be those who were interested in production careers and would follow this tact if the department were to move towards a specialized production major. At the same time. it was felt that these students should be drawn from at least the sophomore. junior and . senior levels. This would promote continuity and the advancement of those involved into progressively more responsible positions. thereby avoiding a problem experienced by AERho -- the lack of new blood caused by a restrictive membership policy.38 It appeared to be Dr. Lewis's belief that a strong . link was needed between project and curriculum. ”Student participation to be required in fulfillment of some academic «39 course or program. This would insure at least a minimum of interest and activity by the TR majors. v 37;gid. 381bid; 39Ibid. 23 The final area of concern to Dr. Lewis was that of monetary resources. 2 Funds would have to be budgeted obviously for WMSB operators provided during the studio sessions and for faculty members. whose supervision of the project might encompass a considerable amount of time. and for materials (art. scenic. film. and tape) consumed by the project. Dr. Lewis concluded by indicating that if those concerned were convinced the basis concept of the project had merit. he would be glad to participate in any discus;ion which might help to realize it. . At the April 22. 1966 faculty meeting of the TR Department. Mr. Leo Martin. Department Chairman. read Dr. Lewis's letter regarding the proposal that WMSB(10) would make thirty minutes of broadcast time available each Saturday for student productions. ”The faculty reaction was very favorable. The Chairman designated Mr. Weld and Mr. Schlater to meet with Dr. Lewis in the next three or four weeks regarding the proposal.”41 The subject of the proposed project came up again at the May 27. 1966. TR Department faculty meeting with a progress report by Mr. Weld.42 4OIbid. 41Minutes of the Television and Radio faculty meeting. April 22. 1966. vertical file. p. 2. 42Minutes of the Television and Radio faculty meeting. May 27. 1966. vertical file. 24 A general discussion developed which included such questions as faculty supervision. the assign- ment of a graduate student to the project. and the overall organization. Mr. Weld and Mr. Schlater are to meet with Dr. Lewis and submit a detailed plan to the chairman. It would appear that this completed the active planning for the 1965-66 academic year. With the beginning of the l966v67 academic year. it 43 5‘- was announced that: ”Planning for a student television program to be broadcast weekly by WMSB has begun. Mr. Schlater will supervise the production assisted by a graduate student. Tad Williams." This commitment by the department gave Dr.‘ Schlater and the others involved the approval to develop various approaches to implement the project. At this point many of the hard—nosed practical questions started coming into focus. First. what was thef purpose of the program? Second. was the program to be directed at a specific audience? With regard to the first question. it was Dr. Lewis's impression that the student show was: ". . . to give TR students as much experience as possible in all phases of production. including the producing 44 as well as the operating functions." .88 for the program being directed to a specific audience. Dr. Lewis was of the —v 43Minutes of the Television and Radio Department faculty meeting. September 23. 1966. vertical file. ' ‘4Memo to Robert Schlater. Robert Page. Kay Ingram ,and Richard Brundle. Miscellaneous Observations Regarding the Student Show. from Colby Lewis. early October. GAMMT vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. p. l. 25 the opinion that the station could not delegate its responsibilities but did not wish to dictate something unsatisfactory to the various producers. The question was raised: “Is this to be merely a talent show. a succession of entertainment performances. albeit. as professional as possible? Or will it move farther toward satisfying a social need? And what of the audience? Can it serve both a college and high school audience. parti- cularly if it includes more than talent acts?"45 It was Dick Brundle's belief that this program should be directed to a teen-age audience with the hope of being a vehicle for giving this group some eXpression and identity. ". . . . besides carrying acts which would entertain the teens. he visualized other segments such as letters from teens who ask for advice on personal problems. . ."46 It was felt that by directing this type of program to the junior-audience and involving it. this would open up parts of the program to teen-age participation. Another areaithat needed to be considered for the success of the series. was what would be the most thorough and constructive method of promotion to the youth audience? Could active promotion be co-ordinated between various groups. such as the Greater Lansing Youth Council and various school student councils? If these problems could be overcome. it was Brundle's opinion that: '. . . quite an audience could be built up: . . .“47 45Ibid. 461bid. 47Ibid. -—“-What personnel would the station need to supply? 26 Dr. Lewis concurred with Brundle's position:48 First. because it is a focus. which would help TR student producers point and shape the show. Second. because as manager of an ETV station. I'd feel we were fulfilling amore useful function towards the community than simply running a Talent show per se. Third. because I think that the more sharply focused a show is towards a target audience with.a recognized need. the more popular and successful it can become. Along With the better definition of the intended audience and purpose of the series. Dr. Lewis displayed some concern over the procedure for co-ordination between. the TR Department and WMSB(10). as well as the degree and areas of responsibility which would be assigned to each. 49 On Saturday morning. I take it. a studio supervisor. a master control engineer. and a video tape engineer. . . . Also. presumably we need one liaison person to represent the station for any and all business with the show producer. Comments. problems. requisitions etc.. should all probably pass through one person for the sake of efficiency. . . . Dick Brundle has volunteered and seems appropriate. not only because he administers facilities. but also because he has his heart in the project. . . . How- ever. Dick or whoever is chosen cannot afford to devote too much station or personal time to the show especially after its shake down. The point Dr. Lewis seemed to be driving home was:50 The burden of keeping it [the series] running is (and I hope this is understood) on the TR Department ras the producing agency. It is they. I take it. who will supply all functions except those just enumer- ated. . . . We shall need to know the precise responsibilities of Bob Schlater and his graduate assistant. and which the station contacts for what purpose. 27 As mentioned earlier. the station could not delegate its responsibility to try to satisfy a public audience and therefore had an understandable interest in the quality and productivity of the student staff. What standard would be used in assigning student producers? What would be the qualification for directors. cameraman and other studio personnel? Dr. Lewis also pointed out that WMSB(10) had a number of part-time students. who due to their familiarity with the station operation. knew how a program was produced. i'How much does such experience count versus merely having had the course? Can we get the advantage of station staff com- petence. without robbing opportunities from other students?"51 As with any television venture various financial considerations begin to appear at the outset. WOuld the series have a budget for sets. art materials. film stock. processing. tape stock and talent fees. if necessary. If no funds for this kind of thing can be promoted outside the station. the ground rules of staging the show should be such as-to minimize consumption of such items. This indicates a fairly permanent . . . kind of set. avoidance of film and special set pieces. not too much emphasis on "experimental“ staging.52 -; Dr. Lewis's letter presented the TR Department and WMSB(10) with a series of problem solving questions which had to be thought out prior to any successful program series. This was the task to which Dr. Schlater directed his efforts -- to develop a workable.rationale for'the proposed series. 28 On October 14. 1966. fall quarter of the 1966-67 academic year. Dr. Schlater wrote a memo to Leo Martin. Colby Lewis. and Arthur Weld which indicated that investi- gative and formulative work had been pursued by members of both the TR Department and WMSB(10) staff. It was felt that before anything concrete could be presented to the TR majors the project should have “. . . a fairly well defined structure."53 Using the earlier recommendations of Dr. Colby Iewis as a springboard. it was proposed by Dr. Schlater that the project take the form of a half-hour video taped program which would'not be scheduled for broadcast until five programs had been completed. The basic concept of the program was ”. . . student productions using [MSU] student talent aimed to a student audience. namely university and high- 54 To complement this concept. it was school students." '2 determined that the basic format should be ". . . a variety- type entertainment program with a strong master of ceremonies or a male-female master of ceremonies team.“55 There were a number of reasons for the adoption of the talent/variety program approach. For one. it was felt 53Memo to Leo Martin. Colby Lewis. and Arthur;Weld from Robert Schlater. subject: TR-WMSB Student Project. gang: 1966-61 Report. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. October 14. 1966. 54Ibid. ' ’ 55 lbii- ‘ 29 that youth would attract youth and also attract ”adults who ”56 By restricting the talent enjoy identifying with youth. to Michigan State University students the program could eliminate much of the unwanted talent and would also make recruitment easier because of the availability of the student body. This. of course. assumed that an ample amount of talent is distributed among a population of 38,000 students. The talent will be MSU students who can entertain and whose specialty is appropriate for TV presentaa tion. Recruitment of talent should not resort to "Amateur Night” kinds of acts. Rather. the acts or segments should consist of students who can display some professionalism in their particular specialty.57 It was determined that if the standards of selection were kept high there would be an increase in good talent with‘» each program. The restriction of the program to variety acts would offer the department and station an alternative to involve- ment in areas of social criticism. various freedom of expres- sion forums or student activitism. Needless to say: “Experimental programs of the 'off-Broadway' variety ex- ploiting themes lending themselves to pornographic situations will not be considered."58 It the variety format was acceptable. then it was believed that the best broadcast time for the interested “Rationale for GAMUT gm Report 1966- 67. Dr. Robert Schlater. 57Schlater. TRPWMSB Student Project: op. cit. SBIbid.l 30 audience would be at noon on Saturday. But there was a more 'practical consideration. ”The decision to program GAMUT' at the 11:30 A.M. time slot was made on the basis of the fact that the station went off the air at noon.”59 The actual production of the program was set for Saturday morning at the WMSB(10) studios. Rehearsal will begin at 8:00 A.M.. in the studio. By a deadline, e.g. 11:00 A.M.. the show will be taped in a continuous half hour. . . . By taping the program in its entirety in one run- 53332.12??? si°“‘é§2“§§.“i"” E: aiS‘evidli‘i‘goa y o p uc ion ou re u The program was to consist of various talent segments. produced by individual TR students. It would be the producer's responsibility to work with the talent outside the studio and prepare a script for the director several days in ad- vance of the taping. The procedure called for the director to fade to black after the introduction or finish of each act: this would make it possible to re~tape any segment that did not meet program standards. However. it was decided that re-taping should be considered an exception. To start with. it was proposed that participation .in this project be limited to TR graduate students and \\ those-undergraduates who had completed the.television directing course.61 v.7 59Brundle. op. cit. 60Schlater. TR-WMSB Student Project. op. cit. 61Letter from Robert Schlater to selected under- graduate and all graduate students. Qfiufl1_12§§;§1_§epggt. 1966. October 24. 31 This chapter has dealt with the early rationale behind the need for a student series. By mere evolution there have been numerous changes and refinements made in specific areas of the philosophy and concept of this project. and these will be discussed in later chapters. However. the primary reason for this series has basically remained consistent. ”To give students an opportunity to do everything that had to be done in a broadcast situation on a regular basis and try a variety of jobs."62 62Page. op. cit. CHAPTER III EMERGENCE OF AN ORGANIZAIEON’AND PROGRAM SERIES On October 29. 1966. a preliminary meeting to form an organization (Michigan State University Broad- casters) and to coordinate the activities of the TR~WMS§(10) project was scheduled at WMSB(10) studios. "The students will .... form working committees to include talegé‘recruitment. set construction and set-up. lighting. crews for Saturday re- firhearsals and taping. writing continuity; and assignment of Producers and directors for individual Programs."63 'In an October 24. 1966. letter. qualified TR majors were informed of the proposed project and invited to parti- cipate.64 The studios and facilities of WMSB-TV have been offered to the department on Saturday mornings. we‘ are planning to video tape a series of half-hour programs which will be produced and directed by TR students using MSU student talent and intended for an MSU student audience. The station will air these programs later in the year. ‘ It was estimated that thirty-five students attended this organizational meeting; also present were Leo Martin and Robert Schlater representing the TR Department. Colby Lewis 63TR-WMSB Student Project. op. cit.. p. 2. 64Dr. Schlater's letter to TR students. op. cit. 32 33 represented WMSB(10) along with Robert Page. Kay Ingram. and Richard Brundle. The meeting consisted of a discussion of the rationale for the series and what type of organiza- tion could most effectively fulfill its needs. The name GAMUT was suggested for theaseries by Robert Spangler and approved by those present. Its purpose was to signify the intent of the series: to deal with a wide variety of topics -- from rock and roll groups to classical music. from campus satire to informal discussions. I The available information indicates that the major significance of this first meeting was the naming of the series and explaining the project concept to the students present. Another meeting was called for Saturday. December 3. 1966. after the taping of the second program. At this time a president and other committee chairman were elected for the period of Winter term. 1967. Elected were: Dave Schafer. President: Paul Leveque. Talent Co-ordinator: and Jehn Schuerman. Promotion and Publicity Co-ordinator.65 The minutes of this meeting showed that a structure for the MSU Broadcaéters organization was presented by Dr. Schlater and Tad Williams. As it was stated. it provided for two main activities. ". . . the first is the continuance of the GAMUT production: the second is to provide an out—of-class- room learning opportunity through seminars. whereby we can 65Minutes of the general meeting. reported by Dave lSchafer. GAMUT Report 1966-67. Robert Schlater. December 3. 1966. 34 66 The seminar concept further our education in broadcasting." was discussed briefly but was tabled until more development could be given to the basis idea. Intra-organization Communications In his first letter (December 5. 1966) to the MSU Broadcasters as President. Dave Schafer indicated that the executive committee was in the process of defining their various positions and was working up a general schedule for GAMUT. Also of concern was the need for communication be- ‘\ tween the officers and members and the development of more feedback from the members. As a practical remedy for this problem. Schafer proposed that a MSU Broadcasters/GAMUT bulletin board be placed in the TR Department to serve as a central place for notices and other information. Another method of communication considered was that of a newsletter. With regard to intra-organization communications.. Schafer believed that it was his responsibility to develop and improve a system which would effectively serve the needs of MSU Broadcasters and GAMUT. As mentioned earlier. bulletin .boards and a mailed newsletter were tried as well as general meetings. According to Schafer. the general meetings did not work because the meeting times were bad. "After thinking about it, I do not believe that a time could ever be found “_ythat would allow most of the membership’to be present at 661bid. 35 67 The lack of success of the bulletin a general meeting." board was attributed to the small amount of traffic which passed by. "Mailings [newsletters]. on the other hand. were the one sure way we found of getting information into the hands of the membership."68 Schafer noted that this communication method had its drawbadks. namely. the time delay in getting the message into circulation. and the scattered or non-_ existent feedbadk. Even with these negative aspects. he ”. . . recommended expanding these mailings into a regular weekly newsletter that contained not only messages from the executive committee. but anything else that any of the member- ship wanted to insert—--criticism. cries for help. etc."69 ‘ It was hoped this would add a personal touch and encourage the membership to read the newsletter more carefully and '.become more involved. This same communication problem carried over into-the 1967-68 season of GAMUT/MSU Broadcasters.. Doug MCKnight. the graduate assistant assigned to GAMUT/MSU Broadcasters. pointed out the idea of a monthly newsletter could be extremely useful for both MSU Broadcasters and the TR Department. Here again. the idea would be to arouse interest and promote 67Dave Schafer. ”MSU Broadcasters. 1967-1967: A Critique.” GAMUT Report 1966-67: Robert Schlater. 681bid. ' " égIbid. 37 Since there is no other vehicle available. MSU Broadcasters need to provide one. Whether this should be a formal monthly or bi—weekly newsletter with information from the department. criticism of programs. and other information is a decision the next graduate assistant will have to make. It can be very useful. but it can also take away needed time from other functions. The 1968 intra-organization communications began with an October 7th letter addressed to TR majors informing them of the work of MSU Broadcasters. the GAMUT series and invit- ing them to attend an organizational meeting and election of officers at WMSB(10) on Sunday. October 31 at 2:00 p.m. The results of the election were: Chris Westerkamp. President: Don Moorer. Vice President: and Kathy Sedlacek. Secretary. The new faculty advisor. Dr. David Lewis, and graduate assistant. Elliot B. Sanderson. were also intro- duced at this meeting. Thirty members were present. During the 1968-69 academic year a total of three newsletters were released. one per quarter. which contained a variety of information from the playback schedule to calls for help in a given production. Also included in one newsf \ letter was a program suggestion sheet whereby those interested majors were encouraged to submit ideas for future programs. .Another newsletter. during Spring quarter. announced the upcoming election of officers for the 1969-70 academic year. and included an application for those interested in holding office in MSU Broadcasters or for those who wished to nominate someone else. In both cases the response was poor and indicated that more work needed to be done in the area of communications. It might be added that this poor response 38 and lack of interest in organizational affairs were reflected in the final 1968-69 meeting of MSU Broadcasters. At this meeting which was called to elect officers. fifteen people were present. It had been determined earlier by the execu- itive board that the best possible time for such a meeting was after a Saturday taping session in hopes that at least the crew could be persuaded to stay and participate. Regardless of the lack of involvement. the election continued as planned with Lyle Cruickshank becoming President: Jim Cruickshank‘ (no relation). Vice President: and Ruth Miller. Secretary. Improved bulletin board communications were also attempted with the revision of the GAMUT/MSU Broadcasters board during the final quarter of the 1968-69 year. At that time a student artist. Wilson Thompson. volunteered -to design a bulletin board that would promote the GAMUT series. Seminars The GAMUT/MSU Broadcasters Seminars were first men- tioned in some detail in a January 9. 1967. newsletter. Where it was felt that ". . . the two important things that Should be started as soon as possible are camera work and s \‘ \ lighting. Quite a few people have indicated an interest in these jdbs but are apprehensive about tackling them. Certain ‘members of the staff of WMSB will be happy to conduct these PrOposed seminars."73 ‘ '73Memo to MSU Broadcasters from Dave Schafer. subject:i G“WIT. gm Rgpprt l966-6‘7, January 9. 1967. 39 It is not known exactly how many of these production oriented seminars were actually held but Robert Page recalled . that “at one time there were supplementary meetings devoted to staging and lighting and production for MSU Broadcasters and those interested in working for WMSB. But due to poor response this was discontinued."74 Later that year JOn Little. the seminar coordinator. informed the membership of MSU Broadcasters that arrange- ments had been made for Professor Leo Martin to speak to the group about the 1967 NAB (National Association: of Broadcasters) and APBE (Association for Professional Broadcasting Education) conventions which he attended. AB ”fldescribed in the newsletter. the purpose of Mr. Martin's talk was to give the students an account of what went on in both the public meetings and behind the scenes: also of interest were the matters of major industry concern. as well as events that would be significant to students of broad- casting. The meeting was scheduled for Tuesday evening. 75 April 25. 1967. From the information available there is no evidence that could give any indication as to how success- ful this seminar was. However. it should be noted that there is no record of any further seminars that year. 74Page. op. cit. To MSU Broadcasters. from Jon Little. re: seminar. - . no date. 75 40 During the 1967-68 year GAMUT/MSU Broadcasters held two seminars. one in lighting. another in audio. both of which were intended to provide additional and needed pro- duction skills. In both cases the student response was poor and in evaluating the situation McKnight offered the follow- ing explanation:76 One of the reasons often stated by the students was they didn't know about the sessions. However. they were announced in class and letters were sent to all regular GAMUT people. Another possibility is that the sessions were too much like the classes offered by the department. Students thought they had already gotten or will get the information presented at the sessions. That * the classes were held on Saturday morning probably ' didn't help either. It was McKnight's opinion that the seminars should be discontinued and replaced with a system of on-the-job training. whereby the experienced students. faculty advisor. and graduate assistant would assist ingiving the neophyte the proper guidance in studio production. Because of its poor response in previous years the seminar programs were discontinued during the 1968-69 season. It was felt that better coverage could be attained by attempting an on-the-job training technique similar to McKnight's suggestion. Although there were areas where the seminar program would have been useful. it was doubtful whether the student participation would warrant the effort. vw 3 76MCKnight c we 41 Organizational Structure From the very inception. Dr. Schlater and the TR Department were apparently concerned about the organizational structure of the production unit (GAMUT) and the sponsoring club (MSU Broadcasters). At various times mention was made of organization structure. but it appears more time and thought was given to the structure of the production unit than to MSU Broadcasters. However. this is understandable *when one considers that the production unit needed to start working as soon as possible to produce the series. Even though there was no constitution or job descriptiOns in the first year. a table of organization was prepared showing the various positions and how they related to one another. (See Organization Chart. page 42). It is not known how effective this organization was but one drawback that may have handicapped it may have been the short term in office of the officers. The first election was held in December. 1966. while the second was in Spring term. 1967. .At that time Jery Immel became President: Judi Stephenson. Promotion Coordinator: Dick Geisel. Crew _ Coordinator; Roger Parsons. Talent Coordinator. and Jon Little. Seminar Coordinator.77 Without a constitution or job descriptions the officers' functions were non-defined and usually open-ended: .4'2, fiv— 77Memo.to MSU Broadcasters from Dave Schafer. subject: Last Newsletter of Winter Term. GAME! Report 1966-67. March 21. 1967. 42 Hoom Hoom doom doom doom doom Hoom mmofiuw How sowuoflpoum Hoosooum uouowufln Hmuwu3 ucmmma Osman .puoou .tuooo swuo .osoov. mnmcflEmm mumcflaom .Qsmuosoum mcwucmflqlmcwmmum unease >mousumm coaumucwwuo r _ t _ . .... n - P Bowed mumcahmm summons: ucmsmoam>mn Isommcmz _ * A ucoownoum mmmamdondomm Om: ll ZOHfiflNHzmwmo Aflmmzmw 14"" ’1 .e‘ 43 doing what needed to be done or unable to function well at all because of a lack of direction. For example. in the case of the office of President. Dave Schafer seemed to define his role and carry it through by active involvement. He realized the need for communications within the organi- zation and developed a newsletter to provide the necessary .information to the membership. Other areas of his concern and participation were: encouraging students to take an ‘active interest. and overseeing what the producers and other members of the executive board were doing. Because Schafer worked at WMSB(10) he was also in an ideal position to act as liaison between the station and producers. as well as being able to look out for the interests of MSU Broadcasters. Schafer. also. encouraged weekly meetings of the executive board (all the elected officers) with Dr. Schlater and found these quite helpful. "There were excellent planning sessions that allowed for overseeing other areas of responsibility. Beyond that. they were very beneficial in the preparation of the newsletter.”78 The 1967-68 MSU Broadcasters did not have some of the organizational weaknesses which were apparent in the preceding year. For one. the officers were elected on a yearly basis \ . thereby giving continuity to the organization. Next. al- though there was not a diagrammed table of organization.. there was a job description of sorts for all members of the 78Schafer. op. cit. 44 the executive board. For example. the President's responsibility was to ”Coordinate all operations of the MSU Broadcasters. preside over the meetings of the executive board and integrate the functions of the board members."79 The Vice President assisted the President in his duties and was also responsible for intra-organization communications. which usually took the form of newsletters. Although the Secretary was responsible for keeping an accurate record of the executive board meetings. she was also assigned to assist the Vice President in membership communications. The responsibility of furnishing the various producers with .their crew members was entrusted to the Crew Coordinator. while.the Talent Coordinator and Promotion Coordinator were respectively required to search out campus talent to be used on GAMUT and provide promotional information to the necessary news media and WMSB(10).80 In the 1968 Fall term several procedural and organi- zational changes occurred which were designed to improve MSU Broadcasters and GAMUT. During previous years the nominating procedure for officers was rather undefined and as a result an informal nominating committee was established consisting of Drs. Robert Schlater and David Lewis. This committee acted as a screening and suggestion committee for potential officers: picking qualified individuals and inquiring as 79Memo to MSU Broadcasters. Re: Executive Beard Members. W. date unknown. Ibid.. 45 to whether they would be interested in serving. Nominations were also encouraged from the floor at the first general meeting and election. It was also agreed that only three officers be elected: President. Vice President and Secretary. 'The remaining positions of Crew Coordinator and Promotion Director -were to be appointed by the elected officers. faculty advisor. and graduate assistant. This was done for several reasons: first. the lack of enthusiasm of those individuals approached by the nominating committee to run for office indicated that‘- it would be difficult to immediately fill anything other than .the top three offices. Next. by choosing the other three members of the executive board it was felt that the elected officers. faculty advisor. and graduate assistant would have more control over the appointed officers in discharging .their duties. As the year progressed. it became obvious that this was an excellent decision because for various reasons two of the three appointed officers were replaced before .the end of their terms in office. In the area of.job.descriptions.and duties there were a number of chaflges and reassignment of.respcnsibilities. The President was to preside over the general meetings rather than the executive board meetings. and he was to ~assist the faculty advisor and graduate assistant in planning. lflorganizing and administering MSU Broadcasters. Although the Vice.President was still assigned to assisting the President. he was also to preside over the executive.board meetings and 46 act as a production consultant but was relieved of his newsletter responsibility. The responsibility for the news- letter was reassigned to the secretary. whose duties also .included keeping the minutes of both the general and executive meetings. as well as answering all organisation' correspondence. The Crew Coordinator not only assigned crews but was required to keep and organize crew rosters. and develop a file on crew positions. The duties of Talent Coordinator and Promotion Director basically remained the same.81 I - Because of the slow start MSU Broadcasters experienced at the beginning of the 1968-69 academic year. it was deter- mined that by having the 1969-70 election in the Spring quarter of 1969 a better transition for the organization and the continuity needed to get a good start in the 1969 Fall term would be accomplished. This allowed the new officers one-quarter to work with the past officers and the graduate assistant. In an effort to improve the previous nominating procedure the 1968-69 Executive Board made a number of changes and additions. As mentioned earlier. the Spring quarter newsletter contained a form designated "Application for Candidacy" which was designed to provide the TR student with an opportunity to become involved in actively seeking _r I 81Officers Duties. as read to the general meeting October 13. 1968. at WMSB(10). 1968-69 MSU Broadcasters‘ §5N21_§i;2: ‘ 47 office or helping them direct the nominating committee's .attention toward other qualified individuals. Only two .individuals took advantage of this new procedure by submitting their ”Applications of Candidacy.” After some discussion on the subject of the nominat- ing committee the executive board concurred with Dr. David Lewis's suggestion that the committee be formed of people -who have contact with TR students who have worked on QAMUT. as well as other undergraduates in the department. Dr. David Lewis. as faculty advisor. agreed to serve on the committee and act as chairman. Lyle Cruickshank was L assigned to the committee representing the executive board. because it was believed his background as Crew Coordinator would be of value in evaluating various individual's qualifi- cations. It was decided that Dr. Colby Lewis and Darryl Ross. graduate assistant. could provide an excellent back- ground on TR students because of their contact with them in qua-353.82 Also present for consultation were Elliot Sanderson. GAMUT graduate assistant. and Bruce Gray. teaching graduate assistant. In an effort to stimulate interest on the part of the TR students. the nominating committee was directed by the executive board to nominate more than one individual for each position where possible. Because the committee wanted to 82Minutes of executive board meeting. MSU Broadcasters. 126§-§9 MSU Broadcasters‘GAMUT file. March 31. 1969. p. 2. 48 offer the individuals as much freedom as possible in deter- mining their office. it was decided that they would select ten or twelve qualified individuals to be contacted by the GAMUT graduate assistant. who would inform them of their selection by the committee and inquire as to their desire to seek one of the offices. If they were interested in seeking office. it was determined which office they were most interested in: and the final decision was made by the I individual himself. With the exception of the office of President. all other positions had several people seeking .them. _MDeyglopment of Programming Concepts and Formats ‘Prior to any discussion of programming concepts and formats of the GAMUT series. it may be beneficial to refer to the early rationale of the program series. The initial ,version of the rationale stressed the talent show approach using the resources of the MSU student body. This was done to-avoid programs of a controversial type whether they be -social or political in nature. It also seemed to be the most expedient concept. from the standpoint of staging. since elaborate sets were not believed to be required. All indications point to the first concept of GAMUT as a program for MSU students. with the early programs developing into the TONIGHT SHOW approach of a host talking to guests and introducing performers. This was illustrated by the first program produced by Dick Geisel which featured: 49 Al Feeney. a blues singer and guitarist: Jim Graham. ASMSU .President (Association of Students Michigan State University): The Last Rights. and host Bud Spangler. In the early stages of the series the proposed solution to maintaining student viewers seemed to be the variety/talk show approach. This format concept was developed because it was thought that ‘there was a need to classify the interests of 40 thousand istudents. This type of programming ”. . . should appeal to a certain segment of the student population. maybe not all of them at one time. but programming could be-justified .because of this wide interest range."83 GAMUT. indeed. may have been different things to different people: Dr. Schlater envisioned it as a showcase for MSU student talent: Dick Brundle proposed that the series be directed to the teen-age audience and Dr. Colby Lewis was inclined to sympathise with Brundle's proposal. However. the most important consideration still remained in focus: the idea of giving the students the time in the studio to do what they wanted. Experimentation by the students was Ian important element behind the GAMUT project. In the beginning I was concerned that it [GAMUT] . wasn't going to be what it was intended to be. At "the beginning the premise was for GAMUT to be quite experimental: students were to have a chance to try things that they couldn't try in class. and they would be given quite a bit of production freedom. In early programs there wasn't much of a variation 83Page. op. cit. 84Ingram. op. cit. 50 Replying to a 1969 GAMUT Questionnaire (See Appendix A). Dave Schafer seemed to concur with Ray Ingram's observa- tion in the style of programs. He estimated that approximate- ly 75 per cent of the first season's programs could be classified as pure entertainment. whereas 5 per cent could be called documentaries. 15 per.cent were dramas. and discussion programs filled in the remaining 5 per cent. It was Schafer's belief that the breakdown was badly balanced and should have been less in the way of entertainment. His analysis was: ”There was little or no direction given to provide a balance or continuity. hence the easiest were done most."85 1 To some extent this supports Schafer's earlier obser- vations: made at the conclusion of the first GAMUT season. ”The amount of proscribed structuring required of each pro- duction was so small and so general that it was almost non- 86 existent.” However. after a period of years. it would; appear that Schafer may have had some second thoughts about .the structuring and entertainment value of the series. In 1967 he indicated that: ”This [structure or lack of it] is one of the strong points in that the various producers were given a free hand to do whatever they wanted to do. Many creative things were done as a result. and I feel this policy 87 should be continued.” Whereas. in the 1969 GAMUT Questionnaire 85GAMUT Questionnaire. 1969. Dave Schafer. Question 3. 86Shafer. GAMMT Report 1966-67. op. cit. 87Ibid . 51 Schafer acknowledged that the bulk of the programs were entertainment in type but also stated that they rarely did (entertain). Nine producers. representing eleven out of seventeen programs produced for the 1966-67 season responded to the same questionnaire. When asked if they would change their programs as they perceived them today. five indicated that they would make changes. two stated that their programs were satisfactory and two others were uncertain or not specific. Of the two that gave no definite answer. one producer was responsible for three different programs that year. Some of the types of programs and significant pro- ducer responses were:88 A three segment campus vaggetypgprmat. Today. I would view the program as a bit amateurish. and not quite original enough. Particularly with regard to the format. Productionwise--it was passable and certainly of broadcast quality. Drama with a discussion of television drama apg_ its future. The program was good insofar as it involved the students in some of the practical problems involved in television production. More students need to be involved. An experimental drama about the lack of communi- cations. Name any producer. director. author. artist. etc.. who wouldn't do it differently or change some- thing if they could re-do their work. Fourptypes of music: classica folk 0 ular standards and modern. It was abou mediocre. The _ beginning was good and went pretty~smoothly. but the '“~ ~last act was too long and not very good. The announcer was not well acquainted with what was happen- ing-~not particularly his fault though. As for a change. I would have replaced the last act and would have had more rehearsal with and without cameras. 88Producer responses from 1969 GAMUT Questionnaire. 52 \ x‘ \. There was some noticeable change in the format of the GAMUT series during the 1967-68 season with the breaking away from the variety/talk show approach in enter- tainment programs. It is worth noting that during the 1967-68 season a GAMUT program. BLACK SHEEP. produced by Ron Grow. received the Broadcast Media Award from the Eighteenth Annual Broadcast Industry Conference at San Francisco State College. “In recognition of signal accomplishment and highest standards in local radio and television broadcasting. . ." Of the eighteen 1967-68 producers which completed the GAMUT Questionnaire nine classified their programs as entertain— ment. two placed their programs in the documentary category. three called their productions dramas (one of these two programs was co-produced) and four programs fell into the “other" classification. Of the eighteen responding producers the following 'were typical responses to inquiries about the type of pro- gram and changes they would make:89 The trend ofppopular music. a discussion and demonstration. I would integrate the discussion and demonstration more. They tended to be ex- elusive. A sports information program about soccer. The program doesn't appear terribly exciting from this perspective. but I don't think I would change what I recall of the basic structure. Some of the graphics and parts of the set had obvious short- comings. This program was about Turkish music and folk dance. would have shoWn a detailed similarity between Eastern music patterns and our present contemporary music trends. 3911.16. —_ 53 The subject of this documentary was the histggz of ca_paign buttons. The program was fairly well organized but could have been better if the talent had been able to rehearse Friday night. Also. I would have made changes in a few key crew positions. The format could have been visually and vocally more interesting. it was probably too much of a lecture situation. The 1968-69 season of the GAMUT series consisted of eighteen programs. One program was not aired due to the ~1ack of copyright clearance. 0f the sixteen producers who responded to the questionnaire seven classified their endeavors as all or partially entertainment. four typed their contri- Abutions as documentaries. two considered theirs as drame. two labelled their programs as discussions. and the remain- ing producer categorized his program as both entertainment and drama. The 1969 Questionnaire revealed the following comments from producers regarding the content of their programs and changes they would make:90 The history of MSU during President Hannah's years in office.pplus an interview with two of his associates. I am relatively pleased with the show. Being a perfectionist. I would have liked to see improvement on a number of technical points and would have also liked to have had better film clips. A recital by the State Singers.- Basically I'm satisfied. From the presentation or directing stand- point there should be minor changes. ‘ A program about Indian folk and classical dance forms. and Hindu folk songs. The program could have 'been more entertaining. by more work with dancers available. or including something else. The folk singer was deadly. and originally wasn't to be in- cluded. The narrator-host wasn't completely satis- fying in my mind. In general. more work. to put a 991bid.' 54 more professional touch on things. would have helped what was done. Specifically. having a few musicians -.en- in the program (providing we could get some dancers to use their music). would have been an advantage. A dramatic adaptation of an Indian and Indonesian theme. Needed more adaptation for cameras. Actors were not camera conscious enough. —- In the year 2019. two MSU alumni look back with fond remembrance on their first days at the Univer- sity. (satire) I think it stands as a polished. well-produced program. I would like to have expanded on the ”live“ portions (Maw and Paw in 2019) in light of this segment's success. and used less of the film -”McDorm”. GAMUT 1968-69 broke even further from the variety/ talk format since not one program of the 68-69 season used that approach. Attempts were made to find new ways to pre- sent talent and ideas to the viewing audience. Some succeeded and some did not. This year it would appear that the variety of format and individual approach has returned. In the beginning there was some consideration for a showcase for on-campus talent . . . unfortunately what we seemed to find the first year was that everyone had a guitar and sang folk songs. This is the most promising of the years [1968—69] as far as approach and style. \ '\‘ The mold was brdken. GAMUT in 1968-69 no longer strictly adhered to the narrow philosophy "of a program by. for and with MSU students.” A more liberal approach was taken. Realizing that in present times college students have a wide spectrum of interests and concerns. sometimes similar ,to-the non-student viewers. it was felt that GAMUT should goIbid. 91Ingram. op. cit. 55 offer the opportunity for the widest possible range in subject matter to the involved producers and students (within the -bounds of decency and responsible broadcasting). as well as to the viewing audience. As a result program content and style varied throughout the year. I don't think that you can.really provide the kind of creative expression that ought to be provided if you establish a rigid format and a target audience and have to go at it that way. The disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages of having this flexibility to take advantage of whatever abilities the student has or thinks he has.92 ' Production ConceptsLOrgagization and Procedures In the years that Dick Brundle has been involved in and has observed GAMUT. he has made some analyses and ob- servations about the series as a whole. "GAMUT programming appears to have become more sophisticated in content and less in production."93 The reason offered by Brundle for the change was that when GAMUT started many of the personnel in- volved withthe series had worked professionally and. as a result. they were more interested in doing programs to learn or experiment with new production techniques and so content became somewhat secondary. This was one reason for the simple variety/talk format. Today. however. the trend.seems to have changed within the student population with less of an expertise in production and more interest in content. —‘ J‘. 92Page. op. cit. 93Brundle. op. cit. 56 ‘According to Brundle this sophistication in content has been achieved at a cost to the production elements of a program -”. . . a lot of things are missing from a production stand- point. effective transitions for one.“94 By committing itself to a weekly live or taped series. Brundle felt GAMUT was in effect biting off more than it could chew. Granted. the series was satisfying WMSB(10) as far as programming was concerned: but was it meeting the needs for which it was created? ”. . . GAMUT was originally organized _. . . to academically study a program and find out where it 95 It was Brundle's was wrong and what went wrong with it." belief that the series should be organized in such a way so .as not to commit it to a weekly airing. ”we could come in and do a show. preview it. critique it. decide what elements were wrong. or what was wrong with the production of it and then take it back to the studio next week and do it over ‘ again."96 Brundle's understanding of GAMUT's purpose was "to academically study a program." This is only partially correct. With all things considered. GAMUT does give the student the opportunity to study his program and look for ways to make improvements. and he is encouraged to do just that:.but the »basic programming and production philosophy of this project 94Ibid. . ‘ , gslbid. 95Ibid. 57 was to allow the students the opportunity to experiment and gain a whole spectrum of production experiences by actual participation. Prior to GAMUT. with the exception of the short-lived AERho project. there was no formal outlet to. provide students with creative student experiences. GAMUT did fill a need and offered an opportunity for Myinterested students. JUst as the programming concept was experimental. the production also provided much flexibility in the way of experimentation. As Kay Ingram recalled the concept. it. in effect. was saying. ”Here's a studio. we really don't care whether it's a half-hour drama. a combo. or a singing group. but you're going to take that half-hour and use it to create something. Out of that creation you have a lot of flexibility to be experimental.” Hewever. as Miss Ingram observed. this new concept did experience some problems and reversals. ”When I was first involved with- the GAMUT programs. I watched and they really didn't get experimental. It was the things they had seen and done. abefore. The attitude seemed to be let's get it taped because we're running out of time and must meet the deadline.”97 This time element. or lack of it. which is so cricual to all television production appeared to be a recurring problem throughout the first three years of GAMUT's existence. Dave Schafer believed that this could be overcome if producers ,1 were made to realize the time factor they are always fighting. 97Ingram..op. cit. 58 and were given an overview of their roles.98 There is some evidence that throughout the years there has been a continuous attempt on the part of the faculty advisors and graduate assistants to relieve this problem by informing the producers of the limited time factors. of their various responsibilities and of the necessity for pre-production planning. MbKnight informed the Winter producers of the 1967-68 season that it was in their best interests to follow the deadline sheet provided for them in the producers packet (see Appendix B). ”The reason for the deadlines is most producers don't begin early enough and get caught. The secret of the whole thing is to get organized and do it 99 MbKnight planned two informal production meetings early.” with the producer. The first centered around a discussion of the rundown sheet and general intent of the program -- who was the target audience and what talent was going to be used. At the second meeting the producer was asked to bring .his director so that Dr. Schlater and McKnight could study the complete script and rundown. The first of these meetings usually took place about three weeks prior to the taping. while the second was held two weeks before the show was taped. There is no record that this conference procedure was utilized during the first GAMUT season. thereby possibly justifying 98Schafer. GAMUT Questionnaire. 1969. op. cit. 99Memo to Winter Producers. from Doug McKnight. Annual Report on GAMUT 1967-68. Doug McKnight. date unknown. 59 Schafer's earlier comments about the lack of producer aware- ness concerning the time factor. In fact. after further investigation it was discovered that this procedure was used sparingly during the second season and only on the most .informal of terms. However. this informal conference pro- cedure was continued and expanded to a more formal approach. when it was used. during the 1968-69 production schedple. In the early part of the season Dr. David Lewis and Elliot Sanderson would confer with the producer and director about .two or three weeks prior to their taping. The discussion ‘ .dealt with the intent of the program and with alerting the .producer and director to various production problems they might.be facing. However. prior to this second meeting the producer was required to submit a suocinct program proposal which described the type of program and gave background material. the production facilities needed. and a script or rundown sheet. along with a blocking and lighting plot. when available. This information was the basis for the discussion during the conference. With the beginning of Winter term. 1968-69. the execu- tive board sat in on the meetings with the producers. The board's reason for this action was to become more involved in assisting and helping make early decisions concerning‘ ,various programs. Among the things the board discussed were: "the program idea. how the producer planned to organize his show. the type of vehicle he planned to use. along with. 60 possible technical and rehearsal problems.loo Due to various conflicts. in classes and possibly a lack of interest by some of the executive board members. this innovation lasted through three productions and then reverted back to the original procedure described earlier. Basically the production procedures throughout the first three years of GAMUT's existence remained the same. especially where they concerned major requirements. For example: it was essential that the crew coordinator compile the list of crew positions two weeks prior to the taping. ten days in advance of the proposed taping date the facilities request sheet was due at WMSB(10) with information concerning production equipment requirements; three weeks prior to-the broadcast the promotion information was needed at WMSB(10). To avoid confusion it was general policy that promotional material was submitted at the same time that the facilities request was. It appears that the rehearsal procedure during.the first two years was extremely-lax. In the hopes of correct- -ing this situation. arrangements were made with WMSB(10) during the 1968-69 season whereby on a given weekend a GAMUT production would be taping in one studio and the following week's program would be rehearsing in another studio. The rehearsal studio would be provided with the TR Department's Sony video tape recorded to record the rehearsal and make 100MSU Broadcasters Executive Board Minutes. November 20. 1968. 1968-69 MSU BroadcastergGAMUT file. p. 2. 61 changes after viewing it.¥ox“ Production procedures are intended to help avoid pro- duction problems. but in many cases this does not hold true. 0f the twenty-four producers in l966~68. fourteen indicated that they experienced some sort of major production problem. As an active participant and observer of the series. Dave Schafer believed the major problems were setting up the studio and lighting. ”Here again those charged with these responsibilities were going about their tasks blindly. The 102 Another source of WMSB staff was rarely consulted." problems was in the lack of communication between producers and directors. As for the producers themselves some of their typical 103 ""comments on production problems were as follows: Our major production problems were limited facili. ties and rehearsal time. They were not resolved at the time so we learned to live with them. There was no real major production roblems W other than lack of help in setting up and lighting. and. of course. the inexperienced producer. . . . Lack of time in the studio. No zoom lenses. Inadequate lighting control equipment. We did the best we could without them. ‘- Fourteen of the 1968-69 producers that responded to the GAMUT Questionnaire recalled that they did encounter what 101WMSBMemorandum to Dr. David Lewis. Elliot Sanderson. from Dick Brundle: subject WMSB Facilities-for GAMUT pro- ductions. 1968-69 MSU groaggastersZGAMUT tile. February 26. 1969. ‘ 102Shafer. 1969 GAMUT Questionnaire. op. cit. 103Responses from the 1969 GAMUT Questionnaire. 62 \ \' \ they considered a major production problem in connection with their programs. while two producers produced programs without - any major problems. . 104 Some typical comments were: I wanted to shoot my performing area in limbo. but was unable to achieve that effect. I was. assigned a lighting director who had no experience in lighting -- I don't mind teaching someone something .about lighting. but I would like to be warned. . . . Lack of cooperation from the station's standpoint. They would not let us use any cameras during our ' rehearsal. We did not have the same studio for -rehearsal and "program”... . . We could not get the studio for preparation as early as we had originally been told. The key to all successful production is organization. how you delegate your manpower. what responsibilities you entrust to them and how you supervise their actions. In GAMUT. the production unit of MSU Broadcasters. the major ’firesponsibility for supervising all productions and related areas falls to the GAMUT graduate assistant who acts as executive producer. It is his responsibility to maintain the day to day administration of the series. to work with producers and directors in helping them develop their ideas for programs. to provide a complete schedule of programs to -be taped throughout the year. and to be the consultant. advisor and "take-charge" individual with regard to problems concerning the series. Counseling and advising the graduate assistant is the faculty advisor. Also assisting the graduate assistant is the Crew Coordinator whose responsibilities were discussed earlier in this chapter. Ibid. 63 Working closely with the executive producer are the various program producers who have ultimate authority and responsibility for their programs. They must also supervise the director in performing his functions. Other responsi- bilities of the producer are: (1) Decide the overall theme of his show. (2) Search out talent. (3) Determine what the set shall be (producer should consult with‘the director). (4) Determine ”mix" for his program (what act will be placed where). (5) Appoint a director. (6) Fill out facilities request sheet and provide promotional information about .his program.105 Although the director is responsible to the producer -and should work closely with him in preparing the program. he does have some explicit responsibilities such as: (l) Obtaining a crew through the Crew Coordinator. (2) Aid ,the producer in determining the set. (3) Rehearse the talent segments with the producer. looking for camera shots and checking timing. (4) Make a floor plan and lighting plot. (5) Communicate to the crew and talent all necessary information concerning the program. On the morning of the taping. the director has full authority over the production.106 -105Producer's Job Description. Producers Information .PaCket. 106Director's Job Description. Producers Information - Packet . 64 Promotion and Publicity With the possible exception of production seminars. promotion and publicity has probably been the most neglected area of MSU Broadcasters and GAMUT. It, in fact. appears to have been an afterthought rather than a vital asset to~ either organization. ‘When GAMUT first began active production in 1966 an ~‘arrangement was made with WMSB(10) whereby the GAMUT Promotion 'Manager would furnish them with a short blurb on every program which could be reduced to a cut-line for distribution to the print media. This distribution consisted of 250 newspaper television magazines in the general area and the area edition of TV Guide. All other promotion and publicity endeavors were to be carried on by the GAMUT Promotion Manager with WMSB(10) serving in an advisory capacity. WMSB(10) viewed GAMUT promotion as a student responsibility for a student project. During the first season there is evidence of six newspaper articles. mostly in the State was. the distribution of five monthly single page fliers promoting a month's pro- gramming. and whatever promotion was obtained through WMSB(10). In 1967-68. GAMUT received promotion in three StatehewsV‘ '\ articles and the material that WMSB(10) placed. GAMUT promotion during the 1968-69 season was definitely on the upswing with an attempt to attack the problem on a number of fronts. Although promotion did fall short of its potential in certain areas. the following was accomplished: 65 six newspaper articles appeared in the State News along with one advertisement; two promotion cartridge tapes were distributed to WMSN and aired regularly during the course of the year. fifty silk-screen GAMUT posters were made. twenty-five of which were distributed to various classrooms in Bessey and Berkey Halls and the remainder placed on campus *tmses as car cards; permission was received from the Union «Activities Board and a GAMUT display was placed in a Union lobby showcase during two weeks of Spring term. plus the standard promotion from WMSB(10). Arrangements were also made for the placing of forty _GAMUT car cards on the Lansing City buses during the 1969-70 ‘Vseason. -The responsibility for all this promotion activity rests on the shoulders of the Promotion Manager. who must not only coordinate publicity for MSU Broadcasters and GAMUT as organizations. but also publicize each GAMUT production. Specifically. the Promotion Manager must be responsible for presenting GAMUT in the best possible light to the student body and university administration. as well as the potential audience of WMSB(10). He should also make every attempt to increase the GAMUT viewing audience through his promotion eactivity and should try to maintain close contact.with the GAMUT Office. as well as the individual productions.107 lo7J<>b.Description of the GAMUT Promotion Manager. 1968-69 MSU Broadcasters/GAMUT file. CHAPTER IV STUDENT. FACULTY AND WMSB(10) INVOLVEMENT Student Participatign The-lack of records makes it impossible to determine an accurate quantitative measurement with regard to student participation in the GAMUT series over the first two years. There is no way of knowing exactly how many students were actively involved and in what capacity. Dr. Schlater esti- nated there were fifty students active in GAMUT during 1966767 and it is known that there were seventeen programs produced ~by fifteen different producers. Dave Schafer did. however. observe that: "As the year progressed. fewer of those who ~had expressed early interest were participating."108 : Besides the organizational problems. and the inability of certain students to identify with the series and participate. there appeared to be another factor which contributed to 'Btudents dropping out--the feeling of inadequacy in attempting certain jobs. To relieve the first and second problems of organization and_identification. Schafer proposed that all newcomers be presented with a good description of MBU’ k lOBSchafer. MSU Broadcasters l966-67 . . .. QR&_Si§' 66 67 Broadcasters and GAMUT so that they might determine how they could best fit in and what could possibly be gained from participating. With regard to the feeling of inadequacy. this could.have been resolved by creating a system of practice‘ and teaching sessions to allow those interested to gain . confidence and experience. It was Schafer's belief that: "WMSB would be willing to set up studio and camera time on a regular basis for this purpose and. together with the‘ faculty. would help instruct and guide students.”109 H There is no indication or record of any of these recommendations being acted upon. Although twenty-three producers produced eighteen programs during the 1967-68 season. it is estimated that only thirty or forty students actively participated in MSU Broadcasters and GAMUT. As NbKnight points out in his final creport. "While this number may at first glance seem.low: it must be remembered that MSU Broadcasters has in the past .been open only to students who have completed-TR353.”110 “7This policy of requiring completion of TR.353 prior to active involvement in GAMUT seems.to have restricted participation during Fall and Winter terms to only seniors and graduate students. Having experienced poor participation on the part of the seniors and graduate students. Mcxnight proposed\a remedy J 109mm. 110McKnight. op. cit. 68 for the problem. In contrast to the seniors and graduate students. the number of undergraduates (freshmen. sophomores and juniors) interested in the project appeared to be large. ”These students. because they will be heremfor one. two. or three more years. are likely to be interested in long-term :plans. They are more active and more likely to become in- volved."111 There was. however. a possible problem of inexperience in using students who had not yet had the basic courses in television production. To correct this situation. it was McKnight's proposal that MSU Broadcasters initiate a system of on-the-job training. This system would be based on the premise that the seniors and graduate students would carry the main load during the Fall and part of the Winter term. During that time the freshmen. sophomores and juniors would be used as assistants for various productions. learning from .the supervised experience they received. In the latter part of the Winter term and the beginning of Spring term. when the graduate students and seniors start to lose their beginning-of-the-year enthusiasm. the assistants can begin to assume a major role in planning.and production. This not only pro- vides a large number of students who can participate. but also provides a hold-over group of students who are experienced. ready and available the Fall term of the following year.1 Agreeing that McKnight's suggestion had merit. Dr. David Lewis. GAMUT faculty advisor. and.Elliot Sanderson. ) lllIbid. llzIpid. 69 graduate assistant. drOpped the requirement that TR 353 be completed prior to any active involvement in GAMUT. This went into effect at the beginning of the 1968-69 season. All TR majors were advised that the chief requirements were a desire to learn and a willingness to work. In short. it was hoped that this would have two worthwhile effects: broaden the base of the organization and production unit and. icombined with the changing of the elections to Spring term. give both groups the continuity desired from year to year. Even though GAMUT got off to what was considered a. slow start in 1968-69. eighteen programs were produced by sixteen producers. On April 9. 1969. Lyle Cruickshank. Crew Coordinator. filed the following report on student participation in GAMUT. from November 16. 1968. to April 9. 1969: Total number of productions . . . . . . . . 13 Total number of positions filled . . . . . 155 ~Tota1 number of names on the crew.roster . 108 Total number of crew members that have served on one or more productions . . . . 75 ‘Total number of crew members that have served on two or more productions . . . . -46 Total number on new roster that did not work at all 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 33 To determine participation by class. a breakdown of the crewroster was undertaken at the conclusion of-the 1968—69 production schedule with the following results: twenty-two graduate students: twenty-six seniors: forty-eight juniors: eighteen sophomores and five freshmen signed.up to 70 work on various productions throughout the year. The success of the enlarged crew roster can be attributed to a number of elements. They include loosening of requirements. and visiting various TR classes to inform the students about GAMUT. Toward the latter part of the ”year. publicity and intra—organization communications were attempted. Facultngarticipation and Department Commitment ‘ Another reason for the success in involving more of the TR students was the co-operation and interest of a number of the faculty.and graduate teaching assistants. Many of them -went out of their way to encourage their students to partici- pate by having them complete the “Personal Data Sheet” (see Appendix C). From the outset of the series. it appears the. -faculty and department commitment and involvement have ranged from adequate to excellent. Besides helping establish the series and organize the student-broadcasters. the department assigned a faculty advisor and a half-time graduate assistant .to GAMUT and MSU Broadcasters. Dave Schafer in his yearly report_as President of MSU Broadcasters attested to the fact that. "Dr. Schlater devoted a great amount of his energies and talent towards MSU Broadcasters. The amount of support and cooperation and motivation I received from him helped both myself and the organization. To him.goes most of the credit for making 71 the project the success it was."l13 Although no formal procedure was established the first year. Dr. Schlater did attempt to have informal critiques after each production. Along with Dr. Schlater's opinions. various other faculty members expressed their views regarding specific programs and the series as a whole. For example. Mr. Martin's initial reaction to the first GAMUT broadcast was stated in a memo to Dr. Schlater: ”I was very pleased overall with the production. It is definietly an addition " \ to our instructional program. I'm looking forward to future broadcasts in the series."114 In a letter to Dave Schafer. Mr, Weld stated his apparisal of the series. ". . . Ybu and your cohorts have a very good thing going in GAMUT. It is astonishingly profes- sional in quality in all departments. ¥ou have a right to be proud of yourselves. and I hope you are."115 At the recommendation of Dr. Schlater the department was urged to implement aTR faculty/WMSB(10) staff of'critice. This in effect was accomplished during.the 1967-68 season when all the GAMUT programs were formnlly critiqued by fi WV v 113Schafer, GAMUT Report 1966-92. 92.41:... ”'1' Memo to Robert Schlater from Leo Martin: subject Initial broadcast of GAMUT. GAMUT Repgp; 1966- 67. Robert Schlater, January 19. 1967. p. 115Letter to Dave Schafer. MSU Broadcasters. from “.Arthur weld. GAMUT Report 1966-67. Robert Schlater. February 20. 1967. 72 professors in the department. Although the idea worked and (has proven useful. MbKnight felt there was still a problem .because of the lack of immediate feedback. His suggestion 'was to devise a method whereby the programs could be critiqued after the final taping. ' D. In effect this was doneduring the following year. 1968-69. by having the faculty advisor and graduate assistant conduct a critiquing session after the taping; by and large. these sessions concerned themselves with production problems such as picture composition. transitions and staging. The critics for 1968-69 consisted of all the TR faculty. each member doing at least one program. and the various management personnel at WMSB(10). who would view the program.when it was . broadcast. Their critiques were duplicated and distributed to the producer and his crew. During.the 1966-67 season GAMUT-was distributed for ‘broadcast to WZZMPTV. Grand Rapids and WTVS-TV. Detroit. Due to the.lack.of available tape stock. which WMSB(10) , provided. the syndication was unable to continue during 2.1967-68. Convinced that this distribution was in the best “interest of GAMUT and the department. both Dr. Schlater and -MdKnight recommended the purchase of several reels of video 'tape. However. due.to the lack of funds in the 67-68 budget. this was not accomplished until the 1968-69 season. At that time. another appeal was made by the graduate assistant; for the purchase of twelve reels of video tape. On March 8. 1969. the TR Department purchased eight reels of new l 73 ‘video tape and three months later ordered twelve more reels. Another area that demonstrated the department's involvement and commitment to the series was the practice of .allowing producers to fulfill partial course requirements by producing a GAMUT program. - One such example was TR 880 §\ (Television producer) which gave those enrolled the option of producing a program or submitting a complete program pro- _ posal along with other class requirements. In the first GAMUT season the nine producers responding to. the GAMUT Questionnaire indicated they had not used their programs to -fulfill.any course requirements. During the 67-68 season five of the ten responding producers said they had used their pro- ductions to meet course requirements. one for TR 490 (Indi- vidual projects) and four for TR 890. However. in 1968-69. of the sixteen producers that returned the questionnaire. twelve stated they produced their programs to aid in fulfilling ,a course requirement. one for TR 490. seven for TR 830 and one.for TR 890 (Special problems)- .It is also interesting .to note-that.three producerswfulfilled course requirements :from the Theatre Department (THR 499 and990),by producing dramatic productions on GAMUT. «WMSB Partic ipation Dating_as far back as the beginning of AERho series and the work participation requirement. there has been ,a definite commitment by WMSB(10) and its predecessor WKAR-TV ix: various student_and department projects. This commitment 74 was also demonstrated in the time and facilities made avail- able to the TR Department for use in laboratory classes. Regarding the GAMUT series. it should be recalled .that it was Dr. Colby Lewis. the WMSB(10) station manager. and members of the WMSB(10) staff who stimulated the TR ~Department's interest in this project by pointing out that the need existed. Dr. Lewis and his staff were also involved in helping to develop the early concepts and rationale of the series. Having made the initial commitment in time and energy to help make GAMUT a reality. WMSB(10) attempted to meet the facilities and personnel needs of the project. As stated in Chapter I. the early approach called for WMSB(10) to fur- nish a studio supervisor and the necessary engineering staff for a studio production. Due to problems of overtime the studio supervisor has been phased out and his responsibilities -have been shifted to the faculty advisor and graduate assistant. The engineering personnel has been reduced to a video man to control camera levels. To.avoid confusion and misunderstanding. certain pro- cedures were established by WMSB(10). "WMSB has to carry out .its regular functions. and the station will provide GAMUT with whatever is within reason: but there may be a point where the station will deny a request or pre-empt a program or pro- duction session entirely due to its own commitments.”116 116Page; op. cit. 75 Basically. the various management personnel seem to concur with Richard Brundle regarding WMSB(10)'s commitment wto and involvement with the GAMUT series over the years. ”we are an academic institution. WMSB is a department of that institution. and we have a certain obligation as television people to try to put in the field people who are as knowledgeable as possible. If their particular area of interest happens to be production. then we should try to .afford them this opportunity."117 .Community Involvement In previous years there had been no attempt to measure community involvement in or awareness of the GAMUT series. On January 11. 1969. and Apri1.26. 1969. Lyle Cruickshank and Elliot Sanderson conducted a survey of television viewers ‘by the telephone coincidental method to determine the Viewing share of the GAMUT series. In the January survey a systematic random sample of .330 numbers was chosen from the white pages of the March. 1968. edition of the Lansing area telephone directory (including .Bast Lansing. Haslett and Okemos). From 11:35 a.m. until noon twenty-three interviewers attempted fifteen calls each. Of these 330 attempted calls. 210 were completed with 140 not watching television. On April 26. 1969. a systematic random sample of 406 numbers was taken from the white pages of the March.l969. edition of the Lansing telephone directory. using the same 117Brundle. op. cit. 76 procedure as in the January survey. 253 calls were completed. with 198 not watching television. The following questions were asked: 1. Is your television set on?; 2. Is anyone watching it? 3. What channel is on? 4. What is the show title? .Viewing households and percent share of audience. W station Jan. 11. 1969 Apr. 26. 1969 (N=70) (N255 WKZO-TV _ ( 1) 1.4% ( 0) 0% WJIM-TV (43) 61.4% (37) 67.2% .WOOD-TV ( 7) 10.0% ( 4) ' 7.2% WMSB(10) ( 3) 4.3% .( 6) 10.9% WJRT-TV (11) 15.7% ( s) 14.5% Did notvknow ( 5) 7.1% ' The poor showing of the GAMUT series in the share of -audience may have been caused by a number of various factors rather than one exclusive weakness. First. the broadcast time of 11:30 a.m. may not be at all suitable for the anthology type of programming which GAMUT offers. One week the series . may feature a concert by the MSU Jazz Band}’while the next .week's program may present an Asian drama. This is because the program is designed to serve the widest possible variety of interests without committing itself to one narrow segment of the audience. It also provides the producer with a great deal of flexibility in regard to subject matter. 77 If there is a major reason for the unsuitability of the 11:30 a.m. time slot. it would probably be the composition of the viewing audience. Judging from the programming of the _ two stations with the largest share of audience. one could conclude the main portion of the audience was composed mainly of children. who probably control the majority of television sets at that.time. Both stations. WJIM and WJRT-TV. were broadcasting cartoon programs. HERCULOIDS and FANTIASTIC FOUR. and totaled over seventy-five percent of the audionce share during both surveys. ' A third factor to consider is the possible negative :image-that WMSB(10) may possess because of its programming as an educational television. Also to be considered are the ~1ack of color facilities. the limiting effect that the ehared rtime arrangement has on WMSB(10)'s programming. and the general.lack of station and program promotion. CHAPTER v SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the very formation of the TR Department in Ju1y. 1958. there was a recognized need for more television studio production oppOrtunities for students. In an effort to correct this situation. the department inaugurated a work participation requirement. Hewever. due to a number of 'factors such as a growing student population within the department. the cutback in programming which occurred when WMSB(10) started broadcasting on a shared-time arrangement' with WILX-TV. and the difficulty in arranging student schedules to coincide with the production schedule.the work requirements were eliminated. Running concurrently with the work participation program. the Delta Chapter of AERho initiated a television series of dramatic Specials in cooperation with Theta Alpha Pi. WKAR-TV and later WMSB(10). The series provided many production-minded TR majors the opportunity to develop and improve their skills but due to a lack of commitment by_ WKAR-TV/WMSBuO) to broadcast'these programs on a regular ‘basis the morale and interest soon diminished. resulting in the diacontinuation of the series after the first year. This. however. was not the only problem the series had. .At the end of the first year. there was a noticeable shortage '73 79 ,r of program material: there were also organizational dif- ficulties within the production unit and the Delta chapter itself. The record shows that there was a tendency for certain AERho members to take the responsible positions of producer and director at the expense of other members. In the Delta chapter itself the disagreements were centered ,around easing the membership requirements to allow more under- classmen into the fraternity. as well as AERho's loss of prestige and influence within the broadcast industry. and the increased national dues. During the interm years from 1962 to 1966. there was no production outlet for students. other than their labora- tory classes or part-time work at area television stations. ~This. however. did not mean that the need for more pro- duction exposure had decreased. On the contrary. the need was still present. Realizing their lack of production op- portunities a group of students made an attempt to correct .the situation by banding together and producing some program segments for WMSB(10). It was through this endeavor that .Dr. Colby Lewis and other WMSB(10) staff members became concerned about the curriculum deficiencies in the production ,area and proposed a student series be undertaken by the TR —«-V:Department. The development plan of the TRAWMSB project. as it was originally referred to. called for a completely student produced and staffed program. to be broadcast weekly over w“WMSB(10). WMSB(10) would provide the facilities and engineers 80 while the department would furnish a faculty advisor and graduate assistant to give the students the necessary super- vision and guidance. Before submitting this proposal to the students. it was felt that a rationale for the program needed to be developed. as well as investigating the feasibility of forming a student- organization to Sponsor the series. This became the responsi- -bility of Dr. Robert Schlater. It was under the direction of Dr. Schlater that the initial concepts of GAMUT and Michigan State university Broadcasters were formed. During its first year the MSU Broadcasters were succesSful in producing seventeen television programs and in developing the beginnings of a production and club organi- \ zation. If there was a weakness. it appeared to be in the development of the organization of MSU Broadcasters. The crux of the problem.seemed to be intra-organization communi- cations and.stimulating interest. Even though a newsletter- was distributed. too few people seemed to be aware of what Was going on or else the majority was indifferent. Organi- zationally. there were no written jdb.descriptions or definite areas of responsibility for the officers. Also »undertaken in the first year was a seminar program designed .to offer a wide range of useful information. Due to a lack of adequate student reaponse. these seminars were discontinued during.the 1967-68 season. In GAMUT'S second season. 1967-68. the basic production and MSU Broadcaster organization remained similar. although 81 there were some changes: officers now had a job description »to guide them in meeting their reaponsibilities and were elected for an academic year. as opposed to the previous practice of one quarter. Eighteen programs were produced in both the second .season. 1967-68. and the third season. 1968-69. At that point. however. many of the similarities ended. In an attempt to strengthen the production and broadcasters organi- zation. some basic changes were undertaken. First. realizing the problems that the preceding years of GAMUT and MSU Broadcasters encountered with their small membership. it was decided that the organizations would no longer require the completion of TR 353 before active participation. Another area of concern was the nominating procedure for officers and the election itself. NOminations for the follow- ing year's officers were undertaken in Spring quarter by a formal committee and presented to the full membership for further nominations. and then the election took place. It was hoped this would give-both organizations the con- tinuity.needed to begin the new year at a much faster pace. ' In the areas of programming and production. there has been a noticeable change in the basic concept of the program. Over the years there has been a broadening effect .which has given more freedom to the producers in the areas of content and production techniques. For example. there is less concern with what the program is about and more with 82 presenting the content in a responsible and proper manner: aproduction-wise there has been more freedom in the use of film in that GAMUT and the TR Department defrayed the cost in some productions. Using studio time properly and inno- vating with the Sony Video recorder at rehearsals were also introduced during 1968-69 season. This is in direct contrast swith the early rationale and production concept which evolved _around a variety/talk show approach using student talent because of the simplicity of production and the desire to avoid controversial topics. '\ ‘. \ GAMUT and MSU Broadcasters have been attempting to fill the need and desire of students to have more opportunity in television production. Over the years these organizations thave met with various degrees of success in achieving their goal: several observations and recommendations for future .improvement and refinement of both organizations are offered. 'In the year 1968-69. there were several observable :weaknesses within the Broadcaster's organization that should be examined and corrected. The basic flaw is that without GAMUT. MSU Broadcasters would be non-existent. GAMUT is the sole reason for MSU Broadcasters. which acts more as a front organization than an independent entity., Since the day-to- day operations of GAMUT are the responsibility of the graduate _assistant. the officers have very little to do other than to “attend executive board meetings and discuss whatever policy needs arise. Granted. they could do more: but. over the years. few have.- During this year. attempts were made to 83 involve them more but were not successful. The present situation is not in the best interests of GAMUT or MSU Broadcasters and the following proposals should be given consideration: Reorganize the GAMUT series into a self-contained production unit and dissolve the MSU Broadcasters. The elected and appointed officers would be eliminated and re- placed with specialists appointed to carry out a specific job. These.specialists would be reSponsible to the faculty -advisor and graduate assistant. ' In the hope of making GAMUT more of a practicai .laboratory for television production and related areas, the department should be encouraged to offer credit. on a special projects basis. to those involved in the administration of the series (excluding the graduate assistant). For example. the Promotion Manager cou1d conceivably receive "X” number of credits for his promotion work and yearly report. The Crew Coordinator'and Secretary would also receive credit for their contributions and yearly reports. Grades would be determined by the faculty advisor and graduate assistant and would be based on performance and ability demonstrated. It is my belief that this new approach would centralize the responsibility in a group that would be obligated. due to employment or the earning of credit. to provide the best possible leadership and administration. Another alternative would be to strengthen and expand .the MSU Broadcasters beyond its current.horizons. A new 84 concept should be considered for the Broadcasters in which GAMUT is only a part of its total commitment to the TR .students. Because most of the day-to-day administration of GAMUT is discharged by the graduate assistant and Crew -Coordinator. the other officers have very little actual responsibility or assignments. This could be corrected if new projects were started within the MSU Broadcasters organi— zation. Some that should be considered are: revival of a seminar series to be concerned with all areas of broadcasting and featuring guest lecturers when possible: the sponsOring of a student film festival. this would also make an excellent , -GAMUT program: and the inauguration of a yearly seminar in .association with the department which would concern itself with job opportunities within broadcasting and related fields. Of the two proposals. I would prefer the second as the best way of improving the organizatiOn: however. it may be unrealistic from the standpoint that there is very little student cohesion within the department; A tradition of association must be conceived whereby TR students will know .that if they want to become involved. they can simply frequent the MSU Broadcasters' office. The involvement problem can be partially overcome by better intra-organization communications. as well as a good GAMUT promotion and publicity. Improvement of the frequency grywand style of the newsletter is a must: consideration should be given to a-bUlletin board campaign designed to encourage majors to become involved: and it would also be beneficial if 85 a brochure or pamphlet could be designed for distribution with Department correspondence to all new applicants for admission as graduates or undergraduates. The information contained in the pamphlet would be intended to familiarize the potential newcomer with the MSU Broadcasters and GAMUT. Over the past years. there has not been enough coordination and utilization of the resources within the department curriculum by GAMUT and vice versa. At this time there should be re-evaluation of the curriculum and its relation- ship to-GAMUT. If GAMUT is to fulfill the need for practical experience in production and related areas. it would be of benefit to all majors if there was a closer relationship between the two. For example. one of the course requirements for TR 830. Television Producer. should be to produce a program to be aired on GAMUT or submit a program prOposal and script. which would be directed to the GAMUT files. It .is also possible that a class project be undertaken in TR 831. Research in Broadcasting and Film. whereby the student would develop. implement and analyze an audience survey to determine who is watching. at what time would they prefer a GAMUT-type program. as well as other quantitative and qualitative infor- mation. This would provide the student with a current re- search situation and also provide GAMUT with information which could aid in promotion. production and programming. Other courses which could be used as resources for GAMUT and at )the same time provide practical experience for the students ‘are: TR 356. Radio and Television Continuity writing. and TR 495. Television Stage Design. 86 N ‘ \ The above recommendations are offered in the hope that' they will be considered for any future change of GAMUT and -MSU Broadcasters. They are designed to meet the projected needs of the Department and TR students within the near future. However. there are a number of recommendations thatmust be .dealt with in a prompt manner: 1) There is an urgent need to provide GAMUT with a realistic budget to cover various production costs. and promotion and publicity expenses. (It would also be a valuable experience for the graduate assistant to have the responsi- bility of administering these finances.) V 2) With the recent purchase of video tape stock the syndication of a GAMUT package should be undertaken as soon as possible. 3) There should be a re-evaluation of the rationale. L’objectives. and programming concepts of GAMUT prior to the beginning of each season. This is necessary because of the rate of student growth within the department and the various facility limitations. The purpose of the re-evaluation would be to determine a yearly objective of the number of programs to tape and the degree of student participation desired. 4) The development of better lines of communication between GAMUT and WMSB(10) is also advisable. The graduate .assistant and producers should be aware of various WMSB(10) production procedures and the facilities available to them. Another area to be investigated is the use of related WMSB(10). facilities. such as the art department. where TR students can 87 be supervised by station personnel. 5) Find new ways to improve student participation in GAMUT and MSU Broadcasters. For example. develop a better training program for less eXperienced members. as well as presenting the experienced staff with more of an opportunity to diversify and try different crew positions. 6) Expand and improve the promotion and publicity for the GAMUT series as discussed earlier. 7) Revise the producer's manual making whatever procedural changes are needed and develop more explicit guidelines. 8) The development of a radio GAMUT is a worthwhile project if the student interest is sufficient. In the past it has not been. ' 9) Experiment with having critics in the studio to observe and critique the final playback of the taping. ”This would provide instant feedback and an exchange of ideas with the crew. 10) Recognize the outstanding GAMUT individuals and programs by providing yearly awards for: Best Program. Best Producer and Director. and Most valuable Crew Member. The purpose of the preceding thesis has been to present a drawing together and condensation of all the relevant facts concerning the development of the student series and broad- ~caster's organization in the hopes of providing those interested with a basic insight and understanding of the project. Along with this historical data. the author has attempted to furnish . 88 an Objective analyses of some of the problems both organi- zations have faced in past years. as well as suggesting recommendations for the future. BIBLIOGRAPHY AERho. Delta Chapter Convention Report. 1958. AERho vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. AERho. Delta Chapter Convention Report. 1961. AERho vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. Annual Report on GAMUT. 1967—68. Doug McKnight. An open letter to the members of Delta Chapter of AERho. from Katherine M.2Klotzburger. President. AERho vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. no date. GAMUT Questionnaire. 1966-69. taken 1969. GAMUT Report 1966-67. Dr. Robert Schlater. Interview with Kay Ingram. Program Manager. WMSB(10). Michigan State University Television. March 28. 1969. ””Interview with Robert Page. Station Manager. WMSB(10). Michigan State University Television. April 2. 1969. Interview with Richard Brundle. Production and Facilities Manager of WMSB(10). Michigan State University Television. April 4. 1969. Letter from Dr. Colby Lewis. WMSB(10) Station Manager. to Mr. Leo Martin. Chairman. Department of Television and Radio. GAMUT vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. MarCh 14: 196 6. Letter from Sherilyn K. Zeigler to the Television and Radio Department; subject. Reactivation of MSU Chapter of AERho. AERho vertical file. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. no date. Memo to Robert Schlater. Robert Page. Kay Ingram and Richard Brundle. from Colby Lewis. Miscellaneous Observations Regarding the Student ShOW. GAMUT vertical file. TR Department. MichiganJ State University. East Lansing. Michigan. early October. 89 ..-)» ' ‘ "I 90‘ "I.— 90 Michigan State University_Catalog. 1957-58. Michigan State University Publications. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. p. 189. Michigan State University.Catalog. 1960-61. Michigan State Minutes Minutes Minutes University Publications. East Lansing. Michigan. V01. 54. No. 13 (May. 1960). of the Television Radio DepartmentoFaculty Meeting. . verticle fiie. TR Departmentr Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. April 22. 1966. of the Television and Radio Department Faculty Meeting. vertical file. TR Department“ Michigan State univer31ty East Lansing. Michigan. May 27. 1966. of the Television and Radio Department Faculty Meeting. vertical vile. TR Department. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. September 23. 1966. 1968-69 MSU Broadcasters/GAMUT file. Phone interview with J. D. Davis. Operations Manager CCTV. April 16. 1969. Producers Information Padket. JJ' ‘ 1 A APPENDIX “ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am mama o :0me W! WY fl mammmvmuwnwm-m maximum March 32. 1969 Pm As a producer of one of the television programs in the GAMUT series I am requesting your assistance in my thesis project The thesis will be an analysis of the history of ' GAMUT. its operation. and recommendations for improvement. Attached is a questionnaire which I P9919 like you to complete. Vent full and candid answers to the questions would be appreciated. The date you retUtn wiil be analysed with that at the other producers over th-past three years and 'bfluld be valuable in the development of recommendations tor improvement at the series.- . Please return the completed questionnaire in the anslonad envelope he seen as poolihla and 09 later than -1111 ~Aprii 19.. I anarchists your tins and attort. 'lincsroly ...... n. sanQaroon 98 Name 1" 3! 3. I. Q. 7' fl. w~ 93 GAggI Questionagigg v w T aow many programs did you produce? Did you prOduce any programs for credit? Yes N9 If yes. which course " IR 499 (Individual Projects)___,_.__. 73 “30 (Toievision Producer) TR 399 ‘Ipeciel Problems) _f Other w—wv-v WWW gypo or types of programs produced? potertsinmeot " Pooumfintsry v ‘vV‘V-‘fw 'VW‘ v pm i, W; t pisoussion wwwwwww other ' "he; use your Proqrsm shout? ‘Vvv—wv rv WV wv Iron the time erlpootive you have now, how do you view .theiproqreo? fluid You change it. it In. haw? Did you encounter shy major production or other problems? vi: so, what were they end how were they reeeived 2w. . . y . $33 A; yet ioei the proorss vooid be scoepted on television NV. ;', .‘ “/,, ‘ o. .' 9°: V““‘7 H' l "I! there-soy enordihstioh with the WHPF~VV ststf? It nus there any teeqtqok iron the trustee tsiont? ’ I I if ‘ ‘4 '1 ’ v.k 'F“~ I” Whflt loan-try are you presently in and What is your position? ‘1 11' i3. 13. u. is. 94 Was the experience gained as a GAMUT producer helpful in your present occupation? Vol . N9 What did you like best shout GAMUT? fihflt did you like liolt obOfit GAMUT? how do you reel GAMUT could be improved? other come-ate . It yes. how? APPENDIX B I “3).?" BEAEEIEE_§§EE1 own wows sworn: Th1! anon fin¥_%%x--Dieouse the rogram ides with Elliot Sanderson. * ing to this meeting: a rough run-down sheet contsining .times and order of segments end transitions, an nnalyail at your audience (i.e. who are you appealing to in this program and what does this program have that ”are: it particulerlv appealing to these people). end list 0 the names or your telent.l. the heat ns Should last about 1 hour. two who attohu out thou vrhand in your tun-down sheet or script: completed to Dr. David Lewis and Elliot Osnderson**see example at run~down Sheet.) These can he pieced in Dr. Lewis’s end my mail horse in 322 Union Building '**Notify the Crew Co-ordinetor ot the crew positions open and times they will be needed. .fifigaggggxr- ve tseiiities request sheet to WMSB end erry Ge I. my 11:9 me A 993! £93 XOURSEQF. --Meet with Dr. Lewis and Elliot genderson to discuss program.- Run-dew: sheet or script, staging and light- ing plan. and cop; should be completed end brought to this meeting. your director should be pr resent. fromotion and publicity intermstion is due at ”MB! and the Ighgym office. crew assignments should be tinsiiseq, Check with crew Cowordinetor, After this dete‘flg_ghanges can ‘ he made on the crew ‘ . d 0W "M ”will no snow .lzigsx-vflet and ii ght install 1 micro h es at WMS ghost with Jerry Gobi for tight in Whgognthis can‘;e one. 5!;3£‘3¥,.mapa'anaw. crew call.is normally 9:30 A.M. 96 ....-,.. ‘v‘n —‘ v—‘VJ u-v arr—1‘ w.- wfl'r‘vflv - - w—wfivwg.w—,v- .w hpnmpxx c in. fig”: A r .seasount nnTA SHEET Home 1 ;;,.”_,_,11_11W m_,Yosr in aohool ....m_.Dats _fi hooel Address 1,11.111, .11‘1,_Ti Phone attiee address 1‘__fi_r_ ; __w___r___ Phone "“k ”19ht° ‘h't 3°” "Ould b0 Ivailshls {or work on anMUT 93 RFF'Dd seminars. — w ...1 '7 ww "v ‘r v —-v~ v-w ‘7 w" W V W'— W V V ww'Y W lasso number in order of preferenas the s signments you would most interested in. If you have hop ”erence. signify your interest by writing you or no. ' Produoihs Pireotina -Onn9unoinq .psoee Praduotioh Prev ‘ -- ’Fasins sud hishtins ‘ Writer ' ‘ 991 (or any) {ridnv Photographer Press and Publicity V’;‘nf.sing~lv 1 Dance , ' , ~3t°s 99 ”'TITI'I‘fllfll'iflflflfiflflfil 11 fifitflffliflflflflufllinfil‘flf' ES