THE TEACHING OF BROADCAST
MANAGEMENT IN AMERICA-II COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ARTHUR L. SAVAGE, JR.
1971

 

"at

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII”WWII L '   erI

 

286

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE TEACHING OF BROADCAST MANAGEMENT IN
AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

BY
Arthur L. Savage, Jr.

The Survey Subject

A survey was made of certain American colleges and
universities offering curriculum in broadcast education.
Specific information was sought relative to the entire
broadcast curriculum, and to the tOpic of broadcast station
management in particular. The thesis was that broadcast
education, though it was begun shortly after the advent of
broadcasting, has not kept up with the industry as a source
of adequately trained students. This is true in the particu—
lar area of station management. The results of the study
should provide an over—view of broadcast curricula from a
qualitative standpoint, and determine both the quality and

quantity of courses devoted to broadcast station management.

Design
The survey was made by using a two-part instrument

mailed to chairmen of various broadcasting departments of

American colleges and universities.

Arthur L. Savage, Jr.

The instrument was designed to contain two parts.

Part I requested that the respondent provide information of
a general nature regarding total enrollment, locale of the
administration of the broadcast curriculum, and the title
of the administering department or college. Part I also
requested information covering faculty professional experi-
ence, academic specialties, and potential for student
concentration of study in specific areas of broadcast
activity. The respondent was asked to supply information as
to the numbers of students enrolled in undergraduate pro-
grams and in graduate programs at both the master's and
doctoral level.

Part II of the instrument concentrated on the tOpic of
broadcast station management. Information was requested as
to the numbers of courses in each curriculum devoted
specifically to management, and to the numbers of courses
in which management was an integrated portion of the course
content. Names of courses of both types were requested from
each respondent. The respondents were asked to identify
specific topics that were covered in management courses.
Respondents were asked if management was a desired addition
to the curriculum in cases where it was not covered.
Questions were utilized which asked the respondent to indi-
cate the amount of exposure to professional broadcasting

experiences that was available to both faculty and students.

Arthur L. Savage, Jr.

Concurrent with the survey of educational institutions,
a survey was conducted among a small list of general managers
of television stations. The purpose was to determine the
numbers and quality of graduates of broadcast curricula who
apply for jobs in television. The managers were also asked
for a qualitative analysis of these graduates. The managers
were asked specific questions soliciting their Opinions of
broadcast curricula. They were asked whether they would
like to have available opportunities for "refresher courses"
at colleges and universities. Their statements as to de-

sired subject matter of such courses was requested.

Findings

There was a distinct relationship between the profes-
sional experiences of faculty and the areas of emphasis in
curricula. The preponderance of faculty professional experi-
ence was in the "how to" areas of production, programming,
news, and film. The areas with the least faculty profes-
sional background were management and sales, and this was
reflected in curriculum emphasis and kinds of courses
offered.

With regard to broadcast station management, the vast
majority of schools did offer one course in management, but
more than half of them treated the subject area as a compon-

ent of other courses. As to topics covered in the management

Arthur L. Savage, Jr.

courses, areas of regulation, ig_e§t, Federal, industrial,

"fairness doctrine," and Section 315 of the Communications

Act of 1934 got the most intense treatment. Areas such as

personnel management, sales, sales promotion, and rudiments
of engineering received less intense treatment.

From the questions regarding the relationships between
broadcasters and educators, it was determined that educators
do not make efforts to serve the needs of station personnel
in their general areas. A limited number of institutions
offer special study opportunities in management for station
managers. A significant number of respondents indicated they
did not know whether station personnel were interested in
attending advanced study sessions.

Comments from the general managers of the television
stations revealed that all of them had colleges or univer-
sities within a 400—mile radius which offered broadcast
curricula. They indicated that they received applications
from graduates of these schoOls, and that they did hire
some of them.

In their qualitative review of these students, they
indicated that only rare'cases did the schools give students
adequate preparation for any positions in broadcasting.

They indicated that most students were not adequately pre-
pared, and that they required substantial on-the-job train-

ing. They also indicated that students had not been

adequately prepared for future positions in management.

Arthur L. Savage, Jr.

All but a very small percentage of the managers indi-
«cated that they had an interest in special study opportuni—

'ties at the college or university level.

THE TEACHING OF BROADCAST MANAGEMENT IN

AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

BY
Arthur L. Savage, Jr.

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

1971

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.

Rm: 5%

Director of Thesis

 

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

If properly done and preperly inclusive, this acknowl-
edgement could well run as long as the paper, itself.

There is no doubt but Dr. Robert W. Schlater, the
thesis director, receive the major tribute. Through it all,
he has been helpful, informative, knowledgeable, and, to
his everlasting credit, most patient. Through my associa-
tion with him, I have gained not only a respectable piece of
research, but a friend. Both will be cherished for the rest
of my life.

To the late Professor Leo A. Martin also goes a major
portion of the credit for this work. Circumstances pro-
hibited his direct participation in its production, but he
was friend, mentor, guide, and inspiration for more than a
quarter of a century. Many of the ideas and philosophies
herein were his originally. Had it not been for his encour—
agement and assistance, this work and this new career would
never have been attempted.

To the faculty of the Department of Television and
Radioegoes my deepest appreciation and most sincere thanks.
They have accepted me not only as a student, but as a friend
and colleague, and this has meant more to me than any of
them will ever know.

Lastly, to Bonnie, goes the deepest appreciation for
the most meaningful ... and most helpful ... contribution of
all ... understanding.

 

iii

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . .

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Research Design. . . . . . .
The Institution Instrument . . . . .

Part I--Broadcast Curriculum. .

Part II--Broadcast Station Manage-

ment 0 O O I O O O O O O O

The Station Managers' Instrument . .

FINDINGS.

Profile of Credit Hours. . . . . . .
Part I: Broadcast Curriculum. . . .

Part

Total Enrollment. . . . . . . .
Administrative Locale . . . . .
Name of the Department. . . .
Inventory of Undergraduate and
Graduate Curriculua. . . .
Inventory of Undergraduate and
Graduate Enrollment. . . .
Faculty Census. . . . . . . . .
Professional Experience Among
Faculty. . . . . . . . . .
Faculty Academic Specialty. . .
Areas of Specialization in
Curricula. . . . . . . . .

II: Broadcast Station Management

Management Courses. . . . . . .
Management Course Content . . .
Desirability of Management in
Curricula. . . . . . . . .
Method of Presentation. . . . .
Utilization of Resource Persons
Intern Programs . . . . . . . .
Industry Involvement. . . . . .

The Second Instrument. . . . . . . .

iv

Page

12
15

15
21
21

26
32

37

37
39
39
41
41

42

43
44

47
49

50
52
52
54

54
55
55
56
56
57

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

CHAPTER

IV. SUMMARY

Experience and Relationships With
Broadcast Curricula. .

Opinions of Broadcast Curricula

AND CONCLUSIONS .

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . .

APPENDICES . .
I. Letter.
Part I:

II. Letter.
General

III.

C O O O O O C O O

Manager's Questionnaire .

tion Group. . . . . . . .

IV. Areas of Academic Specialty by Groups .

V. Titles of Courses Devoted Exclusively to
Management. . . . . . . .

Questionnaire

Locale of Administration by Student Popula-

VI. Titles of Courses Covering Management Coinci-

dentally. . . . . . . . .

Page
57
59
64
78
79
80
81
85

86

88

90

92

94

TABLE

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Curricula Among the Elements of
the Survey Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Respondents by Academic Year. . .
Analysis of Total Enrollment by Groups. . .

Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment by
Major/Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment by
Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Faculty Census by Groups. . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

18
38
4O

45

46
48

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The growth of commercial broadcasting since its
inauspicious beginning in the 1920's has been systematically
punctuated by many outstanding achievements. The interested
observer cannot help but be impressed by the tremendous
accomplishments in the field of broadcast technology. Truly
impressive have been the innovations in the mechanical
techniques required to transmit a sound or tone appreciable
to the human ear from one point to another across vast geo-
graphic space. These develoPments have taken place in areas
of scientific innovation and invention based on technological
research grounded in principles of physics. The physical
capability to broadcast has existed since the beginning of
time, but it remained for individuals such as Marconi,
DeForrest, and Sarnoff to harness these phenomena for the
benefit of man.

The techniques utilized in developing broadcasting
into a successful commercial enterprise were derived through
somewhat different methodology from that used to develOp the
technical phases of the industry. While the various phe-

nomena of physics required only discovery and refinement by

scientists and technicians to eventually arrive at the ability
to electrically transmit sound waves from one given point to
another, the deveIOpment of the fledgling undertaking into a
profit-oriented enterprise had no empirically—derived scien-
tific principles upon which to base experimentation. Young
Robert Sarnoff's letter to the Marconi Company, in 1916,
foresaw great commercial possibilities for "wireless" trans-
mission; however, his accurate forecast did not include guide-
lines or principles that would assist in making the "Radio
Music Boxes" into an established commercial enterprise.1
There was nothing known about broadcasting except the capa-
bility to transmit sound. The only tenet available to pioneer
commercial broadcasters was the profit-loss theory applicable
to any investor-controlled enterprise: unless income exceeds
expense, failure will be the inescapable result.

The operating principles which shephered the new in—
dustry during its early developmental years, and which
provide the major portion of its operational guidelines today
were derived from a most expensive methodology commonly
termed "the trial-and-error method." The early broadcasters
moved into commercial broadcasting without any real knowledge
as to their exact starting place, and with nothing more than

dreams and illusions as to where their endeavors would take

 

1Rdbert St. John, The EncyclOpedia of Broadcasting
(Milwaukee: Cathedral Square, 1967), p. 33.

them or their audiences. Their only guidepost on the chart—
less journey was success or failure based on profit or loss.

Summers and Summers, writing in Broadcasting and the Public,

indicate that 1927 might be called the year in which "American

radio became really 'commercial." It was the first complete
year of Operation of permanent "commercial networks." They
continue by saying that broadcasters, without principle or
experience to guide them, felt that "If advertisers were

willing to pay stations to carry their advertising messages,

then broadcasting might in time become a profitable business.”

The techniques of management and operation of today's commer-
cial broadcasting facilities were tested in and derived from
the only research laboratory available ... that procedure
which had as its end product profitable success, or unprofit-
able failure.

Commercial broadcasting has seen two periods of great
growth.

The first growth period occurred during and immediately
following World War II when the American public witnessed
the tremendous contributions made by broadcasting to both
entertainment and information dissemination. Lawrence H.
Rogers II, president of the Taft Broadcasting Company states:

Radio as a responsible, and indispensable, medium of
immediate news and current events commentary reached

 

2Robert E. Summers and Harrison B. Summers, Broadcast—
ing and the Public (Belmost: Wadsworth, 1966), p. 38.

2

its highest state of development as a result of the
events leading up to and during the Second World War.

3

Quaal and Martin agree as to the effect the war had
on the rapid expansion of the industry, particularly in the
post-war years:

Within the five—year period following the end of

World War II, some 1800 new radio stations came

into existence. In the year 1948 alone, 533 stations

began operations. This was the largest number of

new station authorizations in any single year since

broadcasting had its birth.“

Traditional and long popular forms of entertainment
were in short supply during the war years. Performers were
not available to staff the great personal appearance shows
that had won public acclaim in theatres and musical comedy
houses all through the 1930's. Many entertainers were in
the armed forces, or were devoting most of their time to
troop entertainment. Travel facilities were greatly reduced.
Attendance at available performances by large number of
people seemed blasphemous during the critical years when
nearly every American family was personally touched by trag-
edy of some form resulting from the conflict.

Summers and Summers comment on a specific role played

by broadcasting which enhanced the popularity and growth of

radio during the years of the war:

 

3Lawrence H. Rogers II, Television Station Management
(Yale Roe, ed.; New York: Hasrings House, 1964), p. 17.

4Ward Quaal and Leo A. Martin, Broadcast Management
(New York: Hastings House, 1968), p. 14.

... network schedules also reflected the need of
listeners to forget for a time the problems of every-
day living, accounts of battles in faraway places,
and the tragedy of casualty lists. Programs offer-
ing escape increased in both numbers and pOpularity.s
St. John states that during those years of crisis,
broadcasting served to unite the American people in a bond
of oneness and understanding that was to have longlasting
results.6
Another by-product of World War II was the improvement
in technology which ultimately produced micro-circuitry.7
This development had three important manifestations: 1) it
permitted the manufacture of much less expensive radio
receivers so set ownership was greatly extended, 2) it
allowed the creation of multi-set homes where nearly everyone
in a household who wanted his own radio set could have it,
thus making radio a "personal" medium, 3) it produced true
portability, moving radio out of doors into all sorts of
recreational activities and areas, and into many different
phases of American life. St. John comments:
Thanks to transistors and car radios the actual or
potential audience jumped by millions. From now on,
most Americans, where ever they might go, would

never be out of contact with their local radio
station.8

 

5Summers and Summers, gp. cit., p. 66.
‘se. John, 92. cit., p. 78.
7Quaal and Martin, 92. cit., p. 15.

8St. John, op. cit., p. 74.

St. John also notes the second period of great growth
in broadcasting which began in the early 1950's with the
completion of the coast-to-coast coaxial television cable
and the removal of the freeze on construction permits for
stations by the Federal Communications Commission. While
local television stations were experiencing regular and
steady growth, the capability of networks to originate pro-
grams in New York City or Los Angeles and transmit them to
all parts of the United States boosted both the sale of
television sets and advertising expenditures.9

It is well to note, however, that throughout all of
these times of technological advancement, innovation in
programming, and increasing p0pularity of the media, develop-
ment of management methodology was gained by the trial-and—
error process. While technology, programming, and other
phases of broadcasting have had their need for innovative
accomplishment and refined methodology defined and met,
management has not. Baker indicates, "As the sc0pe of the
station broadens and the commitment to community programming
grows, so does the need for solid television know-how in
management."1° Management techniques applicable to almost
any other commercial enterprise have some degree of utility

in broadcasting, quite obviously. It is sad to note,

 

9Ibid., p. 88.

10George A. Baker, Televigion Station Management
(Yale Roe, ed.; New York: Hastings House, 1964), p. 87.

nonetheleeew that aalarge number of broadcast station man.
agers have neither the vocational background no; the formal
training to ingrain broadcasting with profession—like pur-
poses and ideals. St. John observes:
Station managers have come from all walks of life.
Several who have been prominent in the industry were
once airplane pilots or stunt flyers. Many were
formerly lawyers. Others were engineers, salesmen,
newspaper reporters, schoolteachers, editors.11
Technical innovations and revised standards of tech-
nical performance had been produced and adopted by the
industry in an increasing stream, but management techniques
in broadcasting are another story, altogether. Since the
early days of broadcasting, station management has attempted
to resolve its problems, accept its challenges, and pursue
its goals bereft of personnel trained in broadcast station
management. Quaal and Martin note:
Much effective management has been accomplished in
broadcasting. Most of it was learned by trial and
error and often at a high degree of expense and
frustration.12
While every broadcast operation has phases and facets
unique unto itself, there exists a commonality of problems
and processes in decision-making which would benefit from
the tried and proven experiences of those who have trod the

path previously. It would seem that no other facet of broad-

casting has suffered from the lack of empirical data, or

 

11St. John, 92. cit., p. 370.

1zouaal and Martin, gp. cit., p. 20.

previously tested and proven information, as has station
management. Technical proficiency has been the fruit of
widely published and disseminated data in the field, but
management has come to whatever state of accomplishment it
now enjoys, as Quaal and Martin point out, through expensive
and wasteful methodology which has produced no data to be
circulated within the industry.

A potential solution to the problem of untrained and
unequipped management personnel has been available since
the early 1930's with the establishment of the first broad-
cast curricula in colleges and universities. However, the
history of broadcast education is liberally punctuated with
talent-oriented and "howeto"-directed faculty and core
curricula administered from Speech Departments which did not
perceive broadcasting as having a need for personnel who had
been educated as anything other than "doers." The training
of "thinkers" is a relatively new accomplishment for brOad-
cast educators, and today it would not appear that there is
an over-abundance of colleges or universities involved in
this activity. Quaal and Martin make the following observa—
tion:

The present managerial group, for the most part, did

not find such courses available at the time they

attended college; hence, the probable tendency not to

equate the value of such training for careers in
broadcasting.13

 

13Ibid., p. 24.

Extensive training of, and industry acceptance of,
college or university trained managerial personnel can
accomplish two objectives of import.

First, it can provide the industry with trained manage-
ment personnel who have a first—hand knowledge of broadcast
management in all of its known facets. It can.provide a
source of trained personnel who would be equipped to define
and resolve the more basic and rudimentaryéproblems of
station management in both the mechanics of management and
the philosophy of management. The expense of time and
effort required to train management personnel in the trial—
and-error method have already been noted by Quaal and Martin.
There is no doubt but that some of this type experience
would be not only necessary, but valuable. No neophyte in
any broadcast operation could reasonably be expected to
learn all of the vagaries of that operation without some
degree of on-the-job training including the making of mis-
takes in both judgment and mechanics. However, the on-the-
job training should not have to begin at the very beginning.
starting with the most basic and fundamental principles of
management. The on—the-job training, if utilized to refine
and polish already acquired management knowledge and
techniques, can be a most productive and rewarding experi-
ence. It can be a sound financial investment and can obviate
some psychological pitfalls. Edgar Schein states:

... it is increasingly clear that because of rapid

technological change jobs and roles in organizations
are becoming, on the one hand, more complex, and, on

10

.the other hand, more difuse and uncertain. The typical
training effort, therefore, faces the problem not only
of how to teach a new employee the specifics of a com—
plex job for today, but also how to create a learning
situation in which that employee can develop his other
capabilities by way of preparing for an uncertain
future. In management training, the latter factor is
paramount.14

The second accomplishment can be the provision for some
meaningful station management standards that would be applic-
able throughout the entire broadcast industry. There are
some broadcast educators and broadcasters who see broadcast-
ing with professional status at some future date. If that
is to become a fait accompli, then the establishment of
standards, particularly in the area of station management,
will be crucial.

In 1965, Eldon Campbell, Vice-President and General
Manager of the WFBM Stations, said to the graduating seniors
in broadcasting at the University of Illinois:

The profession of broadcasting needs nothing more and
nothing so badly as individuals who are willing to
approach this business as professionals; who are will-
ing to establish through example, a code of ethics
which ultimately will improve the breed of mass com—
municators. Broadcasting needs little more than
young men and women who are willing to improve the
product of the industry through performance and
example: broadcasting at this point in its history
needs nothing so badly as a Government willing to aid
and assist an orderly growth instead of excoriating
and stultifying it. And perhaps the greatest hOpe
that broadcasting has for this idyllic future is that
young men and women like you, through an enlarged
sense of duty and Opportunity can begin to breed

trust from enlightened Government servants, instead of
distrust. The instrument offers too much to the

 

14Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Engle-
wood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1965), p. 40.

11

public good to be slaughtered by amateurs of either
the regulated or regulators.15

With reference to an available source of trained
persons dedicated to leading broadcasting to professional
status, there can be little doubt that colleges and uni-
versities are the best equipped and staffed to produce such
persons. In speaking to a group of broadcasters, Professor
Leo A. Martin, of Michigan State University, said:

The chief source for people of this nature should

be your colleges and universities. If those of us

who are responsible for training your personnel of

the future are alert, we can play a key role in

your advancement.16

By no means are all of today's broadcast station man-
agers incompetent or even unprofessional. But, there can
be little doubt to the interested observer that the industry
has its share of broadcasters who are more than ready to
equate the broadcast license to a small business license for
a neighborhood car wash or corner fruit stand. It is these
individuals who regard the broadcast license as a source of
profit and income to the exclusion of any other worthwhile
motivating factor. Professor Martin points this out as a

distinguishing characteristic of the non—professional broad—

caster. He states:

 

15Speech by Eldon Campbell, A Broadcaster's View of
Broadcasting, at the university of Illinois, June, 1965.

16Speech by Leo A. Martin, Broadgasting: A Profegsion?
at the University of Alabama, October, 1962.

12

The difference between industry, as it exists today,
and a profession is, then, simple and unmistakable.
The essence of the former is that its only criterion
is the financial return Which it offers to its share-
holders. The essence of the latter is that, though
men enter it for the sake of a livelihood, the measure
of their success is the service which they perform,
not the gains which they amass.17
It would seem that the industry must desire profes—
sional status and rearrange its own house to some degree to
achieve a state of professionalism. If this can be accom—
plished, then it will be up to the colleges and universities
to provide first quality managerial candidates to the broad—

casting industry.

Purpose of the Study
If existing institutions of higher education are to

assume responsibility for producing well-trained, well-
qualified candidates for future positions in broadcast
'management, it was deemed worthwhile to survey current edu-
cational capability for doing so, and to attempt to assess
the strengths and weaknesses of current broadcast curricula.

I The primary purpose of the research reported in this
paper was to inventory and provide an overview of existing
broadcast curricula, paying particular attention to its
administration, content, faculty, emphases, and directions.
Specific attention was paid to curriculum devoted to broad—
cast station management in an attempt to determine its

strengths and weaknesses.

¥

1"Ibid.

13

There are two readily available sources of data on
broadcast curricula, but they are, for the most part, only
catalogs of information of the most general nature.

The Journal of Broadcasting published in its Winter
edition of 1968—1969 a "Survey of Schools Offering Radio—TV
Courses." This, the Eleventh Edition, is the current one,
and its data are quite general. It provides information as
to the name of the school, the name of the chief adminis—
trator of the broadcast curriculum, the number of courses
available, number of faculty, and a very brief description
of physical facilities. Nothing is mentioned as to specific
courses, course content, or special emphases within the
curriculum.

The National Association of Broadcasters publish with
some regularity a report entitled "Radio-Television Programs
in American Colleges and Universities." This work is done
under the supervision of Dr. Harold Nevin. This survey pro-
vides more specific data than that provided by The Journal
ofggroadcaggigg regarding various broadcasting curricula,
but it, too, is more attentive to administrative detail than
to curricula particulars.

Neither the Journal ofiBroadcasting nor the N. A. B.
reports delve to any degree into qualitative analysis of
broadcast curricula. The study to which this paper is
devoted dealt more with qualitative analysis of broadcast

curricula than with the reporting of administrative details.

14

In addition to general probing in the entire area of broad—
cast curricula, specific details were sought as to which
institutions currently teach broadcast station management.
An attempt was made to determine specific treatment of the
tOpic with reference to separate courses or as component
parts of other courses. Course content was determined as
well as available emphases in specialization. Based on the
assumption that academic learning reaches a limitation in
preparing a student for a career in broadcasting, an
attempt was made to determine which institutions go to what
lengths to provide students with exposure to the practical
aspects of broadcasting through the maintenance of intern-
ships with broadcasters.

Finally, in an attempt to make some form of judgment
as to the over-all effectiveness of today's broadcasting
curricula, a survey was made among some specially selected
broadcasters to elicit their candid reactions to the products

of these curricula, and to the curricula, themselves.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

General Research Design

The research reported in this paper was exploratory
in nature. Formal hypotheses were neither formulated nor
tested. It was the intent of the research to survey col-
leges and universities in the contiguous United States as
to their administration and presentation of broadcast cur-
ricula, and to bring particular focus upon the subject area
of broadcast station management within each curriculum in
the survey. It was determined, therefore, that the statis-
tical population to be surveyed would be the colleges and
universities in the contiguous United States which offer
courses of study in broadcasting at either the undergraduate
or the graduate levels.

It was decided that the previously-mentioned catalOg
of colleges and universities offering broadcast curricula,
published by the National Association of Broadcasters in
Washington, D. 0., would be the frame from which the sample
would be drawn. The Twelfth Report, dated 1970, was
selected because it was the most recent publication in the

series.

15

16

The sample drawn was not a random sample because it
was considered necessary to the purposes Of the study to
obtain specific kinds of information from specific kinds of
institutions. Some of the guidelines and criteria which
were utilized in the drawing of the sample were:

Geogrgphic Location-—At least one institution from
each state in the contiguous United States was to be
surveyed. An attempt was made to include two insti-
tutions from each state, if more than one institution
offered a broadcast curriculum.

Minimal Limitations——Certain minimal limitations were
imposed as to the number of credit hours of broadcast
studies offered by each institution. No institution
was drawn for the survey sample which offered less
than either fifty semester hours or fifty quarter
hours of broadcast instruction according to the

N. A. B. report. An exception was made in this quali-
fication in the case where an institution was the

only one in its state offering broadcast curriculum at
all. In a few cases, two institutions offering less
than the fifty credit hour minimum were selected in
order to fulfill the two-school-per-state qualifica-
tion.

Certain States-—It was obvious from the initial per-
usal of the N. A. B. report that certain states had
far more than two colleges and/or universities offer—
ing fifty credit hours of broadcast curriculum. The
notable ones in this category were New York and Cali-
fornia. In these two states, more than the minimum
two institutions were drawn based on geographic loca-
tion within the state as well as the minimum credit
hour qualification. An attempt was made to select
schools in as widely separated areas of the state as
possible so that the sample schools would not be
grouped into one relatively small geographic area.

 

No other factors entered into the selection of institutions
to be surveyed. It was intended that there would be a
fairly symmetrical ordering of the institutions by size of
student enrollment, but no conscious attempt was made to

produce this sort of grouping. While it could be expected

17

that certain commonalities might be found among institutions
of similar size student bodies as far as broadcast curricu—
lum was concerned, exact patterns and configurations rela—
tive to curriculum were left to be determined through
analysis of the survey data.

The final sample numbered eighty—nine colleges and
universities. It included both publicly-owned tax—supported
institutions and privately-owned and privately-endowed
institutions.

The curricula of the sample were administered on both
the semester system and the quarter system, according to
information available from the statistical population. Of
the eighty-nine units in the survey, fifty-eight, or sixty—
five percent, were on the semester system. Thirty-one of
the units were on the quarter system: this represented
thirty-five percent of the sample.

The statistical population also supplied information,
as previously noted, on the number of credit hours of
broadcast courses available at each school. Table I pro-
vides a complete analysis of these data.

There was a wide range in the number of credit hours
offered by the units in the sample. The semester schools
ranged from a low of twenty-five hours to a high of 176
hours. The quarter schools ranged from a low of twenty-

three hours to a high of 132 hours.

18

TABLE I

COMPARISON OF CURRICULA AMONG THE
ELEMENTS OF THE SURVEY SAMPLE

 

 

Semester Quarter

 

System System
Total credit hours in sample 6,253
Average credit hours per
institution 70.3
Number of schools in sample 58 31
Percentage of sample 65% 35%
Number of credit hours offered 3,872 2,381

Average credit hours/institution 66.7 76.8

 

19

The survey of the colleges and universities was con-
ducted by a mail questionnaire which had a cover letter
explaining the purpose of the study. It was directed to
the individual indicated by statistical population data to
be the chairman of the department responsible for the
administration of the broadcast curriculum. A stamped self—
addressed envelope was enclosed for the return of the I
instrument. I

At this juncture, it is believed noteworthy to point
out that the writer was professionally involved in commer-
cial broadcasting for more than twenty-two years. The last
fourteen years were spent in the national media representa-
tive industry as an account executive with The Katz Agency,
Incorporated, and with their sales subsidiary, Katz Tele-
vision. As a result of this vocation, many close personal
relationships with professional station management personnel
were established.

While the major thrust of the paper is an effort to
derive, through empirical methodology, information from
educators relative to the teaching of broadcasting in the
United States, it was felt that, in the final analysis,
those best able to judge and comment upon the teaching of
broadcasting, and broadcast station management in particular,
would be those persons Whose day—to-day vocational activi-

ties are devoted to broadcast station management.

20

Consequently, a second survey was undertaken among
a select list of broadcast station managers with whom the
writer had developed a close personal relationship over
the years of professional association. The sample was not
randomly drawn, though an effort was made to locate poten-
tial respondents in as wide-spread geOgraphic locations as
was possible. The intent was to include managers of broad-
cast facilities in markets of varying size. Another crib
terion for selection was management experience derived from
both single ownership Operations as well as group ownership
of stations. It was hoped that the sample would be fairly
evenly divided between these two categories.

As can be noted, the potential respondents were chosen
on the basis of factors directly associated with commercial
broadcasting. Another factor which was considered in
respondent selection was the long—standing personal rela-
tionship to the writer. It was felt that this criterion
for selection, though biased in nature, would produce un-
biased responses of absolute candor.

The final sample was composed of sixteen station
managers of television facilities. This instrument was
also a mail questionnaire with a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the survey. A stamped self-addressed

envelope was enclosed for return of the instrument.

21

The Institution Instrument
This instrument was a two—part piece. Part I was de-
signed to obtain data of a general nature as to the entire
broadcast curriculum of each institution. Part II was de-
voted to obtaining data specifically related to the tOpic
of broadcast station management within the context of each
curriculum. Samples of the cover letter and the instrument

are included as Appendix I.

Pgrt I--Broadc§§t Curriculum

It was deemed necessary for purposes of comparison
of the data to determine the size of the enrollment at each
institution being surveyed. The initial question asked the
respondent to supply the approximate number of students
enrolled at the institution. It was felt that an exact
statement of student body size was not desirable since a
grouping of institutions into fairly large categories only
was intended. Exact data as to student population size were
therefore irrelevant.

The second question dealt with the locale of the ad—
ministration of the broadcast curriculum. It was noted from
previous experience and from a study of the N.-A. B. report
while compiling the sample, that broadcast curricula appeared
td have their administration locales in a variety Of situ-
ations. Some appeared to be situated as a separate depart-
ment whose sole responsibility was broadcast curriculum;

some appeared to be a cognate of another discipline and

22

administered as a constituent part of the discipline. In
other instances, the administrative locale was completely
indeterminate.

Respondents were given these three choices of re—
sponse: a separate department; a constituent of another
department; or another locale other than these two. They
were asked to indicate which applied to their particular
case, and, in the third instance, were asked to indicate
the specific locale and briefly describe it.

The third question asked the respondent to supply
the exact title of the department from which the broadcast
sequence was administered.

Numbers of students in the broadcast sequence was the
subject of the next inquiry. Most institutions, it was
assumed, offered "major" courses of study in broadcasting,
but it was already known that not all colleges and univer-
sities offer "minor" courses of study. The question was
structured so that the respondent could not only indicate
whether or not both majors and minors in broadcasting were
offered, but could supply the numbers of students enrolled
in each program. This information was requested for the
undergraduate program and for graduate programs at both the
master's and doctorate levels. It was to be assumed that
an indication of no students enrolled would mean that such
a program at the indicated level was not available in that

particular curriculum.

23

A census Of faculty involved with the broadcast
sequence was deemed advisable, and the next two questions
were designed for that purpose.

The respondent was asked to supply information as to
the numbers of full-time faculty teaching in programs lead—
ing to degrees at the doctoral, master's, and bachelor's
levels. Space was provided in each of the three cases for
the respondent to supply the exact information. The next
question asked for the exact type of information related
to part-time faculty. Spaces were provided also for the
inclusion of this information.

The faculty census was continued with the next several
questions. The first in the series related to any profes-
sional broadcasting experience which might comprise the
personal backgrounds of faculty. Rather than leave the
issue to discussion or a respondent-drafted reply, each re-
spondent was given a list of areas of broadcast station
activity. (He was asked to indicate which of these areas
was represented in the professional experience in that
particular faculty. The following eight areas were speci-

fically mentioned in the instrument:

Management Programming
Sales/Sales Management News
Promotion Writing
Production Film

The respondent was then asked to indicate other areas of
professional background represented in the faculty, and was

provided space in which to make these notations. No effort

24

was made in listing the categories to elicit exact expres—
sions of various facets of these areas of experience, even
though some areas have broad expanses of activity and

could require slightly different talents and capabilities.
For example, the area of promotion might well have been
broken into station promotion, audience promotion, or indus-
try promotion. It was felt, however, that promotional
activities in any of these specific areas were similar
enough within the general context of the subject to supply
adequate data for this study. The same rationale applies to
sales and sales management. Any individual with meaningful
experience in sales activities at the station or national
level normally acquires enough background and knowledge in
sales management to be able to speak with a reasonable
degree of authority on the subject. In both cases of
sales/sales management and promotion, general activities in
either area are not so dissimilar as to require further de—
lineation for the purposes of this particular survey.

The next inquiry directed itself to the-area of
faculty—course specialities. Based on the premise that a
faculty member with specific experience and background in
one particular phase of broadcasting might well utilize that
background and experience in teaching courses specifically
designed to cover that subject area, the respondent was
asked if faculty members did follow such a practice. The

respondent was asked for a "yes" or "no" response to this

25

question. In the event that the practice was adhered to
and that individual faculty did teach in areas of specialty,
the respondent was asked to identify those areas and was
provided space to do so.

Interrogation relative to specialities was carried
from faculty to the area of curriculum to conclude Part I
of the instrument. Thelast four questions directed the
respondent's attention to any specialty provisions within
the curriculum. The questions were posed to determine
whether or not each institution administered its curriculum
in broad or narrow focus. The interest of the question-
naire was in determining which curricula provided for
special emphasis in both the undergraduate and graduate
programs.

The respondent was asked if undergraduates and grad—
uate students were allowed to "specialize" in specific
areas of study. The specific areas mentioned were the same
ones stated in the previous question relative to faculty
professional background or experience. The list of areas
of activities was repeated twice, and the respondent was
asked to denote areas of specialization in both the under—
graduate and graduate programs. Space was provided for
and information requested for an indication of areas of

specialization other than the eight areas delineated.

' 26

Part II—-Broadcast Station Management

The second part of this instrument attempted to focus
attention upon and elicit specific information relative to
the presentation and content of course material devoted to
the topic of broadcast station management.

The first two questions asked for information relative
to the availabiliby of courses specifically dealing exclu-
sively with station management in the undergraduate and
graduate programs. The purpose of the two questions was to
determine if station management was presented in specific
courses designed to cover that topic only, or if the topic
is covered as a component part of courses more general in
scope.

The first question asked whether station management
was covered at the undergraduate and graduate levels as
separate and distinct courses. The numbers of such courses
was also asked for at the two levels.

The second question asked for the same information in
the situation where station management was covered not as a
separate t0pic, but as an integral part of other courses.
The number Of suchYcourses was requested also in this
instance.

Each respondent was then asked to list the titles of
the courses in each of the two categories. It was believed
that significant comparisons could be made between the two

formats. Further, it was believed that some Observations

27

could be made relative to each faculty's evaluation of the
topic by any inferences indicated through the titles given
to the various courses. It was believed that the same
inferences could be made in the relative weight indicated
by the number of courses in which management was the sole
tOpic and in the number in which management was one topic
among many presented in some courses.

From personal experience in the broadcast industry,
the writer compiled a number of subject areas that either
could, or should, be covered in any college or university
courses dealing with the topic of station management.
That list was presented in the instrument, and each re-
spondent was asked to indicate which of them was the
point of discussion or lecture in courses dealing with
station management. The list of subject areas was:

Personnel management

Station policies formation

Sales management

Sales promotion

Program promotion

Rudiments of engineering

Administrative organization

Rate card structuring

Industry regulations

Government regulations

Section 315

Fairness doctrine

License application and renewal

Group operations

Rep relations and operations

Buying/selling pr0perties
There was no particular rank ordering of the topics, either
intended or indicated, nor was the respondent asked to

allocate any relative degree of importance to the topics

28

either singly or as a group. It was expected that an
accurate profile of each institution's approach to the sub—
ject of station management would be obtained from relative
weights of response in each tOpic area. Rank ordering
would have entailed the deriving of a judgment on the part
of the respondent, and it was considered that some degree
of bias would have been injected had rank ordering of
importance to each curriculum been requested. It was felt
that relative importance would be realized with the response
limited to mere inclusion without requiring an attempt at
evaluation upon the part of the respondent.

It was surmised at the outset that some schools might
not offer subject matter dealing with station management.
Based on this assumption, those respondents who indicated
that they did not offer separate courses covering station
management were asked if they felt that the subject was
worthy of inclusion at some future date as far as their
over-all curriculum was concerned. Respondents were pro—
vided space to check a "yes" or "no" response.

It was intended that some indication of each faculty's
degree of pragmatism in the subject of station management
could be drawn from the methodology utilized in the presen-
tation of course material. A question was framed around
the lecture vs. discussion and the lecture vs. seminar pre-

sentation of material.

29

Each respondent was asked to indicate what percentage
of undergraduate courses on station management were pre—
sented in lecture form and what percentage were presented
in discussion form. The same information was requested
relative to courses at the graduate level, with the division
being made between lecture and seminar.

In keeping with the belief that students, as prospec—
tive broadcasters, learn as well from example as from
precept, the amount of student exposure to practicing pro-
fessional broadcasters comprised the subject of the next
question. Each respondent was asked if his faculty utilized
outside speakers or resource persons in management courses.
Opportunities were provided for "yes" or "no" responses.

Based on the same rationale, the next two questions
attempted to gauge the amount of exposure each institution
afforded its students as far as work-study programs were
available. The respondent was asked if his institution
made internships in broadcasting stations available for
either undergraduate or graduate students. Opportunities
for "yes" or "no" responses were made available in both
cases.

Colleges and universities are centers for learning,
and usually serve as podia for the exchange of ideas and
philosophies. It was felt necessary to know whether the
sample institutions made efforts to bring management person—

nel to the campus for study and exchanges of ideas and

30

information relating to trends, changes, and innovations
within the industry. The balance of Part II was devoted
to surveying institution activities in this area.

The first question in this sequence asked if each
institution offered special lectures, seminars, or other
study opportunities to persons currently involved in pro-
fessional station management. Opportunities for either
"yes" or "no" responses were made available. In the event
of a "yes" reply, the respondent was asked to indicate
whether these special study opportunities were usually
well attended. Again, "yes" or "no" replies were requested.

It was felt that these responses would provide in—
formation in two areas. First, it would indicate whether
there was an open line of communication between the insti—
tutions and its neighboring broadcasters. It would indicate
also whether there was a desire on the part of the institu-
tions to draw broadcasters to the campus. Another indica-
tion would be whether there were feelings of mutual
cooperation and assistance between institutions and the
broadcasters. The second group of data would be indications
that the broadcasters realized the possibility of their own
inadequacies, and that these might be alleviated through
attendance at formal study opportunities on campus.

Another potential inference to be drawn would be that'
the broadcaster recognizes the contributions to be made by

academicians and their facilities in increasing his over-all

31

knowledge of broadcasting in general, and management in
particular.

In the event the respondent indicated that such study
opportunities were not offered, he was asked if he knew
whether broadcasters would attend these activities if they
were available. "Yes," "no," or "don't know" choices were
available. It was felt that the question would reveal fur-
ther indications of relationships between institutions and
broadcasters. It is conceivable that the lack of study
Opportunities on the part of institutions was primarily
due to physical deficiencies such as funding or facilities.
The lack could also be traced to a predetermined dearth of
interest on the part of broadcasters. The institutions'
knowledge of interest, or lack of it, on the part of the
broadcasters would indicate that the institutions were mak—
ing some effort to be of some service to broadcasters.

It would also indicate that some degree of communication
was existent between the two parties; that the two were not
content to function within their respective environments
oblivious to the needs of the other. It was felt that a
"don't know" response would provide some indication that
the respondents had no interest in determining the needs
of their area broadcasters, or had no interest in establish-
ing any lines of communication with them.
After gaining information relative to the respondent's

attempts to bring broadcasters to the campus, it was deemed

32

to be of interest to determine if broadcasters made any
effort to bring educators into their activities: also to
find out if educators were concerned enough about their own
professional skills that they made a conscious effort to
maintain an Open and informative rapport with broadcasters.
The respondents were asked if they attempted to provide
refresher courses for faculty in either commercial or
public broadcasting. They were asked, also, if stations
provided such an opportunity. In both instances, space was
provided for either "yes" or "no" responses. It was be-
lieved that some conclusions could be drawn from these
responses as to certain attitudes of faculty with reference
to their interest in keeping current on their particular
skills and interests. Further conclusions were deemed pos-
sible from determining if there was interest and/or effort
on behalf of faculty to achieve a pragmatic orientation of

management curriculum.

The Station Managers' Instrument

This instrument of fourteen questions was designed to
obtain information relative to the graduates of various
broadcast curricula. It was intended to elicit responses
which would allow formation of conclusions relative to the“
quality of broadcast statiOn management courses in the eyes
of those who must attempt to utilize such graduates in
commercial broadcast stations. Samples of the instrument

and the cover letter are provided as Appendix II.

33

The first question put to the station managers was
designed to determine if there were colleges or universities
in their general vicinity which had broadcast curricula.

An arbitrary radius of 400 miles was used to define

"vicinity." Choices of responses offered were "yes,' no,
or "don't know."

Those who responded in the affirmative were then asked
whether the colleges or universities offered courses in
station management. The same three responses were offered.

The next several queStions were framed to determine
whether the station managers received jOb applications from
graduates of these schools, and in what volume.

After giving indications as to the frequency with
which job applications were received, the respondents were
given a list of five specific types of station activity.

They were asked to indicate which of the areas attracted the

most activity in terms of employment application. The five

were:
Sales News
Programming Management
Production Other

Space was made available for listing types that fell in the
"Other" category. It was thought that some interesting
conclusions could be drawn from the number of types of
specialization offered in broadcast curricula, and the
numbers of job applicants for types of broadcast station

activity.

34

The next series of questions requested information
relative to station management with the request that the
respondent indicate if there were current station employees
who had received formal education in broadcast management.
The respondents were also asked if employees had expressed
any overt desire to enter employment with management as an
ultimate career goal.

The final question in this series asked for a quali-
tative opinion from the respondent when he was asked if
he felt that management aspirants on his staff had been
adequately trained in college course work for station
management.

In this entire series, the respondent was offered the

If

choices of response of "yes," no," or "don't know."
The next series of four questions were of the Open-
end variety, and asked for the respondent's opinions on
specific topics.
In the basic belief that broadcast educators have
as their ultimate goal the production of as good a "product"
as their capabilities and student abilities will allow, it
was deemed necessary to attempt to get an accurate appraisal
of their efforts. The educator's appraisal of his student
is quite Often reflected for the most part in a grading sys-
tem Of some sort. The ultimate and final appraisal of the

graduate will come, however, from those persons in the broad—

cast industry who will be called upon to utilize the product

35

of the broadcast curriculum. In this sense, the "final
grade" will be given by time and station ownership.
Consequently, it was felt that those persons who are associ-
ated with the broadcast curriculum's end product in the
pressurized environment of profit or loss are the most
eminently qualified to comment upon the quality of the
product. It was in the attempt to formulate such qualita-
tive judgments that the four questions were posed.

In the first in this series, the respondent was asked
if colleges/universities in their broadcast sequences
adequately trained new personnel for professional careers
in gay phase of commercial broadcasting.

The next question addressed itself to broadcast cur-
riculum; the respondents were asked to supply a list of
topics or subjects that should be covered in courses dealing
with broadcast station management.

The question of specialization was covered in the
following question. The respondent was asked if, in the
event broadcast curricula permitted students to specialize
in a single phase of broadcasting, which specialty would he
recommend to an entering freshman, and why.

The fourth question was essentially the same as the
preceding one, with the information restricted to the
graduate level.

A portion of the first instrument, directed to broad—

cast educators, sought information regarding the teaching of

36

broadcast station management. It was an attempt to deter—
mine if management was taught, what tOpics were covered,

how they were covered, in what quantity, and to how many
students. Attempts were also made to determine to what
extent students were exposed to the pragmatic phase of

their education process by exposure to practicing broad-
casters, either on the campus or in the station: it was also
an attempt to determine what relationships, if any, exist
between educational institutions and broadcasters. The

last question in the managers' instrument continued that
specific quest. The respondent was asked if it were possible
for him to attend special study Opportunities on a college

campus, what topics or subjects would attract him.

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS

Of the 89 schools in the original sample, 66 of them
returned the questionnaire. This is a response rate of 74%»
which was deemed sufficient for the drawing of significant

conclusions.

Profile of Credit Hours

In the original sample, some observations were made
as to semester vs. quarter system administration, and as to
the number of credit hours offered in each group.

Of the respondents, 43, or 65%, were on the semester
system. Quarter system respondents numbered 23, or 35%.

The respondents on the semester system offered an
average of 66.8 credit hours of broadcast curriculum. The
respondents on the quarter system averaged 76.8 credit hours
of broadcast curriculum. Among all respondents, there was
an average of 73.2 credit hours of broadcast curriculum.

Table II demonstrates these comparisons.

37

38

TABLE II

ANALYSIS OF RESPONDENTS BY ACADEMIC YEAR

 

 

 

Semester Quarter
System System
Total Credit—hours offered by
respondents 4,830
Average credit hours per
respondent 73.2
Total number of respondents 43 23
Total number of credit—hours offered 2,874 1,766
Average credit-hours per school ' 66.8 76.8

 

39

Part I: Broadcast Curriculum

Total Enrollment

At the initiation of this study, no data were avail-
able as to the total enrollment of each of the institutions
in the sample. It was thought that some interesting com-
parisons of broadcast curricula might be made by dividing
the respondents into specific groups based on enrollment.

The number of groups to be used and their respective
sizes were the arbitrary choices of the writer. It was
decided that three groups would provide sufficient compari—
sons for definite conclusions, and the group limitations

were set up as follows:

Group I 0 to 10,000 enrollment
Group II 10,001 to 20,000 enrollment
Group III 20,001 and over enrollment

In response to the question, "What is the approximate
size of the total student body of your institution?" the
following data were gained.

The 66 respondents reported a total of 1,217,915
students on their main campuses. This was an average of
18,453 students per respondent. The respondents divided
into the three enrollment groups, with averages for each

group thusly:

Group I 17 schools 7,270 average enrollment
Group II 28 schools 16,492 average enrollment
Group III 21 schools 30,120 average enrollment

These data and attendant comparisons are made in Table III.

40

TABLE III

ANALYSIS OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT BY GROUPS

 

 

Group I Group II Group III
Number of respondents 17 28 21
Total enrollment 123,591 461,800 632,524
Average enrollment 7,270 16,492 30,120
Percent of total respondents 26% 42% 32%
Percent of total enrollment 10%. 39% 5D%

 

41

As one might surmise, the range of the enrollment was
quite wide. The smallest enrollment reported was 2,500, and

the largest was 44,000.

Administrative Locale

The next question attempted to determine the exact
location of the administration of each broadcast sequence.
As previously mentioned in Chapter II, it appeared that
there was no standardization in either the locale of the
administration of the broadcast curricula, and obviously no
commonality in entitlement of departments.

The respondents classified themselves into three

categories of administration locale.

1. 22 were administered from a separate department
constituted for that sole purpose. (33% of the
total respondents.)

2. 37 were administered from a department whose sole
purpose is not broadcast curricula responsibility.
(56% of total respondents.)

3. 7 respondents fell into neither of these cate-
gories, and, in this case, were asked to identify
their locale. (1T% of total respondents.)

Name of the Department

An effort was made to get the respondent to identify
the department responsible for the broadcast sequence by
name or title. A wide variety of responses were received,
and they were catalogued in accordance with the number of
mentions for each. Among the titles of departments with sole

responsibility for broadcast curricula, the most frequently

mentioned title was "Department of Radio and Television";

42

5 out of 22 respondents mentioned it. Of the total respond-
ents administering from a multi—purpose locale, the most
frequently mentioned title was "Department of Speech"; 13
out of 37 respondents mentioned it. Of the respondents who
placed themselves in the "neither" classification, the most
frequently mentioned title was "Department of Journalism":
2 out of 7 respondents mentioned it. A complete listing of
all reported titles and their frequencies of mention is
included as Appendix III.

Inventory of Undergraduate and Graduate

Curricula

The next question attempted to inventory and assess
broadcast curricula by determining offerings in various
courses Of study with regard to major and/or minor programs
and both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Of the 66 respondents, 62 indicated that they offered
an undergraduate major in the discipline; 3 indicated the
non-availability of an undergraduate major: and 1 did not
respond.

In the area of undergraduate minor programs, 42 respond-
ents indicated that they offered this type program; 15
indicated non—availability and 6 did not respond to the
question.

The same data was requested in the graduate area.

Of the 66 respondents, 42 said that graduate level major

programs were offered; 20 said that they were not offered:

43

and 4 did not respond. The graduate minor program was re-
ported to be offered at 30 institutions and not offered in
26 institutions. No reply was received from 16 institu—
tions.

Expressed as percentages:

95% of respondents offer undergraduate
major programs.

75% of respondents offer undergraduate
minor programs.

68% of respondents Offer graduate major
prOgrams.

54% of respondents offer graduate minor
programs.

It should be noted that no cross referencing has been
attempted. According to the above break-out, 5%.of the
respondents offer no undergraduate major in broadcasting,
but this does not mean that they actually have no program
in broadcasting. In this case, it means that they offer
graduate study only, or, they offer undergraduate minor pro-
grams only. It was not deemed pertinent to the purposes of
this paper to provide a detailed cross reference regarding
institutions which offer graduate programs but not under-
graduate programs and vice versa.
Inventory of Undergraduate and Graduate
Enrollment

Each respondent was aSked to supply the numbers of
students enrolled in the broadcast sequence as either majors

or minors at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

44

Because these data are detailed, they are reported in Table
IV. The data are reported fOr all respondents, and then
are divided between the three student pOpulation groups.

This latter information is reported in Table V.

Faculty Cenggg

Where two or more are gathered together in the name of”
either elementary or secondary education, the conversation
eventually turns to faculty—to-pupil ratio. The next ques-
tion dealt with a portion of this tOpic by asking the
respondent to indicate the numbers of full—time faculty and
of part-time faculty teaching at the undergraduate level,
and at both the master's and doctoral levels.

In the full-time faculty category, the 37 respondents
'offering a doctorate reported 129 faculty teaching at the
doctoral level. The responses ranged in number from 1 to
18, and the average per respondent was 3.5. At the master's
level, 50 respondents offering a master's reported a total
of 201 full—time faculty, which is an average of 4 per
respondent. The range of numbers reported ran from 1 to 28.
At the undergraduate level, 28 respondents reported a total
of 127 full-time faculty. The range was from 1 to 14, with
each respondent averaging 4.5 each.

With reference to partétime faculty, 18 respondents
reported a total of 35 faculty at the doctoral level. The
replies ranged from 1 to 6, and produced an average of 2

per respondent. At the master's level, 37 respondents

45

TABLE IV

UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE ENROLLMENT BY MAJOR/MINOR

 

 

 

 

 

Major Minor

Undergraduate Program

Number of respondents 60 20

Range of enrollment reported 12-702 3-200

Total enrollment reported 9,406 680

Average enrollment per respondent* 157 34
Graduate Program-~M.A./M.S.

Number of respondents 43 16

Range of enrollment reported l~170 1—25

Total enrollment reported 1,110 96

Average enrollment per respondent* 26 6
Gradugte PrOgram-—Ph.D.

Number of respondents 12 8

Range of enrollment reported 1—50 2-10

Total enrollment reported 168 37

Average enrollment per respondent* l4 5

 

it
Averages have been rounded to eliminate fractions.

 

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 ma n ma m o unaccomnou\#coEHHouco ommuo>¢

mm mm m mm N o pouuomou unwedaousm Hmuoa

oaue omua elm amua m o sophomou usoeHaossm mo omens

m m N , o H o nucopsomnmn mo Hmnesz
.Q.£malemumomm,ouwsomuw

m mm o m.am mm.a m unopcommou\ucoEHHouse ammuo>¢

hm mum me wow e co pouuomou peasaaouco Hopoe

owns oeana mmua ooum NIH maum oeunoamn usosaaonsm «0 emcee

e ma m mm e m nucoocomnmu mo Honesz
.m.z\u¢.z||Emnooum mumspmuo

No New mm and m.m~ me ucoosoonon\uqmsaaonsm ommnm><

mam meo.m Hmm mm~.m has ooa.a oonsoomn usosaaossm deuce

oomuo monlmm mnum connmm omle oomlma pounomon ucoeaaousw mo omcmm

m an OH mm m as nusoosomnmn mo senses
.mmuwoum:muospmmmumpcb

Moses Home: Hose: Home: Moses Home:
HHH QOOHO HH QBOHO H QmOHO

 

 

mmDOMO Wm BZHZAAOMZW HB<DQ¢MO 92¢ mfldbndMOMMQZD

> mqmflfi

47

reported a total of 94 faculty, ranging from 1 to 8, and an
average of 2.5 per respondent. At the undergraduate level,
37 respondents reported a total of 99 part-time faculty,
which ranged from 1 to 10, and averaging 2.7 per respondent.
Table VI reports faculty distribution among the three groups

of respondents by student enrollment.

Professional Experience Among Faculty

In order to determine what professional background and
areas of broadcasting experience might be represented among
faculty, each respondent was given a list of possible areas
of experience and was asked to identify the ones in which
his faculty had worked professionally.

There was a total of 732 responses to this question as
far as the areas supplied on the questionnaire was concerned.
The areas of experience from which the respondent could choose
in the professional inventory of his faculty were as follows,

with the number of mentions fOr each indicated:

Management 75
Sales/Sales'Management 43
Promotion 42
Production 177
Programming 122
News 87
Writing 99
Film 87

The respondents were also asked to indicate any other
areas of professional experience represented among faculty
which were not included in the given categories. These

areas of experience and the number of mentions for each were:

 

48

osauuusma u .9.o

usaunaasa u .e.me
m.m 0.0 o.a o.m o.m o.m ucopcomnmu\muasoem mmwuo><
on me mm om om be emphases suasosm Hence
OATH valm end Nana mIH OIH pouuommu auasoom mo omcmm
as NH as as a m nuoeosoonon no senses

 

 

Hosea .w.m\.¢.m

o.~ m.m o.m o.¢ m.~ o.m ucoocomnwu\muasomm mmwum><
mm mm he em - mm oeunooou muasomm Hence
«Ia wand mud and mud one oouuomou hpasomm mo omcmm
NH OH ma mm m «a nucopcommmu mo Henssz

 

2:64 .m.2\.4.z

 

 

 

 

 

o.~ m.v o.~ w.m o.H m.a Ocmpcommou\>uasomm ommuo>¢
mg as ms an m as couscous muasomm Hence
one mans mus and H mus couscous seasomm «0 moses
o as e. as m m nusmosoonmu mo senses
.Aewmw .o.sm
e.a.m .e.m .a.o.- .a.e .e.m. .a.m
HHH QOOHO HH adonw H QOOHO

 

 

mmDOMO Mm mDmZWU MBADUfifi

H> mqmdfi

49

Sports

Engineering
Announcing
Advertising _
Staging and lighting
Instructional media
Graphics

Advertising agency
Talent

Law

Research

Directing
Educational television
Performance

HHHHHOHHHHNwNN‘

There was a total of 22 "miscellaneous" areas of
experience. These, added to the 732 mentions in response
to the given list, produced a total of 754 mentions of
professional experience in broadcasting among broadcasting

faculty.

Faculty Academic Specialty

An effort was made to determine if there was a relation-
ship between faculty professional experience and curriculum.
It seemed rather natural that faculty with experience in
some specific areas of broadcasting might utilize that
experience in either the designing of courses for broadcast
curricula or in the presentation of courses within the cur-
riculum. Each respondent was asked to indicate whether or
not faculty had areas of special emphasis in instruction,
or an "academic speciality."

A total of 56 respondents indicated that this was the
case, 7 indicated that this situation did not apply, and 3
did not respond to the inquiry. The 56 who responded in the

affirmative represented 89% of the total respondents.

50

Respondents were asked to identify areas of "academic
speciality," and the responses were numerous and varied.

These are completely detailed as Appendix IV.

Areag of Specialization in Curricula

The next several questions were framed in order to
obtain information about curricula with reference to areas
of specialization in course work.

Each respondent was asked if it was possible for an
undergraduate student to pursue a course of study in a
specific area of broadcasting. All respondents replied,
with 37, or 56%, of them supplying affirmative answers: 29,
or 44%” of the respondents indicated that specialization
in course work was not possible;'

The respondents were supplied a list of specific areas
of broadcast activity, and were asked which of them were
areas where specialization was possible. The areas mentioned‘
were the same areas used in determining areas of faculty
professional experience in a previous question. The areas
of specialization were as follows, with the number of men-

tions for each indicated:

Management 15
Sales ‘12
Production 27
Programming 16
Promotion 1
News 22
Writing 21
Film 22

Areas other than those provided were requested, and the

number of mentions for each oflthése7reported is‘as follows:

51

Educational television
Performance
Communication theory
Broadcast advertising
Staging and lighting
History of broadcasting
Criticism

HHHHNWU

The graduate program was the subject of the same
inquiry. Of the 66 respondents, 26, or 4r%, indicated the
availability of specialization within the graduate program;
37, or 59%, indicated that specialization was not available
in the graduate program, and 3 respondents did not reply to
the question.

The same areas of activity were utilized in this query,

and the numbers of mentions fOr each is detailed here:

Management 13
Sales 4
Production 16
Programming 13
Promotion 1
News 11
Writing 10
Film 16

As in the question dealing with the undergraduate
program, respondents were asked to supply information about
areas of specialization other than those given. These re-
sponses and the numbers of mentions for each were as follows:

Educational television
Research

Criticism

Advertising
Telecommunications
Instructional television
History of broadcasting
Regulations

International broadcasting
Communications theory '
Broadcast law

HHHHHHHHNNb

52

It should be noted in both cases, respondents were asked

to indicate other areas of specialization than those

listed in the instrument, and the reported responses listed
heretofore are exact quotes from the replies. No effort
was made to interpret the responses, to reclassify them

into similar categories, or to edit them in any way.

Part II: Broadcast Station Management

Management Course;

An effort was made in the instrument to determine if
broadcast station management was taught as a separate
course, or courses, or as an integral part of other courses
in the broadcast curriculum. Respondents were asked to
supply this information for both the graduate and under-
graduate programs.

There were 65 schools responding to the question of
management courses at the undergraduate level. There were
48 schools which indicated that management was taught as
separate courses, 17 said it was not, and there was 1 "no
response.” The 48 affirmativereplies constituted 74% of‘
the total responses to the inquiry.

In the graduate category, 31-schools indicated that
management was taught as separate course material, 25 indi—
cated that it was not separate material, and there were 10
“no responses." 0f the 56 replies to this inquiry, the 31

affirmative replies constituted 55% of the total responses.

53

In the undergraduate curricula, respondents indicated
that a total of 62 courses were available dealing with sta-
tion management. The various responses ranged in total
number of courses Offered from 1 course to 3 courses.

In the graduate curricula, there was a total of 41
courses devoted exclusively to broadcast management, and
these also ranged from 1 course to 3 courses among the
respondents.

In the separate course of study area, respondents were
asked to identify courses by title; this information was
requested at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
There was a wide variety of course titles, and a complete
listing of these titles by student population groups is
available as Appendix V.

Courses which are devoted to other topics as well as
broadcast station management were the subject of further
inquiry. At the undergraduate level, 52 schools reported
such courses as available, 11 indicated such were not avail-
able, and there were 3 "no responses."

At the graduate level, 36 respondents reported that
_station management was covered in other course material, 16
reported that it was not done in this manner, and there were
14 schools which did not respond.

At the undergraduate level, there was a total of 94
courses touching on the management topic, and, at the graduate

level, there were 59 such courses.

54

Respondents were asked to supply titles of courses in
which station management was an integral part. In this
instance, also, there was a variety of titles, and these are

reported by student population groups as Appendix VI.

Management Course Content

The next question supplied each respondent with an
inventory of subjects that might be expected to be found as
points of interest in courses dealing with station manage-
ment. Each respondent was asked to indicate which of these
points was covered in management courses.

The inventory of tOpics and the number of mentions

each received from all respondents is as follows:

Personnel management - 39
Station policies fOrmation 52
Sales management 46
Sales promotion 38
Program promotion 45
Rudiments of engineering 15
Administrative organization 57
Rate card structuring 43
Industry regulations 60
Government regulations 61
Section 315 56
Fairness doctrine 59
License application and

renewal 54
Group Operations 23
Representative relations and

operations 29
Buying/selling properties 24

Desirability of Management in Currigula
In an attempt to obtain a measurement of the importance
of station management as a part of a broadcast curriculum,

respondents were asked if they had plans to add courses in

55

the subject if it was not a part of the current curriculum.
There were 17 schools who did not offer the subject at all.
Of these, 13 indicated that it would be a desirable addition
to the curriculum, 2 said that it would not, and 2 did not

respond to the inquiry.

Method of Presentation

One question was formulated to determine the metho-
dology used in presenting course material in station manage-
ment at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

At the undergraduate level, 18 of the total respondents
supplied no information. Of the 48 respondents which did
reply to this question, 54.5% of the respondents used the
lecture method of presentation, and 45.5% used the discussion
method.

At the graduate level, 32 of the total respondents
offered information. Of these, 29.6%.used the lecture method,

and 70.4% used the seminar method.

Utilizatipn of Resource Persons

The respondents were asked if outside resource persons
or guest speakers were used in management courses. Of the 66
respondents, 59, or 95%, indicated the use of such persons,
3 indicated such persons were not used, and 4 respondents did

not reply to the question.

56

Intern Programs

Availability of intern programs was the subject of the
next question. At the undergraduate level, 21 respondents
indicated that there were internships available, 43 indi-
cated no internships available, and 2 did not respond.

As for the availability of internships at the graduate
level, 15 indicated such were available, 39 indicated non—

availability, and 12 did not reply.

Indugtry Involvement

The next several questions attempted to determine the
manner in which each institution might be involved with the
broadcasting industry in its area, and to what extent.

Of the 66 respondents, 18 institutions offer special
lectures or seminars for persons already professionally
occupied in broadcasting. Forty—seven respondents do not
offer such programs, and one respondent did not offer any
information.

As to attendance at these special study opportunities,
of the 18 who offer them, 15 said that they were well
attended; 1 indicated that such occurrences were not well
attended, and two did not comment on attendance.

Interest in attending such Opportunities where they
were not offered produced the following data: 15 schools
said they knew that management personnel in their areas
would be interested in attending special study opportunities

were they available, 2 said personnel would not be interested

57

in attending, and 42 respondents indicated that they did not
know whether management personnel would be interested in
attending special study opportunities. Seven did not reply.
Inquiry into faculty internships, or "refresher
courses" and their availability indicated that 10 respondents
had broadcast facilities in their area that cooperated in
providing Opportunities for faculty to update various skills
in the industry. No such opportunities were available to
54 respondents, and 2 respondents supplied no information in

this area.

The Second Instrument

There were 18 instruments submitted to the study, and
13 of them were returned, a response rate of er%.
Experiences and Relationships With
BroadcggtCurricula

The first question asked each respondent if there was
a college or university within a 400-mile radius of his
station which offered courses in broadcasting. All 13
respondents replied in the affirmative.

The second question asked the respondent if he knew
whether or not these institutions offered courses in broad-
cast station management. Seven of the respondents indicated
that such courses were offered, 5 indicated that such courses

were not offered, and l responded "don't know.“

58

All 13 of the general managers indicated that they
receive job applications from persons who indicate that they
have obtained higher education as either majors or minors
in a broadcast curriculum.

The next question asked the respondents to indicate
the frequency with which they receive application for employ-
ment from broadcast sequence alumni. Two managers indicated
that they receive "several per month," 7 indicated the
receipt of "l or 2 per month," and 4 indicated applications
were received from "several per year.”

The respondents were then asked to identify areas of
broadcast station activity in which the employment applicants
expressed interest. The areas receiving expressions of
interest from applicants were as follows, with the numbers

of mentions each by the respondents indicated:

Sales 3
Programming 6
~Production 13
News 11
Management 0
Others 0

All 13 respondents did indicate that they have had applicants
for employment in management, or who expressed an interest in
pursuing a career in broadcast management.

When asked if the applicants who had expressed interest
in management had received college/university training in
the field, 8 respondents indicated that the applicants had
received such training, 2 indicated that applicants had not

received such training, and 4 were in the "don't know" cate-

gory.

59

A question asked if the respondents knew of present
employees who had received college training in management.
Six respondents replied in the affirmative, 7 replied in the
negative.

A qualitative evaluation was requested of the respond—
ents by the question which asked if those persons who had
indicated the receipt of college training in station manage-
ment were adequately trained. One respondent replied "yes,”

five replied "no," one replied "don't know, and six did

not respond to the question.

Opinions of Broadcast Curricula

The next several questions asked the managers to state
their opinions in various areas relative to broadcast curricu—
la. These opinions will be reported here verbatim.

The first question asked the respondent if he felt
that colleges/universities provided adequate training in any
area of commercial broadcasting. Here are the responses:

In some areas--primarily production and public
relations.

Some do, some don't. The key word here is adequately.
The University of Georgia, for example, has an excel-
lent television department in its journalism school
and does a marvelous jOb in all phases of broadcasting
in training its students to enter the profession.
Other schools apply a mere surface finish, with little
substance underneath.

60

No. Do not teach the political aspects of broadcast-
ing. Very few graduates interested in the free
enterprise system of American broadcasting.

Limited mostly to program production; some news and
commercial continuity writing.

--—*——-—----

It is difficult to give a definitive answer. We
presently have three graduates of colleges or univer-
sities where their major was broadcasting. Two are in
news and they are very good. One is in Programming and
he is very good but we have had students from the same
schools who were really not qualified at all. It would
appear to us that colleges are offering courses that
are worthwhile but the pass-fail situation does not
really tell us how well the graduate will adapt in a
real situation.

I feel that Denver University, for example, has a good
broadcast-communications cOurse. However, it is mainly
geared to programming and production.

They are helpful in that they expose young people to
broadcasting and give them an opportunity to decide
whether they wish to pursue it as a career. They do
not adequately prepare a graduate for any position

except the beginning ones in a large market station.

Not really. The closer they are to practical applica-
tion, the more valuable-—a lot depends upon who is
teaching the course and whether he has had any pragtical
experience.

No. They have an aura of trade schools. The criteria
for setting up "courses" seems to be the size of ap-
propriation and quantity of space and equipment.

61

Yes, but they need substantial on-job training to get
prepared for real management jobs. They must compete
with long term employees with great experience.

News. Program-production.

The respondents were asked to state their opinions as
to what topics or subjects should be included in courses
dealing with station management. The replies were as varied
as the respondents, but the majority of the replies mentioned
economics, accounting, marketing, personnel management, F.C.C.
regulations, labor relations, renewal procedures, station
representation, community affairs and needs, broadcasting
economics, broadcast research, and one respondent replied,
"The full spectrum of station management."

"Specialization" in broadcast curricula was the subject
of the next question. The respondents were asked what phase
of broadcasting should merit consideration by an entering
freshman in the event "specialization" was possible.

One respondent made no recommendation. The most fre-
quently mentioned area was ”news"; however, 4 of the re-
spondents indicated that the basic talents and capabilities
of each student should be the determining factor in selecting
an area for specialization.

The same inquiry was framed with reference to graduate

students, and the responses fell into three general categories.

62

The first category included those respondents who made
specific recommendations as to areas of study, but there was
no commonality among the replies. The second category in-
cluded those whose responses was generally negative with
reference to graduate work in broadcasting. Most felt that
as much could be learned in preparing an individual for a
career in broadcasting in on—the—job training in a station
as could be learned in a graduate program. One respondent
indicated that he thought that graduate study was meaningful
only for the individual who contemplated a career in teach-
ing broadcasting. The third category was a reprise of the
responses to the same question aimed at the undergraduate;
that is should depend entirely on each individual's talents
and innate abilities.

The last question requested information in the pro-
fessional seminar area. Each respondent was asked to indi-
cate what tOpics or subject areas he would like to pursue
should the opportunity to attend such sessions at a college
or university be made available to him.

Three general categories of response were noted.

The first category included those respondents who
specified topics which would fall within the broadcast area.
While there was no one subject area that was dominant among
the responses, broadcast law and management procedures were
most prominent.

The second category was composed of specific study

areas generally outside the field of broadcasting. Tax law,

63

personnel motivation, and general law were the most frequent

responses. One respondent's reply was somewhat editorial

in nature. "Constitutional law--the Feds have us surrounded.“
The third category was composed of those respondents

who did not feel that their attendance at such study sessions

or seminars would be worth the investment of time, or that

they already received as much up-dating as they needed

through the activities of the National Association of Broad-

casters and the Television Bureau.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As a primary undertaking, this paper set out to report
certain findings relative to the teaching of broadcasting in
American colleges and universities, with specific focus on
the teaching of broadcast station management.

The opening statements in Chapter I attempted to point
out that commercial broadcasting has made tremendous progress
since its inception, and has accomplished many noteworthy
things in the area of technology. The tracing of radio re—
ceivers, for example, from the early crystal sets with their
necessary headphones through the cumbersome sets with many
vacuum tubes and heavy transformers to the advent of micro-
circuitry which produced excellent receivers no larger than
a pack of cigarettes has shown the vast improvement in hard-
ware produced by the industry's technocrats.

The broadcasting industry grew up, as it were, during
the years of World War II, and changed from a medium of pure
entertainment into an informationah linH not only between
peOple, but between cultures. The hideousness of warfare was
made real to a populace which had not seen armed conflitt on

its own continent in more than a century. The pioneer

64

65

newscasters William L. Shirer, Edward R. Murrow, and Hans
von Kaltenborn not only infOrmed the world, but became its
re-educators.

Television became almost a national pasttime in the
late 1940's and early 1950's. The horizons of man were
expanded beyond his own physical capabilities of line of
sight. It became an intercellular link between cultures
when a farmer in Georgia witnessed the crowning of a British
queen; when an insurance agent in Idaho was present at the
assassination of an assassin; and when the medium's crowning
achievement in technology permitted the world to occupy a
frontrow seat when mankind took his "giant step" on the moon.

The great achievements of a great man come from his
own desires to Obtain fame or fortune, or from the inner
drive to express himself through examples of his creative
genius. But what about the ordinary man? What spurs him on
to achievement? Often it is leadership-provided by other
men, and thus leadership provided by man for man becomes a
chain-like process.

Many of the achievements of commercial broadcasting
over the past forty years have come from great men. Most of
broadcasting's achievements, however, have come from ordinary
men who have been provided with great leadership.

The question now is: what has been the source of this
leadership, and, more importantly, what is to be the source

of the leadership of the future?

66

The writer initiated this work with the personal belief
that there should be two sources of leadership for commercial
broadcasting. The data derived from this study pointedly
suggests that one of those sources is "weighed and found want-
ing." The industry, itself, has long been the most produc-
tive source of leadership, or management personnel. It has
recruited its own, trained its own, and managed not only to
survive, but prosper. The colleges and universities which
should be the other source of broadcast management have been
something less than spectacular in rising to the occasion as
a source of input to a system that has consumed leadership,
and will increase its consumption at a fantastic rate.

It was a main purpose Of this paper to attempt to determine
what role, if any, colleges and universities are playing as

a source of supply of management personnel for the commercial
broadcasting industry today.

It was patently obvious from the outset that there was
certainly no dearth of broadcasting curricula. The original
sample of 89 colleges provided a total of 6,252 credit hours
of instruction in broadcasting, an average of 70.3 per insti-
tution. These were just a portion of all the institutions
offering some measure of broadcasting curricula. Such cur—
ricula are available in all the United States, in institutions
of all sizes of student body, from faculties of varied size
and professional backgrounds. A third of the institutions

which responded to the instrument have engaged themselves in

67

the teaching of broadcasting to such an extent that they
administer their curricula from a separate department which
was constituted for that sole purpose. Over half of the
respondents have their curricula administered as an integral
part of a department involved in the discipline. It would
seem that'there=is"mereethan ample bpportunity for students
to Obtain college/university training in broadcasting at
either the undergraduate or graduate level.

There can be little doubt that much of the day-to-day
functioning of a contemporary commercial broadcasting facility
relies heavily on the simple manual dexterity of numbers of
people. These activities range from the skillful manipula-
tion of complicated apparatus in studio, projection room,
transmitter site, traffic department, craft shop, and office
to the astute utilization of human personality traits and
characteristics on the sales call and in labor negotiation:
and the exposure to personal jeopardy on the news assignment.

But these skills are basically "how to's." They unques-
tionably involve some amount of innate capabilities and the
acquired ability to develoP and employ these capabilities
and talents to a high degree of efficiency. It would appear
from the data that most institutions are well staffed with
faculty whose educational and professional backgrounds qualify
them to assist students to recognize their abilities in these
various areas, and to develop them to their fullest. Of the

732 responses to the question which delved into faculty

68

professional background, 614 of them reflected experience
in "how to" areas such as programming, production, writing,
promotion, etc.

In the area of specializations open to students, 80%
of the responses indicated specialities in the "how to's"
of production, news, writing, and film. The same percentage
was reported for the graduate level.

Space need not be devoted excessively to reasons why
the areas of "how to" should be a prOper part of any broad—
cast curriculum. Excellence in these areas is critical to
the operation of any commercial facility, and it is the un—
deniable responsibility of educators to provide students
with acceptable levels of competence in these activities.

With all of this, the training of potential station
managers, a most essential area of concern, remains un-
touched. The question persists: where do writers, producers,
directors, newsmen, cinematographers, engineers, various
technicians, and other critical staff personnel obtain the
leadership essential to creative, efficient, utilitarian
performance? Who sets their goals? Who sets the over—all
criteria of acceptable performance? Who provides the phil-
osophy of utilization and accomplishment that welds all of
these diverse talents, ideas, inspirations, and innovations
into a functioning, viable unit whose ultimate accomplishment
must be community service and commercial success? The ob-

vious answer is management.

69

Management is not altogether removed from "how to" in
certain respects; but, it is also beset with certain intang—
ibles that are not always of paramount concern in some of
the other areas of broadcast curriculum: the chief of these
intangibles is philosophy, and many a broadcasting facility
has failed because of the lack of an adequate philosophy of
management prevalent at the top echelon of the organization.

From the data gathered from the survey, it would appear
that contemporary broadcast faculty and curricula are most
susceptible to indictment in the teaching, or lack of teach-
ing, in broadcast station management.

In professional background, management and sales/sales
management accounted for only 15.6%.Of the mentions of areas
of faculty professional background, certainly an indication
that most educators' experience has not been in the area of
ultimate responsibility.

In the areas of student specialization, undergraduates
can specialize in management in only 15 out of 66 curricula:
at the graduate level, the possibility is reduced to only 13
Opportunities for specialization in management.

One parenthetical conclusion which might be drawn is
that it would appear that most administrators and faculty
do not support a belief in student specialization. This
could be the subject of another paper, itself; therefore,
space will not be devoted to that subject here.

It was noted that 48 out of 66 institutions (73%) do

place sufficient interest and emphasis on broadcast management

70

to warrant separate courses dealing with the subject.
However, it should be pointed out that these institutions
offer only a total of 62 separate courses in management at
the undergraduate level: this is an average of 1.3 courses
per institution. It would not appear that 1.3 courses in
broadcast management in a curriculum devoted to broadcasting
would amount to what might be termed any degree of special
emphasis in the subject area.

It was thought that further delving into the numbers
of separate management courses offered by size Of student
population might shed additional light on the question, or,
at least, provide some keener insight into the situation.

One might readily assume that a smaller institution with a
smaller enrollment might draw the average number of manage-
ment courses downward, and, conversely, the larger institu-
tions might have an offsetting effect. This did not prove to
be the case.

Group I--average enrollment of 7,270--offered under-
graduates a total of 20 management courses. With 17 schools
in the group, this averaged 1.18 management courses per -
school.

Group II-—average enrollment of 16,492—-offered under—
graduates a total of 25 management courses. With 28 schools
in the group, this averaged .9 management courses per school.

Group III-—average enrollment of 30,120—-offered under—

graduates a total of 17 management courses. With 21 schools

71

in the group, this averaged .81 courses in management per
school.

One conclusion to be drawn is that the smaller institu-
tions place more emphasis on broadcast management than do
the larger institutions, according to the number of courses
in the subject available to undergraduates.

Graduate courses fared no better as far as emphasis
on management was concerned. Thirty-one respondents indi-
cated that separate courses covering station management were
offered, and the total of these courses was 41. This also
computes to 1.3 separate courses offered in graduate pro-
grams.

It was felt that an analysis of course titles might
provide additional insight into the relative importance
attached to the subject of management by various schools.

No empirically-derived conclusions are possible, of course,
without detailed content analysis, but the writer is hard
pressed to conclude that such courses as "Media Management,"
"Survey of Mass Media," "Advertising," "Advanced Television,"
and "Programming and Audience," which are reported titles

of courses devoted exclusively to broadcast station manage-
ment, will produce either graduates or undergraduates who
have a well-grounded, basic grasp of the complexities and
complications of management of a commercial broadcast
facility.

It was noted that a number of topics deemed critical

to contemporary management practices were covered in

72

management courses. Federal and industry regulations were
the most frequently mentioned topics, and information de-

rived from the station managers' questionnaires concurred

in this degree of emphasis.

There were some noted shortcomings, however, in such
important areas as personnel management, sales promotion,
group operations, representative relations, and buying and
selling of properties. It is suggested that the omission
of these topics might be due to the fact that a large por-
tion of the various faculties have had little or no broadcast
station management experience. It takes no specific insight
to determine that contemporary broadcasters are grossly in-
volved with governmental and industrial regulations: the
most casual reader of any of a number of trade publications
could accurately reach that conclusion. It must be noted,
however, that only an individual who had been deeply involved
in day-to-day station management details would have an
accurate appraisal of the importance of representative re-
lations, rudiments of engineering, and buying and selling
prOperties.

It is indeed unfortunate that these latter topics re-
ceive lesser coverage in management courses than do some
others. Station management is essentially a "people business,"
and most managerial candidates would undoubtedly benefit
greatly from exposure to personnel administration emphasis.

Indeed, the manager-respondents indicated that such would be

73

high on the list of desirable refresher courses in special
study seminars.

It is not at all unusual for some local television
facilities to derive as much as 50%.of their income from the
area of national spot sales: it should behoove any fledgling
manager to have a thorough knowledge of the working of the
national representative firm and how relations with such
firms and their account executives are established and main-
tained for the mutual benefit of both station and representa—
tive.

The area of engineering received the least number of
mentions of the topics covered in management courses. Most
contemporary station managers rely heavily on their chief
engineers for technical data and expertise with reference to
complex and expensive broadcasting gear. HOwever, Quaal and
Martin note:

Managerial knowledge of the field of engineering can

make a difference in profit or loss for the future.

There is no more useful pursuit for station managers

than the spending of an hour or two each week over a

period of six months or more acquiring at least a

familiarity with the engineering field, its equipment
and attendant problems. 9

One fairly consistent comment made by the station
managers in their criticisms of broadcast curricula was the
fact that too many graduates had little or no practical

experience in the industry, and required a considerable

 

18Ward Quaal and Leo A. Martin, Broadcagt Management
(New York: Hastings House, 1968) p. 126.

74

amount of on-the—job training in spite of their formal educa-
tion in the field.

The data support this claim by reflecting that only
34% of the respondent institutions maintain intern programs
in management for undergraduates, and only 28% do so for
graduates.

While this percentage is appallingly low, it was de-
termined that the smaller institutions do a better job of
interning their students than do the larger ones.

In Group I, eight of seventeen (47%) maintain intern-
ships for undergraduates, and five (29%) maintain than for
graduates.

In Group II, nine of twenty-eight (32%) maintain
internships for undergraduates, and six (21.5%) maintain them
for graduates.

Group III had the worst record for maintaining intern-
ships. At the undergraduate level, only 4 schools out of
20 (20%) maintain internships, and at the graduate level 4
also maintain internships.

When asked if personnel on the station's staff had-
received adequate training in management in colleges or
universities, only 1 manager of the 7 responding to the
question replied in the affirmative. Of course, it is not
possible to accurately trace inadequacies in management
training by means of this study, but the lack of available

internships would certainly merit consideration as a factor

75

of considerable contribution to the overall inadequacy; it
is reasonable to assume that certain of the inadequacies
might be eliminated were there more intern programs in
management available to both graduates and undergraduates.

The lack of internshipspoints toward another potential
failing on the part of broadcast educators. It would appear
from the data, that there is a serious lack of Open and
sustained communications between educators and broadcasters
in a number of instances. It would be difficult if not
impossible to fix the blame for the gap in communications
that exist, but the broadcasters, by the large, did not in—
dicate a specific disinterest in the activities of educational
institutions in their respective areas and their programs.
They exhibited specific-knowledge of curriculum and an
interest in attending study Opportunities on the campuses,
if available. They were quite definite in stating areas
and/or topics of study in which they were interested, which
would tend to indicate that they had given the matter some
serious thought.

On the other hand, when the educational institutions
were asked if they knew of interest on the part of broad-
casters in their areas in attending study opportunities on
the campus, the replies were something less than encouraging.
Of the 66 respondents, 42 indicated that they did not know
whether or not the broadcasters would be interested in such
activities. This leads to a rather obvious conclusion that

they have made no attempt to find out.

76

One encouraging note was struck in the educator’s
defense when 95% of the respondents indicated that they do
employ outside speakers and/or resource persons in manage—
ment courses.

An adage has it that, "There is no substitute for
experience." It is a well-known fact that few competent men
can wear two hats, as it were, and maintain any degree of
efficiency under either of them. It is not reasonable to
assume that full-time faculty can carry on their educational
responsibilities and simultaneously keep their professional
skills updated. It is felt, however, that a program wherein
individual faculty members could be relieved of their teach-
ing duties for short periods of recyclement into the Ibroad-
cast industry might in some way retain the best of two
worlds.

The institutions were asked if they made an effort to
provide faculty with such refresher opportunities, and 54 out
of 66 (82%) replied that they did not.

This is truly lamentable, for it would accomplish two
most important goals. In the first place, there is the
obvious benefit that would accrue to the faculty member by
being placed into the mainstream of the industry. Not only
would he be refreshed in some areas and on some points that
might have been forgotten, but new ideas and other innova-
tions would also pass into his general ken. In the second

place, it would provide another channel of open and constant

77

communications between the broadcaster and the institution,
and it is in this area where there seems to be genuine need.
It should be known to all concerned that learning can,
and does, take place on the part of students in more than
one way and under more than one set of circumstances, or in
more than one type of environment. Seminars for broadcasters
would not only improve their own capabilities and contribute
to their overall knowledge, but would provide also an oppor—
tunity for free and open exchange between faculty and broad-
casters, and between students and broadcasters. Professional
education should be a joint venture between educators and
professional or industrial practitioners. If broadcasting is
to attain professional status, than the criteria must be
formed as a joint effort of both educators and broadcasters.
The attainment of professional status is not something which
will be awarded-~it will be attained, and attained only by
the most diligent efforts On behalf of El; concerned. Those
concerned are, or should be, broadcasting educators, and
the industrial practitioners. Of course, the students of
broadcasting today will become the broadcasters of tomorrow,
and it is on their shoulders that the load of professional

attainment will fall as well as the ultimate reward.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

Baker, George A. Televigion Station Management.
Yale Roe, ed. New York: Hastings House, 1964.

Campbell, Eldon. Address-~"A Broadcaster's View of Broad-
casting" made at the University of Illinois, June,
1965.

Martin, Leo A. Address——"Broadcasting: A Profession?"
made at the University of Alabama, October, 1962.

Quaal, Ward and Martin, Leo A. Broadcagt Management.
New York: Hastings HOuse, 1968.

Rogers, Lawrence H., II. Television Station Management.
Yale Roe, ed. New York: Hastings House, 1964.

Schein, Edgar A. Organizational Ps chology. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

St. John, Robert. The EncyclOpedia of Broadcasting.
Milwaukee: Cathedral Square, 1967.

Summers, Robert E. and Summers, Harrison B. .Broadcagting
gnd the Public. Belmost: Wadsworth, 1966.

78

APPENDICES

79

APPENDIX I

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BAST LANSING - uzcmoAN um;

 

DEPARTMENT OF TELEVISION AND RADIO - 322 UNION BUILDING

I am in the process of preparing a Master of Arts thesis here at Michigan
State University. The field of research is broadcast curriculum, with
Special emphasis on broadcast station management. I returned to college
for graduate work after a twenty-two year career in commercial broad-
casting, the last fourteen years of which were spent the national rep-
resentative field with The Katz Agency, Inc.

I am enclosing a questionnaire covering the points of my interest. It

would be of immeasurable assistance to me to have some knowlege of the
administration of your broadcast sequence and curriculum content as indicated
on the questionnaire.

I have aSpi‘ations of developing the thesis into a doctoral dissertation

at some future date, and your contribution at this time will be most
valuable,

A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Let me take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for your
prompt reply and for your interest and COOperation.

Most cordially,

Arthur L. Savage, Jr.
Graduate Assistant

Enclosure: questionnaire

80

APPENDIX I

BART I. - BROADCAST CURRICULUM

1.

What is the approximate size of the total student body of your institution?

 

Please indicate the administrative locale from which your broadcast sequence
is administered.

From a separate department constituted for that specific purpose.

From another department wherein the broadcast sequence is a consti-
tuent part.

Neither of these. Please explain briefly the locale of the adminis-
tration of your broadcast sequence.

 

 

What is the title of that department?

 

Do you offer major and/or minor programs in broadcasting in the following
categories?

UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR - YES NO
UNDERGRADUATE MINOR - YES NO
GRADUATE MAJOR - YES NO
GRADUATE MINOR - YES NO

Please indicate the approximate number of students currently in each course
of study, where appropriate.

UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR UNDERGRADUATE MINOR
GRADUATE MAJOR (Masters) GRADUATE MINOR (Masters)
GRADUATE MAJOR (Ph. D.) GRADUATE MINOR (Ph. D.)

Please indicate the number of full-time faculty that teach at the following
levels.

Ph. D. M.A./M.S. B.A./B.S.

Please indicate the number of part-time faculty that teach at the following
levels.

Ph. D. M.A./M.S. B.A./B.S.

81

10.

11.

12.

13.

- 2 -

If any of your faculty have professional eXperience in either commercial
or public broadcasting, please indicate the fields and how many in each.

MANAGEMENT __ PROGRAMMING
SALES/SALES MANAGEMENT NEWS

PROMOTION WRITING __
PRODUCTION FILM

OTHER (Please indicate)

 

 

 

Does any of your faculty have an academic "speciality" or an area of Specific
interest as regards the teaching of broadcasting?
YES NO

If "yes", please indicate interest and describe briefly.

 

 

 

In your broadcast curriculum, is it possible for undergraduates to "specialize"
in a specific area?
YES NO

(If answer was "no", please skip to number 12.)

If your answer to number 10 was "yes”, please indicate areas of "specialization"
offered.

MANAGEMENT SALES PRODUCTION PROGRAMMING

PROMOTION NEWS WRITING FILM

 

OTHER (Please indicate)

Do you offer areas of "specialization" to graduate students?
YES NO

I! II

(If answer is no , please procede to Part II, omitting number 13.)

If your answer to number 12 was "yes", please indicate areas of "specialization"
offered.

MANAGEMENT SALES PRODUCTION PROGRAMMING
PROMOTION NEWS WRITING FILM

OTHER (please indicate)

 

IUXRJTII. - BROADCAST STATION MANAGEMENT

1.

Are there separate courses dealing with station management offered to either
undergraduates or graduates? If so, how many in each curriculum, please?

UNDERGRADUATES - YES NO NUMBER OF COURSES
GRADUATES - YES _ NO NUMBER OF COURSES

Is management subject matter taught to either undergraduates or graduates
within other courses, or as a specific component of other courses?

UNDERGRADUATES - YES NO NUMBER OF COURSES
GRADUATES - YES NO NUMBER OF COURSES

Please list courses where management is basic topic, if subject is treated in
that manner.

 

 

 

Please list courses where management is component part of another course, if
subject is treated in that manner.

 

 

 

In the courses where management is covered, which of the following topics are
included? (Please check where appropriate.)

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

STATION POLICIES FORMATION GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

SALES MANAGEMENT SECTION 315

SALES PROMOTION FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

PROGRAM PROMOTION LICENSE APPLICATION & RENEWAL
RUDIMENTS OF ENGINEERING ‘ GROUP OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION REP RELATIONS a OPERATIONS
RATE CARD STRUCTURING BUYING/SELLING PROPERTIES

If you are not currently covering the subject of station management, do you feel
the subject would be a desirable addition to your curriculum at a later date?

YES NO

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

- 4 -

Please indicate the approximate percentage devoted to course presentation
as divided between lecture and discussion/seminar, in management courses.

UNDERGRADUATE - LECTURE 1 DISCUSSION Z
GRADUATE - LECTURE Z SEMINAR Z

DO you utilize outside resource persons and/or guest lecturers in
management courses?

YES NO

Are there intern programs in management available to either undergraduates
or graduate students?

UNDERGRADUATES - YES NO
GRADUATES - YES NO

Do you offer special lectures, seminars, or other study opportunities to
persons currently involved in professional station management?

YES NO
(If answer is "no", please omit number 11. If answer is "yes", omit number 12.)
Are such study opportunities for current professionals usually well attended?
YES NO

Do you know if station management personnel in your area would be interested
in attending such study opportunities if they were available?

YES NO DON'T KNOW

Do you attempt to provide, and do stations in your area COOperate in providing,
"refresher courses" for current faculty in either commercial or public
broadcasting?

YES NO

Any additional comments you wish to make in the space below with reference to
your broadcast curriculum will be quite useful and most appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

(YOUR NAME, PLEASE) (TITLE)

 

 

(DEPT. OR COLLEGE) (INSTITUTION)

Thank you very much for your time and interest.

APPENDIX II

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 43325

 

DEPARTMENT OF TELEVISION AND RADIO 0 322 UNION BUILDING

17 February 1971

Dear

The jump from the business side of the broadcasting industry to the
educational side was not nearly as traumatic as I had anticipated it

might be. There were some adjustments to make, to be sure, but the weeks
since September have passed quickly. Leaving Katz and our home in Atlanta
was not a decision that was easily come to, but I believe that it was the
right one. I feel that my contribution to the commercial phase of the in-
dustry can be as meaningful and more far-reaching from the educational side.

One of the requirements for my Master of Arts is a thesis. I am writing it
on broadcast station management as it is presented in the curriculum of sev-
eral dozen colleges and universities.

The academic views of the subject I shall obtain from educators. Of equal
import to me in the prosecution of my thesis is the commercial broad-
caster's view of the subject. The enclosed questionnaire is going to a
dozen specifically selected stations of pre-determined market size and geo-
graphic location. If you will take a few minutes to respond to these ques-
tions, I shall have a most valuable contribution to my research.

You will note that the questionnaire contains no provision or device for
you to identify yourself. (A self-addressed stamped envelop is also en-
closed.) Should you wish to preserve your anonymity, you may do so by

not indicating on the questionnaire your name or station call letters. Of
course, I should like to have the privilege of being able to quote you in
the thesis for purely selfish reasons; it will lend considerable stature to
my work and enhance its credibility. In either case, your replies will be
of immeasurable assistance to me in the preparation of my paper. I should
expect also to be a contribution to a future improvement in our industry.

Let me take this opportunity to thank you very much for your prompt reply
and for your interest and cooperation in this undertaking.

Very best regards,

Arthur L. Savage, Jr.
Graduate Assistant

85

 

1.

IF

APPENDIX II
GENERAL MANAGER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Is there a college or university in your general area (within a #00-
mile radius) that teaches courses in radio/television broadcasting?

YES NO DON'T KNOW

YOUR ANSWER TO NIMBER 1 WAS "YES", PLEASE CONTINUE WITH QUESTION NUMBER 2.

IF YOUR ANSWER WAS "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW", PLEASE GO TO QUESTION NUMBER 3.

2.

3.

5.

8.

9.

Do you know if those colleges/universities which have courses in broadcasting
teach a courseCs) in station management?

YHS____}KL____DON'T KNOW_____
Do you or your department heads get job applicants at your station who have
either majors or minors in broadcasting?

YES_____}KI____‘DON' KNOWL_____
Please indicate, if possible, the frequency with which broadcast graduates
apply to you for jobs?
FREQUENTLY (several per month)__SOMETIME (l or 2 per month)—
INFREQUENTLY (several per year)__HARDLY EVER_(one per year or less)—
Do these applicants apply for openings in: (circle appropriate area)

SALES PROGRAMMING PRODUCTION NEWS MANAGEMENT OTHER
(indicate)

Do you ever have applicants who state a desire to prepare for or pursue a

career in management? YES NO DON'T KNOW

Do you know if these applicants have bad cOllege courses in management?

YES NO DON'T KNOW
Do you have at the present time employees in your management areas who have
had broadcast management courses in college?

YES NO DON'T KNOW

 

If you have such persons on your staff, do you feel that they were adequately
trained in station management? YES NO DON’T KNOW

OVER, PLEASE......
86

THESE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS SOLICIT YOUR OPINIONS. PLEASE RESPOND AT AS MUCH LENGTH
AS YOU FEEL NECESSARY. USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS OF PAPER, IF YOU L“

10. Do you feel that college/University broadcast sequences adequately train new

personnel for professional careers in any area of commercial broadcasting?

 

 

 

11. What topics or subjects, in your opinion, should properly be included in courses

 

in station management?

 

 

12. If a college/university offers an opportunity for a student to ”specialize" in

one particular phase or area of broadcasting, which one would you reconnend.to

 

an entering freshman, and why?

 

 

 

13. Should this same availability of "specialization" be offered at the graduate

level, what direction would you give to a student seeking a graduate degree?

 

 

 

1%. If it were possible for you to attend college/university "refresher courses" or

seminars, what subjects or areas of study would you like to enroll in?

.-

Thank you! You are hereby commended for the Doctor of Humane Letters!

APPENDIX'III

LOCALE or ADMINISTRATION BY STUDENT

GROUP I

GRO

POPULATION GROUPS

Epom peparate departments

Deparflment
Department
Department
Department

of Radio and Television

of Closed Circuit Television
of Broadcast and Film Arts
of Film and Television

Egom another department

Department of Communication Arts
Department of Communication
Department of Speech

Department of Journalism and Mass Communications

Neither ogithe above

Department of Radio and Television

Department of Journalism, Radio, and Television

II

From separate departments

Department of Television and Radio

Department of Radio, Television, and Cinema
Department of Radio, Television, and Film

Department of Telecommunications
Department of Radio and Television

Department of Radio, Television, and Motion

Pictures

Department of Broadcast and Communication Arts

From another department

Department of Journalism and Speech

Department of Communications
Department of Speech

Department of Speech and Dramatic Art

Department of Communication Arts
Department of Mass Communications
Department of Journalism

88

HHHU

HWNH

PHH

HH FNNHH

HNHHme

Department
Department
Department

Neithe; 0;

Department
Department

GROUP 11;

89

APPENDIX III--continued

of Speech and Theatre Art
of Speech and Drama
of Communications and Theatre

the above

of Journalism
of Broadcast Film

From separate departments

Department
Department
Department
Department
Department

of Broadcasting

of Radio and Television

of Telecommunications and Film
of Radio, Television, and Film
of Television and Radio

From anothe; depprtment

Department
Department
Department
Department
Department
Department

Neithe; d;

Department of Journalism and Communications

of Speech and Communications
of Speech

of Communications

of Speech and Dramatic Art
of CommuniCation Arts

of Instructional Television

the above

From a series of coordinated options

Department

of Drama

These titles are exact quotations from the instruments.
It would appear from some of the titles themselves that
the respondent might have cataloged his department in-
correctly, but no effort was made on the part of the
writer to exercise any judgment in correcting what would
appear to be erroneous responses.

taraw

HNHNH

HHHNWN

HF‘P‘

APPENDIX IV

AREAS OF ACADEMIC SPECIALTY BY GROUPS

GROUP I

Legal'

Production

Mass communications
Film history
Announcing

Writing

Criticism

Educational television
Advertising
Performance

History of broadcasting
Programming

Management

Research

News

Film

GROUP II

Management

Educational television
Documentary film
Production

Instructional television
Advertising

Law

Writing

Film

News

International broadcasting
Programming

Film history and criticism
History of broadcasting
Research

Criticism of radio and television
Engineering

Policy

Promotion

Communication theory
Public affairs

9O

HHHNHHNHHNNNHHmw

NHHHHHoowawmmaqwumNmm

91

APPENDIX IV--continued

GROUP III

News

Advertising

Promotion

Communication theory
Educational television

Law

Writing

Production

Societal effects of broadcasting
International broadcasting
Drama

Programming

Directing

Film ‘

History

Criticism

Instructional television
Performance

Management

Systems management

HHHNHNwNNHwammmNHHm

APPENDIX V

TITLES OF COURSES DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO MANAGEMENT

GROUP I

Station Management

Station Administration and Programming
Station Administration

Station Management

Commercial Station Management
Educational Television Management
Television Programming and Management
Broadcast Station Management
Government and Station Management
Legal Problems of Communications
Broadcast Management and Economics
Radio—Television Management

Media Management

Seminar in Commercial Problems
Broadcast Law

Broadcast Advertising

GROUP II

Broadcast Management

Program Planning

Seminar in Management
Radio-Television Station Management
Seminar in Broadcast Management
Broadcast Programming and Criticism
Television Programming

Television Station Management
Station Operations

Survey of Mass Media

Programming for Radio

Television Law

Criticism

Radio-Television Procedures

Seminar in Broadcast Management and Operations
Seminar in Station Management
Regulations

Policies

Programming and Audience
Advertising

Market Management

Sales and Sales Management

Station Organization and Operation

92

93

APPENDIX V-—continued

Radio-Television Station Management
Broadcast Station Operations
Management

Problems in Broadcast Operations
Station Management

GROUP III

Seminar in Broadcast Programming
Broadcast Management

Regulation of Broadcasting

Radio Programming

Decision Making in Broadcasting
Advanced Radio ”

Advanced Television

Broadcast Station Management
Seminar in Management
Radio-Television Station Management
Mass Communications Management
Educational Television Program Policies and Management

 

APPENDIX VI

TITLES OF COURSES COVERING MANAGEMENT CO-INCIDENTALLY

GROUP I

Broadcast Law

Basic Concepts of Radio and Television
Radio and Television Sales

Law and Mass Communications

Society and Mass Communications
Radio and Television Advertising
Radio and Television Announcing
Media ‘

Commercial Broadcasting

Broadcast Promotion

Educational Problems Administration
Problems in Radio

Problems in Television

History of Broadcasting

Broadcast Regulations and Policy
Communications in Continental America
Broadcasting and Government
Introduction to Broadcasting

Audio Technology

Broadcast Law and Regulations
Radio-Television Programming
Introduction to Radio

Seminar in Radio and Television
Introduction to Radio and Television
Radio-Television Senior Seminar
Radio-Television Training

Radio Programming

Television Production

Writing

News

GROUP II

Radio-Television News

Radio—Television Advertising

Development of Broadcast Film

Radio and Television Content and Programming
Television Programming

Television Directing

Broadcast Regulations

Introduction to Broadcasting

Radio Production

94

95

APPENDIX VI-—continued

Television and Radio Advertising
Television Research

Television Pricing and Practices
Foundations

Patterns in Radio and Television
Programming

Broadcast Regulations

Audience Measurement

Marketing Management
Television-Radio Programming
Television-Radio Production
Television-Radio Writing

Broadcast Audience Analysis
Broadcasting and the Public Interest
Communications Law

Regulations and Program Policies
Broadcast Law

Programs and Audiences

Broadcasting and Film in the United States
Economic Aspects of Broadcasting
Seminar in Broadcast Advertising
Radio and Television Theory and Techniques
Seminar in Telecasting

GROUP III

Radio-Television Advertising
Broadcast Problems

Seminar in Programming

Broadcast Law and Policies
Advertising

Survey of Broadcasting
Radio-Television Production
International Broadcasting
Educational Television
Television Programming
Administrative Problems in Telecommunications
Mass Media and Society

Television and Radio Programming
Economics of Film

Mass Communications Effectiveness
Law of Broadcasting

Broadcasting Policy
Communications and Society
Broadcasting and Government
Radio-Television Regulations

96

APPENDIX IV--continued

Principles of Radio and Television Broadcasting
TV News and Public Affairs

Television Programming and Criticism

Seminar on Special Problems in Broadcasting
Radio—Television-Film and Society
Broadcasting Regulations and Responsibilities
Elementals of Broadcasting

Comparable Systems of Broadcasting

Broadcast Problem Planning

Introduction to Radio4Television and Film
Educational Utilization of Mass Communications
Program Planning and Station Management
International Communications

Significant Issues

Freedom, Regulations, and Control

Sales Management

 

HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

DIl||||||||lllllllIlllilfllIIIIIIWIIIIWI!HIIIIHIIIIIIHVI
31293103639286