American Association for Public Opinion Research

A Researcher Looks at Television

Author(s): Paul F. Lazarsfeld
Source: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1960), pp. 24-31
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public
Opinion Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746663
Accessed: 14-07-2016 11:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press, American Association for Public Opinion Research are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A RESEARCHER LOOKS AT
TELEVISION

BY PAUL F. LAZARSFELD*

COME to this hearing with mixed feelings of hope and doubt.

For three decades I was professionally involved in discussions of
the kinds of problem which are on the docket today, and nothing
much ever came of them. And yet, on occasion, major legislative
acts and reforms have resulted from some spectacular incident. In
those instances, thinking which had been devoted to a problem over
a period of many years suddenly came to the attention of the public
and began to bear fruit. For the record, I would like to mention one
or two of the efforts with which I was personally connected.
Professor Siepmann will undoubtedly tell the story of the Bluebook
in some detail.' Just let me say that when the Bluebook appeared I
was in charge of a project, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation,
to study the role of radio in American life. Frank Stanton, who was
then associated with me, and I called a conference of several days"
duration. Members of the FCC, representatives of the radio industry,
and social scientists sat down together to develop ideas on how the
procedures proposed in the Bluebook could be implemented. The
only traces of this meeting are the minutes kept in my files. Almost
ten years later, this time at the request of the Ford Foundation, I
brought together a similar group to consider problems in television.
I thought that more intensive work would perhaps meet with greater
success. Consequently, the original group appointed an implementa-
tion committee composed of two broadcasters, two educators, and one
labor leader. After working for many months, we outlined plans for
a development center for television. It was to be at the disposal of
anyone trying to improve the current program structure. This time
we reached a more advanced stage: in my files are many mimeographed
copies of the blueprint for the center. But that is all. A third example

* This article contains the testimony that was presented by the author on Decem-
ber io, 1959, at Public Hearings held by the Federal Communications Commission.
The testimony was originally given from notes. In its present form the testimony
contains all the points made, in their original sequence; the wording, however,
is an improvement over the stenographic record of the verbal presentation.

1 Contrary to my expectation, Professor Siepmann did not discuss the Bluebook.

It consisted of a set of rules which at one time the Federal Communications Com-
mission wanted to apply to the renewal of licenses. The main ideas are presented
and discussed in Siepmann's Radio's Second Chance, Boston, Little, Brown, 1946.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A RESEARCHER LOOKS AT TELEVISION 25

is Robert Hutchins' Committee for the Freedom of the Press, sup-

ported by Henry Luce. This group even printed the results of its
work, including a volume on broadcasting. But I know of no further
effect that it had. Incidentally, factual studies seem to escape public
notice. The studies of the Rockefeller radio project mentioned above
were published by Frank Stanton and me in a series of volumes en-
titled Radio Research. The first of these volumes included an analysis
of the popular music industry, describing the institution of song
pluggers and what is now called "payola" in some detail. It has ob-
viously taken eighteen years for anyone outside the social research
fraternity to take notice.
Perhaps these early efforts erred in trying to cover too much ground.
Today, therefore, I will restrict my testimony to three major points
which I want to bring to the attention of the Commission. The first
one has already been alluded to in previous sessions of these hear-
ings. I think it was the chairman who expressed doubts that there
could be any agreement on what is a good and what is a poor pro-
gram: if John Crosby and Jack Gould cannot agree, how can one
expect a thousand people to agree on the merits of a program? Now
this is a misleading argument in many ways. I am quite convinced that
program standards can be developed, but in order to do so the problem
must be properly stated.
To begin with, one must distinguish two kinds of "good program."
One type is the program directed to the intellectual elite-modern
music, poetry readings, the kind of fare supplied by the Third Pro-
gram of the BBC. It is not to this type of program that I want to
address my remarks today, for there is no question that it meets
high standards. Rather, I want to consider the more usual entertain-
ment programs-those which appeal to the large majority of viewers
and which are bound to form the bulk of broadcasting. Is it possible
to develop standards for this kind of program? My answer is an affirma-
tive one. To achieve these standards one need not impose elite tastes
on the general public; instead, one would concentrate on improving
the character of the regular program fare. In this sense we could talk
of relative standards.
Let me give you two concrete examples. Some time ago Rudolf
Arnheim studied daytime radio serials. As you know, these describe
how families get into trouble, how they resolve their problems, how
they find themselves in new difficulties, and so on. Arnheim found
that in these serials it was usually the men who created the problems
and the women who found the solution. From a commercial point

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

of view the formula is understandable. But most of us will agree that it

is not a good idea in the long run to expose women to such a one-
sided picture of family life. The achievement of a more realistic bal-
ance would be one example of a standard derived from empirical
social research and common-sense thinking about people in modern
society.
My second example is taken from the field of magazines, but its
application to other media is obvious. Berelson and Salter found
that the characters in magazine fiction are frequently highly stereo-
typed. The writers have little space, and in order to make their points
quickly they are inclined to give a gangster an Italian-sounding name,
and a character with questionable business ethics a Jewish name.
"Nordic Americans" are likely to engage in romantic love; members
of minority groups intermingle courtship with social ambitions or
financial pursuits. Many writers of these stories, interviewed in the
course of the study, had not been aware of their practices and were
eager to change them. So here is another case of a relative standard.
It was not a question of substituting highbrow art for the type of
short story which has more general appeal, but rather of improving
the latter in specific respects.
It is my conviction, based on experiences of this kind, that the
range of these standards can be continually enlarged. In an earlier
session of these hearings, there was a question regarding the difference
between violence in Hamlet and violence in Westerns, about which
so many complaints are heard. I do not know the answer because, to
my knowledge, the matter has not been studied. But one can be quite
sure that an answer could be found and that this would indicate,
not that Westerns should be entirely eliminated, but that specific
kinds of improvement could be made. Obviously, this cannot be done
overnight. But this is true of standards in every field. Anglo-Saxon
law develops continuously out of specific cases. Program standards
would also develop out of cases: sometimes these would be research
studies of the kind I have mentioned; sometimes they would emerge
from deliberations when a license is up for renewal. To come back
to a previous point, when there are two critics they can only agree
or disagree; but when there is a larger number of critics one can dis-
tinguish different degrees of agreement. And if they are provided with
detailed criteria on which to base their judgments, they are much more
likely to make them in a similar manner and consequently the level
of agreement among them is likely to be high.
Now to my second point. Assuming that standards can be developed

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A RESEARCHER LOOKS AT TELEVISION 27

slowly, there is the question of who should enforce them. Here it is

the word "enforce" which creates a great deal of confusion. One type
of enforcement might be a periodic review of television performance
by an impartial agency. As a result of such reviews, public opinion
would be based on factual evidence rather than the outcry of an occa-
sional reformer. But often, of course, one cannot wait for such a re-
view to be completed. Then what is needed is the judgment of a
group of competent and detached people, a judgment which subse-
quently could be checked by more detailed analysis. It is really quite
shocking that in this vast territory of American broadcasting there is
no such group of experts. Most European systems have attached to
them committees of artists and social scientists whose opinions are
officially solicited. The nearest we come to this here are code commit-
tees composed of broadcasters who have no training in psychology,
social research, or any of the other techniques which could make
standards of judgment relatively objective. As a result, such committees
are forced to rely on such external criteria as the number of hours
devoted to discussion programs and-to borrow an example from the
movie code-the number of seconds a kiss can appear on the screen.
It seems to me that a standards committee composed of artists,
psychologists, and research technicians must somehow be built into
the American system of television. Members of this committee should
play a role similar to that which is now played by lawyers and engi-
neers. I personally would prefer to see the committee attached to the
FCC; but it may be that the law as it now stands makes this solution
impossible. In that case, a strenuous effort should be made to form
such a committee with the help of private funds, and to give it the
greatest authority and prestige that governmental cooperation can
bestow. This group would have four main tasks: to sponsor the kind
of study on standards mentioned earlier; to arrange for the periodic
review of program content; to express reasoned opinions in contro-
versial cases of license renewal; and periodically to listen to the
complaints and positive suggestions presented by interested groups
of citizens.
My third point derives from the role of program ratings, which
were also discussed in preceding sessions of these hearings. It is true
that, in a system of commercial television, broadcasters are guided
by the desire to obtain large audiences. As a matter of fact, it is not
only the small audience of the elite programs that bothers the broad-
caster; he knows that, for quite a while after a program with a low
rating, the audience is likely to remain with his competitor. But

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
28 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

obviously it is not the rating which does the harm, but one specific
aspect of our commercial system of broadcasting. I have no doubt
that, for a variety of reasons, all the networks would be willing to
accept the risk of smaller audiences if it were evenly divided. But
the present Communications Act seems to prohibit the sharing of
the risk. What happens now is that the networks pit against each
other both their programs with mass appeal and those with minority
appeal. On Sunday afternoon the more sophisticated viewer is torn
between several good programs on public affairs; on Sunday evening
the mass audience is torn between several outstanding variety pro-
grams.
It is sometimes proposed that good evening time should be pro-
vided for more serious programs. But it would not be much of a
solution if the dilemma for the serious viewer were shifted from Sunday
afternoon to Wednesday evening. What is needed is a balanced pro-
gram structure for the American television system as a whole. If one
network makes a sacrifice to provide serious programming on one
evening of the week, the other networks should make a similar sacrifice
on other evenings.
If this scheme violates antitrust laws, then, in my opinion, on this
point at least the existing law or its interpretation must be changed.
I am aware, incidentally, that I have oversimplified the matter. In
some communities where there is only one station special arrange-
ments would have to be worked out. And, because individual stations
have varying kinds of connections with the networks, special solutions
would have to be found in many cases. But I hope that the basic
idea has become clear. Each network points with pride to the long
list of fine programs it offers. But these lists remain fictions so
long as the programs are scheduled so that they conflict with each
other or so that the discriminating viewer has little opportunity to
view them.
I have now argued the three main points I wanted to put before
you: the fact that program standards can be developed and applied;
my conviction that students concerned with problems of mass com-
munication outside the legal and engineering realms should have a
stronger and more official voice in the programming field; the desir-
ability of facilitating program balance over the whole television sys-
tem. Having thus expressed what I think is wrong with other people,
I would like to add a few critical words about my own profession-
namely research in mass communications.
There are a number of problems on which we should know more

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A RESEARCHER LOOKS AT TELEVISION 29

than we do. Consider the well-known formula that television is giving

the people what they want. It is quite possible that viewers would
want better programs if they had a broader range from which to
choose. It would not be too difficult to test such a possibility. Under
some pretext we could induce people to watch for a while programs
which are slightly more sophisticated than their habitual program
fare. Would such enforced exposure arouse their interest so that
they would then continue to view these programs of their own accord?
For years I have talked about conducting such an experiment; but
other matters always seemed more urgent. In the light of the present
concerns this seems to me an unfortunate mistake in our research
strategy. Are there needs in the population which television could
satisfy if research people were able to uncover them? There are no
really good studies on how the desire for information and self-improve-
ment is distributed in the population. Pertinent data could come
from careful questionnaire studies and from more careful studies of
audience reaction to informational programs. Twenty years ago Frank
Stanton and I developed what has come to be known as the "program
analyzer." The technique has been used commercially to make enter-
tainment programs more entertaining. But it has not been used to
find out how serious programs could be made more appealing. At
Columbia University we are now experimenting with a related tech-
nique: we are conducting group discussions following unusual pro-
grams, to discover untapped wells of interest. The study started a
year ago with a subsidy from CBS; probably the idea as well as the
subsidy should have come much earlier.
Television commercials could be looked at in a new way. We know
already that attitudes toward them vary greatly with education. The
better-educated strata are sure that everyone hates commercials. But
research has shown that a large segment of the less well-educated
viewers finds them interesting and attractive. We have not concentrated
enough on the obnoxious elements in commercials: their noisiness,
overstatement, and so on. Advertising agencies compete with each
other to gain the attention of clients by using devices which might
not be necessary at all to gain the attention of consumers. I do not
know of any systematic research which is directed toward the de-
velopment of advertising that is not only successful but also in good
taste.
Problems of research are probably not in the purview of these
hearings. Still, in the general atmosphere of soul-searching it is only
appropriate that we research people accept our share of the blame.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 SO PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

There is always the problem of financing, of course. Money cannot

influence the results of a study, but it certainly plays a role in the
selection of topics to be investigated. Perhaps the new National Ed-
ucational Defense Act can play a part here. Some money has already
been granted to study educational stations; undoubtedly, extending
the use of educational channels is one of the most urgent goals to
pursue. But perhaps the more general problem of the social role of
television would fall under the provisions of this Act. If this were
so, then research problems of the kind I have just indicated could
be explored. Perhaps the advisory commission which I mentioned
above could play a role in this connection. Foundations as well as
the networks themselves have supported research. But, for a variety
of reasons, their efforts lack continuity and remain unintegrated. In
the pioneering years of communications research this was not too
serious, because every finding was new and useful in some way. But
by now a more long-range and better-planned research policy is called
for.
May I conclude by saying that the FCC should not expect these
hearings to offer simple solutions. In part, the questions in point in-
volve great technical difficulties. But in part, also, in the field of tele-
vision we are faced with serious dilemmas because a number of basic
principles of the American tradition are in conflict. Three of these
are of paramount importance.
The first dilemma is built into the Communications Act. The FCC
is the guardian of the public's interests, but at the same time it is
not supposed to pass on program content. This is a well-known con-
tradiction. Somehow we have to reconcile the First Amendment with
the fact that the communications industry is affected by public in-
terests.
The second dilemma derives from the fact that Americans want
the television industry to be a private business, not subject to gov-
ernment control. Politically, this has turned out to be quite bene-
ficial in the sense that we undoubtedly have more controversies in
our programs than does any other country. But that does not mean
that in the field of communications the notion of competitive enter-
prise needs to be applied without modification. That we do not want
collusion in pricing does not necessarily imply that we shouldn't have
collaboration in programming; and this collaboration, as I indicated
above, should extend to all the parties involved, the broadcasters as
well as the government.
The third dilemma is not so much a legal problem as a conflict of

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A RESEARCHER LOOKS AT TELEVISION 31

tradition. In a democracy the basic decisions are made by the public.

And yet, we do not determine the programs of our schools or of our
health services by referenda. On certain cultural and scientific issues
we accept the guidance of experts. Television should be one of those
issues.
I do not point to these dilemmas for the sake of an effective
peroration. I do so because many of the questions raised in these
hearings are posed as involving a choice between principles to which
we are equally devoted. I do not claim to have at hand any general
solution of the kind the lawyers are seeking. But for a long time we
social scientists have been studying how people live under apparently
conflicting norms. Perhaps it would be a good idea to listen to us in
the present controversy.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.61 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:15:38 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms