|
’’’邁諾 (NEWTON MINOW) 對’播’’講話 Address to the Broadcasting Industry
我請’們坐’’視機’’’用眼睛’著’視機’’’視’停止播’’目’我準’’’’’’’’’’’原
’’’邁諾(1926’
)’’翰’甘’’’統任’爲’邦’’’Ⅸ’’’’該機’’’管’公’ ’’’’用’1961’5月9日’’’’’’播’’’’’’’成Ⅸ’’講話’’’’們’’天’’視內’’“’’’’’原”’邁諾對商’化’視’’控引’’場對’視’目質’’’國’’論’’邁諾’講話之’’’’’’報’’視評論Ⅸ’樣’’’“今晚’’’播’’正盡’爲邁諾’生’’’找’隱’’解釋’’’個問’’’’衆’’’’有’幫’’而邁諾’生正’’’視’”
’們’’’擁有’國最’有’’’音’讓它’’’智’’導’’音’該’’不’推諉’’任’’’’’之中’’’’’興奮’’’’’’種’’’’’成對’國’民’有勢不’當’’’’’種手’’它正準備’揮報’’雜’’’’’’’擔’那種’導’用’’’我國’民’解’們’’’’ 我們’’’’’稱爲’’’’’原’’’’太’’’’我’爲它’’’視’’’正’歷’’’’當今’’’領’們用原’毀滅’’還’用原’爲’類’’重’’’’歷’’’’當今’播’’們用’們’有’’’音’’民’實還’’’民’落’’’ 跟任’’’樣’我’’’有不止’頂’’’我’’邦’’’Ⅸ’’’’’’’’’’’視’衆’及’’’’視’衆’’夫’’親’我’’’’’對我’說’’’值’’’’視’目’而’我不’’談論“第’’’場”’“’號’播’”’’’’’’惜’’日’’’’’ 我’談’’剛剛’’’’個’’’有’’目’’精’’’’“’’難’’’’50’’”’“弗’’’’斯’爾’’’”’“賓’’’斯比’’’目”’有’’目’’戲’’’’’’動’’’’’’’“勝’”’“邊’’區”’有’’目資’’’’’有教’’’’“我國’未’”’“哥’比’’播公’報導”’“’’’歲月”’我還’’’’’’’’’我’’’個’都覺’’’’目’實’’’’生’’’豐’’’’’生’’當’視’’’’’有什麽’’’’’’戲’’雜’’報’’’比’’它’ ’’當’視’目不’’’那’’有什麽比它’’’’我請’’’視’正播’’目’坐’’視機’’’莫讓任’’報雜’’’’’’’’’手’’分散’’’’’’’用’’眼睛緊緊’’’視機’’’視’停止播’’目’我準’’’’’’’’’’’原’ ’’’’’’’體’比賽’目’暴’’爲’’衆參’’’’’關’’誕’’’公式化喜’’’’’’’’殘’’體’’暴’’爲’’’’’謀殺’’部不’之’’’部’’’’’’偵探’匪’’’’’暴’’動’’’’’有’完’’’’’’目’’’滿’’’勾引’’’’不舒’’而’’’數’目’’生厭’當’’’’’’’’讓’’賞’’目’’數’少’’憐’’’’’爲我誇’’詞’那麽不妨打’’視試試’
今天’’’’之中’’有’’爲’播’’’完’’瑕’’?’’ 爲什麽’麽’’視’目’’’’’? 我聽’’’種’答’’們’’’商’需’’對’目’’’’’’’’’’終’引’’’衆’需’’’視’目’高’’成本’對’目’’’’’厭’欲’’等等’’疑’’’’’不’解’’棘手問’’ ’’我不’’們’盡’最’’’’解’’’問’’我’’接’’’’’’目’’’目’體’排絲’不’’切’公衆’興趣’’’’視’’’目’’’’’調’’’’’我們’’少’打’’’視機’’中’少’收視’’’’’’有’少’收視’’’’’’’數’’未’’我們’倘’公衆’有六個’’’’選擇’’們’’’什麽’目’’目’’’’’’調’’’’’’’’有’少’’’’們’’給’們’’目’不’’’’它不’揭示’目打動’心’’’’’衆反應’’熱’’它’不’’’倘’’們給’衆’’’’目’’假’藝’’’’創’’’’’’’像’’’’分’揮’’’們’’樣’’’我’’’民’有’’’辨’’’’’賞’平’我不’’民’情趣像’們’’’’’’’那’鄙’’’’’’ 當’’我’望’們’’’個’’’’’及’童’’’視’目’’’’’’調’結’不’有什麽’’’最準’’’’’’’’’午五’’六’’’們’衆’60’由 12歲’’’’’組成’’不’由’’’今’’數’童’’視’’’間’’們’’教’裏’’間’樣’’我重覆’’’請’’’’今’’數’童’’視’’’’間’’們’’教’裏’’間’樣’’’’’們’說’’個’’’’’方面’’’’’’’’’學’’教堂’’今’有第’方面’巨’’’’而它正’握’’們’’’’’’生們手中’ ’’’’’教’’’’們都’’’’’’’調’結’’’’’們’職’’那麽’’們’’’’’’’’霜’’’’’有’’’假日’’不’有’日學’’’們’職’’該’’’’’? 難’’視’騰不’’間對我們’’’’’教’’傳授’識’提高’’’’們’’’嗎? 難’’視’騰不’’間播’讓’’們’’對’’國’’童’解’’目嗎? 難’’視’騰不’’間播’’童’’’目’’據’們’’解’’平’’們解釋’’’務? 難’’視’騰不’’間爲’’們’讀’’’文學’著’’’們教授’由’偉’傳統? ’實有’’’’’’童’目’’它們’’’’動’’’’揚暴’’暴’’’’’目中’難’’’’目’’’’’們’商標? 請’們捫心’問’’’不’’’給’們’’’衆’’’天有’麽’’由’們’導’們’未’’’’’’’’’目’’
成’’目’’排’’’’’’調’結’情’’’’?
’們’’’報’’’商們’’讀’調’’結’’目’’’’’’’報’’’’環’頁’據’首’’次’對失戀’’’’’欄最’’’’’’’’們’生們’’’報’’’’仍’’’’’’論’未’’環’頁’’’’報’’爲變成對失戀’’’’集’成’’而報’不需’’’’那裏’’營’執照’’報’不動用公’’産’’’’’視領域’’’中’們’爲公’’’管’’’職’’’’’白’’’’’旦調’結’顯示’部’’’’’立’’’播’模仿’部’’’’’’’’之快’’用老式’’’’’’萊塢’’’報’’’’’’ 請允’我說’’我正’談論’’平衡’問’’我’爲’公衆’’’由’方面’’’成’’’個偉’’國’’’衆’’’們應該爲我們’體’民’務’我’不’贊’’們’’’’假’’們說’’’部’部’’’部交’樂之間’’數’’選’’’’我’’’’部’’’’偵探’’’’’’國提’’’’’’’目’式顯’不符’’衆’’’衆’’’’比’’’’’’獲’’識’’們’’’喜’’樂’遣’’倘’’們’把普及當’’’’播內’’標準’’們還’’有盡’’務’’們不僅’’’’’樂’’’們不’’礙’’傳’’樂’目’傳播’’’’’’們應該提’’’’選擇’圍’’’目’豐’’’’’’樣化’’’’民族’’’興’’不夠’’’’們還應該爲’民族’需’’務’ ’’讓我談談我’爲’邦’’’Ⅸ’’’’’用’而不’’爲’’’衆’’用’’’我’闡’’導我’’’’’基本原’’ 第’’’民’’間’’’’’論’’期日早晨六’’還’晚’’黃’’間’’民’樣’’間’’’’’民’給’們’’’’’們’欠’’們’筆債’我’’’’們用’務’’還欠債’ 第’’我’爲’續’’中賄賂’’’’’識’賽’目’及’’’’’’錯’論不休’’蠢’’’’’ 第’’我’’’由’營’’’我期’’播’’’改’’’望由’們’改’它’ 第’’我’盡’扶’教’’視’教’’視’數’太少’而我國’那’較重’’’視中心仍’’’’’用’教學’目’’’ 第五’我堅’不移’反對’’檢’’’’’不’’播不’’僚’’’’視’目’檢’’’動’我們’由’’’’基’ 第六’我’華盛’不’’對濫用公’’’’’’’手’’’聽之任之’’濫用我們’公’’’’’’任’’’’’’資源’’樣’重’問’’’’ ’生們’’們’’’民’’間’播’’’視內’’’’民’情趣’’識’’’’’’’們對’’對’’’’識’而’’’’們’未’’圖像’’音’’傳’’’’’’類歷’’’’’未有’’’’’種’’’’’’’’它有’限’’善’’’亦有’限’’’’’’它’擔著巨’’’任’’’們’我都’’’避’’任’ ’註’
① ...Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world. Ours has been called the jet age, the atomic age, the space age. It is also, I submit, the television age. And just as history will decide whether the leaders of today's world employed the atom to destroy the world or rebuild it for mankind's benefit, so will history decide whether today's broadcasters employed their powerful voice to enrich the people or debase them.... Like everybody, I wear more than one hat. I am the chairman of the FCC. I am also a television viewer and the husband and father of other television viewers. I have seen a great many television programs that seemed to me eminently worthwhile, and I am not talking about the much-bemoaned good old days of "Playhouse 90" and "Studio One." I am talking about this past season. Some were wonderfully entertaining, such as "The Fabulous Fifties," the "Fred Astaire Show" and the "Bing Crosby Special"; some were dramatic and moving, such as Conrad's "Victory" and Twilight Zone"; some were marvelously informative, such as "The Nation's Future," "CBS Reports," and "The Valiant Years." I could list many more― programs that I am sure everyone here felt enriched his own life and that of his family. When television is good, nothing― not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers― nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet, or rating book to distract you― and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, Western badmen, Western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials― many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And, most of all, boredom. True, you will see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, try it. Is there one person in this room who claims that broadcasting can't do better? . . . Why is so much of television so bad? I have heard many answers: demands of your advertisers; competition for ever higher ratings; the need always to attract a mass audience; the high cost of television programs; the insatiable appetite for programming material― these are some of them. Unquestionably these are tough problems not susceptible to easy answers. But I am not convinced that you have tried hard enough to solve them. I do not accept the idea that the present overall programming is aimed accurately at the public taste. The ratings tell us only that some people have their television sets turned on, and, of that number, so many are tuned to one channel and so many to another. They don't tell us what the public might watch if they were offered half a dozen additional choices. A rating, at best, is an indication of how many people saw what you gave them. Unfortunately it does not reveal the depth of the penetration or the intensity of reaction, and it never reveals what the acceptance would have been if what you gave them had been better― if all the forces of art and creativity and daring and imagination had been unleashed. I believe in the people's good sense and good taste, and I am not convinced that the people's taste is as low as some of you assume. . . . Certainly I hope you will agree that ratings should have little influence where children are concerned. The best estimates indicate that during the hours of 5 to 6 P.M., 60 percent of your audience is composed of children under twelve. And most young children today, believe it or not, spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. I repeat― let that sink in― most young children today spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. It used to be said that there were three great influences on a child: home, school, and church. Today there is a fourth great influence, and you ladies and gentlemen control it. If parents, teachers, and ministers conducted their responsibilities by following the ratings, children would have a steady diet of ice cream, school holidays, and no Sunday school. What about your responsibilities? Is there no room on television to teach, to inform, to uplift, to stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children's news show explaining something about the world to them at their level of understanding? Is there no room for reading the great literature of the past, teaching them the great traditions of freedom? There are some fine children's shows, but they are drowned out in the massive doses of cartoons, violence, and more violence. Must these be your trademarks? Search your consciences and see if you cannot offer more to your young beneficiaries whose future you guide so many hours each and every day. What about adult programming and ratings? You know, newspaper publishers take popularity ratings too. The answers are pretty clear; it is almost always the comics, followed by the advice-to-the-lovelorn columns. But, ladies and gentlemen, the news is still on the front page of all newspapers, the editorials are not replaced by more comics, the newspapers have not become one long collection of advice to the lovelorn. Yet newspapers do not need a license from the government to be in business― they do not use public property. But in television― where your responsibilities as public trustees are so plain― the moment that the ratings indicate that Westerns are popular, there are new imitations of Westerns on the air faster than the old coaxial cable could take us from Hollywood to New York.... Let me make clear that what I am talking about is balance. I believe that the public interest is made up of many interests. There are many people in this great country, and you must serve all of us. You will get no argument from me if you say that, given a choice between a Western and a symphony, more people will watch the Western. I like Westerns and private eyes too― but a steady diet for the whole country is obviously not in the public interest. We all know that people would more often prefer to be entertained than stimulated or informed. But your obligations are not satisfied if you look only to popularity as a test of what to broadcast. You are not only in show business; you are free to communicate ideas as well as relaxation. You must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives. It is not enough to cater to the nation's whims― you must also serve the nation's needs. . . . Let me address myself now to my role, not as a viewer but as chairman of the FCC. . . . I want to make clear some of the fundamental principles which guide me. First, the people own the air. They own it as much in prime evening time as they do at 6 o'clock Sunday morning. For every hour that the people give you, you owe them something. I intend to see that your debt is paid with service. Second, I think it would be foolish and wasteful for us to continue any worn-out wrangle over the problems of payola, rigged quiz shows, and other mistakes of the past. . . . Third, I believe in the free enterprise system. I want to see broadcasting improved and I want you to do the job. . . . Fourth, I will do all I can to help educational television. There are still not enough educational stations, and major centers of the country still lack usable educational channels. . . . Fifth, I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of programming which does not meet with bureaucratic tastes. Censorship strikes at the taproot of our free society. Sixth, I did not come to Washington to idly observe the squandering of the public's airwaves. The squandering of our airwaves is no less important than the lavish waste of any precious natural resource.... What you gentlemen broadcast through the people's air affects the people's taste, their knowledge, their opinions, their understanding of themselves and of their world. And their future. The power of instantaneous sight and sound is without precedent in mankind's history. This is an awesome power. It has limitless capabilities for good― and for evil. And it carries with it awesome responsibilities― responsibilities which you and I cannot escape. . . . ’ ’ |