(2 of 2)
Naturally gratifying to TIME, the letters constituted an indictment of Radio on a charge of failure-to-provide. That tens of thousands of listeners should protest so violently against the disappearance of any one commercial program as one of the few fit for adult consumption, was testimony to the leanness of Radio fare.
Had "The Goldbergs" been chloroformed, their followers would not have been long bereft. Radio could easily provide another continued story or comedy sketch to fill its place. Radio is a practiced handmaiden of entertainment. But when "The March of Time" ends, Radio has no substitute at hand. For all its blatant claim to being a medium for education, Radio contributes little of its own beyond the considerable service of bringing good music to the millions. (Yet radiomen sputter with rage when the Radio is called "just another musical instrument.")
Unlike a newspaper, which sells advertising in order to fulfill its prime function of giving news, the advertisement is Radio's prime offering. Also unlike a newspaper, which increases its pages along with any increase in advertising, Radio is restricted to the hours of the day. Of those hours it sells as many as it can. Naturally the evening hours, when most listeners are tuned in—the "front page" of radio—is virtually the property of the advertiser to do with as he pleases.
Not to be ignored are such creditable services as the current series of broadcasts from Geneva of interviews with League of Nations delegates. But they are notable exceptions that prove the rule. Other educational features sustained by Radio ("schools of the air" and the like) are broadcast in early daytime hours which are not in much demand either by advertisers or public.
TIME bought the series of half hours on CBS at $4,200 per period (plus $1,800 for actors, music, etc.) to perform a definite piece of advertising: to acquaint a larger public than its own logical readers with the existence of TIME, The Weekly Newsmagazine. (Theory: a magazine profits from general reputation.) In the opinion of TIME'S publishers the advertising purpose was well accomplished; further expenditure on radio at this time would not justify itself. Thus was raised a question of responsibility: Should TIME, or any other business, feel obliged to be the "philanthropist of the air," to continue paying for radio advertising it does not want in order to provide Radio with something worthwhile? Or is it up to the Radio Chains to improve the quality of broadcasts even at some reduction in their fat profits?