Challenge of Criticism

     Radio columnists did not face the same hurdles as critics because columnists served to inform readers about coming attractions and gossip, with perhaps some superficial appraisal. The critic-who, like the columnist, also amused and informed-did so in a broader, deeper context of constant evaluation. The critic judged the significance of a broadcasting event, considered its impact, or related it to past events in broadcasting or other areas. Critics added artistic, philosophical, and sociological dimensions to program reviews and commented on the industry and government or public actions.

     Unlike theater, film, and music, which offered discrete presentation formats, radio was on the air continuously, and the quantity and variety of programs were a burden to critics, who often were called upon to treat programs ranging from education and politics to commerce and entertainment. A wide variety of assignments were therefore available, and those critics who had come from the world of newspaper reporting (as many of them did) often had an edge over other critics, as they were equipped with the reportorial skills of speed and judgment.

     The difficulties of critiquing something heard and not seen played out most noticeably in drama criticism. Radio drama was given an ungenerous report overall by some because it lacked a visual element and therefore could not, many contended, hold the audience's attention. Many early critics insisted that all elements of a play be identifiable; a production was praised if it was clear who was speaking or if a synopsis of the story was given before the start of the action. Critics often treated radio dramas as adaptations instead of creating new ways to critique.

     It was a common habit of newspaper critics to mention and discuss actors and their performances but not the programs themselves, as most program titles would require plugging the product or sponsor and therefore result in free advertising, which would compromise the critic's integrity. In addition, the lack of credence given to radio criticism meant that radio sponsors became protected and pampered, and they rarely heard criticism. In general, radio criticism was thought of as outside the industry's needs because station leaders and sponsors made a point of claiming to be businessmen, not show-men; therefore, in the name of advertising, they were immune from theatrical standards.

Rise of Criticism

     Many critics, most notably multimedia critic Gilbert Seldes, believed that the duty of broadcast critics was to propose change, but change that was workable within the advertising­ supported commercial radio system. In this line of thinking, critics must understand and explain (perhaps today more than ever) the environmental constraints within which any electronic media organization must operate.

     Several critics in the early days of radio issued calls for a responsible corps of radio critics, and many intellectuals acknowledged the importance of broadcast criticism in the name of preserving democracy.

     Much early criticism was of a technical nature, wherein critics discussed such issues as transmission quality. Pierce Collision, writing in the early 1920s, for example, critiqued sound quality as opposed to content. When critics wrote about broadcast news, which was a growing aspect of programming by the 1930s, they tended to comment on such aspects as sound effects and newscasters' voices.

     Ralph Lewis Smith (1959), in his analysis of the U.S. broadcast system, lamented critics' coverage and opinions of the electronic functioning of a program, as if they were " scientific journalist[s]." This type of criticism only furthered the notion that broadcasting was not to be considered an art. The nuts and bolts discussion of radio subsided when people could buy ready-built radios as opposed to hobbyist-assembled kits. As radio's commercial potential became more obvious, "circuit talk" was replaced with gossip about radio stars. As an interest in radio personalities increased interest in radio overall, critical articles and commentary on individual shows and series as well as various personalities began to emerge.

     Because there were no standards or precedents, broadcast critics experimented with column formats. In 1926 John Wallace presented his criticism in Radio Broadcast in the form of one long essay, two or three short reviews, and a few bright tidbits. In October 1942 in Woman's Day, Raymond Knight set up his material in newspaper form and called it "The Radioville Chronicle," which contained program reviews, a local gossip column, a classified section, and a notice of new shows.

Major Critics

     During the 1920s and 1930s, most writing about programs was descriptive rather than critical, although there were exceptions. Volney Hurd and Leslie Allen, for instance, were among the earliest who produced insightful criticism in their 1930s columns in the Christian Science Monitor.

Radio producer Darwin Teilhet began writing a monthly broadcasting feature in Forum magazine from 1932-34 while he was in charge of radio production for the N.W. Ayer and Son advertising agency. When Teilhet began writing critical articles, his employer questioned their propriety; as a result Teilhet continued writing for several months under the name Cyrus Fisher-a prime example of the obstacles critics encountered within the radio industry.

     A thoughtful critical approach to broadcasting was rare before World War II. Because radio proved to be an essential communication tool during the war, more attention was given to broadcast criticism after the war, not from scholars or journalists, but from the federal government. In 1946 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its "Blue Book," officially known as "The Report on Public Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees." It examined over commercialization and the lack of local and public affairs programming. One of its principal authors was Charles Siepmann, a former British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) employee. The revelations in the Blue Book raised a storm of controversy about U.S. broadcasting that generated interest in more serious, professional critiquing of the medium.

     Two months after the "Blue Book" was issued, critic John Crosby wrote his first daily radio column for the New Herald Tribune. Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1912, Crosby went to Yale for two years and then began a newspaper career, first on the Milwaukee Sentinel covering courts and police headquarters and then on the New York Herald Tribune. After serving in World War II for five years, Crosby returned to the Tribune. Reporters back from the war were so plentiful that the editors, unsure how to use Crosby, stuck him with writing a radio column. Having never owned a radio and barely having listened to one, he took the job expecting to wait for something better to materialize. Crosby eventually settled into his role and won fans with his wry, cynical wit. His column "Radio and Television" was syndicated from coast to coast to an audience of more than 18 million. Crosby's columns were so influential that some thought they helped to raise radio into the realm of legitimacy with music and theater.

     Despite the fact that radio criticism had to share page space with the gossip column, it was the data and conclusions in the "Blue Book," Crosby's column, and the burgeoning of television simultaneously that paved the way for more and better broadcast criticism in the 1950s and beyond. From the 1950s to the present, critics in both the media and academia have contributed, albeit in small volume, to radio criticism.

     Producer-turned-critic Albert N. Williams was associated with the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) from 1937-41 and wrote occasional articles for the Saturday Review of Literature, which became a monthly series in 1946-47. A published collection of his columns entitled Listening: A Collection of Critical Articles on Radio, one of the first such books on radio, appeared in 1948 with columns divided into categories of networks, programs, artisans, and advertising.

     Lyman Bryson, a Columbia Broadcast System (CBS) consultant on public affairs, held a Sunday afternoon series on CBS radio, Time for Reason-About Radio, in 1946. One example of the type of program in the series was "Documentary and Actuality Programs." Guests, including Charles Siepmann and John Crosby, were part of the program to provide a broader point of view. It was the first time a major network had used its own facilities to tell listeners, in an extended series of talks and discussions, about the problems and possibilities of radio in the United Stats from the broadcasters' point of view. The idea was originally proposed by William S. Paley, CBS chairman of the board, in an address to the National Association of Broadcasters. Paley had asked for more intelligent criticism of the industry and for more activity by the industry in helping to provide background information for it. The idea was well received by critics, and the public and the series lasted until June 1947. A selection of the program material, "written from the broad­ caster's point of view," was published a year later.

     Previously a long-time drama critic, John Hutchens joined The New York Times in 1941 as a radio editor and columnist. When he left in 1944 for book reviewing, he was replaced by Jack Gould, who had been a New York Herald Tribune reporter in the mid-193os and in the drama department of the Times from 1937-42. He was part of the Times radio department until 1944.

     Robert Lewis Shayon was a producer-director for the Mutual Broadcasting System from 1938-42 and executive producer for CBS from 1942-49. Probably best known for the You Are There historical programs, he wrote for the Saturday Review of Literature and in 1950 became the Christian Science Monitor's first television/radio critic.

     Saul Carson was a critic for The New Republic from 1947-52. He started as an assistant radio editor under George Rosen at Variety in the early 1940s. He was a regular contributor to Radio and TV Best magazine, The Nation, and others.   ·

     Though not solely a radio critic, Ring Lardner, a comic New Yorker columnist, was a well-known sportswriter during World War I and also achieved literary success as a short story writer. When he was hospitalized with an illness in 1932, he spent a lot of time listening to the radio just as it was becoming a medium of mass entertainment, and he shared his observations in the New Yorker.

     Other important critics and columnists from the 1920s through the 1950s included John Wallace, a prominent 1920s critic who wrote for Radio Broadcast; Ben Gross, broadcasting critic and columnist for the New York Daily News; George Rosen, radio and TV editor for Variety; Alton Cook and Har­ riet van Horne for the New York World-Telegram; Paul Cotton and Mary Little for the Des Moines Register; Stanley Anderson of the Cleveland Plain Dealer; Leonard Carlton of the New York Post; and Edith Isaacs of Theater Arts Monthly. B.H. Haggin was a music critic who wrote for The Nation, Hudson Review, The Dial, and Vanity Fair.

     Many cultural critics paid particular attention to radio, among them Bernard DeVoto, Frederick Lewis Allen, Harry Skornia, Wilbur Schramm, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Llewellyn White. These academic critics tended to critique the medium itself (as opposed to specific programs) and paved the way for radio studies by experts in communications, psychology, sociology, literature, and linguistics.

     The best known of the cultural critics was Gilbert Seldes (1893-1969). Seldes did much for radio and television, increasing the interest in and serious attention paid to the popular arts. Seldes, unlike Shayon, Williams, and Teilhet (who were producers-turned-critics), started out as a critic then subsequently worked within the industry. He was perhaps the first American critic who devoted most of his career to examining popular as opposed to fine arts. Seldes was managing editor of one of the most famous "little magazines" of the 1920s, The Dial, which was modernist in its literary outlook but also enthusiastic about popular entertainment. His career also included stints as a theatrical producer, a radio writer and producer, the first director of programming for CBS television, and founding dean of the Annenberg School of Communications.

     Seldes' most famous work, The Seven Lively Arts (1924, which included essays on theater as well as film and comic strips) helped to establish his reputation as an important critic. Seldes became a regular film critic for The New Republic and a columnist for the New York Evening Journal and The Saturday Evening Post; he also wrote a monthly broadcast column for the Saturday Review of Literature, authored books of criticism on American history and current events, and contributed articles to nearly every high- and middle-brow magazine of the time. Seldes' attention as a media critic eventually moved from film and radio to television, a shift exemplified in The Public Arts, his last major work, published in 1956.

Format and Content of Criticism

     Radio program criticism, as differentiated from columns and general program information, was often found in such trade magazines as Variety, Billboard, and Radio Daily. Because the circulation of these publications was usually limited to show business professionals, the general listening audience did not benefit from such writing, to the chagrin of many critics. Leading critics also wrote for Life, Collier's, Atlantic, Harpers, and The Quarterly Review of Film, Radio and Television. Today, however, readers are likely to be more familiar with their local newspaper critic.

     In some ways, critical radio coverage finds itself at the beginning of the 21st century as it was in the 1920s and 1930s, with program listings and perhaps a review here and there. Few, if any, professional critics now label themselves solely radio critics. Most cover television as well, along with a host of other electronic media. Television and radio columnist Robert Feder of the Chicago Sun Times and David Hinckley, critic-at­-large for the (New York) Daily News, are two of the very few who semi-regularly still include radio criticism in their columns. Cultural criticism of radio in the late 20th century, tends toward lamentations over the phenomenon of talk radio, including figures such as Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and Dr. Laura Schlessinger.