>We all know, for example, that the purpose of commercial radio is to
>induce mass sales. For mass sales there must be a mass norm, and the
>activity must be conducted as nearly as possible without risk of
>departure from the norm. But art and the communication of ideas--as
>most of us also appreciate--are risky affairs, for it can never be
>predicted in those activities just when the purely individual and
>abnormal may assert itself. Indeed to get any real art or any
>significant communication, one must rely entirely on individuals,
>and must resign himself to accept not only their uniqueness but the
>possibility that the individual may at any time fail. By suppressing
>the individual, the unique, the industry reduces the risk of failure
>(abnormality) and assures itself a standard product for mass
>consumption.
>
>We know these commonplaces, but it is truly staggering to
>contemplate what they imply and cause in American radio. Should you
>inquire why there is no affinity between the serious arts and radio,
>you will find that this is the reason.
>
>America is well supplied with remarkably talented writers,
>musicians, philosophers, and scientists whose work will survive for
>some centuries. Such people have no relation whatever to our
>greatest communication medium. I have been describing a fact at the
>level of the industry's staff; it is actually so notorious in the
>whole tradition and atmosphere of our radio that it precludes anyone
>of serious talent and reasonable sanity from offering material for
>broadcast, much less joining a staff. The country's best minds, like
>one mind, shun the medium unless the possessor of one happens to be
>running for office. Yet if we want an improvement in radio worth the
>trouble, it is these people whose talent the medium must attract.
>The basic situation of broadcasting must be such that artists and
>thinkers have a place to work--with freedom. Short of this, the
>suffering listener has no out.