Was Radio Drama A CBS-Mutual Specialty?

When the second mystery-horror fad hit in the mid-forties, most of these programs ended up on CBS and Mutual largely because of money issues. Mystery shows were much cheaper to produce than comedy-variety programs, as a rule, and tended to appeal to lower-budget sponsors. These sponsors, in turn, gravitated to CBS and Mutual because these networks generally offered lower rates or better time slots. In addition, these programs were very efficient ways to use up unsold time -- a sustaining mystery show like "The Mysterious Traveler" could be produced using staff talent for little money -- and this was especially useful to Mutual, which was always a poor fourth in time sales.

NBC's real contribution to drama was always more in the realm of Serious Drama. Programs like "Radio Guild Dramas," "Pulitzer Prize Plays," "Great Plays," and others in that vein presented some extremely heavy dramatic material during the thirties, usually built around major theatrical works. For example, NBC presented a whole season of Eugene O'Neill plays over the summer of 1938 -- some of the most adult drama ever broadcast on radio.

When were these NBC versions?

There were three 12-episode Fu Manchu serials on the Collier's Hour program, one each year in 1929, 1930, and 1931, coinciding with the publication of the stories in "Collier's Weekly" magazine. Each episode ran for about fifteen minutes, or about one-fourth of each full hour program.

The first Fu Manchu serial on the Collier's Hour was on the air around the same time as another early NBC mystery program, "Mystery House," and these were probably the earliest network excursions into the mystery/suspense field.

I should also clarify that the Charlie Chan series I mentioned was under the banner of the Esso Five Star Theatre, and has no relation to the syndicated Atlas Radio Productions serial of 1936-37.

I can remember a farewell interview with David Brinkley around the time he retired from This Week, and he was asked about his early years in radio and on NBC in particular, and about Ed Murrow; and he gave what I thought was a funny and typically droll Brinkley answer, which is that he felt NBC's news was every good as what CBS did, and that he never "got" the thing about Murrow,--a nice man, but he didn't walk on water.

Television was another matter; what put CBS on the map in that medium were their two redheads: Godfrey and Lucy. I was surprised to find, when looking at the Nielsen Top Ten for a few random weeks between 1953-54, that "Lucy" is number one, "Godfrey's Talent Scouts" and "Jackie Gleason" can be found somewhere between 3 and 7, and EVERY other show on the list is from NBC.

I confess, I'm also puzzled by the "canonization" of Murrow. He certainly wasn't the only network journalist with scruples, although he was fortunate enough to have someone like Fred Friendly in his corner. Yes, "See it Now" was an important show, and I'll not quibble over the influence of the McCarthy segment and "Harvest of Shame," but Murrow was best known for "Person-to-Person," just as Barbara Walters is thought of today for her celebrity interviews as opposed to her "20-20" journalism.

Michael

Ozzie and Harriet moved from NBC to CBS radio during the spring of 1949 (they kept the same day/time slot, which NBC gave to Martin & Lewis). Why the TV version wound up on ABC is a good question for which I don't (yet) have an answer. Maybe someone else will.

Michael

Murrow gets the press he has gotten also because I think the PR on him is stronger. By this I mean there is/was the group of reporters who followed him like a cult leader. There is the CBS PR machine which includes the likes of Cronkite and Rather today, Murrow had a strong commanding voice which rose him above many other reporters, and the British PR machine because I think for many of them, he was the penultimate American radio reporter of the war.

At the same time, one cannot forget that Murrow was eloquent. This is not to say there aren't others who were too (my web site pays honor to many of them), but reports such as his "Orchestrated Hell" piece, and his Buchenwald piece are all excellent commentary.

I think there were much better "reporters" than Murrow, but his legacy, to me, is his commentary skills.

I recognize Murrow's contributions vis a vis "This is London" and the McCarthy broadcast and "Harvest of Shame," and all. I also recognize that Huntley-Brinkley were making great strides for TV at NBC, and were more popular than Cronkite for a time. Yet posterity has diluted their work down to a catch-phrase, while Murrow and Cronkite are deified, thanks to CBS's incessant PR.

Michael

That's the unfortunate side of Murrow's legacy: an approach to journalism where "just the facts" isn't enough -- you've got to make them "feel" the story as well, and you've got to have a "style" while doing it. I prefer to decide for myself what I want to feel on any given subject -- and I very much resent when a reporter tries to *sell* me the story. For that reason I must confess to finding Murrow and his modern-day disciples a bit pretentious. If I want to be emotionally manipulated, I'll read a book or watch a movie -- or listen to a radio drama. But keep it out of the news, please.

So far as radio reporters who worked to gain the respect given the print media, I'd put Fulton Lewis Jr ahead of Murrow -- not so much for his on air work (although I think he's very underrated as both a writer and a speaker -- perhaps because his politics are unfashionable today) but because of his relentless behind-the-scenes efforts to give radio journalists their due. It was Lewis who put up a constant struggle in the late thirties to earn radio correspondents equal privileges as part of the Washington press corps -- and regardless of his politics, his contributions are too often forgotten.

News reporting, despite its desire to be pure, is rarely so. Certainly, there is the "straight story" but for me Murrow was first a "commentator" or news analyst, not just reporting on the news, but attempting to sway. Indeed this might be a cardinal sin in some news reporting books, but he was at the same time certainly eloquent about which he spoke. As I said before, I think this is his legacy.

Despite Fulton Lewis Jr.'s tenacity in raising the standard for journalists at home, the man let his politics get much too much in the way of his commentary. He was, unfortunately for him, a duck out water. His strong conservative stances just came too much at the wrong times. He fought against any involvement by this country in taking on the menace that was Hitler. He supported isolationism when the country was gradually realizing it needed to be involved. Yet in later years he chided those who were against our involvement in Vietnam - for me a total reversal of what he supposedly stood for. Granted the times were different, but he always seemed two steps behind.

Even with Lewis' tenacious work to improve the standing of radio journalists, Murrow at the same time was accomplishing this through his "dramatic" reporting from London. Again, I grant that his "voice" allowed him to sound much more authoritarian. Listeners probably took what Murrow said with more authority than what what Raymond Swing broadcast (with his lighter - though for me, soothing, voice), despite the fact that both held similar beliefs in what was happening to the world at the time.

I think that Murrow would have succeeded without the CBS PR machine. One tends to find his writings in books about reporting much more often than many of the other commentator/analysts of the time. But a good read of the Library of America's two volume editions on World War II reporting which cuts across a wide spectrum of how the war was presented to Americans, shows many similar articles equally "dramatic." Would one not consider Ernie Pyle dramatic? What about A.J. Liebling? The times required a certain amount of drama.

As much as I admire the "first on the spot" reports of Ubiquitous Max Jordan, one rarely (and somewhat unfortunately for he was a true humanitarian) remembers him. His reports were more of the fact-based dry reports that told us exactly what was happening. But because the times were extraordinary, the dramatic broadcasts of many of the best of the CBS reporters is more often remembered. Yes, partly due to the PR machine, but I think these reporters can stand on their own for their inciteful, intelligent commentary.

Perhaps Murrow let his fame get to him. Except for a few bright moments from television, much of his television career is uneventful. As was stated, the See It Now series was generally light fluff. I think first becoming an executive, then later a televison personality was his downfall. I would certainly not disagree about the vanity of his television career. But his radio reputation was deserving.