Jack Gould: Social Critic of the Television Medium, 1947--1972.

Abstract

The columns John Ludlow ("Jack") Gould wrote as the television critic for the New York Times reflected a strong social point of view. During his tenure, Gould regarded the medium of commercial television as a social instrument and dem and ed that the three networks accept their social responsibilities. This historical-descriptive study, therefore, focuses on this aspect of his criticism of the medium. It is based primarily on the critic's daily columns with particular attention to his exp and ed column in the Sunday editions. His occasional articles in the New York Times Magazine are also utilized to clarify his critical attitudes. Gould argued that television, as a medium of incalculable influence, must not overemphasize its entertainment function. Although he admitted that programs which sought merely to provide the public with escapist entertainments (including Westerns, situation comedies, and quiz shows) had their place within the fabric of the programming schedules of the networks, he firmly believed that the medium had to make a calculated effort to meet the higher ideal of social responsibility. In addition to its entertainment function, television had to strive to be a conduit of artistic endeavors, ideas, and information. Throughout his career, the critic was an advocate of programs which would contribute to the social and cultural well-being of the television audience. It was this dominant critical attitude that became the foundation of his criticism of the medium. From 1947 until he retired in 1972, Gould conducted a campaign to persuade the networks to offer a balance between the mass appeal entertainment programs and those of cultural and social significance. The study examines his critical reaction to those program categories identified as holding the most promise for meeting the social and cultural needs of the mass audience: original dramas with social themes, adaptations of classic works of literature, programs of the musical arts (opera, ballet, and contemporary music and dance), interview or talk programs, news and documentary programs and children's programs. Due to television's vast potential for illuminating the vital political and social issues important to all Americans, Gould singled out news and documentary programs as the two most essential ingredients of each network's schedule. He held that the medium could perform no greater public service than that of providing viewers with a full accounting of all issues that had a direct bearing on their lives. Although the medium did provide a measure of social and cultural enlightment including such programs as Studio One, Playhouse 90, Producers' Showcase, Omnibus, NBC Opera Theatre, Voice of Firestone, CBS Reports, and See It Now, Gould ultimately lost his campaign for program balance and diversity within the networks' schedules. Many of his columns were devoted to critical attacks upon those elements within the industry responsible for the medium not living up to its potential: (1) The networks themselves for not setting st and ards that would include programs to meet all tastes and for their blind pursuit of high ratings and profits; (2) The advertising agencies and program sponsors who tended to support only those programs that would attract large audiences for their products; and (3) The Federal Communications Commission for not monitoring the output of the stations it licensed to assure that a well-rounded schedule of programs in the public interest was being offered. For twenty-five years Jack Gould was fiercely dedicated to his profession. He consistently refused to p and er to the whims of an often capricious industry, preferring instead the role of spokesman for the television viewer. Through his criticism of the medium, Gould sought to promote program schedules that met the social, cultural, and entertainment needs of all viewers.