Talk:Mutual Broadcasting System

message: I rolled back an anonymous contribution that discussed the quality of the article within the article, someone should edit and incorporate the accurate and relevant bits and make sure it comports with encyclopedia standards. dml 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolled back an anonymous contribution 

message: I have failed to establish exactly what the relation was between Mutual Broadcasting Company and Mutual Broadcasting System, but they seem to be used interchangeably, so I made Mutual Broadcasting Company a redirect. Algae 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutual Broadcasting Company

message: Suggest inclusion of several other Mutual Broadcasting System citations, sample scripts, recordings and/or links, including, at the least:
*'Some History of the Mutual Broadcasting System'
**Linked in notes.—DCGeist 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutual Broadcasting System

message: *Permanent audio links for 'The Lone Ranger', The Green Hornet', 'Let George Do It', 'The Shadow', and 'Johnny Madero'
Jerry Haendiges also posts a few Mutual Broadcasting System episodes each month, but they're not permanent links.
:Digital Deli link added. Many references to Jerry Haendiges now already exist in Notes.—DCGeist 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listen To

message: As per the request left on my page, I've read over your site, at least for a once-over, "strikes me" kind of review.  I'm not the world's best at the formatting type stuff, so please excuse the lack of practical comments in that regard.
Aside from correcting one minor error (the year of Pearl Harbor), a quick read didn't disclose anything I thought was flamingly wrong.  The nature of OTR scholarship being what it is, I know there's a lot of conflicting material out there, but judging from a reading of the footnotes, you seem to have a grip on that.  I just re-read "The Murrow Boys," by Stanley Cloud & Lynne Olson.  This is about Edward R. Murrow and the rise (and fall) of CBS News, focusing on the 1930s and 1940s.  The authors there take the position that both NBC and Mutual made a bad error in judgement in September of '39 by halting broadcasts from abroad: "by the time they regained their senses a couple of critical months later, CBS' dominance was clear."  (page 58). You can take that for what you wish.
Another thing that struck me about Mutual is the sheer number of serial/kiddie programs that it created or broadcast.  Cisco Kid, Superman, Green Hornet, Lone Ranger, the Shadow, et alia. Granted, many of these moved on to other networks, but this is a noteworthy fact, I think.
In terms of structure, I would break up the sections a bit more, splitting your decade discussions between subsections on corporate movements and on-air movements. This might make it flow better, with smaller, easier-to-digest sections, especially if some readers are a little less interested in the corporate stuff.  (I'm an ex-corporate lawyer, so I don't count!)
Mutual's tussle with NBC ended in victory for Mutual, and resulted in a significant change in the way radio networks do business (e.g., forcing them to get rid of talent booking agencies, changing affiliation contracts, &c.).  The role of Mutual's anti-trust lawsuit might be worthwhile exploring.
Ray Swing, if I'm not mistaken, moved on to Blue/ABC; I think he's the same guy I mention in my article.  Which brings up the point that you allude to, which is how much Mutual stuff ended up moving to the other networks, even up to the Queen for a Day era.  Bit of hard luck for Mutual, if you ask me.
Pretty good selection of pictures, I thought.  I think somewhere else on Wiki there's a nice photo of Jackson Beck with Bud Collyer, standing in front of a Mutual microphone at a Superman broadcast. (Addendum -- the picture is at the entry for the Adventures of Superman radio show.)  I'd also recommend a subscription to newspaperarchive.com, where I got a bunch of my advertisement illustrations for my article.  If you acquire some items on eBay for your collection, like matchbooks or publicity photographs or publicity handouts and the like, these can add more spice. (You have some of this with those local materials.)  How about a photo of FDR with NBC, CBS and Mutual microphones?
One thing I've been thinking about adding to my article, but need to figure out the logistics, are tag-line excerpts.  Perhaps more important for an outfit that changed its identity, like the Blue Network, but still, a collection of clips as to how Mutual advertised itself over the decades, especially with its change in ownership, might be a worthwhile thing.  I believe a lot of OTR stuff is public domain, so you may not have issues with using sound clips.  Later clips, you might have issues, of course, so you'd have to be wary.
I hope you find the above of some use.
Sincerely yours,
Eric O. Costello 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Review of MBS

message: Thinking it over, the opening paragraphs should be streamlined somewhat, and should function as more of a general overview and introduction.  Permit me to suggest the following:
The Mutual Broadcasting System was an American radio network that operated from 1934 to 1999, as one of the four major national networks of the classic era of American radio, along with NBC, CBS, and Blue Network/American Broadcasting Company.  It was known for its distinctive, co-operative style of ownership that lasted from its founding through the early 1950s, as well as a number of landmark action/adventure shows, such as the Lone Ranger, The Shadow, and The Adventures of Superman (radio), as well as its sports coverage; later on, it would be the radio network that would launch Larry King's career.  Through its involvement in landmark litigation in the early 1940s over the means by which NBC and CBS controlled their affiliates, MBS played a major role in reshaping the way radio was conducted as an industry.  From the 1950s through the end of its existence, the network underwent a long series of successive management and ownership changes, which eventually resulted in its dissolution as an independent entity.
You may need to adjust the links, but you get the idea.  Use this as you see fit.
Sincerely yours,
Eric O. Costello 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You're right--Superman crucial to identity, and emphasis on Mutual's distinctive cooperative nature good. Haven't found any authoritative evidence to support the case that Mutual istelf played a "major role" in reshaping the industry; rather, its weak competitive situation was used in the regulatory argument against NBC and CBS. But, pursuing your suggestion, have added substantial detail to this history.—DCGeist 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: This article states "Late in the decade, there was a brief exploration into the idea of launching a Mutual television network, serious enough to prompt talks with MGM as a potential source of programming talent.[44] The plans never got off the ground and Mutual thus became the only one of the "Big Four" U.S. radio networks not to start (and eventually be dominated by) a television network."
The more I dig into old broadcasting history, the more evidence I find that despite what established history states, Mutual seems to have ventured into television. 
The 1952 Hollywood Reporter Production Encyclopedia indicates there were a number of Mutual television affiliates around 1951-1952; it lists affiliations of stations in late 1951/early 1952 on pages 700-725. It lists these stations:
:WNHC-TV in New Haven ABC/CBS/MBS/NBC/DuMont
:WSPD-TV in Toledo ABC/CBS/MBS/NBC/DuMont
:KHJ-TV in Hollywood Don Lee
:(It also lists a number of Paramount Television affiliates)
This site claims KPTV in Portland, OR "As Portland's only television station, KPTV spent its first twelve months "cherry-picking" programs from NBC, CBS, ABC, DuMont... even the Mutual network."
The Internet Movie Database includes an entry on Telemount-Mutual, a joint Paramount/Mutual venture, at  . Cowboy G-Men is listed as a Telemount-Mutual program.
It seems clear Mutual did venture into television, if only on a limited basis. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. I'll be spending a day at the library next week and I'll see what more on this I can dig up--especially on Cowboy G-Men. Certainly the Hollywood Reporter Production Encyclopedia is a strong enough source to cite.—DCGeist 05:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to your research, Dan. Total Television (McNeil, 4th ed.) lists Cowboy G-Men as: "1952 - Syndicated. This low-budget western starred Russell Hayden and Jackie Coogan as Pat Gallagher and Stoney Crockett, two nineteenth-century government agents. Leslie Selander directed the series." McNeil lists any series not broadcast by a major network as Syndicated (for example, the Overmyer Network's The Las Vegas Show, etc). "Telemount Mutual" doesn't get a lot of Google hits, but a good library might have more info. Scans of the Hollywood Reporter encyclopedia have been made, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can butt in here, I'd like to note that WNHC-TV, New Haven still exists...it changed its name to WTNH many years ago, but it's one of Connecticut's leading television stations to this day.  Why not give the station a telephone call?  YouTube has bits from one of its anniversary shows, which doesn't mention Mutual, as I recall.   Eric O. Costello 11:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All four stations listed above still exist, although WSPD-TV's call signs have changed to WTVG and KHJ-TV is now KCAL-TV. Giving the station a call is probably original research, and the people who work at the station now are unlikely to be the same folks who worked at the station in 1952. I'd prefer to use contemporary sources (published sources from the 1950s) rather than testimonials from people who had little or nothing to do with the history of the station. Doug Quick at WICD, who maintains an on-line archive of Illinois broadcasting history, recently told me that very few broadcast facilities keep any records beyond what's necessary for legal reasons, and that the history of local television has in great part been lost or thrown away. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears that Mutual may have taken some steps toward establishing a television network (including contacting potential affiliates) but never actually produced or fed any programs.  Brooks and Marsh list no programs identified as Mutual broadcasts.  I have a video of a 40th anniversary history of WOR-TV (now WWOR).  At the time, WOR branded itself as "WOR-Mutual," and some early TV broadcasts (from the photos and kinescopes in the documentary) were branded this way, too.  WOR-TV also aired TV versions of some programs Mutual carried  (like the "Merry Mailman") but it does not appear these were fed to other stations.  Cowboy G-Men was a syndicated show (filmed and shipped to individual stations).  There is no indication Telemont Mutual had any connection with the Mutual Broadcasting System.  The word "Mutual" is in common use and is not Trade Marked.  Michaelcarraher (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutual Television

message: Besides the microphone logo at the top of this article, there was also a logo for Mutual consisting  of an antenna and a pair of wings, which can be seen on the article for RKO Television. As well, at the bottom of posters for the Mutual Black Network, a logo can be seen of a microphone between 2 diagonal lines to form a capital M. Have there been other logos for Mutual? And during what periods were each logo used?Jeremicus rex (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of MBS logos

message: Several of the images in this article are way too large. They include :Image:LumAbnerHorlicks.jpg (325px), :Image:WellesShadow.jpg (300px), :Image:FultonLewisAd.jpg (300px), :Image:KFRCMutualDonLeeLogo.jpg (300px), :Image:QueenForADay.gif (325px), :Image:MutualComo54a.jpg (200px), :Image:MutualFisher54a.jpg (200px), :Image:SerlingZeroHour.jpg (300px), and :Image:DickCarkAd.gif (325px). None of the images have the sort of detail that would require resolution above the default. The images that are more vertical than horizontal should be marked with "upright" so that they aren't oversized; one image, :Image:FultonLewisAd.jpg, should be marked with upright=1.3 so that it's larger than usual (but not as huge as it is now).
The above advice would result in images the following sizes.
They main photos and text of these images are all quite legible,
even on a high-resolution screen.
frameless
frameless|upright
This compares to the current size, which is way too large. Just one example:
I installed a change along these lines, but it was almost immediately reverted with the edit summary "caption text (which is article text) was vetted and approved in FAC--discuss in Talk any desired changes which might substantively affect them". My change had moved some caption text to the body of the article (I didn't delete anything), simply to avoid having these very long captions attached to smaller images, which is visually unappealing. If you'd rather have the long captions that's OK with me, my main objection is that the images are too large. I read the FAC and don't see anything there that "vetted and approved" the idea that the caption text should be very long and the images should be very large. All that I saw vetted was some of the details in the caption text, and these details were still in the article after my edits. Eubulides (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In broad strokes, this is not unreasonable. However, the article very much as you see it today was vetted and approved by multiple editors in FAC. It is inappropriate to now move some of the caption text into running text for the sole purpose of reducing image size, when that repositioning disrupts the existing focus and flow of the running text. I'll go through the proposed changes in detail early tomorrow afternoon, and we can proceed from there.—DCGeist (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, and by the way, there's absolutely no rush: this can wait until after the Main-Page rush is over. Eubulides (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I shifted a little material out of the two longest captions and reduced the corresponding image sizes some. Will revisit in a bit. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some images are waaay too large 

message: It seems to me Mutual does not meet the definition of a cooperative.  Most stations did not have an ownership interest in the network.  The few (listed in the article) did not have an equal interest.  Most stations did not contribute programming to the network; programming came from the same few stations which had an ownership interest.  In contrast, NPR is a cooperative.  All "member stations" have an equal interest in the network (and an equal voice in selecting the governing board).  Mutual was unique in that (some) stations owned the network, not the other way around.  It seems Mutual might better be described as a joint venture among a handful of large independent stations and regional networks (until RKO General acquired a controlling interest by buying WOR, CKLW, WHK, Don Lee and Colonial).  Michaelcarraher (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sort of authoritative sources upon which we're obliged to rely, the standard way of describing Mutual before General Tire assumed control is as a "cooperative." The article reflects that, while also providing extensive detail on the network's organizational and operational structure.—DCGeist (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This sounds like the recent spat of obits for Walter Cronkite which said in various countries news presenters are called "Cronkiteurs" (or some variation).  This is not true but was used in a book (no source named) by Gay Talese.  Then repeated in a book on CBS News and then repeated as fact.  This article links to an article on cooperatives, which defines the word.  It is clear in the article on Mutual that after its incorporation, the network did not fit this definition.  What is the original source for calling Mutual a "cooperative?"  If this source can not be determined, there is no way to evaluate whether it is "authoritative."  Michaelcarraher (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are literally dozens of authoritative sources, stretching back to the 1940s, that characterize Mutual as a "cooperative". Perhaps that's why, among the article's many readers, you are the first to identify a problem here. For efficiency's sake, here is a simple Google Book search on the terms "mutual broadcasting" and cooperative: .—DCGeist (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Even further back, note the language in this Time article from 1937, currently adduced in our article: Mutual's emergence "depended largely upon co-operation of three potent Eastern and Midwestern independents"; "the network was not organized for corporate profit"; WLW "soon became a cooperating member of the Mutual network".—DCGeist (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd agree that Mutual started out as a cooperative among the four stations and that appears to be to what the earliest articles in your search refer.  From there on, it seems later writers just repeated the term, even though as the article here (and some of those in your search) make clear, Mutual was no longer functioning that way.  I'd say the article here should refer to the original Quality Network and pre-October, 1934 Mutual as a cooperative but should not imply that Mutual continued as a cooperative for 18 more years.  Interestingly enough, WXYZ dropped out of Mutual (and became part of NBC's "Blue" station line-up) by 1935 but had contracted to provide the Lone Ranger to Mutual.  So WXYZ fed the Ranger to Mutual until 1939 and the show was heard in Detroit on CKLW.  While WXYZ did not carry Mutual programs at this point, WXYZ's out-state "Michigan Network" continued to be available to sponsors buying time on Mutual (as well as NBC Blue).  Dick Osgood in "Wixie Wonderland" describes a rather extensive set-up at WXYZ with the station capable of simultaneously feeding programs to its local transmitter, out-state stations on the Michigan Network, Mutual, NBC or the CBC Dominion Network.  Michaelcarraher (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the question is: is there a reliable source stating that Mutual was not a cooperative? DC's links show several sources stating it was. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's generous...too generous. If Michael digs deep enough, he may well find a reliable source that says Mutual was not a cooperative. But no matter. There are verifiably dozens that say it was. The language of the article ain't changing on this one.—DCGeist (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutual is not a cooperative 

message: This article says 1936; the Don Lee Broadcasting entry says 1934.
Timbabwe (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct year is 1934. Thanks for the catch.—DCGeist (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Lee's date of death? 

message: Is Alfred E. Newman properly included in "People" under "See also" or is this a joke?  Thank you, RadioBroadcast (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article on Mr. Neuman (not "Newman") describes, Mutual plays a very significant role in his history.—DCGeist (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, that is interesting; what threw me off was his listing under People as he is a fictional character. This is a very well-done and excellent article. RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Afred E. Newman

message: Substituted at 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment