Subject: [removed] Digest V2002 #478
From: "OldRadio Mailing Lists" <[removed]@[removed];
Date: 12/9/2002 11:32 AM
To: <[removed]@[removed];

------------------------------


                            The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                              Volume 2002 : Issue 478
                         A Part of the [removed]!
                                 ISSN: 1533-9289


                                 Today's Topics:

  On the Busses in Korea                [ "david rogers" <david_rogers@hotmai ]
  Today in radio history                [ Joe Mackey <joemackey108@[removed] ]
  Re: My Little Margie                  [ Joe Mackey <joemackey108@[removed] ]
  Re: Response to Mr. Blue              [ hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed]; ]
  Re: What else is new                  [ hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed]; ]
  My Little Margie                      [ Dan Hughes <danhughes@[removed]; ]
  Otter                                 [ Dick Judge <dickjudge@[removed]; ]
  elsa maxwell                          [ "Holm, Chris " <[removed]@delphiau ]
  "Red Channels"                        [ dougdouglass@[removed] ]
  Re: My Little Margie                  [ Mark J Cuccia <mcuccia@[removed]; ]
  Re: My Grecian Goddess                [ hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed]; ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:17:57 -0500
From: "david rogers" <david_rogers@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  On the Busses in Korea

The strangeness of this true story may only have an impact on the few UK
readers here and maybe a few others.
As I have mentioned before I live in South Korea. While I was living in
Seoul I bought a second hand copy of one of the "On the Busses" movies
(where they go and stop in a holiday camp) and it has Korean subtitles. I
found this too bizare for words.
While I have been racking my brain thinking of ITV shows that went to BBC
radio - the nearest thing that I can think of is that Tony Hancock went from
BBC radio to ITV.

Love as always, David Rogers

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:18:04 -0500
From: Joe Mackey <joemackey108@[removed];
To: otr-net <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Today in radio history

>From Those Were The Days --

1940 - The Longines Watch Company signed for the first FM radio
advertising contract -- with experimental station W2XOR in New York
City. The ads ran for 26 weeks and promoted the Longines time signals.

  Joe

--
Visit my home page:
[removed]~[removed]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:18:11 -0500
From: Joe Mackey <joemackey108@[removed];
To: otr-net <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: My Little Margie

  A. Joseph Ross pondered --

1952 - My Little Margie, starring Gale Storm and Charles Farrell, made its
debut on CBS.

I remember that one on both radio and television.  Was this one of the
handful of shows that  started first on television and then went to radio?
Or did the radio and TV versions start  simultaneously?

  According to Those Were The Days, MLM began on June 16, 1952 then on
radio on December 7, 1952, so yes, it was one of the few that went from
t--------n to radio.  Dunning concurs with this as well, pg. 473.
  Joe

--
Visit my home page:
[removed]~[removed]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:11:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Blue
From: hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];

 Howard Blue, my intellectual and literary adversary, recently posted.
 
I've been away for a couple days and I came back find quite a few
postings about Bud Collyer, the blacklist, Hal Stone's challenge to me
etc.
 
 Do we agree on the terms of the dual? about 20 book lengths? :)
 
Jennifer Pope posted a message today saying "It's about time someone
defended Collyer  and the others!  "Dark side"?  Gimme a break."

By way of partially replying to Hal, I'll post this in response to
Jennifer's comment (from pp. 368-369 of "Words at War")
 
 Howard then goes on to discuss the Frederic March law suit against
 "American Business Consultants" allegations made about March.
 
"But there was none to be found and they made an offer
to settle out of court. The Marches accepted an agreement whereby
Counterattack printed a retraction story (SNIP) American
Business Consultants did not act in good faith, however. Although the
original charges against the couple appeared on Counterattack?s front
page, the retraction was buried in the publication?s back pages.

Come to think of it, Howard, I never see "Retractions" in a prominent
position in newspapers. (I think that's a sample of the slightly "biased"
reporting I commented about earlier.) Making such a pointed remark about the
placement of the retraction is designed to put the other side in a bad
light. The word "Buried", used in that context, definitely casts aspersions
on the opposition.  Do we know specifically what page in that issue? How
many pages were in that publication? It seems to me the blame should be
placed on Mr. March's attorney. As one of the terms in the "settlement", he
should have specified where the retraction was to run. I would have to
assume that the March's were represented by Legal Counsel, right?
 
Yes Jennifer, yes Hal, "Dark side!" Over and over again, Collyer and
his friends relied on unsubstantiated allegations to smear people. I provide
evidence in "Words at War" that Collyer himself at the very least read
Red Channels before it was published.

Was that a crime? Does that make him a bad person? Or simply very involved
in rooting out communists?

1.  Hal referred to my "seemingly biased comments" about Bud Collyer
In my posting, I  reported on what someone else, actor Jackson Beck ,
told a journalist, about Collyer. "Words at War" documents the source
from which the comments came. Is that the alleged "bias" to which Hal
refers.

 No!
 
2. Hal asked "Where did Jackson Beck stand, ...?"
NOBODY ever accused  Beck of being even a so-called "fellow traveler."

 Thanks for the clarification. I was just curious? He was just a
 disinterested objective bystander, right? Did you get the feeling he was
 actively opposed to Collyers activities when you talked to him, or just
 speaking objectively?  Were any personal (and or professional) animosities
 involved? I always like to, as they say "Consider the [removed] look for
 the motivation.) :)
 
3. I wrote  "....the fuller record (concerning Bud Collyer) bears a look"
And Hal replied "Who says? And why? What statement are you trying to
make?
 
I (!) say. My credentials are that during the eight years in which I
worked on the book, I interviewed numerous actors and others who were
blacklisted (Snip) I also did research in numerous libraries around the
country.
 
 So, now we know the "who".... And the "Why" can only be conjecture on my
part.
 
 It seems to me that a book about Radio Programs devoted to the war effort
 makes an interesting topic.  But why then, was it so important to dredge up
 the "Blacklist" if it wasn't "to make a personal statement about it"?
 
Isn't this fun Howard. Look how much exposure your getting for your book! :)
Will you do the same for me sometime? :)
 
4. Some supporters of the blacklist (this particular allegation was never
leveled against Collyer--) were motivated by personal financial profit.
Read pages 350-351 about this.
 
One can always find self serving jerks in any business, Howard.  Well, I'm
happy to hear that the allegation that "some" people were motivated by
personal profit was not leveled against Collyer. But I now go back to the
allegation that "you" leveled against Collyer.
 
Collyer helped create the conditions which led to the suicide of actor
Phillip Loeb and others and the premature deaths of actors John Garfield,
Canada Lee.
 
That's pretty strong language Howard. Isn't that called "Aiding and
abetting" in legal circles.  But you are of course entitled to
"flavor" your denunciation of the people involved. In "my" book,I refer to
as "well intentioned Patriots"who were attempting to stop the spread of
Communist subversion.
 
Howard, you often refer to pages in your book for elaboration. Permit me to
do the same. See page 187,188 for my take (and "biased" opinions) on this
very same topic.
 
Hey Howard. Maybe we could co-author a book. If Charlie permits this debate
to continue much longer (which I seriously doubt, even if it is OTR related)
we could compile our postings. Taking the tile of your book, and twisting it
around a little, we could call our combined literary effort. "The War of
Words". :) On second thought, how about, "[removed], Howard! Re-Laxx!
 
Hal(Harlan)Stone

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:30:13 -0500
From: hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: What else is new

Ok! Ok! call off the dogs. Let there be peace and light in the world.

First things first. My recent rebuttal to the "slings and arrows" sent in my
direction over my recent posting re: the Bud Collier "flap", was rejected by
our revered listmaster. (He informed me that other postings were rejected as
well). It seems he wishes to limit the debate to OTR historically related
events only.

I would like to point out, however, that there was a patriotic fervor
gripping the country back in the "Red Scare" days. Much like what happened
after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. I suppose rooting out "Communist
subversives" was akin to the internment of the Japanese living in this
country.  During the Blacklisting days, I don't think membership in the
Communist party was illegal. But it sure bothered people that the USSR
(Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) was our avowed enemy, and anyone who
espoused that "cause" was considered subversive. By [removed] Soviet
"agents", or at the very least, [removed] Feelings ran high that they
should to be identified and exposed as a danger to our form of Government.
I'm sure you are all familiar with the expression "[removed] it or
Leave it". An exaggerated position to be sure, but it served to fuel
patriotic [removed] one was saying that everything was perfect with our
form of Government. What was being said, however, loud and clear, was that
there was far too much wrong with Communism.

And lest we forget, there is another term that could be applied to the black
list. The word "Boycott" comes to mind. having been in the "Advertising"
business following my OTR years, I have seen many "organized" attempts to
Boycott products or businesses for one reason or another, whenever large
groups of people (with agenda's) disagreed with the manufacturing process,
the labor force used, or Product content. It's a peaceful form of protest.
It sure beats lining people up against the wall and shooting them. A
practice that was a inherent in Totalitarian regimes like Communism.

I fully expected to get lambasted for my position regarding my defense of
Bud Collyer. Anytime I take a strong "America First" stand, I'm labeled a
Arch Right Wing Conservative and the Liberal opposition has a field day.

Actually, I'm a moderate on most issues. I was raised in a working class
Democratic household. But I suppose I espouse moderate Conservative thinking
now. However, when it comes to the defense of our American Way of Life,
against insidious and subversive plots designed to overthrow our Republic,
I'm afraid I side with the pro-active and well intentioned "patriots".

The only thing dreadfully wrong with the HUAC, and in particular Joe
McCarthy's witch hunt, was that some of the methods and tactics were
incredibbly excessive and heavy handed. But can we really question the need
for our Government to address the problem back then? There were subversive
Communists who were hell bent on supporting the Soviet ideology and the
destruction of capitalism from within. That is a documented fact.

But unfortunately, due to TV cameras, McCarthy jumped at the chance to
advance his personal political fortunes by playing to a vast audience as
being the savior of this country. He was acting. (Overacting is more like
it.) It was very transparent to me. He was a buffoon. He was gross. And his
puppet Roy Cohn wasn't any better. It was a shameful use of power. But then,
that's some politicians for you. We have seen other shameful behavior from
politicians since then. :)

I readily agree that there definitely were misguided extremists back in
those days. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made. Passions ran high. But we were
in an undeclared War. It's a truism that, unfortunately, "innocent"
civilians do get harmed in war time. War is hell.  Collyer, Weist
and others did what they thought was right for those times. It wasn't
anything more than trying to identify Soviet or Communist sympathizers.
Unfortunately, in all likelihood, well meaning Socialists got caught in the
cross fire.

Bottom line. People in the Entertainment industry were being asked to take a
stand against Communism. To willingly and openly declare their allegiance to
this Country. I see nothing wrong with that when a "War" is ongoing.

Can we justify, just a teeny bit, the internment of the Japanese? We were
scared witless, and were terribly unprepared for war. Did their internment
prevent sabotage to the war effort on the West Coast?. We will never know.
But I don't recall any instances of it. (But I could be wrong).

Sure, we exclaim loud and clear the issue of free speech. But when it's an
unpopular dissertation, and seemingly anti-American, then the fur flies and
people get their "patriotic" dander up.

By the way, one of the negative comments made about my posting was as
follows.

Among his more petty criticisms was one regarding Blue's use of the word
"avuncular." Hal said, "Auuncular" means like an Uncle," implying
Howard had used the word incorrectly (why do I have the impression
Hal just looked that up?). But it also means, according to WordNet,
"like an uncle in kindness or indulgence." Thus, Howard's usage was
entirely appropriate.

I think it's funny. As soon as someone sees a posting that offends their
political sensibilities, they can find all sorts of things to attack and/or
ridicule. :)

I guess my attempt at a parallel went over some heads, and they missed the
metaphor. I defined the word "Avuncular" not to be petty, or question
Howard's use of it. Far from it. That "definition" set up the words within
the parenthesis that followed.

(Ruth's "Uncle Sam" perhaps?) :)

Perhaps a bit too obtuse for some. The "Uncle Sam" I referred to was the
ever present symbol of this country for many years. Who can recall the
famous wartime Military Enlistment poster, with an intense looking Uncle Sam
pointing his finger directly at the viewer, with the words emblazoned
[removed]"I WANT YOU". All I was trying to do was equate "avuncular" with Bud
Collyers "Uncle Sam" type of patriotic zeal.  Oh well. Win some-lose some.

Speaking of winning some. Hey Howard, It worked. I drummed up support for
your book. And undoubtedly lost sales of mine to the Ultra Liberal
contingent. :)

However, some might still buy a copy. Since it has my picture on the cover,
they could then burn it in effigy. :)

I would also like to call attention to the "smiley face" icon following some
of my statements in my response to Howard. While strongly disagreeing with
the "Slant" to Howards posting, and his inference that Bud Collyer was
responsible (directly or indirectly) for the deaths of some individuals, I
could not bite my tongue at that absurd accusation. But I did try to keep it
"tongue in cheek" while making my points. Why is it that the "L word" folks
have such an under developed sense of humor. (Albeit, although the topic is
far from humorous, people should be able to keep philosophical and
ideological debates a little on the light side.

Love to all sides of the political spectrum. May the force be with you
during this joyous Holiday season.

Hal(Harlan)Stone
Bloody but unbowed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:06:33 -0500
From: Dan Hughes <danhughes@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  My Little Margie

>From Dunning's ON THE AIR, page 473:  "[My Little Margie] was one of the
very few radio shows that originated on TV, the video series premiering
almost six months earlier."

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:07:46 -0500
From: Dick Judge <dickjudge@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Otter

Within the past couple of weeks, someone mentioned "Otter" as an MP3 database program.
Would someone please repeat the website pertaining to this?
Thanks,
dickjudge

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:08:47 -0500
From: "Holm, Chris " <[removed]@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  elsa maxwell

A quick question.  I've been listening to shows and during the commercial the
announcer uses the phrase: "famous entertainer Elsa [removed]"  Who was Elsa
Maxwell, and how does one become famous for entertaining.    [removed] insert
joke here.

-Chris Holm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:08:53 -0500
From: dougdouglass@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  "Red Channels"

How many people were listed in "Red Channels"?

Doug Douglass

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:15:24 -0500
From: Mark J Cuccia <mcuccia@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject:  Re: My Little Margie

I know that the Television version of "My Little Margie" started off on
CBS-TV, as the Summer replacment (Summer 1952) for "I Love Lucy".

I seem to think that it alternated at times between CBS-TV and NBC-TV,
but that the NBC-TV airings were (prime-time) repeats of episodes
previously aired over CBS-TV. I'll have to check my records on that.

(I know that "Private Secretary" aka "Susie" with Ann Sothern did at times
alternate between CBS-TV and NBC-TV, the NBC airings being repeats of what
earlier had run on [removed] But I think the same thing applied to the TV
version of "Margie")

But as for "My Little Margie" on network [removed]

I had seen some network schedules in back-issues of Broadcasting Magazine.
In the 1950's, both the TV and Radio networks had well detailed program
feed schedules (at least for the Eastern time feed) with sponsors (or info
as to sustained) listed every month in Broadcasting Magazine. By 1957 or
1958, the radio and TV networks' schedules were only published in
BROADCATING on a quarterly basis. And starting with whatever quarter in
1959 or 1960, the radio network schedules in BROADCASTING were
discontinued, the TV networks' schedules continuing (quarterly) throughout
most of the 1960's decades.

I have seen backissues of BROADCASTING magazine only as far back as
May 1954. I never have had the chance to see backissues prior to that
date. And, it wasn't at any library (public or university) where I am in
New Orleans ... the good university and main public libraries here only
have backissues of BROADCASTING as far back as 1958 or [removed] So I don't
know all of the details about "Margie" on network radio prior to May 1954.

[removed] I remember seeing and noting down that "My Little Margie" was
listed in the network *RADIO* schedule sheets in one of the weeks of
May 1954 of BROADCASTING Magazine. And it also was listed *TWICE*, on
different days (and times?) and on *DIFFERENT NETWORKS*...
once on CBS Radio, the other scheduling on Mutual!
(I don't remember which network aired first during a "Sunday-to-Saturday"
week).

Were *BOTH* radio networks carrying "My Little Margie" during any
"simultaneous" timeframe? I don't remember offhand who the sponsor was for
each network's listing in those schedules, but I *THINK* that it might
have been Philip Morris Tobacco Company (KAAAWWWLLLL FORRRRRR PHILLLIPPPP
MORRRRRR-EEEEEESE) for one or the other network airings.

Was this something that was allowed because the SPONSOR demanded/desired
it? And what about episodes aired? Were there specific episodes for the
CBS Radio airing, and different episodes for the Mutual airing? Did they
produce one batch of episodes and each network aired the same episodes but
possibly in different orders? Or was the same (weekly) episode aired on
each network for each particular week?

Mark J. Cuccia
mcuccia@[removed]
New Orleans LA

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:16:24 -0500
From: hal stone <dualxtwo@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject:  Re: My Grecian Goddess

Irene, I "love" you. (And not because you said something nice about my
book).

I think it's only fair to let our fellow Digesters know that we sometimes
e-mail each other privately, and I have grown to appreciate your sense of
humor, and your intelligent writing style.

We would undoubtedly be the best of friends socially if we limited our
conversations to non-political issues. We simply see things from a different
perspective.

I for one have no intention of furthering this "debate" in the Digest. I
graciously step aside and let you have the last word. And you expressed
yourself admirably. I would have expected nothing less. And I do appreciate
your dispassionate tone. You get my vote for being my favorite Liberal
poster girl. Seriously.

There are things you say that I agree with wholeheartedly. There were
terrible excesses. But there is no need for me to further elaborate on why I
thought Howard Blue's views and statements were a bit over the edge.

That [removed] you might be interested in a recent posting in which I compare
organized "boycott" campaigns as a form of "blacklisting". They too hurt
people financially.

I'm sure we can agree that there are two sides to every coin, and nothing is
Black and White. It's when it gets too "pink" that I get concerned. (Sorry,
my dear friend. I couldn't resist the pun).

I'm outta here.

To quote one of my favorite literary characters. Wasn't it "Tiny Tim" that
said, "God Bless you, one and all".

(Darn! I hope that wasn't a politically incorrect thing to say.) :)

Hal(Harlan)Stone
Troublemaker

--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V2002 Issue #478
*********************************************

Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
  including republication in any form.

If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
   [removed]

For Help: [removed]@[removed]

To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]

To Subscribe: [removed]@[removed]
  or see [removed]

For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
  in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]

To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]

To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]