Broadcasting (Oct 1931-Dec 1932)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Bar Group Opposes Critical Report Lawyers Question 'Propriety and Tact" of Commission Urged by Guider Attack; Robinson Leads Opposition At Open Session By MARTIN CODEL STRONG protests against the critical phases of HUMS the report of the Inlfl standing commit tee on communications of the ■ American Bar A ssociation, <likjHH rected not so ■i V1III1M muc}1 against the Judge Robinson context of the re. port as against the "propriety and tact" of certain of its criticisms, were voiced at a section meeting of the association in Washington Oct. 10, the first day of the association's annual convention. Led by Judge Ira E. Robinson, former chairman of the Federal Radio Commission, against which the criticisms were directed, those opposing the tenor of the report secured enactment of a resolution to the effect that "it was the sentiment of the members present that the acceptance and filing of the report of the committee by the general meeting of the association should not be considered as an expression of the views of the members of the association with respect to certain parts of the report dealing with the administration of the radio act and the Commission's regulations." (For complete account of the standing committee's report, see Broadcasting of Sept. 1, 1932.) The executive committee of the Association, to which the whole matter was referred, met in closed session Oct. 12, but took no action. As a consequence, the report was presented to the full convention on Oct. 14, despite the protests, and was received without modification or change. Where Report Fails JUDGE Robinson's primary criticism of the report was that it failed to take into consideration "t h e underlying difficulties facing such a body" as the Commission. His opposition was directed mainly against the six pages under Section 5 of the report, which takes the Commission to task for its alleged inconsistencies in administering not only the radio act but its own rules and regulations. It was decided by the meeting that John W. Guider, acting chairman and one of the signatories of the report, who presided in the absence of Louis G. Caldwell, chairman of the committee, now attending the International Radio Conference at Madrid, should present the resolution and the views of the meeting to the executive comriittee of the American Bar Association with a view to determining whether Section 5 comes within the bounds of Mr. Patrick propriety. The Committee as stated above took no action. Specific objections to the statements made in the report, beyond the arguments regarding its "tact and propriety" were notably lacking in the discussions, although the arguments waxed warm at times. Judge Robinson, who devoted his scheduled talk largely to the public utility aspects of broadcasting, did take up some of the statements specifically, but confined his objections primarily to deprecating what he called the "stings" therein. "The regulations of the Federal Radio Commission," said Judge Robinson, "are as perfect, full, elaborate and able as those of any other department of the government in this capital city. A great work has been done by that body. If the Commission has enforced its formal regulations in some cases and ignored them in others, as alleged in the report, it is because no rules and regulations can be administered without some exceptions. Whether the charges against the commissioners are true or untrue, they are highly improper." Patrick Doubts Propriety ATTENDING the morning session were H. A. Lafount, acting chairman of the Commission, and Duke M. Patrick, its general counsel. Mr. Patrick, explaining that he spoke unofficially as a member of the bar association rather than as an official of the Commission, responded to the suggestion that the views of the Commission would be welcomed by asserting: "The report can be questioned from two points of views, first, its accuracy, and secondly, its scope and propriety. It should have been confined to legal questions for legal purposes to be considered by a legal body. It should not have raised personalities and questions of administration. "Such questions could have been dealt with in the abstract. I am not going to use the information received in my official capacity to challenge portions of the report, though they can be challenged. The report, though the longest of any submitted by any standing committee of the association, does not embrace communications subjects and makes no references except in passing beyond those confined to broadcasting. Broadcasting, while perhaps the noisiest child with which we have to deal, is by no means the only child." Guider Defends Report MR. GUIDER, as one of the five attorneys signing the report, assured the meeting that it was not intended that it should be unfair, and pointed out that most of its 65 pages were devoted to recognition of the "remarkable progress" being made in the field of radio jurisprudence. The report, in fact, thanked the Commission for its excellent new rules and regulations, he said, and it pointed out that the Court of Appeals has upheld the Commission in all but one instance. Though the critical phases of the report occupied the center of attention, there were other discussions pertinent to radio jurisprudence. Mr. Guider spoke briefly on libel or slander by radio, reviewing the recent decision of the Nebraska State Supreme Court holding stations liable along with speakers for libelous utterances delivered through their microphones, and Arthur Scharfeld, counsel associated with Mr. Caldwell, discussed the Mexican radio situation. (Both of these talks are elsewhere reported in this issue.) Judge Robinson talked on broadcasting as a public utility, reiterating his conviction that it is a common carrier open to all comers within reasonable limitations. Judge Robinson called radio a "licensed talking machine" and held that station owners are no more accountable for what is broadcast than the owner of a hall for hire is liable for what is uttered there. If the Nebraska Court better understood the pub':" utility concept of radio, he said, would not have made the distinctions it did. The broad powers of the Commission under the "public interest, convenience or necessity" clause of the act, according to Judpe Robinson, definitely puts it within the category of public utilities. Whether shoes are to be advertised by radio, or churches are to broadcast religion by radio, "every competitor should have the right to use the air as well as his rival," said Judge Robinson. Radio Open to All? "OF COURSE," he added, "there must be proper regulation, and no one can say that anyone can appear before the micronhone and speak or sing at will. There must be conditions that are reasonable, and a radio station manager can reject a speaker just as a railroad can refuse to carry a drunken man. I do not say that Henry Ford could demand the riffht to use the radio to advertise his automobile if General Motors has previously spoken or contracted for the time he wants. But if Henry Ford wants to use the radio, he has every right to use it within reason and convenience. I may say that the depression — economic readjustment of the nation, I prefer to call it — is rapidly obviatine that problem, for the radio would undoubtedly welcome Henry Ford, or any competitors of its existing clients, before their microphones if they chose to use them. "Churches have a right to broadcast under the same conditions, though my conviction is that no church ought to have a license to operate a radio station because of the ample opportunity afforded them to go on the air over stations devoted to the more general public service." Mr. Guider Nebraska Rule Seen as Raising Trouble for Broadcasters DECLARING that the recent decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court on radio libel is fraught with difficulties for the broadcaster, Johnj W. Guider, acting! chairman of the committee on communications of the American Bar Association, advocated a rule which will release a station from liability for defamatory remarks made by others "whenever it appears that the management of the station exercised due and reasonable care to avoid the utterance of defamation." He spoke Oct. 10 before a section meeting of the association in Washington. Mr. Guider reviewed the decision, rendered June 10 in the case of Sorenson v. Wood and KFAB Broadcasting Co., Lincoln, Neb. which held broadcasting stations jointly liable with the speakers foi libel uttered over the air. (See Broadcasting, July 1.) The decision, he held, in Nebraska, al least, raises an obligation upor broadcasters to censor from politi cal speeches remarks which maj be libelous. The opinion is th< first expression on the subject b\ any appellate court in this country "What is Truth?" "OBVIOUSLY," Mr. Guider as serted, "there will be instance where, in passing upon materia submitted to it, the station wil of necessity be placed in a mos difficult position. Assuming for tb purpose of this point, that a sta tion may lawfully delete libelou matter from a political speech, i may readily be appreciated tha the station would ordinarily hav no such knowledge of the facts a would permit it to determin whether the statements propose to be uttered are libelous. B their very nature, political speeche are often extremely critical i character. "It would be most unfortunat if candidates in utilizing the grea advantage of radio communicatio with the voters, are to be pre vented from calling their listeners attention to malfeasance in publi office, or to demonstrate unfitnes on the part of other candidate: Such matter, true, may be em nently proper, and in the intere. of the electorate. If untrue, _ may be libelous. How is a statio to distinguish truth from falsehoo in such cases, even where it pos sesses the infinite wisdom of bein able to decide, on very short nc tice, whether the matter, if ui true, is in law, libelous?" Hasty Decisions Involved MR. GUIDER said it had bee suggested that stations prote< themselves by demanding copies c (Continued on page 30) Page 12 BROADCASTING • October 15, 193i