Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1962)

WASHINGTON WEEK 22 OCTOBER 1962 / cwiaM twa What's happening in U.S. Government that affects sponsors, agencies, stations Major distributors of feature motion pictures to TV sent a battery of highpriced lawyers to argue that the Supreme Court should lift a District Court injunction against block booking. The Justice Department argued that the lower court decree should be stiffened. Neither side mentioned the far reaching possibilities of the final decision, but this was pretty clear. The Supreme Court could influence a step-up on Justice Department activities with respect to TV or it could apply the damper, depending on the decision in this case. Distributor lawyers, headed by Louis Nizer, argued that the selling of feature films to TV is highly competitive, that those accused do not account for a major part of the total supply. They added that nobody had charged them with monopoly or conspiracy, and they agreed that in this field it is the TV stations rather than the distributors who hold the bargaining power. Justice, represented by Daniel M. Friedman, stood squarely on the Paramount case in the motion picture industry, holding that distributors may not require the taking of unwanted films to secure wanted product. Friedman asked the Supreme Court to wipe out the lower court decree provision that a distributor may withhold individual films until he can canvas a market to see if somebody will take the entire package. He also asked a new provision that individual films may not be priced so high in relation to the price of the total package that a station would have to take the package. Nizer, Myles J. Lane, Justin M. Golenbock and Mervin C. Pollak said the Paramount decree has no place in TV. They said the major distributors control most of the product for theatres and feature films represent 100 percent of their available product. TV not only has a variety of different types of programing to compete with feature films, but there is no monopoly by any group of distributors. The Supreme Court can affirm or reverse the lower court decree, or it can itself dictate new terms. The more the Supreme Court intrudes itself into the final settlement, the mere momentous the case will be for television, because the clearer the precedent will be. Roy Battles, director of the Clear Channel Broadcasting Service, confirms that at least nine of the 13 members of the association are set to apply for superpower. These applications will likely jar the FCC off dead center, where it has been sitting since the House passed a resolution asking it to consider higher power for clear channel stations. WSM, WLW, WSB, WJR, WHO and KSL will apply for higher power immediately. KFI, WGN and WHAS will apply as soon as engineering work on their applications is finished. WBAP, WFAA, WHAM and WOAI have not been heard from. Members of CCBS are independent stations. Network-owned and Westinghouse-owned stations have not signified their intentions. The House resolution was aimed to counter a long-ago Senate resolution asking the FCC to hold off on approval of higher power, and it was also aimed at forcing the Commission to abandon at least for a year plans to allow second nighttime services on half of the remaining clear channels. The FCC hasn't moved in any direction since passage of the resolution, but nobody doubts that the Commission will hold off on any new stations on the clear channels. Action on higher power defies prediction. There was some talk about permitting one Or a few stations to try 750 kw on an experimental basis. The wholesale applications should jar the FCC into taking actual steps of one kind or another. VfltSOR/22 October 1962 55