Sponsor (Oct-Dec 1964)

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.

AS VIEWED BY OUR WASHINGTON NEWS BUREAU It must seem more expedient, if less democratic, to keep the decisions in the hands of the FCC, which is subject to both legislative and executive persuasion. It may seem increasingly preferable to hold on to the "idiocies" of the confused equal-time rules, rather than let the control get away. Sen. Clifford Case (R-N.J.) put it frankly to a group of New Jersey advertisers last week: "As the Congressional sessions become year round, and as the population soars, it becomes increasingly difficult for an office holder to be seen or to become known by a large percentage of his potential electorate, and so the communications media are more and more essential tools of our effort." Congress seems determined to hold on to those tools. During the two-year span of the departed 88th Congress, the broadcaster has had no help and plenty of confusion and hindrance from his mentors on the Hill in matters of politics and controversy. While Congress generously delegated the matter of broadcast ratings and commercial limits to broadcaster judgment — the record is different in matters of broadcasting politics and controversy. In June of I963, the FCC "clarified" its Fairness Doctrine, and reclarified it for the irate House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications in July. The subcommittee hearings produced a faltering, no-decision report in December which did nothing to clarify matters of equal time, fairness doctrine and editorializing. The FCC was warned not to penalize any licensee under the Fairness Doctrine. For the rest, the subcommittee would look into it all some more, some time. Neither then nor later did the FCC's House Committee overseers come to any conclusions on how the patchwork quilt of equal-time exemptions set up in 19^9 , and the crazy quilt of FCC rulings on fairness, would apply to station editorials about political candidates or their causes. To safeguard themselves against multiple equal-time demands, licensees are supposedly^ to provide answering spokesmen when a candidate feels he has been editorialized against. Rep. John Moss (D-Calif . ) said he wanted to "speak for himself," and pushed a bill to that effect. There were no final decisions on what to do when paid controversy aired by a licensee brought demands for free answering time, under the Fairness Doctrine. Sen. Pastore said some provision would have to be made to air both sides, regardless of the money factor. FCC chairman Henry made the same point. But no legislation or ruling made it solid, and House Commerce members protested the idea vehemently. In I96U, FCC came out with "primers" on how it deals with equal time and Fairness Doctrine cases. But time seems to have rendered much of the ruling backlog "moot." Time also seems to have called out new and drastic departures by the FCC, to deal with current situations. ^^;^^^/^4^ 14. SPONSOIl