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.

THE WEEK in WA-SHINGTON AS VIEWED BY OUR WASHINGTON NEWS BUREAU November 6, 196k When politics stepped out of the tv spotlight last week, the burning interest in the American as a voter gave way to the equally burning interest in the American as a viewer and a consumer. A move toward climax seems inevitable as government and the broadcast industry resume their traditional dialogue on the quality — or lack of it — of tv viewing as American family fare. Government pressures will come out of federal agency hearings, surveys, studies and consumer reports, past and to come, with assists from Hill committees and individual legislators. Industry will rack its brains and gamble its money, study ratings and try to keep on solving the enigma of what the viewers want, and what will bring in revenues for support of the free tv system. It will defend sometimes admittedly un-defendable programing, and watch praise for its gigantic national affairs coverage dwindle in post-election climate. It will keep an eye on programing on pay tv and worry over possible origination on CATV wires. Multiple station groups will muse over the Metromedia move into "do it yourself" programing via Wolper production buy. In the background of this particular government-industry standoff on the American consumer's tv entertainment, is the election of President Johnson to four more years. Johnson has declared himself for free enterprise, and the loose-rein in agency regulation. He is also an avowed protector of the consumer and American youth. He is also a skilled politician. Consensus here is that if the tv programing issue should ever erupt on a nationwide scale (and it took only one quiz show four years ago) — the President would cajole compromise from both sides without ostensibly favoring either. The FCC— itself hopelessly divided on its rights and duties in programing supervision — has been teetering on the brink of some sort of action since its I96O programing hearings. A while back, it was the business of comparing "performance with promise" in "overall" programing. Then it was community -level criticism, to be sought by licensees. Currently, the commission approach leans toward the revised program reporting forms — and the report of its Office of Network Study. In the latter, author Ashbrook Bryant would cut network program ownership to ^0 percent of entertainment fare in prime time, set up a conpulsory association membership with self-imposed sanctions, and regulate, not license networks. The FCC agonized months on both items. Justifiably, it shrinks from censorship — but, at same time there are constant cries to "do something!" CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Novemb«r 9, 1964 13