Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

VOL. 16: No. 2 3 while questioning Coty Pres. Philip Cortney in the programming hearing last week (see p. 5), asking him how many Westerns are "enough" and then stating: "The same power that could say 'you can't broadcast that' could go to the pulpit or anywhere else and say 'you can't say that.' " Comr. Bartley, on other hand, spoke for another FCC faction when he said of Rogers report: "Why, most of it sounds like I could have written it myself." FTC Chmn. Kintner was quick to applaud Rogers' report, stating that FTC had already done some of the things recommended — and there are indications he may adopt the suggestion that FTC go after broadcasters who carry fake or deceptive commercials (see p. 7). NAB RELEASES LIST OF CODE SUBSCRIBERS: As promised with some misgivings at FCC programming hearing last month (Vol. 15:51 pi), NAB last week submitted its roster of TV Code subscribers (see p. 8) to Commission, thereby revealing (by omission) the identities of non-subscribers. NAB was able to boast all-time high in Code pledges. Not counting 3 subscribing networks, its list of 372 good-practice seal stations represented 71.8% of 518 operating commercial TV outlets. That was big jump of more than 100 subscribers from low of 270 to which Code Review Board sank just 6 months earlier after it got tough with offending hemorrhoid commercials (Vol. 15:25 p3) — and when nearly nobody had much reason to be worried about such things as quiz & payola hanky-panky. Unprecedented rally around Code flag was caused by scandals in industry, of course— self-preservation from punitive Washington moves being No. 1 rule for well-being of broadcasters. It was "further evidence of the TV industry's determination to regulate itself," as NAB Pres. Harold E. Fellows put it in spreading subscriber list on official public govt, record for first time. List of Code subscribers will continue to grow. Fellows said confidently. Radio was stirring with evangelistic Code fervor, too. In Dec. alone, NAB noted, there was 42% jump in number of stations subscribing to NAB's rules for good radio practice, bringing that roster to nearly 900. And NAB's Radio Board voted in mail ballot last week to adopt broadened & tightened TV Code language for Radio Code, as recommended by NAB's Standard of Good Practice Committee (Vol. 15:51 p7). Radio Board will act later on recommendations that "teeth" be put in enforcement of rules and that subscription list be opened to non-NAB members. PAYOLA & SNEAK-COMMERCIAL REPORTS FILED: Station responses to FCC's pgyola plugola questionnaire (Vol. 15:49 pi), filed last week, are about what you'd expect — though with wide variations. Commission isn't making them public, but we've spot-checked station attorneys and have a pretty good idea how they run. Jan. 5 was deadline only for question 2, asking what "internal controls" stations have established to minimize payola-plugola. Answers to question 1 — which sought instances of the practices — aren't due until Feb. 5, but most stations answered both last week. Answer to question 1 was simple for most. They reported they'd uncovered no under-the-table payments. Some went on to note, however, that they do receive free records & tapes, traditional in the industry. Answers to question 2 varied greatly, usually simple for small stations, detailed for big multiple owners. A frequent "control" mentioned was requirement that all employes sign affidavits stating no undercover pay had been received. Another was use of monitoring by non-programming personnel, often transmitter engineers who monitor signal anyway. Some stations reported their systems of selecting, approving & rejecting programs & commercials. Some described the instructions & warnings given to staff. What worries stations is future actions of Harris subcommittee, FTC & Justice Dept. "Suppose," asks one attorney, "that a station tells FCC it found no payola. Then, Harris or somebody comes out with a list including people on the station staff. Won't the Commission jump on the station and accuse it of being lax?" Another serious problem : What do you do when an employe confesses and says he won't do it any more? Says a lawyer : "Fire him? I think that's unfair. When a big record company can get away with a mild consent decree, why should some poor DJ lose his job?" It's our impression that Commissioners aren't inclined to be harsh about this. Many of the statements were signed by station managers. Although FCC hasn't decided yet, there's good chance they'll be returned to be signed by licensee officer.