Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

VOL 16: No. 2 7 Doerfer’s Anti-Censorship Case; In the best summary of his views so far, FCC Chmn. Doerfer, in a speech prepared for delivery at the Federal Communications Bar annual banquet Jan. 8, presented key passages from what he considers to be contradictory U.S. Supreme Court decisions governing freedom of speech. Then he appealed to the attorneys to come forth with their own analyses, to help the Commission judge its powers over programming. “The future of the American system of broadcasting hangs in the balance,” he said. “By the American system of broadcasting I mean the original Congressional intent, as yet unamended, that it shall be developed within the framework of the competitive system, and that the Commission shall have no power of censorship or impose any regulation or condition which shall interfere with freedom of expression.” Doerfer concluded by quoting from Justice Black’s concurring opinion in the Dec. 14, 1959 Supreme Court decision in Smith v. State of California: “If, as it seems, we are on the way to national censorship, I think it timely to suggest again that there are grave doubts in my mind as to the desirability or Constitutionality of this court’s becoming a Supreme Board of Censors — reading books & viewing television performances to determine whether, if permitted, they might adversely affect the morals of the people throughout the many diversified local communications in this vast country.” Doerfer then asked: “Will the FCC become a Supreme Board of Censors? How far can it go to achieve balance in program? How can it aid the industry to do more public service programming and still observe the fundamental law of the land ?” Portland, Ore. Ch. 2 should go to Fisher Bcstg. Co., over the Tribune Publishing Co., FCC examiner Herbert Sharfman recommended in his initial decision. A 3rd applicant, radio KPOJ Portland, had withdrawn. Fisher is 60% owned by Fisher’s Blend Station Inc., the owner of KOMO-TV Seattle. Tribune owns KTNT-TV Tacoma & The Tacoma News Tribune. Sharfman based his conclusions on: Fisher’s 40% ownership by Portland residents vs. Tribune’s none; civic activities of Fisher’s Portland stockholders; greater diversification of business interests among Fisher principals; Fisher’s superior broadcast record. Sharfman had his usual fun with words, starting his conclusion with: “As the significance of the various ‘criteria’ has been discussed in many Commission decisions, this Initial Decision will not undertake to pass anew on the bases or materiality of these guides to decision as if the present document were a work of seminal originality.” Federal Communications Bar Assn, elects: Frank U. Fletcher, pres.; Robert M. Booth, 1st vp; Harold E. Mott, 2nd vp; Benedict P. Cottone, secy.; James E. Greeley, asst, secy.; John P. Southmayd, treas.; Edward F. Kenehan & John H. Midlen, 3-year terms on the exec, committee. ORDER YOUR 1959 BOUND VOLUME We will bind & index all 1959 copies of Television Digest, Vol. 15, including the semi-annual Factbook with all addenda, supplements and special reports. This embossed hard-cover volume — the authoritative record of the television industry in 1959 — is available at $25.00. Orders will be accepted through January 8, 1960. Stations More about FTC MAY CITE STATIONS: Broadcasters, who so far have escaped legal responsibility for deceptive commercials carried by their stations, may find themselves called to account by FTC, along with sponsors & ad agencies, we learned last week. Current project No. 1 for a task force of FTC lawyers is to draft a plan (to be buttressed by legislative & court citations of the ad-policing agency’s broad powers) for including broadcasters themselves as respondents in future ad complaints. Attorney Gen. William P. Rogers suggested in his TV quiz-scandal report to President Eisenhower (see p. 2) that FTC proceed against broadcasters “in appropriate cases” involving “false advertising of foods, drugs, devices or cosmetics.” FTC is not only taking up that recommendation ; it contemplates naming networks & stations as co-respondents in cases involving offending commercials. FTC already has begun citing ad agencies (Vol. 15:50 plO). “A staff is working on this for consideration by the Commission,” Chmn. Earl W. Kintner told us guardedly. “Certainly the study looks forward to a position by the Commission on the report. And certainly there is a possibility that we will start proceeding against broadcasters.” Kintner wouldn’t say just when FTC might make its decision on the proposed new strategy in its hard-driving campaign to clean up TV & radio practices. But other FTC sources said the move was shaping up rapidly. Meanwhile, FTC cited 5 more record firms in the payola phase of its TV-radio drive (Vol. 16:1 p7). That brought to 28 the total of record manufacturers & distributors accused of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act by paying disc jockeys to play their products. Still another batch of complaints against record firms was ready for mailing Jan. 8 to an undisclosed number of additional music firms. But the complaints were called back for more paper work by FTC staffers. They probably will be issued this week — and more will come after that. “There is more payola coming up,” one FTC source told us. “You can be sure. There’ll be a steady flow.” Named in last week’s complaints, all accused of giving unidentified jockeys payola to “expose” records in which the respondents have financial interest, were : Jamie Record Co., a distributor, 1330 Girard Ave., Philadelphia ; Alpha Distributing Co., a distributor partnership of John Holonka & Harry Apostcleris, 437 W. 45 St., N.Y. : Chess Record Corp., Argo Record ^Corp. and Checker Record Co., 2121 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, and their Pres. Leonard Chess & secy-treas. Phil Chess. FTC’s broadcasting week also was marked by a reply by Chmn. Kintner to questions from Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Magnuson (D-Wash.) about what the agency is doing to prevent deceptive broadcasts (Vol. 15:47 p5). In a 4-page letter, Kintner told Magnuson FTC has “adequate” authority to act against misleading TV & radio commercials — and is acting. But Kintner said it was “not clear whether the Commission has jurisdiction” over programs in which “the name of the sponsor or its product appears visually on the screen throughout the entire program or almost the entire program.” He added that in view of FCC’s programming hearings (see p. 5) it would be “premature” for FTC to comment now on any need for any legislation in that specific area. Through his office, Magnuson commented in reply that he hoped FTC wouldn’t stall while FCC ponders its powers & responsibilities: “If the FTC delays its action against those who impose upon the American public, we may have to demand legislation that will force it to act.”