Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

VOL 16; No. 3 5 The FCC FCC HEARS INDUSTRY VIEWS: FCC’s inquiry into programming last week heard some of the strongest “hands off” language to date — primarily from attorney W. Theodore Pierson and Storer Bcstg. vp-secy John E. McCoy. Hearings are due to resume Jan. 25 with industry (witnesses. It’s expected that Westinghouse’s Donald McGannon will be first, followed by NAB and the networks. The FCC staff hopes to conclude the entire hearing by the first week of Feb. Highlight digests of last week’s testimony : W. Theodore Pierson, attorney for 10 licensees, offered a tough & shrewd legal & practical analysis. He conceded that some court decisions approve of “program guidance & dictation by the Commission,” but said he believes that the Supreme Court wouldn’t go so far today. Evils in the industry, he said, can be eliminated by providing plenty of competitive facilities & the careful choice of licensees — not by program surveillance. Much of his statement was devoted to the premise that broadcasting is “but a mirror of public mores & tastes” and that the govt, neither can nor should attempt to determine what the public should have. Any “general standards” outlined by FCC, he said, “will stereotype stations’ formats and greatly restrict or entirely eliminate competition for audience.” Scores Programming Criteria for Licensees Pierson attacked the concept of requiring licensees to match performance with promises, asserting this would rob broadcasters of flexibility. FCC examination of “overall past programming,” he said, is “a euphemism for censorship.” He also inveighed against the use of program proposals in comparative hearings, stating that in TV contests such proposals “were fabricated by each out of whole cloth and purposely self-serving” — and equally attractive. He referred caustically to talk of “public service” programs, said he had never found anyone who could define them. His own definition: “all programs that serve a public want.” Commercial practices are something else. “We believe that it would be proper,” he said, “for the Commission to require the licensee to promise to adhere to certain commercial practices, such as those incorporated in the NAB Code.” He also recommended licensing of networks to “remove once & for all the fiction that a licensee can in reality choose & select the programs he [gets] from the network.” On cross-examination, Pierson asserted that the courts would change their opinions about FCC’s programming rule in the light of experiences since their last decisions. Therefore, he indicated, FCC has no duty to consider programming at all. He repeated his claim that the Commission can consider licensees’ qualifications only in areas other than programming. John E. McCoy, Storer Bcstg. Co. vp-secy. who was once a top FCC attorney, said he doesn’t know the extent of FCC’s powers over programming, because the Supreme Court has never ruled squarely on the question. In the absence of such a ruling, he urged the Commission not to assume it has powers over program quality. Much of McCoy’s 27-page statement dealt with the 1946 FCC Blue Book which outlined the Commission’s concepts of good programming. He said he doesn’t know what “balanced” programming is, that the emphasis on the virtues of sustaining & “talk” programs makes little sense to him, that the method of logging programs as “commercial” or “sustaining” is archaic & misleading. McCoy went through a 2-hour period of questioning, much of it by Comr. Hyde (just back from Geneva), who had a substantial role in the formation of the Blue Book. McCoy said that networks shouldn’t be licensed, that “we feel every step toward greater govt, regulation leads to another step toward govt, regulation.” Comr. Cross asked about advertiser influence, indicating he favored the “magazine concept.” Said McCoy: “I’ve seen the phrase and I don’t know what it means.” How about cutthroat competition, asked Comr. Ford. The remedy is civil action in the courts, said McCoy. How about asking licensees to tell what they’ve done to seek out community needs, asked Ford. The answers, by station lawyers, would turn out to be “stock phrases,” said McCoy. And so it went — ping-pong. Chmn. Doerfer wound it up with: “One question — what’s the difference between community needs & community wants?” McCoy said that it was a “matter of definition” but that he thought they were the same. “I thought they were different,” said Doerfer. “I can think of a lot of things that I want but that I don’t need.” McCoy answered, rather slowly: “I was talking about radio.” Everyone, including Doerfer, guffawed with delight. Herbert E. Evans, pres, of Nationwide Insurance Co.’s Peoples Bcstg. Corp. (KVTV Sioux City and radios WRFD Columbus, WGAR Cleveland, WTTM Trenton, WMMN Fairmont, W. Va. & WNAX Yankton, S. D.), said FCC “can & must be more than an electronic traffic cop.” At the same time, Evans said, the industry itself “is moving in the right direction” through its voluntary codes. Donald F. Conaway, AFTRA exec, secy., said there was little wrong with TV & radio that application by FCC of its 1946 Blue Book policies wouldn’t fix. William L. Putnam, head of uhf WWLP Springfield, Mass., said the greatest problem in the industry is the neglect of local needs by wide-area coverage stations. His solution: Move all TV to uhf. He said he doesn’t subscribe to NAB’s Code because “it is a series of negative prohibitions and doesn’t give positive yardsticks” and “I’ve got better places for the $400-plus.” Frank E. Kelly, vp of Fund for the Republic, reviewed studies of mass communications which it has undertaken over the past 2 years, concluded there “are no easy answers” to a basic question confronting FCC: “How can a federal agency regulate a communications medium without engaging in censorship?” Stanley Adams, pres, of ASCAP, again attacked broadcaster-owned BMI, stating: “It engages collectively in payola by entering into contracts to pay subsidies to music-publishing firms, including publishing firms created for this purpose by disc jockeys, performers & recording companies hand-picked by BMI.” Counsel Sydney M. Kaye for BMI promptly stood up in the audience to declare that BMI would offer testimony to refute the charges. Robert Montgomery asserted that NBC had pressured him & sponsor Schick, forcing the latter to buy sports programs as a condition of getting Robert Montgomery Presents in prime time. He urged that networks be divorced from production — at least that FCC give consideration to restricting networks to a percentage of production of the programs they carry. “Disassociation of carrier & content,” he said, “has always been a healthy thing.” Lowell Thomas said he had never had any interference from sponsors or networks, and that self-regulation can cure abuses. He said he has never paid any attention to ratings, that sponsors are always enormously interested in public-affairs programming and that he doubted that any govt, regulation on programming would be helpful.