Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

NEW SERIES VOL. 3, No. 10 TELEVISION DIGEST— 3 up its turndown — squaring it with decisions it has written for move-ins such as Providence & New Orleans. In such cases. Commission pointed to need for more competition, aid to 3rd network, etc. Pro-drop-in forces, such as ABC, aren't giving up, of course. They'll do utmost to achieve reversal in final decision. • • • • Some uhfers took heart from drop-in rejection, presumably will file for uhfs in the 7 markets if final decision sustains current FCC view. Thus, there's much more interest in FCC-sponsored uhf-development conference in Washington March 12. Some 200 representatives of govt. & industry are expected to participate in first meeting of Committee for the Full Development of Uhf Broadcasting (CUB). Most organizations are very serious about session, plan to send in their first string men. Comr. Lee heads CUB, with Comr. Henry 2nd in command. Lee's engineering asst. Bud Weston is exec, secy.; his legal asst. George Smith is legal counsel; his former legal asst. Arthur Gladstone is special counsel. In anticipation of all-channel-set low, meanwhile, uhf-equipped set production continues to rise. It was 12% of total output last month, vs. 8% in Jan. 1962, 7% in Jon. 1961, 9.5% in Dec. 1962. To sweeten uhf further, FCC is expected shortly to ease several transmitting requirements as long proposed— affecting audio power, DAs, vestigial sideband, etc. POUNDING ON HOUSE'S CLOSED DOOR: Televising of House activities, primarily committee hearings, came substantial step nearer reality lost week. With the immovable late Speaker Sam Rayburn no longer an obstacle, with new Speaker McCormack (D-Mass.) willing to go along with elimination of ban if House so indicates, with Commerce Committee Chmn. Harris (D-Ark.) actively pushing for it — the day of House telecasts is definitely foreshadowed. Rules Committee heard testimony on resolutions by Harris, Meader (R-Mich.) & Griffiths (D-Mich.). First 2 would permit only coverage of committee hearings; Griffiths entry would allow coverage of House itself. Only Harris & Meader testified — and several Rules Committee members showed they were definitely queasy about whole thing. For example: Rep. Brown (R-Ohio) feared there would be one-sided presentations by telecasters, through editing, etc. Harris acknowledged possibility of abuses but said that Congress shouldn't try to "manage" news, that potential good far outweighs potential evils. He pointed to public's eager welcome of Senate committee hearings. Meader felt open-door concept is finally getting somewhere (he has introduced such measures for decade), told us he believes Rules Committee would yield if broadcasters press now. NAB Pres. CoUins will testify, no dole set. BROADCASTERS LAUNCH OFFENSIVE AGAINST 315: TV-radio industry's biggest gims traveled to Washington last week, fired opening salvos in latest battle against Communications Act's equal-time provisions. Hearings were before Rep. Rogers's (D-Tex.) Communications Subcommittee on H.J. Res. 247, to suspend Sec. 315 for 1964 Presidential & Vice Presidential races, as in 1960. But broadcasters led by CBS Pres. Frank Stanton & NBC Chmn. Robert Samoff urged complete repeal of Sec. 315. They were joined by NAB Pres. Collins. FCC Chmn. Minow limited his testimony to suspension in 1964. Stanton got most extensive grilling by Subcommittee, mostly from Rep. Moss (D-Cal.). Stanton contended broadcasters should be sole judges of which candidates were qualified & entitled to air time, said candidates should be required to submit manuscripts in advance of broadcasts. Moss had his doubts about this. "I don't want anyone between me and my audience telling me what to say, and I don't see where the public is served if there's a chance of that occurring," he told Stanton. Stanton said broadcasters could be trusted to act fairly in presenting candidates of opposing views, said temporary suspension in 1960 proved that Sec. 315 is "an unnecessary and crippling strait jacket, into which broadcasters, singled out among all media, ore forced." Moss asserted broadcasters shouldn't have same freedoms as press, claimed that latter's freedom was granted by Constitution, while broadcasting's