Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1963)

NEW SERIES VOL. 3, No. 20 TELEVISION DIGEST-3 Comr. Ford is next man on the spot. Term expires June 30, 1964. Since FCC has 4 Democrats now, Kennedy must appoint a Republican (or independent). We have a year to speculate on whether President will reappoint Ford or look for someone with “Republican" handle — but with New Frontier philosophy. Though Ford is govt, career man, likes job, he won't kowtow to keep position. Brilliant attorney, hard worker, he's singularly employable on outside. Minow got tremendous farewell from press, which he has always charmed — editorials almost universally praising him. Henry got a baleful greeting from N.Y. Herald-Tribune's Donald I. Rogers, May 15 issue. Writing about Henry's comments on sustaining vs. commercial time, he said: "This means that the lousier business is, the better the FCC should consider the station to be . . . With ideas of this caliber, Mr. Henry seems certain to get the job. The govt, places a high value on failure." VHF DROP-INS — THE 51-49 QUESTION: In these waning days of Minow administration at FCC, one of most intense questions remaining is — vhf drop-ins. The thing is hot & unsettled. Last official time around (Vol. 3:13 p2). Commission voted 4-3, tentatively, to reject addition of the 3rd vhf station, at short spaces, to: Johnstown, Baton Rouge, Dayton, Jacksonville, Birmingham, Knoxville, Charlotte. But it hasn't stopped there. Minow is the swing man, and the pressures ore on him, both ways. He believes this is closest issue he's faced in his FCC career — a 51-49 matter, either way. But vote may be deferred from projected May 22 meeting to May 29, because Comr. Ford will be out of town May 22. There's considerable determination at Commission to get decision before Minow leaves — by Jime 1, if new Comr. Loevinger is confirmed by then. No one at FCC relishes job of deferring issue until Loevinger gets familiar with the tremendously complex matter. Latest move in picture is that of new Comr. Cox. Though strong uhf advocate, he believes that 3rd competitive service from uhf in the 7 cities is many years off without vhf. Therefore, he has quietly resurrected Minow's original compromise proposal: Moke the vhf drop-ins — but tell those who get the CPs for them that they must, in 6-10 years or so, shift to uhf. One problem with that is dispute over whether this FCC can bind future Commissions to honor that commitment. Competent men argue both sides. ' There are other angles. FCC staff members offer alternatives & questions for whatever is presented: (1) If "no drop-ins," they suggest that no vhfs be added anywhere, even if fully spaced, if they might hurt I development of uhf in markets involved. (2) If "yes, drop-ins," should drop-in operators be required to simulcast on uhf? (3) If "yes, drop-ins," should drop-in operators be required to simulcast part-time on uhf — and I should they be required to shift to uhf eventually? And, suppose Minow doesn't turn out to be swing man? Suppose someone else decides to shift? Not impossible — but not likely. If vote doesn't come before Loevinger is sworn in, he has our deepest I sympathy. ; STAGE SET FOR NAB'S RATINGS REMEDY: Ratings problem — and what to do about it — reaches another climax this week as Harris Subcommittee holds long-awaited hearings May 23 with NAB Pres. Collins. New twist: N.Y. stations reps may be called (for reps' ratings reaction see Vol. 3:19 p3). i With Collins will be Donald McGannon, Group W pres. & NAB research committee chmn., Melvin Goldberg, NAB research vp. If reps appear, they'll testify in June. Staff attorney Robert Richardson has i, talked to Henry Christal, Christal Co., & James Parsons, of Harrington, Righter & Parsons, others. Ratings controversy was filled with behind-the-scenes maneuvering last week, e.g., RAB asked NAB to raise $75,000 if latter wants to partner All-Radio Methodology Study; NAB also held long-expected meeting with raters at individual confabs in N.Y., showed them proposal, asked for support — got it. Rep. Harris (D-Ark.) kept fire going. He told Station Representatives Assn, awards luncheon in N.Y.: "The big, still unanswered question is how broadcast licensees, who as a group possess enormous resources and influence, hove allowed themselves to become so shackled by ratings? "The regulatory hold on broadcasters of the FCC pales by comparison with the chains that bind I the broadcaster to the ratings ... I suspect the answer lies in the fact that the chains . . . ore chains of gold. 1 "Some broadcasters and some broadcasting publications have advanced the argument that ratings 'I constitute a practical application of democracy with regard to radio and television programming. This is