Broadcasting (Oct 1931-Dec 1932)

The RADIO BOOK SHELF ilR©APCASTDINI€ THE NEWS MAGAZINE of THE FIFTH ESTATE Published Semi Monthly by BROADCASTING PUBLICATIONS, Inc. National Press Building Washington, D. C. Metropolitan 1022 MARTIN CODEL, Editor SOL TAISHOFF, Managing Editor F. GAITHER TAYLOR, Advertising Manager Executive and Editorial Offices: National Press Building, Washington, D. C. Subscription Price: 83.00 a Year locaCopy Copyright, 1932, by Broadcasting Publications, Inc. Inconsistencies FEW BROADCASTERS have ever dared to criticize the Radio Commission aloud. That it has been entirely too conscious of political considerations, is well known. Perhaps in that respect it is no more guilty than most other administrative agencies of the government. What makes the Commission's position awkward, is that in doing so it has so palpably played havoc with its own rules and regulations— altering them in individual cases when politically expedient, yet not admitting that exceptions really are often its rules. The smashing indictment of the Commission delivered by the Standing Committee on Communications of the American Bar Association in its annual report, pointing out its numerous inconsistencies, is therefore a bold and forthright statement. Anyone close to the Washington radio picture cannot help seeing the merits of the arguments advanced, usually backed by the Commission's own recorded proof of its own inconsistent actions. With some of the viewpoints, we must disagree, as with the bitter criticism levelled at Commission and State Department for their recent wave agreement with Canada. But the report as a whole should do much toward bringing into the open the faulty phases of the Commission's administration, and there is no better antidote than full publicity. As the American Bar committee points out, the way of the small, politically-impotent station has become very hard, as the Commission through the last few years has driven down both sides of the road at the same time, enforcing its regulations on some occasions, forgetting them — often without due explanation — ■ on others. Several striking examples, all supported by the record, are singled out by the Committee to show these inconsistencies and faults. For one thing, the charge is made that hundreds of applications have been denied, and even refused for filing, because of alleged violations of the Davis amendment; yet during the same period applications of similar nature have been granted, frequently without hearings, for substantial additional facilities in overquota areas. Then there are the charges that duplicate operation of stations is per. mitted on some clear channels and refused on others for grounds apparently applicable in both cases; that distance separation from the Canadian border and power limitations on Canadian-shared waves are determinative in some cases and disregarded in others; that so-called "experimental" assignments are charged against quota in some cases and not in others, and that violations of identical regulations are considered grounds for deletion in one case and yet not considered sufficient reason even for a hearing in another. The need for some sort of administrative reform in the Commission's dealings with small stations is clearly shown by the committee. A local station cited for hearing, for example, ofttimes is faced with the necessity of an appeal from the Commission's decision, which means that, aside from legal fees, it must meet almost prohibitive court costs. The cost of printing records alone averages $2.25 a page, which usually means that even the smallest record runs into hundreds of dollars and in some cases thousands. Moreover, stations frequently are required to spend large sums, wholly out of proportion to their investments and their means, in defending themselves before the Commission whenever any Tom, Dick or Harry in or out of radio applies for their facilities or for an assignment that would palpably cause interference. The committee urges a better grouping of related cases and the sending of examiners to points more conveniently located with respect to the parties involved to alleviate some of that burden. We are in thorough accord with the plea of the committee that broadcast licenses be issued for longer terms. Why the Commission should insist upon issuing licenses for only six-month periods when the Radio Act permits a maximum license period of three years, it is difficult to understand. Looking Forward IT IS IDLE to recriminate about the results of the copyright negotiations. Had there been no negotiations, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers would still have obtained an increased levy upon broadcasting for the right to use its music. From the outset, the Society made its aim clear — it proposed to get more money out of radio and intended to get it on a percentage basis. We hold no brief for the conduct of the negotiations. This levy of a percentage on "net receipts," in addition to the present scale of fees — these latter are called "sustaining" and in many cases may be adjusted downward — is a bitter pill for the broadcasters to swallow, especially in times like these. Yet there seemed to be no way out. It was either accept or face infringement suits. Under the present obsolete and unjust copyright laws, the copyright owners invariably have won such suits, and highly competent legal opinion held they could still wield the powerful bludgeon of a law that never contemplated radio. Had there been no negotiations, the situation would have been worse. The Society originally announced flatly that it intended to get 5-per-cent-of -gross on all commercial business. Now the scale is 3, 4 and 5 per cent, and there is still the probability that the "sustaining" fees will generally be lowered. No matter WHAT WE MAY expect when "Radio Goes Educational" is told in an article by Travis Hoke, former editor of Public Affairs, Popular Science Monthly and other periodicals in the September Harper's magazine. Scoffing at the assumption of Joy Elmer Morgan, chairman of the National Committee on Education by Radio, that the solution of every problem "lies in a new education which will reach to the remotest parts of our country as only radio can reach," the author writes: "Education has become our great save-all, solve all, cure-all. We have come to believe that it will grapple with the problems that we dare not face, make real the ideals to which we give but lip service, it will give our sons both jobs and benediction, and, if we leave it money when we die, it will shrive our souls." And yet, he adds " a thing can go by the name of education and still be worthless." Defending radio as an instrument "suited for diversion and for communication of news and speeches, not for the spewing of predigested culture," he advises the broadcasters "frankly and for money" to improve the quality of their broadcasts. "Let the educators keep to book and blackboard," he says. "Let them rid themselves of the American conviction that nothing pleasant is noble, that dullness is profundity, and the sad ending is art." LEE H. BRISTOL, vice president of BristolMyers Co. and president of the Association of National Advertisers, has written a stimulating book on the most advanced theories of conducting business in "Profits in Advance" (Harper & Brothers). Known as the coiner of "distribution director" to bridge the gap between production and sales, Mr. Bristol contends that business success nowadays depends on the expenditure of large sums of money in developing new products and new outlets for old products. The book points out that any business today, by utilizing modern means, can determine where it is in its life history and what it may expect in the way of profits from year to year. He explains a unique budgeting plan and emphasizes the value of statistical guides in charting business trends. The value of the right sort of advertising is also stressed. The author predicts that the expert on advertising and distribution will soon supplant the factory-trained executive whose chief interest is production. — Hyman Task. what the settlement — and certainly the NAB board and its negotiating committee accepted it under duress — all broadcasters would not have been satisfied. Someone would have to pay more, for more money from radio the Society was determined to get. If this copyright situation has proved anything, it has proved the need for organization and solidarity among the broadcasters, large and small. They must get together, in a fortified NAB, to present a united front against the hosts of racketeers that are besetting them. Under Oswald Schuette, with his new authority, the individual members of the NAB may expect to get their cases for lowered "sustaining" fees ably presented. In a closely knit organization, all stations may expect to have the case for radio as a whole forcefully brought before Congress. In a strongly financed association, it is conceivable that some day they may even be able to control the "raw material" of radio, which is music, just as many great newspapers and newspaper groups have finally secured control of their own sources of newsprint. Page 16 BROADCASTING • September 1, 1932