Broadcasting (July - Dec 1939)

Emerson-sponsored MBS series, it was concluded that the matter should be left to the network. The Code Committee's interpretations at its initial session, as forecast in the Oct. 1 issue of Broadcasting, were not restricted to the Coughlin situation nor to the Roosevelt problem which developed as an aftermath. The rulings automatically became applicable to such figures as Dr. J. F. Rutherford of Jehovah's Witnesses and The Rev. Walton E. Cole, Unitarian minister of Toledo, who had purchased time on stations to answer Dr. Coughlin and who had complained to the FCC over WJR's refusal to accept his transcriptions. Townsend Rejected, Too On Oct. 10 the Code Committee turned thumbs down on sponsored broadcasts in behalf of the Townsend Plan as a controversial question unacceptable under the code. But in California, where the "$30 every Thursday" project is subject to ballot, it was held that time can be purchased in behalf of or in opposition to the Townsend Plan. Meanwhile, two picketing developments growing out of the NAB action, and purportedly stemming from Coughlin protests, were reported. One was said to have been at CBS headquarters in New York Oct. 1 when former Gov. Al Smith spoke in favor of lifting the embargo and the other at YankeeColonial Network headquarters in Boston. Both were said to have been by so-called "Christian Front" movements which have been linked with Fr. Coughlin. CBS, as a precautionary measure, picked up Mr. Smith from its Seventh Avenue studios rather than its main studios. No trouble developed at either place. Carry Replies to Coughlin A Coughlin counter-offensive undertaken by the Non-Partisan Committee for Peace Through Revision of the Neutrality Law, headed by William Allen White, of Emporia, Kan., resulted in procurement of time on at least 15 stations carrying the Coughlin broadcasts for Oct. 15. The committee, recently organized, requested time of the 44 stations carrying the Coughlin series immediately following the Coughlin broadcasts in order to reply to the priest. Msgr. John A. Ryan, of Catholic University, and Prof. Charles G. Fenwick, of Bi'yn Mawr, were to answer the priest. In requesting the time, Mr. White based it on the NAB code and stated that "unlike the Coughlin interests" his organization did not have the necessary funds to pay for the telephone lines to hook up an independent network and that consequently transcriptions would be employed. The 15 stations agreeing to carry the Committee's broadcast Oct. 15 were given as WAAB, Boston; WCOU, Lewiston, Me.; WEAN, Providence; WJR, Detroit; WLBZ, Bangor; WJAS, Pittsburgh; WTMJ, Milwaukee; WHO, Des Moines; WIBA, Madison, Wis.; WICC, Bridgeport; WKZO, Kalamazoo; WIRE, Indianapolis ; WSAR, Fall River; W THT, Hartford; WSTP, St. Paul. It was an Code^s Restrictions on Commentators Are Blow to Freedom^ Patt Tells NAB FOLLOWING is the text of the telegram sent the NAB Code Compliance Committee Oct. 6 by John F. Patt, vice-president and general manager of WGAR, Cleveland, and vice-president of WJR, Detroit, and KMPC, Los Angeles: "Public reaction to yotir general statement to the press leads me to make the following statement. It is my opinion and that of many broadcasters with whom I have talked that the broadcasters who voted for the adoption of the code, while well-intentioned and having high purposes in mind, have gone too far on the controversial issue question and have taken an unfortunate step from which we may never be able to retreat. "That step is in the direction of censorship and abridgement of free speech, as time will certainly show whether we like to admit it or not. While most of the code shows careful thinking and high resolve and will be of ultimate benefit to all broadcasters and to the public, the provision on controversial subjects seems to many of us the first shackle on freedom of speech on the radio. It takes away much of the broadcaster's responsibility of judgment for what is in the p'ublic interest. It goes beyond mere selfregulation into the realm of strangulation, stagnation and censorship. Merely Reporters "Did the broadcasters contemplate that this provision of the code would mean that such famous personalities, commentators and speakers as W. J. Cameron, Dorothy Thompson, Boake Carter, Lowell Thomas, Edwin C. Hill, H. V. Kaltenborn, John B. Kennedy, Elmer Davis, Hugh Johnson and many others cotild never again express an opinion on a sponsored program? If that is so, it will surely result in these speakers reducing their talents to that of mere reporters of facts rather than analysts and interpreters; otherwise, they will be limited to those more obscure hours of the day which are now sustaining. Many millions of listeners then will not have easy access to hearing them because the popular evening periods having mass audiences will be restricted to entertainment and informative programs only. "We of WGAR have never used our facilities to express or exploit our personal or company viewpoints on the listener. We are conscious that many speakers on controversial s'ubjects who have bought time from our station have made statements which were perhaps not acceptable or agreeable to our listeners, but we have been quick to say that they were not our viewpoints and we have been quick to offer time on an equal basis to persons holding opposing views. Nor have we, nor any other broadcaster to our knowledge, ever allowed any organization or individual to usurp more than a limited amount of time which could not be dtiplicated at once in an equal amount by opposing speakers. We have rarely had one side of a controversial issue given on paid time which was not immediately answered on other paid time and on the same terms. "We are aware that there are possible excesses in freedom, but in our opinion it would be better to have the excesses than to have the cure that is now proposed. But, in particular, we even believe that self-respecting broadcasters can devise ways and means of permitting speakers on controversial subjects to go on their own sponsored programs and at the same time eliminate any obvious excesses. The financial return to the broadcasters is secondary here to the larger p'ublic interest. "If the code as it now stands is to hold without reasonable amendment, I predict we shall see an emasculation of private enterprise in broadcasting with a solar plexus blow to freedom in this country, and an invitation for further Government regulation." nounced that since other stations from whom no reply had been received or who had given unfavorable replies might wish to reconsider, the committee was sending transcriptions to all carrying the Coughlin broadcast. Shepard's Viewpoint Repercussions to the code edict on the fundamental question of controversial issues came on the heels of the committee's action. In the vortex of the resulting controversy were such prominent figures as Messrs. Shepard, Fitzpatrick, Patt, Father Wallace Burke of WEW, and other broadcasters now carrying the Coughlin series. Elliott Roosevelt also quickly found himself deep in the controversy because his broadcasts likewise admittedly fall in the "public controversy category" in connection with the arms embargo. Mr. Shepard, who personally had appealed to the Code Committee, asserted Oct. 10 it was his present plan to continue the Coughlin series over the Colonial Network through October, 1940. He pointed out that since a number of other stations — possibly all save a halfdozen of the 44 — had already committed themselves to continue the Coughlin series, he was left no alternative. He added that, as he interpreted the code provisions, the Coughlin series should be handled on the same basis as other programs, which would permit "competitive accounts" to be accorded the same facilities for the same length of time as current running accounts. Asserting he had advised Stanley Boynton, president of Aircasters, Inc., Coughlin agency, that he would continue to carry the program after Oct. 29, when his present contract expires, provided two conditions were met, Mr. Shepard explained that this commitment does not obligate all of the Colonial Network outlets. Nevertheless, since certain of the stations already had renewed, he said he was dutybound to originate the programs. It was made obvious that stich stations as WJR, Detroit, WGAR, Cleveland, WEW, St. Louis, WJASKQV, Pittsburgh, and WHBI, Newark, among others, would continue to carry the Coughlin series. Sev eral of the stations which alreadj^'J' have renewed their contract through Aircasters have advise NAB they would abide by the CoddCommittee's ruling on the controversial issue question and exercis' their cancellation options within ; two-v/eek period. Among the sta tions understood to have droppecj(( Coughlin were WFBL, Syracuse WHAM, Rochester, WTAG, Wor cester, and WHKC, Columbus. Sue? stations as WHO, Des Moines WCKY, Cincinnati, WTMJ, Mil waukee and KSTP, St. Paul, wer< understood to be considering drop ping the series on the basis of the NAB ruling. In Worcester, WORC is now carrying CoUghlin in liei. of WTAG. Railroading Denied The NAB committee and President Neville Miller, took sharp issue with the contention of complainants that the code was "railroaded" through the convention ir Atlantic City last July. It was pointed out that the NAB begar work on the code nearly a yeai ago and that the first draft waf sent to all stations, with attendani publicity, as early as last May. 11 was adopted by the July conventior tion, as amended, by an ovei-whelming vote of six to one. Moreover it was pointed out that the socia' aspects of the code were onlj slightly amended from their original form as adopted by the convention after full discussion. Thf convention not only approved the code but authorized the machinery to enforce it. While stations carrying tht Coughlin series have been delugec with letters protesting the NAE action, so far as could be learned most of the protests have eman-> ated from individuals. On the othei! hand, many women's, social anc other organizations and groupsi have commended the code, which i also has received generally favor-' able editorial support. ' Union States Position , In its rejoinder, Oct. 7 to Mr Patt's telegram [see top of thispage]. Civil Liberties Union through Arthur Garfield Hays anc^ Morris L. Ernst, general counsel and Quincy Howe, chairman ol the National Council on Freedon*From Censorship, declared it strucP them as "highly improper for th^ Detroit station at' which Father Coughlin's programs originate to criticize the new NAB code for de' nying free speech." (Mr. Patt i; vice president of WJR and KMPC as well as WGAR). "Complaint already has beeni made to the FCC against that stajj tion for denying opponents of Fa.^ ther Coughlin an opportunity tc, reply to him", the Union said: "What Mr. Patt really means is that the profit has been taken ou of free speech since hereafter Fa ther Coughlin or anybody else un der the rules of the new Code cani not purchase time for the discus sion of public issues. This is wholl; in the interest of free speech sincr it puts everybody on the basis o. equality and puts people withou money on precisely the same footji ing as people with it. The new cod corrects a situation so obviousl;: unfair to free speech as to con: {Continued on Page 72) y Page 12 • October 15, 1939 BROADCASTING • Broadcast AdvertisinM]