Broadcasting (Oct - Dec 1945)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

The Byrnes Burn: Whys and Wherefores PenmastersBenton,Coy,Kesten,Porter Joust on Tandem Pickup Policy THE ISSUE : Secretary of State Byrnes, returning from the London Conference of Foreign Ministers Oct. 5, reported to the American people via radio — over the Columbia Broadcasting System. Wayne Coy, vice-president of WINX Washington (an independent outlet owned by The Washington Post), protested at that time an alleged "exclusionist" policy which prevented his station from carrying the public statement (BROADCASTING, Oct. 15). Mr. Coy's protest was sent to William Benton, Assistant Secretary of State, among others, although addressed originally to Justin Miller, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters. Mr. Benton forwarded it to Paul Kesten, executive vice-president of CBS, for the latter's comments. Copies were sent also to Paul A. Porter, chairman of the FCC. Should there be exclusive broadcasts of a statement by ANY public office holder? Herewith BROADCASTING presents on that subject letters from four of the most facile pens in public and radio life today. THE PRINCIPALS: Paul A. Porter, Chairman, FCC; William Benton, Assistant Secretary of State, former partner with OPA's Chester Bowles in the advertising agency, Benton & Bowles; Paul Kesten, executive vice-president CBS; Wayne Coy, vice-president, WINX, and assistant to the publisher of The Washington Post, formerly special adviser to the late President Roosevelt. October 19, 1945 Mr. Paul Kesten, Executive Vice-President, CBS, Dear Paul: You have doubtless seen Wayne Coy's letter which I am attaching. Would you give me your views on it — and on State Department policy? How many speeches, even the President's, would you rate as comparable in importance and interest to this one? I am sending a similar letter to Niles Trammell. Sincerely yours, William Benton Assistant Secretary of State Keston to Benton New York, N. Y. October 25, 1945 The Honorable William Benton, Assistant Secretary of State. Dear Bill : I welcome the opportunity to give you my views on four-network hook-ups versus single network broadcasts by government officials. The matter comes up, as your letter pointed out, through a protest by Station WINX in Washington, which is not served by our network and which therefore did not share in the broadcast by Secretary Byrnes which Columbia had the honor of carrying. To be entirely frank about our viewpoint, let me say that it is composed of one part of what seems to us at least to be pure democratic principle — and another h part of sheer practicality. The pure democratic principle counsels as follows: One of the bulwarks of a free American radio is the "freedom to listen", as some have called it. It strikes us that "freedom to listen" isn't worth the paper on which to write the phrase unless it gives the listener a choice of things and ideas to listen to. Otherwise it is merely the freedom to listen which Germany had before the war, that is, a freedom to listen to the official utterances of the German Government when they were on the air, or to shut the radio off. I am sorry to have to use such an extreme example to explain why we are against having all networks in the United States and practically all radio stations carrying the same program at the same time. But as this philosophy is based on pure democratic principle, the best way to illustrate it is with the opposite extreme, which is pure totalitarian broadcasting. That is why we have stood by our policy of not carrying four-network hook-ups for so many years, except in periods of grave national emergency and except for the voice of the President himself. I admit that this democratic principle might, in theory, be extended even to broadcasts by the Chief Executive. However, we have always felt that the unique position of the Presidency, representing the only office (with the VicePresidency) subject to the election of all the people, makes utterances from this source of special interest to our listening audience. As broadcasters with the desires and interest of our listeners in mind, we naturally have wanted to carry all general Presidential broadcasts. Stated simply, it has been "good programming" and "good* broadcasting" to do so. I should point out that even here there is no com pulsion on the networks, and this fact alone, it seems to me, removes any alleged taint of totalitarianism from the practice of four-network hook-ups for these broadcasts. Now for the wholly practical side of it: Once you accept the premise that government officials should not preempt every radio facility in the United States for their utterances, you can't make exceptions. I agree that the occasion of Secretary Byrnes' recent speech was both dramatic and important. But if his words had blotted out all other programs on the air, where would you draw the line? Shouldn't any other Cabinet member have the same privilege? If Cabinet members, what about the high prerogatives of the Congress? Should the senior member of a Senate committee be denied four-network hook-ups if the executive arm of the government secures them? CBS broadcast last year approximately 200 talks by Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet members, and other important government officials. Many of these talks were initiated by us as a service to listeners, and for this purpose we maintain a large staff who are constantly bringing speakers before our microphone with issues of the day or timely special events. I dare say the other networks did much the same kind of public service. The policy of broadcasting one speech over one network had the tremendous advantage of creating four times as much opportunity for government spokesmen as would (Continued on page 91) In Summary Analysis and Solution as proposed by Paul A. Porter, Chairman FCC Honorable William Benton November 13, 1945 Assistant Secretary of State Washington, D. C. Dear Bill: I have the Kesten correspondence which I read with great interest. We at the Commission have been properly very reluctant in even expressing opinions in this field. For example, I have not commented on the fact that three networks carried the Navy-Notre Dame football game last Saturday afternoon simultaneously for more than two hours. Certainly there is merit in Wayne Coy's point that no network should bottle up an important public speech if somebody else wants it. The choice, as you point jout, is not between giving a program exclusively to one network and requiring all networks to carry it. The true alternative is making the program available to anybody who wants it, and making arrangements to insure that at least one network carries it. The last paragraph of the Kesten letter seems to suggest an extremely sensible policy — namely, that the State Department announce in advance all speeches available for broadcasting, and make such speeches available to all takers. But this, so far as I can see, is exactly what Coy wants, too; and if so, why all the fuss? Let's talk about this sometime at our mutual convenience. It may be that open discussion of the question would advance the ball some. Personal regards. Sincerely yours, Paul A. Porter, Chairman Mr. Porter Mr. Coy have been the case if each one had used all four networks. And it did this while it preserved the American listener's freedom to choose what he wants to hear. In the case of almost any speech, the hour chosen for the broadcast would probably have an important bearing on what network or networks carried it. Very often one or two networks have free time while other networks have sponsored programs in a given half hour. It is not generally understood that when a network cancels a sponsored program for a government talk it not only re-purchases the time from the sponsor, but also reimburses the sponsor for the entire talent cost of the program that is thus cancelled. On the recent occa ROADCASTING • Broadcast Advertising November 19, 1945 • Page 17