Broadcasting (Apr - June 1950)

Pull Out for Filing Horse Race Bill (Continued from page 23) only lead to confusion, evasion, and, in all probability, failure of the law to achieve its objectives." It would be better, he argued, simply to provide a criminal penalty for interstate transmission of information with respect to "actual bets and wagers, the odds on the particular sporting event, and the prices paid by the winners of the particular races or other sporting events." Because of the professional gamblers' and bookmakers' need for rapid receipt of this information, he maintained, such a ban would "strike a substantial, if not fatal, blow at the interstate gamblingbusiness, at least as we presently know it." He felt that additional sports data which might otherwise be helpful to gamblers would be of "only minor use" without the betsodds-prices data. Always Some Gambling He continued: . . . As long as there is horse racing, or dog racing, or any other kind of racing or sporting events, there is going to be gambling of some variety. The difficulty is, however, that if you attempt to prohibit the transmission of any information other than that relating to the purely gambling features of horse racing, such as the specific items mentioned in the Commission's bill, you inevitably get into a situation in which any information is going to be use ful and where you are going to have to determine what should be prohibited not by the type of information transmitted but by consideration of the purposes for which it is submitted and the uses to which it is made. But once you attempt to make any such distinctions you have raised enforcement problems which make the law impossible to administer by any government agency. The bill's exemption of information intended solely for broadcast or publication also would create problems, he said, though he conceded some such exemption would be necessary if other broad terms were retained. The most serious objection, he said, relates to enforcement problems and the "innumerable avenues for evasion" which stem from the exemption clause. He did not think FCC's proposed ban on bets, odds and prices would justify censorship protests or complaints by stations or newspapers that their sports coverage was being impaired. He explained: Under the Commission's proposal the newspapers could obtain, by means of communications facilities, whatever information on sporting events they choose and whenever they wish except that information about bets, odds or prices paid may not be transmitted to them by means of interstate communications facilities. Similarly, radio and television stations could broadcast direct accounts of all sporting events as they take place, or news about events which have already occurred, so long as they refrain from giving, by sound or sight, the odds or prices paid. Chairman Coy felt the ban on transmission of lottery information by radio or the mails is an excellent parallel of the Commission's proposal and, in the same way, an answer to any charges of censorship which might arise. Sen. McFarland argued at one point that "personally I see quite a bit of difference between the transmission of a lottery and transmission of race horse information and information about a baseball game." Mr. Coy said FCC had tried to "draw the line" in its proposal. Mr. Coy told the subcommittee he did not "see how it can logically be argued, as it has been here, that a ban on the interstate transmission of gambling information for printed publication would be illegal censorship but that the imposition of a one-hour delay on the broadcast of a far wider variety of information would not be illegal censorship." He felt the Justice Dept. bill "would be subject to question" insofar as it might prevent the transmission of some types of information "which, under some circumstances, may have no reasonable relationship to the evils of gambling." FCC's proposal, he said, is not similarly open to question. In making FCC the enforcement agent, Mr. Coy said, the Justice Dept.'s plan would give the Commission a task for which it has "neither the manpower nor a reasonable expectation of getting sufficient funds for the needed manpower." He continued: If the transmission of this gambling information is injurious to the public welfare and must be prohibited, it should be made a crime for the sender to transmit the prohibited types of information. . . . Enforcement . . . should be directed primarily against the persons using interstate communications facilities for the transmission of the prohibited types of information, such as the nationwide racing news services, rather than against the communications companies whose facilities are utilized. FCC Stand Given Chairman Coy emphasized that FCC was "not attempting to avoid all responsibility." If transmission of gambling information is forbidden, he said, FCC would have a "clear basis" for considering violations in its renewal proceedings, and for requiring common carriers to file tariffs stipulating they will refuse the use of facilities for transmission of the banned information. "But," he added, "there is a great difference between permitting the Commission to apply sanctions where it appears that a carrier or broadcaster wilfully or knowingly participated in the violation of federal law, and requiring the Commission to act as the sole interpreter and sole enforcement agency with respect to such law." Mr. Carroll, appearing under subpena, told the subcommittee he was "completely indifferent" AAAA ELECTIONS Six Councils Named COMPLETE list of the six sectional councils of the American Assn. of Advertising Agencies was released last week upon completion of elections for new officers and governors, AAAA reported. The new boards of governors for the councils are as follows: NEW YORK COUNCIL— Chairman: J. Davis Dinforth, BBDO. Vice Chairman: Fletcher D. Richards, Fletcher D. Richards Inc. Secretary Treasurer: John E. Wiley, Fuller & Smith & Ross Inc. Other Governors: T. Hart Anderson, Anderson, Davis &. Platte Inc.; Don Francisco, J. Walter Thompson Co.; Walter Weir, Walter Weir Inc., and Alvin H. Kaplan, Kaplan & Bruck. NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL— Chairman: Edward F. Chase, Harold Cabot & Co., Boston. Vice-Chairman: George C. Wiswell, Chambers & Wiswell, Boston. Secretary-Treasurer: Harold I. Reingold, The Reingold Co., Boston. Other Governors: Julian L. Watkins, H. B. Humphrey Co., Boston; Frederick C. Noyes, Horton-Noyes Co., Providence. ATLANTIC COUNCIL — Chairman: Frank C. Murphy, Geare-Marston Inc., Philadelphia. Vice-Chairman: A. E. Morgan, Richard A. Foley Adv., Philadelphia. Secretary-Treasurer: Robert /»rndt, John F^lkner, .Arndt & Co., Philadelphia. Other Governors: Wesley M. Ecoff. Ecoff & Jimes, Philadelphia; Wilbur Van Sant, Van Sant, Dugdale & Co., Baltimore; Theodore A. Newhoff, Theodore A. Newhoff Adv., Baltimore. MICHIGAN COUNCIL — Chairman: J. L. McQuigg, Geyer, Newell & Ganger, Detroit. Vice-Chairman: F. W. Town?hend, McCann-Erickson. Detroit. Secretary-Treasurer: Carl Georgi Jr., D. P. Brother & Co., Detroit. Other Governors: Willard S. French, Brooke, Sn->ith, French & Dorrance, Detroit; Elliott E. Potter, Young & Rubicam Inc.. Detroit. CENTRAL COUNCIL — Chairman: Henry H. Haupt, BBDO, Chicago. ViceChairman: A. H. Fensholt, The Fensholt Co., Chicago. Secretary-Treasurer: Roland TiyJor, Foote, Cone & Belding, Chicago. Other Governors: John F. Davis. The Griswold-Eshleman Co., Cleveland; Oakleigh R. French, Oakleigh R. French & Assoc., St. Louis; John F. Whedon, Young & Rubicam, Chicago; George Reeves, J. Walter Thompson Co., Chicago; John M. Willem, Leo Burnett Co., Chicago: Holman Faust, Schwimmer & Scott, Chicago. PACIFIC COUNCIL — Chairman: George Web»r, Mac Wilkins, Cole & Weber. Seattle. Vice-Chairman: L. C. Cole, L. C. Cole Co., San Francisco. Secretary-Treasurer: Merle W. Manly, Botsford, Constantine & Gardner, Portland. Other Governors: Barton A. Stebbins. Barton A. Stebbins Adv., Los Angeles, and H. O. Nelson, Ruthrauflf & Ryan, San Francisco. about the pending bill, but that the effect of wire-service facilities was "of no importance in the carrying on of large-scale gambling." He conceded that much presentday betting cuts across state lines and that the proposed legislation would eliminate the use of telegraph facilities to send money for bets and to pay off bettors. But, he contended, the long-range effect would be to readjust betting areas without materially affecting the total amount of gambling. It might, he said, prove even more profitable for the individual price-maker, such as himself. c° please i I These are facts — not advertising claims. Check with. Rambeau before you buy and you'll buy . I I I I I FACTS . . . not claims about buying time in Lansing, Mich. \A^ILS is the most powerful station in Lansing (and always has heen — ask the FCC). 1000 watts full time. WILS is 4-times more powerful than the 2nd station (250 w. is still 250 w. regardless of transmitter placement ) . WILS is the only Lansing station to increase power in years. WILS is the only station actually covering the entire trade area. WILS Lansing s Most Powerful Station 1320 kc. • 1000 watts Represented by Rambeau Page 46 • May 1, 1950 BROADCASTING • Telecasting