Broadcasting (Apr - June 1950)

TV STANDARDS NAB To Set Up Code Unit APPOINTMENT of an all-industry committee to consider advisability of drafting a code of practices for television broadcasters will be made in the near future by NAB, President Justin Miller told Telecasting last week. At present the idea rests in a list of long-range projects to be taken up by the NAB TV Dept., headed by G. Emerson Markham. At the NAB board's February meeting Mr. Markham said preliminary work on an industry code is under consideration. The code idea gained impetus at an April 20 luncheon of the American Television Society in New York at which Theodore C. Streibert, president of WOR-TV New York, advocated steps to draft a code. Will Discuss With Ryan Judge Miller said that as soon as William B. Ryan, new NAB general manager taking office today (Monday), is settled in his work he will take up the project with him, as well as with Mr. Markham, NAB board members, and network and station officials. The subject is expected to come up at an NAB-network meeting in New York May 15 (see story page 24). "I have seen some evidence of a desire for a television code similar to the Standards of Practice for broadcast stations," Judge Miller said, recalling he had heard from FCC Chairman Wayne Coy, Mr. Streibert and several others in the industry. He added that some Parent Teachers Assn. groups along with civic and religious or ganizations had shown interest in the idea. An American Bar Assn. committee is considering the need for TV standards, he added. "The present broadcast standards apply to television stations," he said, "since the NAB by-laws expressly include TV member stations. Generally speaking, TV member stations are working on that theory. Most of the code provisions apply to television but new areas should be explored in which visual programs present new problems. 'Matter of Emphasis' "I suppose it will be more a matter of emphasis, such as the degree to which crime and mystery programs affect members of the family. The technique of committing crimes can be more apparent on TV, where it can be seen, than on aural broadcasts. Of course, school classes in penmanship teach the techniques of forgery and chemistry classes teach methods of committing other crimes. "Perhaps the main benefits of code drafting would come from the discussion itself. This was the case with the Standards of Practice. Broadcasters have gone much farther than the press in self-regulation. The Standards of Practice were well received by the nation and the code process offset much criticism. Television leadership has been careful in its programming standards and the occasional slips have been corrected. "There will be some difficulty in handling the advertising standards. For example, if a Texaco sign appears in a television pro gram should it be considered commercial time in addition to commercial announcements." TV FILM CODE TPA Counters MPA Move IN MOVE to counteract what it thinks is an attempt of the Movie Producers Assn. to enforce its film code on the television industry, Television Producers Assn., Hollywood, at a recent meeting voted a resolution to call attention of television stations to the TV code adopted by it and New York Television Producers Assn. Action followed a recent talk on the subject by Joseph Breen, head of MPA, before American Television Assn. in New York. TV producers feel that their code, a more rigid one, is more applicable to the television industry than the MPA code which would not take in the new problems that television offers. TPA code was adopted separately several months ago by the New York and Hollywood groups which have since combined in a National Society of Television Producers. Nominations for offices of president, treasurer and three board of director seats also were held at the TPA meeting. Nominated for president were Mike Stokey, now vice president; Fred Kline, Bob Oakley, for treasurer, re-election of Maleese Black; board of directors, Arnold Marquis, Fred Kline, Bob Oakley, Bob Clampett, Joe Ainley, Al Burton. Elections will be held at the next meeting May 19. TALKING over signing of contract by Peters Shoe Co., St. Louis, for alternate-week sponsorship of ABC-TV's Super Circus, Sunday, 4:30-5 p.m. CST, which started April 23, are (I to r): James L. Stirron, sales manager, ABC Central Division (where show originates); Claude Hopkins, general manager of Peters Shoe, and Bob White, account executive, Henri, Hurst & McDonald, Chicago. Cosponsor is M&M Candy Co. Halfhour from 4-4:30 p.m. is sponsored by Canada Dry Ginger Ale. WTMJ-TVCuts Baseball WTMJ-TV Milwaukee has announced it will not telecast any of the Milwaukee Brewers' games this year. Because of objections of many TV set owners to so much baseball, particularly both games of Sunday doubleheaders, WTMJTV said it did not consider telecasting the entire schedule. In addition a plan to telecast a limited number of games was abandoned, the station said, because the price asked per game by the baseball club was too high to be submitted to any advertiser. Television Code — (I) an editorial IT WAS probably inevitable at this stage of television development that there would have occurred enough lapses in common sense and good taste in programming to arouse a fear within the industry that unless formal corrective action were taken at once, censorship was just around the corner. Before the investigation of a telecasters' code goes further, it is timely to consider the history of self-regulation in other media of mass communications. Two examples are at hand. One is the code of the Motion Picture Assn., an instrument which is still the subject of sore controversy within the film business although, on the whole, it seems to be regarded • as indispensable. The movie code, being an institution of 20 years standing, has more and more been looked to as a possible model for a telecasters' code, and indeed at least one television station has invoked the Hollywood standards for its own guidance. This publication, being singularly preoccupied with the broadcasting business, is not disposed to comment in detail on the provisions of another industry's code. It is not, however, beyond our offices to say that any similarity between the movie code and any set of stand ards applicable to video is purely coincidental. Dissimilarities exist even in the circumstances that prompted the movies to adopt a code and those prompting telecasters to consider one. Anyone old enough to remember pre-code Hollywood productions recalls that some of them contained material that the most irresponsible telecaster would automatically reject. In the films of those days, virtue was not invariably rewarded, crime sometimes paid, and the female neck was something that Rudolph Valentino nibbled on so industriously that even toddlers in his audiences could not mistake his intentions. It was not because such films lacked commercial appeal that the movies turned to organized self-regulation. The movies adopted a code in order to eliminate a rising tide of local and state government censorship, varying so widely from community to community that a film maker had no way of being sure whether a scene that was passed in Oshkosh would be approved in Omaha. The motion picture code was intended to establish one set of rules that would be acceptable to the majority of censors and thus would eliminate the vexing variations in standards. No such tide of censorship applicable to tele vision is swelling today. The reason it is not is simple: Television standards, on the whole, are just as high — without a code — as movie standards with one. Aside from the fact that telecasters are sensitive to public reaction, they are obliged to watch their programs with care because of the inescapable surveillance of a federal agency. The movies do not operate under the scrutiny of an FCC. The production of smut can put a broadcaster out of business overnight. Movie producers face no such possibility of summary action. The glaring violations of decency in television have been few. The fact that so few could arouse so much interest in self-regulation is in itself an indication of the healthy state of television morals. Responsible telecasters have already taken serious measures to avoid repetitions of breaches of taste. They are not, by the most extreme assessment, in anything like the predicament of Hollywood before the adoption of a film code. The second example of self-regulation in a mass medium is, of course, the NAB code which was written, after tumultuous labor, two years ago. It is more germane to television than the movie standards and will be treated in relation to television in this space next week. Page 4 • TELECASTING May 1, 1950 BROADCASTING • Page 50