Broadcasting (Apr - June 1950)

A Veteran Broadcaster's Counsel to a Student ON THE RIGHT TO EDITORIALIZE NO ORCHIDS FOR WAVE IN gUfi W )l ,Yuds ^ broadcasting to B«d ^eweSof,PetalB«d'. ^ere, 9o nat»«Uy . we are Heard record resul* ft ^.^ amount « An»ual sales ^ as fflUCh as * one WlUon dollars of our State comb»e WAVE fRtt & PETERS, WC" 1TTC 970 5000 >NATTS • Dear Mr. Epley: In reply to you letter . . . regarding our editorial policies, we have no quarrel with the present understanding of the subject particularly as enunciated in the minority report expressed by Commissioner Jones of the FCC, after the final "Mayflower Decision." Neither do we quarrel with the position of the Commission majority with respect to the responsibilities inherent in the assumption of an editorial position — namely the "affirmative obligation to also seek out and air contrasting views." Within reasonable limits this of course is a good general policy. In fact this is the position we have always taken during the 20-odd years that our station has broadcast editorial opinion. We simply label all such programs as representing our opinion on the subject, and invite other comments. ... We subscribe to the theory that radio should not exclude significant viewpoints concerning controversial subjects. In the final analysis, however, it is the licensee's responsibility to determine the appropriate manner in which to deal with the matter fairly. If stations were required to let everyone broadcast who might have an opinion there obviously would soon be a point of saturation reached in which the balance of good programming would be destroyed. You ask how "we got away" with programming editorials while the old Mayflower Edict was in force. You must remember the Mayflower Decision never had the weight of law. It was merely an example of a rule promulgated by obiter dictum,. In my opinion no station incurred any risk in defying it. With the possible exception of J. Lawrence Fly, to whom goes the dubious distinction of having sired the original Mayflower Decision, I question whether any member of the FCC has ever deemed it enforceable. , Certainly the present members of the FCC inherited it from their predecessors, and few if any were inclined to accept it as representing the letter of the law. In fact I think the FCC of 1940 really started out to set forth something of the same philosophy as the present decision, but got so badly muddled in terminology etc. that the whole thing got twisted around. The present majority opinion doesn't do much better. Commissioner Jones' separate opinion however very clearly and adequately covers the subject. If you have not read the latter I certainly commend it to you. As to your request for information concerning topics covered in Mr. Rex Howell KFXJ Grand Junction, Colo. Dear Mr. Howell: Here at the U. of Oregon, the . . . Department of Journalism has a course in special radio seminar for advanced radio journalism students. . . . We are each given a choice of subjects to choose from for a term project. My choice is editorials in the radio business. As I understand it, you are perhaps one of the outstanding radio editorialists in the West. . . . Consequently, my letter to you. If you could send me a summary of your ideas on the subject of editorials on the air, how you kept on operating despite the fact that the Mayflower decision of 19 Ul actually for bade such operation ... 7 would ap predate it immensely. Also, if you could describe to me your program setup, some of the sub jects and how you treated them . . . it would be most helpful. Malcolm Epley Jr. Eugene, Ore. our editorials the following are current examples : WATER DIVERSION (Should sections east of the Continental Divide be permitted to tap our water resources by means of diversion tunnels?) We took the position the diversion should be permitted only if compensatory reservoirs were built. This was done. CITY ZOO (Should it be abandoned and playground equipment installed in its stead?) We tool; affirmative position pointing out that conditions at zoo were such as to cause unnecessary suffering of animals, and that the annual cost, if diverted, would provide excellent playground equipment. This was a half victory. The zoo is being retained but with improved facilities to preclude cruelty to animals. Also Lion's Club has endorsed playground idea and is purchasing the equipment. Other similar projects such as the Youth Center, Community Humane Society, Polio Committee, and various other activities owe much to the editorial efforts of KFXJ in their behalf. Most of our editorial subjects are purely local. . . . We consider our editorial efforts as simply another phase of our public service programming. Some broadcasters may prefei to duck their local responsibilities and never express any opinions . . . yet they permit news commentators and others to use their facilities for that purpose. Here we regard it as our duty to remain alert to community problems, and we hold nc brief for the psuedo liberals who would preclude broadcasters from editorializing on the general theory that broadcasters are not qualified to express opinion, because broadcasters are businessmen and businessmen are all fascists! Thanking you for your interest and wishing you success. . . . Rex Howell, President Western Slope Bcstg. Co. Page 18 • May 15, 1950 BROADCASTING • Telecasting