Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan - Mar 1951)

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.

m At), "old! SIGNAL CONTROL Secret Session Held CENSORSHIP -ret 9 , tM hum idayJ Founi into ional n .'.crv Bar-M COU50O-M I rid' re-> : :n licil naa c : F [o* INITIAL phase of hearings on the Defense Dept.'s proposal to empower the President to silence radio-TV signals in "the interest of national security" got underway in an aura of secrecy on Capitol Hill last week. At the same time, the Senate Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee, which held closed sessions, was sounding out key agencies on their reactions to the controversial plan and marking time toward full-dress hearings. Sen. Ed C. Johnson (D-Col.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, who sponsored legislation (S537) at the request of the Defense Dept., and other committee members met behind closed doors, in executive session, with key military and FCC officials. The discussions were described as "highly classified." Sen. Johnson, who has stressed that he did not necessarily support the measure in its present form, made plain, however, after the meeting, that he still considers the bill "too drastic" and again promised full-scale hearings. He indicated that industry groups also will be able to testify should they desire. Committee authorities said last week that FCC, the Defense Dept. and other interested key agencies have been invited to submit comments on the proposed legislation, and that NAB and other industry organizations could file to appear, though no invitations would be extended formally. Hearings Seen Hearings were slated for the "near future," with probability held out that they would be conducted around mid-February or at least by early March. It also was held likely that open hearings would be held before the full committee. Measure has not been assigned to the communications subcommittee, headed by Sen. Ernest McFarland (D-Ariz.), Senate majority leader. There also was speculation last week as to whether the bill, when finally reported out, will take fresh legislative form, giving the President the requested authority, or be spelled out in an amendment to the Communications Act, which would retain authority with FCC. At last Wednesday's executive session, Sen. Johnson and other committee members received testimony from Curtis B. Plummer, FCC's chief engineer, and Maj. Gen. Francis L. Ankenbrandt, USAF communications director. It was understood that Sen. Johnson had reiterated his previous fear that the bill is too drastic in present form, and that Gen. Ankenbrandt had re-emphasized the military's earlier stand that it needs formal authority, through the President, to control all "electro-magnetic radiations," including radioTV emissions [Broadcasting • Telecasting, Jan. 22, 15, 8, Dec. 25, 1950]. Under the Johnson-introduced bill, which differs technically in certain language aspects with the military proposal, the President would be empowered to control signals "in time of war, national emergency, or whenever (he) deems it advisable in the interest of national security." The wording "in times of strained international relationships," contained in the Defense Dept.'s accompanying letter but now apparently repudiated by military authorities as semantically incorrect, was omitted from the Johnson bill. Sitting in at Wednesday's committtee meeting, in addition to Sen. Johnson and Sen. McFarland, were Sens. Charles Tobey (R-N. H.), John Bricker (R-Ohio), Herbert O'Conor (D-Md.), Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.) and James P. Kem (R-Mo.). Meanwhile on the House side, where a companion measure pends, the House Armed Services Committee also was marking time — but for a different reason. The committee was prominently occupied with hearings on the draft and manpower, which threaten to sidetrack the signal-control bill for at least a fortnight. Authorities said that the bill (HR 1643), introduced by Committee Chairman Carl Vinson (D-Ga.), had received little attention thus far, but indicated that the committee would give it careful attention and probably open hearings, once it had cleared the deck on other legislative matters. Authorities also thought it unlikely that the measure would be re-referred to the House Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee, as it was in the upper chamber. Rep. Vinson, like Sen. Johnson, has made plain that while he sponsored the legislation, he does not necessarily endorse it and intends to receive the benefit of testimony from government and private industry groups. MEDIA BUDGETS No Tax Crackdown ANA Is Assured FOR the present time, at least, it appears that the government is not planning any full-scale crackdown on advertising budgets in view of the excess profits tax law and a new contract-renegotiation proposal already one step toward becoming law. * This opinion was expressed on Capitol Hill and by Paul B. West, president of the Assn. of National Advertisers, in New York. Although some "talk" was prevalent in the early discussion of an excess profits tax bill on the Hill, it was understood the lack of complaints that manufacturers and other business owners have been abusing the "reasonable and ordinary" capital expenditure clause in the profits act has taken most of the steam out of the drive to put a legislative clamp on advertising budgets. The ANA reported assurance from the U. S. Internal Revenue Bureau that the government office would continue to regard legitimate advertising expenditures as deductible under the profits tax act. In a detailed report to members, ANA based its findings on consultations with the bureau. It deals with advertising as an operating expense or capital investment. According to Mr. West, the government policy on deductibility of advertising expenditures has not changed since 1942 when the bureau gave ANA an outline of views with respect to the then existing excess profits tax law. "Most types of good will and public policy advertising are deductible as well as regular commercial advertising," Mr. West said. "Understandably, questions have been raised from time to time about specific advertisements involving matters in the area of political controversy. That type of advertising may in some cases be disallowed. "As the ANA has long recog nized, corporations as good business citizens may well have a responsibility from time to time to speak out on matters of broad public policy. This is in no way inhibited." The individual advertiser must use his sense of fair play in allocating funds to his advertising budget, according to the Congressional spokesman. He warned that it is up to the Bureau to become as tough as it wants, "although in most cases, the government is cognizant of the necessity to advertise one's business or product." There is no reference to advertising expenditures in the contractrenegotiation act, as passed by the House last week. Bases for deductible expenditures are similar to that entertained in the excess profits tax law, it was explained. The contract-renegotiation act is designed to curb profits which are in excess of a reasonable return as a result of orders obtained from the government for defense purposes. Its provisions also are designed to strike at expenditures made by a company for unnecessary services— such as the "five percenter." A manufacturer who plans to allocate a portion of profit gained from a defense contract to make up his advertising expenditure along with the allocation taken from his non-defense operation is permissable where "applicable," it was explained. While this technical explanation does not pinpoint any set rule for the advertiser to follow, it is widely regarded as being in the general category of "reasonable." BROADCASTING • Telecasting War Picture Stays Firm PROSPECT of little change in the Far Eastern censorship picture was held out last week at the Pentagon where Col. Marion Echols, Gen. Douglas MacArthur's public information officer, conferred with military officials on the Korean campaign. At the same time controversy raged anew over basis for the curbs. Supporting the recently imposed censorship blackout, Col. Echols stated that Army and radio newspaper correspondents are not dissatisfied with security measures, and added that the Korean war was the best-covered campaign in the nation's history. Basis for Action New stories are censored, not for accuracy but for security, he stressed, adding that correspondents have been free to cover the campaign within the bounds of reasonable restrictions. Furthermore, correspondents have been better briefed on background information than ever before, he said. Meanwhile Editor & Publisher differed sharply with Gen. MacArthur, who had contended that censorship was imposed at the request of radio and newspaper representatives who met in Washington last month [Broadcasting • Telecasting, Jan. 22, Dec. 25, 1950]. "Either the general is searching for a crutch to support his rigid censorship rules, or someone along the line has been feeding him a lot of guff about the press demanding military censorship," the magazine editorialized. Media representatives, including NAB President Justin Miller, who attended the December parley reportedly had wired Gen. MacArthur on the subject of censorship. Text of the message, revealed initially the past fortnight by Editor & Publisher, read in part: Fully conscious of importance of maximum protection of armed forces, but feel security of information from combat areas is the responsibility of the military. That responsibility cannot be passed to any other agency or group within the combat zone or without. If the military feels some further action is necessary to maintain maximum security, that action should be consistent with a minimum interference with flow of news to all media free to inform democratic nations. The military likewise has the responsibility to provide the maximum information consistent with security, and to give adequate guidance and facilities for news gathering and handling in discharging this responsibility. Censorship issue also commanded the attention last week of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, which said it had advised President Truman on a set of principles to be followed if censorship should become necessary in the Continental United States. Dwight Young, editor and publisher of the Dayton Journal Herald and ASNE president, declined to reveal details but said the association had met with military and other defense officials to discuss the problem. January 29, 1951 * Pa«e 29