Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1954)

editorials 'Broadcastingtown' THE TRUE value of Cunningham & Walsh's patient study of the influence of television on its guinea-pig community of New Brunswick, N. J., is only now becoming evident. In the seven years that the agency has been examining the habits of the citizens of what it has termed "Videotown" a record of incomparable utility has been compiled. It shows, year by year, how people have adjusted their lives to television ownership. As reported in this publication last week, the seventh Videotown survey emphasizes the extent of that adjustment. Television has forced a remarkable reallocation of peoples' time. In earlier periods of television penetration, the tv set not only commanded tremendous attention for itself but distracted attention from other interests. Radio listening, movie-going and reading declined sharply — some almost to the vanishing point — when tv first came to town. Now, however, although people still watch tv as avidly as ever, they are making still more adjustments. They also are listening more to radio, reading more, going to more movies. The increase in radio listening among television owners in Videotown is particularly gratifying. It reinforces the belief that radio is a basic medium which not only will hold its own but actually gain ground against television competition. In the light of growing radio attention in New Brunswick, Cunningham & Walsh might consider changing its name for the laboratory community. Since radio and tv are now definitely there to stay, Videotown could better be called Broadcastingtown. Lamb Stew SINCE Sept. 15 the FCC Broadcast Bureau has been prosecuting Edward Lamb, with occasional pauses to let opposing counsel rest their abused throats and an army of investigators search for new means of showing that everybody involved in the case is psychoneurotic, subversive or immoral. It has been as squalid a spectacle as the most unreserved tabloid editor could wish for. If solid evidence has been produced to support the charge that Mr. Lamb has lied in saying he never had Communist ties, it is buried in an unwholesome mass of scandalous speeches by attorneys. To be sure, much of the speechmaking has been done by Mr. Lamb's counsel, but the Broadcast Bureau, the hearing examiner and the defenders of Mr. Lamb share the responsibility for turning a regulatory hearing into the kind of case that would have been more in order in a Chicago police court of the Capone period. It is impossible, of course, to know before the completion of the case whether the FCC had reasonable evidence to support its decision to set Mr. Lamb's WICU (TV) Erie, Pa., for license renewal hearing. Indeed it is beyond our province to predict the outcome of a case that is now in the early stages of what may become an exceedingly intricate journey through the courts. Whatever the outcome, however, it can be said at this point that the conduct of the case — on both sides — has utterly prevented intelligent presentation of evidence. If the FCC still considers it has a case against Edward Lamb, it might be well advised to end the present performance and start all over again, with people in charge who have the ability to discipline themselves, the witnesses, and Mr. Lamb and his attorneys. Make It a Landslide ACTION of the tv broadcasters of Michigan in banning dramatized beer and wine commercials is a timely example of selfregulation. It already has become a groundswell and could spread throughout the medium. The pledge is to stop the showing of actual consumption of beer and wine. It is. not a case of knuckling under to the bluenosers. Rather it is a matter of prudent management. The beer situation should be handled at the local level. Alcoholic beverage business on the networks is not as big a factor as most people imagine. For the first six months of 1954 it amounted to less than 2% of total revenue. Stations will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage if they agree, uniformly, to accept no dramatized commercials. We hope the Michigan groundswell becomes a landslide. Page 132 • October 18, 1954 Diversification Crazy-Quilt A CRAZY-QUILT rather than a pattern is emerging from recent decisions of the FCC in contested television cases. No clear line can be drawn to indicate which way the FCC will go in any given contest. The notion is that the Commission is operating by the seat of its pants, with the tailoring to fit the whim of the moment. Even though there appear to be no established criteria, newspaper applicants contend the FCC is discriminating against them. And many a veteran station owner will attest that the newcomer is getting the break; that the FCC is operating on a "one-to-acustomer" thesis, or put another way, "those that have, won't get." There is justification for each contention in these recent decisions. But members of the FCC have insisted there is no anti-newspaper policy and that certainly old-line stations are not being given the coup de grace. The Commissioners should read some of their own decisions. All these disjointed acts are being committed through the devise of the so-called "diversification of mass media" concept. It has become the key determinating clause, along with public interest, convenience and necessity. It is kneaded and worked around to fit any conceivable situation. And, more times than not, it is the basis for denying an existing station owner (particularly one with a newspaper interest) and of granting the opponent, usually a newcomer, with little or no background or experience in serving the public. This demonstrably was not and is not the intent of Congress. Recently we pointed out here that Congress eight years ago wanted to write a specific anti-discrimination provision into the law. Then two years ago it again proposed such an amendment (in writing) but tabled it after the FCC once again assured it that there has been no discrimination and would be none. Evidently the FCC has not learned that lesson. So, for the edification of the FCC, it's hearing examiners and the newcomers to the Commission, we again publish the text of the so-called "Anti-Discrimination Amendment" proposed in the last Congress: The Commission shall not make or promulgate any rule or regulation of substance or procedure, the purpose or result of which is to effect a discrimination between persons based upon interest in, association with, or ownership of any medium primarily engaged in the gathering and dissemination of information and that no application for a construction permit or station license, or for the renewal, modification, or transfer of such a permit or license shall be denied by the Commission solely because of any such interest, association, or ownership. Unless the FCC brings some semblance of consistency into its decisions, we predict the Congress won't be so easily dissuaded from acting upon the anti-discrimination amendment. Broadcasting • Telecasting