Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

GOVERNMENT AMQNG ALL the maddening federal regulations confronting the American businessman, perhaps none are more restrictive than those governing election-year behavior of the broadcast media. This is an election year, and broadcasters are concerned again to find themselves in that familiar quandary between public service regulations on the one hand and Section 315 on the other. The first prescribes that during campaigns stations should broadcast an "adequate" volume of rival political claims. The second prescribes that once any candidate is allowed broadcast facilities, his opponents, no matter how frivolous, must be allowed equal facilities. Efforts toward a more equitable arrangement of the broadcaster's obligations are current on Capitol Hill, centered mainly around a proposal by CBS President Frank Stanton that would exempt broadcasters from equal time provisions of Section 315 in the case of news, debate and forum-type programs. Bills (HR 6810 in the House, S 2306 in the Senate) have been introduced to implement the suggestion. Other pending legislation would permit broadcasters to turn down Communist candidates and free broadcasters from damages for libel uttered by a candidate on radio or tv. Next Monday, The Brookings Institution will publish a comprehensive work which details television's place in and effect on American politics (Television and Presidential Politics, Brookings Institution, Publications Div., 726 Jackson Place, N. W., Washington, D. C. 168 pages. $1.50). A portion of Chapter Five is devoted to Section 315. B«T's editors consider it one of the most penetrating analyses yet assembled on the subject, and have secured from Brookings permission to preprint the section in full. It follows at right. Television and Presidential Politics was authored by Dr. Charles A. H. Thomson, a senior staff member of the Institution whose specialty is communications and politics. Dr. Thomson presents impressive credentials in both fields. He served during World War II as a colonel with the Office of War Information as a psychological warfare planning officer, and in 1950-51 was staff director of the President's Communications Policy Board. He also is the author of Overseas Information Service of the United States Government, published by Brookings in 1948. He holds a Ph. D. from Harvard in political economics (1949), with earlier degrees in political science from Pomona College (B.A. 1934, M.A. 1935) and Harvard (M.A. 1944). Dr. Thomson's book begins with television and politics prior to 1952, when the medium's potential was scarcely guessed. It moves into the 1952 campaign itself, with special attention to the nominating conventions and the problems and techniques of handling them. Having brought the reader up to date, it then proceeds to analyze the present status of that relationship. Chapter Five deals with policy. It takes up, in addition to Section 315, the questions of open or closed proceedings, public service obligations, commercial sponsorship and editorial stand by networks. Television and Presidential Politics was begun in 1954 as part of a larger investigation of the presidential nominating process. The larger study, under direction of Paul T. David, director of governmental studies for Brookings, is planned for publication as The Politics of National Party Conventions. Throughout his book Dr. Thomson poses alternative answers to problems encountered in the field. Both broadcaster and politician will find them worthy of consideration. A WAY OUT SECTION 315 of the Federal Communications Act provides that holders of broadcasting licenses shall give equal access to all bona fide candidates for political office, or nomination therefor; and it prohibits censorship of the utterances of any such candidates. The standard of equal treatment is reasonably well met today, although the accidents of time and circumstance, the pocketbooks of the candidates and the parties, and the characteristics of radio and television broadcasting make it Utopian to think that all candidates and parties can have exactly equal opportunities to express their political pleas. But the achievement of full access falls well short of ideal, and the definition of candidates and the prohibition of station censorship seem to be working against it. In their testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, the networks explained clearly how the requirement of equal access to candidates operates to reduce access to the medium. This testimony goes beyond the point of candidate's access to show how the requirement prevents forms of political discourse that would be of great public interest and value, such as debates between the nominees of the two major parties. In the words of Richard S. Salant, "The fact unquestionably is that Section 315 keeps us from covering political campaigns, and presenting candidates, as extensively and as intelligently as we would otherwise do." 8 Much but not all of the networks' difficulties arising out of Section 315 relates to campaigning after the nominations. Section 315 includes candidates for the nominations; and it requires a network presenting the major candidates on one of its sustaining pre-convention programs to open its facilities to all other candidates for the nomination whether or not they have anything important to say or represent any substantial body of persons or opinion. FCC decisions in the Schneider case* and in other cases,9 press the networks to reduce to a minimum the appearances of people who are avowed candidates for the nomination. Salant concluded: "Section 315 and Mr. Schneider make us very doubtful that our pre-convention coverage in 1956 can be nearly as complete as it was in 1952." 10 The issue of prohibition of censorship of the utterance of any candidate seems simple on its face. Stations should obviously not interfere with the political statements of candidates. However, in practice it is more difficult. The prohibition is clear and sweeping, insofar as it concerns the freedom of candidates to say exactly what they please. The FCC has decided that the candidate need not stick to political issues, but can say anything he deems best.11 8 See the testimony of Richard S. Salant, Vice President, CBS, before the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, April 1955 (CBS mimeo., no date), p. 10. 9 The FCC has decided that the appearance of a candidate on such a show as "Pick the Winner" requires an offer of substantially equal opportunity to other candidates for the same office. This time need not be on the same show, but the obligation is not discharged by providing an equivalent amount and class of time. The audience as affected by the first candidate's appearance must be considered. The FCC regards the parties as responsible for initial efforts toward an agreeable solution. See letter of FCC to CBS, Oct. 31, 1952, requiring the offer to the vice-presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers party opportunity to use CBS facilities equal to that enjoyed by Senator Sparkman. The FCC has also decided that reports of senators to their people constitute a use of facilities within the meaning of Section 315 if the senator is a legally qualified candidate for office. Declarative ruling of the FCC, May 15, 1952, in the matter of Radio Station KNGS Hanford, California. "Testimony of Richard S. Salant, April 1955 (CBS mimeo., no date), p. 12. 11 See FCC Public Notice of Sept. 8, 1954, p. 4, which cites the FCC ruling in the case of WMCA, Inc. (7 R.R. 1132). * [Editor's Note: In 1952, a William Schneider of Chicago demanded time on CBS. It was refused. He then filed in the New Hampshire and Oregon presidential primaries, and iterated the demand for broadcast time. Mr. Schneider took the CBS refusal to the FCC and to the courts, and as a result was granted one half-hour free on both the CBS radio and tv networks.] Page 68 • February 20, 1956 Broadcasting • Telecasting