Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

editorials Reason Why THE ABUNDANCE, not to say superfluity, of weeks devoted to various promotions is such that we suspect most people would appreciate a week confined simply to the celebration of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. This week, however, is of exceptional importance to anyone who has anything to do with radio and television — including the audience. It is National Advertising Week. Without advertising, of course, there would be no radio or television— or at least not the kind of wonderful, free, enlightening and entertaining radio and television we have today. So there is considerable self interest to the radio-tv business community in the celebration of National Advertising Week. But there is an equal amount of public interest in the occasion too. We hope that all radio and television stations will take the opportunity to tell their audiences this week — with good, solid, reasonwhy copy — how important advertising is to the U. S. economy and why it is a primary influence in the creation of prosperity. In fact, it would be a good idea to do that at least once every week in the year. The Slight of 315 THERE IS a chance that some of the idiocy may be removed from the laws governing political broadcasting. The chance lies in an amendment of Sec. 3 1 5 of the Communications Act to permit the unrestricted appearance of political candidates on radio and television news and discussion programs — without imposing on broadcasters the obligation to afford equal opportunity for rival candidates. The purpose of the amendment, which was originally proposed by Frank Stanton, CBS Inc. president, is to give networks and stations an opportunity to cover political developments of major parties and candidates without having to give equal attention to splinter interests and the downright frivolous candidates that crop up in every election year. As Dr. Stanton has pointed out, it was impossible for broadcasters to provide adequate news and discussion coverage of the two major candidates for President in 1952, for each time Gen. Eisenhower or Mr. Stevenson appeared, broadcasters were required by law to make similar arrangements available to 16 other candidates who were running — or crawling, it might be better said — in the same race. The Stanton amendment is now before the House and Senate, and has been the subject of hearings in the House [TUT, Feb. 6, 13]. It was eloquently advocated by Richard Salant, CBS staff vice president, and endorsed with slight reservation by Paul Butler, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It was opposed by the majority of the FCC and supported by one dissenting Commissioner, John C. Doerfer. Last week, with commendable business statesmanship, NBC formally endorsed the bill proposed by its chief competitor. But so far there has been an embarrassing silence from other broadcasting interests. Broadcasters stand to benefit most from adoption of the amendment; yet among them only CBS and NBC have commented on it. Why all the silence? There are elements of indifference, inertia, and, we must assume, suspicion behind the silence. It is known that the NARTB board decided not to take a stand as an association for fear that some NARTB members would rather operate under existing laws — which largely relieve the broadcaster of the need to use his own editorial judgment. We would hate to think that the board members were correct in that assumption. In the absence of an official view by the broadcasters' association, one would hope for individual expressions by its members and by non-member radio and tv stations. We suggest that rivalries be suppressed for the moment and that broadcasters try — for appearance's sake if nothing more — to show a little interest in a vital and timely problem. Even if they oppose the measure, they should state their reasons for opposing it. Page 122 • February 20, 1956 Drawn for BROADCASTING . TELECASTING by Sid Hix "The station says there's nothing wrong with our color set . . . their faces are purple!" The Stanton amendment is by no means a complete formula for ridding radio and television of the regulations that are arresting their growth as media of enlightenment. The ultimate goal, of course, must be repeal of all restrictions of Sec. 315. As a practical matter, there is no chance of wiping Sec. 315 off the books now or in the predictable future. The best that can be achieved is a modification of the feind now under consideration. If the proposed amendment passes, broadcasters will have the freedom to present comprehensive and intelligent reports on major political developments in this political year. They will have a chance to make a record on which they can stand later in what must be the inevitable effort to remove all the artificial and growthinhibiting restraints of the political broadcasting law. They will have no chance to make any kind of record, however, now or for many years, if they fail to express a mature desire to assume the responsibilities which would be theirs under the proposed amendment. Clear Track Ahead RECENT decisions of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington appear to remove most of the roadblocks in the path of prompt consideration by the FCC of revised television allocations, as proposed in its rule-making order of Nov. 10. They seem to dispel the spectre of a new freeze. In several recent decisions, three-judge panels of the court — second highest in the land — have reasoned that the tribunal should not substitute its judgment for that of the expert FCC, in the absence of conclusive showing of arbitrary or capricious action. Last week, the court, with a panel splitting 2-1, washed out three petitions for orders to stay vhf grants made by a majority of the Commission in three cities in which deintermixture pleadings had been filed. The majority found that no irreparable injury could be ascribed, since the protesting uhf stations knew as far back as 1952 that the FCC had ear-marked vhf assignments in these markets and they did not protest or intervene at that time. Heretofore, this same court (or panels thereof) has been rough with the FCC, turning it around almost invariably on the ground that appropriate evidentiary hearing had not been accorded the complainants, usually in derogation of Section 309 (c) which provided for an automatic hearing on economic grounds. That iniquitous section now has been modified, to give the FCC a degree of discretion in determining whether such hearings should be authorized. The FCC, because of the actions of Congress and the Courts, now has a clear track ahead. There can be no excuse for undue delays in the handling of pending cases awaiting decision or in the devising of a modified tv allocation plan to which it is committed under its Nov. 10 rule-making order. Broadcasting • Telecasting