Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1956)

editorials Monopolists, Do-Gooders or Neither? DEPENDING upon which side one listened to, it has been possible lately to learn that television networks are (1) vicious monopolies seeking to subjugate television to their own commercial gain and (2) benevolent charities whose only wish is to spend their last cent in elevating the culture of America. Television networks are neither, but you would never find that out from reading the more intensely partisan among the exchanges of the past fortnight. The argument over the position of the networks in the contemporary television world is showing signs of degenerating into name-calling. That is too bad, for there is evident need of lucid discussion. There can be no doubt that broadcasting networks today are facing the most severe attacks since those which led to the FCC adoption and the Supreme Court affirmation of the Chain Broadcasting Rules in the early 40s. The networks are being shot at from many sides: from an articulate spokesman for an independent television station, from film distributors, from Congress, from the FCC, and, most disturbingly of all, from the Dept. of Justice, which has had agents on the prowl in search of possible antitrust violations. Under such circumstances, it is pertinent to inquire what all the shooting is about and whether it is directed at a proper target. The answer to this question is necessarily complex and cannot be reached without extensive study by appropriate agencies. We do not think the answer will be obtained from the issuance of news releases. If the networks are operating in violation of the antitrust laws, that is a matter for the courts to decide. If the networks are so dominating television as to require a revision of FCC rules, that is a matter for the FCC to decide. If the networks have grown too big for the FCC to handle, that is a matter for the Congress to decide. But none of these decisions can or should be reached without the most earnest and objective investigation. And none should be reached without a thorough study of the great contributions which networks have made to the development of television and to its continuing expansion as a prime vehicle of advertising, entertainment and information. We would also hope that no investigation would ignore the principal factor now inhibiting television competition: the scarcity of competitively comparable facilities. This is a temporary factor which, there is at least faint reason to hope, will be corrected by FCC action. If there is network dominance of the television market today, it exists because of limited station assignments in key cities. An expansion of station accommodations would radically change the competitive patterns in tv. Broadcasting's Crying Need BROADCASTING'S most urgent need today is a national public relations project. It is for a project that affirmatively will extol radio and television and the people behind them. After a generation of radio and a decade of television, broadcasters still find themselves on the defensive. They are sitting ducks for the reformers, the politicians and the competitive forces that begrudge broadcasters their share of the advertising dollar. Broadcasters have never learned to use their own media to sell themselves, except on special occasions like National Radio Week and the upcoming National Television Week. But that's only part of the front on which broadcasters fail to function. When a do-gooder or a senator upbraids broadcasting for socalled overcommercializing, or for some other purported deviation, newspapers play the story to the hilt. The chain reaction begins. Members of Congress pick it up. It permeates the state legislatures. School boards, parent-teacher associations and the Gushing Gulch Bible Class let go. Then comes the defense. A "spokesman" issues a statement in defense of radio or television. If the reply gets into the public prints it is usually because some telegraph editor slipped. It rarely gets on the air. Thus, the effort to defend, coming after the attack, seldom overtakes the innuendoes or the half-truths of the allegation. That, in the parlance of public relations, is a "bad press." A few days ago [B»T, May 28] the Assn. of Better Business Bureaus released figures showing that in 1955 both radio and tele Drawn for BROADCASTING • TELECASTING by Sid Hlx "We wonder where the yellow went!" vision were far behind newspapers in the number of advertisements requiring contact with advertisers or referrals to authorities. Of 19,618 consumer complaints warranting follow through, 17,829 appeared in newspapers. Only 474 were on radio and 356 on tv. Did you read this in the newspapers? Did you hear it on the air? We wonder how many broadcasters realized that their own hands were so much cleaner than those of newspaper competitors? (This is not to condone any bait-switch on the air, for even a single instance is one too many.) Admitting the crying need for a public relations program, the question arises as to how it best can be undertaken. The job cannot be done defensively, parrying each attack as it occurs. The whole assignment cannot be handled from Washington, although it could be directed from that headquarters city. The programming and talent centers are in New York and Hollywood. The public is interested in news from these points. That's why most columnists and the writers headquarter in those cities. Broadcasters ought to have the best available public relations counsel. They should be independent contractors experienced in the methods of New York and Hollywood, as well as Washington, and should function under the aegis of NARTB. The NARTB board meets in Washington June 21-22. It should proclaim that every week should be National Radio and Television Week. It should activate plans for an overall day-in-day-out public relations program. There is no more urgent topic on its agenda. The Blue Book Fades AN ACTION of great significance was taken the other day by the FCC, and was handled as routine. The Commission dismissed, without comment or fanfare, renewal citations against 17 stations in Wisconsin and Illinois alleging program "imbalance" and purported overcommercialization. The action is important because these citations were seen as the harbinger of another "Blue Book" wherein the FCC might attempt again to use the back door of license renewal as a means of imposing censorship. When the 17 stations were cited late last year, we warned of the implications in these columns. Later, we urged that the entire renewal procedure be reviewed; that the FCC should quit counting spot announcments and that its definitions of what does or does not constitute public service programming should be rescinded or at least revised. At the NARTB convention in Chicago in April, the FCC, in a panel discussion, agreed that its renewal forms should be amended to make them less onerous and more realistic. Thereafter, the Committee on Radio & Television Broadcasting of the Advisory Council on Federal Reports, in conjunction with the Bureau of the Budget, got together. Last week, Chairman McConnaughey of the FCC named a staff committee to work with the Budget Bureau and Government-Industry Committee on renewal modifications. The FCC action, expunging from the records the renewal citations against the 17 stations which had been on the hook, is a most encouraging sign. It seems to substantiate the FCC's good faith in seeking a swift solution of the renewal problem and avoiding the dangerous course that led to the Blue Book a decade ago. Page 118 • June 4, 1956 Broadcasting • Telecasting