Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

editorials The Unheard Voice AMONG the more commendable enterprises with which U. S. broadcasters have been identified is the annual Voice of Democracy contest for high school students. In the nine years the contest has been held, several million youngsters have written several billion words in praise of American freedoms and responsibilities. To judge by the appearance in Washington last week of the four national winners of the latest contest, U. S. youth has a clear idea of what democracy is all about. We are not so sure about their elders, particularly some of their elders who are engaged in broadcasting. While the youngsters whom they had sponsored were discussing freedom and responsibility last week, many broadcasters were ignoring both. They were still paying no attention to a piece of pending legislation which would give them considerably more freedom than they now enjoy in the presentation of political candidates on news and discussion programs. Pending before Congress is an amendment which would modify the political broadcasting law to the extent of permitting broadcasters to use candidates on news and discussion programs without having to offer equal facilties to all other candidates. It is a sensible amendment and would do much, if passed, to elevate the stature of radio and television as news media. So far, however, only CBS, which originated the amendment, and NBC have supported it publicly. Except for a handful who have supported it in private correspondence, the rest of the broadcasters in America haven't done a thing to advance the proposal. Some of them, it now becomes evident, are actually hoping it won't pass; they fear the removal of government regulation which is a handy thing to substitute for one's own editorial coverage. The fears of the fearful appear less substantial everv day. The longer the broadcasters remain silent, the less chance there is for passage of the amendment. As matters stand now, the probability is that U. S. radio and television will go through another major election year without having to use their own discretion. They will have ceded their editorial judgment to a government law and will have postponed their maturity as news media that much longer. Perhaps they should pay more attention to the speeches and less to the promotional results of the next Voice of Democracy contest. Markets, Probes & Megacyles AFTER a dismal start, the Senate Commerce Committee inquiry into the nation's television woes gives signs of beginning to get somewhere. Both the legislators and the FCC are learning that there's something more to the problem than who killed the uhf cock-robin, and indeed that uhf is still very much alive and essential in fashioning nationwide competitive tv. The biggest single discovery, after many months of wringing of hands and fighting the phantom battle of conversions, is that there just aren't a sufficient number of competitive stations in most of the first 100 markets, intermixed or otherwise. The FCC learned it by ringing door bells at advertising agencies, station representatives and networks in New York. And the committee, which understands economics and is weak on allocations, in the words of its chairman, Sen. Warren G. Magnuson (D-Wash.), has reached the conclusion that it isn't how many stations but how many can live. They are beginning to think in terms of an economic allocation as well as a technical one. The suggestion tossed in by Comr. John Doerfer that a given station in a given multiple market be restricted to a single network affiliation, with other affiliations to go to competitive stations, whether uhf or vhf, appeared to ring a bell on the committee. His "one network to a customer" approach, all other things equal, registered because there is the general feeling that the economic key — at this stage — is the availability of adequate network service. The seeming emergence of the hearings from a state of disorganized confusion can be ascribed to work at the staff level. With only a few weeks of indoctrination and no prior experience in broadcasting, young Kenneth A. Cox, the committee's majority counsel, took over questioning last week. His start was shaky, but he had done his home-work. He demonstrated a good grasp of the intricacies of tv. At his elbow was Nicholas Zapple, the Senate's Page 134 • February 27, 1956 Drawn fir BROADCASTING . TELECASTING by Sid Hix ". . . and when you say 'note the big, over-sized chest,' be sure you point to the freezer." communications expert. It is perhaps too much to expect legislation in 1956 — an election year — if, indeed, legislation is needed. Congress wants to quit in July to mend fences back home. But between now and then, the committee can give guidance to the FCC by exposing its views. Out of the hearings, to date, has come the realization that a dual uhf-vhf allocation must be maintained if there is to be what Comr. Rosel H. Hyde describes as "comparable, competitive" service. The veteran commissioner, drawing on a quarter-century in Federal regulation — 10 of those years as a commissioner — has carried the big load in the inquiry. He has given the Senate committee a concise, coherent course in elementary allocations and economics. In the days ahead, the committee will hear testimony from government and private entities. All of the accumulation of indictments, real and imagined, will be aired. These burning issues principally will involve the networks. The list, turned over to the FCC at last week's hearings, include "possible anti-trust implications" of option time; network ownership of both radio and tv, and their ownership of stations; national spot representation by networks; multiple ownership, and coaxial cable and microwave tariffs — harking back to the Plotkin and Jones reports of the last season. The questions are there and should be ventilated. Otherwise, they will haunt the business of television broadcasting and the FCC forevermore. There are signs that the inquiry will be kept within manageable limits, and that the committee will let the FCC complete its own network study, phase by phase, rather than duplicate the job at the taxpayers' expense. Toward a More Perfect Union THERE was something extraordinarily significant about the meeting in Washington last week of the presidents of 43 state broadcasters' associations with the officials and staff of the NARTB. It was a sort of miniature congress of broadcasters — a meeting of the duly-elected representatives of the broadcasters of the several states with their "federal" or "executive" coordinate in Washington. Both sides benefited. The state presidents learned at first hand the problems of regulation and legislation in Washington. And NARTB President Harold E. Fellows and his executive staff were indoctrinated in the grass-roots vagaries of the art and the business of broadcasting. There is no official tie, since the state associations are not signatory to NARTB. The mutuality of interest, however, is there. The day may come when the state association heads will constitute a "house of delegates" to the NARTB, perhaps bound to it by something more than a mutuality of interest. The business of broadcasting is growing. It is closer to the people than any other pursuit, and more sensitive to their wishes. In order to effect a more perfect broadcast union, the day of a federation of associations will come. The nucleus will be found in the present NARTB, which is functioning more effectively than any of its predecessors, and in the continued progress and growth of the state associations. Broadcasting • Telecasting