Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

WHY TV HAS BECOME A POLITICAL FORCE THE REASONS for television's importance in contemporary political campaigns and its likely influence in changing historical campaign patterns were described last Friday by Sig Mickelson, CBS Inc. vice president in charge of news and public affairs. Here is a condensed text of Mr. Mickelson's address at the annual Journalism Institute of the U. of Wisconsin at Madison: SOME months ago I began to think of election years as the years of the blue shirt. Of course, the blue shirt is not a product of television, but it is one manifestation of the great part that television will play in the 1956 election year. To understand television's role in 1956, you must start with the story of its incredible growth. There was television during the summer of 1948 when both political parties held their conventions in Philadelphia, but it was minuscule compared to its present status. In 1948 there were barely more than 400,000 television homes in the entire U. S. In 1952, at the time of the conventions, the 400,000 had become 18,700,000 television homes. In 1956 it is estimated that the figures will run somewhere between 36 and 40 million. The growth in the number of stations which will be able to carry broadcasts from the convention sites this summer is just as spectacular. In the summer of 1948 there were only 15 stations on the air which were able to carry the signal from Philadelphia. In 1952 this figure had risen to 107. In 1956 the total will be 396. Back in the primitive year of 1948 there were only seven cities which were interconnected by AT&T cable and thus, in only those seven cities were viewers able to see any part of the convention proceedings. In 1952 the seven had grown to 62 cities which were similarly interconnected. But in 1956 the figure will rise to 233. This gives you a picture of the growth of television's potential as a political force since 1948, but I think you should take particular note of the growth just since 1952, which I suppose many people regard as the ultimate year in the interconnection between politics and television. Although 1952 was a great year for television, there will be approximately twice as many television homes in 1956. There will be nearly four times as many stations able to carry the convention signals, and there will be nearly four times as many cities into which the signal will be able to go. It really isn't any wonder that the persons in charge of planning for the political conventions and the campaigns to follow this year are not underestimating the power that television will wield. The statistics show that some 55 million persons saw some part of one or the other of the 1952 conventions. At the peak point, between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on the night of Friday, July 25, during the third ballot of the Democratic national convention well in excess of 10,000,000 homes were tuned in to the proceedings. This represents more than 25 million persons. This gives some indication of what we can expect in 1956. With twice the number of homes equipped with television sets this summer, we should be able to expect twice the impact of 1952. Perhaps more than twice the impact, because this year the signal will go into both large and small cities, not concentrated along the principal cable lines but scattered in all parts of the country. This may easily mean that at some key moment some 100 million persons will be looking in simultaneously at convention proceedings — the most fantastic audience ever assembled. There will undoubtedly be some changes in convention procedures this summer. The Republicans, for example, are promising us there will only be one session daily — that from 2 to 7 p.m. San Francisco time (11 a.m. to 7 p.m. the first day), which, of course, translated into terms of New York time, is 5 to 10 p.m. — incidentally, the peak hours of television viewing. The Democrats are promising a program of streamlining which will make their convention move more swiftly and which will eliminate many of the proceedings which repel viewers rather than attract them. The Agency and the Producer Many of these changes are worth a very careful look because they may have a profound effect upon one important element of American democracy — the machinery for nominating and electing a President. There are additional changes in prospect, worth close examination because of their potential influence on the processes of selection of candidates. One of these is the ascendancy of the advertising agency into a position of substantial importance in the whole electoral process. The second is the rise of the personal producer, the man who advises the candidate on radio and television performances and is always at his side to see that he is lighted, photographed and made up in the right way. The third prospective change is the short campaign, limited now to something less than two months, perhaps to approximately six weeks duration. This will undoubtedly mean tremendous emphasis on television. It may mean the virtual end of the great American institution, the campaign train, and full reliance on the airplane. It could, of course, mean that the famous backporch campaign will really come into its own because only now is it really feasible. A fourth is the tailoring of conventions for television work and station facilities a few seconds after the morning conference was over. All networks, in turning down the original requests of Chairman Butler and Sen. Kefauver for reply time, couched their answers in substantially the same language to the two individuals. The letters from the networks based their refusals on two points: they would allot equal time to contending candidates for the nomination of the same party, but not to a different party, as in this case; President Eisenhower's talk was carried as a matter of public interest, and similarly, significant talks by Democratic leaders would be presented. Robert W. Sarnoff, president of NBC, wrote Mr. Butler that NBC makes its facilities available to political leaders from time to time as a matter of public interest. He said the network carried the President's address because it was "a news event of unusual national importance." He pointed out that NBC attempts to maintain "fair balance" between representatives of the major parties, and in this connection, mentioned that NBC had provided free time to Adlai Stevenson on two recent occasions. Robert E. Kintner, president of ABC, turned down the Democratic request with this wire: "We regret to inform you it is our decision that we are neither legally nor morally obligated to allocate time . . . ABC has followed and will continue a program of balanced and full presentation of various political points of view." In declining the requests, John B. Poor, executive vice president of Mutual, said MBS had carried the President's address as "a special news feature in the public interest." Under the circumstances, he added, there is "no obligation on the part of the network to furnish equal time." Mr. Mickelson pointed out the policy of CBS Radio and CBS-TV "to give equal facilities to contending candidates for the nomination of the same party." In accordance with this policy, he said, both Sen. Kefauver and Mr. Stevenson have been on CBS Radio and CBS-TV. He said the network attempts to "keep an overall balance between Republican and Democratic viewpoints at all times." In his second request for time to reply to the President, Mr. Butler said: (1) the address was political and the President spoke as a candidate, outlining his program; (2) his request for time was based not on legal but on moral responsibilities of networks to treat both parties the same; (3) the network denials set a precedent "that the President can campaign free of charge from now to the convention;" (4) some network officials are asking relaxation of equal time laws on the ground they can be trusted to act fairly, and he deems the denials unfair; (5) if the networks persist in their position, "I feel confident" Congress will study the problem and take steps it deems necessary to assure fair treatment; (6) Congress intended broadcasters should serve all the people, not merely the party in control of the executive branch, and (7) millions Page 32 • March 5. 1956 Broadcasting • Telecasting