Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1956)

editorials Stuck With a Splinter WITH a heavy majority of Senators already committed to support it, the Johnson bill to amend the laws governing political broadcasting and campaign spending seems set for prompt action. It cannot be passed a moment too soon. It's too bad it wasn't passed early last week — before Lar Daly, who says he is running for the Republican presidential nomination as an America Firster, put the arm on all networks for equal time to answer President Eisenhower's Feb. 29 appearance. The lunacies of the present political broadcasting law could not have been made more apparent. In our view Sen. Lyndon Johnson's bill is a good one, in the sense that it is probably the best broadcasters can hope to see enacted before the campaigns of 1956 begin in earnest and the splinter parties begin coming out of the woodwork in force. The Johnson bill would modify the law to permit broadcasters to forget about giving equal time to unimportant candidates. It would increase the legal limits of campaign expenditures in recognition of contemporary costs of television time. These are desirable objectives. But there have been behind-the-scenes maneuvers connected with the bill that are somewhat unsettling. Some of the bill's supporters have unofficially let it be known that their support would intensify if networks volunteered substantial gifts of free time to political candidates. It would be very wrong if networks yielded to such pressure. To deserve the support of broadcasters, any bill modifying the political broadcasting Sec. 315 of the Communications Act must have as its purpose the freeing of restrictions on radio and television, not the freeing of time for canned oratory by politicians. Broadcasters must be given more latitude in news coverage of political candidates and campaigns. This news coverage may take many forms — straight news shows, panel discussions, interview programs like Meet the Press and Face the Nation. These are programs whose format and content are controlled by the broadcaster — not by the candidate or his party. They are journalism, not political rallies staged by partisan groups. Under present regulations, radio and television are prevented from living up to the standards of good journalism in presenting politics. No responsible newspaper in the country would give a candidate with so little future as Lar Daly more than a few inches of type. Prospects at the time this was written were that if he proved to be qualified, radio and television would be obliged by an archaic law to give him a valuable block of prime time. A good way for politicians to defeat their own attempts to obtain more exposure on radio and television is to continue to keep Sec. 315 on the books in its present ungainly form. Swat The Double-Biller EVERY BUSINESS has its sharpies, some of them an exceptionally hardy lot. There is one particular breed that feeds off radio and television, however, which strikes us as being pernicious but also, fortunately, susceptible to riddance measures. We have in mind the retailer who takes the national advertiser's cooperative advertising allowance, buys time at the best rate he can get, tells the advertiser he paid more, and pockets the difference. He steals the national advertiser's money and at the same time deprives stations of dollars rightfully intended for — and wrongfully attributed to — the broadcast media. He is the doublebiller, a parasite that siphons both ends at once. The double-billing problem has been pointed up most recently by W. N. McKinney, general manager of KELD El Dorado, Ark., and a past president of the Arkansas Broadcasters Assn. In a letter to the Assn. of National Advertisers, Mr. McKinney points out that national advertisers are being taken, and radio is being hurt. He concedes that a relatively few broadcasters still have dirty hands in this matter, but points out that "the average case involves the local dealer conspiring with the state distributors." The end result, he makes plain, is that the national advertiser is "spending" more than he ought to for less than he's entitled to get, and radio is being injured in the process. Mr. McKinney is eminently correct. He also is right in thinking Page 102 • March 12, 1956 lis Drawn for BROADCASTING • TELECASTING by Duane~McKenna "They're demanding equal time to answer the Prohibitionist candidate." it is a matter of concern to both advertiser and media. To be sure, some advertisers have blinked at the practice, or permitted it as a form of "encouragement." As a whole, however, they know it hurts them. The ANA has been concerned about it for years, and, in the newspaper field, feels it has reduced the problem to a trifle by securing and circulating the local rates of newspapers. Thus advertisers are able to check and see when they are being grossly over-charged by local newspaper users. In the near future, we understand, ANA will renew its efforts to secure similar rate information from stations. We deem it an excellent move so long as there is no attempt to influence stations as to what rate, national or local, they should charge for co-op advertising. ANA officials make clear that all they care about is how much the co-op rate amounts to, regardless of what it is called. On this basis we must endorse the idea heartily and give our support when ANA sets the plan in motion. Like Mr. McKinney, we feel that sound-thinking stations will cooperate. If it will eliminate or curb the double-billing evil — as it seems to have done in the case of newspapers — submission of co-op rates to ANA would seem a small effort to make in order to rid the business of a parasite who is living all too well off money that was intended for radio and television in the first place. Bob Lee's Rebel Yell ANOTHER furor over subscription tv waxes because of the ■ Look article by FCC Comr. Robert E. Lee proposing a public trial for toll tv — this while the whole public policy question is before the FCC. The demand is heard that the Commissioner disqualify himself in this controversial case. There's even the suggestion that he should resign. We happen to disagree vigorously with Mr. Lee's "toll tv by trial" approach, for reasons heretofore expressed in these columns. There's a fundamental question of far greater significance involved. There are public utility-common carrier connotations, which would mean rate regulation. Then the medium would no longer be free. But, though we disagree with Mr. Lee, we defend his right to express his views, so long as he labels them as his own. The question of propriety, however, is quite another thing. Certainly there's nothing illegal about writing an article for pay. The federal laws permit this. The FCC is not strictly a part of the judiciary. Congress insists that this, and all other independent agencies, are its creatures. Hence, if congressmen can pop off at will, we assume a member of the FCC can express his individual views, too. Comr. Lee did depart from custom. We doubt whether his colleagues feel he was prudent. Mr. Lee is not disposed to disqualify himself from consideration of the toll tv issue. But it is our guess that in the end he must do so, because of the heat already generated and because he would be inclined to defer to the wishes of his colleagues. The notion that he should resign, however, is preposterous. Broadcasting • Telecasting