Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

INVEST i YOUF DOLLARS WHERE THEY BRING LARGER DIVIDENDS The latest NIELSEN SURVEY proves that KTBS-TV, CHANNEL 3 gives you more . . . more TV homes . . . reaches more of these TV homes MONTHLY and WEEKLY ... delivers more for your money. 316,400 HOMES in KTBS-TV Area give you a bonus of 31,900 homes over Station B, according to A. C. Nielsen Co., world's largest statistical and rating organization. 157,980 TELEVISION HOMES in KTBS-TV AREA, a bonus of 13,120 over Station B, is shown by the Nielsen Survey. 136,860 HOMES REACHED MONTHLY by KTBS-TV, a bonus of 6,740 over Station B, proven by Nielsen. 131,870 HOMES REACHED WEEKLY by KTBS-TV, a bonus of 5,120 over Station B is shown by Nielsen. KTBS-TV with its maximum power is the place to be . . . there's more to see on Channel 3 . . . and more people see it! KTBS-71 CHANNEL SHREVEPORT LOUISIANA E. NEWTON WRAY, President & Gen. Mgr. NBC and ABC Represent)! by Edward Petry & Co., Inc. Page 138 • May 13, 1957 rights to a fair trial which, of course, is paramount? KEATING: Not in the least. I think that the trial was conducted fairly, honestly, and honorably and would not have been conducted any differently had there been no cameras in the courtroom. Q: Well then, may we ask you .... Do you think the television and radio stations of Denver have demonstrated a sense of responsibility which would qualify them to cover future trials? KEATING: Yes, I am sure they did. The decorum of the court was maintained at all times. There was no noise from cameras. There was no confusion caused by cameramen moving around the court. There was no flash equipment used. I think that the radio and television stations did themselves honorably in this trial. Q: In any trial, no one can be more zealous in protecting the rights of the defendant than his defense attorney. Here were the impressions of Graham's chief defense counsel, John Gibbons. Mr. Gibbons, as the chief attorney for the defense in the John Gilbert Graham trial, do you feel that the rights of the defendant were in any way violated through the presence of television cameras and radio recorders in the courtroom? DEFENSE ATTORNEY GIBBONS: Well, as you probably recall, Graham requested that I file an affidavit in which we stated that we objected, and objected strenuously, to any canned or live television of the trial itself. Q: Right. GIBBONS: However, during the trial I can truthfully state that not once at any one period or stage of the trial was the decorum of the court, was the dignity of the court, or was any procedure affected, in my opinion, as a result of the televising of this case. Q: Well, then, you do not feel that the rights of the defendant were jeopardized by our being there? GIBBONS: No, I don't feel that they were jeopardized save and except it has always been my contention that a defendant has>the right to determine whether or not he will be televised or not be televised. In this case, the court ruled that he did not have such a right. Q: Mr. Gibbons, did you see and hear any of the television and radio coverage of the trial? GIBONS: Why yes— I did. I saw numerous excerpts of the Graham trial at home after the day in court. Q: Well now, do you think that the recorded and the televised excerpts told objectively what was happening at the trial? GIBBONS: As a matter of fact, in most cases it was told far better than the daily newspapers. Q: Well now, do you think that trial coverage such as was done then by the Denver area stations has any educational value for the public? GIBBONS: Yes, I do feel that youngsters, children in school, children of teen-age and high school age were greatly benefited by being able to take into their home or be brought to their home, various excerpts in the trial to show the actual functioning of the court, to show the way a trial is conducted. Q: Do you think, conceivably, it could serves as a deterrent to crime? GIBBONS: I think that every time that crime is mentioned, and it has brought the raw justice to a person's home or to their vision, anything that appears, even in print or on tv, that shows what could happen to a lad or a youth, or even a man or a woman in the event they are charged with crime — I think all of those items are great deterrents for crime. Q: We talked to the person closest of all to the defendant, his wife, Mrs. Gloria Graham, to get her views of the trial coverage by radio and television. Mrs. Graham, you're familiar, of course, with the fact that radio microphones and television cameras were present in the courtroom at the time of your husband's trial? DEFENDANT'S WIDOW MRS. GRAHAM: Yes, I am. Q: Do you think the fact that television was there and radio was there had anything to do with the outcome of the trial? MRS. GRAHAM: No. I don't think it did. Q: Do you think conceivably in any possible way, the cameras and the microphones may have influenced the witnesses or the jury in any possible way? MRS GRAHAM: No, no — not at all. Q: Do you think your husband had a fair trial? MRS GRAHAM: Yes, I do. Q: Now, you are familiar, of course, Mrs. Graham, with the fact that in the early stages of the trial your husband had his attorney submit an affidavit to the judge asking that television cameras, film cameras that is be barred from the trial? You knew that? MRS. GRAHAM: Yes. Q: Can you give us any reason why he may have felt that way about it . . . why he may not have wanted television in the courtroom? MRS GRAHAM: Well, I think the main reason was that there had been so much publicity, and I don't think he was as concerned for himself — the publicity for himself—as he was for the children and I and other members of the family that would be there at the trial. I think that had something to do with it. Q: Do you think as things finally turned out, that television had any influence on the publicity end of the trial one way or the other? MRS. GRAHAM: No, I don't think so— but of course at the time we didn't realize exactly what it was going to be all about. Q: The FBI had no objections to the filming and recording of the faces and voices of its agents who appeared as witnesses for the state — among them, Agent James R. Wagoner. (Testimony of FBI agent is from film record of trial.) WAGONER: He told us that on the day that Mrs. King left for the Denver Motor Hotel, Nov. 1, 1955, with his wife and son, that he took Mrs. King's luggage out to his car and opening the trunk of his car, he placed her large tan suitcase in the trunk and while opening the trunk, he placed the Broadcasting • Telecasting