Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

EDITORIALS Let's Deal in Futures FILM bartering — the trading of time for programs — has become a common practice in television. There is nothing unethical about it as far as we can find out. But is it good business? That question should be of serious moment to anyone concerned with the long-range development of television. "Good business," it seems to us, is business which not only makes a profit but also plans a future. Bartering is profitable, but it is not a means of building strong foundations. It borrows more heavily from the merchandising philosophy of an Algerian rug peddler than from that of, say, General Motors. Orderly growth is not its main goal. Bartering takes many forms, but in essence it is a method of unloading film programs that cannot be readily sold for cash or without special inducements. The film distributor takes at least part of his payment in time which he then sells to an advertiser. Stripped of the euphemisms which most of its practitioners use to describe it, bartering is at best a legal kind of time brokering and at worst a rate cutting device. Time brokerage and rate cutting are not the stuff of which enduring broadcasting structures are built. Radio, it may be pointed out, almost committed suicide in its infancy because of time brokering and almost repeated the act years later because of wholesale rate cutting. Radio resumed its growth in the television era only after it began to sell on its merits instead of letting the customers haggle it nearly to death. Television may take a lesson from radio. Those who wish to plan a lasting future for the medium will not include the barter deal in their plans. SEN. Alexander Wiley (R-Wis.) last week complained that he couldn't hear some of his soft-spoken colleagues during debates, and he urged that the Senate chamber be wired for sound. May we point out that nobody else can hear the Senators either. It's time the Senate brought itself up to date by installing a public address system for its own convenience and admitting radio and television for the public good. The Wise Course IT IS NOT going too far to say that toll tv can be written off as an imminent "on-the-air" threat to free^tv, and therefore to the public. The FCC, or at least a majority of its members, has been saved from its own folly by Chairman Oren Harris (D-Ark.) of the House Commerce Committee. It was Rep. Harris' timely letter to the FCC [B«T, April 29] that slowed that agency down and caused postponement of an action that would have authorized "experimental" subscription-tv, which, however circumscribed or limited, would have been the opening wedge for the substitution of a box-office for tv, and the beginning of the end of free tv. Then, last week, the prospect for action by the FCC prior to a full evidentiary hearing was considerably diminished. Four members of the FCC met with Chairman Harris at their request to "exchange views." The conclusion the FCC majority reached was inevitable — that a major question of public policy is involved and that there is doubt whether the FCC has the legal authority to decide it without the benefit of legislation. If, after evidentiary hearing, the FCC majority should conclude that it does have the authority to authorize subscription tv, the Commission would still be under mandate to disclose its intentions to Congress. Hearings take time. And Congress doesn't act quickly on questions of policy. Nevertheless, this does not mean that those interested in keeping free tv service to the public can rest on their oars. The pay tv proponents are not idle. They have lost only the first round, when they thought they had victory almost by default. Theirs has been one of the highest-powered lobbies ever to hit Washington and the nation. They sold many newspapers on a "what-harm-is-therein-giving-subscription-tv-a-trial" editorial kick. They planted pieces in magazines, and had paid publicists hit the Chautauqua trails. Proponents in Congress loaded the Congressional Record with their outpourings. The professional proponents have too much at stake to quit Drawn for BROADCASTING • TELECASTING by Sid Hix "What can 1 do? He's got it tuned to the educational station!" now. Moreover, the news engendered by the toll versus free tv fight has been reflected in the prices of Zenith and Skiatron stocks — 1 about which more may be heard in Congress. Of great significance in the toll tv imbroglio so far is the lessor taught the FCC. The Commission lately has insisted that Congress keep its hands off, since it is a "quasi-judicial" agency. That ma) hold on adjudicatory proceedings, but not on "legislative" matter or questions of public policy. Congress does the legislating; th< FCC and the other regulatory bodies created by Congress do th< administering. Uneducated Dollars THE forces of educational television will not be able to blam the Ford Foundation if they fail to make a go of it. Perhaps "forces" is too strong a word, since despite their bes efforts they have yet to occupy 90% of the channels the FC( surrendered to them five years ago. Be that as it may, the For Foundation's annual report came out a few days ago showing tha the foundation allocated more than $8 million for educational t in fiscal 1956, on top of more than $11 million set aside befor that [B*T, May 13]. That is a lot of money for a foundation to put into a move ment — which also may be an exaggerative word in the circurr stances — that has gone so short a distance on its own. But so Ion as it is doing it, the Ford Foundation moved largely in the rigt direction in 1956. For substantially all of the $8 million went t organizations for the production of programs. It is in this field — the production of educational programs fc placement on commercial stations — that the educational tv interesi can make their greatest contribution. If produced with know-hov their programs can augment the commercial stations' own educ; tional and informational shows to the benefit of all. Even the most vocal advocates of channel reservation must se by now that their hope of filling the spectrum with education; outlets was optimistic beyond reason. Meanwhile, more than 20 channels lie useless, shut off by the FCC from any other produi tivity whatsoever. At the pace established over the past five yearseven if that pace could be maintained — the currently reserve channels would not be filled by educational operations for 5 years. That would run us into the 21st Century. The Ford Foundation might find it economical to put just little of its educational tv money into an independent study of tf outlook for educational stations. If it did so, it might no longf have to say, as it does in the 1956 report, that the question < educational television is "unresolved" and "may remain so for man years." The foundation could save itself some money that way. Page 122 • May 20, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecastin