Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

FCR THE RECORD continued THE THIRTEEN MEN WHO MADE THE STUDY The FCC's Network Study report was written by lawyers and economists. That is evident in a look at the dramatis personae of the staff. Director of the FCC's Network Study Staff was Roscoe L. Barrow, dean of the U. of Cincinnati Law School. He was named director in September 1955 and spent alternate weeks in Washington while administering his collegiate duties in Cincinnati. For the past few months, however, he virtually spent fulltime on the project. Dean Barrow was born in LaGrange, N. C, in 1913. He received his B.S. degree from Lewis Institute (now Illinois Institute of Technology) in 1935, a J.D. from Northwestern U. in 1938. From 1938 to 1951, Dean Barrow was a government attorney with the National Labor Relations Board, Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Price Administration and with the Dept. of lustice (as a special assistant to Attorney General J. Howard McGrath handling price violation prosecutions). In 1949 he was appointed professor of law at Cincinnati U.; he was named acting dean in 1952 and dean in 1953. During World War II he served in the Navy. Executive secretary of the staff was Dr. Louis H. Mayo, assistant dean, George Washington U. Law School, Washington, D.C. A U. S. Naval Academy graduate, Dr. Mayo served in the Navy during World War II, reaching the rank of lieutenant commander. He has been teaching communications law at George Washington U. since 1951. He also has served as a consultant to the White House on special projects. Two other attorneys were attached to the staff — Ashbrook P. Bryant and J. F. Tierney. Mr. Bryant, an FCC attorney on detail to the staff, practiced privately in New York, was an attorney with the Securities & Exchange Commission, a special assistant to the Attorney General on war fraud cases, and chief counsel of the Senate Preparedness Investigating Committee before joining the FCC. Mr. Tierney served with the British Purchasing Commission, with the Kaiser Co., as a consultant to the Small Business Administration, with Robert A. Mayhew Assoc., and on the staff of the House Appropriations Committee. The economists included Dr. Jesse Markham, Princeton U. professor of economics (and antitrust specialist); Hyman H. Goldin, FCC economist (chief of the Economics Division since 1948); Dr. Warren Baum, formerly with the Rand Corp.; Peter Gerlando, FCC economist, formerly with OPA, Commerce Dept., Federal Security Agency and Census Bureau; Ellis Crocker, FCC economist with the Economics Div., now with the Telephone Div., Common Carrier Bureau, and Robert D. J. Leahy, special investigator for the Broadcast Bureau. Another academician was Dr. Charles H. Sandage, chairman of the advertising department, U. of Illinois. The practical side of broadcasting and advertising was represented by two staff members: Edward R. Eadah and Harry J. Nichols, both serving as industry consultants. Mr. Eadah is the former research director of the now defunct DuMont Tv Network. Before that he headed the client coverage departments at CBS, ABC and MBS. Mr. Nichols retired in 1955 as senior vice president and part owner of Mumm, Mulloy & Nichols advertising agency, Columbus, Ohio. IN this first — and only — group picture of the FCC's Network Study Staff, taken in New York in November 1955, all members are shown except three. Seated (I to r) are Ashbrook P. Bryant, Dr. Louis H. Mayo, Dean Roscoe L. Barrow, Hyman H. Goldin and Dr. Jesse Markham. Standing (I to r) are Peter Gerlando, Harry J. Nichols, Dr. Warren Baum, James B. Sheridan (acting chief of the FCC's economics division who is not a member of the study staff), Edward R. Eadah, and J. F. Tierney. Dr. Charles H. Sandage, Ellis Crocker and Robert D. J. Leahy were not present when this picture was taken. that the network had instigated the rule infraction, this would presumably reflect on the network's qualifications as a licensee of its owned and operated stations. This raises the question, however, whether the penalties involved are appropriate for rule infractions, by stations or networks. There can be no question that revocation or non-renewal of a station's license, whether the license is held by a network or by a nonnetwork organization, is a drastic penalty for the Commission to impose. Such action clearly reflects on the character of the licensee and his ability to perform in the public interest. The financial penalty involved may be quite substantial. In most cases the licensee will have made a substantial investment in plant and facilities, program materials, etc. It is not unlikely that there would be a financial loss in the forced sale of the station's facilities to the new licensee author ized by the Commission to operate on the assigned frequency. As previously indicated, in the Don Lee case in which the Commission was dealing with clear-cut violations of the Chain Broadcasting Rules by a radio network,3 the Commission concluded that revocation of any of the station licenses of the network would be too extreme a penalty. In addition to its power to revoke, or not to renew, a station's license, the Commission, under authority granted to it by the 1952 Amendment to the Act (§ 312(s) may issue a "cease and desist" order in cases 3 In 1950 Don Lee Network was charged with coercing affiliates into violating provisions of Chain Broadcasting Rules. Since Don Lee itself was licensee of several stations, FCC instituted license renewal proceedings against these stations on premise that if network had used its weight on affiliates, its qualifications to hold broadcast license were in doubt. Commission renewed licenses of Don Lee stations on ground that revocation (which was its only recourse then) was too stringent punishment. when the licensee has violated any provision of the Act or any Commission rule or regulation. The "cease and desist" order, in certain circumstances, can be a useful tool in rule enforcement. The effectiveness of this sanction may be limited, however, for the reason that the only remedy provided by the Act for failure to observe a "cease and desist" order is the extreme penalty of license revocation. Also, this penalty applies to failure to observe the "cease and desist" order, rather than to engagement in the practices violative of the Commission's rules, which are the subject of the order. It appears, therefore, that the Commission's vital function of effective rule enforcement would be aided if it were impowered to impose penalties (other than revocation of a station's license) for practices which, after proper investigation by the Commission, were found to be infrac Page 104 • October 7, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecasting