Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

GOVERNMENT MOULDER'S QUESTIONS SET TONE: 'OVERSIGHT'TOOVERLOOK NOTHING • Networks, others asked full accounting of FCC contacts • FCC, in turn, to submit itemized list of 'benefits' If any network, industry and/ or FCC "skeletons" have escaped previous congressional inquiries, the House Legislative Oversight Subcommittee seems determined to expose them. At least, that is the conclusion to be drawn from letters requesting a potpourri of information sent to various industry groups and individuals by Rep. Morgan Moulder (D-Mo.), chairman of the subcommittee. In a letter dated Oct. 3, reportedly sent to the networks, NARTB and possibly other broadcast entities, Rep. Moulder asked that the following information be furnished "for the period Jan. 1, 1949, to present: "(1) All files and records, including but not limited to, correspondence, inter-office and other memoranda, reports, memoranda of telephone or other verbal communications or other materials, of (your company) — other than copies of documents of public record in the Federal Communications Commission or any court — concerning, directly or indirectly, any correspondence, meeting, conversation, conference or other contact, written, oral, direct or indirect, by any officer, employe, representative, agent, or other person acting on behalf of (your company), with any member or employe of the FCC or other government official, regarding the FCC or any matters at any time before ;he Commission. "(2) All files and records as in (1) concerning any such contact by any officer, representative, agent, or other person acting on behalf of (your company), with any third person relative to any such contact, actual or proposed, by such third person or other person with any member or employe of the FCC or other government official regarding the FCC or any matters at any time before the Commission. "(3) Specification of any and all gifts, honorariums, loans, fees or other payments, in money or other thing of value, given or made directly or indirectly to any member or employe of the FCC or his immediate family, by or on behalf of (your company). "(4) Specification of any and all benefits, other than those specified in (3), directly or indirectly paid or provided for any member or employe of the FCC or his immediate family, by or on behalf of (your company), including but not limited to any travels, vacations, entertainment, hotel or other accommodations, memberships, etc. "(5) All bills, expense accounts, receipts, vouchers, canceled checks, check stubs, memoranda or other document evidencing or reflecting any item or transaction specified in (3) or (4). "It would be greatly appreciated if you would furnish the above data on or before Oct. 24, 1957. "It is my understanding that during 1956, pursuant to a request from the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, you furnished that subcommittee numerous documents from your files. It would be greatly appreciated if you would furnish to this subcommittee on or before Oct. 17, 1957, a copy of each of the documents furnished to the Antitrust Subcommittee." In a second letter, also dated Oct. 3, understood to have been sent to present FCC commissioners and some, although not all, former commissioners, Rep. Moulder asked that the committee be furnished by this Thursday an itemized statement showing: "(1) Any and all gifts, honorariums, loans, fees or other payments, if any, in money or other thing of value, given or made, directly or indirectly, to you or any member of your immediate family, from the time of your appointment to the FCC to present, by or on behalf of any person, firm, corporation, association, organization or group having any interest, direct or indirect, in any matters subject at any time to the jurisdiction of the commission. "(2) Any and all benefits, if any, other than those specified in (1), received, directly or indirectly, by you or any member of your immediate family from the time of your appointment to the FCC to present, and paid for or provided by, or on behalf of, any person or group specified in (1), including but not limited to any travels, vacations, entertainment, hotel or other accommodations, memberships, etc. "It would be appreciated if you would specify: (a) the time, nature, and amount or value of each of the items specified in (1) or (2), if any; (b) the details concerning such items; and (c) all persons concerned in such transactions." The networks are expected to request an extension of the deadline set by Rep. Moulder, citing such things as the tremendous amount of work it will take to compile the information and the high cost factor involved in reproducing the records. The subcommittee has been charged with determining whether six federal regulatory agencies are administering the laws as Congress intended. These six agencies include the FCC, FTC, Civil Aeronautics Board, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Power Commission and Securities & Exchange Commission. Ten days ago [At Deadline, Oct. 7], Rep. Moulder charged that the CAB and possibly other agencies plan to block the committee's work by refusing access to files. He stated the subcommittee has information that the chairmen of the six regulatory bodies held a luncheon meeting to map a plan of resistance. At the same time, Rep. Moulder announced that James R. Durfee, chairman of the CAB, would be asked to explain in an open hearing this Thursday what right the CAB has to withhold information from the committee. An official of the CAB expressed surprise at Rep. Moulder's statements and claimed the intent of the agency had been just the opposite. Various of the six chairmen have admitted that they frequently get together to talk over their common problems, but denied a planned anti-Moulder meeting was held. These meetings reportedly take various forms; sometimes the chairmen have lunch, or they might play golf. The Moulder investigation was discussed at one of these informal meetings. All present and concerned with the investigation reportedly expressed indignation at the apparent political motivation of the committee — based on what investigators are looking for. [Rep. Moulder and Dr. Bernard Schwartz, chief counsel for the subcommittee, have repeatedly denied that the group has any political connotation whatsoever]. According to this pooling of information on what was transpiring at each agency, the investigation appears to be leaning toward a "besmirchment" of the integrity and character of individual commissioners. A commissioner from one of the agencies, it is understood, cited as an example Dr. Schwartz's appeal for "faceless informers" which, it was the consensus of the group, is nothing but a "McCarthy approach." Also understood to have been discussed by the chairmen were requests for correspondence, memos and telephone calls from and to the White House. It was felt that this is an Executive trust and should not be released to congressional inspection without White House sanction. This, it was felt, falls into the jurisdictional question as to whether the independent agencies are solely "creatures" of Congress. The CAB still is the only agency scheduled to be called at the Thursday hearing, although there is a possibility that others may be called to testify. The entire subcommittee is scheduled to be in Washington for an executive meeting on that date, also. Unique Program Service Rule Dropped by FCC as 'Too Vague' The FCC has done away with its so-called unique program service rule because it "is an unsatisfactory allocation tool" whose provisions are "too vague and indefinite" to be of assistance in the filing and processing of am applications. The rule provided protection from interference beyond the normally protected contours (500 uv/m) for stations offering a unique service, and allowed those claiming such service to have their demands determined on the basis of the facts in each case. ABC, CBS, and several college-owned stations had asked the Commission not to take this protection away. Some consulting engineers thought deletion of the rule would assist the FCC. Page 60 • October 14, 1957 Broadcasting