Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

EDITORIALS Toting the Toll Polls WHEN the House Commerce Committee begins its consideration of subscription television next month, it will have vital information which the FCC lacked when it issued last October its tentative approval of a trial of toll tv. The Commerce Committee will have knowledge of the public's views on the subject. This knowledge did not exist when the FCC was considering its action. It is knowledge which is indispensable to any final decision on the fate of toll tv. In four polls of varying nature within the past month the public has voted overwhelmingly against subscription television. It will be a thoughtless congressman indeed who fails to translate that public sentiment into an election issue. A mail poll conducted by KSBW-TV Salinas and KSBY-TV San Luis Obispo, both California, turned up these results: 5,002 viewers against subscription television, four in favor of it [Program Services, Nov. 1]. A mail poll conducted by Sen. William Langer (R-N. D.) among residents of Bartlesville, Okla., where a wire movie system is operating, turned up these results: 1,930 against subscription television, 163 for it [Program Services, Nov. 11]. A mail poll conducted by Tv Guide among its readers turned up these results: 43,361 (96.65%) against subscription television, 1,527 (3.45%) for it [Program Services, Nov 25]. A special personal interview survey of 1,409 persons in 10 widely scattered cities, conducted by The Pulse for Broadcasting, turned up these results: 939 (66.6%) against subscription television, 470 (33.4%) for it [Lead Story, Nov 18]. Each of these surveys has its own importance, and all must be considered by any government body which is to participate in the decision on subscription tv. We think it proper, however, to commend to the special attention of the Congress and the FCC the results of the survey conducted by The Pulse — and not because we were a party to the project. The questioning in that survey was deliberately slanted to give toll tv a break. The Pulse interviewers asked people if they would be interested in having in their home a subscription service that offered "first-run movies, major sports events, Broadway shows, operas, ballets, etc." It was on that question that the vote was two-thirds against subscription tv, yet the question obviously was intended to elicit a maximum of replies favoring subscription television because of the implied suggestion that toll service would supplement existing programming. The prospect is, of course, that a toll service would not supplement existing service. It would replace it. The heads of all major television networks have publicly announced that they vigorously oppose subscription tv but will be forced to go into it if it is authorized. Existing television networks are the largest repositories of knowledge of television programming and operations. They logically may be expected to become the dominant forces in toll tv if toll tv is allowed on the air. Inexorably, the free service to which the public has become accustomed will degenerate, perhaps disappear, if the government opens the door to subscription service. If the public is made aware of that prospect, it will not take kindly to those in its government who advocate the approval of toll tv. The fact that the public likes what it now gets is documented by the same Pulse study which showed that 93.5% of the people regarded present tv fare as satisfactory or better. We doubt that any congressman will wish to participate in an action which more than nine out of ten voters oppose. Case of Nerves THE FCC has a severe case of jitters. It's the worst we've seen in more than a quarter of a century of covering this Commission and its predecessor Federal Radio Commission. The cause is clear. It's the operations, or machinations, of the Moulder Committee, officially the House Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight. This committee, authorized at the last session to inquire into all administrative agencies on what supposedly was to be a high-level study of their conduct under the statutes which authorized their being, has gone far afield of that declared intent. The FCC is accustomed to Congressional investigations. It has had more than its share, mainly because it operates in an area close Page 106 • December 2, 1957 Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid His "Hello? Rodent exterminating company?" to the public and therefore close to the Congressional polling booths. And next year is an election year. But this is the first inquiry that has caused sleepless nights for members of the FCC and its staff. The Moulder inquiry crops up in almost every conversation. It must figure subconsciously in almost every FCC move. The Moulder Committee staff, headed by Bernard Schwartz, a faculty member of New York U., has undertaken a mode of preliminary inquiry that is more akin to a criminal inquisition than a legislative study. Lawyers and disgruntled applicants are asked to turn "state's evidence" by supplying leads or information under the promise that the identity of informants will be concealed. Expense accounts are being checked, not only of FCC members and their staffs, but also of licensees and presumably applicants. Such information, by questionnaire, is sought back to 1949 (originally a predecessor subcommittee requested data from 1953 to coincide with the change in administration, but the Moulder Committee avoided setting a date with such obvious implications of political partisanship) . The venerated Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, is responsible for the idea of an oversight committee. A subcommittee of the House Interstate & Foreign Commerce Committee, it was given special funds — an unusually large $250,000 budget. Mr. Rayburn has said that what he had in mind was a legislative inquiry to determine whether administrative agencies, such as the FCC, ICC, FTC, CAB and the SEC, are functioning as Congress intended, i.e., as regulatory arms of Congress, or have become subservient to the executive branch, meaning the White House. There can be no complaint about this approach. It is reasonable to assume that administrative agencies have lost sight of their assigned functions and have deviated from the Congressional intent. But does that mean the kind of cloak-and-dagger inquisition now being conducted under the direction of Moulder Committee chief counsel Schwartz? Or the suspicion that a Commission vote can be "bought" for a lunch, dinner or perhaps an afternoon on the golf course? The FCC isn't a court. (If it were, perhaps members of Congress would not call individual commissioners to pitch for a constituent applicant or to see how this or that case is doing.) Commissioners can learn about the business of broadcasting and communications only through individual contact with the licensees themselves. This is the counterpart of what senators and representatives do in "going to the scene" the world over to get the first hand "feel" of situations before considering legislation or appropriations. Some call them junkets. Congress convenes next month. We hope that Speaker Rayburn and Chairman Oren Harris (D-Ark.) of the parent Commerce Committee will promptly put the Moulder Committee back on the track and quit this seeming nonsense of votes being bought by a free lunch or a case of Florida grapefruit for Christmas. Broadcasting