Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1957)

EDITORIALS Brighter Day N THIS PAGE throughout the year we do a good deal of viewing with alarm. There is justification for frequent alarm in broadcasting, for it is a business which must live under massive and conflicting pressures. In this space this week we wish to change our pace. It is pretty difficult to view Christmas with alarm, even if it does bring broadcasts of "Jingle Bell Rock" and Elvis Presley singing "Santa, Bring My Baby Back to Me." For us, as for most men, this is the season of compassion. We are so beguiled by the spirit of the hour that our blackest thoughts are transformed into visions of sugar plums. In a beard, Dean Barrow would look to us like Santa Claus. With a wreath on its door, ASCAP could be momentarily mistaken for a house of charity. Our readers, of course, are friendly images we cherish all year long. And to them now, without exception, we extend our warmest wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Shades of Avco Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hlx "Well, where' s the radio?" THE extent to which the FCC is sensitive to anything that smacks of educational television is sharply delineated in events associated with the sale of ch. 13 WATV (TV) Newark and its sister stations WAAT-AM-FM to National Telefilm Assoc. for $3.5 million, now awaiting action. Two weeks ago the FCC ostensibly was prepared to approve the transfer in routine fashion. But in the interim, a petition had been filed by the Regents of the University of the State of New York seeking transfer of ch. 13 from commercial to non-commercial status and of the authorized site from New Jersey to New York. So the FCC, despite a favorable staff recommendation, decided to delay consideration of the transfer to NTA until it could consider the New York regents' request for rule-making. Even this delay might constitute infraction by the FCC of its own rules in the middle of the game. But what the regents seem to propose is a throwback to the old so-called Avco Rule of competitive bidding for stations available for sale — a procedure that Congress itself threw out in adopting the McFarland amendments in 1952. Beyond that, the regents have no money available to them to meet the $3.5 million price and, according to opposing counsel, are in no legal position to intercede. Meanwhile, a willing seller and a willing buyer are precluded from doing business. This could be a dangerous precedent. The qualifications of NTA as a licensee are not involved, since the FCC, only a few weeks ago, approved the sale of 75% control of ch. 9 KMGM-TV Minneapolis for $650,000 to NTA. The educational petition for rule-making has no legal bearing on the transfer to NTA. If the FCC followed its own precedents, it would approve the transfer and consider the rule-making petition in customary fashion, permitting NTA to acquire the WATVWAAT properties at its own risk. The [Blue] Nose Count LAST Oct. 28 we published an editorial advocating the acceptance of liquor advertising on the air, at appropriate times and with appropriate commercial content. Since then we have received four letters endorsing our suggestion. We have received 675 letters opposing it. To judge by the simple arithmetic of this mail count, we have embarked upon an astonishingly unpopular course. But numbers can be misleading. Of the 675 letters of criticism, three were from broadcasters who felt that the admission of liquor advertising to the airways would create serious public relations problems. One was from a national officer of the Presbyterian church. All the others — 671 — were from lay members, officials or clergymen of the Southern Baptist church. The Baptists wrote in response to an organized letter-writing campaign. The Radio & Television Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention circularized the church clergy with a copy of our editorial and a request that letters of protest be written to the editor. The mail we have received at Broadcasting on the subject of liquor advertising is not uncharacteristic of the mail which the U. S. Congress gets when liquor control legislation is up for consideration. There is always, on such occasions, a heavy volume of mail from the organized drys. In the absence of any organization of people who are not prohibitionists, there is never a comparable letter-writing campaign to reflect opinion on the other side. The congressman who reads his mail only by the numbers is apt to be persuaded that prohibitionism is the dominant sentiment in the U. S. The congressman who reads his mail more carefully will realize that he has distortion on his desk. He is simply not hearing from the great majority of the people who are content that liquor is legal and therefore have no reason to write. We have no doubt that any radio or television station which began broadcasting liquor commercials would receive protests — as soon as the organized drys discovered the broadcasts. These protests would be no more representative of the station's total audience than our mail count has been representative of our readership As we said at the outset, it will be a courageous broadcaster who takes the first commercial for a liquor firm. But if courage is accompanied by good taste in the selection of time and content of the commercial, the broadcaster need not fear a wholesale revolt of his audience. Approval of Seal ATTACHED last week to the NARTB's weekly newsletter, which is sent to members, was this note: "The name of the National Assn. of Radio & Television Broadcasters will be AS °0 changed to National Assn. of Broadcasters V, effective Jan. 1, 1958." ^ o The simplification of the association's Z /V F% z name has been endorsed overwhelmingly by members. Having begun urging that action a year or more ago, Broadcasting 3>/s cf endorses it too. o Page 98 December 23, 1957 Though they may compete for audience and advertising, both radio and television new nab seal are broadcasting. We are sure they will continue to be as happy together under the simplified name as they were under the cumbersome title which is being abandoned. Broadcasting