Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1958)

GOVERNMENT continued cultural and talk programs. Accordingly it appears that further inquiry into the station's operation is warranted in order to determine whether the particular needs and interests of the community are being served. It is realized, of course, that a station is not expected to conform to a rigid standard with respect to the amount of time it devotes to particular types or classes of programs. The Commission is aware that in the day-to-day operation of a broadcast station numerous questions of policy will determine the selection of programs so that the amount of time devoted to particular types or classes of programs may vary with the facts and circumstances in each case. Also it is recognized that under the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission cannot direct the licensee to broadcast or refrain from broadcasting a particular program or censor the content of a particular program. Nevertheless it has been the experience of the Commission that minimal showings for agricultural, educational, discussion and talk programs in the program structure are sometimes indicative of the failure on the part of the licensee to maintain a program service designed to serve the needs and interests of the community. "In view of these considerations, your comments regarding programming matters are requested. The information requested herein should be filed at your earliest convenience in order that further consideration may be given the application of renewal of license to Station [deleted]. Comments Asked on WWLP Plan The FCC last week invited comments by May 16 to the proposed channel change of ch. 22 WWLP (TV) Springfield, Mass., to substitute ch. 76 for ch. 75 in Concord, N. H., and ch. 69 for ch. 74 in Bennington, Vt. This would make ch. 74 available for translator operation in Springfield, Vt. At the same time, FCC dismissed WWLP's previous proposal which sought to have ch. 15 assigned to Concord by making various other changes in the tv table of assignments. The station had been advised that the Canadian Government contemplates channel usages which would preclude allocation of ch. 15 to Concord. WWLP, after further allocation studies, believes the revisions which it contemplates can be accomplished by its new proposed rule making, according to the FCC. COURT HEARS APPEAL ON WSPA-TV SHIFT • FCC actions criticized • Arguments under advisement The U. S. Court of Appeals in Washington took a verbal slap at the FCC last week during arguments on appeal of the FCC's decision of last July 22 reaffirming its 1954 grant which authorized WSPA-TV Spartanburg, S. C, to modify its construction permit. The court took the arguments under advisement. Chief Judge Henry W. Edgerton and Judges David L. Bazelon and Charles Fahy posed the question of whether the FCC defied the court's order (September 1956) reversing an earlier affirmation (March 1956) by the FCC and the court's remand of the case to the Commission. Last week's moves were the latest in the four-year-old litigation involving WSPATV's location of its transmitter on Paris Mountain instead of Hogback Mountain as originally authorized in 1953. The appeals of WAIM-TV Anderson and WGVL (TV) Greenville, both South Carolina, were argued by Ben Cottone of Cottone & Scheiner and WSPA-TV and the FCC's rebuttals by William Dempsey of Dempsey & Koplovitz and FCC Assistant General Counsel Richard Solomon. Judge Edgerton said last week that the court's September 1956 reversal order •"ound that WSPA-TV had made a "calculated and deliberate" misrepresentation in not disclosing to the FCC that it intended Paris Mountain as its transmitter site instead of Hogback Mountain, designated in its original application. In its decision last July 22 the FCC said that while WSPA-TV misrepresented its intentions, the misrepresentation was not "willful" nor intended to deceive. Judge Edgerton added that for the moment it appears to him that the FCC, "instead of deciding the misrepresentation this court found was sufficient to prove unreliability" and rejecting the WSPA-TV application, held the misrepresentation was not what the court said it was. The other judges expressed similar skepticism of the FCC decision. Mr. Cottone for WAIM-TV and WGVL, both uhf stations, charged "open defiance" of the court's ruling by the FCC and said the FCC action "hits a new low for roughshod abuse of due process rights." Mr. Solomon said the FCC did not feel WSPA-TV was willful in its misrepresentation, only that the station failed to give all the facts in neglecting to say in its application that it was undecided on whether to build on Hogback or Paris Mountain. Mr. Dempsey said that while WSPA-TV was wrong in failing to reveal that it was doubtful about building on Hogback, the firm did not believe it was required to reveal such doubts. WSPA-TV received its initial grant of ch. 7 in 1953 calling for its transmitter to be located on Hogback Mountain, but before beginning construction asked for special temporary authority to build on Paris Mountain. Paris Mountain is nearer Greenville and Anderson than Hogback. The FCC granted the STA and WSPA-TV went on the air in January 1954 at the new location. WSPA-TV then asked for change in permit to specify Paris Mountain, which was granted by the FCC without a hearing in April 1954. The two uhf outlets protested the STA and also the modification. Their protests were denied by the FCC and they appealed to the U. S. Appeals Court in Washington. The court remanded the case to the FCC for hearing in March 1955. An initial decision was issued and in March 1956 the FCC affirmed the grant. The uhfs appealed again, the court remanded the case in September 1956 and the FCC reaffirmed its 1954 decision last July. One of WSPA-TV's main reasons for moving to Paris Mountain was that CBS had told the station it could not affiliate with WSPA-TV if it built on the Hogback Mountain site because of overlap with WBTV (TV) Charlotte, N. C, an existing CBS affiliate. WSPA-TV received the CBS affiliation after building on Paris Mountain. AMST Opposes Storer Bid The Assn. of Maximum Service Telecasters Inc. last week added its voice to those of WNBF-TV Binghamton, N. Y., and WPROTV Providence, R. I. [Government, April 7] in opposing Storer Broadcasting's petition to the FCC to construct an experimental station in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. The proposed station would operate on ch. 12 with the regular program schedule of Storer's ch. 12 WVUE (TV) Wilmington. Storer is an AMST member. AMST declared that granting the Storer request would violate the FCC rules on minimum mileage separations in that the site of the proposed station is "26 miles short of the required 170-mile minimum co-channel mileage separation." Grant of the Storer experimental station, AMST noted, "would bring a long procession of similar requests, threatening the nationwide allocations system." New Antenna Farm Recommended The Airspace Panel of the Air Coordinating Committee last week announced that it has recommended establishment of a tv antenna farm for the Davenport, IowaMoline and Rock Island, 111., area which would be located 12 miles south-southeast of Moline. The panel also recommended an antenna farm within the city limits of Duluth, Minn. At the same time Airspace recommended FCC approval for an 836-ft. tower for ch. 11 KGLD (TV) Garden City, Kan., satellite of ch. 2 KCKT (TV) Great Bend, Kan., to be located approximately 12 miles south of Garden City; a 1,065-ft. tower for Moline Television Corp., one of six applicants for ch. 8 in Moline, to be located in the projected farm area, and 1,116-ft. tower for Two States Television Co., applicant for ch. 12 Mankato, Minn., to be located two miles northeast of Lewisville, Minn. 'BRAINWASHED' FCC has been confronted by a Constitution-waving Florida lawyer who petitioned the Commission for a "redress of grievances" based on the First Amendment. Declaring that he had been deprived of "the whole truth about health matters . . . fundamental rights to life, liberty and property," Walter Armstrong demanded that the FCC "restrict broadcasting licenses" in their production of programs dramatizing "the killing diseases" and in the solicitation of funds for medical charities. Mr. Armstrong feels that last month's Armstrong Circle Theatre drama "The Meanest Crime in the World," on CBS-TV, "brainwashed" him into questioning the effectiveness of certain unrecognized "cures" for cancer. The program "unmercifully" dramatized the treating of patients "by licensed doctors other than American Medical Assn. doctors . . .," lawyer Armstrong declared. The Armstrong show, which was not in any way associated with AMA, was based on material from the files of the Food & Drug Administration and depicted measures taken by that agency to expose the phoney "doctor." Page 62 • April 14, 1958 Broadcasting