Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1959)

EDITORIALS Wrong turn BROADCASTING is headed for trouble if the FCC as a body adopts its chairman's interpretation of the recently amended political broadcasting law. Chairman John C. Doerfer has construed a clause in the amendment of Sec. 315 to mean that virtually anybody who has a view on politics is entitled to discuss it on radio and television. There is a vast difference between that interpretation and the Congressional intent in the law. During the debate that preceded the adoption of the Sec. 315 amendment, a majority of members of both Senate and House made it clear that they wished to give broadcasting greater freedom in the presentation of political news during election campaigns. But some members expressed doubts about how far the new freedom should go. The main sense of the compromise amendment that was finally adopted was that the law be liberalized but that it stop short of the total emancipation of broadcasting from all historical restraints in the presentation of political news. Here is the key language in the amendment (the italics are ours) : "Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any ( 1 ) bona fide newscast, (2) bona fide news interview, (3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussions of conflicting views on issues of public importance." The last sentence was plainly intended to be nothing more than a reminder that despite the new freedoms specifically granted in the preceding sentence, broadcasters must continue to operate according to the broad public interests which are referred to throughout the Communications Act. No new restrictions whatever were intended or implied. Mr. Doerfer, however, has converted this innocuous reminder into a new, and radical, mandate for tighter government control. To summarize the interpretation he gave the Radio and Television News Directors Assn. in New Orleans (Broadcasting, Oct. 19), Mr. Doerfer thinks the Sec. 315 amendment will require broadcasters to give time to all political partisans who wish to express opposition to anything said on radio and television. To use his own words: 'Apparently, any responsible person who has opposing views can now get into a political 'hassle' over the air." In the absence of a clearer definition of FCC policy, Mr. Doerfer's comments are bound to be greeted with a whoop of joy by every politician who wants access to radio and television, which is to say every politician. It is only a matter of time, days probably, before some politician takes objection to something said on the air, demands time to state his opposition, is refused the time and then places a protest with the FCC. At that moment the first serious test of the new Sec. 315 must be made. Broadcasters must be prepared to fight for their rights as a unit even if the test case involves only one of their fellows. The first time the FCC is asked to rule officially on the new Sec. 315, it must be persuaded that there is a 180-degree difference in the courses charted bv the Congress and re-charted by Mr. Doerfer at New Orleans. A question of who's boss UNTIL the dust settles, it is not possible to say with any assurance how far the networks will go in reacting to the quiz scandal, or what the full effect upon their program policies will be. But one fact is inescapably clear: The public holds networks responsible for the programs they present. If there was ever any doubt of this fact, there can be none now. The Washington hearings, seeking cheap headlines brought it into the open and dramatized it. NBC and CBS, who have carried the bulk of the quiz program's, reacted differently. They agreed that they must share the responsibility for the erosion in public faith and do everything possible to prevent recurrence. At that point agreement ends. CBS moved to ban all big-money giveaways on the grounds they can not be adequately policed; NBC said it would do no such thing, that quiz games are an important program form to which the public is entitled and that its answer will be to see that they are kept honest. CBS went further. It said it would make sure that what its viewers see on all programs is "exactly what it purports to be." This may seem extremist to those who look upon television as embracing show business as well as information. But these are matters which, as we suggested at the outset, can be seen in better perspective when the dust settles. We must, however, observe that it could be calamitous if the CBS ban on quiz shows were construed in Washington as meaning that television will be quick to quit any programming that comes under fire. It must be made unmistakably clear that this is not the case. Otherwise, what James Lawrence Fly once called "regulation by the lifted eyebrow" would be replaced by regulation by honk and bellow. The honks and bellows of the quiz hearings have, without doubt, hurt television. They have also demonstrated that, as Dr. Stanton phrased it, broadcasters must be "masters of their own house." If they are to be held responsible for what they present, they must exert that responsibility. This is no easy task, but it cannot be shirked. In undertaking it, the networks may take some small and ironic comfort from the fact that, only a few years ago, there emanated from the same halls of Congress equally loud honks and bellows protesting that they exerted too much control over programming, to the detriment of independent producers and the same public that now holds them accountable for inadequate control. Brawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hi* "Before you pick out ANY retirement spot, find out how many channels it gets!" 132 BROADCASTING, October 26, 1959