Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1959)

ning; superficial news reports; poor m in commercials. "Mr. Wine recommended that a stall be required to advertise the fact Jat its license is expiring, both over its own facilities and in newspapers, when it comes up for renewal. He also recommended (1) that the FCC hold local and regional hearings at regular intervals to hear complaints against licensees; (2) publication of FCC criteria and standards relating to maximum number of commercial announcements per week, percentage of commercial to sustaining time and amount of public service programming; (3) that stations be required to advise the public its facilities are available and (4) that stations be required to announce in prime time that they are using a public property, the spectrum. Roy Battles, National Grange • Broadcasters carry an extra heavy responsibility to the public, in meeting challenges faced by the nation, Mr. Battles said. "In most cases, the broadcasting and tv industry has met these challenges fairly well," he said. "In some cases, it has failed." Because of these failures, the Grange spokesman recommended, the FCC should scrutinize "more carefully" the records of radio and tv stations in considering license renewals. "We believe the Com mission should not hesitate to refuse to renew licenses where stations are clearly failing to measure up." He said farmers need and expect special additional services from radio and tv because of the very nature of agriculture. Mr. Battles cited regular and numerous weather reports and market information as examples and commended those stations who employ trained farm directors. He recommended that the Commission itself hire a farm expert. The FCC now "has difficulty in differentiating between stations that give farm service programming and other special rural services a 'lick and a promise' and those who hire competent farm authorities and in general do a job for their rural audience," Mr. Battles said. Clear channel service is the only way that farm population can receive nighttime signals, he stated. "We strongly urge the FCC to resist pressures for putting additional stations on the few clear channels left. ... By such unwise action, thousands of rural listeners in remote areas would be deprived of any nighttime radio reception and thousands of other rural listeners of adequate service," the Grange spokesman stated. He said that clear channel stations should program with their far-flung nighttime audience in mind, instead of programming only for a local urban audience as many now do. Also he recommended that the FCC not reduce tv mileage separations. Such a move would be detrimental to farm viewers. On the current radio-tv situation, Mr. Battles said the Grange believes present policies of the FCC are adequate. "We believe that radio and tv should be given a reasonable amount of time to rid their own houses of this latest blight on their character and prestige," he said. Clara S. Logan, National Assn. for Better Radio & Tv • Quiz show disclosures "represent only a small and relatively unimportant part of the disregard for public interest which characterizes much of broadcast programs," the NAFBRAT president charged. In addition to quiz and payola exposes, Mrs. Logan told the commissioners that investigations also are needed into (1) the possibility of false statements in license renewal applications; (2) broadcast abuse in reporting news; (3) excessive and misleading advertising, and (4) "vast and ever-growing traffic in crime programming which [is] the largest single part of the broadcasting industry." She suggested that a logical starting We see by the papers' an editorial IT IS an interesting exercise to compare the actual testimony at the various proceedings involving broadcasting with the reports carried on the news wires or written by the Washington correspondent of some newspapers. As one who has been sitting in on the FCC hearings last week put it: "Any resemblance to the facts is purely accidental." We won't go that far. But we do recognize that there's a lot of one-sided reporting, playing up the sensational and ignoring the meaningful. For example, the readers of most newspapers certainly must have the notion that the opening day witnesses at the FCC hearings representing the clergy wanted the government to exercise stringent program controls. Actually, two of the three denominational witnesses advised hands-off programming lest there be censorship. And at the Federal Trade Commission "conference" the preceding week with network and other broadcasting executives, the news reports shouted about a new crackdown on broadcasters. The fact was that nothing new developed as to radio-tv. But, so far as we're aware, no newspapers played the observation of Chairman Earl Kintner that the FTC has "continued to receive a large volume of complaints" against advertising in media other than broadcasting, or his comment that "the problem is not one common to the broadcast medium." Many newspapers continue to display the tv and the payola stories above all else, including the President's historic trip abroad and other significant news. It's their prerogative. They can continue to rail and rant. It won't seriously affect tune-in. The public won't be fooled. What is perhaps more disturbing is the fact the radio and television stations utilizing the news association wires are getting the same stories that go to newspaper clients. Except in isolated instances where networks and stations do their own reporting, these shallow, one-sided reports, playing up the sensational, are getting on the air. We do not charge the news associations or newspapers with dishonest reporting. The reports generally are factual, as far as they go. The harsh comments and the trenchant phrases get the reporters' ears. Softer spoken testimony, which finds little wrong with today's fare, and advocating extreme caution lest the Constitutional guarantees be infringed, is too often ignored. And, of course, there are those eager-beaver reporters who feel that broadcasting and newspapers are mortal enemies and who therefore slant their copy for the front office. There was some blatant testimony at the FCC hearings last week. There will be more of it from the crackpots and the lunatic fringe if they are given the forum of the proceedings. There also has been considerable thoughtful testimony from witnesses who do not want any bureaucrats in Washington deciding what the public may see or hear, but you wouldn't know it from the headlines or even from what you hear on the air. The main thrust of the testimony so far has been that broadcasters should be allowed to clean up from within, in those isolated instances where improprieties and other abuses have crept in. There has been no sound proposal from any responsible quarter for new legislation or for imposing direct controls upon programming. There can't be, because if it should happen, the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press would be abridged. 76 (GOVERNMENT) BROADCASTING, December 14, 1959