Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1960)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

could not go all the way with the Miller doctrine. Comr. Lee asked Mr. Fellows what he thought of the magazine concept of broadcast advertising (announcements between programs, with sponsor having nothing to do with programs). Mr. Fellows said he couldn't see how this plan could benefit anyone. He contended the advertiser should have some interest in the show, adding that advertiser-agency creativeness has been responsible for some of the better broadcast programs. When Comr. Bartley suggested that programs should carry announcements that advertisers have influenced their editorial content, Mr. Fellows said the plan would desecrate program acceptance and there really isn't any need. He conceded news programs should be controlled by the licensee. Comr. Hyde observed that NAB's longtime advocacy of the right to editorialize had brought minimum results. Mr. Fellows agreed the industry had a long way to go in using this form of programming since FCC abandoned the old Mayflower anti-editorial ban. He conceded he had been "amazed" by the quiz-rigging exposures. If they had been exposed immediately, Mr. Fellows said, all would have been over in two weeks. The cross-examination ranged into ratings, employe acceptance of payola and the ability of NAB to inforce selfregulation. Self-Regulation Steps • In his prepared testimony Mr. Fellows listed these steps to show how industry self-regulation is being strengthened: Subscribers to radio standards now total 1,190 stations; new standards language adopted to ban payola and other deceptive practices; informal Radio Board approval of non-membership subscription to standards, with formal action expected in early March; plans for more personnel, to put teeth in standards. Tv code strengthened against quiz rigging and payola; subscribers now total a record 378; monitoring increased; Los Angeles office set up for film industry liaison; New York activity to be expanded; action in personal products field; enlarged budget planned; publicity campaign in preparation; codeconformance language sought for commercials in advertiser-agency tv contracts; government agencies will be invited to supply code board with copies of all complaints from viewers. Mr. Fellows' prepared testimony, a 15, 000word document accompanied by 10 exhibits, included a history of broadcast programming and operating practices and showed the industry's basic role in the nation's life. He recited research techniques and defended properly used ratings. His basic theme was Radio standards • Cliff Gill, KEZY Anaheim, Calif., testified at FCC hearing that NAB's Radio Standards of Good Practice have doubled subscriber list in recent weeks. He appeared as chairman of NAB standards committee, listing steps association has taken to strengthen language of standards. Next step, he said: Admission of nonNAB members to subscription rolls. that government control of broadcasting would be a more dangerous threat to the American people than to broadcasters themselves, challenging the FCC's right to meddle in programming. He referred legal aspects of FCC powers to Mr. Seymour. ^/Code History • Progress in the NAB's Standards of Good Radio Practice was reviewed for the Commission Jan. 25 by Cliff Gill, KEZY Anaheim, Calif., chairman of the standards committee. Mr. Gill said broadcasters' acknowledgment of their obligation to the American family, expressed in the standards preamble, has enabled the industry to develop as a free medium in the American tradition. "No one censors American broadcasting," he said. Citing the history of radio codes since 1937, he said a survey in the 1930s showed a specific ban on liquor advertising had virtually driven it from the air. New code problems arose with the postwar influx of new stations, according to Mr. Gill, leading to a series of provisions that strengthened the document. He mentioned the ban on baitswitch advertising as an example. In recent years a pledge of adherence has been added to the radio code. Currently 1,219 out of 2,020 member radio stations, 60%, are code subscribers, Mr. Gill said. Only NAB member stations are eligible to subscribe, he explained, but he predicted the privilege will be extended to all stations as the result of the informal NAB Radio Board poll that favors the idea. Last Dec. 16, he said, new provisions were added to eliminate payola, loaded interviews and rigged quiz programs along with a board amendment eliminating "any other deceptive practices." The Dec. 16 amendment have been ratified by the board. After the board acts on admission of non-member stations to the radio code, Mr. Gill said, a drive will be set in motion to enlist non-member stations. Enforcement provisions will be strengthened. HOW NAB REVERSED ITS HISTORY NAB's new "Test of Public Responsibility" doctrine, unveiled Jan. 26 as the association's revised concept of the FCC's power to regulate station programming, produced an all-day series of cross examinations as Commission members and counsel jockeyed with NAB President Harold E. Fellows (main story page 31). Setting off the Commission questioning was Mr. Fellows' formal statement of the new doctrine (see below). The questions produced elaboration on the doctrine's meaning as Mr. Fellows went into such topics as program balance and licensee responsibility. Answers adduced at the Jan. 26 morning session were revised in the afternoon questioning, particularly as FCC Chairman John C. Doerfer inquired about which comments represented industry position and which were Mr. Fellows personal views. Questioners, besides the chairman, included Commission counsel, Ashbrook E. Bryant, and Comrs. Cross, Ford and Craven. They probed into the extent NAB's new concept represented industry concessions to hitherto disputed power over programming. Fellows' prepared statement Here in condensed form is the essence of NAB's position on the FCC's power to regulate programs, as stated in the formal testimony Jan. 26 of President Harold E. Fellows: "We believe that the satisfaction of public interest, convenience and neces 34 (FCC HEARING) BROADCASTING, February 1, 1960