Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1960)

MONDAY MEMO from ROBERT G. SWAN, president, Swan & Mason Adv., New York For radio and tv to survive The broadcasting industry is living through bitter days. It was founded and nursed by dedicated men; men who were keenly aware of their great responsibilities to the public and to the new industry. Many of these pioneers are still active, for broadcasting is young. It is only recently that the slick operators moved in on some areas of the business. As usually happens when integrity gives way to expediency, disaster struck — and struck hard. Today radio and tv are beset on every side, fairly and unfairly. New clamors arise almost daily. The result is a confused and bewildered industry which seems at the moment unable to close ranks and cope with the attacks. Madison Ave. Grapevine • To state that there were many warnings may seem useless hindsight. There have been plenty of mutterings in the Madison Avenue barracks for a long time. The grapevine had it that the way to become a successful packager was to cut in silent partners; that you could get a "free" plug for your product in the broadcast time some other manufacturer was paying for by taking care of the "right" people, and that a music publisher could emerge with a star platter by "icing" you-know-who. Those of us around broadcasting long enough to develop a sense of smell and who still operate at street level didn't have to depend entirely upon whispers. For example, the long series of coincidences and cliff-hangers that trademarked the quiz programs defied mathematical probability. One voice faintly heard above the din of clanging cash registers was that of my good friend, Edward R. Murrow. I recall a speech he made in Chicago during October 1958. Referring to "methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society," he said: Murrow's Warning • "It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflects the political, economic and social climate in which it flourishes. That is the reason ours differs from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. "We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late." Less than a year after Mr. Murrow's prophetic warning, not his first by any means, the public saw the "totally different picture" emerge with a stunning suddenness. Precious corporate and individual images, so carefully fabricated by public relations experts, were shattered left and right. Now we're in trouble. What are we going to do about it? I think we all agree that the solution should and must come from within the industry. I believe that most thoughtful government people are hoping for that. Robert G. Swan formed Swan & Mason Adv. last October, winding up a 13year association with Joseph Katz Co., New York and Baltimore. During much of that time, Mr. Swan was vice president and account executive involved intimately with radio-tv. He first joined NBC in 1935 as a writer-director. He resigned the day after Pearl Harbor to serve in a special unit task force of the Army. He joined Katz at war's end. I think we all recognize that if this is going to be accomplished the industry must unite and take the initiative with a realistic and workable plan. One Proposal • As one positive and major step I propose the following: That each network's affiliates elect from among themselves a small hardhitting executive committee to ride herd on its own network's programming operations. As representatives of the FCC's licensees comprising the networks, they have every right to have final say on any operation that looks like an invitation for Washington interference. By the very nature of network broadcasting the stations must accept block booking. So they must have control of the product they project on their air waves. They must make it their business to know what is going on. These network affiliate committees are not proposed to be merely "advisory" or "consultant" bodies. They must act as truly executive committees and act with the authority inherent in their responsibilities to the FCC and the public. Under present licensing regulations I seriously question if any station ever had the right to delegate programming responsibilities to the networks, or anyone else. I have a strong hunch that up to now the wrong people have been doing most of the talking at affiliate meetings. I think it is about time the broadcasters themselves had a lot more to say about the wares they televise. FCC's Authority • We must remember that the FCC has no direct control over the networks. But it has all the control in the world over the station affiliates that comprise each network. It has this control through its power to grant, withhold or cancel each station's license to use the public's air ways. It amounts to life-or-death control. And each station's license is predicated on promises to broadcast in the public interest. It is squarely up to the broadcasters themselves to solve the problems besetting the industry. The need is immediate. Each new headline, every new session of investigating committees will make it that much more difficult for the industry to maintain control of its own destiny. Let's do something about it — now. . . . they must rule their own houses 22 BROADCASTING, February 8, 1960