Broadcasting (Apr - June 1960)

One agent is already in field The FCC didn't wait until the June 1 installation of its intelligence-surveillance arm to begin investigations in the field. For the past several weeks, Edward Brown, normally chief of the Renewal Branch of the Broadcast Bureau, has been conducting a topsecret, hush-hush investigation of Sec. 317 (sponsor identification) violations. Mr. Brown, it was learned, has spent considerable time outside Washington and currently is on an investigative trip to Boston and New York. He is due back in the FCC headquarters tomorrow (Tuesday). His investigations, it was reported, center around discrepancies in licen see replies to the FCC payola questionnaire (Broadcasting, Dec. 7) with information furnished the commission by the FTC and other sources. FCC Chairman Frederick W. Ford has told Congress that information discloses that payola was distributed to at least 110 stations, 69 of whom failed to report same in the the sworn statement to the commission (Broadcasting, May 9). Very few at the FCC are on the “inside” as to Mr. Brown’s endeavors. When questioned about his activities, one official replied: “When the district attorney is about to raid the numbers racket, he doesn’t warn them in advance.” of the operations of each station,” he said. The commission, it was pointed out, relies primarily on information submitted by the stations. “Now,” he said, “we propose to undertake an audit in detail of a limited number of selected stations so that we can have a much more penetrating and more rounded view of how effectively stations discharge their stewardship in the public interest. We intend, among other things, to check on program logs, Sec. 317 compliance, political broadcast records . . . ; to examine the extent, nature and disposition of complaints coming directly to the stations; to ascertain whether representations made in connection with license applications are reasonably complied with. . . For these station audits, Chairman Ford stated, the FCC will monitor actual programming and compare that with the station’s log and promises. The first year’s operation of the intelligence-surveillance arm will be experimental, he said. The stress will not be placed on monitoring a specific number of stations but to develop means of effectively screening various types of situations, the chairman told the senators. “If abuses are uncovered, remedial action will be required. In those cases where licensees are found to have abused their trusteeship flagrantly, provision has been made for formal hearing proceedings.” Also, he said, hearings will be held in the field in some cases to provide a proper forum for deciding the case. Not Dependent on $300,000 ■ Chairman Ford stated that the new office already has been established within the commission and will function even if Congress does not appropriate the requested $300,000. However, he stressed, the personnel and funds the FCC can draw off from other “vital” com mission tasks are very limited. “We will go ahead with the available resources in any event,” he said. “However, it is the commission’s considered judgment that substantial additional funds are needed to put this program over.” The House already has approved $12,935,000 for the FCC’s fiscal 1961 operation, which is $565,000 less than recommended by the Budget Bureau. Of the money cut, $250,000 was intended for the proposed uhf study, for which the commission was appropriated $2 million. Chairman Ford pointed out that the additional $300,000 requested would restore monies cut by the Houser except that intended for the uhf study, but not intended for the same purpose. “I should make clear,” he said, “that the program for which these funds are urged is new and was not previously before the House. . . . The commission, therefore, strongly urges that the necessary funds ($300,000) be approved to effectuate the proposed program.” The History ■ One of the first recommendations of the House Legislative Oversight Subcommittee — in the summer of 1958 — was that an investigative arm be established at the FCC. The agency was criticized for having to rely on information from those being complained against to settle the matter involved. Last February, FCC General Counsel John FitzGerald told the commission: “In order to avoid further criticism in connection with the payola problem and other matters which may arise in the future, I strongly recommend that the commission adopt the suggestion to immediately establish an office of enforcement.” Then FCC Chairman John C. Doerfer had recommended such a course of action and the idea also was espoused by Commis sioner Robert E. Lee, a former FBI agent. Insiders within the commission felt, at that time, that the office would quickly be organized. However it soon fell temporarily out of favor (Closed Circuit, Feb. 15). One of the reasons, it is understood, was a jurisdictional dispute at commission staff level. The burning question was where to put the investigators, i.e., whether the new office should receive bureau status, be placed under an existing bureau, or receive independent ranking such as the Office of the General Counsel. As now established, the Complaints & Compliance Div. will be under the Broadcast Bureau, whose chief is Harold Cowgill. The Field Engineering & Monitoring Bureau will continue to handle technical and engineering complaints. Senate Approval Seen ■ Senate observers are predicting quick approval of the requested $300,000 budget increase by that body. The appropriations subcommittee which heard the request is headed by Sen. Warren Magnuson (D-Wash.), who doubles as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. This same Sen. Magnuson, during the recent confirmation hearing for Commissioner Lee, said: “I frankly don’t think the commission has accepted its responsibility [in monitoring and policing licensees]. . . . The record is replete with questions that I have asked: Do you need more money or help for monitoring?. . . . The answer has always been no. . . . We have asked you time and time again whether or not you have the authority and you have always said you had.” Won’t interfere Local political factions and differences are not proper subjects for the FCC to consider, the agency said last week in refusing to institute revocation proceedings against Clayton W. Mapoles, owner of WEBY Milton, Fla. Six Santa Rosa (Florida) County officials had charged that Mr. Mapoles used the station as “a propaganda instrument for his private interests” (Broadcasting, Nov. 30, 1959). In denying the petition, the commission said that it must be “alert” not to permit its processes to be used to resolve political differences in local communities. Concerning complaints about a WEBY news commentator, the FCC stated any attempt to censor him would be unwarranted. i I 1 '■ 28 (LEAD STORY) BROADCASTING, May 23, 1960