Broadcasting (Apr - June 1960)

and it isn’t necessary to capture the viewer by force. Sen. Monroney said there’s no way to communicate with 100 million people except television. He and Sen. Clair Engle (D-Calif.) described television as fairer than the press. Sen. Yarborough disagreed with Dr. Stanton’s statement that broadcasting enjoys the same freedom as the press. But Dr. Stanton said WBBM-TV Chicago, for example, a CBS o&o station, can support a candidate editorially if it wishes but has an obligation to provide equal time. “We may not be told what we have to do,” he said. “Editorials are divorced from news, which should be objective.” He said it would be just as fair to take time as to require free use of railroads or air line facilities. Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-S.C.) called the bill a step toward government censorship. Dr. Stanton pointed out the White House and many broadcasters question the feasibility of carrying a presidential broadcast simultaneously on all networks, except in case of emergency. It’s Unfair ■ Mr. Adams, NBC vice president, termed the bill unsound because it would compel broadcasters to do what Sec. 315 prevents them from doing, unfair because it singles out tv from the media field for seizure; unwise because it removes from broadcasters the exercise of judgment in allocation of time and programming and unnecessary because networks have found ways to present candidates effectively. He was questioned on NBC’s rejection of the Humphrey-Kennedy debate in West Virginia after originally offering to carry it. He explained how the network had finally refused coverage when its Huntington, W.Va., affiliate, WSAZ-TV was blacked out by a newspaper’s directive. The network gets “exceedingly large lineups” of affiliates for important special events, he said, recalling 123 participated* on short notice when President Eisenhower returned from Latin America. Mr. Adams listed lack of specified program format as a weakness of S 3171. “Somebody has to be the supreme court of network debate rules,” Sen. Monroney said. Like Dr. Stanton, Mr. Adams opposed legislation requiring all three networks to broadcast a program simultaneously but he said NBC, unlike CBS, did not insist that every program be exclusive. Sen. Monroney suggested perhaps a referee could work out appearances of candidates since separate appearances on all networks might be a burden. ABC President Treyz thought the combined schedules of network appearances might curtail public interest in candidates. He termed the bill alien to the constitutional concept of a free press, with expropriation the main issue. He, too, found inequity in selection of tv from mandatory action. He said the network is preparing to report the two party conventions and will give the campaign extensive news coverage. Flanked by Mort Weinbach, ABC vice president-general counsel, he said the bill recaptures more than spectrum grants by misconceiving “the basic nature of every station’s principal com Congress lacks the power to commandeer free time on tv networks for presidential campaign broadcasts and to specify their content, the Senate Communications Subcommittee was told last week during its hearing on proposed legislation (S 3171). Statements in opposition to the bill were submitted by Ex-President Herbert Hoover; Thomas E. Dewey, ex-presidential candidate; Vice President Richard Nixon and the Oklahoma Broadcasters Assn. A brief submitted for CBS Inc. by Rosenman, Goldmark, Colin & Kaye pointed out that Congress would for the first time be dictating what should go into a particular program. This was termed “a radical change in the policy which has governed federal regulation of broadcasting.” The First Amendment would be impinged, the brief held, by restricting stations and networks in their freedom to decide what time, if any, is to be devoted to candidates and the conditions under which the broadcasts take place. In addition the plan would operate, as does a tax, to reduce revenues. Little support was found for constitutionality of the bill. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment also was cited, with mention that a federal license does not remove protection from a business. Higher Duty ■ Whitney North Seymour, special counsel to NAB and a member of the New York law firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, said maintenance of “the liberties of Americans, including their right to enjoy property without unjustified interference by the government, may be a higher duty than providing free tv time to presidential candidates.” In an extensive constitutional analysis, Mr. Seymour pointed to Fifth Amendment discrimination in singling out tv from other media, requiring donation of facilities and properties without compensation. He said the discrimination had nothing to do with the special circum modities including time and the right to sell it, cameras, studios, personnel, skill, transmission gear and cables.” Eric Haas, Socialist Labor candidate for president, said the bill will enable broadcasters to bar all minority party candidates from the air. He said amendment of Sec. 315 has hurt minority parties. As the hearing ended the committee received a statement from Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.) favoring passage of the bill. stances permitting regulation of broadcasting. The First Amendment, he said, “would seem to forbid favoritism by the ' federal government in providing free platforms as between candidates of j major and minor parties.” He, too, pointed out the 4% standard in the bill would have denied facilities to important candidates such as Theodore | Roosevelt in 1912 and Robert M. LaFollette in 1924. Similarly an NBC brief prepared by | Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl cited i constitutional problems. In addition it listed a series of vague and unanswered i questions dealing with designation of | time periods and type of facilities, penalties for noncompliance, nonfulfillment of contracts, recording and dis ; tribution costs, candidates’ waivers of requirements, obligations of non-affili j ates and selection of studios. Statements Entered ■ Several public figures submitted statements to the committee. Ex-President Hoover’s comment on | the bill was terse. It follows: “My own opinion is that if we are to avoid gov | ernment censorship of free speech we had better continue the practice of candidates providing their own television and radio programs.” Mr. Dewey, former Republican candidate for the presidency, said the bill “would appropriate the property of the | broadcasters without compensation.” j He felt use of airwaves is no more | Tl relevant to the discussion than the fact that newspapers and magazines use j paper made from lumber cut from pub j lie lands, or that they use the mails. ! The next step, he said, would be to re ! quire free time for lower offices. “It j would be equally consistent then to re j quire that newspapers print the full texts of speeches of candidates on their I front pages and that news magazines j give equal space,” he said. Mr. Dewey suggested the purpose of ! the bill could be accomplished by amending the law so stations and net FREE TIME VS. CONSTITUTION Republican leaders oppose any mandates 76 (GOVERNMENT) BROADCASTING, May 23, 1960 HI