Broadcasting (Apr - June 1960)

EDITORIALS Summer rates RATES are back in the television news and, as almost always is the case, this means that the news is bad. First BBDO, now Ayer and, at least indirectly, other important television buyers are making a play for lower tv rates in the summertime. It would be short-sighted to expect that the move will end there. It can be made in several ways; BBDO, for instance, did it obliquely by merely asking stations whether they “plan to adopt a summer rate card” (Broadcasting, May 2; also see story this issue). But it all adds to the same thing: pressure for rate cuts in the hot-weather season. Although we must challenge much of their reasoning, we cannot in candor blame the agencies for trying: It is part of their job to get the best possible buys for their clients. Indeed, in this case the networks and some important stations appear to have made the first move. Thus the agencies can claim, at least technically, to be merely riding a trend that was started by broadcasters themselves. The case against seasonal discounts is presented elsewhere in this issue by Lawrence Webb, managing director of the Station Representatives Assn. He denounces special rates on several grounds; he claims they not only are unjustified but also are unfair to other seasonal and to yearround advertisers, would depreciate programming and program promotion and, added to bartering and the double standard for local and national rates, make the value of an already under-priced medium “even more questionable to the advertiser.” It is not our business to tell stations how to price theirs. We do feel, however, that as a matter of simple prudence all stations should promptly take a fresh, close look at their own rates and the bases on which they were established. We suspect that, instead of discounts, increases may be in order in some cases. Whatever the result, stations ought to be prepared to justify what they’re charging. If the current probing by a few agencies becomes a drive by many, broadcasters had better have the facts ready in selfdefense. Bluster won’t be enough. Platforms and platitudes VICE President Richard Nixon, who might be the next President, is one of the few men in public life who understands the philosophy of free enterprise in broadcasting. He doesn’t cotton to the well-worn cliche that the “air belongs to the people” and that therefore pressure groups, dissident minorities and politicians are entitled to “public service” time at will. Mr. Nixon’s statement to the Senate Communications Subcommittee in opposition to the free time-grab bill (S3171) demonstrated scholarly knowledge of the intent of the Communications Act and recognition that television is a private enterprise “subject to the same economic hazards as other similar enterprises.” He thinks it wrong for the federal government to “expropriate . . . time without compensation.” This was in sharp contrast to the testimony of two-time presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, who had opened last week’s hearing with a plea for enactment of S3 171. Mr. Stevenson displayed appalling ignorance of the law and its history. He parroted the “air-belongs-to-the-people” platitude. He talked glibly but mistakenly about an imagined requirement that stations and networks devote a stipulated amount of time to “public service,” and he suggested that prime time pre-empted for the presidential candidates on all networks and qll stations for eight weeks 114 in advance of the November elections be subtracted from his mythical mathematical requirements. It was significant too that Herbert Hoover, who as Secretary of Commerce helped launch radio on its free enterprise course, and former Gov. Thomas Dewey, twice the GOP presidential nominee, see eye-to-eye with Mr. Nixon. Former President Hoover said it all in one sentence: “My own opinion is that if we are to avoid government censorship of free speech we had better continue the practice of the supporters of candidates providing their own television and radio programs.” And Mr. Dewey saw a simple answer— amend Section 315 “so that broadcasting stations and networks be permitted to give such free and equal time to the candidates of the two major parties as they, in the exercise of their editorial discretion, consider wise and proper.” Compulsory free time, as proposed in S-3171 already has become academic. All three of the tv networks have agreed to voluntary grants of time for presidential candidates, but with the essential requirement that Section 315 be amended so that splinter candidates won’t be able to demand and automatically obtain equal time. (If the networks and others had gone all out for repeal of Section 315 last year, they wouldn’t be confronted with the problem now.) Solution of the dilemma may be found in the suggestion of the three television networks that the equal time provision be suspended in regard to presidential and vice presidential candidates for this year’s election. Since both the Republican and Democratic national committees oppose S-3171 and favor voluntary provision of time, they certainly should support this proposal. Partisan politics has never been our dish of tea. We have never supported a candidate because of political label. Broadcasters are interested in how the candidate stands on broadcasting as free enterprise and as a medium of journalism on equal footing with the press. The FCC, which has been GOP-controlled these past seven years, lately has shown a marked tendency to invade forbidden areas of program control, no doubt influenced by what has been transpiring in Congress. The FCC may be disposed to ignore the views of the network and other broadcasting spokesmen, as self-serving. It behooves all commissioners, we think, to analyze carefully the observations of Vice President Nixon. He could be their boss eight months hence. ‘‘It’s your committee for more cultural tv programs . . . They want to know why you’re not at the meeting!” BROADCASTING, May 23, 1960