Broadcasting (Apr - June 1960)

EDITORIALS Evolution of Emmy IF, perish the thought, an award were to be given for the best program devoted to the presentation of awards, last week’s Emmy telecast would have to win. In writing, production, direction and performance it ranked far above its predecessors, which almost uniformly have flouted the basic rules of the art that the Emmies represent. In short, the 90-minute ceremonies were conducted as entertainment first and ceremonies second. If they did not sparkle uniformly, at least they encouraged the hope that the professionals have finally learned how to handle their own affairs professionally. We regret, therefore, that the producers did not capitalize as fully as they might have on their chance to advance the cause of the business they serve. They made a start, but fell short. We refer to the clips of outstanding variety, comedy and dramatic shows that television has offered during the past year. Here was a chance to remind the public forcefully — and yet without using a sledge-hammer to make the point — that television presents a great deal that is good despite its snobbish detractors and paid critics. The inclusion of a long lineup of westerns among the “drama” clips, for instance, did nothing to counter the canard that television is all blood and violence. The Earps and Dillons have a place, but they cannot be equated with Olivier and Bergman under “drama”. Coupling them would be misleading if the difference weren’t so obvious: As it is, it merely perpetuates the critics’ myth. Without detracting from what they accomplished this year, we would suggest that the producers keep this point in mind next time. They need only to emphasize it a little more. So long as they earn their paychecks in television they should want to miss no opportunity to defend its name against unwarranted abuse. Proxmire’s quagmire WISCONSIN’S eager young Senator Proxmire, who has made a fetish of sniping at the FCC, has fired again without checking his target. He attacked what he called “political payola” because the FCC has announced its intention of granting ch. 10 in Albany, N. Y. on a regular basis to Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp., a company in which five Congressmen happen to own small interests. The examiner had given weight to this congressional participation in his initial decision. But the FCC hasn’t yet issued its final opinion. And we doubt whether the commission will decide that preference should be given Capital Cities because of the examiner’s finding on this single point. Mr. Proxmire’s comments on the Senate floor, consequently, are premature. Moreover, we believe them illfounded on other grounds. If the Proxmire philosophy prevailed, an individual, promptly upon his election to Congress, automatically would be disqualified from stock ownership in any broadcast licensee. The annual Broadcasting survey of members of Congress identified with station ownership made last February shows there are 30 legislators having interests either in their own names or through their families, in radio and television properties. Under Mr. Proxmire’s theory, they could not properly hold such interests. The five congressmen in Capital Cities own about 5% of the some 1,150,000 shares. The largest single stockholder, with 16% is Lowell Thomas, the noted commentator. Frank M. Smith, president-general manager, is the second largest with 13%. There are, all told, 1,180 stockholders. It isn’t our purpose to argue the merits of Capital Cities versus Veterans Broadcasting Co., which lost out in the tentative decision. That’s the FCC’s job alone. And there's always recourse to the courts. It is our contention, however, that there are no-ylaws proscribing members of Congress for engaging in or investing in private business. Many able legislators have other business interests or professions. Unlike federal officials serving on administrative agencies, senators and representatives are elected. They must make an accounting of their stewardship to their electorates at prescribed intervals. Their opponents overlook no bets. If stock ownership in radio or television, or any other enterprises, results in unfairness or abuse, the voters soon are apprised of it. It all comes out in the voting booth. More than mere words THE elegant phrases and solemn admonitions of the revised NAB Radio Code will take on new meaning July 1. On that day the code will get its first set of enforcement teeth, with monitoring, self-policing and the other devices lending significance to the plaque that has decorated the reception rooms of subscribing stations. On reflection, July 1 poses a serious industry challenge. The abuses of payola are still fresh in the minds of Congress and future performance will be appraised to an important extent by the way stations join the new code structure and then live up to its ethical and commercial provisions. Heretofore the code has meant whatever management wanted it to mean. At best it was a set of high standards to be followed faithfully. If not followed, it was at least a statement of noble ideals. Now the radio code becomes a living set of rules. Its enforcement structure closely resembles that of the television code, which has a policy-making board, a staff of professional administrators and the power to throw out stations and networks that fail to live up to commercial and program requirements. Non-member stations are now eligible to become subscribers to the NAB radio document, an innovation that grew out of NAB sources and drew support in official Washington. Self-regulation is at stake. All Washington, all advertising and the public will be watching the 3,500 am and 750 fm stations. If a substantial majority live up to the code provisions, radio will have an effective answer to its critics. If the code flops, the alternative is unpleasant to contemplate. 1 r^TUDlO 2.-A rv /pTi \7 Jo Vj^ 108 Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix BROADCASTING, June 27, 1960