We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
I
*7
.00
13
.00
1 9.00
Special ^oltbap Bates!
BROADCASTING
THE BUSINESS WEEKLY OF TELEVISION AND RADIO
ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION 52 WEEKLY ISSUES-$7.00
EACH ADDITIONAL GIFT— $6.00
Please send 52 issues of BROADCASTING as my gift to:
title/ position
company name
street & number
city
state
Sign gift card.
title/ position
company name
street & number
city
state
Sign gift card.
title/position
company name
street & number
city
state
Sign gift card.
title/position
company name
[.00
street & number
city
state
Sign gift card.
additional subscriptions may be listed separately at $5.00
ill orders will be checked, in the event of duplication you will be notified immediately
|~| I enclose $ j~] please bill
name
street & number
<
2
city
state
ft BROADCASTING Subscription Department • 1735 DeSales St., Washington 6, D. C. 60 (THE MEDIA]
STANTON STRIKES BACK
Editorial in Times' draws reply from president of CBS
Dr. Frank Stanton, CBS president, last week took issue with The New York Times for an editorial stand taken on Dec. 12 that in effect endorsed FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow's position on programming.
The editorial was entitled Mr. Minow is Right, and defended the FCC chairman as being a target for both Dr. Stanton and NBC Board Chairman Robert W. Sarnoff, who spoke out on government control in speeches made a week before (Broadcasting, Dec. 11).
The Times appeared to express doubt as to the veracity of the networks' belief that government concern over programming "amounts to improper control."
In a letter to the Times on Dec. 14, Dr. Stanton specifically directed his fire to that paper's reasoning that not only regulation on a station's entry into tv was necessary but also an attempt must be made to "try to insure the best diverse broadcasting." The newspaper based its position on the limitation of frequencies, noting that "no city has more than seven regular tv channels, and most areas can see only one or two or three."
Competition ■ In his letter, Dr. Stanton wrote that although it is true that the number of vhf channels in a given area is limited technically, there are now 124 cities in the U.S. with two or more tv stations competitively owned "as opposed to only 58 cities that have two or more daily newspapers competitively owned." Dr. Stanton continued, "economic realities have proved a far more rigid restraint in newspaper publishing than technical realities have proved in tv broadcasting."
Dr. Stanton also took strong exception to a portion of the newspaper's editorial that commented on the FCC's increased emphasis on broadcasters' programming performance in this way:
"This doctrine was not invented by Karl Marx but by Herbert Hoover (secretary of commerce before he was elected president)."
Dr. Stanton said he thought any relationship of the government to "educational, cultural, informational or entertainment institutions" is an appropriate subject for discussion but that "such discussion is not advanced by intimations that those who bring the matter up are charging someone else with a Communist plot."
Said Dr. Stanton: it's more necessary to watch in a free society for precedents— though for "wholly plausible motives" — that may be extended and thus "come back to haunt us."
BROADCASTING, December 18, 1961
■