Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1962)

EDITORIALS Ambush in Chicago THE significance of the FCC's "inquiry" into local television programming in Chicago, which begins March 19, extends far beyond the signal range of the stations of that community. No broadcaster in the country will be immune to its effects. Which is precisely what the FCC has in mind. The Chicago "inquiry" is part of a calculated plan to shape programming to the commission's tastes by indirect pressures that are not easily attacked in court. The "inquiry" is almost certain to produce testimony that will be critical of Chicago programming. Broadcasters elsewhere will respond by adjusting their own schedules in whatever way they think will dissuade the FCC from making similar inquiries in their home towns. The process will take the regulators and the regulated another step toward the deadend of conformity that is the inescapable destination of growing federal control. Consider the nature of the Chicago hearing. It is intended to develop, in the FCC's own words, "full information concerning: "(a) The efforts made by Chicago television stations to determine the needs and interests of the residents of Chicago in the area of local live programming. "(b) The effectiveness with which television stations in Chicago have met the needs and interests of Chicago residents by broadcasting local live programs. "(c) The extent of public demand, if any, for additional or different types of local live television programs than those now broadcast by Chicago television stations." It is significant that the FCC refrained from saying what it intended to do with the "full information" it seeks. If it intended to use the information in, say, license renewal proceedings, it would be straying near if not into a type of program judgment prohibited by the First Amendment and the anti-censorship provision of the Communications Act. If, for example, the FCC refused to renew a television station license on a finding that the station had failed to broadcast local live programs that met the needs and interests of Chicago residents, it would have had first to make a necessarily subjective judgment about the programming itself. Lawyers of competence tell us that a decision of that kind would create the ideal test case. But the FCC is equally aware of the hazards of that course. It wishes to avoid a test case on issues clear enough to settle constitutional and anti-censorship questions. Its desire to stay out of court became especially evident in its order for the Chicago inquiry. At the moment all three of the Chicago stations that the networks own are up for license renewal, but the commission was careful to avoid getting its program inquiry mixed up with the renewal cases. A connection of the two would have given the stations the mechanics for eventual appeal to the courts. The Communications Act accords the FCC almost unlimited authority to collect information through inquiries of the kind scheduled for Chicago. What the writers of the law failed to realize was that the collection of information, as an act in itself, can be made to do the work of regulation. Let the information be taken in the glare of publicity by an agency having regulatory power, and it will be a stupid licensee who fails to get the message, and a courageous one who chooses to ignore it. In the circumstances the FCC needs only to provide a forum for complaints to achieve the aims that the Constitution and the statute forbid it to achieve through regulation. By a series of local inquiries of the kind the commission tto is introducing in Chicago and by pursuit of its policy of matching performance against promise in license renewal considerations the commission can in time force substantial changes in American television programming. Broadcasters will adjust their programs to suit the specifications that are implied by program inquiries. At time of application for renewal they will promise schedules that they think will coincide with commission views. The commission will hold them to the promise at the next renewal time. The process can be continued indefinitely by any commission canny enough to keep out of court. We have said before and we say again that the only way to stop the process is by adoption of a new Communications Act. That project deserves top priority. The listener on the couch WHAT makes a radio listener? He is probably the best known and at the same time the least known beneficiary of modern advertising media. He is advertising's Everyman, a member of the biggest audience that any medium can claim. The obvious reasons for his listening — for news and information, entertainment, relaxation, companionship— are too well known to need elaboration. Yet like most people — for he is most people — this Everyman is more complicated than these surface generalities would indicate. He doesn't want news all the time or relaxation all the time or even companionship all the time. He listens at different times for different reasons, and in his different moods he seeks different types of programming. This much — and much more — has been documented in a passive study conducted for WMCA New York by the Psychological Corp. The results are now being compiled, but preliminary tabulations leave little doubt that they will provide a deep insight into listener attitudes and behavior. Stephen B. Labunski, WMCA vice president and general manager, plans to make public these findings and others having usefulness for radio as a whole. He hopes to have them ready for distribution within a few weeks. They should prove valuable not only by pointing up again the size of the radio audience but also by delineating some of its principal behavioral characteristics. Not only radio broadcasters but advertisers and potential advertisers can look forward to using these findings with profit. When a study adds efficiency to a medium already as efficient as radio — that's quite a contribution. Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix "That smile's real acting . . . he owes them $600!" BROADCASTING, March 5, 1962