Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1962)

EDITORIALS Program cycle THE rigged quiz had, we thought, disappeared with the confession of Charles Van Doren, but, lo and behold, it has been revived — and by the FCC, of all people. As reported in this publication last week, the FCC has been soliciting witnesses to testify in its investigation of television programming in Omaha. More than 100 organizations have been invited to appear. They range in nature from the Campfire Girls to Alcoholics Anonymous, and it is obvious that the FCC hopes, among so disparate a collection, to uncover at least some grievances that will attract attention. What is a television hearing without witnesses who rise to accuse television of sins the press is eager to report? It is evident that the FCC's search for accusers is a desperate effort to doctor a show that so far lacks boxoffice appeal. Nobody has expressed dissatisfaction with Omaha programming except the members of the FCC staff who persuaded the commission to pick that city as the site of the sequel to its program hearing in Chicago earlier this year. But staff dissatisfaction will hardly draw a crowd. What this show needs is a touch of the old razzmatazz, a dimpled Campfire Girl to tearfully report how villainous broadcasters refused to let her demonstrate woodgathering between 8 and 8:30 on Sunday night, a reclaimed drunk to testify to the hideous temptations of watching Kitty flick her lips around a jigger in the Longbranch. This quiz is being rigged by pros. The question is: Who's going to investigate this one? Firmly packed PACKING of the FCC by the New Frontier is about to become a fait accompli. In a few weeks the toughminded chief of the Broadcast Bureau, Kenneth A. Cox, will succeed the conservative veteran, T. A. M. Craven. Mr. Cox is the third Kennedy appointee out of seven. But the fourth vote is within easy reach. Newton N. Minow, the first JFK appointee, will have little reason to continue his complaints about inability to rally the necessary majorities to rock, sock, fine, suspend and revoke. Mr. Cox believes the FCC has the right to regulate programming. He thinks like Chairman Minow. So, it appears, does E. William Henry, who took office a few weeks ago. The fourth Democrat, the 10-year veteran Robert T. Bartley, can be expected more often than not to go along with the chairman. As we have often said, permanent relief can come only through reaffirmation by Congress of what it meant when it decreed free broadcasting and no censorship. But to write a new law is a slow, tedious process that is only now getting under way. It cannot be accomplished at the next session unless a miracle passes. There is a possible short-range remedy. Congress should be induced to take a hard look at the FCC's appropriation and at its purported work-load. Ten years ago the appropriation was $6.4 million. For fiscal 1 964, which begins July 1 , the FCC wants $16 million. The FCC complains it is overworked. It is probably one of the most overstaffed, inefficient agencies in Washington. Pending applications pile up and freezes are imposed while the broadcast staff artificially stimulates new projects, like the letter-writing campaigns on renewals. The FCC itself initiates the Omaha tv hearings when there have been no complaints. A review board is created to relieve the FCC of work, yet commissioners make more speeches and more "inspections" than ever. And the unfinished regular business piles up. In the past 10 years the FCC staff has increased from 114 1,044 to 1,416. If its man-hours were computed, we hazard 80% of its time would be on broadcasting — most of it stimulated from within. A disproportionate part of its budget goes for broadcasting which, in number of applications, represents less than 5% of the total. If broadcasters hope to avert completely centralized program control, which means control of their businesses, they had better indoctrinate their congressional delegations. Hearings should be held at the next session. There are only 21 days left before the 88th Congress convenes. A question of character THE most dangerous proposal in the report that has been submitted to the FCC by its network study staff (and reported exclusively in this publication two weeks ago) is that for a system of broadcast regulation copied after the Securities and Exchange Act. The network study staff has urged the creation, under federal law, of a system of "self-regulation" in which all radio and television broadcasters would be required to belong to a government-approved and government-supervised trade association. Under the guidance of the FCC, the association would write codes and enforce them. Expulsion from membership in the association would mean disqualification as a station licensee. In writing the recommendations, Ashbrook P. Bryant, the network study chief, explained that a similar system had been at work among securities dealers since the Securities and Exchange Act was passed in 1934. What Mr. Bryant failed to discuss, however, was the extraordinary difference between the character of the securities business in the early 30's and the character of broadcasting now. The government's imposition of tight controls over stock trading came after a series of financial disasters in which millions of innocent investors were fleeced by unscrupulous manipulators. Mr. Bryant may think broadcasting needs similar restrictions, but Mr. Bryant and his immediate associates at the FCC do not add up to the public. What most of the public demands from broadcasting, it now gets. The last time we looked at the figures, most American homes had television and radio sets, and receivers were still selling briskly. Mr. Bryant dees broadcasters a severe injustice to equate them with the bucket shops of an earlier day. Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix "You send her right back, Atwood! You know our policy on Christmas gifts!" BROADCASTING, December 17, 1962