Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1963)

EDITORIALS Ratings: Much work ahead ^THE ratings situation, which a few months ago seemed I about as confused as it could get, is becoming more entangled not less. The FCC and the Federal Trade Commission have now served notice that stations using ratings for sales or promotional purposes must be prepared to prove their accuracy, perhaps at the risk of their licenses (Broadcasting, June 17). Regardless of their propriety, the FCC and FTC actions accentuate the need for at least one phase of the ratings reform program currently under way — the creation of a system to audit the ratings services, so that all users can have confidence that the numbers they use are what they purport to be. Fortunately, the audit may be the easiest part of the program to get off the ground. Ratings-service standards and methodology improvements, which form the other goals of the National Association of Broadcasters program, are by nature projects that take time. Unfortunately, differences of opinion have developed over who should supervise the audit. Barton Cummings, president of Compton Advertising, has urged the NAB to consult with the Advertising Research Foundation, and Frank Gromer of Foote, Cone & Belding has come out flatly in favor of having the auditing done by ARF rather than an NAB organization. Their argument is that advertisers and agencies ought to have a voice in what's going on. Valid as that argument is, it overlooks the fact that the NAB sought the active participation of the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies, but that the ANA and the AAAA preferred to serve — and are serving — in a "liaison" capacity. The NAB boards meet this week and will get a formal report on ratings developments. We would hope that, in addition, the boards will make clear that by all feasible means the research program will enlist advertiser and agency assistance and support. The confidence of buyers is essential. We would hope, too, that the radio board might do something one way or another about the Radio Advertising Bureau's long-standing request for NAB participation in RAB's radio audience methodology study. The NAB research committee last week held that RAB's plans have "considerable merit" but voted unanimously to await further progress before recommending NAB participation. RAB has offered NAB a voice in shaping that progress. It seems to us that for the sake of the project itself, RAB is entitled to know now whether NAB intends to participate or whether RAB must go it alone Fairness to whom? WHEN the boys on Capitol Hill begin whooping it up over Section 315 and equal time, you don't need the calendar to determine that national elections are within sniffing distance. The most important single element in today's campaigning is the amount of air exposure the candidate can get. Since the last national elections in 1960 a new ingredient has been added. Editorializing has become a potent force. In the 1962 elections 133 radio stations and 15 television stations broadcast editorials for or against political candidates (Broadcasting, June 17). This is bothering many incumbents. One. Representative John E. Moss (D-Calif. ), last week introduced a bill (HR 7072) to amend the law to "assure fairness in editorializing in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office" by making the provisions 118 of Section 315, guaranteeing equal time, applicable to editorials. The effect of such an amendment would be to discourage stations from editorializing altogether. Perhaps this is what Representative Moss and his colleagues have in mind. Broadcasters understandably are in a quandary. FCC officials, past and present, have been encouraging stations to editorialize on controversial matters and not restrict themselves to innocuous mouthings about motherhood, home and flag. But in the next breath they talk about "fairness." To write a "fairness" doctrine into the law is to abridge the broadcasters' constitutional right of freedom of speech and of the press. The right to editorialize is the right to support or oppose causes or candidates. What may be construed as "fair" by one candidate is certain to be considered unfair by his opponents. Last week another measure was introduced on equal time. Senator Vance Hartke (D-Ind.) for the second time offered his bill (S 1696) to repeal Section 315. Senator Hartke's observations provide an eloquent and logical answer to those who would retain Section 315 and. like Representative Moss, would extend it to further degrade and demean broadcasters. "It is time," Senator Hartke told the Senate, "that we recognized the maturity of the radio and television broadcasting industry and, by repealing this provision, give it a vote of confidence. In 1960 the industry used its temporary freedom [suspension for the Great Debates] with a sense of objectivity and fair play in the public interest." Senator Hartke's bill is the honest and just answer to the equal time dilemma. Unhappily its chance for passage in the existing climate is bleak. But that does not mean that broadcasters should quit. They should write Senator Hartke in support of his proposal so that he may document his case. He is figthing the broadcasters' battle. Enlightened station ownerships have used the editorializing prerogative creditably. They have offered those with opposing views, whether they are public officials or private citizens, access to their facilities. They do not need a law or an FCC mandate any more than enlightened newspapers need government decrees to print letters to the editor. Those stations that abuse the privilege are the loose operations whose irresponsibilities will get them into trouble anyway, not only with their government but with the public. "Better jack up sales in your territory, Murdock, before our executive vice president starts calling it a vast wasteland." BROADCASTING, June 24. 1963