Broadcasting Telecasting (Jan-Mar 1963)

EDITORIALS Chicago revisited WHAT will happen at the NAB convention in Chicago next week? A sure bet is that no momentous decisions will be made to affect the future activity, strength and well-being of broadcasters. NAB conventions no longer constitute themselves as legislative bodies; broadcasters now meet to greet, eat, shop and listen to speeches. The big decision was made for the NAB membership by its board of directors last January. The board extended the contract of President LeRoy Collins until 1966 and thereby gave him a vote of confidence, despite some misgivings about his past performance and on the promise that he henceforth would aggressively defend broadcasters against inroads of government. Members of the NAB should pay close attention to what transpires next week in Chicago. They should evaluate carefully the comments of members of the FCC at the panel discussion. They should observe particularly the demeanor of the two new commissioners — E. William Henry and Kenneth A. Cox — either of whom might be the next chairman. They should heed the scheduled debate between FCC Commissioner Robert E. Lee and William Pabst, NAB tv code board chairman, on the mischievous effort to have the FCC embrace the codes as part of the official regulations. Broadcasters should look their leadership over. They should look themselves over. Is their NAB (which is to say their own governing body) performing in a manner that best conduces to their freedom and well-being? We do not attempt to provide the answer. We simply pose the question. It is a good one to ask of members who now pay NAB dues of some $2 million a year. Stuck with the tab AT about this time last year broadcasters were engaged in a vociferous debate over the future of music licensing. At the urging of a federal court, they were considering a deal to obtain reductions in the fees they pay the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers in exchange for giving up their ownership of Broadcast Music Inc. The deal did not go through, but we are reminded of it now by the recent revelation of ASCAP revenues (Broadcasting, March 18). These figures show why ASCAP was willing to take a reduction in payments from broadcasters as bait to force a change in operations of its rival, BMI. In 1962, according to records filed in a New York court, ASCAP collected some $30.5 million from radio and television. Is its music actually worth that much to radio and television? Broadcasters pay BMI less than half the amount they pay ASCAP. BMI's revenue from radio and television in its latest fiscal year, which ended in mid-1962, was about $13 million. If broadcasters played about half as much BMI music as ASCAP music, it could probably be said that a consistent market value had been achieved. According to the best evidence, however, BMI provides about 40% of the music played on radio and television, and ASCAP provides about 50%. The other 10% is in public domain or comes from other licensing organizations. It looks to us as though ASCAP music is overpriced. For all we know, BMI's may be overpriced too. Certainly broadcasters are carrying a disproportionate share of the costs of music in the entertainment world. They contribute about 87% of ASCAP*s total revenues and more than 90% of BMI's. Under these conditions other users of music are practically getting a free ride. 170 Another door slammed LAST week's decision by the House Rules Committee to i defer action on a bill to permit radio and television coverage of committee hearings was the second discouraging rebuff that broadcasters have recently suffered in their efforts to gain access to important news events. The first occurred earlier this year when the American Bar Assn. voted to retain its Canon 35 which prohibits broadcast coverage in courtrooms. As we said in this space two weeks ago, tactics must be changed. The case for access must be taken to the people in the hope , that the people will force their courts and legislatures to expose their functions to public view. Are any broadcasters at work on documentaries and editorials? They had better be if they are serious in their desire to attain status equal to that of the press. Play ball? THE batting order at the FCC changes again. Kenneth A. Cox, a tough man on the regulatory field, who has been in the Broadcast Bureau bull pen for two years, joins the seven-man first team. He replaces the veteran T. A. M. Craven, who retires at 70 but will still be on the coaching line in satellite communications. Mr. Cox has proved that while he is rugged in his field play, he is nobody's patsy. As Broadcast Bureau chief he played the rules laid down by the FCC. As a commissioner he will participate in the making of the rules. There could be a big difference. Newton N. Minow, who has been what the sports writers might call the sultan of FCC swat during the past two New Frontier years, is about to take the long walk — back to Chicago. He has a better contract there — with Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. The President, will have the opportunity to make his fourth appointment to the FCC team: (Newt was the first and the precocious E. William Henry the second). Who will the new player be? Will the chairmanship go to Tennessee Bill Henry? Or to the Seattle flash, Ken Cox? Or will it be a new graduate, freshly plucked by Brother Bob, from the New Frontier League? No one but JFK knows. Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix "Trouble with homework is we have to do it during prime evening time!" BROADCASTING, March 25, 1963