Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1963)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

nine months of 1962 are unavailable because of changes in depreciation tax rates. The company has negotiated the sale of three divisions in Cherry Hill, N. J., and the transaction hinged upon stockholders' approval at an annual meeting Nov. 8 in New York. Capital Cities shows 41% increase in income Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp. had net income for the first nine months of 1963 that was 41% higher than the same period in 1962. In addition to its broadcasting stations, Capital Cities has a 40% interest in New York Subways Advertising Co. Nine months ended Sept. 30: Earned per share $ Net broadcasting income 12,068,594 Broadcasting expense 7,393,377 Depreciation 864,958 Interest and financing expense 878,598 Total special charges* 116.496 Income before taxes 2,815,165 Income taxes 1,493,369 Net income 1,321,796 1963 1962 1.06 $ .75 10,946,957 6,945,879 993,645 1,011.988 1.995,445 1,056,248 939,197 *Includes fees re acquisition of Buffalo stations of 362,780, and expenses re issuance of shares on exercise of warrants of $53,716. PROGRAMING STATIONS TALK BACK WMAL-TV, KBAT tell commission 'equal time' seekers are going too far in their requests Two stations in different parts of the country have demonstrated that some broadcasters won't be bullied on questions of their fairness in airing controversial issues. In Washington last week, wmal-tv made the point in replying to a letter from the FCC passing on a complaint about the station's alleged unfairness in its coverage on the Aug. 28 civil rights march on Washington. The station not only said that the complaint, made by the Rev. Dr. Carl Mclntire, was baseless; it said the commission should not even require licensees to respond to such "reckless and unsubstantiated" charges. In Texas, kbat San Antonio, rejected a request from a citizens group for transcripts of "all" programs dealing with controversial subjects in which the group is interested as well as for a blank check for "free and equal time" to reply. The group had cited the commission's luly 26 statement on the fairness doctrine in making the request. Kbat, in a letter that won official FCC endorsement, said commission policy does not require compliance. Kbat sent copies of its correspondence with the group — the Citizens Association of San Antonio — to the commission for comment on the station's interpretation of the fairness doctrine. Dr. Mclntire's Complaint ■ The FCC, in its letter to wmal-tv, said Dr. Mclntire complained that the station, in its coverage of the Aug. 28 march, broadcast views on controversial subjects but did not "present any views opposed to those expressed in said broadcasts." Dr. Mclntire is president of the International Council of Christian Churches as well as of the American Council of Christian Churches. His complaint about wmal-tv was apparently a follow-up to a letter he wrote to the FCC two months ago. At that time he said that the ACCC's opposition to the march on Washington had been virtually ignored by all but two Washington area stations (Broadcasting, Sept. 30). He said this was a violation of the commission's fairness doctrine and asked for an investigation. Fred S. Houwink, vice president and general manager of wmal-tv, in his reply to the commission's letter, declared: "The Evening Star Broadcasting Co. (licensee of the station) does not feel that it is in the public interest to require licensees to respond to complaints as reckless and unsubstantiated as the one here involved." He said Dr. Mclntire has apparently made "the astonishing charge that none of the stations complained against" has carried views opposed to those expressed in the speeches at the time of the march. "To the best of our knowledge," he added, Dr. Mclntire hasn't substantiated that charge. Complainants Should Have Facts ■ He said that "just as a licensee should explain his conduct when a factually substantial complaint has been lodged so a complainant should be required to furnish plausible grounds for an alleged grievance as a condition to requiring a licensee's response." Mr. Houwink said that if Dr. Mclntire had attempted "to determine the facts," he would have discovered that in wmal-tv's coverage of the march, as well as in numerous local and network shows carried before and after the event, the station presented "the points of view of those basically op BROADCASTING, November 11, 1963