Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct-Dec 1963)

EDITORIALS Now for the real test TO judge by the response to the offering of stock in Subscription Television Inc., at least some people are eager to gamble on the future of pay TV. A first public issue of nearly $16 million worth of shares was snapped up on the first day. Although its launching was undeniably auspicious, STV needs a lot of proving before anyone will know whether it can float. It has some conspicuous assets, especially the rights to baseball games of the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Francisco Giants. It also is beset by unknowns. Nine free television program services are available in Los Angeles and five in San Francisco. Both cities are exceptionally well supplied with other entertainment sources. Can STV offer enough added attractions to create a whole new communications system for which people must pay? If the answer turns out to be yes, look for wired pay TV to stretch across the country. If that happens, free television on the air is bound to lose programs, audience and revenues. The prospect, remote or real, adds to the already numerous risks of the television business. Trial by jury WORD that at least two of the four Minneapolis-St. Paul television stations that were fined $500 each for technical violation of the sponsor identification rule intend to litigate is heartening. It could result in the first trial by jury involving an FCC sanction. The fines assessed by the FCC could be paid by these stations out of petty cash. But the station's have elected to contest the action on principle. The outcome is important to every broadcaster and to every citizen. Levying of the fines against the stations is another in the virtually unbroken series of penalties and sanctions meted out by the FCC in the three years since it acquired police court authority. And these are the lesser penalties; only 10 days ago it ordered the deletion of kwk St. Louis for running two contests that were admittedly phony, but nevertheless a first offense. If implemented, the kwk order will wipe out an investment of $2.3 million, plus loss of employment of 40 people and loss of service, even if temporary, to the public. In all these cases, and in others, the FCC has relied upon a tortured definition of "willful and repeated" in describing the violations, as detailed elsewhere in this issue. Kwk is exercising its right of appeal. This appeal is provided for by law, since the station has exhausted its remedies before the FCC. In the Twin Cities proceedings a precedent is involved. There is no provision in the law, as amended in 1960, for direct appeal from a forfeiture. The stations, to precipitate action, can refuse to pay the fines. That puts the burden on the FCC which, to sustain its position, must sue through the attorney general. The stations can get a jury trial. The facts are simple. The four stations broadcast an identical spot announcement twice within the same hour favoring a proposed ordinance to forbid Minneapolis stores from doing business on Sundays. They broadcast the announcements, received the same evening on video tape, without identifying the sponsor as the Downtown Council. The FCC insisted these constituted "willful and repeated violations." The stations said they were inadvertent. The stations had nothing to gain or lose in identifying the sponsor. There were extenuating circumstances. There was nothing willfully deceptive about the actions and certainly no grammar school pupil would regard a twice-trans 114 mitted spot within the same hour as "repeated." Webster's Collegiate defines repeated as "again and again." We hope all four stations join in the litigation and that the NAB takes up the cudgels too. A trial by jury is the constitutional way. Let 12 private citizens have a hand in judging the veracity and culpability of their home-town stations, rather than seven bureaucrats in Washington. The easy way out THE door to federal censorship of broadcasting has been opened a little wider by an FCC ruling on political broadcasts in Kentucky. As reported in this publication last week, the FCC, in response to a request from broadcasters, advised Kentucky stations that Republican spots contained a "distortion" of a statement by President Kennedy and were therefore in violation of the commission's 1949 statement of policy on editorializing. Although the FCC ruling did not forbid the stations to broadcast the spots, it was as effective as an injunction would have been. Stations that had been carrying the broadcasts ceased doing so, and others that had been awaiting word from the FCC rejected the broadcasts after the agency was heard from. The spots purported to present an extract from a Kennedy news conference. We happen to agree that the quotations were taken out of context, but that is unimportant to the case at hand. What is important is that the FCC was effective in preventing some spots from being aired. As a practical matter the agency applied prior restraint, which is censorship. It must be said that the FCC was given what amounted to an invitation to do what it did. By asking for a ruling, the Kentucky broadcasters abdicated their own responsibility for making a decision. Anyone who runs to Uncle Sam for help must not be surprised if he is subjected to uncle's advice and uncle's discipline. The Kentucky incident is another illustration of the erosion of broadcaster responsibility and the acquisition of federal power. If the trend continues, more and more broadcasters will beseech the government to tell them what is acceptable and what is not, and the government will move closer and closer toward the status of an ultimate programing authority. In the long run all those station managers and program directors could be fired and their places taken by anyone who can read a government order. Drawn for BROADCASTING by Sid Hix "Product protection? What's that?" BROADCASTING, November 11, 1963