NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1942)

1626 K Si., N. W. WASHINGTON Phone NAfional 2080 Neville Miller. President C. E. Arney. Jr.. Assistant to President Edward M. Kirby. Director of Public Relations : Joseph L. Miller. PirecroT of Labor Relations : Frank E. Pellegrin. Director of Broadcast Advertising : Paul F. Peter. Director of Research ; Russell P. Place. Counsel; Lynne C. Smeby. Director of Engineering Sanders Bill Hearings The House Interstate Commerce Committee, after Thursday’s hearing on the Sanders Bill, recessed the hearing until Tuesday, June 2, at 10 a. m., at the request of Chairman James Lawrence Fly of the FCC. Mr. Fly had been slated to testify Friday, May 22. The newspapers and dear-channel groups expressed their views this week with resumption of hearings on the Sanders Bill before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Harold Hough, VVB.\P, Chairman of the Newspaper-Radio Committee, and Judge Thomas D. Thachcr and Sydney M. Kaye, counsel, appeared for the newspaper group. All attacked Order No. 79 as beyond the powers of the FCC. Willing to “stand pat on the present law for the purposes of the newspaper hearings,” Mr, Hough stated that he would recommend any language in the law necessary to make it specifically clear that there shall be no discrimination on account of occupation or class — “even if you have to put it in capital letters,” Taking up first the number of newspaper stations, Mr. Hough pointed out that from the figure of 298 introduced by the FCC staff at the opening of the Newspaper-Radio hearings, it finally developed after spending most of last summer and fall before the Commission that newspapers or newspapermen actually have majority interests in 201 stations, and 32 of these are located in cities and towns other than where the newspaper itself is printed. Because the hearings show that “there was considerable viewing with alarm this matter of monopoly of communications facilities,” he said, these 32 out-of-town stations should not have been con¬ sidered, leaving 169 as “the backbone of the newspaper-associated stations,” “We had ne\’er thought that as newspaper folks that the time would ever come when we would be singled out for such treatment from any other class,” Mr, Hough said, “but we were,” Coming to his main point Mr, Hough said: “I think our proposi¬ tion is a very simple one and really has nothing to do with the extent of newspaper association. We contend that the Federal Communications .Act requires that no licenses should be issued unless the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by the grant. .And if the applicant satisfies the Commission that he will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, the law of Congress says that he is entitled to a license unless he is an alien or has been convicted of a crime. .And that goes regard¬ less of his race, color, creed or occupation, .And right here I might add that the classing of newspaper people in the category of aliens and felons doesn’t make any of us very happy. While they do not say that we are such, they arc at least looking us over to see if we might be in the same class.” Stating that there are 74 communities where the only radio station is controlled by the only daily newstrairer, Mr. Hough stated that no evidence had been introduced to show that sta¬ tions in these communities are in any way different on the basis of performance than stations owned by other economic interests. “I don’t think I have to tell you gentlemen,” he said, “that in a small community no editor, even if he edits the local daily news¬ paper all day and edits the local radio station all night, could keep the folks of that community from finding out the real facts. He couldn’t monopolize truth. In the first place, the folks listen to other radio stations and they read other newspapers — newspapers printed in other communities,” “There has never been any evidence that these editors wanted to control everything on the reservation,” Mr. Hough declared, “I doubt if some of them have as much vote getting influence as the local high school football coach.” Judge Thacher followed Mr. Hough on the stand and covered the legal phases of the newspaper-radio hearings and the Com¬ mission’s power to discriminate against newspaper ownership of radio stations. He stated that the present law was perfectly clear that the Commission had no power to discriminate against newspapers or any other group as a class. The reenactment in the Communications .Act of the standard “public interest, con¬ venience or necessity” found in the Radio .Act of 1927, and which had been construed by the courts, the administrative practice of the Commission right up to the time of the hearings, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sanders Brothers case, he declared, left no room for doubt, Mr. Kaye reviewed the testimony presented at the hearings and concluded that he did not believe that the present language of the statute with respect to the power of the Commission was ambiguous. He said that over two-thirds of the record of the case and more than two-thirds of the hearing time and exhibits was occupied by evidence presented by counsel for the Commission. This evidence he classified under four headings: 1 — Evidence of newspaper practices and newspaper content as distinguished from evidence of radio station practice and radio program content. 2 — Evidence as to the former press association practices. 3 — Evidence as to the practices of newspaper associated broad¬ casting stations. 4 — Testimony of general experts interested in the theory of re¬ strictive legislation in this field. Stating that the precise language of Order No. 79 and the state¬ ments of Chairman Fly are to the effect that the investigation is directed solely at future ownership, Mr. Kaye went on to say: “If this were the case, there would be two discriminations — one against newspapermen as a class, and one against newspapermen who have not yet acquired radio facilities as contrasted to those who already have licenses,” Both because of the practical aspects involved and because of the basic importance of the principle under consideration to Ameri¬ can institutions, Mr, Kaye declared, newspapermen are unable to concur with the statement of Mr, Fly, made before the House Committee on Rules on March 18, that: “Newspaper stations that are presently operating are in a cozy position,” “If, however, either as a result of your own examination of the .Act or as the result of your inquiry into the Commission’s view of the scope of its hearings,” he declared, “you believe that clarifi¬ cation would be useful, we will welcome the writing into the Act drawn by you of any language which would, for all time, make it clear beyond doubt that the Commission has no power to dis¬ criminate against newspapermen because of their calling. If, as I believe, the Congress is not interested in a proposal to discriminate against newspapermen or against any other group as a class, then I think that even more useful than the language of Section 7, sub¬ division 3, of the bill would be a categorical statement that no ap¬ plicant shall be denied a license under any policy or rule of the Commission by reason of his status, occupation, religion, race, creed or calling, except as provided in the .Act with respect to aliens and persons convicted of violation of law,” .Appearing on Thursday, Victor Sholis, Director of the Clear Channel Broadcasting Service, urged FCC study of rural radio 266 — May 22, 1942