NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1944)

denying the applicant’s petition; nor would the Company be benefited by such decision. As a matter of fact, to deny the petition would create discord as well as open an avenue for an invasion by other Unions. “It is fundamentally sound doctrine that collective bar¬ gaining should be limited to as few agencies as possible, thereby eliminating the danger of jurisdictional disputes. And for the Board to find for the Defendant Company would be to invite such disputes. “I have the highest regard for the two gentlemen with whom I served on the Board, and I have all confidence in their sincerity, but I cannot believe that they fully under¬ stand the issue, nor the full technical meaning of the Arti¬ cle covering the question of jurisdiction. “Therefore, I submit that the Applicant’s petition be allowed, and jurisdiction be extended to cover employees in the studio at the control board. “Respectfully submitted.” GURNEY ON FREE SPEECH Honorable Chan Gurney, U. S. Senator from South Dakota, appearing on the Town Hall program on the Blue Network today (April 6) gave the following talk on free speech : Freedom of speech is guaranteed under our Constitution. Just how that can be adapted to radio is, as I see it, the question before us tonight. There is not enough actual time on the radio for each and every one of our 130 million people to state their ideas on every question over the radio, so let’s be practical about it, and instead of talking about freedom of speech, let’s talk about fairness — fairness by first, the actual operators of the radio stations of the country — fairness of the listen¬ ing public — and fairness, yes, of the business world that uses radio as a medium of advertising. It is my sincere judgment, first, that radio — with a very, very few' exceptions — has handled their radio programs in a mighty fair, clean way. If they had not, say, the ten year period just past, they would not now be on the air, for our American people have a way of doing away with any concern that does not treat them fairly. They just do not patronize that concern and it goes out of business. So, briefly, the complete answer is that radio as a whole has been fair or there would not now be radio, as we know it, in the good old U. S. A. I say definitely that the listening public will regulate radio in an American way. They will regulate it by the simple mechanical movement of turning off the dial if they don’t like what is offered to them. We must recognize that radio is different than the news¬ papers, in that the broadcaster — by the tone of his voice — -by his inflection — can make an ordinary remark sound very beautiful — or can even leave the impression, just by the tone of his voice, that he is talking about a scoundrel. Freedom of speech is fundamental — made a part of our Constitution — because of a profound belief that the col¬ lective mind of the whole people is greater than that of any individual. We Americans have a strong conviction of our ability to govern ourselves. Our problem is to apply this freedom of speech — or shall I say, fairness of speech, basic in our law — to the radio — and right there I might remark that we must not become disturbed because we see some rabble-rouser gain temporary influence by the use of this new medium of communication. So, let’s talk about fairness in presenting controversial public questions and the broadcasting of news. The broadcasters themselves first enunciated the prin¬ ciple that controversial public issues must be handled fairly. They decided this because of their recognition of their own responsibility to the public, plus intelligent selfinterest. Their own well being and continuance in busi¬ ness impels broadcasters to see to it that the principle of fairness is advantageously followed in actual practice, and in my opinion, this is just what has happened in all but a few isolated instances. The second phase of freedom or fairness on the radio is the handling of news. The American public wants their news by radio so that they will be informed as to what is going on as speedily as possible. I say they should be allowed to form their own conclusions. Here again, by far the greatest number of radio stations and networks, are now presenting the news with fairness and accuracy — determined that the news shall not be _ selected for the purpose of establishing an editorial position. I hesitate to see laws passed that would put restriction on, or limit the broadcasting industry, whether by law or by managerial edict. You must remember that regula¬ tion by law takes away from the industry the sense of responsibility, and leaves in the hands of a few, that power which if placed in the hands of central government or its agency, could be used to gradually encroach upon freedom of speech via the radio. We Americans should be concerned now about the everincreasing encroachment upon the radio industry by the federal regulating bureaucracy. What we need in this country is a new law which clearly and explicitly tells the federal regulating body what it cannot do, rather than a law outlining a program of what it can do. We Americans intend to keep our freedom of speech, be it in the newspaper, on the public platform, or what we may or may not hear over the radio. Of course we have our day to day problems, but we should not quickly go to Congress and say “pass a law to prevent this” or “pass a law to prevent that”. We must bear in mind that in the end, most of them will be solved by the broadcasters and the listening public through thenown voluntary action, so necessary to assure themselves that they can and will stay in business. We must place squarely on the whole industry — the broadcast owners, the radio advertisers, the commentators, the full responsibility for its own conduct, and I say what we must give broad¬ casting its freedom from fear, for I hate to see regula¬ tions issued or laws enacted, aimed at a very small minor¬ ity. A little regulation of this sort is a dangerous thing, because it only invites further regulation in the future, leading to complete control and the elimination of freedom of speech in radio. We must be very careful in our decisions affecting this highly important industry, because a wrong decision now may mean that we will not long have American radio as we know it, which is, after all. the only fair and free radio now in existence in the world. SALES MANAGERS ACT ON AUDIENCE MEASUREMENT Recognizing the need for standards of audience measure¬ ment, the NAB Sales Managers Executive Committee, at its meeting in Cincinnati today (April 6), adopted a reso¬ lution, recommending that the Board of Directors appoint a special committee to include members of the Research, Program Managers Executive, Sales Managers Executive Committees and at least one member of the Board to study audience measurement techniques, and probe the possibility of some sort of central body representing the entire indus¬ try to recommend standards to be followed by all research organizations in making this type of survey. The Committee, recognizing the desirability of the early adoption of a standard method of computing coverage that can be agreed upon by advertisers, advertising agencies, and radio stations, expressed its confidence in the proce¬ dure of the Research Committee and accepted its invitation to hear the report of its technical sub-committee on methods to be submitted as soon as possible. Following a discussion of the participation of NAB in the Proprietary Association Advertising Clinic to be held in New York on May 16, Chairman Dietrich Dirks, KTRI, Sioux City, Iowa, appointed a sub-committee consisting of Arthur Hull Hayes, WABC, New York, Walter Johnson, WTIC, Hartford, Conn., James V. McConnell, WEAF, New York, and Jack Surrick, WFIL, Philadelphia, Pa., to work on this presentation. In addition, the committee adopted a resolution, expressing its appreciation for the magnifi¬ cent cooperation of WLW in the provision of a 10-piece orchestra and vocalists for the radio reception held on Wednesday evening in conjunction with the promotion April 7, 1944 — 103