NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1948)

JUSTIN MILLER, President A. D. WILLARD, JR., Executive Vice-President C. E. ARNEY, JR., Secretary-Treasurer KENNETH H. BAKER Director of Research RICHARD P. DOHERTY Director of Employee-Employer Relations HAROLD FAIR Director of Program Depart¬ ment ROYAL V. HOWARD Director of Engineering DOROTHY LEWIS Coordinator of Listener Activity (New York City) FRANK E. PELLEGRIN Director of Broadcast Adver¬ tising DON E. PETTY General Counsel ROBERT K. RICHARDS Director of Public Relations ARTHUR C. STRINGER Director of FM Department Court determined that it could not conclude that Petrillo was guilty. “The law is much broader than the issues in this particular case. As I regard it, where coercive methods are attempted to support a demand for em¬ ployment not in fact needed for actual service, a demand for such employment made in reckless dis¬ regard as to whether or not the service is needed, is a violation of the statute. Where one takes on himself to demand that another employ persons to work, he must assume some responsibility on his own part to know whether or not the demand is justified. He who demands that another engage employees without knowing whether or not they are needed is in a weak position to claim his innocence on the ground that he did not know the employees were not needed. Otherwise, the lack of knowledge to justify the demand would be the defense for making it. “It appears to me that the decision of the Judge acquitting the defendant had the same specious quality that characterized his original erroneous de¬ cision as to the constitutionality of the Act. “This acquittal, however, does not change the law, which remains unimpaired. The finding, like the verdict of a jury, affects only the facts in that par¬ ticular case. It does, of course, not bar further prosecutions on similar charges. This case, with its setting, affords no reason why there should be a letup in an effort to enforce this law against the use of coercive practices to control broadcasting. On the contrary, this decision spotlights the neces¬ sity for freeing the broadcasting industry from the racketeering against which this Act is intended to afford protection to the broadcasting industry and the public. “The influences to be overcome are not weak, but the situation calls for no retreat. It calls for dili¬ gent and vigorous prosecution, to which the industry should give its whole-hearted support. A policy of appeasement only delays and invites further de¬ mands. “Racketeering in one form or another in the name of labor affects various industries of the country. It has become a great national evil. It is a short¬ sighted labor leader who believes that in the long run the rights of labor are aided by any form of racketeering. Every legitimate interest in the coun¬ try should support the effort to eradicate racketeer¬ ing.” Judge Miller's View. The NAB president, comment¬ ing primarily on a statement by Daniel Carmell, at¬ torney for Petrillo, said: “I have read with interest, and some amusement, the claim attributed to an attorney for James C. Petrillo, subsequent to the latter’s exoneration on a charge of violating the Lea Act, that ‘the Lea Act is dead.’ The childish wishful thinking implicit in such a careless statement, perhaps, should place it beneath the dignity of a reply. The Lea Act was not on trial in Chicago. Mr. Petrillo was. The final lines of the Court’s memorandum opinion in the Petrillo trial read : ‘For the reasons above stated, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant guilty of the violation charged.’ “Such an opinion reminds us of Scottish Law where it is possible to have three verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven. In the latter case, the defendant— declared exonerated for the reason that the case was not proven by the prosecution — ‘goes away from the bar of the court with an indelible stigma upon his name.’ What the Chicago jurist has said in his memorandum opinion, is that the case was ‘not proven’ by the prosecution. “This does not outlaw the Lea Act. Neither does the decision of the Chicago Court exempt Mr. Petrillo from prosecution, again, in any of several hundred American cities, if he continues to harass the broadcasters and the American people as he has done in the past. When an experienced prosecutor goes to work upon another case whose facts bring it within the meaning of the Lea Act, we will hear the singing of quite a different tune.” Memorandum With Suggestions for Revision Of S. 1333 Is Forwarded to Senator White (Continued from page 63) there should be any possible difference of opinion between us upon the point.” The NAB president’s analysis of Section 15 of the revised draft, which would grant the FCC power to exercise “over-all” and “after the fact” control of programming policy of a licensee, quoted the U. S. Court of Appeals opinion of Jan. 12 on the WBAL case, which criticized the FCC “Blue Book” for its misrepresentations. “Although the apparent theory of the revision is that the Commission would act only after the fact and with regard to the so-called ‘over-all’ programming policy of a licensee,” Judge Miller’s letter said, “we know from practical experience that the Commission has acted, and will continue to act, before the fact and with respect to specific programs, unless this type of supervisory power is denied to it.” The analyzing letter continued: “Entirely apart from the prohibition of the First Amendment — al¬ though clearly germane to its underlying philosophy — is the fact that no small group of men in Washington — charged with the onerous duties of regulating a vast communications system . . . can possibly preside, wisely or even intelligently, over the tastes and need (Continued on next page) JANUARY 26, 1948-64