NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1941)

:imonK broadcast station? or to result in the monopolization of local broadcast facilities. 6. Whether the joint association of newspapers and broadcast stations tends or may tend to increase or decrease concen¬ tration of control over broadcast facilities or the use thereof. 7. Whether the joint association of newspapers and broadcast stations constitutes or may constitute an undue concentration of control over the principal media for public communication. 8. Whether joint association of ncwspaiiers and broadcast sta¬ tions tends or may tend to result in the utilization of imIH'Oved facilities and skilled, cxjKu-ienced personnel for the procuvinR and dissemination of information and opinions by broadcast stations. 9. Whether joint association of newspapers and broadcast sta¬ tions tends or may tend to insure greater economic stability for liroadcast stations and to encourage the ma.ximum tech¬ nological development of radio. 10. What considerations influence newspaper interests to acejuire broadcast stations. I submit that in the light of the decision of the Suirreme Court of the Ihiited States in tlie Sanders Bros, case you have no power to inquire into any one of those matters. Furthermore, I also submit that the questionnaire which tlie Commission sent out on June 2S to present licensees deals witii subject matter over which the Comrni.ssion has no authority either under the statute or as construed by the courts. That questionnaire is nothing more nor less than .an impertinent effort on your part to inquire into the newspaper publishing business, t!ie business policies of newspapers, the cditori.-’l policies of newsp.apers, the advertising practices of newspapers, the promotional activities of newspapers, the news policies of newspapers, the nature of the work performed by newspaper employees, and the business connections of news¬ papers over none of which docs this Comniksion have anv authority whatsoever. If it be argued that the questionnaire is designed to obtain information for use in connection with the administration of the broadcast provisions of the C'ommunications Act of 1934, As Amended, then again I submit tliat the questionnaire shows on its face that it is an effort to inquire into matters which the Supreme Court says this Commission has no liusiness with. You do not have a supervisory control over the programs, or the busi¬ ness management, or the j^olicies of radio stations and you are not empowered to make any general inquiry into the nature of pro¬ grams, ljusiness management or policies of radio stations such as you have attempted in this inquiry, as is forcible' illustrated in that questionnaire. In conclusion I desire to cal! your attention to the fact that several years ago the Chairman of this Commission asked its General Counsel to sulamit -an opinion on the question as to whether the Commission has authorite' to deny an application of a newspaper for radio facilities on I'lc ground th:i( it is against the public interest for newspapers to o|;erate stations. Your own General Counsel as of that time told you V'ou liad no such authority. Since then the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columliia has given you the sainc word and also the Supreme Court of the United States has told you just what your i)owcrs are. Your powers do not embrace authority to adoiit any policy or rules the purpose of which is to prohibit persons engaged in the newspaper publishing business from operating radio stations. Being without power to adopt any .such policy or rules you are without power to conduct an inquiry for the purpose of determining whether or not you should adopt such a policy or rules. Therefore, I respectfully submit that my motion to vacate Orders Nos. 79 anrl 79~.A should be granted and this proceeding terminate. 1 further submit that if the Commission is not at this time prepared to rule upon that motion it should stay all further proceedings in this inquiry until it determines this question. In the event the Commission decides to stay tlie inquiry then 1 should like a reasonable time if your body so desires within whicli to file a brief in support of my statement this monii.ng. Insertion in the record of a vast number of Commission exhibits dealing with the relationship of newsixipers and radio stations consumed the rest of the Wednesday morning session and a part of the afternoon session. The other Wednc.day w'itness was Elmo Roper, public opinion experf, who diLCUsscil at length the sur\'e>' he made for F.irtunc maga/in? dealing with the public’s opinion about news on tlie radio and news in tile newspapers. lie was questioned at length by members of the Commission as to 628 — July 25, 1941 whether these figures represented the facts. Fie insisted, in all instances, that he represented only the public’s opinion. The first witness Thursday morning was Professor Mitchell V. Charnley of the Minnesota School of Journalism who testified to the different techniques in processing news for newspapers and radio broadcasting. He stated it was his belief that separate staffs to select news for the two media are desirable. On cross examination by Judge Thatcher it was brought out that the witness had not made or supervised any study as to the facts of w'hether it is usual or unusual for radio stations and news¬ papers to operate with the same staffs, and that the witness had not made or supervised any study as to the relative merits of service to the public by stations under newspaper management and stations under other management. He stated that he was, there¬ fore, unable to express an opinion on the relative merits of such service. The next witness was Mr. Marco Morrow who stated he was associated with the Capper newspaper interests and titular head of Senator Capper’s radio stations. He testified that in his opinion radio is just another means of reaching the people, as necessary for newspapers as fast presses and cable service, and “inherently a part of journalism.’’ When questioned by Chairman Fly as to whether or not in the case of a single newspaper and a single radio station in a community better service to the public would not be rendered if the two were under separate ownership, lie stated that he believed that the better service would be rendered by the radio station owned by the newspaper as the advantages mere than offset any danger of abuse by virtue of joint owner¬ ship. Commissioner Craven inquired if there was any reason why newspapers as a class should not own radio stations and the witness answered “no.” The next witness, Ur. Albert McCIung Lee, assistant professor of marketing at New York University, stated that in his opinion the political and economic views of newspapers affect the enthu¬ siasm of the response to their advertisements; that the long-term trend has been towards elimination of competition in the daily newspaper field and also towards fewer daily newspapers, due to economic restriction. In the course of a lengthy statement on the meaning of freedom of the press, he stated his belief that the present concentration of newspaper ownership prohibits a free press in the sense that that was understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. When pressed under cross examination by Louis G. Caldwell, counsel for the Chicago Tribune, the witness stated that a free press under the first amendment of the Constitution means free¬ dom from interference by Congress, as does freedom of speech. The final witness was de Quincy Sutton of the Commisison staff who discussed at length numerous summaries of various financial reports by licensees to the Commission. The hearing was recessed until 10 a. m., Wednesday, July -30, in the .Auditorium of the Archives Building. Sales Per-Inquiry and Free Time SisajiiiM & Scliocniinnl Agency of Chicago, reported here last week, continue to seek per-inquiry deals on behalf of MoiiarcK Cameras. Investigation shows that FTC complaint No. 4169, still pending, involves Arnold F'. Shapiro, Robert D. Schoenbrod and the Monarch Manufacturing Co. along with others in a “group of Chicago manufacturing corporations 'which have oper¬ ated at different times in cooperation with Flenry T. Schiff in the sale of radios, cameras, talking machines, electric sunlamps, docks, razors and lighters, and electric and other novelties.” The Shapiro & Schoenbrod address, 711 West Lake St., Chicago, is one of the addresses listed in the conqilaint, which was pub¬ lished in N.AB Reports for June 28, 1940, page 4387, titled “Elgin Razor Corporation.” Copies may also be secured from