We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
THE MAYFLOWER CASS—AN EDITORIAL During 1937 and 1933 the Mayflower Broadcasting Company in Boston followed the practice of broadcasting editorials, supporting Candidates or issues favored by those in control of the station. The matter came before the Federal Communications Commission who ordered the sta¬ tion to stop the practice, ruling that with the "limitation in frequencies inher¬ ent in radio" that a "broadcaster cannot be an advocate." In hearings beginning in March before the FCC "in the matter of editorializing" more than 100 witnesses representing many points of view began testimony in hearing which will continue in April* Radio Trade organizations have for several years been conducting a campaign which in essense stated that the FCC has in every instance(except the technical) over¬ ridden its authority and is interfering with "free speech" and is a threat to "free enterprise". They have made the Mayflower case the spearhead of their attack against "bureaucracy". It should be noted also that the present FCC has been fully as interested as the NAB in having a full and complete review of the case* Since "free speech" and "free enterprise" are assumed to be the heritage of every U.S* citizen, the answer appears simple. If a ruling by the FCC prevents free speech—strike it off the books. However, the Mayflower ruling was an effort (an effort that may well need clarifi¬ cation) to guarantee free speech - to insure that both sides of a question roaches the public, and that no broadcaster abuse the temporary monopoly he enjoys BY PRESENTING ONLY HIS SIDE CF AN ISSUE, AND FORBIDDING OPPONENTS TO SPEAK. The financial and operational requirements of broadcasting (like the press and movies) result in a very few people exercising a very great degree of control over what the public reads and hears, and sees. In a word, any station operator or licensee has a "preferred position". The abuse he can make of his position is obvious. The alleged abuses in the KMPC newsroom (Los Angeles) as reported recently by Billboard illustrates the danger; On the other hand, this preferred position in the hands of an undeniably qualified licen¬ see might work equally well for the common good. The position of the licensee obviously must remain a trusted position. In other words radio has become a giant voice, millions of times louder than the voice of any single individual speaking from a single platform. A good idea or a bad idea becomes no better or no worse merely because it is amplified, but it does become enormously more EFFECTIVE for good or ill* because of its loudness * We in America have never been in favoid of the bigger man shouting down the little man, and we've written our whole Constitution* the system of checks and balances to prevent just that. The concern in the Mayflower case in a 20th century world is that the men with the electric amplifiers be reminded the citizen holds title to his facilities. The broadcaster may own the amplifier, but his right to use it is vested in the people $ It is inconceivable in a democracy that a particular station or network should present ONLY its own point of view and no other--or ever be permitted the position whereby they COULD DENY another his right to speak*