NAEB Newsletter (Sept-Oct 1952)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

- 12 COMMISSIONER WEBSTER MAKES CORRECTION ' The August 1952 News-Letter carried on page 3 tile following statement: "Commissioner Edward M. Webster, in a dissenting opinion, asserted that per¬ mits for state-supported educational television stations should not be issued until state legislatures had appropriated funds for construction and operation of the stations. Channels set aside for education, Webster said, should be kept open for other applicants until the appropriation of funds assured that they would be used.” • Commissioner Webster Writes to Comment Under date of September 8 Commissioner Webster wrote to the editor of the News- Letter stating that this did not properly represent his opinion in the matter. For the record the Commissioner’s complete letter is reprinted herewith: "On August lh, 1952 I dissented from the Commission’s decision to grant the applications, of certain financially unqualified state-supported educational groups requesting authority to construct and operate educational television stations. State legislatures, which must appropriate funds necessary for the construction and operation of such stations, meet only once every two years, or possibly every year - depending upon their state constitutions. I was and am of the opinion that the granting of construction permits to applicants who have received no appropriation for this purpose might pre¬ vent privately endowed educational organizations from going forward with plans to construct and operate educational television stations during this time because of the lack of facilities. I stated further that I considered it in the public interest to keep these channels open for use by as''many, varied educational groups as possible. In other words, I took the position that smaller schools, with private capital, also have something to offer the public, and I consider'it my duty to see'that an'opportunity is afforded them to construct and operate educational television stations if they are qualified to do so. I also said that I recognized that there is a sub¬ stantial difference in the manner in which private capital and public funds are obtained and conceivably a situation may develop where it would be in the public interest to grant construction permits to educational groups before they are definitely in possession of funds necessary for the construction and operation of educational television stations. "I feel constrained to call your attention to the wording'in the August NAEB NEWS LETTER which sums up my dissent by stating that I said educational channels should be kept open for other applicants until the appropriation of funds assured that they would be used. The omission of the word educa¬ tional between other and applicants abridged my remarks to the point where, in my opinion, their real meaning is lost. While I am sure this was not intended by your publication; nevertheless, inasmuch as the. Commission’s 6th Report and Order with respect to the television frequency assignment plan permits commercial interests to seek reassignment of educational channels for commercial purposes after one year, anyone not having access to my dissent might easily assume from the NEWS LETTER item that the 'other applicants' mentioned therein referred to commercial interests.