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.

Fund Appropriation Also Proper "( 3 ) It would seem to follow that if the operation of a television station is an educational function, the appropriation of public fluids for its operation would be justifiable. Of course the legislature would still control the purse strings, and would have the ultimate power to determine the allocation of funds to it. The vote of legislators on the. matter, no doubt, would be determined by its proved value to the people of the state. The objection by commercial stations tc the expenditure of funds by the state for television is no more valid than an ob¬ jection by privately owned technical and engineering schools to state expendi¬ tures for engineering shops and laboratories. Critics On Horns of Dilemma Do the people of the state want educational programs? On this point the representatives of private business are on the horns of a dilemma. If they say the people do not want educational programs, a University station would offer them no competition in public appeal, and their objection on this score would have to be withdrawn. If they say a University station will offer them competi¬ tion then they must recognize that the people want educational programs. Now if privately operated stations propose to sponsor educational programs then it is admitted that telecasting is an enterprise, into which the University, as an edu¬ cational institution, has a right to enter. If the people of the state want edu¬ cational programs and are willing to pay the costs to enable the University to supply them, why are they not entitled to them? It can hardly be contended at this late date that education is not a matter of public concern or that it should not be supported at public expense. TV Station Operation May Be Private or Public "It is not denied that television Is a legitimate and desirable field in which private enterprise may operate, or that television advertisement is not a bene¬ ficial and an essential branch of that business. The contrary is true. Nor is it contended that the University should have exclusive telecasting rights in this area of the state. The contention is simply that the operation of a television station comes within the proper sphere of education and that the University, in order to perform its educational responsibilities should be granted either full^ or part time control over a television station. If all available practicable air channels were awarded to commercial institutions then the vesting of substantial interests in reliance thereon could forever block education from entering the field. This might well have serious consequences. A monopoly in television by business would be as harmful as monopoly in television by the state." NARTB REQUEST DENIED BY FCC IN SCHOOL BID The request of the NARTB for reconsideration of the FCC’s grant of a television con¬ struction permit to Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, Manhattan, Kansas, was denied recently by the Commission. The NARTB had claimed the FCC’s July 23 grant had violated the Commission rules re¬ quiring all TV applicants, without distinction between commercial and educational applicants, to be legally, technically and financially qualified as a condition to grant without hearing. The Commission rejected the NARTB claim that the grant actually affected an amendment of the rules and was, therefore, a rule-making matter. In such case, NARTB had con¬ tended, the association and/or individual persons could be parties in interest. NARTB had explained, after polling Its board on the proposed protest, that the peti¬ tion was not filed in opposition to the Kansas State College grant but to the manner of FCC handling.