Radio age research, manufacturing, communications, broadcasting, television (1941)

Asp eccs of Broadcasciiig (Continued fro??i page 7) side" an equal opportunity to answer daily? If the right to editorialize is not confined to the interest of the network itself or the interests of the radio art and industry, in which the network or its owner also has an interest, but is extended to other public or political questions — that is, it the network is to have the same right as the newspaper has to editorialize — it follows that it must have the same political rights Thus a network could be a Republican network or a Democratic network, or the network of some othei legally recognized political faith. It so happens that now there are only four TV networks, and it is conceivable that all four networks could become Republican, or all four might become Democratic networks. Surely this cannot be anyone's intention, for such a condition would be highly undesirable. Impractical Solution Therefore, if one takes the position that a network should editorialize as freely as a newspaper, he might also do it as frequently. Thus, there may be a daily network editorial as well as a daily newspaper editorial. Well, if a network broadcasts one editorial a day on some important subject, is it going to give the other side or sides an opportunity, every day, to answer that editorial in the same time? That would seem to me to be impractical for many reasons. And if it does not furnish such equal opportunity to reply, the network might fail to meet the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission. Because of the complex and serious nature of this problem, I think that while Dr. Stanton picked the right issue in demanding that radio and television be accorded the same rights as the press to broadcast the McCarthy hearings or any other public hearings, I regret exceed- ingly that he has confused a specific case with a general principle, by adding the word "editorial" on the TV screen. Whether a network should or should not editorialize, raises a fundamental question that calls for the most careful study and consideration. I am not saying that networks should not have the right to do it. I think they should have that right. Whether they should exercise that right — and undei which circumstances — calls for clearer definition than Dr. Stanton has given in the statement which he made on the air. As I have said, I am in agreement with him as far as concerns the immediate case of the right of radio and television to report on, and to broadcast the hearings now going on in Washington. So far as the National Broidcasting Company's net- work is concerned, we have not engaged in editorial- izing; not since we have been in the broadcasting busi- ness. And we are not ready to abandon our policy. Of course, we shall watch the new developments as they go along and study the reactions they produce. Government Licensing of Networks As you know, the question of government licensmg of networks has recently been raised in Washington. 1 am certainly not in favor of requiring networks to be licensed because I do not regard network operations — as distinguished from individual broadcasting stations •— a business that should be licensed or regulated by the Government. But the licensing question may be viewed differently when the problem of general editorializing by a network is considered. It raises the question of licensing networks in an atmosphere that changed when the word "editorial" was flashed on the TV screen by CBS. I recognize the distinction between a network and a broadcasting station. Insofar as individual stations are concerned, I believe they should have not only the right to editorialize, but that they might well exercise that right in their local communities. The circumstances surrounding stations are certainly different from those surrounding networks. For ex- ample, in New York City there are more radio and television stations than there are newspapers. I can visualize an independent station being frankly partisan, just as there are newspapers that are frankly partisan. But, when it comes to the network imposing its editorial views on a public or controversial question upon its afl^liated stations, it is quitfe a different matter. It is not a sufficient answer for a network to say that a station could reject that editorial if it did not share the net- work's opinion and views. There are practical limita- tions of program scheduling, etc., which must be taken into account by stations as well as by networks. Change in NBC Call Letters The call letters of three of the National Broad- casting Company's company-owned stations will be changed at midnight, Sunday, October 17. The changes affect NBC's radio and television stations in New York, and its TV stations in Los Angeles and Washington, D. C. The NBC New York stations, which are cur- rently WNBC, WNBC-FM, and WNBT, will become WRCA, WRCA-FM, and WRCA-TV. The company's Los Angeles television station will become KRCA instead of KNBH, while the Washington NBC television station, now WNBW. will become WRC-TV. 32 RADIO AGE