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

"Who else [besides the networks] would undertake government service on a national basis, provide great cultural programs like the Sadler's Wells Ballet (above, right), give nation-wide support to worthy causes? * * * The costly 'NBC Opera Theatre' (shown at left in a scene from Prokofiev's 'War and Peace') might not be supportable." is the possibility they won't be able to continue doing them — because the attacks on the networks are centered on the two things that make possible this well-rounded schedule of national service. They are, first, the net- works' responsibility for determining their own program schedules; and, second, the networks' method of clearing broadcast time for these programs over affiliated stations. Each advertiser, outside producer, or film supplier is interested primarily in his own program, not in an over- all program structure. That is why networks must be free to produce and to select programs for their own schedules. If they were prohibited from doing so, they would be unable to program for the varied tastes of 165 million highly selective Americans. The concept of a balanced service would disintegrate and networks, as we know them, would cease to exist. Our clearance arrangement with stations — known as "option time" — is the very thing which enables simultaneous national broadcast of the network pro- grams. Through it, a network can give advertisers as- surance of national circulation for the programs they sponsor. Through it, our affiliated stations can rely on a regular schedule of network programs to increase their total audience. Yet these two keystones of the network operation are the two under heaviest attack by interests who regard them as obstacles to their own ambitions. Their pro- posals, if adopted, would not only disrupt the network service, but would deprive networks of the resources which support non-revenue-producing services, and which permit them to plunge into uncharted program areas, to innovate and improvise, and keep the medium fresh. Who else would undertake government service on a national basis, provide great cultural programs like April 1957 the Sadler's Wells Ballet, give nation-wide support to worthy causes? Those organizations which attack the network struc- ture do not propose to substitute a balanced service of their own, including news and information, special events, cultural programs or special government and charitable presentations. They are interested only in the profits from one category of service — the entertainment programs. To the degree they succeed in impairing the network structure — to that same degree, a great deal of unique public value will disappear from television. Public Interest the Basic Issue It is a natural tendency in the face of something new and powerful, I believe, to seek ways to harness it, to make sure that its power does not in the classic sense corrupt or harm. There is great government interest in network television today. During the past year studies have been conducted by three different Congressional Committees, by the Federal Communications Commis- sion, and by the Department of Justice. The networks have been investigated from Dan to Beersheba, and still the investigations and studies continue. It is my earnest hope that they will not be sidetracked by the claims of self-interested groups, but that they will test these claims by the one basic issue: Will the public interest be ad- vanced if network service is curtailed or crippled? The question must be weighed in terms of today's service compared with the program service that would be left if the network structure were dismantled. I am confi- dent of the verdict when all the facts are in. The foregoing are excerpts from an address by Mr. Sarnoff to the Los Angeles Rotary Club on March 22.