Sponsor (Apr-June 1961)

ertisers you have kept the wave mgths and channels in the safer ands of private enterprise, rather !ian those of the government." Is it possible that the Communicaions Act itself needs redrafting, that a its present archaic form, it is hamering rather than stimulating free ommercial tv? sponsor believes that an intensive tudy should be undertaken to deterline whether more intelligent legislaion cannot be devised for a system fiat is based on private enterprise, ree speech, and commercial support. 2. Does the FCC itself need major, ather than minor reorganization? llosely allied to this are some deep uestions about the functions and perations of the Federal Communiations Commission. The so-called Landis proposals for tie reorganization of the FCC seem ertain of defeat in Congress. Repreentative Oren Harris is expected to iffer alternate suggestions for FCC hanges, but in both cases the protosals involved relatively minor proedural matters. Does the whole question of FCC unctions and operations deserve nore thorough examination? spon;or believes it does. Worth probing are such knotty mestions as — does the FCC. as pressntly constituted, have too many lifferent types of responsibilities? Should an agency that deals with in aspect of the free press in a free lociety, be an entirely different kind )f government body than anv other •egulatorv agency? Should its power be far more restricted, its autonomy more carefully lircumscribed? Should the FCC be limited more specifically to purely technical maters such as channel allocations? Is he current structure and organizaion of the FCC designed to stifle. •ather than promote the growth of rree commercial tv? Answers to such questions are by 10 means easy. But SPONSOR is cerain thev should be more carefully explored than thev ever ha.ve been. And, to paraphrase Mr. Minow, :hey should be explored not only Irom the standpoint of "What more :an the industry do for the FCC?" I'H !II!IIIIIIIIIIIIII!!III!I!!!III![||IU "In the direct relationship between the FCC and the industry, it is likely the dispute will take the form of artful fencing, rather than a bloody duel." Jack Gould, New York Times WOULD A SHOW-DOWN BE BETTER? Critics like Jack Gould of the New York Times say there would be disadvantages for the commission and the industry if the Supreme Court ever had to rule on the right of the FCC to revoke a station license for programing reasons. Says Gould: "A decision against the commission would eliminate the powers of persuasion it now has; A decision against the industry could lead to vastly more intervention than now prevails." Many thoughtful broadcasters, however, declare they would welcome a real show-down on FCC power, rather than the shadowy, vague, unreal conditions of today. but also "What more can the FCC do for the industry?" 3. In a free country does the government, or even the public really "own the air?" This is one of the trickiest, and most deceptively simple questions that has ever been raised about American commercial broadcasting. Many unthinking individuals have hastily concluded that the answer is "yes." They have recklessly accepted the doctrine that "the people own the air" and have even more recklessly added, "and the government ought to run it." But more mature reflection will show that there is a very deep, philosophic point involved here. If you believe in free speech, free minium press, a.nd the freedom of the individual, then the so-called "public ownership" of any medium of communication is at best a very limited kind of ownership, if indeed it is ownership at all. It may be nothing more than a technical right to license. In any case, SPONSOR believes that this question should be aired in vigorous open debates, aimed a.t clarifying for the industry and for the public the delicate and complex issues involved. 4. What really are the causes of inferior programing? In the welter of critical comment about tv's program fare, there has been a great deal of wild speculation over causes. Yet, as TIO director Louis Hausman and others have pointed out, SPONSOR • 19 JUNE 1961 33