Sponsor (Apr-June 1962)

and strengthen itself competitively, the problem is not as simple as it nun seem. The fact is that in mam major cities variet) ahead) exists when you lake the radio service as a whole. If this is what the Chairman meant, he didn't sa) so. Instead, he made broadcasters recall the discussion of some time ago ahout the need for "program balance" on a station-perstation basis. 1 hope this doesn't mean that ever) station playing popular music must play some symphonies because, in all fairness, it will also mean that all stations playing symphonies will have to schedule some rhythm and hlues every now and again. Or does "program balance" reall) work only one wa) as an instrument to force FCC tastes and preferences on the American people? I don't know where Mr. Minow heard a drama on radio, hut in case he hadn't been told, drama is a hit more exciting on television, and most radio broadcasters recognized this a long time ago. As for children's programs. 1 am all in favor of them, being associated with a company which was one of the first to experiment in this field, provided we find any evidence that children can be attracted to radio for this kind of fare. Tt is certain!) worth thinking about. children's programs One word of caution here — prudent radio broadcasters must not confuse so-called "children's programs" with entertainment programs which might appeal, among other people, to teenagers. Anybody who has programed music considered to have such an appeal knows that this is an unfashionable course to follow. So perhaps Mr. Minow could be helpful bv suggesting a cut-off age — 11, perhaps 12 — when "children's programs" fa worth-while project) become "teenage" programs (a not-soworth-while project). If radio broadcasters are in as much trouble as Mr. Minow savs they are. and if they now follow his implied program suggestions and stay awav from the things he apparent l\ doesn't like, they are almost guaranteed to have more trouble than before. You may consider it unfortunate or not. but the American people simply do not listen to a radio station for program "categories" which look good on paper in Wash ington, D. C. headquarters of the FCC. The people who listen to radio far more than Mr. Minow imagines and probabl) for different reasons have various choices, among which is the ever-present one of being able to turn their radios off completely. Here and there Mr. Minow came (lose to some important realizations. He did sa\ '"Radio's function as a news medium is of essential value to this country. More people are apt to hear of a major news event from radio than from any other medium of communication." (This fact is hard to reconcile with \lr. Minow s conception of low radio usage, but let's be charitable and assume that he has had his first brush with ratings and that he may learn to interpret them better in the future.) His only conclusion from this recognition of radio's unique ability to disseminate news was that the radio networks ought to be allowed to own more radio stations than am other licensees so that they would be better able to stay in the news-gathering business. Now Mr. Minow is a lawyer and I am not. but it is inconceivable to me that such a proposition could stand up in court when it is patently discriminatory in treating one licensee differently from another on such a basic matter as ownership limitation. This idea may even be outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. In effect. Mr. Minow is proposing that the FCC bolster the radio networks, which it does not regulate, through the device of expanding their ownership of stations, which the FCC does regulate. Why not suggest that newspapers be allowed to own more radio stations? Many of them are in deep financial trouble and some profitable radio stations might keep them in business as well. I am afraid that Mr. Minow is a dreamer — he hopes that by increasing the size of the library reading room he is going to get more people to read the right books. I must say truthfully that this suggestion— while distressing in what it reveals about Mr. Minow's thinking — would be very attractive to our company, the Straus Broadcasting Group. We own and operate Radio Press International, a voice news service with over 100 station subscribers on the North American con tinent. RIM furnishes the same kind ol news to its independent subscriber as the networks do to their affiliates. Despite the fact that RPI would obviousl) be in line for a subsidy under Mr. Minow's plan, we still view it as a disci iminatoix proposal. The most publicit) was given to Mr. Minow's complaints about commercials. He thought there were too many. Hi^ suggestion was that every* bod) join the NAB and follow the Code. Governor LeRo\ Collins of the NAB didn't let am grass grow under his feet. He was quick to propose that advertisers in effect blacklist station which do not subscribe to the NAB Code. another code Does this mean that no station which does not subscribe to the Code has standards which are at lea-l as good — or better? Vren't there any competent doctors who don't belong to the AM A? I don't know if anyone has explained this to Mr. Minow, but the NAB is only one of several private industry organizations. \\ bile industry organizations perforin certain useful functions whether in broadcasting, medicine, or steel — we seriously question whether among these useful functions is pla\ ing the role of arbiter of moral standards or censor of programing content. The NAB has already urged television networks to allow them to pre-screen upcoming programs, and from this point it's but a short step to suggesting something similar for radio stations. Mr. Minow keeps insisting that he is opposed to FCC censorship, yet he seems to be toying with a form of unofficial censorship. But as I said — I too am concerned about commercials and the real problem of over-commercialization in radio. As a matter of fact, last Sunday I was listening to a radio station which carried too many commercials, and I wanted to twist the dial. Unfortunately. I had picked up the New York Times that morning and had sprained my wrist lifting its hundreds of pages of ads off the front steps — so I couldn't exercise the free choice which all other listeners had at that moment. But to be serious again. I am keen1\ aware of the dangers of over-commercialization in radio. The simple solution seems to be to establish a 46 SPONSOR 7 may 1962