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.
WASHINGTON WEEK
News from nation's capital ot special Interest to admen
■jf^ Congressional wrath at takeover of legislative ana other powers by
federal agencies and departments is reaching the boiling point : * Thereought to be a law !" is current battle cry.
The forthright bill to slam the lid on any rulemaking by the FCC on the length or frequency of broadcast commercials, authored by Chairman of the House Commerce Communications Subcommittee, is typical. It La in part a ricochet from earlier hearings on broadcast editorializing.
In these hearings, to be resumed by Chairman Walter Rogers 18 Sept. , Congressional ire flared over FCC's blessing on broadcast editorializing. Worse, the Commission insisted on handling all controversial repercussion:under its own "Fairness Doctrine."
Rep. John Moss (D. , Cal. ) whose bill demands equal air time for candidates affected by station editorials, was outraged at FCC idea of having broadcaster select a spokesman for rebuttal. "I wouldn't want anyone to speak for me," said Moss.
FCC Chairman E. William Henry got nowhere with logical showing that Congress' own equal-time statute would leave licensees open to multiple demands if candidates did their own talking.
•jt^ Almost unremarked in the fracas, but under consideration by the subcommittee is a middle way suggested by Dr. Frank Stanton of CBS. If there must be legislation, Stanton suggests adding one more exemption to those listed under Sec. 315' s equal time proviso: exemption from equal time requirement would go to candidates answering an editorial over the station which opposed him or endorsed an opponent.
This would permit senators and congressmen to speak for themselves in editorial rebuttal — but would bar the chain reaction of multiple demands for station time by all others interested in the candidacy.
if it Even if the editorial hurdle is cleared, there remains Congressional skepticism about FCC's fairness doctrine in the infinite range of controversial and documentary programing.
Southern legislators especially are unimpressed by the FCC's recent tightening of fairness doctrine rules. It impressed broadcasters so painfully that NAB president LeRoy Collins has made anguished plea to the FCC to retract the July dicta, and let broadcast journalism go on breathing.
jfit Sen. Strom Thurmond icily questioned FCC's doctrine during last week' s hearings on preferential treatment to congressional station applicants— an unrelated topic but a handy forum.
Politeness was stiff as a starched collar during Sen. John Pastore's Communications Subcommittee hearings on Sen. Proxmire's bill to bar special consideration for Hill applicants. Thurmond was permitted to question FCC Chairman Henry.
What, said Thurmond, are the responsibilities of networks under the fairness doctrine9
0KS0R/9 SEPTFMBFR 1 WS