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.
SPONSOR SPEAKS_
Why we dislike Red Channels
\\ hen sponsor began its behind-thescenes probing of Red Channels we knew that we risked offending many readers. We were told that a number of people consider Red CJmnnels more good than bad because of the roadblock it presents to sly Communist infiltration; that any criticism we might level on Red Channels or its publishers would be construed as weakening the work of all anti-Communists.
We considered this point. We weighed this against our abhorrence of indiscriminate censorship, tear-down of the democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty, unethical business practices (all of which Red Channels had been accused of frequently) and
we decided to go ahead.
Our objective, when we began, was not to attack Red Channels. Rather, an alert trade paper we wished to examine the facts, and their consequences, for the benefit of sponsors seeking just means of dealing with talent accused of Red loyalties. If our articles (of which the one on page 32 is the third and last) lean heavily in the direction of what is bad about Red Channels it's only because the weight of our interpretations lead us that way.
Since beginning our series the ratio of commendation to criticism has been about 10 to one. But among the critics have been people for whom we have great respect. Perhaps some of them misunderstand our basic motives and conclusions. We hope that the foregoing statements, and those that follow, will give them reason to change their opinions.
Our study has convinced us that Red Channels does not provide the best safeguard. More than that, we consider its means of operation a threat to the freedom of broadcast advertisers. We question the validity of its sources (the Daily Worker is surely not "meticulously accurate"). We consider reprehensible its pressure assaults on sponsors (egging on its letter-writing corporal guard to exploit the sensitivity of advertisers) . What's more, we believe the blacklisting tactics that it has advanced are just plain bad business
procedure for radio and TV sponsor.
We are in firm agreement with Fortune Magazine, which pointed out in a recent article ("What Mother Aldridge Might Have Sold"), that businessmen who knuckle under to the pressures of Red Channels are evading their moral responsibility to the democratic community. As Fortune says:
"It makes all the difference whether our business world merely pays lip service to the Bill of Rights and to such words as 'freedom' and 'non-discrimination,' or actually lives by the principles inherent in them."
We understand that the book-publishing industry, whose freedom of speech is now also threatened by Counterattack, the weekly periodical put out by the publishers of Red Channels, is seeking a unified course of action. It is time that the radio and TV industry, too, put up a bold, united front against private inquisitioners. Bob Kintner devised a simple logical solution. The AFRA-industry committee is a step in the right direction. But, regrettably, too few are employing the AFRA formula. It is hoped earnestly that more people in the industry get behind this group's efforts; and if its present procedures do not seem to be working out, devise other constructive measures. Some safeguard against the insidious encroachments of Communism is needed, but indiscriminate blacklisting is not the democratic way.
Applause
The TV code
About one month from now the TV Board of the NARTB will meet in Washington to place into operation a historic TV Code.
TV stations, who showed an amazing degree of unanimity in approving the Code last month in Chicago, will shortl) thereafter start displaying the Code "Seal of Approval" indicating llial llie\ Mibscribe to its linn, farsighted principles and adhere to spccific findings of the six-man Review Board after appro\al b\ the i\ARTB TV Board.
Mm new Code appears as somewhat of a miracle. To many an advertiser and broadcaster it appears to have sprung full grown (full of wisdom)
from an industry that has not been noted heretofore for success with program policing.
But despite appearances the TV Code is no miracle. It profits by the code efforts of the radio industry, by the mounting clamor (justified, too) of the public and Congress.
Once in operation, with unselfish backing by stations, networks, and sponsors, the future of the Code is assured. The big tests will come when the Review Board and the NARTB TV Board have made their first remedial decisions. Will advertisers, agencies, nri works, and stations back up their decisions? We think they will.
This remarkable Code, which can mean much in TV's future, is what it is because a group of men gave unselfish
ly of their time and knowledge to put it into words. These men, headed bv Robert D. Swezey, WDSU-TV, New Orleans, were Harry Bannister, WWJTV« Detroit: James Caddigan, DuMont Network; Walter J. Damm, WTMJTV; Milwaukee; Clair R. McCollough, WGAL-TV, Lancaster; James C. Hanrahan. WEWS, Cleveland; Harold Hough, WBAP-TV, Fort Worth: Paul Raibourn, KTLA. Los Angeles; J. Leonard Reinsch, WSB-TV, Atlanta: Henry Slaviek. WMCT, Memphis: Davidson Taylor, NBC; Donald W. Thornburgh. WCAU-TV, Philadelphia. Working closelv with them were Eugene Thomas. WOR-TV and chairman of the board of NARTB-TV; Justin Miller, board chairman, NARTB; Thad Brown, director of NARTB TV section.
88
SPONSOR