Television digest with electronic reports (Jan-Dec 1959)

— 6 — option time to be reasonably necessary ... it will inevitably find itself more and more deeply involved in regulating the terms & conditions under which stations make their program choices. Regulation may well be required to provide adequate access for local & national advertisers, and local & national programs, during prime viewing hours. It is not unreasonable to conclude that a system of Commission rationing of station time among competing applicants may follow as a logical consequence.” Said dissenter Bartley: “In my judgment, networks would continue in existence in the absence of option time. This is not to say that I detect any particular public harm which has resulted from the restricted amount of time which the present rules allow a station to option to a network. Option time arrangements are clearly a business convenience as a sales tool for the networks, and serve as a shield against some defection from across-the-board clearances. On the other hand, however, the evidence in the record of the proceeding shows rather clearly that commercial network programs, both live and film, which had a high degree of quality and popularity, received substantial across-the-board clearance in station time.” Dissenter Ford put it this way: “I do not believe that the present option-time arrangement is the only device in the business relationship between stations and networks which is possible in order to preserve the benefits of the network system. A necessary feature of network operation is the obtaining of adequate station clearance for its programs. The business device of option time is one of the present means whereby that is achieved. There are undoubtedly other arrangements which would provide reasonable assurances that network programs would obtain satisfactory clearance and at the same time avoid the restraints of option time. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the networks now successfully program a number of hours outside of option time. The majority appears to recognize the correctness of this position in part when they conclude that option time is reasonably necessary but ‘this does not necessarily mean that all of the features of the present option-time arrangements are necessary.’ ” HELP ON EQUAL TIME: Broadcasters got some unexpected Congressional aid this week in their political equal-time troubles — which had been brought to a head by FCC’s ruling that a candidate is entitled to match newscast appearances by an office-holding opponent (Vol. 15:8-9). “Greatly distressed” by the 4-3 FCC interpretation of Sec. 315 of the Federal Communications Act in the Chicago Mayoralty campaign. Rep. Cunningham (R-Neb.) announced in the House that he would introduce legislation relaxing the rule. He invited others “to join me in sponsoring this or similar legislation.” At week’s end there was no big rush on Capitol Hill to line up with Cunningham on the issue, which never before had aroused much interest. But Rep. Pucinski (D-Ill.) told us he was so indignant over the FCC’s Chicago edict that he “undoubtedly will introduce legislation to repeal Sec. 315 — or at least put some sense in it.” “The bill I am preparing,” said Cunningham, “will relax the equal-time provision as it pertains to news coverage only. And it will spell out that the relaxation does not apply to coverage of individual candidates giving political talks, even when such political talks are part of the news coverage.” TV & radio newscasters aren’t “naive,” Cunningham assured the House. “They will watch & catch the candidate who is looking for a chance to turn such coverage into personal gain.” And, he warned — as did NAB, CBS & ABC — that “strict enforcement of the equal-time rule as it pertains to news coverage will cause less effective coverage of both public service activities and govt, news.” NBC hadn’t yet spoken on the issue, but was readying a blast. In his first formal statement on the Chicago case, NAB pres. Harold E. Fellows said this week that the FCC’s ruling was a “grave impingement upon legitimate news reporting.” The American Civil Liberties Union came to the broadcasters’ defense, too. On the Hill, Pucinski told us he was worried that the FCC’s ruling — if carried out to its limits — “could mean a TV blackout for the whole country during a national political campaign.” But the freshman member of the Chicago delegation said that right now he is particularly incensed by the possibility that the Sec. 315 interpretation would prevent telecasting of the traditional St. Patrick Day parade there March 17. Mayor Daley, Democratic nominee to succeed himself, will head the marchers. The St. Patrick’s Day issue was raised with the FCC by Stephen M. Bailey, gen. chairman of the parade. He wired the Commission that its equal-time decision “has been locally interpreted to preclude” televising of the event. He asked that the 4 Chicago TV stations be reassured that it will be “a legitimate news event,” unaffected by Sec. 315. The FCC responded quickly that it saw no reason why the Act or FCC interpretations “should preclude” any broadcasts of the parade. It’s “a matter within the control of the stations of your community, not the FCC.” Meanwhile, the man who started the Chicago rumpus — perennial candidate Lar (America First) Daly, who ran against Daley in the Democratic primary election and is now expected to become a write-in candidate — said he was ready to challenge FCC petitions by Chicago stations & the networks for reconsideration of the Sec. 315 ruling. Having won his point that Sec. 315 gave him the right to TV appearances equal to those made by Mayor Daley in newscasts, Daly asked the FCC to hold tight until it heard from him on the question of reconsideration. The FCC took no further action, but one Commissioner who voted on Daly’s side in the 4-3 ruling told us: “The law gives us absolutely no discretion. It gives us no authority to police the material — to determine whether a candidate’s appearance is news or a political pitch. Actually, the broadcasters always complain that the situation will be impossible during a campaign — but it usually works out quite well, with only a few rhubarbs. “If we started trying to draw a distinction between news clips and outright political appeals, you’d see some of the longest, most political news clips you ever saw. It’s up to Congress to change the situation if it wants to. But remember that Congress usually makes it tougher on broadcasters when it does change the law. For example, stations used to be able to charge a special higher ‘political rate,’ but Congress stopped that.” Said a Commissioner who voted against Daly rule: “This thing could be worked out to where I would be on the other side of the fence. You can’t make a hard & fast rule on it. But in this particular case I thought the claims by Daly for equal time weren’t warranted.” And in Chicago, Daly himself added this thought: “Right now [the stations’] best protection from the injustices of Sec. 315 is to lay off political coverage entirely. Put none of the politicians on the air. Otherwise, it is the established law, and the law is to be obeyed.”