Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1946)

;^^^i^Section of TELEVISION DIGEST and FM REPORTS ^ December 21, 1946 KEEP yOU3 EYES OPEN: Watch out for hi^h-pressure, fast-talking promotex.s who peri odically infest radio — especially if you're a newcoming FMer or one of the 500-odd new AMers authorised this year. We hear they're abroad in the land again, promising all things to all broadcasters, particularly to the neophytes. Your best sources o_ information on their background and bona fides, aside from your own Washington attorney if you have one, arc your Better Business Bureau and the NAB. In any case, don't sign anything until you check thorough]^. Typical tactic, as reported to us by one broadcaster; Five FM grantees in midwestern state, accustomed to meeting occasionally to discuss mutual problems, allowed two strangers "to present network proposition." First they were told AI.'l operator in neighboring city had been "sold" project calling for 6 new AM outlets around the state, which strangers said they had contracted to build at $10,000 each and have on air by March. Then FMers heard promise that new network was prepared to spend as high as $35,000 for talent on single half-hour nrogram implying that "Crosby, Jolson and other top talent had already been signed an^that they would have 3,000 outlets before the end of next year.” Group was also told if they did not sign, new stations would be put in their respective cities. Contract blanks were offered. Next day the neighboring city AM operator phoned to say he also had been contacted, had been told the 5 FMers had signed. Close perusal of contracts, our informant says, revealed one contract would cost his FM station, which he describes as "network hungry," guarantee of $100 per day minus $40 which company would pay as compensation for 4 hours per day it agreed to buy. BLUE BOOK HETWOBKS AND NAB: it's apparent now the FCC really doe_sn't intend to thfi Blue Book." This week, it suddenly thrust upon networks the job of i^mitting lIiTs~^^tations offered, accepting or rejecting their sustaining programs for typical week (Nov. 17-23). Blue Book last March said this would be done quarterly, but Commission only now is getting around to it. You nan read all sorts of implications into this latest_m^ to implement Book — pre-censorship and threat of program control {against which NAB so bmerly. inveighs) ; made-work for already overburdened FCC staff and more useless statistics (of sort sure to get short shrift from new Congress when appropriations fofe up) ; nuisance upon networks (who would like affiliates to carry their sustainings, but don’t want government directly or indirectly forcing them to do so). So vou'll hear lots of shouting and tumult about this. Maybe one or another network will actually refuse to turn in data, thus precipitating what NAB' s President Justin Miller says he would welcome — a showdown in court or Congress on FCC s authority over programs or program structure. NAB makes no secret of its desire, indeed sirs it Lows of 2 stations which have declined to furnish specific programpromise dLa under the other (and main) phase of Blue Book requirements. The few Bonk "test" stations set for hearing (KMAC and KONO, San An tonlo: KBIX, Muskogee, Okla. : WTOL.'medo) haven’t made any move to question the FCC's iurisdiotlon over program structure, and apparently don t intend to. What they are doln” or plan to do, is what KMAC has done petition for reconsideration aL grant on grounds Blue Book citations of bad practice are either erroneous, due ?o u^JLtunatt circumstances, or corrected entirely by now. WBAL, Balt imore , ^the other Blue Book case set for hearing. Jan. 13. has made same plea, but its case is_ f^;ther complicated by Pearson-Alien application for facilities (Vol. 2, No. 38, 39). * * In NAB President Miller's recent speech (before Florida broadcasters), and again in his talks with newsmen at luncheon he gave them this week, you get idea of