Television digest and FM reports (Feb-Dec 1947)

Everett Dillard's business manager, Hudson Eldridge. Commercial potentialities are also shaping up, with another sponsor in works and financial people even nosing around with idea of buying into project. T'iOBE APPLY, TV ROSTER SWELLS: Add this week's new TV grant (Dallas), two new applicants (Harrisburg and Hartford), and today’s TV boxscore amounts to: 12 stations on the air commercially, 56 CPs granted, 16 applications pending. In addition, there are several dozen experimentals — a few (like Don Lee's pioneer W6XA0 in Los Angeles, Farnsworth's W9XFT in Fort Wayne) in position to go commercial overnight. All these are detailed in Supp. 18-D herewith, bringing up to date our TV Directory. Dallas grant to millionaire Lacy-Potter interests (Vol. 3, No. 32) proved again FCC's eagerness to get TV rolling, for it came exactly one month after application to erect station in conjunction with plans for big new hotel with TV in every room. Assigned was Channel No. 8 (180-186 me), 35 kw visual power, 18.5 kw aural, 489-ft antenna. Grant also came as Philadelphia Inquirer's WFIL-TV was preparing for big formal debut Sept. 15 with 8 sponsors signed and more due soon. Next to take air probably will be Washington Star's WMAL-TV, shooting for Oct. 1 opening to take advantage (as WFIL-TV has) of extensive sports sponsorship. Harrisburg application is from WHP Inc. ( Stackpole-Telegraph interests), and stipulates Channel 8, with 30.9 kw visual and aural powers, transmitter atop nearby Blue Mtn. , RCA equipment, §190,065 construction cost. Hartford application is from Travelers (WTIC), stipulates Channel 10 (192-198 me), 15 kw visual power, 13.6 kw aural, transmitter at Avon, RCA equipment, §302,723 construction cost. Hartford filing follows by only few weeks that of Empire Coil Co., asking for same channel (Vol. 3, No. 35). Both Yankee Network (WONS) and Doolittle's WDRC are preparing applications for Hartford also, so hearing is indicated since area is assigned only 2 channels. Nor can Gannett 's WTHT be counted out. Hartford situation points up obvious development: Someone new applies in a city with limited channels, so existing stations quickly hop in. You'll see more of this henceforth. There's also eagerness to gain priority rights, as in case of Trenton's WTTM, preparing to file for city's sole channel threatened with extinction (Vol. 3, No. 33). FCC's INVITATION TO LEARNING: That "freedom to editorialize" hearing, opening before full FCC next Jan. 12, promises to be epochal in radio history. It v/ill evoke the most impressive brain-trusting ever to focus on any radio problem. In effect. Commission admits doubts about its famous 1941 Mayflower decision forbidding licensees "freedom to advocate" via their own facilities — enough doubt, at least, to seek advice from outside. Sessions will not only hear those who by Dec. 1 ask to appear; FCC is inviting some of nation's leading minds on the subject of freedoms secured by First Amendment — men like Roscoe Pound and Zechariah Chafee of Harvard, Robert Hutchins of Chicago U, other members of recent Commission on Freedom of Press. You can certainly count on NAB's appearance, probably President Justin Miller himself, let alone spokesmen for networks, stations, publishers, unions, perhaps even evangelists and atheists — and, doubtless, the inevitable Morris Ernst. Fact is. Judge Miller's constant harping on subject, demanding same unlimited freedom for radio as press enjoys, admittedly prodded FCC to latest action. He even carried issue to Senate committee (though not very successfully) , certainly will play upon it (as well as related code) at NAB convention. Those broadcasters who still don't go all the way with his thinking, preferring defined limits on their responsibility, should welcome exhaustive airing of subject by best available academic as well as practical thinkers. First inkling FCC was open to argument was discerned when leftish Comr. Durr confessed to a Columbia U conference, just after the Blue Book's promulgation, that he wasn't completely convinced that "a broadcaster cannot be an advocate" via his own facilities. Chairman Denny echoed Durr's mood at last year's NAB convention (Vol. 2, No. 43). Therefore, FCC proposes discussion of these issues: (1) whether expression of editorial opinions by licensees on matters of public interest and con