Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

VOL 16: No. 2 5 more about WHAT ROGERS WANTS: The most important portion of Attorney General William Rogers’ 54-page report to President Eisenhower (p. 2) deals with FCC’s powers over programming. Among other things, he said: “A review of existing authority indicates that the Commission may, without running afoul of Constitutional or statutory safeguards of freedom of speech, give considerable weight to advertising practices & programming in the context of licensing, rulemaking or investigative proceedings. It is true that the statutory provision relating to censorship and the First Amendment delineates the outer limits of the Commission’s powers. Yet, within those limits considerable scope is left for effective regulatory action. This would certainly be so with respect to deceptive practices as opposed to problems of taste. “Although the issue has never been squarely passed upon by the Supreme Court, in every case in which the question has been presented, the courts have upheld the Commission’s authority to concern itself with a licensee’s program policies & practices. No action by the Commission has ever been held by the courts to constitute censorship or to violate Constitutional protections of freedom of speech or of the press.” Accordingly, said Rogers, the Commission should “adopt a program of more intensive scrutiny of licensees’ past performances in connection with renewals.” He suggested that FCC might emulate the Internal Revenue Service, picking random stations for “a spot check in depth”; that it might require “narrative & detailed accounts of past operations, and, in addition to acting on specific complaints, choose a certain number of renewal applications or all the licensees in a particular community for close examination . . . The licensees would thus be put on notice that from time to time they might have to give a detailed accounting as to their operation in the public interest.” Rogers also recommended that FCC, using existing powers: (1) Require stations to take steps to assure themselves that their programs are honest. FCC’s “cease & desist” powers could be employed here — in preference to the drastic sanction of license revocation. (2) Require stations to take steps to make sure employes don’t accept payola — something FCC has already started in its payola questionnaire (see p. 3). (3) Require full disclosure of licensee or employe ownership in companies whose products benefit from broadcast exposure. For FTC, Rogers suggested that it move against broadcasters, as well as advertisers, in cases of false or deceptive commercials; that it call a conference to draft a broadcasting-advertising guide; that it start an “industrywide investigation of TV & radio advertising to determine the extent to which false, unfair or deceptive practices are used . . .” President Eisenhower acknowledged the report with a short statement asking Rogers to keep following the matter & make more recommendations whenever he sees fit. Unused broadcasting towers would have to be kept painted & lighted under legislation proposed by FCC in a letter from Chmn. Doerfer to House Speaker Rayburn (D-Tex.). FCC recommended that the Communications Act be amended so that regulations covering towers in use would apply to abandoned structures as well. Rayburn turned Doerfer’s letter over to the Commerce Committee. FCC PONDERS ITS POWERS: As the programming hearing lengthens and the transcript mounts into thousands of pages, FCC members continue to express satisfaction with their intense exploration of industry problems & panaceas and their own legal powers. Their questions become more pertinent as even the least experienced members become surer of the knowns & unknowns in the industry they regulate. Whatever FCC finally does as a result of the whole furore, one thing is certain: The action will be taken by a well-informed group. Summary of last week’s testimony: Rod Serling, brilliant TV writer-producer, cited instances of “ludicrous & timorous” sponsor interference with his writing — but he coupled this with a plea that the industry be permitted to set its own house in order. He admitted frankly he didn’t know what FCC could do to halt sponsor interference, and he expressed genuine fear of govt, censorship. Examples of sponsor blue-pencilling given by Serling include : Cutting the expression, “Have you got a match?” from a play — by a cigaret-lighter sponsor. Turndown of a script on Nazi atrocities in Warsaw ghettos because it was “downbeat, violent, dated.” Refusal of Army & Navy cooperation because certain characters weren’t representative of “all soldiers & sailors.” Food advertisers’ objections to themes which might disturb the digestion. But Serling was TV’s defender, too, noting that critics don’t mention “the responsibility of the daily press.” The press, he said, is just as preoccupied as TV “with making a buck, as opposed to striking a balance between the newsworthy & the tasteful.” “TV should not stand alone,” he said. “There should be a legion of co-defendants.” Keep Sponsor in Programming Peter W. Allport, vp-secy. of the Assn, of National Advertisers, asserted that sponsors must continue to have a voice in programming, that their investment entitles them to be “reasonably certain of commensurate value.” If sponsors are denied a voice in programming, he warned, they will turn to “other channels of communication.” “It is illogical,” he asserted, “to think the process of improvement will be stepped up by excluding from programming the one who has so much to gain from improvement — namely the advertiser.” He told the Commission that ANA has scheduled a special TV meeting of its members Feb. 2. James M. Ward, U. of Colo. radio-TV dept, dir., submitted a statement urging that the Commission have field investigators inform community groups “of ways in which they can become active in achieving desirable radio & TV.” Mrs. Edith Nolan Riley, of the San Francisco Motion Picture & TV Council, said steps should be taken to prevent the belittling of govt., religion & family life on TV — and that movies’ self-regulation “has fallen on its face.” Herman D. Kenin, American Federation of Musicians pres., attacked the TV-radio industry’s “insensitive, dollardominated attitude toward live music,” which he said had brought a “progressive dimunition” of jobs for his members. Pursuing another long-standing AFM complaint, he also protested use of canned foreign music in TV films — “dull, mechanical, paste-&-scissors music, for which no composer, arranger, copyist or instrumentalist — foreign or American — received one penny.” As remedies, he proposed that FCC “require broadcasters to program at least a given amount of live music” and “require all stations properly to label their music, and to explain its origin.” Reporting .on a poll of AFM locals, Keiua said returns