Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1960)

As we have said above, the principal ingredient of the licensee’s obligation to operate his station in the public interest is the diligent, positive and continuing effort by the licensee to discover and fulfill the tastes, needs and desires of his community or service area, for broadcast service. To enable the Commission in its licensing function to make the necessary public interest finding, we intend to revise Part IV of our application forms to require a statement by the applicant, whether for new facilities, renewal or modification, as to: (1) the meaures he has taken and the efforts he has made to determine the tastes, needs and desires of his community or service area, and (2) the manner in which he proposes to meet those needs and desires. Thus we do not intend to guide the licensee along the path of programming; on the contrary the licensee must find his own path with the guidance of those whom his signal is to serve. We will thus steer clear of the bans of censorship without disregarding the public’s vital interest. What we propose will not be served by pre-planned program format submissions accompanied by complimentary references from local citizens. What we propose is documented program submissions prepared as the result of assiduous planning and consultation covering two main areas: first, a canvass of the listening public who will receive the signal and who constitute a definite public interest figure; second, consultation with leaders in community life — public officials, educators, religious, the entertainment media, agriculture, business, labor — professional and eleemosynary organizations, and others who bespeak the interests which make up the community. By the care spent in obtaining and reflecting the views thus obtained, which clearly cannot be accepted without attention to the busipness judgment of the licensee if his station is to be an operating success, will the standard of programming in the public interest be best fulfilled. This would not ordinarily be the case if program formats have been decided upon by the licensee before he undertakes his planning and consultation, for the result would show little stimulation on the part of the two local groups above referenced. And it is the composite of their contributive planning, led and sifted by the expert judgment of the licensee, which will assure to the station the appropriate attention to the public interest which will permit the Commission to find that a license may issue. By his narrative development, in his application, of the planning, consulting, shaping, revising, creating, discarding and evaluation of programming thus conceived or discussed, the licensee discharges the public interest facet of his business calling without government dictation or supervision and permits the Commission to discharge its responsibility to the public without invasion of spheres of freedom properly denied to it. By the practicality and specificity of his narrative, the licensee facilitates the application of expert judgment by the Commission. Thus, if a particular kind of educational program could not be feasibly assisted (by funds or service) by educators for more than a few time periods, it would be idle for program composition to place it in weekly focus. Private ingenuity and educational interest should look further, toward implemental suggestions of practical yet constructive value. The broadcaster’s license is not intended to convert his business into “an instrumentality of the federal government neither, on the other hand, may he ignore the public interest which his application for a license should thus define and his operations thereafter reasonably observe. “"The defendant is not an instrumentality of the federal government hut a privately owned corporation.*’ Mclntire vs. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co., 151 F. 2d 597, 600. Numbers of suggestions were made during the en banc hearings concerning possible uses by the Commission of codes of broadcast practices adopted by segments of the industry as part of a process of self-regulation. While the Commission has not endorsed any specific code of broadcast practices, we consider the efforts of the industry to maintain high standards of conduct to be highly commendable and urge that the industry persevere in these efforts. The Commission recognizes that submissions, by applicants, concerning their past and future programming policies and performance provide one important basis for deciding whether — insofar as broadcast services are concerned— we may properly make the public interest finding requisite to the grant of an application for a standard, FM or television broadcast station. The particular manner in which applicants are required to depict their proposed or past broadcast policies and services (including the broadcasting of commercial announcements) may, therefore, have significant bearing upon the Commission’s ability to discharge its statutory duties in the matter. Conscious of the importance of reporting requirements, the Commission on Nov. 24, 1958 initiated proceedings (Docket No. 12673) to consider revisions to the rules prescribing the form in content of reports on broadcast programming. Aided by numerous helpful suggestions offered by witnesses in the recent en banc hearings on broadcast programming, the Commission is at present engaged in a thorough study of this subject. Upon completion of that study we will announce, for comment by all interested parties, such further revisions to the present reporting reqirements as we think will best conduce to an awareness by broadcasters of their responsibilities to the public and to effective, efficient processing by the Commission, of applications for broadcast licenses and renewals. To this end, we will initiate further rule making on the subject at the earliest practicable date. Adopted: July 27, 1960 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMR. HYDE I believe that the Commission’s “Interim Report and Statement of Policy” in Docket No. 12782 misses the central point of the hearing conducted by the Commission en banc, Dec. 7, 1959, to Feb. 1, 1960. It reiterates the legal position which was taken by the Federal Radio Commission in 1927, and which has been adhered to by the Federal Communications Commission since it was organized in 1934. This viewpoint was accepted by the executives of the leading networks and by most other units of the broadcasting industry as well as the National Association of Broadcasters. The main concern requiring a fresh approach is what to do in the light of the law in the matters presented by many witnesses in the hearings. This, I understand, is to be the subject of a rule-making proceeding still to be initiated. I urged the preparation of an appropriate rule-making notice prior to the preparation of the instant statement. I also disagree with the decision of the Commission to release the document captioned “Interim Report by the Office of Network Study, Responsibility for Broadcast Matter, Docket No. 12782.” Since it deals in part with a hearing in which the Commission itself sat en banc, I feel that it does not have the character of a separate staffstudy type of document, and that its release with the Commission policy statement will create confusion. Moreover, a substantial portion of the document is concerned with matter still under investigation process in Docket No. 12782. I think issuance of comment on these matters under the circumstances is premature and inappropriate. A Service of Television Digest This special supplement is sent to all TELEVISION DIGEST subscribers. Additional reprints available at 50c each; 10 copies $3.00; 25 copies $5.00.