Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1962)

2— TELEVISION DIGEST AUGUST 13, 1962 FCC MAY BLOCK CHANGED CBS INCENTIVE PLAN: CBS may have cured its incentive plan contracts with affiliates, so that they no longer violate Sec. 3.658(a) of FCC's rules — but there's proposal under preparation at Commission to counter CBS's action by amending the rule. CBS had told Commission it doesn't agree that contracts violate rules, but it changed contracts anyway, to give affiliates same payment for hours carried under old "standard" contracts even if affiliates substitute other networks' offerings for CBS's (Vol. 2:26 p3). Idea under consideration Commission now would amend Sec. 3.658(a) so that incentive-plan compensation would be outlawed if affiliate substituted even non-network programs for CBS fare. It's understood this would be tied in with proposal to abolish option time. Predictions on final FCC vote are hazardous — because split on option time has been 4-3, Comr. Ford considered the "swing man." There's dispute within Commission as to whether amendment of Sec. 3.658(a) can be accomplished without further rule-making — whether or not industry has had ample opportunity to comment during optiontime rule-making proceeding. COLLINS TO DEFENSE OF CODES: Attack on NAB's TV & radio codes by July 30 Bioadcasting Magazine provoked NAB Pres. LeRoy Collins to strongest reaction to date, to publication frequently critical of his regime. Magazine editorialized that strong Codes would give FCC handy tool to control industry. It quoted FCC Chmn. Minow's recent statement: "I think it is within our power to do something about the number of commercials, and the industry itself has a code on how many commercials you can have on. I have suggested that if the industry is unable to enforce it, we will just take its own code, not touch it, just take it as it is and make it a rule that does apply to everyone." Said Bioadcasting: "If the broadcasters themselves, or a majority of them, assert that the code is a measurement of 'good' broadcasting, how can they object if the govt, agrees? In the long run it must be in j evitable that the FCC will look with suspicion on any renewal application that does not clearly indicate adherence to NAB standards." Collins' reaction in speech last week at meeting of Ga. & S.C. broadcasters' assns. : "The position taken in substance is that while the standards of good practice embodied in the Codes are all right to have hanging on the wall for the sake of appearances and individual guidance, we should make no concerted effort as an industry to enforce them. "Now over the years since the Codes have been established, broadcasters have been lambasted from within their own house and from without by those who have contended that the Codes have been meaningless without stronger enforcement. And it is ironic and disappointing, now that we are developing this kind of enforcement, that there are a few who would have the public as well as broadcasters believe that the Codes were not supposed to be enforced all along, and that, notwithstanding the soundness of their standards, each broadcaster in fact should be completely on his own. "Well, let me make this clear. We in NAB do not believe in this kind of deceptive double-talk. We do not regard our Codes as camouflage suits to make broadcasters appear to be something they are not. . . . "If anyone, in broadcasting or out, has any just complaint about how the Codes are being administered, he should speak out so all may hear and profit thereby. But to advocate weak, unenforced Codes is to advocate no mutual self-regulation and to give the American people the choice of broadcasting under the law of the jungle or under the law of the bureaucrat. And we of the NAB feel that neither course is sound nor necessary." Collins also spoke out on several other subjects, including: (1) Govt, relations. "We have not resorted to the easy formula of raining invectives down upon the heads of those in govt, who are charged with the function of regulating our industry. We leave that irresponsible luxury to those noisy individuals who either are not broadcasters or are not directly responsible to other broadcasters for the consequences of their actions. . . . "The proof of effectiveness in Washington, I submit, is not to be found in fiery rhetoric but in solid accomplishments. Our record of accomplishment with the Congress and the FCC speaks for itself. Never before have we met with more success."