Weekly television digest (Jan-Dec 1962)

2— TELEVISION DIGEST NOVEMBER 26, 1962 "Certainly the moral responsibility rests first on the tobacco manufacturer. Certainly it also rests on the advertising agencies. Certainly it also rests on the outstanding sports figures who permit their hero status to be prostituted." He concluded that broadcasters should "make corrective moves" on their own if others involved "have persistently failed to subordinate their profit motives to the higher purpose of the general good health of our young people." Speech received very little publicity, very little public reaction last week. This week will be different, as trade press gives it heavy play. Speaking for Tobacco Institute, Pres. George V. Allen (who, ironically, was once proposed as NAB pres.) said Collins "is incorrect when he suggests that cigarette advertising is designed primarily to influence" high-school-age children, and "Mr. Collins' statement about smoking applies a judgment of finality to questions of medical science that are complex and that are under study <S debate by scientists throughout the world." Networks, agencies, tobacco producers, were virtually mum otherwise, as far as public statements were concerned. But there was plenty of background furor, including renewed demands for Collins' scalp from those NAB members who have never considered Collins proper industry spokesman. Reached in Tallahassee last week, Collins told us he'd been considering the issue for some time: "I thought there was a growing need for an expression on this. I made it clear that I was expressing my own views — not a fixed policy of NAB, the Code or the NAB Board. I think it's well within the prerogatives of the NAB president to advocate against advertising particularly directed at beginning or very young smokers. For advertising directed at adults, it presents no moral issue. My view is directed at all media, not only broadcasting. "Some say I'm advocating abolition of all tobacco advertising, which is of course absurd. Some people are opposed to my position, but quite a few broadcasters say we need this kind of leadership. The broadcasters' perspective has got to grow bigger. It's the safest protection against outside intrusion. There's got to be bigger thinking. I went into this with my eyes open." Tobacco advertising on TV represents some $95-100 million in time & talent at network level, perhaps equal amount in spot. NIXON SHOW COOLING-OFF PERIOD: L' affaire Nixon-Hiss — ABC-TV's controversial Howard K. Smith show on Nixon's career, which included comment by Alger Hiss (Vol. 2:47 pi) — eased off substantially, and ABC seems to be coming up in fairly good shape. Bulk of national reaction leaned toward ABC position that it must have editorial freedom to present what it considers news. This was elucidated by its news chief James Hagerty in SVfc-min. telecast preceding Smith's Nov. 18 program. He said that he held no brief for Hiss, that Hiss featured prominently in Nixon's career and thus warranted an appearance — but that pre-show & post-show pressure by sponsors must be resisted on basic freedom-of-press grounds. FCC Chmn. Miaow echoed that with special statement Nov. 19: "Whether this particular program was in good taste is for the public to decide. The real issue transcends this particular program. The basic issue is the freedom & responsibility of broadcast journalism. To be responsible, broadcast journalism on all the networks & stations must be free. This means freedom not only from govt, censorship, but also from threatening pressure groups and from those few, fearful advertisers who seek through commercial reprisals to influence the professional judgment of broadcast newsmen." Then President Kennedy was asked about it in news conference, said : "I didn't see the program, but I thought Mr. Hagerty and Mr. Minow expressed the view with which I am in sympathy." Newspapers split all over place about it. Examples: Chicago Tribune rode ABC day after day. N.Y. Herald Tribune thought Hiss appearance was "poor judgment" but that advertisers who wanted to pull out showed "even poorer judgment ... a most irresponsible type of pressure that must be resisted by every purveyor of news." Washington Daily News said Hagerty was "talking hot air." It said he was free to put Hiss on any time he wants — "that is free speech." But, it added, ABC must be prepared to lose readers and/or advertisers — "that also is free speech." News thought ABC "simply sought to attract attention."