I was in Washington right after Pearl Harbor, and I learned pretty accurately, I think, just what the disaster was. One of the men that you hear on the radio and whom we carried in one of our newspapers, as a columnist, sent to us information of how many battleships, how many cruisers and destroyers and everything else that had been sunk out there. He wrote a letter to our paper, as he did to all the papers carrying his column, and insisted that we run that-that he had a right to tell the American people. I did not agree with him. I thought at that time it was wrong. It would do nothing but damage to this country. I had been in Washington, and when I got back to Asheville the editor showed it to me. I said, "Don't run it. It is substantially correct in my opinion, but don't run it." He finally withdrew it himself.

But those things come up all the time, and there are situations coming up that you just cannot write out, spell out, in any law.

Now, I am not going to take up a lot of your time, Senator, I have talked to you before and enjoyed it, and in general our philosophy in this radio problem is the same. Maybe if I was in Maine, I would vote the Republican ticket and you might vote the Democratic ticket if you were back home. But, generally speaking, I think our characters are about the same; we just differ in some ideas.

And I would try, if I had the responsibility, to write three or four lines on the question of what a broadcaster should do in the handling of political and controversial subjects. And that is that the broadcaster must treat all comers fairly and without prejudice in the broadcasting of political speeches and talks on controversial subjects. And I would limit it right there.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will write a code covering this particular matter about which you are talking and file it here with us, it will be read with interest.

Mr. ELIAS. I will be glad to undertake that. I have talked to you and Senator Wheeler before you, and others, and I know it is difficult. But I think what we need is less in the law. Because when you start trying to amplify, you just allow more and more interpretation. If you can approach it affirmatively and say to me, a broadcaster, "You have to treat all comers fairly and without prejudice," and then you come to me and find that I have just gone in the opposite direction, and the evidence showed that I was not fair, then it is time to say, "You are not operating in the public interest, and out the window you go." That is all right. I am with you when you do that.

But when the problem comes up, I think the broadcaster, the responsible man, has to take it. We make a lot of mistakes. A lot of the programs, I know, are not good. A lot of the programs in the newspapers are not good. A lot of programs of the Senators are not good.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going too strong now.

Mr. ELIAS. When enough people do not like their programs, they eliminate them. The economic factor has eliminated a lot of newspapers.

Senator MOORE. It will eliminate a lot of Senators, don't you think? The CHAIRMAN. We must stick to the proposition of our economic infallibility as Senators. If that concludes your statement, we thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Elias is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DON S. ELIAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RADIO STATION WWNC, WHICH IS WHOLLY OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES Co., ASHEVILLE, N. C., AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TIMES CO., WHICH PUBLISHES THE ASHEVILLE CITIZEN AND ASHEVILLE TIMES

My name is Don S. Elias. Some 4 years ago, in November 1943, I appeared before some of you distinguished gentlemen to urge passage of a new radio law. That was on the occasion of consideration of the so-called White-Wheeler bill (S. 814). That bill died a-borning I believe.

I appear before you again today in a similar role. I believe the supreme need of American radio is a new radio law that will clearly and unmistakably establish the essential freedom of radio against even the suspicion, not to say the accomplished fact, of governmental censorship or manipulation.

The legislative vehicle before you, the bill of Senator White, is designed to achieve the end of appropriate regulation of the dynamic radio medium. With some of its provisions I am in hearty accord. But I recognize in it many of the provisions of the White-Wheeler bill which failed of enactment, I assume, because it failed to find favor in Congress, with the regulatory authority, or with the industry.

Being a newspaper publisher and a broadcaster, rather than a lawyer, I first turned to the section-by-section analysis of the White bill upon its introduction. I found myself in sympathy with much of it. But, quite frankly, when I read the bill itself, I discovered provisions which seemed to fall far short of or go beyond the goal sought.

From preceding witnesses you have heard about specific objections to provisions of the bill as now written. With much of what has been said I am in agreement. I differ with certain of my colleagues however, in respect to a few provisions, to which I will presently address myself.

First, let me say that I concur in those provisions of the measure which are designed to prohibit the licensing authority from—

1. Discriminating against station ownership, such as newspaper ownership of stations.

2. Regulating the business of broadcasters.

3. Invoking the so-called AVCO procedure of open bidding in station transfers. There are other provisions in the measure, which I feel are highly desirable but which, because of qualifications, seem to me to undo the very ends sought to be accomplished.

Considerable stress, I note, has been placed upon the so-called political and controversial issues sections of the White bill, designed to provide equal opportunity and access to the microphone. Unlike some of those who have testified, I feel that stations should be held liable for that which is broadcast over their facilities. The broadcaster, in my judgment, must assume the responsibility of and, therefore, have the authority to censor libelous, slanderous, or false accusations. There is strong doubt in my mind whether Congress can legislate in such a manner as to save the broadcaster harmless in such instances.

It seems to me the legislative effort to regulate and control political broadcasts and discussions of controversial issues will be the cause of much confusion, controversy, and dissatisfaction on the part of the public and the broadcasters. The answer to every problem which arises in the day today operation of radio simply cannot be spelled out in a legislative enactment.

I respectfully submit that the end which your committee seeks could be achieved through the device of a simple mandate in the law which, in substance, would require that all broadcasters treat fairly and without prejudice all qualified candidates for public office, and their duly authorized spokesmen, and that they be given substantially equal opportunities on the air.

In other words, I would urge the committee to provide for what might be described as "censorship of accusation" by the station licensee, but not "censorship of argumentation."

In examining the record of these hearings last week, I have noted that there exists considerable confusion as to the recognition of radio on equal footing with the press. I am both a publisher and a broadcaster. In my two score years in the newspaper business and nearly a score in radio, I feel I am qualified in some small way to compare the media.

Radio, to me, is an electronic printing press. It is as simple as that. We publish two newspapers in Asheville. We have one broadcasting station, with

another coming up-an FM outlet. Wet get national and international news for our newspapers from the press associations. We supplement that with local news, gathered by our city staff. We buy syndicated columns and comics and other features. We sell local and national advertising.

For our radio station, we get national and international news from the same press associations. We get national program service, including news, from the Columbia Broadcasting System, which, in a measure, is the counterpart of the news association. We buy syndicated features by transcriptions. We have access to local news and programs through departments of our broadcasting station created for those functions.

My function as an executive of the newspapers varies little from my duties as director of our station. The only difference may be that I am constrained to spend more time on the radio end because it is a more dynamic, a faster moving medium-and because we have the competition of four other stations in town.

We publish the only newspapers in our city. Once there was competition. We consolidated because it was economically inadvisable to compete. By joining forces, we were enabled to give our subscribers better newspapers.

I've read a lot in the record about the "limitation" factor in available assignments in radio being responsible for some degree of program and business control. The condition I cite as to radio in Asheville is typical of almost every city in the country. There are more stations than newspapers today. I doubt whether that situation will obtain 2 or 3 years from now.

There has been lots of testimony about the vast increase in the number of stations. We are told that FM will make possible the licensing, not of a mere 1,000 stations, but of 5,000 stations in the next few years.

There has been no testimony, however, about stations which have gone off the air. I recall that in 1927 or 1928, there were upward of 100 so-called educational and religious stations on the air. Today, I believe the records will show, there are about two dozen. That's because they couldn't stand the economic gaff. And that means only that they didn't please a large enough segment of the audience to justify their economic existence.

Which gets us to the question of program control, which has consumed more space in this record than any other subject. Properly so.

American radio has a censor. He is Mr. Average Citizen. He lives within easy range of many stations. He is the master of the situation. With a slight twist of the knob, he can turn thumbs down on any and every station.

There are some 1,700 standard stations scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land. These stations are owned and operated by American citizens of all political faiths, of all religious beliefs, of all economic classes. We are Jews and Protestants and Catholics. We are Republicans and New Dealers and Democrats. There may be a Mugwump or two among us. We are isolationists, interventionists, internationalists. We are economic royalists and semipaupers and all the financial stages between these extremes.

If there be among us some who in their programing policies are inclined to give preference to their own religious or economic or political faiths, there are others with opposite preferences to give similar priority to our beliefs. The net result is a fair approximation of the political and economic and religious diversity of the American people. What more can you ask of radio in a free country?

The essential freedom of radio is safer in the hands of these 1,700 broadcasters and the legions to come in FM and television-than in the custody of 7 men domiciled in Washington. This is not said to flatter broadcasters or depreciate the capabilities of the gentlemen who compose the Federal Communications Commission. We broadcasters are more representative of the varied social, economic, political, and geographical pattern which is the United States of America. We are necessarily closer to the listeners for whom radio exists; therefore, more sensitive to the disciplines of listener opinions.

There is a grave peril to radio freedom implicit in the very fact that stations must be licensed. When the original Radio Act was written in 1927, licensed broadcasting was held necessary, regrettably so, because of the physical and technical limitations on radio. That was Senator White's intent when he was a Member of the House. He often has inveighed against bureaucratic efforts to control the business and program aspects of radio.

The old argument was that if there was a superabundance of wave lengths, Federal licensing would be needless and perhaps an unconstitutional invasion of the domain of free speech. The march of electronic science since 1927, in a practical way, has achieved that goal of superabundance, for even Chairman Denny

testified that he thought the rigin of westerton would result in the demise of many mang waters in the monina abend.

* no answer to extend that there is a limit to the experity of the Nothing is mis est, but even the grains of sand on the beaches, The answer in radio is that empoble attration is being achieved ahead of exbanation of "te graal waseengthe athlabe

So I make the plea to pon gentlemen that if we are to preserve for the American Lepe Le maximum broadcasting freedom, the Congress minst make certain that The power to Drense does not bemette the power to throttle. Every station must have the genratre that as long as it ones, the rules and adheres to the policies defined by Congress, Sta Teebee will be wrote aglinst bureaneratic aggression. in the drafting of new egidation, you gentemen carry a tremendous respotsibisty We hope we have convinced you that radio is what I have heard called Mandibee journablem We hope we have burled "be "limitation” hoax. just as you hase best, rotsinced over the years that newspapers should not be denied the prislege of station operation.

We ask you to see to it that the freedom of broadcasting is in.bedded in the basic radio law so that those who administer that law will understand it beyond shadow of doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when we recess, we will recess until tomorrow morning at 19 o'clock. There are a number of witnesses scheduled for tomorrow, Mr. Rolf Kaltenborn of the Committee to Ensure Non-Partisan Radio, Mr. Gordon H. O'Riley, vice president and general manager of the Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Rear Adm. S. C. Hooper, radio consultant. Richard J. Hubbell, television consultant, Sam Morris, National Temperance and Prohibition Council. Rev. Dale Crowley, secretary, National Religious Broadcasters, Washington, D. C., and a representative of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, whose name I do not have at this time.

I am not sure whether we will be able to have a session tomorrow afternoon. I think we will have to confine ourselves to morning sessions for 2 or 3 days. That, however, is not decisive. We will have to determine upon the matter.

We will recess now until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., June 24, 1947.)

TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1947

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON

INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee room, the Capitol, Senator Wallace H. White, Jr. (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators White, Moore, and Johnson of Colorado.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

We have six or eight witnesses scheduled for this morning. We will not hold an afternoon session, so I hope the morning witnesses will be as brief as is possible, so that we may conclude with the six of them this morning.

There will be a meeting of the committee on Wednesday morning, and then I think we will have to go over until Friday, because Thursday we must give to other business of the committee.

I will repeat that for the benefit of those of you who are interested: There will be a meeting this morning, and a meeting tomorrow morning, an executive committee meeting on Thursday, with no witnesses on this matter in attendance, and we shall hope that if we do not conclude the hearings on Friday, we will at least be well along on that road.

Now, this morning, the first witness scheduled is Mr. O'Riley of Aeronautical Radio, Inc.

Is Mr. O'Riley here?

STATEMENT OF GORDON H. O'RILEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC., REPRESENTED BY DONALD C. BEELAR, ON BEHALF OF AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC., WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BEELAR. Mr. Chairman, Mr. O'Riley, vice president of Aeronautical Radio, could not be present this morning, and Mr. D. W. Rentzel, the president, is absent from the city. So in their absence, I have been asked to give their testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a prepared statement?

Mr. BEELAR. Yes, sir; it has been filed with the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I express the hope to you, as I have to almost every witness, that your oral testimony will be supplemental, or in the nature of a summary of what is in your written statement.

Mr. BEELAR. My name is Donald C. Beelar, of the firm of Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, the senior resident partner of which is Louis C. Caldwell. We are counsel for Aeronautical Radio, Inc.,