Mr. BANNISTER. Well, sir, as an independent station operator, I certainly hope that the present radio law is rewritten and amended. If you and your committee encounter a lack of unanimity among broadcasters as to what should be or should not be included in this law, I hope you do not become exasperated or discouraged. Broadcasting seems to foster individualism. It is very difficult to find as many as three broadcasters who will agree about anything. Above that number, it is almost impossible.

The CHAIRMAN. I learned that a long time ago.

Mr. BANNISTER. Whatever you do, I hope that you do not permit the status quo to continue. Nothing could be worse than the current confusion, with bureaucracy running wild.

It seems to me, as an over-all observation, that sections 15, 16, and 17 are overly complicated, and they need simplification and clarification; else you are going to promote confusion rather than diminish it.

Section 15 states at the outset that no broadcaster need carry political broadcasting. I think it should also be stated that no station need carry a discusion of any specific public question. Of course, we are going to carry discussions of public questions. We strive constantly to attract and hold the largest number of listeners possible. Any question of sufficient importance is bound to be treated with full consideration by the radio station, and of course, both sides will be given equal opportunity. But I do not think we should clutter up the airways with endless visitations pro and con about the love life of the Hottentots, or how you can make a thousand dollars a day without working. It seems to me that if a licensee is worthy of a license in the first place, he should be trusted to decide when a question is of sufficient importance to be given time on his station; and I think the law should be crystal clear that there is no compulsion to throw open facilities.

Let me cite you a case to show you how the lack of such a proviso has promoted bureaucracy. You will pardon me if I talk about my own station, because I have to dig into my own experience for facts. On my own station, for 24 years we have tried, Senator, with every possible means at our disposal, to run the finest kind of a radio station we knew how. We have exceeded both the spirit and the letter of operation in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

I could bring here a truckload of testimonials to show how our efforts have been recognized. And yet, a few months ago, when our license came up for renewal, a Commissioner, a member of the FCC, voted against renewing our license; a fact which was widely publicized at the time, and which cast an unwarranted stain on a long and honorable record. Now, why did he do this? He did it, as he told our representative at the time, because 18 months prior we had become involved in one of those incidents which are inevitable in broadcasting. A professor, who was an eminent scientist, from one of the Midwestern universities, had been invited by one of our local groups to speak in our town. You can judge of the impact that the professor's appearance in Detroit made by the fact that the newspapers gave it only a few inches of space. Also you can judge from the fact that we have in Detroit numerous auditoriums that will hold from five to fifteen thousand people, and yet the sponsors of this appearance thought so little of the professor's drawing power that they scheduled his appearance in a school auditorium holding about 1,500 people. And the professor failed to fill the hall.

Nevertheless, I was urged to cancel a full hour of superb NBC programing in the heart of the best evening time to interrupt the listening habits of a million people, to chase off my station the majority of my vast audience, and carry this speech. I refused to do so. And because I refused to do so, I was cited to the Commission. Because of that citation, a commissioner voted against renewing my license. Maybe that is the way you want the radio system run; but I don't think you do. And if you don't want it run in that way, I think you ought to make the law specific.

Let me cite you another case. One of the most important controversial issues in this country today, perhaps the most important right this morning, is the revision of our labor laws. We have covered that subject thoroughly, comprehensively, and dispassionately for months. In addition to all the usual coverage, in our own newscasts and commentaries, and those of the network, we have a special program weekly that comes from Washington, right here, where our Washington correspondent, Mr. Blair Moody, sits down with four Senators and discusses legislation in the making. Some of the members of your committee have either been on that program, or have discussed an appearance on it with Mr. Moody.

Three of those programs were devoted entirely to the labor laws. We covered that thing from soup to nuts. We left no stone unturned. Nevertheless, last week I received insistent telegrams from both the A. F. of L. and the CIO that I carry special programs protesting against the enactment in the law of the Taft-Hartley bill. I refused to do that, because I thought we had already covered the matter completely and thoroughly. Also, had I carried these programs, I would have upset the balance that we had maintained to date, pro and con. I know I am going to be cited to the Commission. And I will be cited as being unfair. The record will reveal that we have been most fair. And yet I am reasonably certain that one commissioner will not agree that we have been fair. And unless you write something in the law about situations of that kind, we are helpless and unprotected.

The CHAIRMAN. We would welcome any definite suggestions you could make as to changes in the present law, or as to modifications by amendment.

Mr. BANNISTER. That one proviso that states that a station is not compelled to carry political broadcasting should also state, in my opinion, that no station is compelled to carry a program discussing any specific public question.

The CHAIRMAN. As the matter now stands in the pending bill, they do not have to. Of course, under the proposals pending before us, they are obligated to to give the other fellows a whack at the subject matter if they make time available in the first instance. But you are not obligated in the first instance to take any program you do not want to carry.

Mr. BANNISTER. Well, this case I cited of this professor, whose speech I did not carry, is a case in point. Apparently I got my neck into the noose for not doing that, despite the fact that the law leaves it to my discretion. The law says you do not have to carry a discussion of any specific public question.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you are speaking of the present law. I think it was intended that the language in this bill should cover that, and if the drafting is defective you can lay that largely to me.

Mr. BANNISTER. I would like to cover section 15, paragraph (d), which frankly rather frightens me. It says that if a question is up for a vote, and if we carry a discussion of that question, and if there are varying views, we must give equal time to each varying view.

What I am thinking about is a question that has been a burning issue in my town of Detroit for a number of years. We need desperately a modern airport, and we have been talking about it for years. And we have not got an airport. The reason we haven't is because so many sites have been suggested that we have been unable to achieve any meeting of minds.

Now, let us suppose that at our next municipal section we have a proposal on our ballot to construct an airport in what we call the northwest site, which most of our people favor, althought not a majority, apparently. That issue is of transcendental importance to our community. And we undoubtedly would give it a lot of treatment. But if we do, we will have to give equal time to what we call the Wayne County Airport site, to the Canadian airport site, to the Willow Run site, to the city airport site, and to the River Front site, all of which have been suggested. I shudder to think of our vast audience dwindling away at this endless talk of imaginary airports. Would it not be much better, in view of the fact that on the ballot, the proposal will be voted on "yes" or "no," if the affirmative and the negative sides were to be given equal allotments of time?

Similarly, in section 17, the first paragraph says that if you have a controversial question, and you open your facilities for its discussion, and there is more than one opposing view, you have to give the opposition twice as much time as you give the original proponents. Would not this make it possible for the opposition to any measure, through collusion, through deliberate collusion, by slightly varying their lines of opposition, or by greatly varying their lines of opposition, to get twice the opportunity of convincing our audience which is afforded to the affirmative side? It seems to me that is not in accord with the tradition of democratic principles. It seems to me it would be infiinitely better to lump the opposition in an allotment of time equal to that given the original proponents.

In section 18, where you cover news sources, frankly I do not quite understand that. In substance, it says that a news program must be identified as to source, fore and aft. But the content is a little clouded. It could be interpreted to mean that every item must be identified as to source. Now, on my station, we precede all of our news broadcasts with an announcement which says:

We now present the news as compiled from dispatches of the Associated Press, the United Press, the staff of the Detroit News, and WWJ.

But we make no effort to identify each specific item.

* *

Sometimes a newscaster himself may introduce an item by saying, "From Paris comes an Associated Press bulletin which says But I would hate to do that before every item. It would be tedious, boresome, and time consuming.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that the proposal in the bill is ample or responsive to your criticism, but it has to do with identification generally as to source and all editorial and interpretive comment at the beginning and at the end of the broadcast.

Mr. BANNISTER. Then it goes on and becomes a little bit complex in its meaning. There have been so many peculiar interpretations of

some of the regulations, that I would prefer to see the language a

little more specific.

The CHAIRMAN. Again I would say that we welcome your specific suggestion as to a change in the language.

Mr. BANNISTER. I will be very glad to submit it in writing subsequently, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be helpful to us.

Mr. BANNISTER. Commentators: that is another problem. Frankly, I think a lot of the commentators get pretty big for their breeches. I think American radio would probably be a lot better off without some of our highest rated commentators. But I dislike very much to see them regulated. And to my unlegal mind it looks like an infringement of the constitutional guaranties of free speech. Senator, we have sensationalism in every phase of our American life. I don't see how you can hope to keep it out of radio.

On my own station, and on the network with which we are affiliated, NBC, neither one of us goes in for sensation-seeking commentators. And my opposition, some of those boys, with their "flash-flash" language, have worked up some very big audiences which I would really like to annex. But I still don't think it is wise, and I think it is dangerous to regulate them. I think the answer to the commentator problem does not lie in attempting to prescribe it by law. I think the answer lies in helping radio to do the job it has done for a quarter of a century: that of slowly and steadily enlarging the knowledge, the consciousness of our people. And I think overregulation may hinder rather than help that work.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the basic thought of these sections definitely does not have the purpose of regulating or controlling in any way what a commentator or a newsman may say. The effort is designed to give equality of opportunity to everybody, and to give a knowledge to the listening public of who it is that is talking. And as I said before during these hearings, the effort is directed to making clear who it is that is talking, whether he is talking in his own behalf, whether he is talking at the instance of someone else, whether he is being paid by someone else, and who it is that is paying him. It is an effort to put before the people enough about the speaker and enough about the circumstances which lead him to speak, so that the people may judge not only the matter which comes over the air, but the responsibility of the person who is putting it out over the air.

Mr. BANNISTER. It is a very difficult and complex thing to do. The CHAIRMAN. Since I have been working on this bill, I have come to a keener appreciation than I have ever had before that it is a difficult problem.

Mr. BANNISTER. It is a very difficult problem.

The CHAIRMAN. And I am just asking for help.

Senator MAGNUSON. Do you think something should be done, or that it should be left as it is?

Mr. BANNISTER. If you could achieve the objective, sir, that Senator White just set forth, without infringing the constitutional right of free speech, I would say by all means do it. How you are going to do it, I do not know. I think it is very complex. But I think your first consideration should be not to interfere with free speech. Now, inside of that category, I would say whatever you want to do, go ahead and do it.

Senator MAGNUSON. I am sure that neither the Senator from Maine nor any one of us wants to interfere with free speech. What we are trying to get at is a method of making more information available to the people, so that free speech itself can be analyzed in the public mind.

Mr. BANNISTER. But as you undoubtedly will agree, sir, once you get started on the road of regulation, you don't know where you are going to end. If we could be assured that those who are going to enforce the law had the same intent as you gentlemen have, we would have no worries. But I am not sure that it is going to work out so well.

Senator MOORE. These commentators are sponsored, of course, by some commercial advertiser.

Mr. BANNISTER. Generally they are, sir.

Senator MOORE. Are they not always? It was my understanding that they were sponsored, unless the program was presented by the station. And these sponsors pay the station for their time.

Mr. BANNISTER. Generally, sir; not always.

Senator MOORE. Otherwise, it would be a public service that the station was rendering.

Mr. BANNISTER. Either the station or the network may do it as a public service, sir. That has frequently been done.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish I could impress on you that neither I nor any other member of the committee who had a part in the drafting of these proposals is frozen in our support of any of them.

As I said, when we introduced the bill, we were just running up a sort of lightning rod to see what we would draw from the public and those in the radio industry in the way of either comments or criticisms. And I have repeatedly said to witnesses that I do not want them to pull their punches. If they want to make comments or criticisms, they can do so without giving any offense to us.

Senator MAGNUSON. Do you have local commentators on your station?

Mr. BANNISTER. Yes, sir, we always have.

Senator MAGNUSON. And you hire them?

Mr. BANNISTER. Well, sir, you see, we are owned by a newspaper. The newspaper has a number of writers who are specialists. We occasionally use them as commentators.

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, all commentators are introduced as experts and specialists.

Mr. BANNISTER. But here is a fellow who has covered a beat on a newspaper for 20 years. If he just had average human intelligence, he would become expert at that work.

Senator MOORE. That is really newscasting, is it not?

Mr. BANNISTER. No; they are commentators. That is entirely apart from our newscasters. Our newscasters report the news. Senator MAGNUSON. They are just a voice?

Mr. BANNISTER. They are just a voice. They report the news. Senator MAGNUSON. Then you have, following the news, a news analyst.

Mr. BANNISTER. A fellow who analyzes the news; yes,

Senator MAGNUSON. And he is always an expert. I have not yet heard one who has not been introduced as an expert. Mr. BANNISTER. That is right.