Number of radio stations and daily newspapers in NBC network station cities-Continued

4N. W. Ayer & Son's Directory-1947. Morning and evening editions of a paper published under separate names have been considered as 2 papers.

City zone circulation not shown. Figures given indicate largest daily paper total circulation.

Mr. TRAMMELL. In the cities in which we own stations, I would like to show you how the comparison runs between newspapers and radio. New York City has 17 standard band stations, compared with 11 metropolitan newspapers. Chicago has 15 stations, and 5 newspapers, Denver has 6 stations and 2 newspapers. Washington has 7 stations and 4 newspapers. Cleveland has 6 stations and 2 newspapers. San Francisco has 7 stations and 4 newspapers. You will recall that at the time the regulatory agency issued its network regulations, one of the reasons for those regulations was a scarcity of frequencies.

As the Federal Communications Commission stated in the Report on Chain Broadcasting, issued when the network regulations were promulgated, at the end of 1938, there were only 660 licensed broadcast stations in this country. Today there are over 1,750. So the necessity for these various regulations that have been imposed upon broadcasting no longer exists. In addition, it is easier today to acquire an existing radio station or to establish a new one in most cities of this country than it is to acquire or establish a daily newspaper.

No scarcity argument can apply to radio which does not apply with even more force to the press. The argument for regulation because of scarcity, in fact, is not applicable to either. How can it any longer be said that scarcity of wave lengths is an excuse for Government control of what may go on the air? Why, then, should radio not be as free as the press?

The reason for limiting the Commission's control of radio is all the more compelling as new radio services are developed. With the coming of television and facsimile, broadcasting has embraced the written as well as the spoken word. Where is the line to be drawn between a newspaper publisher who delivers news, information, opinion, and public discussion by truck and a news broadcaster who puts the same material into the home via the electronic delivery route?

If present restraints are retained or new ones imposed, an autocratic or dictatorial government could determine what the people shall see as well as what they shall hear when television becomes an established service. When newspapers are delivered into the home by radio facsimile, the cycle will be complete, for then such a government would be able to control what the people shall read as well as what they shall see and hear.

The only way to meet the problem thus posed is to enact legislation which will prevent the exercise of any restrictive control over programs and other material transmitted by radio, whether it be broadcasting by sound, television, or facsimile. The source of the uncertainty in the law today in the exercise by the Commission of control over broadcasting is the lack of definition of the phrase "public interest, convenience, or necessity." Unless the freedom of the public to determine what it should hear is to be surrendered to the Government for regulation, this phrase must be defined to exclude from its meaning anything relating to programs and business practices of broadcasters. The definition must be applicable in every instance that the Commission is called upon to apply the term, whether it is upon original application, renewal, modification or revocation.

At this time, Senator, I would like to take up certain provisions of the bill. I will discuss them in the order in which they appear in the bill. For the sake of brevity, I will skip certain sections that have been amply covered by other witnesses.

I refer now to section 5, the division of the Commission. In the past we have advocated organization of the Commission into divisions to separate the administration of the broadcasting from the common carrier provisions of the act. I believe that this is a desirable objective and should be accomplished as soon as possible. I agree with Chairman Denny that the Broadcasting Division should consist of more than three members. I should like to recommend that the Commission be composed of nine members and that it be divided by statute into a Broadcast Division and a Common Carrier Division with the Chairman of the Commission to serve on each Division. Four members of the Commission should be appointed to serve on the Broadcast Division and four members on the Common Carrier Division, all such appointments to be made upon the basis of the qualifications of such members to serve on their respective divisions. The statute should prohibit rotation of membership between the Broadcast and Common Carrier Divisions. The Chairman of the Commission should be appointed by the President. The Commission should be permitted to create additional divisions if it desires, to handle such specialized functions as it feels may not appropriately fall under either of the two statutory divisions, with the members of such additional divisions to be selected by the Commission from the membership of the two statutory divisions. That is somewhat along your line, except that I add two more members to the Government pay roll.

The CHAIRMAN. I think by that much you are wrong, anyway. I just do not see that line-up as you suggest it, but I do not want to take the time to discuss it now, because we are running against the clock this morning.

Mr. TRAMMELL. All right, sir. I will delay any discussion on it until later. As to uniform financial reports, section 8, I will not touch on that, Senator; I think it has been covered by other witnesses.

As to section 9, "Distribution of Facilities": When I first read this section, I took no exception to it. But other witnesses have appeared here, and indicated that they interpreted it so that the clause "needs and requirements thereof" might take into consideration economic factors in the granting of licenses. If that is the interpretation to be placed upon that additional language, then I think it should be eliminated.

Now, as to political broadcasts and discussions of public or political questions, I have something to say about sections 15 and 17.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a headache for all of us.

Mr. TRAMMELL. No question about that, Senator.

Senator MOORE. That has been raised this morning in the papers, with reference to what has just transpired.

Mr. TRAMMELL. I think on the labor bill, Senator, we have a very good record. Our record indicates that we have given equal opportunity to both sides, the pros and the cons. We have had Mr. Murray, Mr. Green, Mr. Meany, and a number of others. I think our record indicates that we balanced it out pretty well.

Senator JOHNSON. The newspaper this morning, however, states that when Senator Taft and President Truman argued the case, President Truman was given all of the network facilities, and Senator Taft in his reply was restricted to only one network.

Senator MOORE. I think it was two.

Senator JOHNSON. At any rate, the papers this morning cited that. Now, there is such a thing as fair play, and if that is the history of the situation, radio must stand condemned of all the things said about it in this hearing.

Mr. TRAMMELL. But I think I can explain this to you, Senator.

Senator JOHNSON. Now, I am on President Truman's side of the current argument, but just the same, a controversy of this kind, if it is going to be handled at all by radio, should be handled in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. TRAMMELL. It was handled in a fair and equitable manner, Senator, so far as the National Broadcasting Co. is concerned, and I believe by all the other networks as well.

I would like to say that or Friday night we carried President Truman. At 10:45 that night, we had scheduled and had had booked for some 2 weeks, the President of the National Association of Manufacturers. His name is Bunting. He had been scheduled to answer the various attacks made by Mr. Green, Mr. Murray, Mr. Meany, and Mr. Harrison, in which they all contended that the National Association of Manufacturers had written this bill. He was given an opportunity to answer those attacks. He was scheduled at 10: 45, at the same time that Mr. Taft was on Columbia and on Mutual.

Now, in order to give Mr. Taft an opportunity to answer the President over our network, we scheduled him last night, Senator, on invitation from our network. He did not ask for the time, but we asked him to go on our network and answer the President at 10:30 last night. And he was carried on our network at that particular time. Now, it seems to me that indicates that we have been unusually fair.

Senator JOHNSON. I am not charging you with unfairness in that matter, but this illustrates very clearly the point that has been made here; namely, that the selection of time by a broadcaster gives one person an extremely important control. Now, of course, you know and everyone knows that the hour of great interest was following immediately the President's statement. And 2 or 3 days after that, and after statements had been carried by the President, and after Senator Taft had already made his statements, was a poor time to attempt to equalize. Now, I do not know what Senator Taft thinks about this, and I am not asserting that the record carried by the Times-Herald this morning is correct or not correct. I presume what you are saying is correct. But just the same. This all illustrates the tremendous power of radio licensees to control and condition public-interest matters.

in

It seems to me that that power, which you do not disclaim now, is the complete answer to your statements made just a few minutes ago regard to having some agency of the Government in a supervisory position, to sit on top of the radio facilities and see that equity prevails.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Senator Johnson, in connection with this labor controversy, which has been one of the hottest things which we have had in this country in a long time, I want you to know that we have not received a single complaint from those in favor of the legislation or those opposed to the legislation.

Senator JOHNSON. That is very fine, so far.

Mr. TRAMMELL. I would like to read for the record, as long as this point has been raised, the list of the speakers that we have had for the bill and those we have had opposed to the bill, and the time at which we put them on.

Senator JOHNSON. Let us get this fact straight, however: You are appearing here this morning, not on behalf of your own network, but on behalf of the entire radio industry. So if you have been pure, I wonder if there have been any complaints lodged against anybody in broadcasting, as to the way this whole thing has been handled. You are not appearing just for yourself. We may accept, for the sake of argument, the fact that you are all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Senator, do not commit yourself too far. Senator JOHNSON. What I say is provisional, of course. But we have great numbers of statutes in the Nation and the States, not to take care of the rightdoer, but to take care of the wrongdoer. That is why we have legislation pertaining to radio. We would not need any legislation if everyone in the business was pure and honest and fair in everything that they did and do. But we also have to reach out and take care of the fellow who does not act in the public interest in exercising this tremendous power over public opinion that the radio exercises.

And I am not critical of the radio. I hope I am not, because I am one of its stanchest friends and one who depends upon it to a surprising degree for information. I find the information and the challenge to thinking in it is so superlative that I cannot do without it in my public life and in my public efforts to serve the people.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Senator, in the first part of your statement you said I was here speaking for the industry. Unfortunately, my capacity is limited to speaking for only the National Broadcasting Co. But I would like to say this: That in this recent controversy I have heard of no complaints registered against any network or any individual station as to the fairness with which they have handled not only this measure but the recent tax measure which was a subject of such controversy.

Now, I admit that there may have been a few stations here and there which may have been exceptions to the rule. There are good newspapers and bad newspapers; there are good magazines and bad magazines; there are good news reels and bad news reels. But I say to you that broadcasting operates from a fish bowl. There is no industry that I know of that is subject to public scrutiny or public criticism to the same extent as broadcasting.

Just as an example of what I mean, let us take the criticism that appeared in the Times-Herald this morning.

Senator JOHNSON. I thought you said you had never heard of any criticism?

Mr. TRAMMELL. Until this morning. And that can be explained, Senator; and that is the reason I am explaining it here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as compared to a Senator, you get off easy. Until I proposed this legislation, I was regarded as a conservative, if not a reactionary, and now I am a subject of wild articles.

Senator JOHNSON. I understand that George Sokolsky says he is going to quit the Republican Party because of your radicalism.

The CHAIRMAN. I suspect I may have lost a good many adherents. Mr. TRAMMELL. Senator, may I ask you this question: In Denver, Colo., where we happen to own a station, have your opponents ever complained that we gave you more time than we gave them, or have you complained that we gave them more time than we gave you?

Senator JOHNSON. No, sir; I have had no reason to complain.