Since we have not abused the power, I would, therefore, urge that you continue to let it repose in your agency and that it will be time. enough if there is ever an effort to abuse it in the future.

I do not think that it will be abused.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not like to see the law left to the latitude or the interpretation and guess of the Commission. I would like to see the law written out. I would like to see the limitations written in. However, that is a matter we have talked about for 3 years or more. Mr. DENNY. Yes.

Senator MAGNUSON. How long have the networks been working under the so-called present regulations?

Mr. DENNY. Since May of 1943.

Senator MAGNUSON. Insofar as you know, are there any present objections to the regulations now in existence-that is, insofar as the networks are concerned-creating the necessity for this type of section?

Mr. DENNY. The networks, of course, would prefer to have the Commission's power taken away, because then they would be sure that never in the future would there be any regulation of that type. As far as I know, the present regulations are working satisfactorily. In their briefs in the Supreme Court the networks said it would ruin the network broadcasting. That did not happen. They had gotten along pretty well.

We are ready at the Commission to make changes in the network rules if experience under the present rules indicate that such changes should be made. There is only one question that has come up from time to time that I can recall at present, and that is, the question of when they should be permitted to make a new contract, how long prior to the expiration of an old contract. I am sure that the gentlemen sitting over the far side of the room have in their minds-I see the presidents of all four networks are here I repeat, I am sure they have in their minds many changes that they would like to see, and if they file their petitions with the Commission their requests for review of particular regulations will be considered.

Similarly, I am not at all sure that as far as television and FM are concerned that we ourselves wil not have on our own motion to make some changes.

The CHAIRMAN. I suspect that the gentlemen on the other side to whom you refer will be satisfied with one change; that is, strike out everything after the enacting clause.

Mr. DENNY. I am sure they would. And I am sure, Senator, that when they appear before you they will say that the Commission ought to be deprived of the power, and they will say further, that the regulation onght not be written into the law; and particularly, if you do write them into law, do not tighten them up the way you do.

The regulations as you propose to write them in the law are more strict in one very important point-option time-than the present Commission rules. They nod. They knew that.

The CHAIRMAN. They may have something to say about that.

Mr. DENNY. It may be that we ought to tighten that. I do not know. The Commission has not reviewed that point. As far as I know, there are no pressing requests for revision.

Subsection (b) would amend the censorship provision of section 326. The Commission would have no power to censor, alter, or control the subsistence of radio broadcast material or to interfere with the rights

and duty of the licensee of any such station to determine the type of material to be broadcast. The section, however, would also expressly recognize the right and duty of the licensee of any such station to determine the type of material to be broadcast. The section, however, would also expressly recognize the right and obligation of the Commission to review the over-all operation of a station in passing upon applications for renewal of licenses to determine whether the licensee has in fact operated in the public interest. The section would thus in effect codify the well-established rule of the Brinkley and Shuler case (KFKB v. Federal Radio Commission, 47 F. 2d 670; Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Commission, 62 F. 2d 850) which upheld the Radio Commission's right, under a similar statute, to deny renewal of a station license where a review of the station's past operation indicated that they had operated in the public interest. I believe that on the whole the new section 326 (b) represents an improvement on the existing law. It makes explicit what is now implicit, namely, that there is a distinction between censorship of radio program material, in which the Commission does not and should not indulge, and the consideration of the over-all service of a station, including its program service, in determining whether a station has operated in the public interest.

Section 17 (S. 814, pp. 59, 63-69, 512-524, 643-664,944 945)

Section 17 would add two new sections to the Communications Actsection 330 and section 331. Section 330 provides that when a station is used for the presentation of political or public questions otherwise than as provided for in section 315, it shall be the duty of the licensee to afford equal opportunities for the presentation of different views on such questions. The section specifically provides that the licensee shall not be required to devote more than twice as much time in the aggregate to present different views than was made available to the original users. The licensee and the Commission are forbidden to censor any of this program material, except that licensees are not required to permit the broadcasting of any material which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence, nor are they required to broadcast any material which might subject the licensee to liability for damages under any local, State, or Federal law or regulation.

In many respects section 330 is a codification of the interpretation of the present provisions of the Communications Act. There is, however, one matter that I should like to comment on. That is the provision forbidding the licensee to censor the program material broadcast under this section but absolving him from broadcasting material that would subject him to liability for damages. This would enable him to delete material which he regards as libelous. As a practical matter the greatest number of complaints that the Commission receives concerning unfair censorship arises in cases where the licensee maintains that the material he desires deleted as libelous. The committee might, therefore, decide to incorporate into section 330 a similar provision to that added to section 315, forbidding the licensee to censor material but relieving him of the responsibility for libel.

The second section proposed to be added by section 17 is section 331. This requires stations carrying programs for the presentation of public or political questions under section 315 or section 330 to announce the name of the speaker, the subject of the discussion, the capacity in which the speaker appears, and how the time for the broadcast was made

available and if paid for, by whom. Certain relaxations are provided. when a public officer speaks. This section is a desirable extension of the provisions now contained in section 317 of the Communications Act,. requiring appropriate announcements of sponsored programs.

Section 18

This section would add a new section 332 to the act which would require that the source of news or current events and the source and responsibility for editorial or interpretive comment (which must be identified as such) must be announced at the beginning and end of every program. The objective of this section to identify the source of news and editorial comment is desirable.

However, it should be kept in mind that the distinction between fact and interpretation of fact is very fine. Even if a station were to utilize solely the reports from one of the national news services, it is clear that it would be a matter of opinion whether any particular report represents an objective reproduction of the event described or also includes subjective coloring reflecting the writer's own viewpoint. Therefore, I am afraid, in actual operation the section would result in either the making of a routine and perfunctory statement at the beginning and end of all news or opinion programs, which would add little if anything to the existing knowledge of radio listeners, or would involve such subtle subjective determinations on the part of the station licensees as to represent little more than the station's own judgment as to the validity and objectivity of the news reports carried over its facilities. Therefore, we think this section should be deleted.

I think it is unworkable. I think it is desirable, but I do not think that it can be put into practical effect.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a troublesome section, I know. But the question is whether we should have any provision of law which will aid the listening public to know whether it is listening to fact or to fiction. I think we ought to have some language in the law which would permit the listening public to know who is talking and for whom he is talking and what he is being paid for talking and as much information as we can as to the source and responsibility of the material that is used. I do not know whether this is the right provision or not, but I am sure I would welcome any suggested changes you could make in it.

Mr. DENNY. Let me say I think the objective is desirable. I think it is going to be a pretty hard thing to work out and enforce. I would like to have the Commission review its position in the light. of the testimony that the committee receives from the men who are actually dealing with these problems. I think that they, rather than the Commission, are the experts on this particular subject. They will be able to tell us pretty well what is involved, and I would like to give further thought to it in the light of what they have to say about it. I do not know what they are going to say and my present opinion is based pretty much on the fact that it does seem to be a very difficult thing to accomplish. It may be that just because it is difficult is no reason why we should not do it. That is, if it is a good objective. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it is a troublesome section and it is particularly troublesome to one who knows very little about the arts and means of publicity. I just thought that we should make some effort of assuring the listening public to whom they were listening and for

whom the speaker spoke, and some general information as to the responsibility both of the speaker and as to the source of the material he is using. That may be wide of the mark. I do not know whether it is or is not. It is the best I could figure out.

Mr. DENNY. Let us see what kind of a formula the broadcasters and the news analysts and the commentators who will appear before you can devise for the accomplishment of that result.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we can wait until then.

Mr. DENNY. I say this because I would like to sort of flag the statement I just read as a rather tentative view without the benefit of the expert opinion of the people who operate in this particular field. I think that with their views before us we can perhaps do a more intelligent job of commentig on the proposal than we are in a position to do today.

Section 19 (S. 814, pp. 10–21,34–45, 55–58,84; H. R. 5497, pp. 880–957) This section would add a new section 333 to the act dealing with the problems of chain broadcasting and multiple ownership. I shall discuss each problem in turn.

Chain broadcasting.-The first part of section 333 proposes to incorporate the substance of the Commission's chain-broadcasting regulations into the Communications Act. As I have already indicated in connection with my discussion of section 7, I believe this would be highly undesirable. I believe in the interest of efficient administration the Commission must be given flexibility with respect to such matters as the chain-broadcasting regulations.

However, if the committee is of the opinion that the chain-broadcasting regulations should be written into the statute, I believe that they should be adopted in precisely the form in which the Commission has enacted them. These rules were promulgated by the Commission only after a long and thorough investigation and in some cases they have been modified at the request of the broadcasters. In spite of the dire prophecies of chaos and disaster with which they were originally greeted, they have not brought an end to network broadcasting, but, on the contrary, have led to improvements and benefits in the broadcast service.

These rules have now been in operation for more than 4 years, and have been the subject matter of much discussion and interpretation. Moreover, the substance of these provisions have been written into virtually all existing network contracts. To change the substance of these regulations by statute would introduce new ambiguities requiring clarification and would require extensive revision in network affiliation contracts.

With respect to the statutory provisions, themselves, there are three matters of substance which represent a change from the Commission's rules on which I would like to comment. The first one relates to the option time provision. Under Commission regulation 3.104 any option given by a station to a network may not be exclusive as against another network. This means that if a station chooses to deal with more than one network it must treat all of the networks equally. The reason for this provision is based on the fact that before the regulations went into effect some stations which gave options to the National Broadcasting Co. or Columbia Broadcasting System also gave options

to Mutual Broadcasting System. However, the Mutual option was subject to the options of the other networks. In many cities there were three stations or less, which meant that in those cities if the Mutual network had an option to broadcast a program over a station the program could be moved at any time at the request of a competitive network. It is apparent that Mutual was at a disadvantage in competing on equal terms with the other networks. To remedy this the Commission wrote the requirement into section 3.104 that any option given to a network must be a nonexclusive option and that the station could not move the program of one network off in favor of the program of another network. I think it would be a serious step in the wrong direction if the Congress should permit a reintroduction of options which favor one network as against another.

The second change to which I would like to refer relates to the provision governing the amount of time during the broadcast day which a network may hold under option. Under Commission regulation 3.104 a station is not permitted to grant an option on more than 3 hours in each of four segments of the broadcast day. These segments are 5 hours in length, except the segment running from 11 p. m. to 8 a. m. Under the proposed bill a station could option up to 50 percent of its total authorized time on the air but not more than 2 hours in any consecutive 3-hour period. Thus, for a station operating 24 hours this would mean that it could option up to a total of 12 hours but no more than 2 hours out of any three consecutive hours.

Frankly, I do not know whether in actual operation the proposed section would be better or worse from the standpoint of the industry or the public interest, than the Commission's present rule. It would permit networks to option a slightly greater amount of time during the best listening hours but would allow the network a more limited choice of option hours on an over-all basis. Under the circumstances, unless there is a substantial reason, of which we are not aware, for adopting the new system I do not see any gain to be derived from adopting a rule different from that prescribed by the Commission.

The third change to which I would like to refer concerns the provision presently appearing in Commission rule 3.103, to the effect that a station can negotiate and enter into a new affiliation contract any time within 6 months prior to the commencement of the contract, but not before. The effect of this rule is to give the station and the network sufficient time to negotiate a new contract without permitting the rule against indefinite or long-term affiliation agreements to be circumvented through the filing of a series of contracts of the prescribed duration but staggered so as to have one go into effect as soon as its predecessor expires. The removal of this prohibition of section 3.103 might give rise to some doubt as to whether or not such tandem contracts are permissible.

Multiple ownership. The multiple ownership provision is contained in two parts. In the first part is is proposed to incorporate into the statute the provisions of the Commission's rules and regulations prohibiting the ownership of more than one station of the same class serving the same or substantially the same area. While here again we are of the opinion that in the interest of flexibility such matters are best reserved for rules and regulations, we have no objection to the way in which this portion of the provision is drafted.

65141-47-5