Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

KUJ AND KRLC

WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND IDAHO, BROADCASTERS

APRIL 23, 1943. Mr. ART MOSBY,

Station KGVO, Missoula, Mont. DEAR ART: While KUJ and KRLC are not on any network now, we, of course, hope to be some day. I think the Mosby plan is swell. Cordially yours,

HERB STUDEBAKER,

General Manager.

WCHS,

Charleston, W. Va., June 26, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY, Manager, Radio Station KGVO,

Missoula, Mont. DEAR MR. MOSBY: I agree with the fellow who said your plan is far too simple to be considered by the majority. Seriously, I think it would be much easier on all of us, and I wish I had thought of it. Very truly yours,

HOWARD L. CHERNOFF.

KTUL,

Tulsa, Okla., June 22, 1947. Mr. A. J. MOBBY,

Station KGVO, Missoula, Mont. DEAR MR. MOSBY: After carefully going over the Mosby plan, which you sent me on June 11, I am in agreement with you that it's a doggone good plan. At least it certainly is worth plenty of consideration and study by the industry. Sincerely yours,

JOHN ESAU, General Manager.

KOIL,

Omaha, Nebr., May 29, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY,

Manager, Station KGVO. Missoula, Mont. DEAR ART: You are certainly on the ball with this new idea of station option time. I just returned from New York and happened to be there when the regulations were passed. The boys were certainly talking about all the ideas possible.

Nobody knows of course, at this writing, just what is going to happen. But, it certainly is a time in the industry when we should all give it our very best thought.

I hope you will be going through here one of these days and we can have a chat. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely,

Hugh FELTIS, Manager.

WIRE,
INDIANAPOLIS BROADCASTING, INC.,

May 24, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY,

Radio Station KGVO, Missoula, Mon. MY DEAR MR. Mosby: Thanks so much for your letter and the plan which you have devised for network and affiliation operation. It certainly does have possibilities, and I want to give it some more study. It is unique, interesting, and certainly challenges careful thought.

I would not want to make any definite comment about it until I have had time to go through it again and study it from the practical standpoint of everyhour operation. But I do appreciate more than I can tell you your thoughtfulness in sending it to me, and I want to congratulate you on the originality and initiative which you have demonstrated in working out this plan, With all good wishes, I am, Sincerely,

GENE PULLIAM.

SESAC, INC.,

New York, N. Y., March 26, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY,

Radio Station KGVO, Missoula, Mont. MY DEAR MR. MOSBY: Your block system for solving the network time clearance dilemma is a ten strike— like the Ruml plan it's probably too simple and sensible to gain official approval. Cordially yours,

SESAC, INC.,
LEONARD D. CALLAHAN.

WICHITA BROADCASTING CO.,

Wichita Falls, Tex., May 1, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY,

Radio Station KGVO, Missoula, Mont. DEAR ART: This morning I returned and got a copy of your very sensible network plan for preemption of time. I am passing this on to CBS and also writing a letter to Mr. Fly suggesting that it will extradite us from most of our evils. If you ever come through this end of the country, be sure and look me up. Very truly yours,

JOE B. CORRIGAN.

WRVA, VIRGINIA'S PREMIER RADIO STATION,

May 31, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY,

Radio Station KGVO, Missoula, Mont. DEAR MR. Mosby: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter to Mr. Lucy together with your plan for station option time. Mr. Lucy is convalescing at the moment, and I am holding your letter until his return to his desk.

Let me step out of character long enough to say that I am afraid that your plan is too beautiful, simple, logical, and has too many good points about it to get anywhere! For some unknown reason such simple solutions rarely seem to be adopted. Very truly yours,

BARRON HOWARD.

KTFI RADIO BROADCASTING CORP.,

Twin Falls, Idaho, May 1, 1943. Mr. ART MOSBY,

KGVO, Missoula, Mont. DEAR ART: I've been looking over your the Mosby plan, and think you have something there.

We must protect the local.

Suppose it will have to develop gradually over a period of years if the networks are conducive. Will watch its progress. Sincerely,

FLORENCE M. GARDNER.

KTUC,

Tucson, Ariz., June 1, 1943. A. J. MOSBY,

Manager, Radio Station KGVO, Missoula, Mont. DEAR MR. MOSBY: After having discussed your plan of time division with our entire staff, I'd like you to know that everyone here approved of it. I plan to be in San Francisco for the PAA meeting. Hope to see you then. Sincerely,

LEE LITTLE.

WMAZ,

Macon, Ga., June 29, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY: As soon as I saw your plan first presented in the trade papers I thought it an excellent one and I called its attention and our approval of it to our representative on the CBS advisory board.

However, as far as we are concerned application of your evening set-up to the entire day would take care of our needs. This is the only modification I would suggest. Cordially,

WILTON E. COBB, General Manager.

ARMOUR & Co.,

Chicago, Ill., July 9, 1943. Mr. A. J. MOSBY: I think this plan embodies a great deal of common sense. There are a few items that are not quite clear in my own mind and a few that might encounter some objections. For example, your set-up is uniform for all time zones, yet when it is 7 p. m. in the East and networks can use 15 minutes of every hour, it is still daytime in the western zone and the networks would be assured of only 30 minutes. They might object to this.

However, I personally believe that many of these possible objections are outweighed by the plan's advantages. Your point regarding regional networks is particularly important. And I hope you have some success in selling the formali. ties to others in the industry. Kindest regards. Cordially yours,

ARMOUR & CO.,
C. B. HEYER.

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC,

May 26, 1943. DEAR MR. MOSBY: Your plan is interesting indeed, and from certain standpoints would produce important values to radio broadcasting and to the listening public.

However, as you know, our ability to even consider such a plan is strictly limited by the rules and regulations promulgated by the FCC, which only a few weeks ago were held to be valid by the United States Supreme Court. 'Under these rules, there is available to us under nonexclusive options only certain segments of the time during the morning, afternoon, and evening over the stations affiliated with our network. For many reasons, it becomes important that the time we are able to so option be concentrated. All these factors would make very impractical or impossible the operation of the plan which you developed.

Even if it were possible for your plan to be considered seriously, I do want to point out that certain important questions would need very close examination. I am not sure whether enough time is allocated for network use, or whether the necessary curtailment of many extremely fine one-half shows or hour shows now on the networks would not prove to be detrimental to the best interests of the listening audience. We would have to fit during the evening hours into 45 minutes what we are now doing in 1 hour. That, as you see, would necessitate the elimination of many of the best half-hour shows now being broadcast. Of course, it might he argued that the 45-minute stretch might be divided in two, but then again 2212 minutes would, in many cases, be too short a time for most of the successful half-hour shows now on the air.

I hope that some time in the future we will have the opportunity of discussing this whole question personally. Sincerely,

WILLIAM S. PALEY, President.

STATEMENT BY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIO NEWS DIRECTORS

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIO NEWS DIRECTORS,

WCSH-Portland, Maine, June 28, 1947.

To: Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee.
From: National Association of Radio News Directors.
Subject: Bill to amend Communications Act of 1934.

CHAIRMAN WALLACE H. WHITE, JR., AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS: The National Association of Radio News Directors, a professional society dedicated to the general betterment of radio news, opposes section 332-A of the measure which would amend the Federal Communications Act of 1934.

This section, calling for identification of the source of information used in news broadcasts, would-in the opinion of NARND—afford the Nation's press an unfair advantage over radio journalism. It would deprive radio newsmen of the use of information obtained from persons of high office who do not wish the information attributed to them. But the Nation's newspapers still would be free to print such information.

Journalists for generations have maintained the unwritten right to withhold the source of their news. Few have abused the ethics of the privilege. NARND can see no reason for legislation which would discriminate against radio newsmen on this score.

During World War II, radio proved itself as a medium of news reporting. Radio still is doing an outstanding job reporting the peace. It is vitally important to freedom of speech in the United States that radio-one of the leading, if not the leading, mediums of public information—be allowed to continue this service, unhampered by any restrictive legislation.

The ethics of radio newsmen are as high as those of newsmen of the press. In many instances, radio journalists impose higher standards of good taste on their workmanship. Because of this, NARND is opposed to any measure that would regulate the presentation of news via radio to the American people. Respectfully submitted.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIO NEWS DIRECTORS,
JOHN F. HOGAN, President,

News Director, WCHS, Portland, Maine.

LETTER FROM LAURENCE VOLD

THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Los Angeles, June 18, 1947. EDWARD COOPER, Staff Member, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Your letter of June 3, 1947, addressed to me at the Boston University Law School, 11 Ashburton Place, Boston, Mass., has fiinally reached me here, where I have just arrived for temporary work in teaching a law class in sales during the summer session this summer.

Your letter announces the scheduling of hearings on S. 1333, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934, to begin Tuesday June 17, before a subcommittee, etc. As I had just started the journey from Boston to Los Angeles the day your letter was written I knew nothing of it till I received it here on my arrival, it having been forwarded.

It is now too late and I am too far away to be practically available for getting to the scheduled hearings

May 1, however, again most earnestly call attention to the importance of eliminating from the bill in question the proviso found in section 315, subdivision (f). Section 315 deals with the use of radio stations in political campaigns. Subdivision (f) withholds the power of censorship over the material broadcast in such cases, but is qualified by the provisions of section 330 of the bill as introduced, permitting deletion of matters which might subject the radio station to liability for damages or to penalty or forfeiture under local or Federal law or regulations. So far, so good. The proviso, however, which is included in section 315, subdivision (f) should be eliminated. That proviso is to the effect that the radio stations "shall not be liable for any libel, slander, invasion of right of privacy

except as to statements made by the licensee or persons under his control.” If enacted into law this proviso would nullify the case of Sorensen

* *

v. Wood (123 Neb. 348, 243 N. W. 80 (1932)), and the cases which have followed it in holding the radio station liable as publisher of defamatory broadcasts where it broadcasts defamatory utterances of outside speakers admitted to its microphone. This proviso, if enacted into law, would permit radio stations in such cases to broadcast defamatory utterances of outside speakers at the risk of the victims defamed instead of at its own risk and the risk of the speaker or sponsor for whom the station broadcasts the defamation. Under the law of Sorenson v. Wood, above mentioned, radio stations can, and as a matter of practice actually largely do require that the speaker or sponsor for whose service they broadcast shall indemnify them against possible liability. This places the responsibility where it ought to rest, on the perpetrators and those for whose service they act, instead of exposing their victims to injury without practically effective redress. That proviso ought therefore to be eliminated from section 315, subdivision (f) as introduced.

I have discussed this general matter at considerable length in two law-review articles which can be referred to for further details. One is The Basis for Liability for Defamation by Radio ((1935) 19 Minn. Law Review, 611-660). See especially, pages 635-639, which come very close to the question involved under the proviso against which I am in this letter protesting. The other is Interpolations in Defamatory Broadcasts ((1940) 88 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 249–296). See especially pages 290–292, dealing with privileged occasions and discussing the prospective for privileges for political discussion by radio.

As I am unable to appear personally before the subcommittee at the hearings on S. 1333, above discussed, and as I had no notice of the time for these hearings until receiving your letter of June 3, here after this long delay and cannot file copies of statements ahead of time, etc., I hope this letter, with its contents, may be brought to the Committee's attention through the subcommittee. I greatly regret the present impossibility of my appearing personally before the committee. Yours sincerely,

LAWRENCE VOLD.

The CHAIRMAN. That concludes the hearings upon this bill.

Of course, that is an announcement made by a minority of the committee. The full committee may determine otherwise, but I think you make take it that this concludes the hearings on the bill, and we will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was closed.)

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »