Evening star., 1938-06-05
Problem of Wise Radio Control
Up for Review by Government
Superpower Stations and Monopoly of the Air Two
Vital Issues Before Meeting of
&c. G.. This Week.

| and political powers. This possibility critics
view with alarm" That a monopoly in
| radio is difficult to prove legally is obvious
Yet as is SO often the case, the burden Of
| proof Of innocence seems to rest on the
| accused.
Some of the more active opponents OF
monopoly" are automatically opponents
| Of any high-powered stations, including the
so-called clear-channel group. These sta
tions, with the purpose of covering wide
area, have obtained from the F. C. c., free
| OF charge, the exclusive use of a certain
frequency or wave length free from inter-
ference by any other station. Opponents of
nlgher power claim that the clear channel
originally was created to assure needed
rural coverage, and that now those areas
are. quite adequately serviced by radio.
Ihese opponents express fear not only of
the concentration of influence already
reanzed, but also of the competitive effects
OF proposed high-powered stations on the
pronts and well-being of local and regional
ones Needless to add, the clear-channel
group vigorously contests such prognostica-
ions, producing engineering and economic
data to support their position.
special stress is placed by foes of
monopoly in broadcasting on the poten-
tiaitles OF the radio for influencing public
opinion. 1t is calimed that under favorable
conditions 80 to "a per cent of the popula-
tion may be reached at one time by the
countrys radio networks. For this reason
tne law specifically provides that the air
oe Kept equally open to competing political
parties. This is done, and in practice the
air is indeed open to both sides IN
many other public questions not directlv
reiateo to elections. However, if the ma
1ority OF the stations were to come under
the control of a relatively few persons.
ana particularly if the little stations were
70 be crowded out, radio might become
the means OF perpetuating given political
party In office, opponents of superpower
affirm.
1t is significant that the average member
OF Congress keenly appreciates the elec
tloneering value of broadcasting stations
situated In his district. A local station.
reaching just the people of his district, can
give him tremendous help in gaining the
ears OF the voters. A high-powered
regional station, on the other hand or
network station carrying profitable pro-
grams OF national or regional interest. can
hardly be expected to bother with the
geographically restricted political interests
OF single congressional district Nor Is
SUCH station economically able to donate
evening time to non-sponsored program
Ike the speech Of q congressional car1dt.
date during those relatively few desirable
hours OF the evening when most radio
listeners have their sets tuned on. This
fact, plus the prevailing general hostility
to "bigness" in business, and the sympathy
for the little fellow, especially the home
district little fellow, accounts for the con-
gressional hostility to superpower. Under
the circumstances the burden of economic
proof that superpower will not put the
small stations out Of business rests on the
applicants for high power.
U. s. Station An Issue.
Among other issues under discussion in
Washington during recent months have
been the several proposals to erect a
Government station for short-wave broad
casting to Latin America. This suggestion
has been successfully opposed on various
grounds, not the least being that it would
put the Government in competition with
private capital Ratification by the Senate
of the recent Havana international radio
agreement requiring reallocation OF certain
raGi0 fronl1anrioc iS onnfhor nf Jic
cussion. The treaty is still unratified.
third and continuous source of dis
cussion has been the F. c. C.'s practice of
issuing operating licenses for only six
months at time. Linked with this are
questions Of so-called "trafhcking in Ii
censes," /. e., the sale OF stations at con-
siderably more than the value of their
OF radio stations; indirect censorship" of
programs by the F. C. c.; local ownership
of local stations; proposed Requirement"
of cultural programs by the F. c.: direct
censorship, etc.
According to recent speech by David
Sarnoff of the Radio Corp of America,
while direct censorship Is forbidden by
law, 'the (six-month) terms of the Gov
ernment licenses leave the door open for
indirect-and more insidious-censorship."
Less conspicuous and more dangerous than
blue-pencil censorship Is "the effect on
the mind of the broadcaster, resulting from
attitudes that may be taken by the Gov
ernment toward stations on matters OUT
side the regulation of facilities"
This statement Commissioner Payne
promptly characterized as evidence Of the
organized movement Of the radio mo-
nopoly to mold public opinion to its
will y" The publisher of a news
paper, stated Mr.. Payne, risks his own
capital, while the broadcaster works ON
velvet furnished to him by the Govern
ment," and, he further complains, broad
casters as class "are filing the air with
trivial programs propaganda and
the blare Of advertising" Moreover, Com
missioner Payne regards profits in the
broadcasting business as fabulous"
How deeply should the Government 20
in regulating broadcasting? Should it be
merely "trafic policeman" Of the ether, or
should it peer over the shoulders OF not
only the broadcast advertisers, but the
entertainers as well? Should it dictate or
censor program matter? Should It control
advertising rates and profits? What is the
Governments proper field?
The commission Is feeling its way toward
an answer, and the radio companies are
waiting tn see what that arsu,or viii t,e