The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1942-12-11
Radio
Continued from Page one)

"This breakdown by big business
is now being investigated by the
Federal Communications Commits
sion. 1t is to be hoped that these
officials will be consistent and sus-
tain the co-ops in the interest of the
common good"
Tide magazine, biweekly journal 0
advertising and marketing, in Ions
review of the situation says pointed
ly:
1.-THE networks official reasons
differed OF course, neither sug-
gested that it's action was based on
a fear of antagonizing national adj
vertisers."
The Nation, in an editorial entitled
Caught in the Networks" says thai
perhaps the broadcasting companies
are not aware that the economic basis
of consumer cooperation is so simple
and so unassailable." 1t points out
that Columbia, which holds that co-ops
are controversial, has had no requests
for time to state the case against
consumer cooperation and calls this
"a strange kind of controversy" The
Nation editorial declares:
1--WE do not dispute the merits of
Columbia's policy, which is founded
on the reasonable premise that the
ability to buy time should not deter
mine the extent to which a partic-
ular side of a public controversial
issue should be broadcast" But we
do question the assumption that
consumers cooperation is an issue
of this kind. Who we would like
to know, has ever challenged on
political, economic, or mora
grounds the right of consumers to
go into business for themselves?
Who has challenged their right to
govern such a business on the dem
ocratic principle of one member,
one vote, their right to buy goods
from such a business on a cash ba-
sis, their right to divide up the
profits among themselves in proper
ton to the amount of their pur-
chases? Perhaps the broadcasting
companies are not aware that the
economic basis of consumers coop
Grafton is so simple and so unassail-
able Perhaps they do not know
the extent of the movement or the
fact that it has many friends and
no PUBLIC enemies. Columbia
might have learned this from its
experience in giving free time to
the cooperative movement. In ac-
cordance with its policy it would
have had to allot equal time to any
responsible person or group that
wished to state an opposing view,
but, it admits, no unfavorable reac-
tions or complaints have ever been
evoked by broadcasts on consumer
cooperation. A strange kind of con-
troversy!
1--WE believe, therefore, that the
Cooperative League is thoroughly
justified in appealing to congress,
the Federal Communications Com
mission, and other government
agencies for a searching inquiry
into the reasons why its programs
have been refused the air. We wish
it luck in this new battle with
monopoly
The New Republic cites editorially
the policy of the networks to give
free time occasionally to the co-ops
"as half a debate" and says common
sense will tell you that this is roughly
equivalent to no time at all"
Fully recognizing the problems
with which the broadcasting COM
panies are confronted" the New Re
public says, land the projudices of
their listeners as well as the adver-
tisers, we submit that what they offer
are excuses, not reasons"
1.-THE co-ops offer the public just
one thing" the editorial concludes,
goods of equal quality at lower
prices. If they did not perform this
service they would have expired long
ago. Therefore, whoever fights them,
as the broadcasting companies on be-
half of their advertisers are doing, |
is fighting for higher costs for goods
of the same quality, resisting tech
advance and the application
OF American ingenuity"
The Progressive, published by the
in Madison. Wisconsin, |
declares:
"Broadcasting company officials,
it seems, are reluctant to trust the
American people with any of this
heady stuff about business being
run for the benefit of the consum-
ing public.
Cup until now we had assumed
that the competitive system guar
antees to any legitimate business