Evening star., 1954-04-04
On the Air

On Tuesday night, unless he
has changed his mind, Senator
Joseph Mccarthy will take
over the CBS-TV "See It Now"
program to reply to Edward r.
Murrow, who recently took him
over. Whatever the Senator
says or does, however, he will
not put an end to what Mr..
Murrow started.
What Mr.. Murrow started
was a flrst-clasS controversy
in the broadcasting trade.
There really was nothing new
about what he did. He simply
used a selected set of motion
pictures to- tell a documented
story. He used words and ac-
tionS that were undeniably a
mans own to build a case
against him.
This has been done before
but seldom has it caused so
much ensuing excitement. The
controversy was amplif1ed
almost unbelievably, merely
because of the personalities in
volved.
It hardly needs to be said
that Senator Mccarthy is a
controversial figure. When
ever the conversation grows
dull you can enliven it imme-
diately by mere mention of his
name.
Murrow Is Unique
His adversary on this occa-
sion is no mere radio and tele-
vision commentator, either.
He also is a former vice presi-
dent. now a member of the
Board of Directors, of the Co
lumbia BroadcaSting System.
BY implication if not in actual
fact, he seems to be speaking
for CHS as well as for MurroW.
Indeed, at times he seems to
be the voice of broadcaSting
itself.
Because of Mr.. Murrow's
unique position in his field the
argument over whether or not
he should have done what he
did was quickly enlarged. It
became a debate over the right
of radio and television to take
a stand, to voice its own edi-
torial opinion.
The Federal Communica-
tions Commission has already
given it that right. 1t has de-
creed that any broadcasting
station licensee has the right
to express his own views. They
must be clearly labeled as
such, fairness must be en-
ployed in reporting all sides of
controversial issues and pub
lie interest, convenience and
necessity" must be served.
Newspapers Do 1t Now
The broadcaster is required
by the FEC, in other words, to
do what the more enlightened
newspapers do voluntarily.
The broadcaSter may speak his
mind but he must find time for
the "opp. ed" page, for his
counterparts, say, of Lowell
Mellett and David Lawrence.
Mr.. Murrow seems to be
meeting the requirements. AS
he told a Newsweek reporter,
I'VE followed the CHS policy
OF fairness. We labeled the
Mccarthy show controversial
and we offered the Senator
time to reply. We leaned over
backward to be fair"
To impose any other condi-
tions on networks or individual
stations would add up to CEN
sorship of programs. It would
require a change in the Com
municationS Act, which speci-
f1cally prohibits the FEC from
exercising any control over
program content.
1t would hardly be a desira-
BILE change. If you deny the
broadcasterS the right to
speak their mind you will wind
up listening to the political
thoughts Of only one mind
that Of the man in the White
House. Not even the man in
the White House wants that.
Might be a Democrat in there
some day.
Cont Be Denied .
It is just a bit naive. any,
how, to believe that radio and
television broadcasters can be
denied an editorial opinion
while we keep a democracy in
operation. A newspapers ed
1torial policy is not always
confined to it's editorial page.
1t may have a policy of pre-
senting the news as complete
ly as possible and without
bias. Or it may, without tam
pering with the actual facts,
color the facts by emphasis on
some Of them, by the size of a
headline and by the placement
Of the story.
There is nothing to prevent
q broadcaster from doing the
same thing without running
afoul of the FCC's charge that
fairness must be maintained.
A station owner can and has
to employ editorial judgment
in the selection of the repre-
| Todoy's S
| Stag
a~vNYA nr~~ ..n,.AA e.:I