Evening star., 1960-03-04

However familiar these denunciations NAV seem to
you, they were not taken from column of teevsion
criticism, seminar on mass communications, or a
Washington hearing. They not even concomitant
OF the age of advertising They used March a,
1799 to describe the state of the press in the United
States And they were used, not by an outsider but
by John Ward Fenno editor of the leading newspaper
Of the day, and presumably an expert
bring all this up nearly two centuries afterwards
for think very good reason do not do it necessar-
lily to remind you that the older media have also had
their troubles reassuring as the contemplation of
that fact might be to at the moment The real point
is that the editor of outstanding newspaper made
this scathing indictment of his own field year after
the United States had undertaken in the Sedtion Act
of 1798 the only statutory venture in our history
aimed at the direct control of medium of expression
Norwas Fenno alone in his opinion Another editor the
same year accused the press of mawkshness dreari-
ness, and gross tolly..."
After four editors were jailed under the Sedtion
Act for critcizing the government the law aban-
doned-kied off by public opinion But the notion of
getting more responsible medium of expression by
legislative action has persisted throughout our his
tory. Every time that any vehicle of expression any
medium of communication any institution of culture
or education has widespread public attention concen-
trated on weakness or a failure or even dilemma,
there are always demands that "There ought to be
ldW"
ABDICATIoN is NO SOLUTION
The road to Utopia by government regulation looks
invitingly easy. And it is easy.
The easiest way for us in televison to duck respon-
sbility for the tough business of planning balanced
programmng is to default and say to the government
"You tell US aOhat to do, and we'll do it,"
The easiest way is to let some government agency
fix the percentage of the days programmng that will
be hard news, the percentage that will be serious
drama the percentage that will be classical music and
the percentage that will be westerns The easiest way
is to sidetrack competition atogether-every network
doing exactly what the government prescrbes and not
one risky whit more The easiest way is to dump into
the laps of government the most challenging problem
of televisionthe achievement of that elusive ardu-
GUS, perplexing objective of democracy: meeting
the will Of the majority and at the same time accom-
modating the rights and interests of minorities.
Government prescription is the easiest way. But it's
also the irresponsible way. 1t promises imaginary
shortterm gains at the price of real longte loss 1t
isaway full of delusions traps and unending enmesh
ments 1t is based on fallaces almost inevitable in any
attempt to shortcut normal growth in any area of
expression And in the end it leads not to Utopia but
to weakness, timidity, uniformity and stagnation.
Sometimes from surprising quarters usually dedi-
Gated to freedom and ordinarily keeny sensitive to
any government intrusion into expression in Amer
lea, the argument is advanced that because there is
technical limit the number of televison channels
available, the government should be empowered to
regulate what is broadcast on those channels This is
an unrealistic we'll as shortsighted view The gov
ernment is competent to dictate the contents
of medium that has technical limitations the num-
ber of its outlets than to dictate to those that have
economic limitations.
Once the government tells three television stations
in city what they must broadcast how long does any
body suppose would be before the government also
tells the only newspaper in town what it must print?
Most metropolitan centers in the United States have
more competing television stations than competing
mass circulation dailies Indeed today there are only
IL metropolitan centers with three or more dailies;
there are four times that many cities with three or
more televson stations 1t would be logical to seek
constitutional reforms to impose government stand
ards on newspapers because their number is limited
by economics, as to regulate programmng on televi-
sion stations because their number limited by the
spectrum.
FREEDOM IS INDIVISIBLE
1t not at all helpful that those who would regulate
teevsion programming protest that they would con-
Germ themselves only with cultural and entertainment