[From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 23, 1972]

'BALANCE' ON TV AND INTIMIDATION

(By Bob Cromie)

Someone [it was Ralph Waldo Emerson, if you insist on knowing] once said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

The statement should prove useful to the Nixon administration, which at the moment is complaining once more about the lack of balance in the nation's television programming and at the same time is demonstrating its own lack of balance by giving exclusive news stories to the Washington Star-News because it doesn't like the attitude of the Washington Post.

In addition, the Post has been told that its society reporters will not be welcome at White House social events, which is the sort of petty reprisal you might anticipate from, say, the leading merchant in some one-horse town, enraged because the local paper printed something that upset his outsized ego.

NOT ENOUGH REACTION

To date there has been too little reaction, it seems to me, to recent warnings from Clay T. Whitehead, director of the Office of Telcommunications Policy, who may perhaps be described as the President's border collie whose job is to keep the sheep in line.

In a speech delivered Monday in Indianapolis before Sigma Delta Chi, the professional journalism fraternity, Whitehead announced that legislation is being prepared, for the Congress to consider, which would demand that in order to have its license renewed each station must prove that it has done a balanced job of presenting controversial issues.

He added that in the case of network news the local stations' managers have the responsibility of deciding whether such news is fairly presented.

Even a President, I suppose, can be human enough to be irked when something critical is said about him or his policies. But if this annoyance is carried to the extreme to which Whitehead seemingly has been told to carry it-so that perhaps, if a commentator attacks the renewed bombing of Hanoi or suggests that peace might be here by now if this or that had been done, it then may become necessary to bring on someone else to declaim on the beauties of leveling North Viet Nam or to inveigh against Hanoi for not yielding completely to the blandishments of Henry Kissinger.

The result would be a mishmash which only a dullard would find engrossing. Certainly, the President can always get whatever time he wishes [altho I do recall Democratic complaints that they were unable to acquire equal time], and a Presidential speech or so would seem to provide a great deal of balance to whatever errors Whitehead claims he has found. But since Whitehead doesn't seem to have given any definition of what he terms "ideological plugola," does this mean that not only every news broadcast but every entertainment skit must be weighed by the station showing it?

TO BALANCE ENTERTAINMENT?

Some of the accounts of Whitehead's talk said he did include entertainment shows in his warning about what must be watched. In that case, if you have Mort Sahl or the Smothers Brothers, must you balance their material with some right-wing [or at least conservative] material?

Perhaps Whitehead wouldn't mind making a list of right-wing comics-conscious comics, that is-who can be called upon when it becomes necessary to balance one of Dick Smothers' grimaces, or one of Sahl's wry remarks, or even a lyric or so from Joan Baez.

Joel Daly, one of WLS-TV's newsmen, summed up the Whitehead talk with beautiful precision the other evening. After explaining the speech and its implications, Daly concluded with this ominous remark: "The way things are going I thought I'd better register my concern while I still have the chance."

Do you suppose if you read the First Amendment over the air it will be necessary to give the opposition view?

[From the Editor and Publisher, Dec. 23, 1972]

THAT CHILLING EFFECT

When Clay T. Whitehead, director of the White House Office of Telecommunication Policy, addressed the annual meeting of the American Newspaper Publishers Association last April he warned that there is a strong public demand for the government to require journalistic balance in broadcasting. "As that philosophy spreads,” he said "the freedom of your industry is endangered."

He now reports that the White House has drafted new legislation to enforce "local responsibility" and impose editorial standards on television stations. They would be "held fully accountable at license renewal time."

The chilling effect of this on broadcasters will be obvious. In view of Mr. Whitehead's remarks to ANPA, we feel the chill wind blowing on newspapers, also. It is particularly so because this "philosophy' appears to be spreading from his office in the White House, and not from any obvious demand.

We have always felt that broadcasters, like publishers, should be held responsible for everything they "publish." FCC regulations attempt to do that now. But this new legislation would mean that the courts, or some government agency, would attempt to determine exactly what "imbalance" in the news is, "consistent bias," and "elitist gossip in the guise of news analysis."

Who is going to set the standards at any given time in history? The government?

[From the Kalamazoo Gazette, Dec. 24, 1972]

PRIOR TV CENSORSHIP SHOULD BE SCUTTLED

What we hope is a trial balloon that should be shot down immediately is a proposal for federal legislation which would hold local

television station managers accountable for the contents of all programming, including network news and commercials.

The proposal comes from an official of the Nixon administrationClay T. Whitehead, director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy.

His thesis is that station managers "who fail to correct imbalance or consistent bias in the networks-or who acquiesce by silencecan only be considered willing participants" in such bias and imbalance. And Whitehead says they should be held "fully accountable at license renewal time."

We are disturbed, naturally, at this proposal for prior censorship of another branch of the news media by the implied threat of loss of a broadcast license. For it would be the "government" that presumably under the proposal, would be the determinant of "bias" and "imbalance." And who would set the standards for this judgment?

But beyond this, the breadth of the proposal is appalling. The commercial basis for television and radio is network programming, and to make local stations responsible for what the networks put on the air would be nigh asking the impossible.

The television stations that serve our area do, in our opinion, an excellent job of meeting their public responsibilities. To ask them to screen in advance all programs from the network and then evaluate them in terms of "bias" and "imbalance" is absurd.

There is a basic question involved: Who should decide what is "bias" or "imbalance" in the news media-the government or the public? We think it should be the public, which has always had the option of turning off a TV set or not reading a newspaper.

Exception is taken by some to some of the programming in television and radio as exceptions are taken by some to some of the content of newspapers and magazines. But, by and large, television and radio, like newspapers and magazines, are responsive to the demands of their audiences and customers. And most of the people do not want the government telling them what they can, or should, see, hear and read.

The Whitehead proposal should be scuttled, by the President himself, if necessary.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 24, 1972]

INTIMIDATION OF THE NETWORKS

The White House has decided that television isn't as good as it should be and says it is going to do something about it. But hold your cheers. For there is evidence that it may be nothing more than a mask for an effort to intimidate network news and programming.

Clay T. Whitehead, director of the President's Office of Telecommunications Policy, unveiled the plan without unveiling the legislation that Mr. Nixon hopes Congress will adopt. In this circumstance, comment of necessity must be limited to what Whitehead said and the emphasis he chose.

What he offered, in essence, was a mix of new regulations on station license renewal, which didn't seem new at all; a broad-brushed attack on network programming, particularly the news function of the net

works, and a warning to stations affiliated with networks to bring changes in network program and news operations or risk the loss of their station licenses.

It may be significant that Whitehead aimed most of his shots at the networks and had little to say about those non-network stations that often are the reservoir of the ultimate in warmed-over mediocrity. He was, in effect, beginning his crusade for better television by attacking the areas that at least harbor most of what quality there is in American commercial television.

His attack was the more mischievous because of its imprecision, bordering on smear, as he talked about "so-called professionals who confuse sensationalism with sense and who dispense elitist gossip in the guise of news analysis," of the "ideological plugola" of those who "stress or suppress information in accordance with their beliefs," of the "bias in the networks," of unacceptable network standards of taste, violence and decency.

No names. No examples. But a threat. Clean it up, whatever it is. Or there will be no license renewal.

Network officials immediately interpreted Whitehead's words as an effort to drive a wedge between the networks and their affiliated stations. Of course it was. Carried to the ultimate application, his proposals could destroy network television by making its programming susceptible to every local attack, and leaving the affiliated stations more vulnerable to arbitrary loss of their licenses.

But in this regard, a contradiction is evident in what Whitehead has proposed. He has not matched his new threat with new rules. And he himself has defended his proposals as the means "to increase freedom and responsibility in broadcasting."

He proposed two criteria to determine license renewal: (1) a demonstration that the station is in tune with the needs and interests of the community it serves and (2) evidence that reasonable, realistic and practical opportunities have been given to present and discuss conflicting views on controversial issues.

So what's new? Station license renewal presently is tied to the "So-called "community ascertainment" formula. And the fairness doctrine haunts every discussion of a controversial issue. If there is anything new, it is his suggestion that the station be evaluated "from the perspective of the people of his community and not the bureaucrat in Washington," but when he was questioned about this, he indicated the job would remain in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission.

Confusion includes two elements that might ease the chaos and

confusion in present renewal procedures, however. He supports extending the term of a license from three years to five. And he argues that the Inden of proof should rest with those who challenge a license renewal. 10 ins

When the legislation is unveiled, it will be for Congress to determine the real intent of the White House. No doubt about it, some reform of procedures is desirable. An improvement of program quality would be welcome. But Whitehead's presentation of the President's ideas seems transparent to us, failing to hide an intent to weaken the networks and particularly to intimidate the network news and public affairs departments. That is hot welcome.

વિ

[From the Washington Star, Dec. 24, 1972]

WHITEHEAD AND THE FIGHT OVER TV NEWS

(By Stephen M. Aug)

Is Clay T. Whitehead trying to wipe that editorializing smirk off David Brinkley's face?

Or is Whitehead-President Nixon's principal spokesman on communications-trying to do something more serious than merely eliminate the facial gestures or vocal intonations that, to some television viewers at least, indicate bias in network news reporting?

There are those who see Whitehead's criticism of bias in network news organizations last week as just one more step in a Nixon administration campaign of repression against the news media.

Witness, they say, the rash of jailings of reporters who were under subpoena to produce notes and name news sources; the suit to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon papers; and now veiled threats by tying license renewals to a call for more "responsibility" by local broadcasters who rely too much on the networks for their

news.

Not so, says Whitehead, the 34-year-old director of the Office of Telecommunications Policy. Whitehead holds bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering and a PhD in management from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has built his office from a tiny White House cubicle that once dealt solely with the esoteric matter of allocating frequencies among federal agencies into an administration voice on all communications policy-ranging from the structure of a domestic satellite system to cable TV and broadcast license renewal.

In his speech he mixed calls for greater responsibility over the content of news programs with an assertion to broadcasters that the administration wanted to free them from the uncertain feeling they get every three years when their licenses are up for renewal.

Whitehead promised a five-year renewal term, a new law that would make it more difficult for a competing applicant to wrest a license from an existing holder, a prohibition on the Federal Communications Commission practice of making policy decisions through individual license cases (the FCC would have to make policy by broad rule-making proceedings) and a ban on setting fixed percentages for the types of programs broadcasters must show if they are to keep their licenses.

That's quite a present for an industry which has been seeking stability for the past couple of years as license challenges, principally by minority and community groups, have mounted. The proposed legislation, however, would not eliminate the present procedure on petitions to deny license renewal-the practice used most by minority groups seeking to make broadcasters more responsive to community needs.

Under the present law, any competing application for a license at renewal time must be scheduled for a hearing-and these hearings can take years and are very expensive. Hearings are not required, however, on petitions to deny license renewals if the FC finds that proponents of a denial haven't made at least a preliminary case.

There are those in the broadcast industry who express concern, however, that the proposed legislation would add new requirements to the