Television: The Lifted Eyebrow

As the FCC completed its investigation of network programming last week, it heard from the American Broadcasting Co., which followed CBS and NBC like a bat boy tagging after Maris and Mantle.

ABC’s president, Oliver Treyz, complained that ABC would display more quality if so many cities were not set up for two channels only, cutting ABC out of markets and profits. Thus Treyz came out strongly for Newton Minow’s plan to open up the U.S. television spectrum with new Ultra High Frequency channels.

Judgments & Responsibility. ABC’s best witness was James Hagerty, Eisenhower’s longtime press secretary, who was hired by ABC to overhaul its news service. Hagerty told how “from scratch” he had built “a vital major news operation” in one year, increasing the New York staff by 50%, more than doubling the network’s Washington news bureau, and increasing news-programming time by 37%. Hagerty was both impressive and—toward his new colleagues&#151a bit snobbish. He seemed almost eager to disassociate himself from them.

Small wonder. Much of the talk was about ABC executives’ memos on scripts for The Untouchables (“We are killing too many people per episode”; “Not as much action as some, but sufficient to keep the average bloodthirsty viewer fairly happy”). Longest wrangle was over the famous episode of Bus Stop that featured a nymphomaniac and a teen-age alcoholic murderer, which 25 of ABC’s affiliated stations refused to show.

Minow: Now the Government isn’t going to get into this and say “put this one on or take that one off,” because our whole theory is that you are going to make the judgments. Right?

Treyz: That is right.

Minow: But you are going to have to make them, it seems to me, with some kind of responsibility.

Treyz: We agree.

That exchange probably summarized the result of the entire three years of FCC hearings. The FCC, troubled by internal dissensions and all but certain that Congress will not put real teeth into the commission’s regulatory powers, will undoubtedly be forced to settle for what Commissioner Frederick Ford calls “regulation by the lifted eyebrow.”

Help or Force. Sitting back in his office one afternoon last week, Chairman Minow looked back over the hearings and offered his own informal conclusions: “If I had to name the single most important thing to come out of these hearings,” he said, “I’d say it is the recognition by the industry that you must have more television channels. They’re either going to have more channels or they’re going to have more regulation. The networks have all said that they want to please large audiences. There’s got to be a way to have them go after smaller audiences.”

Another Minow goal is to help—or force—the individual TV stations to assume responsibility for programming, as they are supposed to do now under the rules of FCC licensing, which require them to operate “in the public interest.” But the stations blame the networks for the programs they provide, and the FCC’s only recourse is the drastic one of withdrawing a station’s license. Admitted Minow: “The present system is unrealistic. It just doesn’t work.” When individual stations reject public-affairs shows in favor of bottled sitchcom pap (as they often do), Minow would at least have them required to “put their reasons for this on the public record.”

Better Ratio. He would also like to do something about the influence of advertisers. “The networks are losing money on public-affairs shows,” he pointed out. “There must be some mechanism for spreading advertising income around to allot some of it to public affairs.”

“The trouble is, the industry doesn’t think the public is very bright.” said Minow. “I do think television has helped to raise the level of intelligence in America; but the network attitude toward programming for large audiences is wrong. How do you know what people would have watched if you had given them something better?”

Minow concluded gloomily: “In the entertainment area, I don’t know what the Government can do except make the public stand up and protest against low-quality programs. If that’s censorship, I’ll eat it.”