So therefore you do not get really a thrust in the public interest if this present WHDH principle remains without being, shall I say, restrained by S. 2004.

Senator BAKER. Conversely, if S. 2004 were passed is it likely in your judgment that the feeling of moderate security that an existing licensee might have might make him feel freer to devote a stubstantial part of his programs to the public interest, or to orderly programing that you might characterize in the public interest?

Mr. WILNER. I think Mr. Fogarty developed that point, sir. I am not sure you were here. I think there is no question that a certain amount of security does promote better programing, because they have to look down the years, plan down the years, they have to get personnel down the years and not just for 3-year segments.

Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. And you will admit in the running of a station it depends largely on the kind of people that you engage to perform the day to day functions as against the people who own it and are merely interested possibly when the board of directors meet.

The point I make here is largely like in a newspaper. It isn't the ownership of the newspaper sometimes that gives you an effective newspaper as much as it is the man that you engage as city editor, the fellow who supervises the day by day contents of the news and how it is handled. I suppose if he gets out of line, it finally comes to the attention of the ownership or the board of directors and of course then the policy is made that might change the situation.

But a station like in the newspaper, it is usually up to the integrity and efficiency and the know-how and the dedication of that manager who is responsible for the day to day operation of that station. Sometimes it isn't so much the ownership as it is the kind of people you hire to do the job.

I know that there are some dedicated men who feel that their integrity is so much involved sometimes that when they are given orders that are inimical to this integrity of their, they just as soon pull up stakes and quit.

You have that of course. But you have to admit there is a tremendous appeal on the outside on the part of the unknowing public that sometimes don't understand all of the involvements and ramifications to say that a competition is usually a good way to bring about public service.

You have to measure that against the man who has to invest his money, who has to engage these talented people, as to how far he can go without some reasonable assurance that if he does a good job it will count. That is the test. If he does a good job it will count.

I repeat again we are not foreclosing the people who feel that the station has not been run properly, and they would like to make a complaint. But as the Senator from Tennessee just brought out, you have two elements. I wouldn't say exactly it is the element of profit that is paramount, because that would be a shadow over the people in the industry now. Because after all they originally applied for the license and I think they had a little more in mind than just profit.

I think they had a spirit of dedication, and like everything else, being just a critic is one thing, and having the right of command to make a decision is another thing. That is where you get yourself sometimes into these dilemmas.

Mr. WILNER. I might add as a lawyer, with many years of practice before the bar and before the Communications Commission, that it has been my definite finding that the stations that do the best public interest job, who really do quality programing, and I don't mean quantitative programing, I mean quality programing, have more lis

teners.

And I think they believe that and they can't hire these good men to run them on a temporary basis, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Any further questions of this witness? (No response.)

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much. You have been very helpful. The next witness is Robert J. Crohan, president, Rhode Island Broadcasters Association.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CROHAN, VICE PRESIDENT, WJAR-TV, PRESIDENT, RHODE ISLAND BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. CROHAN. Mr. Chairman

Senator PASTORE. Whatever you do now, Mr. Crohan, don't say anything complimentary to me, otherwise you are going to lose your

case.

Mr. CROHAN. As president of the Rhode Island Broadcasters Association, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today in support of bill S. 20004.

I speak on behalf of the radio and television stations that are licensed to serve the people of Rhode Island.

These licensees could be representative of any State. They cover the full spectrum of broadcast ownership; from a small single familyowned radio station with a minimal staff to multiple group-owned television stations with large staffs; from ownership of less than a year to the same continuous ownerships for over 45 years; from stations that operate at a loss to those that operate at substantial profits. There is, however, one underlying principle common to all of these broadcast licensees. Each has promised to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, and it is upon that principle and that promise that they should be judged at renewal time.

There is, however, a disturbing trend today, which if not stopped now could damage the very structure of broadcasting. Licensees are being challenged not on past performance, rather they are being forced to compete in a game of promises, a game in which anyone can play and one in which the rules are stacked against the responsible broadcaster. Even if he wins, and winning in this instance is successfully defending his broadcast license, he loses, as the resulting costs can be overpowering to many broadcasters. Even more disturbing is the fact that individuals and parties are being encouraged to file competing applications against broadcast licensees. They are basing their applications not on past performance, but rather on concentration of mass media ownership in their respective communities. The Federal Communications Commission has currently pending before it proposed rulemaking on this very question. The renewal process should not be used to promulgate a new policy on concentration of mass media ownership, but rather the Commission should face this issue in a separate proceeding.

It is not my intent to discuss the pros and cons of this issue, but I feel strongly that the renewal process was not meant to determine the issue of multiple ownership but only to answer the question of past performance versus promise.

If the promises had been made in good faith, had been accepted at the time of renewal as being sufficient to meet the needs of the community of the licensee and throughout the license period these promises had been lived up to, then in my judgment there is no basis whatsoever in denying that licensee a renewal.

If, however, there had been abuse on the part of a licensee and his performance did not match his promise, if he ignored the needs and interests of this community, then the licensing authority has not only the right, but the obligation to deny that licensee a renewal.

It is my belief that every responsible broadcaster would accept these conditions. Conscientious broadcasters do not take their responsibility lightly; they work hard to meet it. Broadcasting has not come 50 years to the preeminence that it holds today by avoiding this responsibility.

To meet this responsibility the broadcaster programs his station in a manner in which he feels he can best serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Each broadcaster has his own method to ascertain this need. In fact, he must explain in detail the methods used in his license renewal. It then becomes a matter of public record.

If he does what he has promised, then he should have some reasonable assurance that his license will be renewed. The passage of this bill would give him this assurance.

It would not, as some have suggested, give a licensee a license in perpetuity. On the contrary, a broadcaster still must file for renewal every 3 years, he must prove to the Commission that he has lived up to his promises and that he is deserving of a license renewal.

If, on the other hand, a broadcaster were faced with a serious threat every 3 years that he would lose his license, then I think that it would seriously affect broadcasting.

Broadcasters faced with an insecure future would be hesitant to invest in modern equipment, their stations in all probability would be staffed at a level incapable of providing public service to its community, and it would be extremely difficult to obtain highly qualified professional personnel. In the end, it would be the listening and the viewing public that would lose.

An example of this can be found in local news reporting. Many broadcasters are devoting more and more time, effort and manpower in expanding their news operations. It is not uncommon today for a news department to have special assignment editors and investigative news reporters whose primary duty is to develop news stories of local importance. These same news departments have doubled, and in some instances tripled their staffs in the past few years to include such specialists as meteorologists, reviewers, and market analysts.

Also, more and more stations are expanding their public service program concepts. Documentaries on issues of public importance are being produced on a local level that are winning national awards.

A station operator, in for the fast buck, would not provide this type of service nor invest in this type of programing. It costs too much money.

Responsible broadcasters, on the other hand are investing in this service and programing for it as an investment in their future. They are

responding to the changes that are taking place in our society today. They are courageously facing these changes, analyzing the forces around them, and through planning, establishing priorities, giving attention to ethical considerations are literally controlling these changes. Responsible broadcasters use the forces of change to promote a better world for themselves and for others.

As a responsible broadcaster, I ask that you support bill S. 2004.
Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much, Mr. Crohan.

Senator GRIFFIN. This is a very excellent statement, Mr. Crohan. I think you can be reasonably assured that the chairman of this committee is going to support the bill.

Mr. CROHAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator Moss. I, too, compliment you for a good statement.

If I were the applicant for a license and it were granted, taken away from the previous licensee and granted to me, and I couldn't buy his equipment and station, how long would it take me to get on the air?

Mr. CROHAN. Well, I suppose overnight, possibly, you know, if you could make a deal or an arrangement with your competition to use their transmitter, you could bring the equipment in-when I say overnight, I am being facetious.

In a short time you should get on the air. But to do a job would take anywhere from, I would imagine, 6 months to 2 years, to build the necessary facilities.

Senator Moss. That would be predicated on being able to borrow some facilities that were in place?

Mr. CROHAN. That is correct.

Senator Moss. I really had in mind, suppose I had to erect all of my equipment, my transmitter and station and everything of that sort? Is this rather a long and expensive process?

Mr. CROHAN. Extremely long, Senator. It could take anywhere from, I would imagine, 9 months to 2 years.

Senator Moss. So if the competitor that you referred to didn't happen to be cooperative, there might be quite a long hiatus, wouldn't there, between the old one going off and the new one getting underway? Mr. CROHAN. Yes, sir.

Senator Moss. Thank you.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Baker?

Senator BAKER. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

I notice in your statement, that you point out, and I think correctly, that in a contested renewal case, even if the present licensee wins in defending his license, he still loses as a result of the overpowering cost of litigating the issue?

Mr. CROHAN. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. I have some recollection that in a station application, the cost for legal fees, engineering costs, and the like must be capitalized and are not deductible?

Is it true that there are enormous costs with this litigation and attending engineering data in a proceeding of this type? Is it more costly than if he spent $250,000, say, in defending a lawsuit for personal injury. Am I correct?

Mr. CROHAN. Yes; you are, Senator.

The gentleman who testified before me mentioned $250,000 to submit an opposing application.

Well, the person defending his application would spend far in excess of that amount because he would have to win.

Senator BAKER. Which in effect would be an investment, a capital investment of, say, $250,000 that would be treated more or less as an addition to his physical plant, to his broadcast facilities, that would produce no results?

Mr. CROHAN. That is right.

Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, Mr. Crohan.

Mr. Frank P. McIntyre, vice president, KLUB-KWIC Broadcasting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

STATEMENT OF FRANK C. MCINTYRE, VICE PRESIDENT, KLUBKWIC BROADCASTING, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, PAST PRESIDENT, UTAH BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION

Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I am the vice president and station manager of KLUB-KWIC, which possibly sounds like a bar, but as my friend Ted Moss can tell you, this is a radio station.

Our AM station is K-L-U-B, which we call Klub, and our FM stastation is K-W-I-C, which we call Kwic, so we are KLUB-KWIC.

I come here today not as a licensee-nor as the spokesman for a communications monolith with millions at stake. I represent the Utah Broadcasters Association, of which I am a past president, but even more important, I consider myself the self-appointed representative of the thousands of practitioners who have given the better part of their lives to an honorable profession-just because they love it.

I speak for the small operator who has built his property out of little more than bailing wire, chewing gum, hard work, and guts. I speak for the vast army of managers, program men, newsmen, engineersthe men and women who have neglected their family and other responsibilities because they were devoted to a demanding professionthe "dyed in the wool" pro who would rather be at the station than on the golf course.

Many broadcasters in the business today are at their office 7 days a week. Dr. Frank Stanton, president of the CBS, comes to work 7 days a week. He doesn't have to. He does it because he wants to. He is in a business he loves.

Well, I am one of them. I have been in broadcasting since the fall of 1936, when, as a starry-eyed teenager, I was lucky enough, and I emphasize lucky enough-I am not being facetious-I was lucky enough to get a $2.50 a week job as a full-time announcer at a struggling Kansas City, Mo. radio station. You know they were fiddling around then with a new toy called TV. The engineers worked in dark rooms. This is how far back it goes. Somewhere along the line they changed the process, I understand. My shift was from 12 noon until 1 a.m. the next morning. That is what I mean by full time. I asked for $1.25 a week, the cost of a weekly streetcar pass. I got exactly double what I asked for. That was the first and only time. [Laughter.]

This $2.50 a week came because they had a $17.50 budget for announcers. They said, Mac, Joe Blow here will work for $15 a week. We have $17.50 for this job, but he will work for $15, so we can give you $2.50.