This is how mike-happy kids broke into the business in the thirties and forties. Hours meant nothing. Pay was irrelevant. We only wanted to be a part of radio back in those days. I had to go back to summer school to get enough credits to graduate from high school, because I spent all of my time at radio stations. I was a spook. This is what they called them. We haunted the radio stations. This is what I mean by dedication.

Our industry is made up of literally thousands of these individuals who are devoted to broadcasting, as the only life they know-or want to know. Nor do we envy the millionaire who isn't a part of broadcasting. We feel sorry for him. Some of us feel sorry for Senators, because they don't have the thrill of coming to work at a radio or television station every morning.

Senator PASTORE. Well, don't let it bother you. [Laughter.]

Mr. MCINTYRE. The typical broadcaster is the man who "got the call" the call just as valid as the Southern Baptist minister, or the Roman Catholic priest or the teacher, the educator. There are men who just had to be preachers-just had to be priests-just had to be teachers. And so it is with most of us in radio and TV.

In my almost 33 years in this business, I have observed first hand some of the worst and some of the best operations. I have seen so much fine radio and TV that I couldn't help but be extremely proud of my profession. I have participated in and been responsible for some thrilling projects.

I have also observed enough bad practices that I can't, in good conscience join those sanctimonious broadcasters who piously maintain that our industry is above criticism from any source. We receiveand deserve-both brickbats and bouquets.

I can think of no public servant more sensitive to suggestions and/ or criticism than the typical broadcaster. Most of us "run scared" 100 percent of the time. And this is good, because a complacent broadcaster is a lousy broadcaster. Let no critic say that, as a group, we turn a deaf ear to criticism and/or suggestions. We are also far more critical of ourselves-and one another-than any "outside critic." Most of us have nothing but utter contempt for the broadcaster who debases-bastardizes our industry. We silently applaud when he "gets his just due."

A necessary and efficient watchdog is the Federal Communications Commission. Those who maintain the FCC is a pawn of the industrythat renewals are granted automatically-need only refer to past and present FCC records which list dozens of stations fined for malpractices; histories of revoked licenses and other broadcasters facing revocation proceedings.

The "bad boys" can't operate scot-free indefinitely. Retribution is inevitable. Obviously, the FCC can't monitor every radio and/or TV station in the Nation 24 hours a day just as no licensee can even monitor his own station 24 hours a day.

On the operational level, responsible broadcasters set firm policies and procedures in form all employees of said policy and proceduresand follow through with "spot checking." FCC application forms are probing. This Government body does a better-than-should-beexpected job of supervising the 6,694 AM and FM radio stationsand 857 TV stations-commercial and educational.

Those figures are from broadcasters. I think we have received today a half dozen figures on how many stations are on the air and I don't think any of them agree.

Now, the FCC has a great challenge. Considering their burdenonly the most violently anti-FCC forces could charge the FCC with doing less than a responsible job. Granted the FCC couldn't possibly via normal checking procedures-be aware of all broadcaster peccability. But the "schlock" operator has learned he can't get away with his sinning-because someone out there is watching— and listening and taping-and writing letters to the FCC, and maybe sending tapes to the FCC.

Watchdog No. 1. The listener-the offended listener who passes along his complaint, valid or otherwise to the FCC.

Watchdog No. 2. The competition. The broadcaster who gets too far out of line can be pretty sure the whistle is going to be blown by the operator down the street-especially if the guy down the street starts to hurt. How did the FCC know KIMN, Denver, was including as part of their format "toilet flushing" sound effects? Maybe they got a tape from a competitor. Or, perhaps the complaint came from the Denver teacher who was flushed down the toilet via audio. This happened. Regardless, whether the whistle was blown by a competitor or by an offended listener is unimportant. Relevant is the fact that the FCC had documentary proof of an inexcusable breach of decency by a licensee.

How did the FCC first learn of the sordid KRLA Los Angeles case the "find the DJ contest" with said disc jockey not even in the city of Los Angeles? Did a competitor discover the contest was patently phoney? At any rate, the whistle was blown.

This is merely another instance of an arrogant broadcaster who learned the hard way there is such a thing as retribution-that no broadcaster, regardless of power, connections, or wealth, can indefinitely flout the rules-and make a mockery of the dictum that broadcasters must operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

Watchdog No. 3. The staff. A very sobering influence is to be surrounded by staffers who must know the innermost secrets of the operation. In this business, nothing is a secret. The old radio show, "The Shadow," "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of man." That's from the old radio drama, "The Shadow." "Who knows what goes on in the minds of Newsman Ned, Bookkeeper Beatrice, Salesman Sam, Secretary Sally?" You know they know most of the secrets-but what you don't know is how long they are to remain loyal, trustworthy servants. So it is wise to operate in such a way that even if Salesman Sam leaves in a huff and would like nothing better than to put you out of business and nail you to the cross, he can't build a case against you. He can't pin a thing on you. The everpresent danger of defections is a compelling incentive to "keep clean." Still another potent watchdog. The profusion of "citizens' groups.” Maybe they perform a service if nothing more than acting as just another reminder that someone out there is "watching us."

The public is protected. Not the least of the checks and balances is the professional pride of the broadcaster who seeks whether or not he will admit it, he seeks above all else, maybe after money, the respect and admiration of his peers. The public is even protected by the profit

incentive. Many highly successful broadcasters have discovered the best way to turn a consistent profit is to concentrate on superior programing.

We cut our commercial load down to 12 minutes an hour. This is the absolute maximum, and we started selling what we used to give away. And we found people will buy it. We never made so much money. The public came out the winner.

In other words, the advertiser is probably served best by the station that places the listener first. That crowded dial protects the listening and viewing public. "Those ain't oil wells, mister. Those are AM, FM, and TV towers." There is hardly a broadcaster in the country today-no matter how remote-who has a "captive market." The public has a choice-many choices in most markets. We must be creative, imaginative, and strive for excellence if we are to survive. Each of us tries to "best" the other. Chalk this, too, up to "professional pride." Our personal ego helps to serve and protect the public. None of us likes to be accused of operating a schlock station, a lousy

radio station.

Emphasis has been placed on the millions of dollars at stake when an established facility is fighting for its life in a comparative hearing. I do not denigrate the money involved-but, I would emphasize the even more important element-people.

The definitive difference in broadcast stations is people. In the preTV days, the radio genius had 50,000 watts on a clear channel with a CBS or NBC contract. He was the genius. But those days have long passed. Today many little "coffee-pots" clobber powerhouses because of inspired, enthusiastic people.

In 1918, Eddie Miller put it in song: "A Good Man is Hard to Find," 51 years later, it is still true-only more so. The classified columns of trade journals indicate the "short supply" of true professionals. Major market network owned and operated and other prestigious stations are forced to use "classifieds" to seek competent help. Not too many years back, working at a network "o and o" was the "impossible dream" for most employees in radio. Today they have to advertise in Broadcasting or in Billboard.

The broadcaster who has assembled a fine staff has created a minor miracle. The audience senses it and benefits from the creative efforts of a devoted team of pros. Inspired radio-inspired TV-comes from inspired craftsmen working as a team. Quite often, the “inspiration” isn't just money-though it helps.

Anyone intimate with the business of broadcasting knows this. He also knows that the finest craftsmen might be neurotic, maybe slightly paranoid, jealous, insecure, temperamental-as skittish as a pregnant mare. He is a character-but you love and cherish him because he has unique ability.

There is no greater tragedy in our business than for a fine staff to "fall apart." I can think of no better method to wreck a fine staff than to file a competing application for their firm's facility.

What of that "cloud of suspicion" that will forever hover over the head of the manager of the station with a jeopardized license? Chances are he is completely and utterly guiltless of any peccability. Nonetheless, he was skipper of a station that possibly could lose its license. Or, maybe he can escape the censure of his principles. So he must find a

whipping boy. There must be a scapegoat. The hearing has cost a lot of dough it's brought the station unfavorable-though undeservedpublicity. Somebody was responsible. And if I know my broadcasting, "somebody has to go." This is tragic.

Most broadcasters are so proud of their product they have no genuine fear of losing their license in a competitive hearing. They do shudder at the thought of the time-and the money-to be spent in proving that they have been responsible caretakers of their frequency. The typical licensee would win the case, but would lose a small fortune-plus his mental and physical well-being. The broadcaster can spend his dough fighting to save his license. Or, he can spend the same money upgrading the staff and facilities. He comes out of the hearing with his license intact, but he is broke. He can't afford to hire that extra newsmanand he makes do with the equipment that should have been replaced vears ago. Who loses? The listener, obviously.

If there be sinners among us—and I'll readily concede there arelet the FCC crack down. Let the FCC show no mercy on the operator who has violated his trust. We will have a better profession as a result. But, may the FCC be halted in this silly exercise of accepting applications for existing facilities, when the FCC has not disqualified the present operator.

Passage of S. 2004 would put the horse before the cart, where it should be.

Is the present operator qualified? This is the only relevant question. Either he is or isn't. There is no degree of pregnancy. If he is found qualified on the basis of his past record, his license must be renewed. If he is found unqualified, his license must be revoked. Any other formula amounts to "playing games." Broadcasting is serious business. It isn't a game.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much.

The best compliment I can pay to you is to say to you, admonish you when my good friend Ted Moss comes up for reelection, don't you get any ideas.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Ted and I are the only two Democrats left in Utah. We will have to stick together.

Aren't we Ted?

Senator Moss. That's right, Mac.

This is a very excellent statement, and I appreciate it. You have told it like it is.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Baker?

Senator BAKER. I have no questions.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you very much.

We will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon at 12:20 the subcommittee was recessed.)

AMENDING THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 TO ESTABLISH ORDERLY PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF BROADCAST LICENSES

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1969

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable John O. Pastore (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Pastore, Cannon, and Baker.

Senator PASTORE. The hour of 10 having been reached, we will continue hearings on S. 2004.

I have a list of witnesses today. We are very anxious to conclude these hearings between 11:30 and 12 if we can today because during the final period before the vote on the ABM we will all have to be on the floor.

I am going to call the first witness out of order, Mr. Stanford Smith. I understand he has a personal reason to get away and I would like very much to accommodate him.

Mr. Stanford Smith, general manager of the American Newspaper Publishers Association of New York City.

STATEMENT OF STANFORD SMITH, GENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD C. BEELER, COMMUNICATIONS COUNSEL, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I especially appreciate your kindness in letting me get on first.

My name is Stanford Smith. I am general manager of the American Newspaper Publishers Association. I am accompanied by our communications counsel, Mr. Donald C. Beeler.

In view of your time schedule, I suggest, sir, that I hit the high spots of my prepared statement and we can go through it in that fashion.

Senator PASTORE. That is a good idea. We will insert appendix A at the end of your statement and you may proceed.

Mr. SMITH. ANPA is the National Trade Association of Daily Newspapers. Its membership represents more than 90 percent of the total daily newspaper circulation in the United States.