Search

Following issuance of the FCC Report and Statement op Policy on programming on July 29, 1960, former FCC Commissioner Charles King challenged the “public interest, convenience or necessity” standard for broadcasting regulation on the grounds that the standard was incapable of definition. For the past year Commissioner (former Chairman) Ford has been preparing as an answer an analysis of the legislative and judicial history of the “public interest” standard and a defense of the programming report.His answer was first presented in the form of a speech to the Washington State Association of Broadcasters in Seattle on June 28, 1961. The article that follows is but slightly revised from the Seattle speech, and has been made into a landmark reference in communications law through the addition by Commissioner Ford of full documentation and legal citations.The Journal op Broadcasting is proud to publish this carefully reasoned analysis of the touchstone of American telecommunications policy. It was written by a man who has served the Federal Communications Commission and the public as attorney (from 1947 to 1957), as Commissioner since 1957, and for a year as Chairman of the Commission. He brought to the present study some 22 years in government service and a reputation as a “lawyer's lawyer.”

“The Commission does not seek to prevent the expression of any viewpoint by any licensee on any issue. It does seek to prevent the suppression of other contrasting viewpoints by any licensee on any issue when licensed broadcast facilities have been used for the presentation of one view of the issue.” In these few words, the Federal Communications Commission summarized its Public Notice of July 26, 1963 on the “Fairness Doctrine.” Not many of the FCCs announcements have generated so much confusion, or so many cries of “censorship!” The following article is an attempt by Commissioner Ford to explain the origin, meaning, interpretations, and procedures for implementing the “fairness doctrine” in such a manner as to help the broadcaster better operate in the public interest.

DOCUMENTS IN AMERICAN BROADCASTING. Edited by Frank J. Kahn. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. 598 pp. $4.95 (paper).RADIO, TELEVISION AND AMERICAN POLITICS. By Edward W. Chester. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969. 342 pp. $7.50/3.45.THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY. New York: Bantam Books, 1970. 700 pp. $1.65 (paper).HOW TO TALK BACK TO YOUR TELEVISION SET. By Nicholas Johnson. Boston: Little-Brown, 1970. ix+228 pp. $5.75. [re-issued with added bibliographies and an index by Bantam Books, 1970. 245 pp. 95¢.]MEDIA SOCIOLOGY: A READER. Edited by Jeremy Tunstall. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970. x+574 pp. $12.50.TELEVISION: SELECTIONS FROM “TV GUIDE” MAGAZINE. Edited by Barry G. Cole. New York: Free Press, 1970. 605 pp. $12.50/5.95.INTRODUCTION TO MASS COMMUNICATIONS. By Edwin Emery, Phillip H. Ault, and Warren K. Agee. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1970 (third edition). 444 pp. $8.95.THE MASS MEDIA AND MODERN SOCIETY. By William L. Rivers, Theodore Peterson, and Jay W. Jensen. San Francisco: Rinehart Press, 1971 (second edition). 342 pp. $8.95.THE COMMUNICATIVE ARTS: AN INTRODUCTION TO MASS MEDIA. By Charles S. Steinberg. New York: Hastings House, 1970. 371 pp. $10.00/6.00.TELECOMMUNICATIONS: THE BOOMING TECHNOLOGY. By Ronald Brown. New York: Doubleday, 1970. 191 pp. $5.95.THE EMMY AWARDS: A PICTORIAL HISTORY. By Paul Michael and James Robert Parish. New York: Crown, 1970. 384 pp. $9.95.

Examines ways in which the Western Allies exacerbated the Berlin crisis in Germany and played into the hands of the Russians. Russians' cold blockade of the American, British and French sectors of the city; Negative results of the way the introduction of the Deutsche mark was handled; Protest raised by citizens when the western authorities ruled that both the Deutsche mark and the Russian-backed Reichsmark would be accepted at par for certain items and services; Theory that the Russians could interfere with the operations of the westerners' air bridge.

Comments on the slow development of Soviet Union sponsorship of a new German nationalist, anti-capitalist party called the National-Democratic Party. Structure of the new party that appeals for support to former Nazis; Content of the party's newspaper, licensed and sponsored by the Soviet headquarters at Karlshorst; Fund launched by the newspaper to help former Nazis released from Allied internment camps; Protests launched by both U.S. and British officials before the Kommandatura, the four-power body that governs Berlin, against the formation of the party; Difficulties faced by U.S. and British occupation authorities with existing political parties in their zones.

The article presents several letters to the editor in response to articles related to engineering including "How to build a leviathan," in the January 25, 2006 issue, "Sudden impact" in the February 8, 2006 issue, question on the concept of space tourism and President George W. Bush's concerns about declining energy resources.