"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the
late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?

Yes. The FCC had a policy of localism. Local applicants had a huge
advantage
over companies or distant applicants for new TV and FMs as well as AMs in
that period, and localism was required in the license renewal process via
ascertainment of needs, community (PA) programming, news content, etc. The
FCC was obcessed with localism. I do not know of any station or group that
lobbied for it as a policy, although plenty of applicants went for the
licenses based on pushing local ownership and management.

OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?




And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no
skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was
pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.

"Everyone wants to operate at night", "nobody did want to operate at night".

Whichever. It's hard to say the FCC was doing anybody any favors by
allowing expanded nighttime operation.



And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect
for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.

By the end of the 60's, the FM band was pretty full, especially in the
major
markets, and the FCC was starting on its way to break up the clears.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM
operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?

FM was not profitable until the mid-70's on a major scale. In the 50's,
the
number of FMs declined between 1950 and 1960... by nearly 25%. It was not
until the FCC mandated an end to simulcasting in the late 60's that FM
started to react, based on new programming, but forced by the FCC.

And the broadcast industry pros didn't know what to do with FM, either.


The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing
editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however.

No, they did everything they could to prevent editorializing, especially
the
requirement to give equal time for opposing viewpoints. I never worked
with
a station from 1959 through the 80's that editorialized. It was legally
too
full of problems and could put the license in jeopardy.

OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258 (1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14 "major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g., Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=364#f14



And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups
from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.



Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness
doctrine.

Yes, now we can all editorialize freely without having to notify, grant
replies, etc.



Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Frank Dresser