MASTER'S THESIS M-I613
GROSSMAN, Gerald Bruce FRIEDA HENNOCK: HER VIEWS ON EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION.
The American University, M.A., 1968 Mass Communication
University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
COPYRIGHT BY GERALD BRUCE GROSSMAN 1969 FRJEDk HEMOCKt HER VIEWS OH EDPCATI^^kL TELEVISION
by Gerald Bruce Grossman
Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American Iftiiversity in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts
Broadcasting
Signature of C Chairman
Date AMERICAN UNIVERSITY : ^ />: library JUL18 1968 1968 Washington. 0 . c The American University Washington, D.C. PREFACE
I should like to thank the following people who took time from their busy schedules to speak with me about Frieda
Hennock: Stanley Neustadt, Louis Stephens, Sol Shleldhouse,
Dr. Harold Wigren, Sol Taishoff, Frank Russell, Commissioner
Robert E. Lee, William Harley, Mrs. Ruth Butcher and Harry
Lando. My special thanks to William Simons, Miss Hennock's husband, for his valuable assistance and to Ted Lewis of the New York Daily News who allowed me time off from my job to complete the thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER p a g e I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. BACKGROUND ...... 3 The Early Years ...... 3 Nomination to the Federal Communications C o m m i s s i o n ...... 5 The Nomination is Confirmed...... 7 Reaction to the Appointment...... 9 III. FRIEDA HENNOCK ON THE FC C ...... 13 Her Tenure Begins ...... 13 The Formation of I d e a s ...... 17 Plea to the Educators...... 21 Early Reactions...... 27 Efforts Begin to Get Results ...... 33 The Freeze is L i f t e d ...... 40 Reaction to the Lift of the Freeze .... 42 The Eisenhower Years ...... 47 The Fight Gets Tougher ...... 6l UHF Television by the End of 1954 ...... 69 Her Last Few Months on theCommission . . . 71 Frieda Hennock— A Personal Look ...... 77 Frieda Hennock Bows O u t ...... 84 IV. THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY TODAY ...... 87 iv CHAPTER PAGE Growth of the Industry Since Miss Hennock
Left the FCC ...... 87
The State of Educational Television Today . . 89 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 102 LIST OP FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Frieda Hennock circa 1926 ...... vi 2. Example of Program Advertising...... 58
3. Commissioner Hennock 1954...... 66 4. The Growth of Educational Television...... 90 FIGURE 1 FRIEDA HENNOCK CIRCA 1926 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Frieda Hennock spent seven controversial years on the Federal Communications Commission, from 1948-1955. As a minority of one, she fought continuing battles with the commercial television networks. The differences were usually in relation to Miss Hennock's supreme cause on the
Commission: educational television. She also argued for fair and equal competition between Ultra High Frequency
(UHF) and Very High Frequency (VHF) stations in areas dominated by the VHF channels. But the networks were not her only source of discontent. Miss Hennock was frustrated by the apathy of those people whom she was trying to help: the educators. The conservative, compromising nature of her fellow commissioners drove Frieda Hennock to a number of emotional outbursts in her attempts to bring progress and attention to educational television.
The purpose of this study is to present the views of
Frieda Hennock on the subject of educational television.
The study is also concerned with the events surrounding those views during her tenure on the Federal Communications
Commission. Miss Hennock was involved in many Important
Commission decisions during those seven years, covering such subjects as satellites and their boosters, subscription television, community antenna television, color television, and the sales of stations. Although it may be necessary to touch upon many of the matters listed above, my study primarily concentrates on her efforts and contributions on behalf of educational television.
No one has yet made a study of Frieda Hennock’s work.
This paper fills that gap. My approach is historical and descriptive. My sources include Miss Hennock*s decisions, speeches, published works, as well as interviews with those who knew and worked with her. CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
Frieda Hennock had great ambition and drive as a youth. The daughter of a Polish immigrant. Miss Hennock worked hard to help support her large family, A precocious child, many of her accomplishments came at an early age.
Her successes were remarkable. She took great pleasure in outdoing her male counterparts when she began practicing law.
I. THE EARLY YEARS
Frieda Barkin Hennock was b o m in Kovel, Poland,
September 27, 1904 to Boris and Sarah Hennock. The youngest of eight children, she came to the United States with her family in 1910. Her father entered real estate and banking in New York City. Frieda attended public schools in
Brooklyn, finishing her public education at Morris High
School.
Frieda had studied music from the age of five and then gave piano lessons to earn extra money for her large family. The Hennocks had hoped Frieda would become a pro fessional musician, but she wanted to study law. Despite her father's disapproval, she entered Brooklyn Law School in
1916. The tuition was paid through a part-time Job with the law firm of Thomas and Friedman. Frieda Hennock became the youngest person in the history of New York to receive a law degree; she was nineteen and the year was 1924. Miss
Hennock had to wait until she was twenty-one before she could take the New York City Bar Examination.
New York City's youngest woman lawyer started her own practice in 1926. She began with fifty—six dollars capital.
She had earned $3000 by the end of her first week. Miss
Hennock quickly established a reputation as an accomplished criminal lawyer. "I'm very glad I was a criminal lawyer when I was very young," she was later to say. "Knowing these people gave me an adult sense of values. The law never made me callous.
From 1927 to 1934, she was a member of the law firm of Silver and Hennock. The emotional drain of criminal law then threatened her health and she changed her practice.
^"Frieda Hennock." Current Biography. XI (November, 1948), 1 . Working independently for the next seven years. Miss Hennock also taught at Brooklyn Law School in 1937 on the subject of developments in law and economics. During the period from
1935 to 1939, she worked on a study of low-cost housing for the New York State Mortgage Commission. As one of her many precedents, she broke all tradition in 1941 by becoming the first woman lawyer, and Democrat, to Join the law firm of
Choate, Mitchell and Ely, a staunch Republican legal firm established in 1807.
II. NOMINATION TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
As Just one of the many criticisms the Republicans
» leveled at President Truman during the late 1940*s, the GOP attacked the administration for the scarcity of women in high political office. Only four women at this time were holding Federal policy status. Early in his first adminis tration, Truman had considered appointing a woman to the 2 Federal Communications Commission. She was Marion E.
^The Federal Communications Commission was created by Congress in 1934 to regulate interstate commerce and foreign communications. The Commission grants licenses, allocates frequencies and has technical supervision over radio and television stations as part of its many duties. When new developments appear in communications, the FCC Martin, ex-asslstant Chairman of the Republican National
Committee. Although women’s clubs besieged Truman to appoint Miss Martin, the position was given instead to
E, M. Webster. Women were thought to make up the majority of the daytime radio audience; their civic groups contended that women should therefore have a voice on the FCC.
Frieda Hennock was active in New York State and City politics. A leader in the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party, she campaigned vigorously for Franklin D, Roosevelt and New York Mayor William 0*Dwyer. As one of the most politically active and intelligent women in the country.
Miss Hennock became a prime candidate to succeed Clifford J.
Durr, an Alabama Democrat, on the Federal Communications
Commission. Durr, a Roosevelt appointee, had notified
President Truman that he did not wish reappointment to the
Commission. An outspoken critic of the Truman Administration,
Durr vehemently objected to the loyalty check made against federal employees. Mrs. Durr took an active part in Henry
Wallace’s campaign for President in 1948.^
promotes their application according to possible effects on life, property and the general welfare, generally referred to as the public interest, convenience and necessity. Broadcasting-Telecasting. I (May 31, 1948), p. 40. President Truman knew Frieda Hennock, She had been a member of an executive committee requested by the President in the 1940's to plan a ten-year public health program. As
Durr's term on the FCC neared its end. Miss Hennock began to receive strong backing for the appointment by influential
New Yorkers: Paul Fitzpatrick, New York State Democratic
Chairman, Edward J. Flynn, Bronx Democratic leader, and Mrs.
India Edwards, Director of the Women's Division of the
Democratic National Committee.^ Finally, President Truman ended speculation by nominating Frieda Hennock to the FCC,
May 24, 1948, to succeed Durr, whose term expired on June 30 of that year.
III. THE NOMINATION IS CONFIRMED
Republicans, espousing the usual discontent of the opposing political party, were unhappy about seeing a seven- year term on a regulatory agency spread out for a Democrat, especially in an election year when their own candidate,
Thomas Dewey, Governor of New York, was a heavy favorite to be elected President. Southern Democrats felt slighted In
^Ibld. 8 having a northerner appointed to an important Federal post in place of a southerner. Reaction to the Hennock nomi nation was political. Party lines were held until confir mation of the appointment by the Senate Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee.
The Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee writes U.S. communications laws, maintains surveillance of the FCC’s administration of those laws, and passes on all
Presidential appointments to the Commission. President
Truman felt confident in his position. Few senators would deny confirmation for a high Federal office a few months before an election, "if the Senate fails to confirm his nomination of Frieda Hennock to the FCC, he'll jTrumar^ charge the GOP with discrimination against women In Federal jobs."5 Stanley Neustadt, Miss Hennock's first confiden tial assistant on the Commission, recalls that period:
In 1948, everyone assumed the Republicans were going to win in November. They the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee considered several hundred appointments in a very long, practically all-night session. Out of the hundreds they considered, only two were confirmed and she was one of them. Senator Robert Taft R-Ohlo was concerned about her coming under the domination of the influences which were then
^"White House Straws," Newsweek, XXIX (June 7, 1948), p. 49. prominent at the Commission. She promised him that she would not, that she would be totally independent in her outlook, that she would not Just go in and assume the history and attitudes that had previously existed on the Commission."
On June 20, 1948, Frieda B. Hennock’s nomination to the Federal Communications Commission was confirmed by a vote of 8-0 . At the age of forty-three, she had become the first woman Commissioner in the FCC’s twenty-one year history.
IV. REACTION TO THE APPOINTMENT
Early reaction to Frieda Hennock’s confirmation as an
FCC Commissioner was generally favorable. Names such as
Truman, McCarthy, Symington, Magnuson, (Justice) Douglas, backed her. As a successful lawyer and an energetic, dedi cated political worker. Miss Hennock had shown herself to be worthy of nomination to the regulatory Agency. Although she did not have any professional experience In communications,
Frieda Hennock brought with her a set of unique qualifi cations which will be enumerated in the course of the thesis.
Frank Russell, a former Vice-President at NBC, remembers the broadcasting industry’s initial feeling about the new Madam
Commissioner.
^Statement by Stanley Neustadt, personal interview. 10
The fact that a woman had been appointed to the FCC was more Important than what her name was. There was an assumption that a woman wasn’t qualified or tough enough by their temperament to be a regulator, touching a very sensitive industry like broadcasting. But she soon Impressed everyone as being very determined.7
Her nomination to the FCC did not come without disparaging remarks, however. Representative Charles W.
Vursell (R-Illinols), in a sweeping denunciation of the administration on the floor of the House of Representatives, said that no department of government had been run as poorly 8 as the FCC. He lashed out at an FCC station grant to
Toledo Attorney Edward Lamb, a Communist sympathizer. Lamb was connected with the book. The Planned Economy in Soviet
Russia, an approval of the Russian economy for the United
States. Vursell regarded the Miss Hennock as "another leftist in this important position . . . She reputedly has been . . . a member of the National Lawyer’s Guild, branded as a Communist front by the Attorney General."9 Frieda
Hennock, the record chows, had been a member of the National
Lawyer’s Guild, but promptly resigned her membership when the leftist aspect became apparent. Senator Joseph W. Ball
^Statement by Frank Russell, personal interview.
Broadcasting-Telecasting. I (June 7, 1948), p. l4.
9lbid. 11
(R-Mlnnesota) objected to her nomination for other reasons:
Certain interest groups, who are greatly interested in this nomination, have a direct pipe line to the FCC, which we certainly would not want to have occur . . . The late President Roosevelt never appointed a member to the FCC from New York City, for the simple reason that New York City is the center of the radio Industry, and he wanted to avoid any possibility of the industry Itself having too much influence on the Commission . . . She has had no experience In radio matters and . . . frankly I do not think she Is qualified for the Job.10
Frieda Hennock*s governmental colleagues quickly learned with what type of a person they were dealing. A little more than a week after she had been confirmed, she was called before the Republican-dominated Interstate
Commerce Committee. Miss Hennock told the senators: "I’m against you Republicans and I always have been. I have done my best to collect money for Roosevelt and have probably taken a lot of good Republican money away."^^ Her brusque, candid, staccato speech at this hearing gave an indication of what was to come.
The first woman named to a high public office since
Frances Perkins became Secretary of Labor in 1946, was eager to begin. She had taken the Job for three main reasons:
^^Congressional Record. Vol. 95, No. 6 (June 21, 1948), p. 7146.
llWashington Post. June 28, 1948, p. 2. 12 she felt the FCC needed someone who understood constitutional law In granting licenses to radio and television stations; she had a feel for government; and she wanted to see more women placed in high Federal positions. 12
^^"Communications to the Ladies," Investor’s Reader. XIX (June-23, 1948), p. 9. CHAPTER III
FRIEDA HENNOCK ON THE FCC
Miss Hennock's first few months on the Federal
Communications Commission were relatively quiet. She spent her time learning, watching, and formulating opinions about the broadcasting industry.
I. HER TENURE BEGINS
Frieda Hennock's first speech as an FCC Commissioner came on August 8 , 1948. The occasion was her installation ceremony. She spoke of the possibilities of radio as the mechanism of true democracy, making information and knowledge available to everyone. Radio's full growth, she said, was the one real hope for understanding in a world where the instruments of war far surpass the tools for peace.^ Rather surprisingly, she mentioned sparingly the uses of television, fast becoming a troublesome topic. Instead, she confined most of her remarks to the educational potential of communi cations In general.
^Baltimore Sun. August 8 , 1948, p. 5. 14
One should remember that television was in a confused state during this period. There were 108 television stations on the air in the United States. The FCC was being deluged with applications for channels and construction permits. It was becoming evident that not many more stations could be accommodated on the air wave spectrum. Existing station signals were beginning to interfere with each other. If channels were not properly allocated, viewers would receive weak, distorted pictures from the bombardment of conflicting signals. Some parts of the country would be oversupplied with channels and other parts would receive none at all.
There were not enough VHF channels available in every community for all networks. Each of the networics proposed a different allocation plan serving their own interests.
Swollen by applications and entanglements, the Commission imposed a "freeze" on granting new television construction permits in September, 1948.
Frieda Hennock's first few months on the FCC were spent learning her new trade. She acquainted herself with the new legal problems. In order to understand the technical side of her job. Miss Hennock took cram courses in electronics and engineering. The information was complex and difficult, but she was determined to master it. In an address before 15 a luncheon of the National Federation of Business and
Professional Women's Clubs, the woman Commissioner told her audience :
Just imagine me, the first day on the Job, tackling an almost indigestible pile of newspapers about microvolts, millivolts, clear channels, frequency modulation and all that sort of thing. My first impulse was to rush to the hairdresser and get away from it all. But I went to work— and I'm determined to master the technical side of the Job.2
William Simons, whom she married shortly after leaving the Commission in 1956, relates that Miss Hennock enjoyed the engineering aspect of her Job the most. "She mastered it . . . understood it . . . was very adept."3 Her studying became so intense that she would repori: for work at
8:30 in the morning and not leave before 10:30 at night.
Miss Hennock realized the importance of her position. She made sure she was prepared for the problems of an FCC
Commissioner. Next to atomic energy. Miss Hennock said, communications was the most important thing the Government k regulated.
^Laurence Eklund, "Portia on the FCC," The Milwaukee Journal Magazine. September 2, 1948, p. 8 .
^statement by William Simons, personal interview.
^Eklund, loc. cit. 16
Frieda Hennock also spent her early months formulating opinions about the procedures and functions of the Federal
Communications Commission. Her first public utterances were of a general nature, emphasizing the great potential of communications, especially in education. Her strongest statement during that early period came in her first radio broadcast, on CBS, October 10, 1948. Miss Hennock said if her colleagues did not share her enthusiasm for advancing more women into responsible positions, she would spare no effort to convert them to this view. Although this statement did not exactly rock the Government at the time, it would have greater meaning in years to come. Stanley Neustadt, who did research and staff work for Miss Hennock from September
1948 to September 1949, speaks of that period:
This was a time when the climate in Washington was not very healthy in the sense that dissent was not encouraged. She did not want to be labeled as a wayout liberal Democrat. She never wanted to abandon her usefulness by being so labeled . . . just when the whole McCarthy period started. She did not want to Jeopardize the accomplishment of the things she felt were important in order to get up and make a flaming statement about something which would then result in having everyone ignore her from then on. She was timorous about losing her value. She was afraid, terribly concerned that anyone would say that she was a pinko . . . wayout. She was inhibited to some extent in the beginning.5
^Statement by Stanley Neustadt, personal interview. 17
Mr. Neustadt contends that during the first four or five months of Commissioner Hennock*s term, she may have been looking for something to make her mark with— some distin guishing contribution which would satisfy her drive to serve the public interest. Certainly, it would not be self- serving; she had been earning $40,000 a year with Choate,
Mitchell and Ely before taking the $10,000 a year position as an FCC Commissioner.^
II. THE FORMATION OF IDEAS
Frieda Hennock*s first major disagreement with an FCC majority decision came in May 1949. Although the dissent did not involve education directly, it was to reflect one of the philosophies which stayed with her during Miss Hennock*s entire tenure on the Commission. The FCC lifted the
Mayflower decision of 194l which banned editorialization on radio stations. Frieda Hennock dissented. She felt station personnel and facility limitations would make it difficult for all licensees to guarantee fairness.? This viewpoint.
^Eklund, loc. cit. ^Dissent by Frieda Hennock, Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, Washington: Government Printing Office, May 13, 19^9, p. 6. 18 leaning towards tighter FCC regulatory power over the broadcasting Industry, was to lead Miss Hennock to a philosophy calling for stricter programming control over commercial television, a direction which was never followed.
On May 10, 19^9, Frieda Hennock made her first important plea for educational television. At an Ohio State
Institute for Education by Radio, she advised educators to become aware of television’s potential in education.
"Television is your blackboard. Pick up the chalk and write on it. I’ll try to make the blackboard available."® At this same conference, Oscar Katz, Director of Research for
CBS, warned the educators that if they failed to heed the requirements of television by offering programs without broad appeal, they would be bypassed as they were in radio.9
Television, he said, must be more than a classroom extension if it is to be used educationally; it requires showmanship.
Students cannot leave the classroom, Katz concluded, but they can leave a room where a radio or television is found if the presentation does not capture their interest.
^Variety (New Yor^ , May 11, 1949, p. 2. 9lbid.
lOlbid. 19
At the end of her first year, in July 1949,
Commissioner Hennock wrote an article which foreshadowed her later efforts for educational broadcasting. We begin to see the formation of her philosophy in the following statement:
When fully developed, it {television] will unquestionably be one of the most potent forces . . . in our national life. That is why we must assure that television develops in such a way as to become an important force for cultural and intellectual betterment.il
Miss Hennock was gradually coming around to the position that as a Commissioner, she could best serve the public interest by promoting educational broadcasting. Louis
Stephens, her legal assistant from July 1954 until June 1955, tells of Frieda Hennock*s own view of her position: “She had a firm conviction of the rectitude, the value of her role in the public interest. She was impressed by the values of, not what was being done, but what could be done.“l^
Miss Hennock*s growing interest and fervor for educational broadcasting began to come through clearly in her speeches. She continually emphasized the important role of education in broadcasting. To Miss Hennock, the determining
llyarietv [New York), July 27, 1949, p. 1. 12 Statement by Louis Stephens, personal interview. 20 factor of good programming was the listener, rather than the broadcaster. Her speeches also started to show a consumer orientation. She was against the concentration of large interests. This meant, of course, friction with television*s controlling element, the networks.
The first indication that Commissioner Hennock was preparing to buck the establishment came in a speech at the dedication of Radio Station WPDR (PM), New York, on June 27,
1949. In this speech, Frieda Hennock first proposed definitive provisions be made for educational broadcasting when the FCC "freeze" was lifted.
I think that our duty to ‘encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest* requires us to make provision to insure that educators will be able to make full use of television and to enter the field before spectrum becomes too crowded.
Frieda Hennock was rapidly tailoring herself for the role of people*3 advocate. She alerted broadcasters and educators that their public responsibility was to help her reserve a large number of frequencies in the Ultra High
Frequency band for the establishment of a noncommercial educational service. The networks, according to Frank
l^Heinl Radio-Television News Service {Washington, D.C.], July 13, 1949, p. 1. 21
Russell, a former Vice-President at NBC, took her preachments in stride. "The networks felt— well, we'll give her some lip service, but we won't take her too seriouslySol
Taishoff, Editor and Publisher of Broadcasting-Telecasting
Magazine. the mouthpiece of the broadcasting industry, gives us another look:
When she came on, the industry was fearful of anti commercial broadcasting, which she was not. She was simply very vehemently for non-commercial broadcasting. She recognized there had to be a commercial system. The networks were concerned about her ability to arouse anti-commercial broadcasting elements among the women, the do-gooders.15
So, with the broadcasting suddenly put on its toes by the new threat, Frieda Hennock began a number of speaking tours. As the details for the end of the freeze were slowly being ironed out, the woman Commissioner's strategy became clear: increase the pressure on the educators to get moving into television.
III. PLEA TO THE EDUCATORS
As a former teacher, Frieda Hennock was aware of the inherent problems in educational broadcasting. Educational
l^Statement by Frank Russell, personal interview, l^statement by Sol Taishoff, personal interview. 22
Institutions move slowly; they have traditionally been conservative organizations which do not change easily.
Boards of trustees, alumni, and state legislatures, all conservative groups, scrutinize each dollar before allocation to certain priorities: school facilities, libraries, scholarships, and pay raises for teachers. Educational broadcasting would divert much of a school's needed resources,
There was a distrust of politicians and the academicians feared they might be used for propaganda reasons.
Commissioner Hennock realized she had to go to the educators themselves if any progress was to be made.
Miss Hennock spoke at a Teacher's Convention in
Philadelphia in April 1950. She urged the educators to move quickly to prepare for the great potential of educational broadcasting. Her warning was clear:
Education sold its broadcasting birthright for a mess of pottage. You can't let that happen again . . . If money can be provided for gymnasiums and stadiums, it can be obtained for something as important as adult education and classroom teaching.
Commissioner Hennock estimated that educational television outlets would each cost between $125,000 and
l^Variety (New Yorl^, April 26, 1950, p. 2, 23
$250,000.^7 She felt this figure was nominal, since teacher shortages and inadequate classroom facilities could be offset ft by the introduction of television. 1
Because Frieda Hennock publicly disapproved of commercial television's fare, she was asked at many educa tional symposiums if she favored censorship in any form. The woman Commissioner stated categorically that she was opposed to censorship in all forms.The airways. Miss Hennock asserted, belonged to the people and must never be subjected to such control. They would not be, she maintained, if the public was given the chance through educational programming to point out to the commercial sponsors and station owners PO the types of acceptable programs. Frieda Hennock recognized the profit motive in television. She even accepted it. Her goal was to see that a sufficient portion of the public airways would be devoted to public service. One of Miss
Hennock's mounting frustrations was that educated people seemed to be the first to complain about programming, but
^^New York Herald Tribune, May l4, 1950, p. 56. iGlbid. ISibid. 20ibid. 24 the last to contribute concretely toward Improvement. Again and again, as the freeze period reached its climax, she urged educators, parent's groups, and interested individuals to let broadcasters know they were concerned about television's future. Fearing the educators would be left out of television, as they were out of radio. Commissioner
Hennock warned them to actively support those organizations participating in the FCC's television hearings and to seek channels for educational television. Miss Hennock wanted them to fauniliarize themselves with the uses of radio and television as educational tools, looking at television as the cheapest way to bring the best education to the most people. Take the initiative, she said to the educators— do not depend on commercial television to provide time and facilities.
The print media, in most instances, supported the woman Commissioner. The Saturday Review printed many of her articles. Saul Carson, television reporter for the New
Republic, was a staunch supporter. The television editor of the New York Daily News. Ben Gross, usually backed her views,
Frieda Hennock often expressed the opinion that the one great stumbling block to her efforts was the apathy of the public in general, and specifically, the educators. 25
Initially, educational radio greatly excited the educators; much of the earliest broadcasting in the 1920*s had been done by them. Educational radio failed because apathetic
educators did not press state legislatures for funds during
the 1930's. One hundred and sixty-four licenses out of 202 granted were allowed to expire or transfer to commercial
interests. Now the educators were being given a second
chance with television. It seemed that history might repeat
itself.
A good deal of the blame for poor radio and television programming is the apathy of the people and "educators who were asleep at the switch in standard radio. It television can bring the classroom into every living room . . . can bring about a new philosophy, help in the proper understanding of personal relationships. The people of our land are thirsting for knowledge."21
A poll taken in 19^7 showing the nation's attitude
toward broadcasting brought the following results: fifty
per cent of the listening audience were not aware that the
Government had anything to do with the operation of radio
and television stations; 15 per cent denied that the
Government was involved; and 34 per cent had no knowledge
of the subject.
21New York Daily News. July 11, 1950, p. 48.
^^Christian Science Monitor {Bostoi^ , September l4, 1950, pp. l4-17. 26
But even if Frieda Hennock*s efforts could stir up interest, she would encounter other, more procedural difficulties. Congress, in the Communications Act of 1934, made no provision for the FCC to regulate programming.
The omission was an attempt to stay within the bounds of the First Amendment which forbids prior restraint of speech.
The Act stipulated the Commission operate in accordance with the "public interest, convenience, and necessity"
(terminology first used in the regulation of public utilities). Congress, one may assume, intended for programming to be left to the local stations, who would be in touch with the special needs and wants of the respective communities. The FCC, therefore, has had to interpret the
"public interest, convenience, and necessity" on an almost case-by-case basis. Commissioner Hennock brought up the problem in a speech at the Institute for Education by Radio in Columbus, Ohio in May 1950.
Many experts who have given the matter a great deal of serious thought have suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve the issue if a test case were brought before it. The Court could rule on the constitutionality of the debated provisions of the Communications Act . . . Aside from congressmen not having enough time for this— it goes deeper— ^socialism versus free enterprise.*'23
23Ibid. 27
IV. EARLY REACTIONS
As Frieda Hennock’s Idealistic zeal for educational programming bacame more and more pronounced, the commercial networks, under building pressure from the print media, made token efforts to appease their detractors. The Dumont
Network embarked on a campaign asking educators to comment on the educational impact of television and the need for bringing the medium into the classroom. Nothing of any lasting value resulted. NBC launched a Sunday afternoon show, "Watch the World," hosted by John Cameron Swayze. It turned out to be a collection of unimportant newsreel clips _ with unimaginative commentary which lasted less than six ph. months. The educators had not yet learned the elementary aspects of visual education.
The progress of educational broadcasting has traditionally been slowed down by lack of proper training and planning, money, and rigid methods of instruction.
Educators were more concerned with the growing complexities of urban population growth, varied responsibilities, and the
sudden onrush of scientific achievements, than dealing with
24saul Carson, "Samoff and the Professors," New Republic. XIX (May 8, 1950), p. 33. 28 the untested and expensive medium of television. John
Crosby, a writer for the Washington Post, proposed the interesting idea that the educators might have been secretly relieved if the channels planned for educational television went to commercial interests. In this way, he said, they could blame television for its mass commercialism, its adverse effect on the young, its mediocrity, as a defense mechanism for their own apathy. Crosby contended that educators are the hardest people in the world to educate.
They have been using the blackboard and eraser since the
University of Bologna was founded in the Twelfth Century; educators accepted with some reluctance the invention of type; with even greater reluctance, they finally came around to accept the developments made by the Army, Air Force, and
Navy in visual teaching, one of the most efficient educational systems simply because it has to be (the armed services obviously have only a matter of weeks and months to open a soldier’s mind, cram in as much information as possible, and have him retain enough so that he won't get his head blown off). Failing to find the qualities in a field in which he has been floundering, Crosby concludes, the educator has, and will continue to, heap scorn on 29 25 television.
One must put the position of the educators into proper perspective. Admittedly, their number one problem was funds.
William Harley, President of the National Association of
Educational Broadcasters, says:
There has always been a sort of inertia in educational communities, not only in television, but in other fields. It's a fact of life. Television involves a substantial amount of funds, not always available to the educator. It takes a great deal of money not only to construct a station, but to meet the necessary requirements for a license.25
Dr. Harold Wigren, educational television consultant for the National Education Association, elaborates further:
One has to consider how educational television was introduced. The teacher was bypassed in the planning stages; he was not part of educational television. Only the decision-makers, the principals and superintendants, were consulted. Furthermore, educational television did not develop in the usual grass roots approach. It was forced into the schools— the process of human growth and development was forgotten. Consequently, you ran into problems, especially scheduling problems. Programs were shown when you had them, not when you needed them. And these programs were haphazard, marginal, peripheral. 27
Frieda Hennock understood the economics of the commercial television industry. She conceded the profit
^5yfashington Post. November 28, 1950, p. 51. 25statement by William Harley, personal interview. 27statement by Dr. Harold Wigren, personal interview. 30 motive to the networks and urged educators and Interested groups to get busy because there would be little. If any, donations of time or money from commercial television. Miss
Hennock continually stressed the potential of educational broadcasting as a great social force for cultural betterment and a powerful influence in improving the quality of programming service in competition with the existing networks. She felt that money was not important. The real importance, the goal of her efforts, lay in reserving the television outlets. She wanted 25 per cent of the spectrum 28 reserved for educational television when the freeze ended.
Any less would have meant continuation of the status quo, and a greatly deprived public. Commissioner Hennock envisioned the vast possibilities:
Our universities are staffed with great teachers. Their greatest gift is not erudition, it is the ability to arouse in their students an unquenchable thirst for learning. Why confine these gifts to a few hundred students, when they could be made available to millions.29
Now, after early months of inhibition. Miss Hennock's views were out in the open and she began to receive
2®John Crosby, "Are We Letting TV Go to McCall « s. XII (October, 1950), p. 31.
29lbid. 31 opposition. Her blanket proposition of 25_per cent of the airwave spectrum for noncommercial television was condemned as a threat to the healthy growth of the general television service by representatives of the industry testifying before the FCC in January 1951. Judge Justin Miller, President of the National Association of Broadcasters said educational television could best oe promoted on a voluntary basis as a joint project of the schools and commercial interests.5®
Miller asserted that it would be cheaper for the educators to buy time on the air than attempt to pay the heavy cost of station installation and operation. Frank Stanton, President of CBS, said that before educational television could become effective, the mass audience had to be created, and maintained, by commercial television. 31 He recommended that rather than reserving particular channels for educational broadcasting, the prime needs of each community should be evaluated and allocations made on programming which would appeal to the people most of the time.^^
The opposition was sometimes aided in indirect ways—
S^New York Herald Tribune, January 26, 1951, p. 2. 31lbid.
32ibid. 32 by people on the woman Commissioner's own side.
Representative Thomas J. Lane (D-Massachusetts) in a 1951
House speech asked for legislation which would set up a censorship board within the FCC to scrutinize every telecast in advance. Lane, voicing what he said was a losing battle by teachers and clergymen against the commercial television industry, wanted all words deleted from television programs that would arouse the passions. Other resistance was more direct. Editorials in many small towns across the country raised fears against a trend toward any Government ownership, control, and operation of radio and television. Most listeners, some of these papers would say (the Oakland
Tribune. for example), were quite satisfied with television as it was and the idea of enlightening, cultural programming was for the few who probably did not watch television anyway.
Perhaps the strongest opposition to Frieda Hennock's plans for educational television came from Broadcasting-
Telecasting Magazine. Under Sol Taishoff, Broadcasting-
Telecasting was a constant thorn in Miss Hennock's side. It called her proposed 25 per cent reservation of the spectrum for noncommercial television "outlandish. "53 The demands of
53gditorial, Broadcasting-Telecasting. Ill (March 26, 1951), p. 97. 33 the educators, the Magazine said, would turn the nation into a pedagogic state.But it had earned respect for the woman Commissioner: "She has kept the cauldron bubbling, notably on educational television. She's got the FCC more publicity . . . them any other member in recent y e a r s . "55
V. EFFORTS BEGIN TO GET RESULTS
Frieda Hennock's prodding did not go unrewarded during those early years. The Ford Foundation, created in 1950 to support research projects to improve teaching and human relations for peace and democracy, made grants totaling
$560,000 to the Iowa State College television station,
WOI-TV. A Joint Committee on Educational Television was set up in 1951. This committee, made up of seven of the country's most important educational groups, and backed by the U.S. Office of Education and the National Education
5^Editorial, Broadcasting-Telecasting, III (June 18, 1951), p. 1 0 7 .
55lbid.
3^0I-TV, Ames, Iowa, had received a commercial license in the pre-freeze days. Operating as both an educational and commercial station, WOI devoted fifteen hours a week to educational programs and sixty hours a week to commercial programs, all locally produced. 34
Association, brought pressure upon Congress and the FCC to hear their requests for educational broadcasting. General
Telford Taylor, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, was engaged as counsel. The JCET hired a tele communications engineer who had compiled data showing it was physically possible to allocate channels purely for educational purposes. The Joint Committee also made sure telling statistics could be presented against commercial stations. Seven men were moved into the Waldorf Astoria in
New York to monitor each of the City's seven stations for one week. They wanted to know how many television programs on the air in the country's largest market were commercially sponsored and how many sustaining, the proportion of live programming to film, and the number of cultural and public affairs programs. The results showed that public affairs
(which included public events) comprised less than 3 per cent of air time.^7
Frieda Hennock's first real victory came when the
Commission handed down the Third Report on Television in
March 1951. In the Report, the FCC provided for educational
57saul Carson, "The Lady From the FCC," W Screen Magazine. IX (August, 1951), PP. l4-l8. 35 stations on a reserved basis at the end of the freeze.
Although only 10 per cent of the channels were reserved for educational television, rather than Commissioner Hennock's proposed 25 per cent (other commissioners had called for between ten and twelve and one-half per cent), educational broadcasting was now securely recognized. The 10 per cent figure was not, however, a rigid number. The FCC planned to hold thirteen to eighteen Ultra High Frequency stations as
"flexible" assignments, to be used for experimentation. The commercial industry, amplified by Broadcasting-Telecasting. urged the Commission to specify a cut-off date for the educational reservations, to block stalling by the non commercial interests. Since the freeze was still on, and the details unclear for its ending, the industry feared the educators would let the valuable channels lay dormant indefinitely for lack of funds. They were quite aware of
Frieda Hennock's lack of concern for money where education was involved.
The pressure on the industry was now building.
Representative Emmanuel Celler (D-New York) introduced a bill in Congress in April 1951 to require all commercial stations to give 25 per cent of their operating time to educational programs. He wanted three evening hours set 36 aside during the week for cultural programs. Saturday,
Sunday, and holiday afternoons would also contain a determined amount of educational, informative viewing.
Channel applications were received from such institutions as Michigan State University, Ohio State University, Cornell,
Iowa State, and the New York Board of Regents (with plans to program to 8000 public and private educational and cultural institutions in New York State). Indirect support for the cause even came from the networks. With the showing of the
Kefauver Committee hearings in 1951, people began learning of constitutional law and terms such as "Fifth Amendment" and
"self-incrimination." The public saw their representatives in action and discussed the results. A few years later the
Array-McCarthy hearings would capture the attention of the masses as never before. The public did want informative broadcasting.
Senator William Benton (D-Connecticut) called for a study of the Government's role in developing television in
May 1951. Benton, in supporting more public service programming, requested the following: (l) creation of a national advisory committee to assist Congress and the FCC;
(2 ) a resolution requiring the FCC to complete the
reservation proposal; (3) Federal grant-in-aids for 37 educational television stations; (4) legislation defining
"public interest," making applicants for licenses adhere to programming proposals; and (5 ) reservation of prime-time telecasting of public service programs by commercial television (supported by Senator Edwin C, Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee).
Vociferous endorsement came from other senators, representing various parts of the country; Anderson (New Mexico),
Brewster (Maine), Monroney (Oklahoma), and Saltonstall
(Massachusetts).
As plans for ending the freeze slowly reached their conclusion, certain facts were plainly evident. First, most educational institutions were not ready for operating television stations. Frieda Hennock surely knew this, but she continued to stress in her speeches and interviews that if the scarce frequencies were assigned to the commercial interests, education would lose its chance forever. There had been ample precedent for such reservation in national policies: land was granted in Massachusetts for the construction of grammar schools; the Morell Act of I852 set aside property for use by land-grant colleges and universities; the FCC, in 1945, had reserved 20 per cent of all frequencies available for FM broadcasting for use by 38 educators on a noncommercial basis. Even more apparent, though, was that the 10 per cent reservation for educational television on the allocation table could not be regarded as a total victory.
The Commission had failed to provide facilities for educational television in many of the country's major cities,
Metropolitan centers such as New York, Los Angeles,
Philadelphia, and Washington were given noncommercial television channels in the UHF part of the spectrum, at that time used only for experimentation. Commissioner Hennock, citing that 30 per cent of the population did not even have a grade school education, said she feared a commercial monopoly than a cultural m o n o p o l y . "58 The television industry wanted the educational reservations thiown out.
They favored having each party compete fairly for a frequency, realizing that the educators did not have the monetary, technical, and legal know-how for the tricky business of competing for stations. Miss Hennock next directed her pleas at the networks.
Frieda Hennock tried to convince the commercial interests that noncommercial educational television would
58pittsburgh Press. March 26, 1951, p. 3. 39 complement, rather than compete with, commercial television.
In closed door sessions, she told them the noncommercial stations would bring television into many areas the commercial operators would shun because of low potential profit. Miss Hennock said educational television would serve as a pilot plant and an experimental laboratory for the commercial industry. Simpler programming techniques would result, she felt, from the joint effort, making the competitive bidding for stars and programs more economical.
More important, educational television would bring to the industry a high moral purpose which would characterize its endeavors. Television would gain respect and would more properly reflect national habits and attitudes at a time
(with McCarthyism on the rise) when America needed as much self-respect as possible. Sol Taishoff, Editor-Publisher of
Broadcasting-Telecasting. speaks of the period just before the freeze was ended:
She ^rieda Hennock] thought it was her responsibility to practically coerce commercial stations and networks into supporting new educational operations through contributions of money, equipment and personnel, anything she thought they ought to contribute. And many of them did. Early support was from commercial entities largely as a result of her p r o d d i n g . 39
59statement by Sol Taishoff, personal interview. 40
The end of the freeze period was now approaching in the early months of 1952. The FCC was about to announce its allocation table for station licenses. Frieda Hennock had laid the groundwork for her cause. Flowing words, theories, and promises would soon be put to the test. An educational television system for the American public had finally arrived. The main question was now--would it survive?
VI. THE FREEZE IS LIFTED
The Federal Communications Commission lifted its freeze on station licenses in April 1952. The freeze had lasted forty-three months, since September 1952. The principal factors in the assignment of channels were threefold: geographic, economic, and demographic. The
Commission set up five priorities:
1. To provide at least one television service to all parts of the country. 2. To provide each community with at least one television station. 3. To provide a choice of at least two television services to all parts of the country. 4. To provide each community with at least two television stations. 5. Any channels which remain unassigned under the foregoing priorities would be assigned to the various communities depending on the size of the population of each community, the geographic location, and the number of television services available to such communities from television 41 40 stations located In other communities.
The FCC granted 2,053 stations on the allocation table in 1,291 communities. Two hundred and forty-two of those outlets were designated for noncommercial educational television, 11.8 per cent of tha total assignments. Before the freeze, there had been only 108 operating television stations.
Frieda Hennock both dissented and concurred in her
Opinion regarding the freeze. She concurred with the decision to lift the freeze insofar as it adopted the principle of reserving channels for educational purposes.
Miss Hennock dissented against the Commission's failure to make a more adequate provision for education. She felt the FCC should have adopted its earlier proposal to give substantial preference to the unassigned "flexible" 41 channels in cities without television assignments. She also stated a dislike to the Commission's obvious preference of VHF channels over UHF. Some states received only one
40pcc Sixth Report and Order (Washington: Grovemment Printing Office, May 2, 1952), p. 2.
4lopinlon oi Frieda Hennock: FCC Sixth Report and Order (Washington: Government Printing Office, May 2, 1952), p. 3. 42 42 educational channel.
VII. REACTION TO THE LIFT OF THE FREEZE
President Truman called the FCC's allocation of 242 channels for educational television the most important 43 single act in its history. As might be expected,
Broadcasting-Telecasting echoed the television'industry's sentiments in stating that too many educational stations had been reserved. These channels, it stated, should be used for the mass audiences rather than lie fallow, waiting for single purpose educational occupancies which might never come.
The victor is Frieda Hennock and her brood of ambitious but naive educators . . . who won't use more than a dozen of their reservations which are up after a year . . . They'll be asking for "non-profit" status, which means they would become network affiliates and take other business, not putting money back into the station but into libraries, stadiums and stained glass windows.
Although the allocation for the exclusive use of
^^Massachusetts, Maryland, North Dakota, Kentucky, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
43Broadcasting-Telecastlng. IV (April l4, 1952), p. l6.
^^Ibid. 43 educational channels was a partial victory for Frieda
Hennock, there was trouble from the start. The FCC accepted and processed only eight applications from the great number of institutions who said they would apply.It was the old story from the educators: lack of information, vague fears about entering a new field, resistance of vested Interests, and lack of sound financial support kept many of them from entering the television industry. The Emerson Radio and
Phonograph Corporation tried to induce educational licenses by setting up a $100,000 grant, divided into $10,000 grants for the first ten stations to begin operations on the reserved channels. Broadcasting-Telecasting quickly pointed out that $10,000 represented about one twenty-fifth of the cost of putting a modest station on the air.^^ This further showed, Broadcasting-Telecasting emphasized, how wholly unrealistic the concept of educational television was and
"how impossible realization on anything like a national scale."^7
^^Miami, Florida, Manhattan, Kansas, San Francisco, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and New York City.
45Broadcasting-Telecasting, IV (June 30, 1952), p. 29, ^7Ibid. 44
Whether they liked it or not, the burden of responsi bility now rested with the educators. The opportunity to educate the masses as never before had arrived. Commissioner
Hennock vehemently prodded the educators to apply for the channels even though funds were still not available. No matter how short the amount of time the noncommercial stations could program a day, it was important for them to apply and secure the channels.
There was stiff reluctance on the part of the educators to enter into television, and for good reason. A modest station in 1952 cost $300,000 a year to set up and 48 $300,000 a year to run. Most of the educational insti tutions were having a difficult time as it was keeping themselves financially sound without taking on the added burden of television stations. How could they apply for stations from the PCC, the educators argued, and list the estimated costs of a station, if they did not know where the money was coming from?
Frieda Hennock carried the argument back to the educators. Get on the air first, she said emphatically.
^Bprieda Hennock, "Basic Pacts For Education," The Association for Education by Radio. XII (November, 1952), p. 3. 45
Miss Hennock tried to point out to them the enormous reservoir of technical and creative talent available from the faculty, students, cultural, and civic groups. She even planned on some help from the commercial stations, who might devote a portion of their experience as part of their public responsibility. Her answer to the financial question was short and compact: whatever expense entailed in setting up and maintaining a station could be borne by a sponsoring organization as no great burden to the licensee. A fifteen- kilowatt station, she deduced, could be built for a minimum 4q of $200,000. ^ This would include a 10 per cent discount generally allowed to educational stations by equipment manufacturers. Operating costs would be no more than 50 $100,000 yearly.
Miss Hennock’s pleas for immediate action by the educators was not merely zealous enthusiasm to get the cause under way. The Commission’s Sixth Order and Report reserving 242 stations for noncommercial educational use did not categorically state that the educational channels were automatically reserved forever. In order to have an opportunity for processing the applications in the table of
^9%bid. 5®Ibid. 46 channel assignments, the PCC established a one-year procedural rule. This rule generally prohibited parties
from proposing any changes in the Table of Assignments until
one year after the effective date of the Commission's
decision (from June 2, 1952 to June 2, 1953). All assign
ments would have a year of grace, which they could use to
establish themselves financially and be free from other
contending parties. After a year, a reserved channel could
be requested for commercial use, at which time the PCC would
hold a formal rule-making hearing. Educational and
commercial parties could then argue their cases in the
normal way when two sides are in contest for a station.
The Joint Committee on Educational Television and the
National Citizens Committee for Educational Television were
unhappy over the one-year procedural rule. In complaints to
the PCC, they said that educational organizations move
slowly and needed more time to secure authorization and
funds from state legislatures. They argued that educational
organizations should not be penalized by having their
channels taken away before having time to act. The Pord
Foundation's Fund for Adult Education, which had previously
granted $90,000 in 1951-1952 to help secure channel reser
vations, added $145,000 in 1952-1953 to assist educators 47 in making plans to secure the assignments. Local citizens* advisory committees were formed in a number of the major markets by leading citizens to raise funds for the con struction of educational television stations.
The commercial television industry, whenever possible, voiced disapproval of noncommercial television's reservation clause. Crying "unfair competition," the industry felt that the PCC was favoring educational tele vision at the expense of hundreds of qualified applicants who had spent months in preparing applications at great cost,
Prieda Hennock, in a mildly surprising move, asked for the freeze to be re-continued in late 1952. The educators were obviously not ready. More research, she felt, had to be done. The PCC had ended the freeze, and stations, mostly commercial, were being allocated in great numbers. As the Truman Administration gave way to a new
President in 1952, the Federal Communications was Just beginning to experience new problems which would remain for years to come.
VIII. THE EISENHOWER YEARS
In December 1952, Broadcasting-Telecasting issued a
suggestion to the President-Elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower. 48
The statement was fairly simple, but the implications were
far-reaching and would have great effect as the months wore on: "A couple of Commission-level changes and a GOP Chairman who knows the ropes would make the PCC one of the better
agencies of the GovernmentWhen Wayne Coy,^^ a Truman
appointee and Chairman of the PCC, left the Commission, and
Rosel H y d e53 , a Republican, was named interim Chairman, part
of the suggestion was realized.
President Eisenhower followed the recommendations of
the 1949 Hoover Commission Report for the PCC. The Report
recommended that the Commission remain a separate agency,
independent from any new departments of transportation or
5^Editorial, Broadcasting-Telecasting. XLVIII (December 1, 1952), p. 109.
52wayne Coy was an early official of the New Deal. Beginning as a publisher of a weekly newspaper in Indiana, he came to Washington to assume a position in Roosevelt's Administration. Coy rose to Presidential Assistant and Assistant Director of the Budget before managing the Washington Post's radio station and being appointed to the PCC.
53Rosel Hyde was a specialist in communication law. A native of Idaho, he spent most of his career in Federal Civil Service. Hyde was the Commission's General Counsel before his appointment. 49 communication.5^ The Report had found many deficiencies in
PCC methods; it criticized red tape, unnecessary delays, and expense in operation. Furthermore, the Hoover Commission said the $10,000 a year commissioner's salary was too small to attract qualified people (raised to $15,000 yearly in
1949). The evident weakness of educators to get the ball rolling in noncommercial television brought reaction from
Capitol Hill. The Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee opened their hearings in April 1953 with the PCC.
The purpose of these hearings was to consider extending the reservation of the 242 educational television channels for another two years. Leading the campaign for extension were
Prieda Hennock, Senator Charles W. Tobet (R-New Hampshire),
Chairman of the Committee, and Senator John W. Bricker
(R-Ohio), senior Republican of the Committee. Tobey
expressed the wish that the PCC would say educational
television stations are available "until hell freezes o v e r . "55
5^Hoover Commission Report: A Report With Recommendation Prepared for the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Gover^ent (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1949).
55washington Post. April 22, 1953, p. 4. 50
Miss Hennock, a little less volatile but just as sincere, asked for a rule establishing the reservations for a period of thirty y e a r s .5^ At these hearings, she admitted to the
Committee that it was perfectly legal for interested parties to petition the PCC to change the reserved channels to commercial frequencies. Commissioner Hennock, a lawyer to whom procedure was very important, said she was convinced the
Administrative Procedures Act, requiring Government agencies to permit the filing of requests for rule changes, must be followed.57 Commercial stations, she asserted, should be required to challenge the general concept of educational reservations rather than be allowed to question individual 58 channels. In one of her first public outbursts. Miss
Hennock charged there was a conspiracy between the broad casters and trade papers to misinform the public on the
status of the 242 reserved channels; people were led to believe, she said, the reservations would automatically
expire if the channels were not granted by June 2, 1953.^^
56lbid.
37Broadcasting-Telecasting, V (April 27, 1953), p. 15. 58ibid. 59ibid. 51
Billboard. Variety, and Broadcasting-Telecasting presented evidence at the hearings to show that they had published accurate information. Prieda Hennock's blast at the broad casters and trade papers caused Senator John 0. Fastore
(D-Rhode Island), who had ardently supported the woman
Commissioner in her efforts, to angrily declare, "You've destroyed your own case."^®
The arguments against Prieda Hennock, based on her impatience for educational television's success, began to grow stronger. In May 1953, Broadcasting-Telecasting published an article saying the industry and the trade papers were not the ones hurting the noncommercial tele vision cause; rather, the educators themselves.The
Magazine cited a study by the National Conference on
Educational Television, reporting the following: (l) many commercial broadcasters have helped to organize, finance, and equip proposed educational television stations;
(2) educational television groups are soliciting private money rather than public tax funds in an effort to stay
GOlbid.
^^Broadcasting-Telecasting. V (May 11, 1953), pp. 17-20. 52 clear of "politics"; (3) in seventy-six cities where channels were reserved, citizens are actively raising funds;
(4) in fifty-one other cities, citizens and educators are showing some activity; and (5) in the remaining ninety cities, no formal organized campaigns are under way.^^
Slowly but surely, educational television began to make headway. The first educational station beginning operation after the freeze went on the air in June 1953—
KUHT-TV, Houston, Texas, owned and operated by the University of Houston and the Houston Public School System. At the ceremonies opening the station on June 8, 1953, Prieda
Hennock, in a burst of spontaneous enthusiasm, threw off her shoes on the speaker's platform and delivered a speech in her stocking feet. "We're winning hands down," she said.
"We're showing the scoffers . . . we're showing the w o r l d . "^3
Shortly thereafter, there were more developments.
Western Reserve University took a half-hour on a Cleveland commercial station at nine in the morning and drew nearly
60,000 viewers for a course in elementary psychology; many
G^ibid.
GSuouston Chronicle. June 8, 1953, p. 1. 53 people paid a $48 fee for the syllabus and course book, and completed the course for college credit. In New York City, shut-in children began receiving courses by television. An adult English course on New York's WPIX induced I8OO persons in ten days to enroll. These early indications proved the public was not only ready, but in many cases wanted, educational television.
One should remember the PCC's problems during this period: the color controversy, the ABC-Paramount merger, and educational television, were further compounded by the
Commission's inherent weaknesses and growing functional difficulties. As previously mentioned, the PCC wields its diffuse regulatory power in dictated terms which have never been defined— the public's "interest, convenience, and necessity." During the early 1950's, the Commission began to deal with an increasing amount of business, with a decreasing body of personnel. In actuality, the PCC's attention to television represented only a small portion of
its work load. In addition to television, the Pederal
Communications Commission has an obligation to telephone,
telegraph, marine and municipal uses of radio, amateur
operators, and Ü. S. participation in international con
ferences on communication. These rather unglamorous 54 services accounted for nearly four-fifths of its line 64 personnel and 70 per cent of its 1953 budget. The PCC’s main problem, however, has been in keeping up with the growth of television and radio technology. Another serious problem has been keeping the personnel from taking more lucrative positions in private enterprise.
With these problems in mind, the PCC, in July 1953, sought to ease its mounting business by extending license periods for radio and television stations from one to three years. Prieda Hennock dissented from the majority opinion, which favored the proposal. She said public hearings should be held and the representatives of viewers, as well as broadcasters, be given the opportunity to understand the significance of the change in the licensing period, now 65 extended to three years. The three-year period, she
stated in her dissent, was in the interest of the broad
casters rather than the public. Miss Hennock wanted the PCC
to revitalize its renewal procedures instead of taking action
to relieve the existing commercial stations of any necessity
^^Television Magazine. VI (June, 1953), P. 23.
^^Dissent of Prieda Hennock, Extension of the Licensing Period (Washington: Government Printing Office, July 21, 1953), p. 3. 55 to account annually for licenses:
It Implies that the Commission no longer entertains such doubts regarding programming as would indicate a need to look into the subject . . . more than once every three years. This action . . . will be interpreted as an announcement that this Commission will in the future be even less actively interested in television pro gramming than it has in the past.”®
This dissent by Prieda Hennock undoubtedly was one of her weaker ones. She seemed to be measuring priorities.
Throughout her early years on the PCC, she complained of the heavy work load— mostly made up of procedural, mechanical tasks which kept her from more important duties (obviously her efforts for educational television). Congress, in the original Communications Act of 1934, had implied a "laissez faire" policy in matters of programming. The extension of the licensing period underscored one of the Commission's main goals— to promote a sense of "responsibility" to the local stations. Programming, the 1934 Act implies, should be a matter left to the discretion of the station and its audiences. After Prieda Hennock left the Commission, the PCC formally adopted a position in programming matters. The
criterion in license renewal when programs were in question would be this: What was the station's overall pattern of
GGlbid. 56 programming? It was emphasized that the station should exercise as much responsible discretion as possible and that license revocations would occur only in obvious violations of taste (not to mention the basic criteria for revocation: lying, concealment, or misrepresentation to the PCC).
Whether she approved or not, the extended licensing period would give Miss Hennock more time for educational television. She already had the worst attendance record of any commissioner during her tenure, due primarily to extensive speaking tours for noncommercial broadcasting.
Prieda Hennock failed in her efforts for a public hearing on the extension proposal. Opponents felt she would no doubt use this as a platform for her demand that a blue- 67 book probe of television programming be made.
Commissioner Hennock holds the record for the number of dissents by an PCC Commissioner. Stanley Neustadt says,
"She didn't want to be a great dissenter, even though that's
^The Blue Book, properly named "Public Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licenses," was issued in 1946 as an expression of the PCC's philosophy on program matters. According to this interpretation, a responsible broadcast service should include sustaining programs, local live programs, and discussions of public issue, while at the same time avoiding excessive advertising. 57 éft how It ended up. She wanted to accomplish things." One of the most important things she wanted to accomplish was a
complete revarapment of commercial television's programming
attitudes. At the National Council of Teachers of English
in Los Angeles, she said it was "high time the industry
took stock of itself and cleaned up some of its programs.
These producers . . . know right from wrong."^9 Miss
Hennock expressed the hope at this conference that the
National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters
would exert their pressure to rid the screen of the horror,
murder, and crime shows. Figure 2 shows how some of these
shows were advertised. Urging parents to write to the
sponsors of these programs and protest the lack of children's
programs. Miss Hennock feared what some of the programs were
doing to the minds of children.7®
In late August 1953, the PCC came out with an
official study of the post-freeze television stations.
””Statement by Stanley Neustadt, personal interview.
G^Speech before the National Council of Teachers of English, November 27, 1953, p. 1.
70lbid. t I1HITY p i r
^ u t t ^ "OPERATION DIPLOMAT” "HOUSE OF BLACKMAIL” iRlGUtl — tliiit couM Triiîtjt'r — Aduentures ofa %K tlic 3rd World War! wysBSBi Woman in Terror! "FINAL APPOINTMENT” "THE BLUE PARROT” M Maniac at Lanic - CRQ§^ - it’s Underworld V :am?ht in a Praqnct ! Mystery and Murder! ^ "DANGEROUS CARGO” "THIS WAS A WOMAN’ ,0?), — for a Million- ^VjU, — the Mental Horrors S]0 Bucks tlicit d Murder! of a Poisoned M ind! "CLUE FROM A CORPSE” " P R O F I L E ’’ ^ — Battered Bodies fU R ^’ — c Fight for Power Leaoe a T rail ofDeath! in the Publishing Racket! «■ "MEN AGAINST THE SUN” "MURDER IS NEWS” .-n£|4Sti. ------as Killer Lions ruQlLlS'- — Private-eye Stalk Jungle Hunters! ------soloes Jewel Stick-up! ? "BURNT EVIDENCE” "PRIVATE INFORMATION”
EXPOS^' — Lifting the Lid on lY&YSTEEl l — Death Answers the P the Insurance Racket! — ^"phone and Threatens Murder! FIGURE 2 EXAMP1£ OF PROGRAM ADVERTISING
(RADI0-TEI£VISI0N DAILY, MARCH 30, 1955)
13 • A ll m w FIRST RUH FEATURE FIIMS FOR JY • EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY
1501 B'way, New York 36, N Y. * 8951 Sunset Blvd., Hollywood 46, Colif. LOttgocre 4-8234 CRestview 4-5693 59 The results were disappointing, but not unexpected. The survey reported that out of eighty-nine stations beginning operation after the freeze, only sixteen (eight VHF and eight UHF) showed an overall profit.7^ At least thirty-two stations reported continued substantial losses during each month of operation.7^ The UHF stations, although considered important by the Commission, were in no way priviliged. Frieda Hennock frankly stated many times they should be treated with special care. But television is ruled by two words— "money" and competition," and these words have slowed the progress of educational television from the start A major FCC decision which hurt the UHF stations occurred in January 1954. The Commission denied a petition by a UHF station in Buffalo to intervene in an application for a VHF station in the same city. The FCC refused to allow allegations that the VHF station would cause economic injury to the UHF station. The majority ruled that a mere showing of probable economic injury does not automatically confer a right to intervene.73 Frieda Hennock dissented, saying any UHF station should have a head start over the prospective
7^Radio-Television Daily (New York], August 31, 1953, P- 1.
7^Ibid.
73Majority opinion, WBUP-TV, INC. (Washington: Government Printing Office, January ly, 1954), p. 6. 60 VHF competitors: . . . this need of UHF to gain time was recognized by the Commission in the initial processing procedures. Every day by which the opening of a new VHF station is accelerated, the development of UHF is deterred that much.74 It is fairly easy to see what Frieda Hennock was trying to do. The one thing she needed more than money for her cause was time. Educational television had to have time to grow through the process of trial and error. She felt the public had to have time to learn to appreciate a new and sophisticated kind of television programming. Educational television, dealing with illuminating documentaries, commentaries on public affairs, and classroom training, would have small audiences at first because the viewing audience would be forced to think, in order to understand and appreciate. The UHF station also had to have time to persuade the public to buy UHF-equipped television sets. Even though commercial television had laid the ground-work for a ready-made mass audience, which would probably give the new system at least a brief tenure, educational television had to prove itself over a long period of time.
T^Digsent by Frieda Hennock, WBUF-TV, DfC. (Washington: Government Printing Office, January 17, l$54l p. 7- 61 IX. THE FIGHT GETS TOUGHER
By May 1954, Frieda Hennock had firmly established herself as one of the most energetic, conscientious, and opinionated Commissioners in the FCC's history. Educational television was now clearly her "cause celebre." She was fearlessly bucking the networks, in an industry which was, or would be, considered as "big business" in America. In her drive for honest, quick, and progressive results. Commissioner Hennock was meeting stiff opposition from traditionally conservative group entities; government, educators, and the public. Her frustration and disappointment at the slow progress of educational television were well known in private circles. Without in any way trying to strike a superficially dramatic note. Miss Hennock at many times seemed to be all alone in her fight for noncommercial television. While the Ford Foundation and various civic institutions commendably contributed much time and money, there was no other leader during those early days after the lifting of
the freeze. A leader was still needed to provide a direction, to provide assurances that success would come, to provide an example by taking risks which offered no personal or material gain. Frieda Hennock was obviously not achieving those goals which she had felt confident would come with moderate rapidity. She was becoming more and more impatient. It was just a 62 matter of time before her frustrations would be released publicly* The Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee held hearingsin May 1954 to examine the problems of the post-freeze stations. The FCC had informed the Committee that seventy-two post-freeze television grants had been dropped— sixty UHF and twelve VHF. Something had to be done, and in a hurry, or the program for educational television would become a disaster. Frieda Hennock testified at the hearings. Her testimony was to become the most publicized event of her career. Miss Hennock was asked why the educational television stations were having difficulty and what the FCC intended to do to alleviate the situation. Half-way through her statement. Miss Hennock erupted, no longer able to conceal her emotions: I blame the Senate because of senatorial pressure. Senators call and say 'hurry up and give us television service to our communities and give it to us by the most unethical manner known to man . . . ' (she breaks down and begins to sob] I am ready to cry and give up.<5 Later that same day, after the hearings were over. Commissioner Hennock told a reporter she intended to beat the "monopoly" of the networks or resign.7^ She also
75Washington Evening Star, May 21, 1954, p. 3*
76ibid. 63 proposed a freeze on all grant applications, charging that the trend was putting control of the television industry into a handful of p e o p l e . ?? The disturbed Commissioner outlined three dangers which the VHF stations posed to the UHF; (l) "Drop-ins"— new VHF channels were being "dropped in" to the Frequency Allocation Table. Miss Hennock felt the "drop- ins" would ultimately spell economic disaster for a UHF channel in a particular community. This, she said, would kill the prospects of future applicants inquiring about UHF channels, because advertisers and networks would take away the viewing audience. (2) Antenna height— Miss Hennock wanted a cutback of the power and antenna height of VHP stations to approximate the coverage which UHF stations were obtaining. The difficulty, she said, was overlapping service, causing a blanketing of UHF channels by VHF. (3) Transmitter location— Miss Hennock wanted VHF transmitters to be located in close proximity to the principal community being served. The station's service would then be confined to an area which would not overlap the coverage of UHF stations in other communities. This would prevent a monopoly. Miss Hennock believed, by the VHP stations, whose signals sometimes went over the minimum prescribed strength. If these proposals were adopted, she
7 7 l b i d . 64 asserted, the VHP stations would lose their advantage in the large cities and competition and local self-expression would be enhanced.7® A few days later, at a National Association of Radio and Television Broadcaster's Convention in Chicago, Frieda Hennock carried her arguments one step further. She maintained, in a public roundtable session with other commissioners, that the seventy available UHF channels could easily provMe a sufficient nationwide television service. The next step in this plan. Miss Hennock stated, would be an ultimate move of all television into the larger UHF band. Commissioner George E. Sterling,who had many years of engineering experience, immediately shot back and characterized her statement as a "direct attack on the engineers of our staff and the industry which helped us to 80 put into effect the allocation plan." No one, he continued, could arrive at such a conclusion overnight— nationwide television service was a highly technical matter
7^adio-Te le vision Daily (New York] , May 20, 1954, p. 1.
79George E. Sterling, a Republican had been connected with radio for forty-two years. He served as a U.S. Army Signal Corps instructor, where he gained much experience. Before coming to the FCC, Sterling was a Government radio inspector and Chief Engineer for the Commission.
Q^Radio-Te le vision Daily jNew YorlQ , May 28, 1954, p. 1. 65 and seventy channels were not enough to provide the necessary coverage It is not generally known that the Federal Communications Commission came within one vote of moving all television into the UHF part of the spectrum. The move had been proposed because of UHF's good reception (as with FM stations in radio) and because the frequency band would have more accomodations
(more than I300 stations were anticipated) than VHF. The VHF spectrum was limited to twelve channels while UHF television had seventy. During one of the 1948-52 allocation proceedings, three canmissioners, Robert F. Jones, Paul A. Walker, and Frieda Hennock favored the switch. But Wayne Coy, then Chairman of the Commission, who often appeared to support the proposal and could have pushed it through, decided at the last moment to maintain the status quo. In June 1954, a Senate subcommittee under Senator Potter (R-Michigan) held hearings to investigate reports of monopoly and restraint of trade affecting VHF and UHF television. Frieda Hennock testified before the subcommittee and once again drove home her views. She called for a halt to television mergers, repeating her views from Miss Hennock's ninety-page dissent against ABC and Paramount*s merger, the
81 Ibid. FIGURE 3 COMMISSIONER HENNOCK 1954 67 longest in FCC history. She wanted network programs made available to UHF stations and pushed for an extension of UHF reservations, announcing that all television stations should be moved into the UHF spectrum in a period of five years. Commissioner Hennock*s recommendation of legislation to bar any sets from interstate shipment that were not all-channel receivers was later enacted into law. She also vociferously denounced the "quicky" television grants. These grants were processed through shrewd moves on the part of prospective commercial station owners who wanted to secure a license. They would file their applications at closing time on Tuesdays, at five o'clock, and have the Commission grant them licenses on Wednesday before the commissioners could have a chance to look at them. Representative Harry R. Sheppard (D-California) said in the Congressional Record; . . . these Senate hearings have clearly pointed out that Ccanmissioner Hennock refused to be a party to such illegal 'quicky' television grants and she is to be gregreatly commended for her fight to uphold the principles foifor which the FCC was created. Frieda Hennock did not relent in her efforts to keep up the pressure. On a "Georgetown University Forum" radio program, she emphasized that if the allocation table was not
ftp Congressional Record, Vol. 100, Part 7 (June 29, 1954), p.-'8722.------68 equitably proportioned, with as many possible services brought to as many people and not as few, the UHF stations would surely die: The entire Commission contended that the UHF is essential to the nationwide competitive system in the Sixth Order and Report. They said it in twelve different places. They said you could not have a nationwide competitive service without using all eighty- two channels. I can quote it chapter and verse . . . 1 don't think that all your program sources should be in the hands of two networks who get 85 per cent of the advertising dollar with a third weak network and a fourth, the Dumont Network, absolutely going out of_ business if these UHF stations go out of business. 3 Miss Hennock in this broadcast, reiterated her five- year plan for the replacement of VHF with UHF channels. The cost to the stations would be $100,000 over the period, for a new transmitter and antenna, all that would be needed for conversion. The public, she said, would not have obsolete sets, as the cost for an eighty-two channel installation 84 was $6.50 wholesale. Frieda Hennock's efforts for educational television were struck a serious blow in September 1954. The FCC enacted a new policy to permit applications for UHF stations which proposed no local programming. Overlap rules were waived to allow UHF ownership by broadcasters who have other
33prom the transcript of the "Georgetown University Forum: Freedom of the Air, Whose Responsibility?" July 1, 1954.
84 Ibid. 69 television outlets In substantially the same area. In her dissent. Miss Hennock said the new policy "delivers the final mortal blow to UHF which the Commission for years has 85 stated to be the only hope for full development of television." Although the move did damage many UHF stations. It was not mortal. UHF was now relegated to an Inferior role that would last for many years. The VHF stations were assmiing the Irreversible and powerful position which Frieda Hennock had feared. Her plan to supplant VHF stations with UHF had failed.
X. UHF TELEVISION BY THE END OF 1954
By the end of 1954, the record for UHF television was poor. Although about 1300 UHF stations had been assigned by the FOG, 127 were actually on the air. Ten UHF stations had completely given up. More than fifty had turned In licenses without even firing a kilowatt. Of the 127 UHF stations still operating, only 15 per cent had made profit
In the first quarter of 1954; 60 per cent had substantial 87 losses.
G^Dissent by Frieda Hennock, Station Applications (Washington: Government Printing Office, September 14, 1954) p. 5 .
^Consumer Reports, VII (June, 1954), p. 2.
87lbld. 70 The UHF stations had incurred numerous difficulties since the freeze was lifted. A major hindrance was UHF's limited coverage, UHF requires more power than VHF to reach surrounding areas. Viewers were reticent at adding a converter plus a special antenna needed for UHF television. The public was still wary of the unproven system and balked at buying sets equipped to receive both UHF and VHF. UHF programming, unsure, Inconsistent, and unrefined, was mediocre. Educational television continued to be hurt by lack of funds. Furthermore, the noncommercial stations were fighting existing viewing habits. Still, one of the biggest problems, to the chagrin of Frieda Hennock, was the obvious lack of cooperation from the FCC to remedy these conditions. Assignments of VHF and UHF were freely Intermixed In the same cities. The theory was that since VHF stations could give greater coverage, VHF assignments should be made in as many cities as possible. UHF stations were thrown directly Into ccxnpetltlon In seventy of the nation's top one hundred markets. The FCC raised the maximum power of VHF stations, permitting many to Increase their range. VHF stations were allowed to build their transmitters between communities (this was to result In much overlapping and many hearings before the FCC during the next few years). The UHF stations, because of their shorter range, had to build transmitters fairly close to their service areas. On 71 August 5> 1954, the Commission passed a ruling allowing VHF stations to operate as many as five satellite and booster stations. Each satellite was a VHF station, with Its own UHF assignment, but It could not originate any programs. All program material was picked up from the parent VHF station and rebroadcast, further extending the range of VHF stations. A new ownership rule, permitting one owner to operate five VHF and two UHF stations, was passed In the hope of getting big corporations Into UHF television and to Improve programming. The Immediate result of this was to further concentrate power In the hands of the few. Undoubtedly, the FCC was becoming Impatient with the reluctance of educators to get Into television. The Commission hoped the new ownership rules would have a more positive role In the growth and development of UHF television. Frieda Hennock was now entering her final year on the Federal Communications Commission. With UHF television on shaky legs and her role as the "Great Dissenter" and chief opponent to the commercial Interests In the television Industry firmly entrenched. Miss Hennock's final year on the regulatory Agency promised to be anything but quiet.
XI. HER LAST FEW MONTHS ON THE COMMISSION
Frieda Hennock's term on the FCC would expire In June
1955. With a Republican President in the White House and 72 much of the commercial television Industry against her. Miss Hennock's chances for reappointment were slim. She had a premonition as to her fate on the Commission when, at a Senate subcommittee hearing In April 1955, Commissioner Hennock said, "1 almost feel as If I'm In a courtroom. I 88 may soon be there— my term Is about to expire June 30.” One of the few real mysteries surrounding Miss Hennock was whether or not she wanted to be renominated. The facts are somewhat ambiguous. Frieda Hennock's seven years on the FCC were filled with Idealistic hopes, great frustrations, stormy public and private sessions with her professional colleagues, and continued friction with associates due to her probing, dissenting nature. Her fervor for educational television and fights against monopolistic interests In the broadcasting Industry had made Miss Hennock many enemies. She alienated the broadcasters with frequent suggestions that Congress allow the FCC greater regulatory power, especially In the area of programming. Miss Hennock's goals for an effective, operating, and nationwide educational television service were far from realization. Based on her record, she did not seem the type to give up a cause In the middle of a battle.
Q^Washlngton Evening Star, April 6, 1955, P. 7* ?3 Miss Hennock had been rumored as a possible candidate for a Federal Judgshlp, but the position was given to someone else. She had privately admitted to others that the Judgshlp had once been a goal of hers. Now that It was taken away, she was hoping perh#ps for a continuance of her work In educational television as a Commissioner on the FCC. Miss Hennock was happy over the new support she was receiving 8q for educational television from Commissioner Robert E. Lee, ^ who has since taken up the cause for noncommercial broadcasting. Frieda Hennock did not openly campaign for re- nomlnatlon. Here are some opinions on the matter from a few of the people who knew her best. Harry Lando (reporter— Radlo-Televlslon Dally); She did want to be rencxmlnated. She did. You know when a person does and when a person doesn't. The person never comes out and says sobecause that would be ruining their chances. You're not supposed to try your case In the press. She became very cooperative around reappointment time. There's no doubt In the world that she wanted reappointment, bitterly, as Is well-known by the fairly well-known emotional scenes when It was denied her.90
®9Robert E. Lee was appointed to the FCC on October 6, 1953 by President Elsenhower. A former accountant and Government Investigator, he joined the FBI In 1938 and became Its chief clerk before working for the House Appropriations Committee In 1946, serving until 1953 as Director of Surveys and Investigations. He is now serving his third term on the FCC. 90statement by Harry Lando, personal Interview. 74
Sol Shleldhouse (Miss Hennock's first legal assistant on the FCC):
Frieda wanted to be a Judge. She'd had It at the FCC. She thought It was a very frustrating experience. She was one Commissioner alone . . . It takes four votes to get anything done . . . she was really helpless. One commissioner can't direct, control, or originate much. There's a lot of political wheeling and dealing . . . a lot of piety and sanctimoniousness accompanying during times of crisis and Frieda was unhappy.91 Louis Stephens (Miss Hennock's last legal assistant):
1 would say that she did want to be renominated. She felt that much remained to be d o n e . 92
Stanley Neustadt (Miss Hennock's first confidential assistant):
She wanted to accomplish things. I really don't know If she wanted to be renominated or not . . . I think she felt terribly frustrated by her fellow commissioners, their lack of understanding, their lack of Imagination, their unwillingness to take a more daring course.93
Commissioner Robert E. Lee:
I suspect that she would have been happy to serve again, but she did voluntarily resign. It may be that she had some inside Information that she was not going to be renominated, which Is no real Insult. It's a fact of life, a political happenstance. I've no real knowledge that she would not have been reappointed.94
9^Statement by Sol Shleldhouse, personal Interview.
^^Statement by Louis Stephens, personal Interview.
93gtatement by Stanley Neustadt, personal Interview.
94gtatement by Commissioner Robert E. Lee, personal Interview. 75 Mrs. Ruth Butcher (Miss Hennock's friend for many years): Yes, she did want to be renominated. But only to see that educational television would be a success. She was frustrated by the lack of progress, but never bitter about anyone.99 William Simons (Miss Hennock's husband): Yes, she did want to be renominated.^^ Perhaps the real clue came a few years later, when, after she had left the FCC, Miss Hennock said: My voting record speaks for Itself. Monopolistic forces control the entire field of television. I was In the midst of most Important work on the Commission, educational television, and was kicked off most unceremoniously.97 Frieda Hennock was to resign as an FCC Commissioner in June 1955* Many unfavorable rumors had circulated concerning her chances for reappointment. Perhaps she did receive some "inside Information" that she would not be renominated. But Miss Hennock did not let her term merely drag to its conclusion. She continued to strive for progress In three areas: educational television, program control, and monopolistic practices of the networks. At a Senate subcommittee hearing Investigating the effects of television programs with crime and violence on
95statement by Mrs. Ruth Butcher, personal Interview.
96gtatement by William Simons, personal interview. 97Washington Evening Star, June 21, 196O, p. 28. 76 Juvenile dellnqulncy. Miss Hennock told Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tennessee) she wanted an FCC requirement forcing television broadcasters to report Incidents of crime and violence In programs throughout the broadcasting day.She favored a rigorous Commission policy to refuse renewal of licenses to offending stations. These offending stations. Miss Hennock believed, were "disregarding their public service responsibilities by continuing to victimize immature audiences with a profuse deluge of crime . . . and sadism."^9 In her testimony, she asked civic, educational, welfare, and religious groups to supplement the FCC by monitoring stations. A month before she left the FCC, Frieda Hennock asked Senator Warren Magnus on (D-Washlngton), Chairman of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, to make a thorough investigation into the monopolistic practices of the networks. In a letter to the Senator, Miss Hennock said the networks had a monopolistic grip over stations, advertisers, programs, and talent— especially In the area of advertising revenue, which had gone from $57,200,000 In
1947 to $8 0 9 ,100,000 In 1954.^^^
9Qwashlngton Evening Star, April 6, 1955, P* 4.
99lbid. lOOlbid. lOlBillboard, XIX (May 7, 1955), P- 2. 77 XII. FRIEDA HENNOCK— -A PERSONAL LOOK
Let us now turn from our historical context and concentrate on more personal aspects of Frieda Hennock*s life. I have already mentioned that she was a zealous. Idealistic, energetic person, eager to attain the right results for the causes she felt were In the public Interest. We briefly touched on one of her emotional outbursts, an outburst which Indicated some of the Intense frustration and impatience Miss Hennock was experiencing because of the slow progress and monvmental roadblocks facing educational television. But what was Frieda Hennock really like? What were her motives? What did her peers think of her? For these answers, I asked the people with whom Miss Hennock was most closely associated: her colleagues, her friends, her enemies, and her husband, William Simons. According to three of her former legal assistants, Stanley Neustadt, Sol Shleldhouse, and Louis Stephens, Frieda Hennock was a most difficult person to serve. She was highly emotional, prone to temper tantrums and public scenes, and quite demanding In the work she required. But the woman Commissioner was always appreciative of her staff and gave credit when credit was due. She expected her staff to work as hard and as long as she did. 78 Miss Hennock worked actively on her speeches and opinions. The usual method for preparing a speech or an opinion was to have a conference with her aides for an early exposition of Ideas. According to Mr. Stephens, she could express herself articulately, lucidly, abundantly, and quickly. Next, she would examine the basic facts of a possible public declaration as to the thrust of the position. Miss Hennock participated In revising the rough drafts. Everything she said or wrote, whether or not It was Influenced or created by one of her assistants, was Inspired by her own thinking. Miss Hennock Insisted on having bright, young, energetic men work for her. The woman Commissioner's opinions were well-written, well- documented, and thoroughly researched before her views became public. Frieda Hennock's main character trait in her work on the Commission was undoubtedly her great impatience with the procedural nuances of aui FCC Commissioner. Miss Hennock's assistants all agree that she really was not Interested In writing speeches or decisions. She was only Interested In results. Her three basic questions on any matter were: Can It be done? How can It be done? When can we do It? She had an uncanny knack for picking out what was Important and relating large masses of facts 79 and figures to support her positions. Frieda Hennock gained a reputation on the Commission as an emotional, vitriolic person. Marcus Cohn, one of the nation's foremost communications lawyers, speaks with sensitive, deep-seeded displeasure of the time when Miss Hennock humiliated him before 500 people at a public hearing on theater television: My job was to make recommendations to the Commission whether applicants for theater television licenses should fall under the same guidelines and requirements as those In broadcasting. 1 concluded that they Indeed should. This was only my recommendation, my opinion. I was not defending anyone, per se. When I made my recommendation to the panel of commissioners, she yelled out 'you're lying and you know Iti You're lying and I won't stand for It another minute!' With this, stormed out of the room and 1 stood there. Insulted and humiliated before all these people. For all her good deeds, she could be Inhuman In her treatmient of others who didn't agree with her. She was Idealistic to the point of being Irrational. I both loved and hated the w o m a n . 102 An oddity about Miss Hennock was that, professionally speaking, she seemed to get along better with her enemies than with her friends. The heads of the networks, Goldenson of ABC, Paley of CBS, and Samoff of NBC, had the most cordial of relationships with the woman Commissioner. Sol Talshoff, her professional arch-enemy, was very friendly with Frieda Hennock away from the office. Her relationships with lawyers and network representatives were usually good.
102gtatement by Marcus Cohn, personal Interview. 80 But Frieda Hennock's problems came from her so-called "allies"— the people of the educational community. There were times when she would have nothing to do with them; she would not want to speak or hear about them. Although most of the educational Institutions agreed with Miss Hennock's basic philosophies, they sometimes were In disagreement with her, especially on the subject of finance. She would accuse them of "selling out," of being aid and comfort to the enemy (the networks) If the educators In any way hedged or recognized the other side's arguments. Frieda Hennock refused to have anything to do with a station In Jacksonville, Florida, which was owned by an educational Institution, but operated commercially. In December 1950, she accused Harry Plotkln, one of the most brilliant technical and legal advisors ever to come to the FCC, and an ardent supporter of educational television, of pro-commercial machinations. The Commissioner charged Plotkln with withholding staff assistance when he disagreed with her on the number and type of educational stations to be reserved. Frieda Hennock was an aggressive, forthright, and worldly woman. She came from New York, where to get ahead, one had to speak quickly, work quickly, and sometimes Interrupt loudly In order to be heard. Miss 81 Hennock was publicly and privately abhorred for her temper tantrums when things were not going her way. While she did feel great frustration at the Inability of the FCC to resolve the roadblocks to educational television, much of her dissatisfaction might have been motivated by more than emotional catharsis. Harry Lando, of Radlo-Television Dally, says: I didn't like her emotionalism, some of which was artificial. But she had a very definite purpose In mind. She made people do some thinking . . . to be a little more careful In their decisions . . . that Is, before they gave the networks what they wanted, which Is what they did anyhow. She was very canny, very wise, very able.103 Sol Shleldhouse sees It this way: Frieda was a thorn In the side of the establishment. It gave her pleasure to see the stuffy types Jump. She liked to say and do things for shock value. She wanted people to listen to her. She was an.actress, a superb actress, but above all, a w o m a n .104 Friends and enemies had one thing In common concerning Frieda Hennock: they respected her. There were many forms of respect. William Simons relates that Miss Hennock was always careful not to talk on her home telephone on important matters; she believed her phone was being tapped.Television Is big business. Miss
103gtatement by Harry Lando, personal Interview.
104gtatement by Sol Shleldhouse, personal Interview. lOSgtatement by William Simons, personal Interview. 82 Hennock feared that her adversaries might be listening In to hear "how the wind was blowing." Sol Talshoff respected Frieda Hennock greatly. As the unofficial mouthpiece of the broadcasting Industry, Talshoff protects their Interests, campaigning against special favors to educational television. His philosophy says the spirit of free enterprise and honest competition for station licenses has not been maintained by the FCO In the area of educational reservations. For all his battling and professional disagreements with Frieda Hennock, Sol Talshoff still holds her In considerable esteem: She took her Ivmps, but she Inspired more activity In the ETV field than any other person In public life up to her time. Basically, she was an excellent lawyer, a ferocious adversary. Frieda Hennock was an exciting person; she kept things stirred up. If educational broadcasting were to make one national award. It ought to go posthumo^ly to Frieda Hennock— she did more than anyone e l s e . 106 There was another side to the tough, dedicated woman Commissioner. Everyone with whom I talked expressed their admiration for her great generosity. She bought gifts for her staff In appreciation of their work. Miss Hennock gave to many charities. One of the most famous stories surrounding Frieda Hennock's generosity concerns a young man who came to her when she was still practicing law to ask for financial help for his new Invention. Everyone
lO^Statement by Sol Talshoff, personal Interview. 83 else had turned down this young Harvard graduate. Miss Hennock immediately went to her close friend. Senator Herbert Lehman (D-New York) and asked him to back the luckless Inventor. Lehman's nephew financed the boy, whose name was Landsman. His Invention, the Polarold- Land camera, was to become one of the biggest success stories of the century. Lehman held over 300,000 shares of the stock when Polaroid first came out. Miss Hennock received nominal shares for her help. The stock has split about six times since Its Inception. When Frieda Hennock was away from the office, her feminine charms were evident. She was an attractive woman who dressed exquisitely. Her many friends were among the most famous people of the time. Including Harry S. Truman, numerous senators, and Supreme Court Justices. She enjoyed giving parties and had a great faculty for making one feel at home. Miss Hennock's Interests ran from communications and law to horseback riding, golf, and tennis. She once purposely gave up golf for tennis. "Golf takes too long," Miss Hennock said. "Golf Is for those who concur In majority opinions. I need time to write dissents. Tennis takes less time than golf."10?
^Billboard, XIX (August 29, 1953), P. 5. 84 Frieda Hennock watched television rarely, usually only If the program was a concert or dealt with politics. She was very famllynalnded and made It a point to keep In close touch with her relatives. Miss Hennock was also a very religious pci son. She recited orthodox Jewish prayers when she awoke and just before she went to bed. To those who knew her away from the Federal Communications Commission, Frieda Hennock was a charming, sensitive, and gracious person.
XIII. FRIEDA HENNOCK BOWS OUT
Frieda Hennock was given a testimonial dinner at the conclusion of her seven years on the FCC. Senator Kefauver served as toastmaster. Addresses were given by Senator Wayne Morse (I-Oregon), Senator Herbert Lehman, FCC Chairman George C. McConnaughy, and NARTB President Harold E. Fellows. After the glowing speeches. Miss Hennock stood up and, characteristically, predicted a complete overhauling of the pattern of television programming and financing. She proposed that Congress break up the monopolies In the television Industry. In one of her poorer predictions, she said the scarcity of choice advertising time on television, and the competition that therein resulted, would force a change In the current 85 economics of broadcast financing.The dinner did, however, turn out to be a friendly, "everythlng-ls- forglven," tearful affair In which the ex-woman Commissioner thanked everyone for their support in her efforts. The best description of the event was provided by the Washington Dally News; "Frieda Hennock, lachrymose howbelt forthright member of the Federal Communications Commission, has bowed out characteristically, in a deluge «109 of tears." The press also gave Miss Hennock their own form of testimonials. Lawrence Laurent, the ubiquitous reviewer of the Washington Post, said; "We don't get many officials like her in Washington— strongly outspoken, . . . delighted to engage In tough-minded debate with congressmen. Bernle Harrison, of the Washington Evening Star, In an article reprinted In the Congressional Record a few years later at the request of Representative Abraham J. Multer (D-New York), said of Frieda Hennock: Overemotlonal? Extreme? Maybe. But looking back— with hindsight— one can only marvel at her restraint. I've a hunch that a number of awards for educational television will be established In her honor . . . but I think I'll settle for something more Immediate. Like another Frieda Hennock.
lOGgdltorlal, Washington Dally News, June 29, 1955, p. 5* lQ9lbld. llOWashlngton Post, June 30, 1955, P« 49. lllCongresslonal Record, Vol. 106, Part 2 (June 24, i9 6 0 ). p. 1409. 86
Broadcas ting -Te le cas ting admitted at her retirement that she was "the Joan of Arc of educational television . . Legally she kept the record straight . . . She's able and perserverlng. We'd rather be with her than against her *112 Frieda Hennock was succeeded on the FCC by Richard A. Mack. Mack, who had been with the National Association of Railroad and Public Utilities Commission In Florida, resigned In March 1958 as a result of disclosures made before a House Legislative Oversight Subcommittee Investigating FCC member activities. After she left the Commission, Miss Hennock went with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Davies, Rlchberg, Tydlngs, Beebe, and Landa. She married William Simms, a Washington real estate man, on March 30, 1956. They
lived at 4901 Potomac Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C., where Mr. Simons now resides.
^^^Editorial, Broadcas ting-Telecasting, VII (May 31, 1955), p. 88. CHAPTER IV
THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY TODAY
The television broadcasting industry is currently experiencing financial prosperity. Based on a Federal Communications Commission public notice on financial data for 1966, the Industry Is growing and expanding on a sound economic foundation. Although pressured by critics of programming and regulation, heavy taxes, and the financial burden of Inexperienced, Independent UHF stations, television Is reaching new heights every year In revenue and profits.
I. GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY SINCE MISS HENNOCK LEFT THE FCC
In the ten-year period from 1956-1966, the television Industry has almost tripled revenues and incane, while expenses have slightly more than doubled.^ Thus, Frieda Hennock was wrong when she predicted the economics of television would change from the pattern of expansion just beginning In her day. Percentages play a key and sometimes confusing role In television's current financial state. UHF station
^Public Notice : FCC Financial Data for 1966 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 1. 88 revenues more than doubled VHP station revenues in percentage O figures during 1966 (20.3 per cent to 9*6 per cent). UHF stations reported seven times as many losses as they
incurred in 1965, reflecting their inexperience. UHF
stations increased in number by l4 per cent from 1965-1966, but total expenses for all UHF stations increased by 35 per cent.^ Further comparisons show that profitable
VHF stations remained at the same figure as I965 (87 per cent), but profitable UHF stations dropped from 66 per H cent in 1965 to 59 per cent in 1966. The overall picture of the television broadcasting industry appears good. But the weakness of educational broadcasting has continued since the tenure of Frieda Hennock. A major step In resolving this situation was
made In late I967 with the passage of the Public
Broadcasting Act of I9 6 7 . According to the provisions of the Public Broadcasting
Act of 1967, a non-profit, non-governmental corporation, chartered by Congress, Is to be formed, the Corporation for Public Television. The Corporation, recamended by
2 lbld.
3lbld.
4Ibid. 89 the President of the Iftilted States and the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, will serve as the heart of the noncommercial system— financing, aiding In research, and developing local stations while at no time operating or controlling them. In the long run, the system will cost approximately $270 million annually, based on the number of stations (around 380 by 198O),
5" the type of station, and standard costs. Hopefully, private donations, state and local funds, a manufacturing excise tax on television sets (beginning at 2 per cent and rising to 5 per cent), and grants made under extensions of the 1962 Educational Facilities Act, will be enough to meet ensuing financial problems.
II. THE STATE OP EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION TODAY
Educational television, while still In financial straits, continues to gain more and more popularity. The latest ETV audience rating figures show between
700,000 and one million people, or one to 3 per cent of the sets In use, are tuned to educational stations during an average non-instruetlonal weekday hour.^ In a
^Public Television: A Program for Action, The Report of the Capnegle Commission on teducatlonal Televls'ISn (New Yorx: Bankàm Bôôlcs, 19P7J, P* 147• ^Public Television Act of 1967, Hearings before the Committee on interstate commerce, H.R. 6736 and S. II6 0 , p. 93 90
PROJECTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL
KUJ/E£R OF TELEVISION STATIONS ON AIR STATION# 7 0 0 TOTAL ALLOCATED &Y FÇC
6 00
4 0 0 PROJECTED STATIONS ON AIR CA4NFGIE REPORT PROJECTION 3 00 (3C0 BY 1980)
200 CARNEGIE REPORT PROJECTION (240 BY 1971) ACTUAL. ICO STATIONS ON AIR
1950 • 1955 ■ .1960 1970 1979 I9 6 0 YEAR: AS OF DEC.5I,-
AUTHORIZED EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION STATIONS KUUCtR OF STAT1>»« I9 5 2 -1 9 6 T COO
Ço*.îtfuel.9« PrfrJn
:
m 1964 1360 3-3I-1S67 1952 10S4 1953 19.60 V2AR AS C? CÎC.ST, FIGURE 4 THE GROWTH OF EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION (PUBLIC TELEVISION ACT OF 196?) 91 typical week, according to a 1966 National Educational Television Survey by the Stanford Institute for Educational Research, ETV Is viewed by between 12.2 and l4.7 million people.? This represents more than double the audience computed by a comparable survey in 1962, Another survey, conducted by the National Center for School and College
Television, reported that ETV In 1966 provided more than
6.3 million school children with instructional television in a typical week— almost triple the amount of students measured in 1962. In sum, approximately twenty million people watched ETV during a typical week In 1966.® Today, the average educational television station broadcasts fifty hours a week, with about one-third of the stations 9 Including weekend programming. Frieda Hennock's contribution to the broadcasting industry cannot be measured in dollars and cents, viewers, or stations. She did serve, however, as the impetus, the driving force of a television system which Is just now beginning to bear fruit. There have been many other people who have taken up the cause for educational television since Miss Hennock left the FCC. They are
7lbld. 8lbld. 9lbld. 92 perhaps more "concretely” responsible for educational television's growth and it Is only fair that we mention their names: Howard Bevis, President of Ohio State University, Richard B. Hull, Director of the Iowa State television station, WOI-TV, George Probst, Director and President of the Edison Foundation, and the late Franklin Dunham, of the U. S. Office of Education. Much credit should also be given to such institutions as the Carnegie Commission, the Ford Foundation, and National Educational Television, for their financial support. CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Frieda Hennock's seven years on the Federal Communications Commission were not productive ones for her. The running battles with the networks and the educational community caused her great anguish. The profit motive, the philosophy of compromise, the weakness of regulatory power, and a general apathy on the part of the public brought a degree of failure to the woman Commissioner's efforts. Only an Idealist would have proposed for education to enter significantly Into the expensive and competitive world of television. Frieda Hennock, because of her high ideals and values, could not have considered educational television as one of her victories. Someday, perhaps educational television will more properly regard Frieda Hennock as one of its victories. Miss Hennock was not free from error in her strivings for educational television. She looked upon noncommercial television as a special entity in the broadcasting industry. Her mistakes came when she asked that educational television be treated in a special way. Miss Hennock wanted color television to be limited strictly to the UHF spectrum. She proposed the replacement of VHF assignments with UHF. Her pronouncements on the FCC's 94 regulatory power, which she wanted increased, came close to Infringing on the First Amendment. The Commission does forbid lotteries and indecency, but the FCC is explicit in its wish that programming responsibility be vested in the licensee. The Commission is more concerned with a station's overall programming (stressing a balanced program service) than with isolated instances of questionable programs. The nature of the FCC's control over programming is this— a reasonable effort must be made to serve the needs of the community with various positions sought out so that fairness many be maintained. Miss Hennock, in her arguments for educational television, said that the public, apathetic as it was, merely tolerated television's fare. Most of the important studies, including Wilbur Schramm's The People Look at 1 2 Educational Television and The People Look at Television, by Gary Steiner, conclude there is no evidence of sweeping dissatisfaction with the television industry's performance. Nor is there even the belief that a general dissatisfaction exists. For the most part, the public appears to enjoy television immensely. With 90 per cent of American homes
^Wilbur Schramm, JThe People Look at Educational Television (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 19^5)• ^Gary Steiner, The People Look at Television (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1^63). 95 having sets which are operated from five to six hours a day, these statements gain support.^ While Miss Hennock never said the public did not like television, she overestimated the public's unhappiness with it when supporting her arguments against the commercial interests. Frieda Hennock's other defeats in relation to educational television came in decisions concerning corporate ownership. During her tenure, ownership by any single group was increased to five VHF stations and two UHF. She failed to persuade the Commission to enforce strict regulations against overlapping signals from VHF stations which infringed upon UHF coverage (this was to come after she left the FCC). Miss Hennock's opinions, usually in the minority, and dissenting, did not contribute to a steady stream of results. But the woman Commissioner did have accomplishments. Through her vociferous statements and documented opinions. Miss Hennock caused her fellow commissioners to be careful, accurate, and more wary of their decisions and the effects which they would have. She made sure she was prepared for any rebuttal— her early years as a criminal lawyer taught her how to defend herself. Miss Hennock performed a
^Ibid., p. 17. 96 function envisioned by Congress when it provided, in the Communications Act of 1934, for a Commission of divergent views to arrive at a concensus of action. Frieda Hennock was bitterly opposed by the commercial television industry, an industry which firmly believed that educational television could not succeed and any minimal success would be a waste of valuable frequencies. During the 1950's, the television industry had impressive figures to support their side— growth was steady and business prosperous. But the latest figures are beginning to underscore many of Hiss Hennock's ideas about the potential of viewer interest in cultural and instructional programming. A study by the Institute for Communication Research at Stanford University brought out the startling fact that professional people make up only 14.7 per cent li of ETV's diverse viewing audience. Clerks, skilled and unskilled persons make up 42.7 per cent of the audience, while another 8.7 per cent of the viewing public is retired.^ The A.C. Nielsen Company statistics show that 12.5 per cent of American homes tune to one or more ETV stations in an average week.^ These figures clearly
^Washington Post, January 12, 1968, p. 37*
5jbid. 6Ibid. 97 indicate a growing public acceptance of educational television. 1 feel that it is safe to assune that Miss Hennock's pressure on the networks caused them to think more of public affairs and cultural offerings in their schedules. A quick glance at programming down through the years shows a preponderance of escape and shallow fare which seems to cater to planned obsolence. Someone who sounded like Frieda Hennock speaks his peace: 1 am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything . . . The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the FCC . . . But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency. Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude and insulate us, then television and those who finance . . . look . . . and work at it may see a different picture too late.' The FCC has come to embrace some of Miss Hennock's ideas. The Commission strongly advocates the importance of educational television as contributing in large measure to local programming service. One piece of legislation bearing the Frieda Hennock trademark is the prohibition of the manufacture and sale in interstate commerce of
^From a speech by Edward R. Murrow before a convention of radio and television news directors in Chicago : October 15, 1958* 98 sets capable of receiving only the twelve VHF channels. Miss Hennock sponsored this and saw it enacted. The present FCC rules against overlapping television signals came about largely as a result of her prodding. Frieda Hennock was the Commission watchdog. She was the contending side in a Government operation which stated that both sides of a question should be heard and treated equitably. Miss Hennock forced her adversaries to define and defend their positions as to the public interest. She was not frightened by her enemies; she was frightened by the apathy of the educators and the effect which television was having on children. Miss Hennock stressed many times in her speeches the importance of early childhood viewing, for many of the child's cultural, investigative habits are formed in these early years. For all the research done on the impact of television on children, there seems to be few meaningful conclusions. Attempts have been made to determine the effect of television on children's eyesight, schoolwork, school-related activities, and pre- reading skills, but the shreds of research fail to reveal the impact of television on their attitudes and behavior. Frieda Hennock, and many after her, have emphasized that the way to combat the ills of television (i.e., violence and escapism) on children is to promote better programming 9§ and effective, selective home control of viewing by parents. Frieda Hennock was a "boat-rocker." Boat-rockers, those who stir up controversey and debate in the hope the public interest will be served, usually do not last very long in the Government. Bureaucratic institutions regard change with utmost caution and those who advocate change as potential threats to the security of the operation (admittedly this is not an objectionable attitude in many instances, especially when reputations and security are involved). Failure to renominate Miss Hennock really came as no surprise. Unfortunately, the main line of progress on the Federal Communications Commission is ruled by one word— compromise. Frieda Hennock was a superb negotiator, but as one who had to comprcxnise, she had many inadequacies. Miss Hennock just could not compromise with those who were against her. She could not even accept those who in any way recognized the opposition's viewpoint, though they may have avowed support for her (as was the case with Harry Flotkin, Marcus Cohn, and the educational station in Jacksonville, Florida). Frieda Hennock felt one could not compromise in such an Important area as noncommercial broadcasting. In the commercial television industry, compromise and bargaining are an everyday fact of life. 100 Miss Hennock tended to antagonize both her friends and her enemies by the force of her arguments against compromise. She knew the financial position of the networks, who, during the early years of television, were losing money and depended on their stations for their primary source of revenue. She could not, however, accept the networks' unwritten rule that profits had to be increased each year, and in her view, at the expense of weak, nonecmmercial, educational stations. Frieda Hennock died at the early age of fifty-five on June 20, 196O. Had she lived to see the creation of Public Television in 196?, she undoubtedly would have felt her efforts were not in vain. The foresight and energy which she displayed has somehow been forgotten in the annals of broadcasting history. There is no mention of Frieda Hennock in the 8o4 pages of testimony, documents, and history in the hearings of the Public Television Act
of 1 9 6 7 . Miss Hennock once said that when educational television becomes a national institution and its potential realized, the credit will go to the builders g and operators of the educational stations.
®From a speech by Frieda Hennock delivered to the Fourteenth Annual Forum on Education in New York, February 10, 1954. 101 There is still much work to be done, more history to be written. When educational television finally arrives as a potent force in our lives, the happiest and most satisfied person would have been Frieda Hennock. For she would have known that the victory did not belong to her, but to the American peop;.". BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
A. BOOKS
Bliss, Edward (ed.). In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow. llew Yorïc: -Alfred À'.”Kh'opf', Inc., 1 9 6 7 :------Emery, Walter B. Broadcasting and Government: Responsibilities and Regulation. East Lansing; Michigan dtate University frees, 196I. Head, Sydney W. Broadcasting in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1^56. Public Television: A Program for Action, The Report of the ôamegie' Commission on kducatiônal Television.' Mew York: Bantam Éooks, 1 % 7 . Schramm, Wilbur. The People Look at Educational Television. Stanford: Stanford l&ilversity ‘R^ess, 19&3. Steiner, Gary. The People Look at Television. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1953.
B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Congressional Record, June, 1948-June, i9 6 0 . FCC Financial Data for 1966. Washington: Government PrintingOffice, 19bo. FCC Sixth Report and Order. Washington: Government T51nting*ôïficê7 19557 Hoover Commission Report: A Report with Recommendations prepared for the Commission on Organization of the Ëxecùblve Branch of 6overwe^. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1949. 104 Helnl Radio-Television News Service, July, 1949-June, 1954. Hennock, Frieda, "Basic Facts for Education," The Association for Education by Radio, Vol. J3TT November. T935;i>p. T-T,------^ --- , "My Most Rewarding Experience in TV, " The 'Journal of the AERT. Vol. IV. April, 1954, pp. 1-4. Transcript of Georgetown University Forum. "Freedom of the Air: Whose Responsibility?^ July 1, 1954. United States Congress, Meumo ?f Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Public Television Act of 1967. Hearings before Subcommibbee, Ninetieth dongress. First Session, on S. Il60, April 26-June 6, 1967. Washington: Government Printing Office.
C. PERIODICALS
Billboard. June, 1948-May, 1955. Broadcasting-Telecasting. June, 1947-June, 1955. Carson, Saul. "The Lady From the FCC," TV Screen Magazine, IX (August,.1951), pp. 44-48. ---- . "Samoff and the Professors," The New Republic. XI (May 8, 1954), pp. 31-33. "Color Television," U.S. News and World Report, XXIX (October 27, 1950), p. 6 3 . Consumer Reports, VI (June, 1954), pp. 1-3. Crosby, John. "Are We Letting TV Go t o ?" McCalls, X(October, 1950), pp. 29-34. Hennock, Frieda. "How Television Can Help Reform Our Educational System," Academy. I (November, 1952) pp. 6-9. . "TV Conservation," Saturday Review of Literature. XXXIII (December 9,.l55o), pp. 19-24. "Television." Time, XXI (June 7, 1948), p. 94. 105 Television Digest. X (May 29, 1954), p. 1. Television Magazine. VI (June, 1953), p. 23. "To the Ladies." Investor's Reader, XVII (June 23, 1948), pp. 8-11. . , Variety. May, 1949-June, 1955. Welch, Mary Scott. "Donna Quixote," Look, XV (July 17, 1951), pp. 46-50. , "White House Straws." Newsweek. XXIX (June 7, 1948), p. 49.
D. ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES
Yust, Walter (ed.). "Federal Communications Commission," Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopedia , Britannica, inc., 1954, p. l69.
E. NEWSPAPERS
Baltimore Sun. August 8, 1948. Christian Science Monitor ^ostorQ , September 14, 1950. Eklund, Laurence. "Portia on the FCC," Milwaukee Journal Magazine. September 2, 1948, pp. 6-9. Houston Chronicle. June 8, 1953. New Orleans Item, June 19, 1953. New York Daily News. June, 1948-June, 1955. New York Herald Tribune, June, 1948-June, 1955. New York Times. June, 1948-June, 1955* Pittsburgh Press, March 26, 1951. Radio-Television Daily jWashingtoiQ , June, 1948-June, 1955. 106 Washington Dally Hews. May, 1954-June, 1955. Washington Evening Star. June, 1946-June, 1955. Washington Post. June, 1948-June, I960.