016 Speech-International Radio and Television Society Conference, April 20, 1972.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ITINERARY FOR CLAY T. WHITEHEAD NEW YORK, NEW YORK APRIL 20, 1972 THURSDAY, April 20, 1972: 9:00 a.m. Car 9:30 a.m. Lv Washington Natn'l Airport, via AA Flt #400 10:21 a.m. Ar LaGuardia Airport, New York 11:00 a.m. Tom Moore's Office (212) 750-3811 777 3rd Avenue 27th Floor 12:30 p.m. Luncheon - Speech - IRTS College Conference: Commodore Hotel 42nd St. & Park Ave. (212) 686-6000 Grand Ballroom 3rd Floor 2:30 p.m. Meeting with Herman Land and Ed Bleier GM Building 59th and 5th Avenues (opposite Plaza Hotel) 38th Floor 3:30 p.m. Meeting with Ambassador Ellsworth (212) 736-3373 Gallaghers 33 (Penn. Station) 133 West 33rd I I. -Gey-t—vttil—p-ttlrYtrrrair:-- tAt.....asetv‘. CrAzzocxts cL "'Decisions March 1972/Volume 7, No. 3 Bridging the Washington Gap Can air advertising survive the FTC-FCC SQUEEZE? The FTC has entered the counter-advertising debate. It calls for an extension of the "fairness doctrine" to allow rebuttals to tv commercials (free and paid) by seemingly anyone who finds them controversial. The final showdown may be in the courts or through new legislation. Meanwhile the ad community is alarmed and groping for a meaningful response. Commercial television—in fact, ad- Docket No. 19260 deals with "The vertising itself—may never be the Handling of Public Issues under the same by the time the FCC's Docket Fairness Doctrine and the Public In- No. 19260 has gone through the final terest Standards of the Communica- controversial wringer. tions Act." The right to comment over It's a handy reference number for the air on product commercials is part those interested in the battle over three of 19260. counter-advertising. Two precedents give this docket number special significance for adver- ing_ and broadcast communities the treatment of public issues and not to tising and marketing men: FCC is considerably less bugaboo on serve as a battleground over the vir- 1) Never in the history of broad- this issue than the FTC. Some observ- tues or defects of products or services. cast advertising have so many forces ers see the FTC's intervention as pub- Product advertising should not be ex- converged on the medium demanding licity motivated to take advantage of posed to public trial under the guise of the right to facilities for presentation tv and radio's vast reach and popular the fairness doctrine. The FCC should of counterclaims to sales messages. appeal. make it clear that "balance" in the 2) Never in the history of the Following is a summary of the ar- fairness area is never meant to ap- FCC has it been faced with (a) so guments contained in the comments many contending public and special proximate "equal." If product com- filed with the FCC, with replies by the interest parties over a single issue; (b) mercials were to be the target of a networks to the propositions advanced the strange case of another Govern- barrage of critical fire or counter- by the advocates of a wider applica- ment agency—the FTC, to be speci- statements, most advertisers would be tion of the fairness doctrine: fic—advising how it should proceed in inclined to pass up broadcast media PROPOSITION: Commercials for other a matter before it. That the FCC is and less vulnerable media. should be subject to public debate PROPOSITION: not happy about this intrusion Stations should over the wide spectrum of public in- set aside specified blocks of time to shouldn't be surprising to any one terest questions they explicitly or im- permit counter spot announcements. who is at all familiar with the Wash- plicitly raise. REPLY: allocation ington scene. The of specific REPLY: The FCC should (a) periods of time for counter 16 groups have filed spots not define certain categories or types of only would undermine the vitality and With the FTC serving as a spear- commercial content that may raise advertising of the commercial broad- head, there are at least 16 groups with questions of public controversy involv- cast system but increase clutter an assortment of causes that have filed ing fairness doctrine responsibilities; tremendously which would have the with the FCC supporting the thesis (b) set up broad policy guidelines or a effect of reducing program quality and that the time has come for the FCC to subsidiary set of criteria to guide the disrupting regular program schedules. broaden the spectrum of the fairness broadcast media; (c) make clear what PROPOSITION: Granted the doctrine so as to make it possible to types of commercials might be subject fairness doctrine doesn't require equal rebut commercials that might be con- to the fairness doctrine on the basis but the same impact techniques sidered controversial. time, that current situations make them 60 and 30-second commercials— These advocates of wholesale appli- "hot issues." should be made available for counter- cation of the fairness doctrine to prod- PROPOSITION: There should be advertising. uct commercials say that the FCC free access to the air for those who REPLY: Though the 60 and opened the door in 1967 when it want to make statements on goods or 30-second announcements are effec- applied the fairness doctrine to ciga- services subject to complaints pending tive vehicles for sales messages, it is rettes, hence making an extension of. before the FTC on the basis of doubtful that the same format can the doctrine both false logical and inevi- or table. misleading advertising. Such state- provide an equally effective means for ments should be positioned, when pos- controversial .rebuttal. Communica- Opponents (advertisers and broad- sible, adjacent to the product or claim tion impact derives from a diversity of casters) hold that the FCC should to which they are directed. program techniques, demographic instead reaffirm the concept that prod- REPLY: The purpose of the composition, day parts used and many uct advertising as such is not subject fairness doctrine is to obtain fair other factors which can hardly be to fairness doctrine consideration and that to do otherwise the FCC would destroy the economic viability of broadcast media and act contrary to 1970 TV Net Revenue in Nine Product Categories the Communications Act and the First That the FCC is Asked to Label Controversial Amendment of the United States Con- stitution. Category Total Dollars A key contention • of counter- advertising proponents is that national Drugs and remedies $297,900,000 problems, conditions and trends make Dental supplies and mouthwashes 109,800,000 it mandatory that the FCC take a Dairy products 30,400,000 stand on the broader issues of "social Confectionery, snacks, soft drinks 139,100,000 responsibility." To that advertisers and Beer, wine, liquor 96,500,000 the broadcast media reply: The oppo- Soaps, cleansers and polishers 254,600,000 sition befuddles the issue when it seeks Passenger cars 194,400,000 to mix social responsibility arguments Gasoline, lubricants, fuels 92,600,000 in the case of product commercials Airlines, buses, car rentals 364,300,000 that are merely promoting a product's appeal and effectiveness, without TOTAL $1,579,600,000 reference to "social utility" or special place in the scheme of society. Note: Total represents 52% of three networks revenue for 1970. As the battle lines harden, it is Source: BAR Reports via TvB (Cited by NBC in FCC comments.) interesting to note that to the advertis- "acting as an arbiter of qualitative REPLY: The cigarettes ruling was ing substantiation for advertising program standards." a "unique" application of the fairness claims does not suffice. PROPOSITION: The FCC should doctrine, not a precedent, and should • In addition to being truthful, it is adopt procedures for referring to cer- not be considered as a policy state- desirable that advertising be "corn- tain Government agencies for exami- ment. Any commercial possibly in- plete"—that is, make available all es- nation those product commercials sus- volving the fairness doctrine should be sential pieces of information concern- pected or alleged to be false or considered a "unique" situation, ing the product—for example, health- misleading. presenting a "unique danger" affecting fulness, safety hazards, misleading diet Following such an examination the the public health. The FCC should impressions, etc. commercial would be returned to the restructure its application of the • Efforts to foster "completeness" FCC with comment and the FCC fairness doctrine to the degree that it by means of "disclosure" is hampered could then determine whether or not applies only to direct advocacy of a by short length commercials and the the commercial's content .serves the controversial issue or point of view. inclination of some advertisers, out of public interest. That action should be confined to self interest, to disseminate as little REPLY: If the FCC is to decide stations which do not otherwise in- information as possible. what means to take after legal deter- form the public on the nature of the • Counter-advertising would be an mination of 'deception, shouldn't the issue. Such interpretation, obviously, appropriate means of "overcoming intervening parties would remove counter-claims of the typical product some of the shortcomings of FTC examination? commercial from the also be submitted for province of the tools, and help in enforcing its poli- Rather than have the whole commer- fairness doctrine. cies." up until such deter- PROPOSITION: The cial system hung Court of Ap- • Advertising that asserts claims of would be equi- peals has held that mination is made, it the law protects product performance or characteris- legal procedures the American public from table to obtain limited being left tics which raise controversial issues of determination of advertis- uninformed.