Broadcasting Oct 31 - American Radio History

'OMMITTED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT & THE FIFTH ESTATE
Study in contrasts
If one set out to establish a classic example of why a free press is
to be preferred over a fettered one, he need look no further than
last week's coverage of the bombing in Beirut and the invasion of
Grenada. Nor, indeed, need one go further to demonstrate the
transparent absurdity of the government's reasons for "protect-
ing" the press from danger, and keeping the public from truth.
From the first hours, both network and station correspondents
and cameramen kept Americans and the world advised of the
tragedy that unfolded in the Mideast that Sunday morning. Reac-
tion- personal and political -was vented freely. The reality of
the deaths of more than 200 Marines was brought home tellingly
and unblinkingly; within hours the full measure of that awful
event was absorbed into the American fabric.
'No days later, an American task force went into battle against
a Caribbean republic without a news correspondent in sight -nor
within sound, for that matter. The TV networks were reduced to
using file film footage that may or may not have approximated the
events taking place in Grenada. The few newsmen who did make
it to the scene were quickly sequestered. By what seemed almost
a comic retrogression of technologies, the media were forced to
get much of their on- the -scene information from ham operators.
The best that can be hoped for from this anti -First Amendment
performance is that the example was so odious that it won't be
repeated. Among the redeeming signs was the internal White
House memo from Deputy Press Secretary Larry Speakes in
which he protested being kept in the dark on military planning
and warned that the credibility of the Reagan administration was
at stake. Hopeful, too, was the near unanimity of the press itself
in protesting the White House exclusion -as well as the contin-
ued willingness of newsmen to put their own lives on the line in
pursuit of truth, no matter how unhappy nor how far away.
Other side of the coin
Having spoken so vigorously in favor of the right to gather the
news, as well as the right to publish/broadcast it, it is worth a
moment to reflect that hand in hand with those rights goes the
obligation to be responsible in terms of what is actually put on the
air or into print. In that connection, it is hard to feel that a full
measure of prudence was exercised by CBS and its owned station
in Los Angeles,KNxTft'v), before deciding to go full speed ahead
with broadcast of purloined FBI tapes showing the unfolding of
the process that led to the arrest of John DeLorean.
But before considering the propriety of that journalistic adven-
ture, it is even more important to applaud the action of a three -
judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which lost no time in declaring that CBS had every right to
broadcast the materials if it saw fit, and that any prior restraint -
as had been asked by both the prosecution and the defense in the
DeLorean case, and as had been ordered by the trial judge -
would be unconstitutional. So too must be lauded Supreme Court
Justice William Rehnquist, who rejected a request for stay.
So, buttressed by such legal noninterference, CBS rushed to
judgment. Within minutes of the Rehnquist clearance, cNxTwas
on the air with a tape, as was the network soon after. For viewers,
it was an out -of- context experience. The DeLorean legal difficul-
ties were old news to most in the audience, and the trial wasn't to
begin for another week. That trial, as the story in this issue
describes, has now been postponed indefinitely by a judge who
believes the defendant's right to fair trial has been jeopardized.
H dito- qalso
Broadcasting Oct 31 1983
98
Our own reservations don't go that far. But it is hard to resist
the impression that CBS journalists got carried away with the
tapes just because they were there (put there through the courtesy
of the publisher of Hustler magazine) and not because they added
anything to the public weal. All of the action and dialogue they
transmitted had long ago been public knowledge, and putting
fuzzy pictures to the words did nothing to illuminate the process.
But for the sensationalism of it all, this particular trafficking in
shady goods wasn't worth the candle.
Man of the year
It's been a remarkable year for Eddie Fritts and the National
Association of Broadcasters. As is delineated in this issue's "AT
LARGE" interview, the first 12 months of that tenure have been
marked by enough pyrotechnics to last most NAB chiefs a life-
time. Fritts and his colleagues could be excused for hoping some
calm might follow all their storms -as well as for being grateful
they have had the fortitude to weather them.
Many of the difficulties that have come NAB's way during this
time may be attributed directly to the aggressive approach Fritts
has taken toward lobbying Capitol Hill. Nowhere has that been
more evident than in the attempt to secure legislative legitimacy
for broadcast deregulation. In the process NAB may have in-
curred the lasting enmity of the incumbent chairman of the House
Telecommunications Subcommittee -no great loss, many might
say. But it has also achieved a formidable record of success in
keeping that legislative initiative moving in the House, and there
is a chance that, at the end of the day, there may actually be a bill.
Perhaps more likely, this time around, Fritts will have to call in
the chit he holds from the chairman of the parent Commerce
Committee to call it all off, lest NAB and broadcasting be stuck
with something untenable. But even in that eventuality, the indus-
try will have come further down the deregulatory road in the
House than it ever has before, and will be in a better position still
to fight again another day.
There is no reason to believe that the controversy that has
surrounded Eddie Fritts's first year will soon abate. The forces
that fueled that controversy - principally the division between the
radio and television sides of the association and the competition
between the three major networks and the large group broadcast-
ers -will all be there tomorrow. In the future the NAB must
devise better ways to nourish coexistence among its increasingly
diverse constituency. In the meantime it could do worse than to
unite behind a president who has had to win his spurs -both as
broadcaster and as industry leader -the hard way.
Drawn for BROADCASTING by Jack Schmidt
"The rainfall so far has exceeded my earlier forecast."