|
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
NICHOLAS JOHNSON:
THE PUBLIC'S DEFENDER ON THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, 1966-1973
A paper submitted to the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Radio - Television Journalism Division
by
Max V. Grubb
B.S.C. Ohio University 1979
M.A. Kent State University 1994
Doctoral Student Ohio University
10309 Porter Lane
Athens, Ohio 45701
(614) 797-3700
Email: [log in to unmask]
RUNNING HEAD: NICHOLAS JOHNSON
ABSTRACT
NICHOLAS JOHNSON: THE PUBLIC'S DEFENDER ON THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, 1966-1973
Despised by broadcasters and hailed by consumer advocates,
Nicholas Johnson's 1966-1973 tenure at the Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) was described as the most controversial in the history of the commission
in a 1995 book. This paper examined Johnson's term as FCC commissioner to
answer the following questions: 1) what events led him to be so outspoken?, and
2) what was it that caused broadcasters and others to criticize Johnson more
than any other commissioner?
NICHOLAS JOHNSON: THE PUBLIC'S DEFENDER ON THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, 1966-1973
INTRODUCTION
Despised by broadcasters and hailed by consumer advocates,
Nicholas Johnson's 1966-1973 tenure at the Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) was described as the most controversial in the history of the commission
in a 1995 book. Broadcasters turned purple with rage at the mention of his
name. [1] The trade magazine, Broadcasting, was vindictive in its coverage of
Johnson, referring to him as the "teenybopper on the FCC."[2] Even within the
commission Johnson was criticized. FCC Chairman Dean Burch denounced Johnson as
a "demagogue, irresponsible, . . . [and] disrespectful."[3]
Yet others from these groups praised him for his work. FCC
Commissioner Kenneth Cox often sided with Johnson on major issues. He noted
that maybe Johnson's tactics were more successful compared with his conventional
play-by-the-rules approach. Albert H. Kramer, founder and former director of
the public-interest Citizen's Communication Center, noted that Johnson tried to
"bring the American system to bear on the processes of government."[4] Lawrence
Leamer of Harper's Magazine observed,
For seven years Johnson rained down on the broadcasters a
plague
of dissents. He became famous, much admired, the most
celebrated advocate of citizen action in the federal government, but among
broadcasters he was roundly despised, and Broadcasting, the industry
trade magazine, predicted that when his term ended there would
be "dancing in the streets."[5]
What makes these remarks particularly noteworthy is that Johnson
was an unknown to broadcasting before his nomination and confirmation as
commissioner in June 1966.
Johnson's appointment to the FCC did not alarm broadcasters.
His reputation as Maritime Administrator, for the previous two years, was
noteworthy for turning around "the barnacle-encrusted merchant marine."[6] Yet,
Broadcasting described him as "no-crackdown artist."[7] However, at the end of
Johnson's first year as FCC commissioner broadcasters were critical of his
stewardship. This disposition would not change for the duration of Johnson's
term as FCC commissioner.
His tenure as FCC commissioner raises some questions. There was
no trepidation concerning his appointment, and his first months on the
commission were quiet, although this changed at some point. Johnson's remaining
years on the FCC were contentious, attracting broadcasters' anger. Certainly
other FCC commissioners had drawn the criticism of broadcasters, but Johnson's
was notable. Thus, after a few months as an FCC commissioner, what events led
him to be so outspoken? In addition, what was it that caused broadcasters and
others to criticize Johnson more than any other commissioner?
This paper examined Johnson's term as FCC commissioner to answer
these questions. The writer explored the subject through broadcasting trade
magazines, mass media magazines, the New York Times, congressional hearings,
and FCC decisions. Various indexes were used to find articles concerning
Johnson as FCC commissioner. Articles from the industry magazines were
examined to study the broadcasters' perspective on Johnson's tenure. This was
contrasted with news items found in The New York Times and mass media magazines,
including Newsweek, Harper's Magazine, The New Republic, Saturday Review, and
The Nation. Comparison of news coverage between the mass and trade media
offered information and insight on different viewpoints of Johnson. In
addition, these items provided information from the perspective of individuals
who interacted with Johnson.
Government indexes were used to discover testimony that Johnson
gave as FCC commissioner and before congressional committees. In addition,
articles and books published by Johnson during this period were reviewed.
Important to this study was an interview with Johnson as well as an examination
of his Internet World Wide Web home page. The interview provided background
information and insight to decisions made during his term on the FCC. His
Internet home page was a gold mine of information offering an exhaustive
bibliography of speeches, FCC decisions, published articles and books, and news
items concerning him. This showed the Internet's potential as a resource for
research.
The writer reviewed the articles written during Johnson's
tenure, looking for events, themes, relationship dynamics, and news framing.
His congressional testimony, speeches, and published articles were examined to
determine his positions on issues, philosophy, and events of the period.
CATALYST FOR A PUBLIC DEFENDER
Johnson was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson to a
seven-year term as an FCC Commissioner in June 1966. At the time, he had been
serving as federal Maritime Administrator, a presidential appointment made two
years earlier. He had been born three months after the FCC was formed, on
September 23, 1934, in Iowa City, Iowa. The son of a university speech
professor, he earned a B.A. degree from the University of Texas in 1956, and
then a law degree, with honors, from the University of Texas in 1958.[8]
Upon admission that year to the Texas bar Johnson served as law
clerk for Judge John R. Brown of the United States Court of Appeals for the
fifth circuit (south). A year later he became a clerk for United States Supreme
Court Justice Hugo Black. In 1960, Johnson became a law professor at the
University of California, and three years later he joined the Washington, D.C.,
law firm of Covington and Burling. At the age of twenty-nine, Johnson appointed
him to be Maritime Administrator in February 1964.[9]
According to Broadcasting, Maritime Administrator Johnson was
known as "an imaginative man, one bubbling over with ideas on improving
efficiency and, according to one congressional committee staff member, enamored
of scientific innovations." He was noted as being hard working, brilliant, and
aggressive. However, Broadcasting observed that Johnson had antagonized both
ship builders and unions as Maritime Administrator.[10] He controlled an
annual budget of $350 million and supervised over 2,500 employees.[11] During
this period, Johnson criticized the $600-million program of ship construction
and operating subsidies and proposed and enacted new subsidy policies that
guided allocations for ship building that increased greater shipping
productivity. He also developed policies that eliminated rigidities in
scheduled sailings and permitted subsidized ship lines to build ships abroad to
save labor costs.
Despite the shippers' difficulty with Johnson, Broadcasting
noted during his appointment that he was "an unknown quantity."[12] Johnson
even confessed to his complete ignorance about issues confronting the
commission. "I'm not only bring [sic] a professionally open mind," he stated,
"but one that is practically open to this job."[13] However, broadcasters might
have been distracted since they were delighted with the appointment of Rosel H.
Hyde as FCC chairman.[14]
Both Hyde and Johnson were nominated to the FCC at the same
time. Hyde was first named to the commission in 1946 and was highly regarded by
the FCC's staff. A conservative, he was considered broadcasting's friend since
he believed in little regulation of the industry.
Johnson's confirmation process was uneventful. He offered
little as to his position on issues concerning the FCC. Senator Peter H.
Dominick asked him about the role of the FCC in determining the content of
broadcasting. "That is a most sophisticated and involved matter as you are well
aware," Johnson responded, "I would be very hesitant, I think, to express my
views at this time without having first had the benefit of hearing from all
those who do have an interest in it."[15] Senator Frank J. Laushe noted that
Johnson had been the only Maritime Administrator to bring the merchant marine to
a high level of efficiency. Based on this recommendation, Committee Chairman
Senator John O. Pastore observed that people like Johnson were rare in
government and needed on the FCC.[16]
As noted, Broadcasting reported that Johnson was an unknown
quantity, but also "no crack-down artist."[17] It did observe that he was the
youngest FCC Commissioner, at thirty-two, ever appointed.[18] The New York
Times offered little on Johnson's appointment, focusing more on Hyde's
nomination. It was noted that "the president believes that Mr. Hyde will
provide a steadying hand at the F.C.C. wheel, while Mr. Johnson will furnish an
excitingly youthful perspective."[19]
Johnson's appointment and first few months as FCC Commissioner
generated little concern among broadcasters. In October, he attended the
National Association of Broadcasters' fall conference in Minneapolis. He
indicated that all he knew about broadcasting was learned while listening to
radio at home in Iowa. Suggesting that his questions would provide some sense
of what was going on in his mind, he asked about Cable TV, spectrum allocations,
educational TV, and an "examination of what the broadcasters thought of their
role in public service."[20]
Broadcasters provided candid answers to Johnson's inquiries. He
even asked if there was something the FCC was doing that they wish would stop.
In addition, he asked how the commission could better serve the public interest
in its role as broadcast regulator. Broadcasters noted that they should not be
badgered every three years with a license renewal. Many had been in business
for a long time, fulfilling their public interest obligations, and they observed
that the commission loads broadcasters down with paperwork.[21]
Johnson's closing remarks at the conference offered broadcasters
optimism that his tenure would not trouble them. Broadcasting observed that
Johnson said he
believed a fundamental question was not whether licenses should
be
for a three-year or a five-year term, but rather whether
broadcasters
should have to go through the renewal process at all. . . . If
it's really
true that stations would continue to perform public service
without regulations, then this is an utter waste of time and resources.
It's something worth exploring.[22]
He noted that perhaps the commission could get together with
broadcasters to develop a study to find out what the FCC was all about. He
offered that this might better inform the FCC on how to efficiently use its
resources and how broadcasters could better do their job with less FCC
regulations. Broadcasters had reason for optimism at Johnson's first public
appearance as an FCC Commissioner, but this would soon change.
The first few months of Johnson's term were relatively quiet,
offering time to get acclimated to the job. However, an event occurred that
served as the catalyst for Johnson's initiation as a public defender on the FCC.
Johnson recalls that the proposed American Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC)
merger with International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) was his "baptism of fire
in a lot of ways." [23] ITT, a multinational conglomerate, had announced a
proposed merger with ABC, one of the three major television networks in the
U.S., in 1966. The merger would have to be approved by the FCC since ABC owned
both radio and television stations.[24]
Both Commissioner Kenneth A. Cox and Johnson expressed concern
over the proposed merger. Broadcasting noted that ITT's "massive response . . .
to the questions of three FCC commissioners concerned about the company's
proposed merger with ABC Inc., led . . . to more--and more detailed--questions
from two of the commissioners."[25] Cox and Johnson felt that ITT's initial
answers to the FCC's questions were incomplete and unclear. Through a letter,
they asked more questions to clarify some of the answers, and to seek more
information from ITT. In addition, the letter posed a hypothetical question
which focused on a major issue in the case. ITT was asked if its foreign
possessions "would adversely affect ABC's news-and-public-affairs
programming."[26]
FCC Commissioner Lee Loevinger was critical of Cox's and
Johnson's letter, accusing them of adjudicating by press release. The letter
was considered a public matter and thus placed in the commission's public file.
What Loevinger was really objecting to was that the letter was made available to
the press.[27] Less than a month later in December 1966, the FCC approved the
merger by a four to three vote. The majority based their decision on the premise
that the merger would financially strengthen ABC. Johnson filed his first
opinion, an eighty-five page dissent.[28]
Broadcasting noted that the majority had been ready to act for
weeks on the case, but were waiting for a completed study of the antitrust
aspects of the case. The FCC had decided to forego a laborious and
time-consuming hearing. Instead, an oral hearing was conducted. Johnson noted
that there was an absence of anyone representing the public at the hearing.
However, the majority defended the hearing as " painstaking and thorough."[29]
In a recent interview, Johnson stated,
I was absolutely stunned at the way that thing was handled. ..
.They
started off with the notion they were going to have [ITT's
Chairman] Harold Geneen in for coffee in the chairman's office. And we're
all sitting around the coffee table, chat with him a bit and approve the
merger. . . . I just couldn't believe it. . . my jaw dropped! I said, "Look,
god damn you
at least have to have a hearing on this thing. You can't just
do that." And
then when they were willing to cite as one of the reasons for
approving
that merger, that ITT was going to put money into ABC and make
ABC
a stronger network . . .they refused to change that reason in
their opinion,
even after I put in the dissent that we found this memo
indicating that the reason they wanted to merge was that ITT intended to take
$100 million a year out of ABC.[30]
Johnson's strongly worded dissent criticized the majority
decision. He stated that the majority's handling of this case "makes a mockery
of the public responsibility of a regulatory commission that is perhaps
unparalleled in the history of American administrative processes."[31]He
observed that from the outset the outcome was a foregone conclusion.[32]
Johnson indicated in a 1996 interview that it was the ITT/ABC
merger that caused him to be more vocal on the FCC. He observed that he
"started off, both for solid reasons of substance and also for appearances, of
being quiet, not writing dissents, listening, trying to learn, trying to find
out what's going on." But this case astonished and surprised him.
The FCC would again vote to approve the merger six months later,
after the Justice department asked the commission to reopen the case. The vote
again was four to three with the same line-up of commissioners. This time
Johnson was the principle author of a "blistering 131-page joint dissent."[33]
Eventually the ITT/ABC merger was aborted by ITT on New Years day, 1968, while a
Justice Department's appeal of the FCC decision was pending.[34]
As a result of the ITT/ABC merger case, Johnson assumed a
"David-Goliath" role on the FCC. It was a role that would increasingly attract
the anger of broadcasters and fellow commission members. In March 1967, Johnson
criticized the FCC's performance in reviewing programming proposals of
license-renewal applicants. He noted that the FCC created the appearance that
it was using the public interest standard during license renewal, when it
actually did not do so.[35]
His criticism of the FCC continued throughout his term on the
commission, attracting fellow members' ire . FCC Commissioners offered rebuttal
to his attacks, but it was FCC Chairman Dean Burch who denounced Johnson's
pattern of criticism in 1972. In response to Johnson's thirty-two page opinion
criticizing the commission's action on cable TV, Burch released a twenty page
statement that Broadcasting characterized as "a rare unburdening of one public
official's attitude toward another."[36] Burch described Johnson and his work as
irresponsible and disrespectful. He labeled Johnson's cable TV opinion the
culmination of "an incessant barrage of vilification, willful misrepresentation,
and left-handed slander" that the young commissioner had directed at
colleagues.[37]
Broadcasters also continued to criticize Johnson during his
tenure. In February 1967, Broadcasting described the junior member of the FCC
as an angry young man. The magazine noted that Johnson was "rapidly becoming
the shrill and frequent critic of the action of his elders."[38] There were
instances when broadcasters demanded that he disqualify himself from
license-renewal cases. The Georgia Association of Broadcasters (GAB) felt that
he "implied a threat against broadcasters at renewal time."[39]Johnson had
remarked at a GAB function that although they may not agree with him then, they
"had better agree once every three years."[40]
In a 1972 editorial, Broadcasting noted that the commission
might lose Johnson if he ran for the Senate. While speculating about his
replacement, the industry trade journal observed that if this event should
occur, "it can only elevate the agency's standards of performance and
responsibility."[41]In the editorial it was noted that there was "neither room
not disposition here to review the record of Mr. Johnson's destructive
service."[42]
The mass media offered a different perspective on Johnson's
service on the FCC. In 1967, Newsweek noted that Johnson was making waves at
the commission. He and Cox had recently used the renewal of 206 radio station
licenses to rebuke the FCC for failing to demand a "minimum of public service
programming."[43] The magazine noted that half of Johnson's twenty-two opinions
so far were dissents. The article observed that he was clearly different from
the lackluster Chairman Hyde and noted that critics of broadcasting were hoping
that Johnson was being groomed to replace Hyde.[44]
Ironically, Business Week, with its business readership,
indicated in August 1969 that the only cardinal sin that Johnson had committed,
according to broadcasters, was to tell the public how to complain effectively to
the FCC. The magazine compared the broadcast industry's encounter with Johnson
to "General Motors going after Ralph Nader."[45] Although not a mass media
magazine, Advertising Age observed that "if diversity of viewpoint is important,
the long-range danger at the FCC may be from lack of advocates like Nick
Johnson."[46]
The New York Times in a March 1970 review of Johnson's book, How
to Talk Back to Your Television, observed that his role on the commission was
that of "public defender instead of industry apologist."[47] Christopher Lydon
in an New York Times article in December 1970 discussed Johnson's criticism of
the Nixon administration's use of television. The news item observed that
Johnson's attack cited numerous items familiar to readers, such as Vice
President Spiro Agnew's attack on TV commentators. Johnson was noted as saying
that no administration before had assaulted the broadcasters as Agnew did.
Lydon reported that Johnson said, "The press bears a special opportunity and
responsibility in this regard. . . . It must investigate and expose the charades
and facades."[48] The news article was not critical of Johnson.
Robert Lewis Shayon, in the Saturday Review in April 1969, noted
that the main thrust of Johnson's work was directed at creating "a healthier
level of competition in the communications industry, particularly
broadcasting."[49] In a December 1971 issue of The New Republic, he observed,
"It is an anomaly bordering on absurdity that so public-spirited an FCC
commissioner cannot be reappointed."[50] Shayon wrote that even Johnson's
critics did not deny that he has been right on the major issues.[51]
Johnson's career as FCC commissioner was controversial and
adversarial. It was the ABC/ITT merger case that served as the catalyst for him
to begin his crusade as the public defender on the FCC. It was a role that he
would play for the duration of his seven-year term. However, historically other
commissioners also had been critical of the broadcast industry. The question
then is why Johnson was characterized as the most controversial and hated
commissioner ever to serve on the FCC.
THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL COMMISSIONER
In an April 1969 article in the Saturday Review, Shayon observed
that the FCC had gone through activist phases before, noting that "rebel
commissioners have come and gone" from the FCC.[52] Commissioners James L. Fly
(1939-1944), Clifford J. Durr (1941-1948), Newton N. Minow (1961-1963), and Emil
W. Henry (1962-1966) were noteworthy for their activism on the commission.[53]
So what was it that set Johnson apart from these earlier activists? Why was he
considered the most hated commissioner in the history of the FCC?
In a 1996 interview with Johnson, he offered some observations
concerning his notoriety. He felt that a variety of things he did invoked the
broadcasters' wrath. Johnson noted that they were troubled by the substance of
what he was saying, the fact that he liked to deal in ideas, by his thinking out
loud, by his public criticism of them, and by a person who was not one of them
exercising authority over their industry.[54]
The substance of Johnson's criticism went to the heart of many
issues at the FCC. He wrote numerous long dissents that were often used by the
courts to overturn an FCC decision.[55] Johnson's approach to sounding out
ideas and thinking out loud was evident in his first public meeting with
broadcasters. As mentioned earlier, he verbally wondered if stations needed to
go through a licensing process, suggesting that the FCC and broadcasters should
study the subject.[56] However, it was his other ideas, such as the formation of
community groups to monitor and get involve with local broadcasters, that
probably angered them.[57]
As mentioned earlier in this paper, Johnson publicly criticized
broadcasting. In addition, his education and background clearly indicated that
he was not from the broadcasting industry. These would be enough to enrage
broadcasters. However, another element was left out. What Johnson did was
educate the public on their rights in the broadcasting system. He informed them
that the broadcaster was using the public's property, and that they had a right
to see that this was used responsibly. Johnson wrote in one article,
though you may not know it, you can, and should, have a voice
in
deciding who will operate radio and TV stations in your
community.
This is the citizen's ultimate control over broadcast
programming. . . .
A broadcaster is like an elected official, and his license
entitles him to
no more than a three-year term, after which he must either have
his
license renewed by the FCC or be turned out of office.
You--his
constituents--who are supposed to vote in this election often
do not
even know it is being held.[58]
Johnson not only informed the public of its rights concerning
the broadcasters' responsibilities to the communities they serve, but he set an
example to the public through his criticism of both the broadcasters and the
FCC. Moreover, he did not follow the traditional route of quietly issuing
dissents; instead, he took his message to the public. He accomplished this
through a capable and idealistic staff with his assistants coming from Ivy
League law schools. The output from Johnson's office was phenomenal. Leamer
observed that "Johnson spoke or wrote on practically every area that touched
communications."[59]
While other commissioners spoke to various audiences, usually
broadcasters, it was a combination of the message and the amount of speeches
that Johnson gave that set him apart. During his term, Johnson spoke more than
100 times to various audiences covering such subjects as broadcasting's local
service, the public interest and broadcasting, television and violence, and the
new consumerism. He was a guest on such shows as "Dick Cavett", "Face the
Nation", "The Mike Douglas Show", and "Donahue" and was the only FCC
Commissioner ever to be featured on the cover of The Rolling Stone.[60]
In addition to his speeches and television appearances, Johnson
published a tremendous amount of material while on the FCC. During his
seven-year tenure at the FCC, he published over 350 articles in various
publications such as McCalls, TV Guide, Playboy, Columbia Journalism Review,
Saturday Review, The New York Times, The New Republic, The United States Law
Week, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and the Chicago Tribune. The titles
for the articles covered a wide range of issues such as "Media Concentration,"
"The Wasteland Revisited," "The New Consumerism," "Tune In: They're Your Air
Waves," and "What Do We Do About Television." In addition he wrote a book, How
to Talk Back to Your Television Set.[61]
In a December 1973 interview with FCC Commissioner Cox,
Broadcasting observed,
He had often sided with Commissioner Johnson on the major
issues
but he [Cox] played the game by more conventional rules.
Johnson had "succeeded' in the tactics he employed. "Maybe he did better
than I."
As proof, he cites the hundreds of petitions that have been
filed with
the commission to deny license-renewal applications. "He
didn't go
out and file all those petitions. People did who
were encouraged by
him."[62]
Johnson taught the public about their rights concerning
broadcasting, and he did it unconventionally by going to them through articles,
speeches, and television appearances. It was this, combined with his ideas and
the substance of his criticism, that enraged the broadcasters.
CONCLUSION
Johnson's sin was that he did not play by the traditional rules.
Instead of quietly dissenting, he publicized his criticism of the FCC and the
broadcasting industry. More important, he went to the public and informed them
of their rights. He told them that the airwaves were public property, and that
it was within their rights to see it used responsibly. He enlightened them by
example through articles and speeches that broadcasters were accountable to the
public. Yet it was his desire to educate and get the public involved in the
regulatory process that enraged broadcasters.
In a April 1969 article, Commonweal noted,
unlike most decorative liberals on regulatory commissions, he
has broken the cardinal rule of the power game by taking his
case before a broader public constituency. . . . Johnson has
shamed
one or two and occasionally a majority of his fellow
commissioners
into representing the public, rather than the industry,
interest.[63]
Johnson moved outside the system and stirred things up. During
his seven-year tenure he became famous and admired as an advocate of citizen
action in government. However, to broadcasters he represented a threat to the
status quo, an FCC looking after their interests.
Johnson's public criticism and lengthy dissents did influence
the FCC. Ironically, in a December 1973 retrospect of his tenure, Broadcasting
noted negatively that "fear of Johnson's dissents persuaded the commission on
several occasions to modify positions they were considering. And in a number of
instances when he did not persuade the commission to change course, the
dissenting opinions he wrote figured in court reversals of commission
actions."[64] Disapproved of by broadcasters, Johnson's approach was effective
in making the FCC more responsive to the public's interest.
NOTES
[1] Gerald V. Flannery, ed., Commissioners of The FCC:
1927-1994 (New York: University Press of America, Inc., 1995), 147.
[2] 2 "Teenybopper on the FCC," Broadcasting, March 13, 1967,
94.
[3] "Burch lets fly at Johnson," Broadcasting, February 21,
1972, 27.
[4] Leonard Zeindenberg, "Retrospective: Seven Years And Five
Months: A Look Back at The Tenure of Nick Johnson," Broadcasting, December 10,
1973, 24.
[5]
Lawrence Leamer, "The Sunset Ride of a TV Reformer: Nicholas
Johnson's Career as a Flower in The Petrified Forest," Harper's Magazine,
December 1973, 22-32.
[6] "Logic Not Emotion," Broadcasting, June 27, 1966, 32.
[7]
"The New FCC," Broadcasting, June 27, 1966, 122.
[8]
"Nicholas Johnson," Current Biography, 1968, 203.
[9]
Flannery, Commissioners of The FCC: 1927-199, 147.
[10] "Logic Not Emotion," 32.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
"Now it's The Hyde Era at The FCC," Broadcasting, June 27,
1966, 29.
[13]
"Logic Not Emotion," 32.
[14]
Broadcasters were delighted because they saw Hyde's
appointment as an indication that an era had ended. Newton Minnow and E.
William Henry had been sharply critical of broadcasters, offering sweeping
proposals for change. Known as the new frontier period, broadcasters felt that
with Hyde at the helm the commission would calm down. ("Now it's the Hyde era
at the FCC," Broadcasting, 29).
[15]
U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce Hearings on
Sundry Nominations. 89th Congress, 2nd Session, serial 89-84, June 23, 81.
[16]
Ibid., 80.
[17]
"The New FCC," 122.
[18]
"Now it's The Hyde Era at The FCC," 29.
[19]
Jack Gould, "The President's Stand: On the FCC, Education,"
The New York Times, July 3, 1966, II, 11:1.
[20]
"Nick Johnson Asks Questions: Commissioner Asks NAB Conference
How FCC Can Best Do Its Job," Broadcasting, October 31, 1966, 53.
[21]
Ibid., 54.
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
Telephone interview, Nicholas Johnson, February 27, 1996.
[24]
The FCC does not regulate the television networks. However,
all radio and television ownership changes must be approved by the FCC, to
determine if they are in the public interest. All three television networks own
radio and television stations. Thus, the FCC indirectly regulates the networks
via station ownership. A change in network ownership would require FCC
approval.
[25]
"ITT Asked to Bare More Information: Cox and Johnson Want
Still More Data on Merger, Loevinger Assails 'Trial by Press Release,"
Broadcasting November 28, 1966, 62.
[26]
Ibid. The commissioner's hypothetical question concerning
news coverage was in response to ITT's Chairman Geneen observation that "there
can be no legitimate fear that the merger will adversely affect ABC's
news-and-public-affairs programming." The commissioners were concerned since
ITT owned foreign telephone companies. Their hypothetical question conjectured
that if ITT owned a telephone utility in a country ruled by a military
dictatorship, the government could force it to kill any adverse news programming
on ABC. (Ibid.)
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
"New Giant in Broadcasting ," Broadcasting, December 26, 1966,
21-22.
[29]
Ibid., 24.
[30]
Telephone interview, Nicholas Johnson.
[31]
"New Giant in Broadcasting," 21.
[32]
Ibid.
[33]
"For ABC, ITT: 30 Days to Sweat," Broadcasting, June 26, 1967,
29.
[34]
Nicholas Johnson, "The Media Barons and The Public Interest:
An FCC Commissioner's Warning," The Atlantic Monthly, June 1968, 46.
[35]
"Johnson Wants to Uplift Programs," Broadcasting, March 13,
1967, 46.
[36]
"Burch lets fly at Johnson," 27.
[37]
Ibid.
[38]
"Angry Young Man," Broadcasting, February 6, 1967, 94.
[39]
Another Broadside Against Johnson," Broadcasting, October 13,
1969, 72.
[40]
Ibid. During this period, broadcast station licenses were
renewed every three years.
[41]
"Cooling It," Broadcasting, March 13, 1972, 74.
[42]
Ibid.
[43]
"Making Waves," Newsweek, April 10, 1967, 87.
[44]
Ibid.
[45]
"Trying to Swat the FCC's Gadfly," Business Week, August 30,
1969.
[46]
"Nick Johnson's Book Shows Why FCC Commissioner Worries
Broadcasters," Advertising Age, March 16, 1970, 122.
[47]
John Leonard, "Book of The Times," The New York Times, March
5, 1970, 37.
[48]
Christopher Lydon, "Government by TV Charged by Johnson of
F.C.C.," The New York Times, December 14, 1970, 87. Johnson accused the Nixon
administration of manipulating news events and the suppression of dissent.
[49]
Robert Lewis Shayon, "Nicholas Johnson vs. Broadcasting: FCC's
Teenybopper Under Fire," Saturday Review, April 12, 1969, 82.
[50]
Robert Lewis Shayon, "Two Bites of the Apple," The New
Republic, December 11, 1971, 33.
[51]
Ibid., 22.
[52]
Shayon, "Nicholas Johnson vs. Broadcasting: FCC's Teenybopper
Under Fire," 82.
[53]
Fly inherited a weak FCC. He served as chairman from
1939-1944. During this period, he developed the commission into a strong
agency that engaged the broadcasters in long and dirty battles. Durr served on
the commission from 1941-1948. He was noted as fighting quietly and steadily
for the people's interest. He helped to prevent advertising control of radio,
advocated balanced presentation of issues on the air, and promoted the provision
of radio service for the one-third of the U.S. that was outside the daytime
service area. Newton Minow served as FCC chairman from 1961-1963. Minow's
tenure was distinguished for its vigorous application of the law. He became
famous for his 'vast wastelands' speech, when criticizing television programming
before a gathering of broadcasters. Emil W. Henry served as FCC commissioner
from 1962-1966. When Minow left the commission Henry was appointed chairman.
He was instrumental in reducing the influence of the three networks on evening
TV programs. Henry pointed out broadcasting's shortcomings, but he usually did
it with tolerance and humor (Flannery, Commissioners of The FCC, 60, 66, 126 &
129).
[54]
Telephone interview, Nicholas Johnson.
[55]
Shayon, "Two Bites of the Apple," 22.
[56]
"Nick Johnson Asks Questions," Broadcasting, 53.
[57]
Nicholas Johnson, "What You Can Do to Improve TV," Harper's
Magazine, February 1969, 18-20.
[58]
Ibid., 15.
[59] Leamer, "The Sunset Ride of a TV Reformer," 26.
[60]
Nicholas Johnson, Nicholas Johnson Archive [on-line],
February 23, 1996, Available:
Http://www.sunnyside.com/pub/njohnson/biblio/biblio03.txt and
Http://www.sunnyside.com/pub/njohnson/personality/njresume.txt.
[61]
Ibid.
[62]
Zeindenberg, "Retrospective: Seven Years and Five Months: A
Look Back At The Tenure of Nick Johnson," 24.
[63]
"Rippling The Waves," Commonweal, April 4, 1969, 60.
[64]
Zeindenberg, "Retrospective: Seven Years and Five Months: A
Look Back At The Tenure of Nick Johnson," 26.
|
