Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "580112428",
    "label": "Foreign and Domestic Briefing Book, NAB Convention, March 19, 1974 [2 of 2]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428"
}

{
    "id": "580112428",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Foreign and Domestic Briefing Book, NAB Convention, March 19, 1974 [2 of 2]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428",
    "collections": [
        "White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)",
        "Patrick J. Buchanan's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 76,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580112428",
    "naId": 580112428,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 48,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/3645456/Batch0001/007/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07/37-cf-smof-buchanan-3645456-007-07-048.jpg",
    "mediaId": "32cf1614adae7883",
    "ocrText": "-2-\nprocess itself. ( Broadcasters generally oppose restructuring period.\nBut if there's to be any, they want it through FCC rule making of\ngeneral application. Such a general rule making is now under way\nat the FCC, and has been for several years; and the best guess is\nthat it will continuè to be underway for several years more and will\nissue in rules of relatively mild impact retrospectively.)\n(b)\nRELAXATION OF PAY CABLE RULES. This is another big\none with a fair degree of unanimity among broadcasters (although\nweaker independent television stations have more enthusiasm about\ncarriage on cable systems than do the networks and major-market\naffiliates). But virtually all of them want to see no relaxation in the\nFCC' S present rules as to the programming that can be carried on cable\nchannels for which a per-program or per-channel charge is assessed.\nNinety-nine percent of such programming is either recent movies or live\nsports events. Broadcasters have long enjoyed a protected marketplace\nfor such programming, they want to preserve it against competition,\nand they foresee dire consequences to public access to \"free\" television\nshould the bars be lowered. On the other side, pay channels may be\ncritical to the overall development of cable television; and for many\nyears to come, it will be a gnat competing with an elephant. This is\na very highly-charged, very emotional issue, and it should be treated\ndelicately if at all.\n(c)\nEMPACT OF CAMPAIGN REFORM PROPOSALS. So far as I\nknow, there has been almost no public reaction among broadcasters\nto the President's campaign reform proposals. Ther e are three aspects\nof thes proposals, how ever, that should provoke a reaction two\nfavorable, one less so. Broa dcasters vigorously oppose present limitations\non spending for radio/television and, insofar as the President's package\nseems to take a different approach to spending controls, broadcasters\nwould be pleased. They also favor repeal of Section 315 (equal time for\nall candidates) and this is central to the President's proposals. One the\nquestion of redefining libel and slander as these laws relate to press\ncoverage of public officials (and easing the very strict burdens of\nproof laid down in Sullivan V. New York Times), broadcasters ght\npredictably line up with other journalists in opposition. Broadcast\njournalists per se would obviously be out in front on this issue, but the\nNAB Convention delegates would probably be nervous about any such\neffort to redefine."
}