After extensive hearings on, and demonstrations of, three
different methods of color television transmission, the Federal
Communications Commission issued an order which, in effect, permits
use of the method of Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) and
excludes use of others. This order was based upon findings that the
CBS method was the best presently available, and had reached a
state of development which justified its acceptance to the
exclusion of others, though color telecasts by the CBS method could
not be received either in color or in black and white on the
millions of existing black and white receivers without costly
adaptations. Subsequently, the Commission declined to reopen the
proceedings at the request of Radio Corporation of America (RCA),
which claimed to have made great advances toward a method of color
television transmission which could be received in black and white
on existing black and white receivers without any adaptation. The
District Court dismissed a suit by RCA to enjoin and set aside the
Commission's order.
Held:
1. The District Court did not fail to review the record as a
whole in determining that the Commission's order was supported by
substantial evidence. Pp.
341 U. S.
414-416.
2. The District Court did not misapprehend or misapply the
proper judicial standard in holding that the Commission's order was
not arbitrary or against the public interest as a matter of law.
Pp.
341 U. S.
416-420.
(a) Viewing the record as a whole, the Commission did not err as
a matter of law in concluding that the CBS color method had reached
a state of development which justified its acceptance to the
exclusion of others. Pp.
341 U. S.
416-419.
(b) The Commission's determination, after hearing evidence on
all sides, that the CBS method will provide the public with color
television of good quality and that television viewers should be
given an opportunity to receive it if they so desire, was not
capricious. Pp.
341 U. S.
419-420.
Page 341 U. S. 413
(c) Courts should not overrule an administrative decision merely
because they disagree with its wisdom. P.
341 U. S.
420.
3. Whether the Commission should have reopened its proceedings
to permit RCA to offer proof of new discoveries for its method was
a question within the discretion of the Commission, and that
discretion was not abused. Pp.
341 U. S.
420-421.
95 F.
Supp. 660 affirmed.
A three-judge district court sustained an order of the Federal
Communications Commission prescribing standards for color
television transmission.
95 F.
Supp. 660. On direct appeal to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§
1253 and 2101(b),
affirmed, p.
341 U. S.
421.
Page 341 U. S. 414
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and two of its subsidiaries
brought this action in a three-judge District Court to enjoin and
set aside an order of the Federal Communications Commission
prescribing standards for transmission of color television.
[
Footnote 1] The effect of the
challenged order was to reject a color system proposed by RCA and
to accept one proposed by the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS).
[
Footnote 2] The basis of RCA's
complaint was that the order had been entered arbitrarily and
capriciously, without the support of substantial evidence, against
the public interest, and contrary to law. After hearing and oral
argument, the District Court entered summary judgment sustaining
the Commission, one judge dissenting. [
Footnote 3] RCA and the other plaintiffs took this direct
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 and § 2101(b).
At the outset, we are faced with RCA's contention that the
District Court failed to review the record as a whole in
determining whether the Commission's order was supported by
substantial evidence; it is urged that, for this reason, we should
summarily reverse and remand the case for further consideration by
that court. If RCA's premise were correct, the course which it
suggests might be wholly
Page 341 U. S. 415
appropriate. For, as pointed out recently, in considering the
question of sufficiency of evidence to support an administrative
order, this Court must and does rely largely on a first reviewing
court's conclusion.
Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board,
340 U. S. 474. The
present case, however, need not be returned for further scrutiny
below, because we are convinced that the review already afforded
did not fall short of that which is required. The District Court
heard oral argument for three days and deliberated for about five
weeks before handing down its decision. Both the majority and
dissenting opinions show a familiarity with RCA's basic contention
(and the minor ones as well) that could have come only from careful
study of the record as a whole. To be sure, there was a casual
statement in the majority opinion susceptible of the interpretation
that the court, in reaching the decision, made an examination of
the record less complete than it should have been. [
Footnote 4] Fairly construed, however, the
remark, while perhaps unfortunate, is entirely consistent with that
conscientious review which we are satisfied was given this
Page 341 U. S. 416
record by the District Court. We therefore pass to the question
of validity of the Commission's order.
All parties agree, as they must, that, given a justifiable fact
situation, the Commission has power under 47 U.S.C. § 303(c), (e),
(f), (g) [
Footnote 5] to do
precisely what it did in this case -- namely, to promulgate
standards for transmission of color television that result in
rejecting all but one of the several proposed systems. Moreover, it
cannot be contended seriously that the Commission, in taking such a
course, was without evidential support for its refusal to adopt the
RCA system at this time. [
Footnote
6] The real argument,
Page 341 U. S. 417
advanced at great length and in many different forms, boils down
to this: viewing the record as a whole, the Commission, as a matter
of law, erred in concluding that the CBS color system had reached a
state of development which justified its acceptance to the
exclusion of RCA's and that of others. Consequently, before the
Commission, the District Court, and here, RCA's main attempt has
been to persuade that no system has yet been proven worthy of
acceptance for public use, that commercial color broadcasting must
be postponed awaiting inventions that will achieve more nearly
perfect results.
We sustain the Commissioner's power to reject this position, and
hold valid the challenged order, buttressed as it is by the
District Court's approval. To explain our
Page 341 U. S. 418
conclusion, it is unnecessary to repeat the detailed statement
of facts made in the majority and minority opinions of the
Commission and District Court. [
Footnote 7] Nor, for present purposes, it is necessary to
attempt a translation of the technical terms invented to carry
meanings in the rapidly growing television industry. It will
suffice to give the following brief summary of the background of
the Commission's findings and what was found:
Standards for black and white television transmission were first
promulgated by the Commission in 1941. RCA's complaint alleges, and
all apparently agree, that
"The quality of the present [black and white] service, the
improvements and reductions in price to the public that have been
made, the incredible expansion of the industry as a whole, are all
due to the fact that manufacturers could build upon a
single
set of long-range high quality standards. [
Footnote 8]"
From 1941 until now, the Commission has been engaged in
consideration of plans and proposals looking toward promulgation of
a single set of color standards. [
Footnote 9] CBS apparently made quicker progress
Page 341 U. S. 419
in developing an acceptable system than did others. [
Footnote 10] It was soon attacked,
however, on the ground that it was utilizing old knowledge highly
useful in the realm of the physical sciences and mechanical
practices, but incongruous in the new fields of electronics
occupied by television. This is still the core of the objection to
the CBS system, together with the objection that existing receiving
sets are not constructed in such a way that they can, without
considerable adjustments, receive CBS color broadcasts either in
color or black and white. The fact that adjustments are required
before a CBS color broadcast can be received in black and white on
existing sets makes this system "incompatible" with the millions of
television receivers now in the hands of the public.
There is no doubt that a "compatible" color television system
would be desirable. Recognition of this fact seems to be the
controlling reason why the Commission did not long ago approve the
"incompatible" CBS system. In the past, it has postponed adoption
of standards with the hope that a satisfactory "compatible" color
television system would be developed. But this time, in light of
previous experience, the Commission thought that further delay in
making color available was too high a price to pay for possible,
"compatibility" in the future, despite RCA's claim that it was on
the verge of discovering an acceptable "compatible" system.
The Commission's special familiarity with the problems involved
in adopting standards for color television is amply attested by the
record. It has determined after hearing evidence on all sides that
the CBS system will provide the public with color of good quality,
and that television viewers should be given an opportunity to
receive
Page 341 U. S. 420
it if they so desire. [
Footnote 11] This determination certainly cannot be held
capricious. It is true that the choice between adopting standards
now or at a later date was not free from difficulties. Moreover,
the wisdom of the decision made can be contested, as is shown in
the dissenting opinions of two Commissioners. But courts should not
overrule an administrative decision merely because they disagree
with its wisdom. [
Footnote
12] We cannot say the District Court misapprehended or
misapplied the proper judicial standard in holding that the
Commission's order was not arbitrary or against the public interest
as a matter of law. [
Footnote
13]
Whether Commission should have reopened its proceedings to
permit RCA to offer proof of new discoveries for its system was a
question within the discretion of the Commission, which we find was
not abused. [
Footnote 14]
We
Page 341 U. S. 421
have considered other minor contentions made by RCA, but are
satisfied with the way the District Court disposed of them.
The District Court's judgment sustaining the order of the
Commission is
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
The subsidiaries are the National Broadcasting Co. and RCA
Victor Distributing Corp. Later, other parties were permitted over
the Commission's objection to intervene in support of RCA's
position. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) intervened as a
party defendant.
[
Footnote 2]
The order also rejected a system proposed by Color Television,
Inc., which is not a party to this litigation.
[
Footnote 3]
95 F.
Supp. 660.
[
Footnote 4]
"After listening to many hours of oral argument by able counsel
representing the respective parties, we formed some rather definite
impressions relative to the merits of the order, as well as the
proceedings before the Commission upon which it rests. And our
reading and study of the numerous and voluminous briefs with which
we have been favored have not altered or removed those impressions.
Also, in studying the case, we have been unable to free our
minds of the question as to why we should devote the time and
energy which the importance of the case merits, realizing as we
must that the controversy can only be finally terminated by a
decision of the Supreme Court. This is so because any decision
we make is appealable to that court as a matter of right, and we
were informed during oral argument, in no uncertain terms, that
which otherwise might be expected, that is, that the aggrieved
party or parties will immediately appeal. In other words, this is
little more than a practice session where the parties prepare and
test their ammunition for the big battle ahead."
(Emphasis added.) 95 F. Supp. at 664.
[
Footnote 5]
47 U.S.C. § 303:
". . . [T]he Commission . . . as public convenience, interest,
or necessity requires, shall --"
"
* * * *"
"(c) Assign bands of frequencies to the various classes of
stations, and assign frequencies for each individual station and
determine the power which each station shall use and the time
during which it may operate;"
"
* * * *"
"(e) Regulate the kind of apparatus to be used with respect to
its external effects and the purity and sharpness of the emissions
from each station and from the apparatus therein;"
"(f) Make such regulations not inconsistent with law as it may
deem necessary to prevent interference between stations and to
carry out the provisions of this Act. . . ."
"(g) Study new uses for radio, provide for experimental uses of
frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more effective
use of radio in the public interest."
[
Footnote 6]
The Commission unanimously believed that CBS had the best system
presently available, although two Commissioners dissented on other
grounds. The relative merits and demerits of the RCA and CBS
systems were summarized as follows:
"[T]he RCA system [is] deficient in the following respects:
"
"(a) The color fidelity of the RCA picture is not
satisfactory."
"(b) The texture of the color picture is not satisfactory."
"(c) The receiving equipment utilized by the RCA system is
exceedingly complex."
"(d) The equipment utilized at the station is exceedingly
complex."
"(e) The RCA color system is much more susceptible to certain
kinds of interference than the present monochrome system or the CBS
system."
"(f) There is not adequate assurance in the record that RCA
color pictures can be transmitted over the 2.7 megacycle coaxial
cable facilities."
"(g) The RCA system has not met the requirements of successful
field testing."
"
* * * *"
"[T]he CBS system produces a color picture that is most
satisfactory from the point of view of texture, color fidelity and
contrast. . . . [R]eceivers and station equipment are simple to
operate and . . . receivers when produced on a mass marketing basis
should be within the economic reach of the great mass of purchasing
public. . . . [E]ven with present equipment, the CBS system can
produce color pictures of sufficient brightness without
objectionable flicker to be adequate for home use and . . . the
evidence concerning long persistence phosphors shows that there is
a specific method available for still further increasing brightness
with no objectionable flicker. Finally, . . . while the CBS system
has less geometric resolution than the present monochrome system,
the addition of color to the picture more than outweighs the loss
in geometric resolution so far as apparent definition is
concerned."
Second Report of the Commission, October 10, 1950, 1 Pike &
Fischer Radio Reg. (P. & F.), 91:26, pp. 91:441-442.
[
Footnote 7]
The facts found by the Commission appear in two reports on Color
Television Issues. First Report of the Commission, September 1,
1950, 1 P. & F. 91:24, p. 91:261; Second Report of the
Commission, October 10, 1950, 1 P. & F. 91:26, p. 91:441. The
District Court described the proceedings before the Commission as
follows:
"The hearing, participated in by all members of the Commission,
commenced September 26, 1949, and ended May 26, 1950. In all,
fifth-three different witnesses were heard, and 265 exhibits
received. The transcript of the hearing covers 9717 pages. During
the period from November 22, 1949, to February 6, 1950, extensive
field tests were made of the three systems (RCA, CBS, Color
Television, Inc.) proposed. Progress reports concerning these tests
were filed with the Commission by the three proponents during
December, 1949, and January, 1950. Comparative demonstrations of
the three proposed systems were made on different dates until May
17, 1950."
95 F. Supp. at 665.
[
Footnote 8]
Emphasis added.
[
Footnote 9]
See the particularly interesting historical summary of
these efforts in Commissioner Jones' dissent to the First Report of
the Commission, September 1, 1950, 1 P. & F. 91:24, pp.
91:346-447. His view was that color television standards should
have been promulgated long before they were.
[
Footnote 10]
See note 6
supra.
[
Footnote 11]
See note 6
supra.
[
Footnote 12]
National Broadcasting Co. v. United States,
319 U. S. 190,
319 U. S.
224.
[
Footnote 13]
Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U.
S. 474,
340 U. S.
490-491.
[
Footnote 14]
See United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines,
327 U. S. 515,
327 U. S.
534-535. With respect to reopening the record, the
Commission said in part:
". . . [A] new television system is not entitled to a hearing or
a reopening of a hearing simply on the basis of a paper
presentation. In the radio field, many theoretical systems exist
and can be described on paper, but it is a long step from this
process to successful operation. There can be no assurance that a
system is going to work until the apparatus has been built and has
been tested. None of the new systems or improvements in systems
meet these tests so as to warrant reopening of the hearing. . .
."
"The Commission does not imply that there is no further room for
experimentation. . . . Many of the results of such experimentation
can undoubtedly be added without affecting existing receivers. As
to others, some obsolescence of existing receivers may be involved
if the changes are adopted. In the interest of stability, this
latter type of change will not be adopted unless the improvement is
substantial in nature when compared to the amount of dislocation
involved. But when such an improvement does come along, the
Commission cannot refuse to consider it merely because the owners
of existing receivers might be compelled to spend additional money
to continue receiving programs."
". . . [A]ny improvement that results from the experimentation
might face the problem of being incompatible with the present
monochrome system or the color system we are adopting today. In
that event, the new color system or other improvement will have to
sustain the burden of showing that the improvement which results is
substantial enough to be worth while when compared to the amount of
dislocation involved to receivers then in the hands of the
public."
Second Report of the Commission, October 10, 1950, 1 P. & F.
91:26, p. 91:445-446.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER,
dubitante.
Since I am not alone in entertaining doubts about this case,
they had better be stated. The ultimate issue is the function of
this Court in reviewing an order of the Federal Communications
Commission, adopted October 10, 1950, whereby it promulgated
standards for the transmission of color television. The
significance of these standards lies in the sanction of a system of
"incompatible" color television, that is, a system requiring a
change in existing receivers for the reception of black and white
as well as colored pictures. The system sanctioned by the
Commission's order will require the addition of an appropriate
gadget to the millions of outstanding receiving sets at a variously
estimated, but, in any event, substantial, cost. From the point of
view of the public interest, it is highly desirable to have a color
television system that is compatible. The Commission's order
sanctioning an incompatible system is based not on the scientific
unattainability of a compatible system, nor even on a
Page 341 U. S. 422
forecast that its feasibility is remote. I t rests on the
determination that, inasmuch as compatibility has not yet been
achieved, while a workable incompatible system has proven itself,
such a system, however intrinsically unsatisfactory, ought no
longer to be withheld from the public.
After hearings on the Commission's proposals were closed, the
Radio Corporation of America, persistent promoter of a compatible
system, suggested to the Commission further consideration of the
progress made after the Commission had taken the matter under
advisement in May, 1950. To be sure, this proffer of relevant
information concerning progress toward the desired goal was made by
an interested party. But, within the Commission itself, the need
for further light was urged in view of the rapid development that
had been made since the Commission's hearings got under way. The
heart of the controversy was thus put by Commissioner Hennock:
"It is of vital importance to the future of television that we
make every effort to gain the time necessary for further
experimentation leading to the perfection of a compatible color
television system."
The Commission did not rule out reasonable hope for the early
attainment of compatibility. Indeed, it gave ground for believing
that success of experimentation to that end is imminent. But it
shut off further inquiry into developments it recognized had grown
apace because, in its "sound discretion," it concluded that
"a delay in reaching a determination with respect to the
adoption of standards for color television service . . . would not
be conductive to the orderly and expeditious dispatch of the
Commission's business, and would not best serve the ends of
justice. . . ."
The real question, as I have indicated, is whether this
determination of the Commission, considering its nature and its
consequences, is beyond judicial scrutiny.
I am no friend of judicial intrusion into the administrative
process. I do not believe in a construction of the
Page 341 U. S. 423
Communications Act that would cramp the broad powers of the
Communications Commission.
See National Broadcasting Co. v.
United States, 319 U. S. 190. I
have no doubt that, if Congress chose to withdraw all court review
from the Commission's orders, it would be constitutionally free to
do so.
See Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.
S. 288,
321 U. S. 312.
And I deem it essential to the vitality of the administrative
process that, even when subject to judicial review, the Commission
be allowed to exercise its powers unhampered by the restrictive
procedures appropriate for litigation in the courts.
See
Federal Communications Comm'n v. National Broadcasting Co.,
319 U. S. 239,
319 U. S. 248.
But so long as the Congress has deemed it right to subject the
orders of the Commission to review by this Court, the duty of
analyzing the essential issues of an order cannot be escaped by too
easy reliance on the conclusions of a district court or on the
indisputable formula that an exercise of discretion by the
Commission is not to be displaced by a contrary exercise of
judicial discretion.
What may be an obvious matter of judgment for the Commission in
one situation may so profoundly affect the public interest in
another as not to be a mere exercise of conventional discretion.
Determinations by the Commission are not abstract determinations.
We are not here called upon to pass on the abstract question
whether the Commission may refuse to reconsider a problem before it
although enlightening new evidence is promised. We are faced with a
particular order of great significance. It is not the effect of
this order upon commercial rivalries that gives it moment. The
Communications Act was not designed as a code for the adjustment of
conflicting private interests. It is the fact that the order
originates color television, with far-reaching implications to the
public interest.
The assumption underlying our system of regulation is that the
national interest will be furthered by the fullest
Page 341 U. S. 424
possible use of competition. At some point, of course, the
Commission must fix standards limiting competition. But, once those
standards are fixed, the incentive for improvement is relaxed. It
is obvious that the money spent by the public to adapt and convert
the millions of sets now in use may well make the Commission
reluctant to sanction new and better standards for color pictures
if those standards would outmode receiving sets adapted to the
system already in use. And even if the Commission is willing to
adopt a second, inconsistent set of color television standards
sometime in the future, the result will be economic waste on a vast
scale.
And all to what end? And for what overriding gain? Of course,
the Commission does not have to wait for the millennium. Of course,
it does not have to withhold color pictures from the American
public indefinitely because improvements in color transmission will
steadily be perfected. That is not what is involved here. What the
Commission here decided is that it could not wait, or the American
public could not wait, a little while longer, with every prospect
of a development which, when it does come, concededly will promote
the public interest more than the incompatible system now
authorized. Surely what constitutes the public interest on an issue
like this is not one of those expert matters as to which courts
should properly bow to the Commission's expertness. In any event,
nothing was submitted to us on argument, nor do I find anything in
the Commission's brief of 150 pages, which gives any hint as to the
public interest that brooks no delay in getting color television
even though the method by which it will get it is intrinsically
undesirable, inevitably limits the possibilities of an improved
system or, in any event, leads to potential great economic waste.
The only basis for this haste is that the desired better method has
not yet proved itself, and, in view of past failures, there is no
great assurance of early success. And
Page 341 U. S. 425
so, since a system of color television, though with obvious
disadvantages, is available, the requisite public interest which
must control the Commission's authorization is established. I do
not agree.
One of the more important sources of the retardation or
regression of civilization is man's tendency to use new inventions
indiscriminately or too hurriedly without adequate reflection of
long-range consequences. No doubt the radio enlarges man's horizon.
But, by making him a captive listener, it may make for spiritual
impoverishment. Indiscriminate use of the radio denies him the
opportunities for reflection and for satisfying those needs of
withdrawal of which silent prayer is only one manifestation. It is
an uncritical assumption that every form of reporting or
communication is equally adaptable to every situation. Thus, there
may be a mode of what is called reporting which may defeat the
pursuit of justice.
Doubtless television may find a place among the devices of
education; but much long-headed thought and patient experimentation
are demanded lest uncritical use may lead to hasty jettisoning of
hard-won gains of civilization. The rational process of trial and
error implies a wary use of novelty and a critical adoption of
change. When a college head can seriously suggest, not by way of
irony, that soon there will be no need of people being able to read
-- that illiteracy will be the saving of wasteful labor -- one gets
an idea of the possibilities of the new barbarism parading as
scientific progress.
Man forgets at terrible cost that the environment in which an
event is placed may powerfully determine its effect. Disclosure
conveyed by the limitations and power of the camera does not convey
the same things to the mind as disclosure made by the limitations
and power of pen or voice. The range of presentation, the
opportunities for distortion, the impact on reason, the effect on
the looker-on as against the reader-hearer, vary, and the
Page 341 U. S. 426
differences may be vital. Judgment may be confused, instead of
enlightened. Feeling may be agitated, not guided; reason deflected,
not enlisted. Reason -- the deliberative process -- has its own
requirements, met by one method and frustrated by another.
*
What evil would be encouraged, what good retarded by delay? By
haste, would morality be enhanced, insight deepened, and judgment
enlightened? Is it even economically advantageous to give
governmental sanction to color television at the first practicable
moment, or will it not, in fact, serve as an added drain on raw
materials for which the national security has more exigent
needs?
Finally, we are told that the Commission's determination as to
the likely prospect of early attainment of compatibility is a
matter within its competence, and not subject to court review. But
prophecy of technological feasibility is hardly in the domain of
expertness so long as scientific the technological barriers do not
make the prospect fanciful. In any event, this Court is not without
experience in understanding the nature of such complicated issues.
We have had occasion before to consider complex scientific matters.
Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1;
McCormick v. Whitmer, 129 U. S. 1
(harvester);
Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp.,
276 U. S. 358
(improvement
Page 341 U. S. 427
in vulcanization of rubber);
De Forest Radio Co. v. General
Electric Co., 283 U. S. 664
(high-vacuum discharge tube);
Radio Corporation of America v.
Radio Engineering Laboratories, 293 U. S.
1 (audion oscillator);
Marconi Wireless Telegraph
Co. v. United States, 320 U. S. 1
(wireless telegraphy improvement), and
Universal Oil Products
Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 322 U.
S. 471 (oil cracking process).
Experience has made it axiomatic to eschew dogmatism in
predicting the impossibility of important developments in the
realms of science and technology. Especially when the incentive is
great, invention can rapidly upset prevailing opinions of
feasibility. One may even generalize that, once the deadlock in a
particular field of inquiry is broken, progress becomes rapid.
Thus, the plastics industry developed apace after a bottleneck had
been broken in the chemistry of rubbers. Once the efficacy of
sulfanilamide was clearly established, competent investigators were
at work experimenting with thousands of compounds, and new and
better antibiotics became available in a continuous stream. A good
example of the rapid change of opinion that often occurs in
judgment of feasibility is furnished by the cyclotron. Only a few
years ago, distinguished nuclear physicists proclaimed the limits
on the energy to which particles could be accelerated by the use of
a cyclotron. It was suggested that 12,000,000-volt protons were the
maximum obtainable. Within a year, the limitations previously
accepted were challenged. At the present time, there are, I
believe, in operation in the United States at least four cyclotrons
which accelerate protons to energies of about 400,000,000 volts.
One need not have the insight of a great scientific investigator,
nor the rashness of the untutored, to be confident that the
prognostications now made in regard to the feasibility of a
"compatible" color television system will be falsified in the very
near future.
*
"Broadcasting as an influence on men's minds has great
possibilities, either of good or evil. The good is that, if
broadcasting can find a serious audience, it is an unrivaled means
of bringing vital issues to wider understanding. The evil is that
broadcasting is capable of increasing perhaps the most serious of
all dangers which threaten democracy and free institutions today --
the danger of passivity -- of acceptance by masses of orders given
to them and of things said to them. Broadcasting has, in itself, a
tendency to encourage passivity, for listening as such, if one does
no more, is a passive occupation. Television may be found to have
this danger of passivity in even stronger form."
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1949 (Cmd. 8116, 1951)
75.