-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/sublimdw.htm <A HREF="http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/sublimdw.htm">The Subliminal Threat Scare </A> ----- Rep. Dawson on Subliminal Telecasts This collection of materials was entered into the Congressional Record on January 28, 1958 by Representative William Dawson, who led the legislative fight against subliminal advertising when the technique first came into use. In a statement included here, Dawson gives his arguments for banning subliminals. Also included are several letters between Dawson and the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in which the two men debate the FCC's power to clamp down on the use of subliminals. [doc begins] Proceedings and Debates of the 85th Congress, Second Session Volume 104 -- Part 1, pp. 1228-1230. House of Representatives, January 28, 1958 NEED FOR REGULATING USE OF SUBLIMINAL PERCEPTION TELEVISION ADVERTISING Representative William Dawkins (R-UT): Mr. Speaker, I hate to add to the current troubles of the Federal Communications Commission. But I feel that it is my duty to inform the Members of the House of my to-date unsuccessful campaign to get the Commission to take action to protect the public from a new television-advertising technique, at least until such time as it can definitely be determined whether the technique is effective. I refer to the so-called subliminal projection advertising, or sneak pitch, as I prefer to regard it. Using this technique, a television station flashes a slogan of advertising message on the television screen so instantaneously that the viewer cannot see it. The promoters of this technique, however, maintain that the message infiltrates the viewer's subconscious and is all the more effective because the viewer does not realize that he has been subjected to salesmanship or propaganda. This technique should not be used until it is definitely determined by a controlled experiment whether or not it works. If it does not work, television stations should be so informed. If it does work, it should be strictly regulated, if permitted at all. Heaven knows, the blandishments of visible advertising are hard enough to resist. Contemplate, if you will, the effect of an invisible but effective appeal to drink more beer being poured into the subconsciousness of teen-age television viewers. I first called this matter to the attention of the FCC in early October. At that time and again on November 5 and still again on December 17, I asked the Commission to advise stations against using this SP advertising technique until its effectiveness could be determined. As I said in my most recent letter -- as yet unanswered -- the Commission should make its position clear. I wrote-- "In the present limbo, television stations are not sure whether they can use subliminal advertising, but the public is not sure they cannot. I see no reason for extending this ambiguous situation when most of the television industry itself agrees that the process should not be used until it has been fully evaluated." In defense of the FCC's inaction, I can say that the Commission has received assurance that it will not be used over the major networks. It does not have the assurance, however, that SP will not be used by independent stations. And because of the nature of the advertising, the viewer himself does not when he is being subjected to it. Now, apparently emboldened by the FCC's inaction, at least one independent station is going for sneak pitch propaganda. I submit to the RECORD a copy of an Associated Press story which appeared in the Alexandria, Va., Gazette, January 24. Once again, I urge Members of the House and particularly those in the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee to join me in getting the FCC to take a definite position on subliminal advertising. For the information of the House I also am submitting a chronological copy of my letters to the FCC and replies thereto. [From the Alexandria (Va.) Gazette of January 24, 1958] SUBLIMINAL PERCEPTION: LATEST METHOD OF COMMUNICATION HOLLYWOOD. -- Let's suppose, now, that in a couple of months some strapping young chap springs from his chair in front of the TV, grabs his coat and streaks downtown to join the Army -- without knowing why. Well, some people might say it was a simple case of subliminal perception. This hard-to-pronounce combination is actually nothing more than a somewhat creepy device for sneaking things into your head without your conscious knowledge. Television station KTLA here says that in 60 days or so it will become the first station in the country to undertake a planned program of subliminal communication. To pull the trick off, the station will employ special transmitting equipment that will an image or a message across the screen. It will be on and off so fast that the home viewer won't consciously know he's seeing anything. But, if it works, the flash will leave an impression in his mind. Lew Arnold, KTLA's general manager, said the gimmick will be used at first only for public service messages. "We'll flash on something like 'Join the Army' of Give to the 'March of Dimes.'" "The next step would be to promote our own shows. Then -- and I have a feeling this in a long way off -- we might go into the commercial end of it." HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Washington, D.C., October 5, 1957 John C. Doerfer, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. Dear Chairman Doerfer: Publicity has been given recently to a new device in television advertising -- the so-called subliminal perception, usually referred to as SP, for brevity's sake. Secret pitch perhaps would be more meaningful to the uninitiated. An advertising symbol or slogan is flashed on the television screen so instantaneously that the viewed cannot see it. Allegedly, however, the message infiltrates the viewer's subconscious, all the more effectively because the viewer does not realize he has been subjected to salesmanship. A call to your Commission has disclosed that the Commission has no official knowledge of this new process and that there is some doubt whether the Commission would have the authority to regulate or supervise such advertising methods. The purpose of this letter is to request that you look officially into the entire proposal under your general regulatory powers, determining whether controls are necessary and whether additional legislation would be required to provide such controls, if needed. If this revolutionary advertising means is as effective as claimed, it offers some worrisome, if not frightening, aspects. Put to political propaganda purposes it would be made to order for the establishment and maintenance of a totalitarian government. Even in the commercial usage for which it is intended, surely the potential customer has a right to know he is being advertised at. His prerogative of exercising buyer's resistance is as much an American tradition as the advertising industry itself. Sincerely yours, William A. Dawson, Member of Congress. ____________________________________________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC, October 10, 1957. Hon. William A. Dawson, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Dawson: This is with reference to your letter of October 5, 1957, concerning subliminal projection advertising. You request information concerning this matter. You may be interested to know that I have referred this matter to the staff to determine whether this method of advertising may be adapted for use on television under our present rules and, if so, what further action on the part of the Commission may be necessary or advisable in handling this problem. I will advise you of the developments in this matter. Sincerely yours, John C. Doerfer, Chairman. ____________________________________________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC, November 1, 1957. Hon. William A. Dawson, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Dawson: This is in further reference to your letter of October 5, 1957, concerning subliminal perception advertising, and to the telephone conversations between our staff and the Commission's staff concerning the subject. Subliminal perception advertising appears to be a new technique concerning which the Commission has little information and no experience. According to the trade press, subliminal perception is described as "the faculty of absorbing fleeting visual information without being consciously aware of it." It is stated that the technique was tested by having the symbols of a nationally known soft drink flashed for one three-thousandths of a second once every 5 seconds during a dramatic film presentation in a theater. At this writing, there is some indication in the trade press that the above technique may have been used on television. The Commission is, of course, interested in the above matter and its staff is accumulating pertinent available information on the subject. When sufficient data has been acquired, it will be studied by the Commission. Please be assured that the matter will receive the Commission's most careful consideration, consistent with its authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. As you may know, under existing law, the Commission does not determine the particular programs or types of programs to be presented over the air, the content of advertising copy, or the manner of its presentation. Indeed, under the provisions of section 326 of the Communications Act, the Commission is prohibited from exercising the power of censorship over broadcast material. Accordingly, the selection and presentation of program material, including advertising, is the responsibility of the individual station licensees. However, such licensees are required to operated in the public interest and periodically, usually upon application for renewal of license, the Commission reviews the overall operation of station licensees to determine whether their obligation to operate in the public interest has been met. If, for example, it were determined that a particular station had knowingly or deliberately engaged in fraudulent or deceptive advertising, or permitted its facilities to be so used, or to be used for some other unlawful purpose, a substantial question would be raised as to the station's continuing ability to serve the public interest. The Commission would consider such activities in the course of its licensing proceedings involving the station. As we have indicated above, this problem is so new that specific data is not readily available and no conclusive information has been received which we can predicate an informed opinion. At the present time, we are unable to state whether controls are necessary or whether additional legislation may be required in the event controls are needed. I am sure you will understand that, as additional facts are made known to us, we will be in a position further to evaluate the situation and to arrive at a definitive position. You may be sure that you will be advised or our ultimate determination. Sincerely yours, John C. Doerfer, Chairman ____________________________________________ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Washington, DC, November 5, 1957. Mr. John C. Doerfer, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Doerfer: Thank you for your letter of November 1 (reference 8420) advising me of the present status of your staff's investigation into the new television advertising technique, subliminal perception. I can appreciate the difficulties of compiling substantial information about such a new and little-known process, and I commend you for the progress made so far. However, I am concerned -- as I am sure you are -- at your finding that SP may already have been used on television. Reports reaching me indicate that the device is being perfected and actively promoted by at least two commercial firms. It would certainly seem anomalous to permit random usage of this device during the very time a study is being made to determine whether the the public interest requires its regulation. For that reason I strongly urge the Commission to protect the buying public against any possible advertising abuses by advising all television stations and networks that subliminal perception is under investigation and requesting them to forego its usage until a determination has been made. I am sure the stations would lend their cooperation in the public interest upon which their licenses are based. The bulk of the mail which I have received has been in definite opposition to this type of invisible selling. I am convinced that the general public feels it is entitled to know when it is being subjected to advertising. If subliminal projection techniques are eventually allowed to be used at all, a minimum regulation should require prominent announcement during the program of products being so advertised. Again let me congratulate you and the Commission staff on the energetic and direct way in which you have addressed this problem. May I be advised whether you agree that the television stations should be asked to reject subliminal advertising pending your study? Sincerely yours, William A. Dawson, Member of Congress. ____________________________________________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC, November 12, 1957. Hon. William A. Dawson, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Dawson: This is with reference to your letter of November 5, 1957, concerning subliminal perception advertising. In your letter you urge that, to protect the buying public from possible abuses by this advertising technique, the Commission advise all television stations and the networks that subliminal perception advertising is being investigated by the Commission and request the stations and networks to forgo its usage until a determination has been made. As you are doubtless aware, the determination to take the action you recommend could be made only by all of the Commissioners. Accordingly, you will be interested to know that I have made arrangements to have your recommendation presented to the full Commission. I wish to assure you that the Commission will give careful consideration to the views you have expressed in your letter in arriving at a decision. I appreciate your writing to me concerning this matter. You will, or course, be advised promptly of the disposition of this problem. Sincerely yours, John C. Doerfer, Chairman. ____________________________________________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC, November 27, 1957. Hon. William A. Dawson, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Congressman Dawson: This letter concerning subliminal perception advertising is with further reference to your letter of November 5, 1957, and supplements the response thereto dated November 12, 1957. In your letter, you urge that the Commission advise all television stations and the networks that subliminal perception advertising is being investigated by the Commission and request that they forgo its usage until a determination has been made. At the outset, it should be pointed out that on November 21, 1957, the Commission was advised that one station in Bangor, Maine, had tried the technique of subliminal messages with respect to station promotional announcements and hadn't been able to make them work. The Commission knows of no other television station which has engaged in subliminal perception advertising. As you indicate in your letter, tow companies are known to be promoting the above technique. They are the Subliminal Projection Co., Inc., and Experimental Films, Inc. Since the previous letter to you, we have communicated with the first-named firm and have been advised that there has been no demonstration of the technique on a television broadcast station; that the firm has used the facilities of a private closed circuit system for testing the technical operation of its apparatus; and that the firm is prepared to demonstrate the technique on a closed circuit system should the Commission so desire. This offer is being considered by the commission. We have also communicated with the local representative of the second company and are awaiting a reply to specific questions submitted to him for transmittal to the company. As you may know, on November 13, 1957, the television code of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters announced that it had recommended to its subscribers that any proposals to use the television medium in the process called subliminal perception be referred to the board immediately for review and consideration. The board stated that "experimentation or the use of the process should not be permitted on the television broadcast medium pending such review and consideration." Additionally, we have communicated with representatives of each of the major television networks and have been advised that have not used the above technique. The Commission, at this time, with the exception of the unsuccessful attempt noted above, is not aware that subliminal perception advertising has been used by any television broadcast station. In view of this, and the fact that the Commission's consideration of this matter includes consideration of the extent of its statutory powers with respect to thereto, it is believed that a caveat to the licensees may be inappropriate at this time. In this connection, we would like to point out that the Communications Act contains no provisions which deal specifically with subliminal perception. From present indications, however, it seems fair to say that reasonable protections may be available to the public under the general provisions of the act. For instance, by the Commission's licensing procedures the United States maintains control of and regulates radio transmission in the channels of interstate commerce. Various sections of the act, including sections 303, make it clear that in exercising the power of control and reg ulation the Commission must be guided by public interest, convenience, or necessity. It would appear that the use of the subliminal perception technique may be subject to our control under such provisions of section 303 as subparagraph (b) on the nature of the service to be rendered by each station; subparagraph (e) on the type of apparatus to be used; subparagraph (g) authorizing studies of new and experimental uses; and subparagraphs (f) and (r), as well as section 4, subparagraph (i), giving the Commission wide authority to make rules and regulations in carrying out its functions and the provisions of the act. As you may know, under existing law the Commission does not determine the particular programs or types of programs to be presented over the air, the content of advertising copy, or its presentation. Moreover, the act prohibits the Commission from exercising the power of censorship over broadcast material, which includes advertising. However, at this time it does not appear that the regulation of this particular technique would necessarily constitute censorship. It may be pertinent to draw attention to section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which reads as follows: "All matter broadcast by any radio station for which service, money, or any other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is so broadcast, be announced as paid for or further furnished, as the case may be, by such person." Undoubtedly section 317 would prohibit broadcasters from subjecting audiences to messages received from undisclosed sources. We have attempted to discuss the question with you fully at this time even though the matter is in its formative stage. We are sure you will understand that as additional facts are made known to us, we will be in a position to further evaluate the situation and to arrive at a definitive position. You may be assured that you will be advised of our ultimate determination herein. By direction of the Commission: John C. Doerfer, Chairman. ____________________________________________ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Washington, DC, December 17, 1957. Hon. John C. Doerfer, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. Dear Chairman Doerfer: Recently I suggested that, in view of the widespread interest in, and the apparent imminence of, subliminal advertising, the Commission put the television broadcasting industry on official notice that this technique is being investigated by the Commission to determine what regulation may be needed in the public interest. Your reply indicated that the Commission feels "a caveat to the licensees may be inappropriate at this time." You go on to say, however, that reasonable protections may be available to the public under the general provisions of the act. It is true that a major part of the television broadcasting industry, including the major networks and the television code board, voluntarily have recognized the potential dangers of subliminal advertising. Nonetheless, my mail continues to reflect widespread public concern over this method of manipulating minds. That these fears are not entirely baseless is implied in the enclosed article from the Wall Street Journal of December 5, 1957, concerning the reaction of one of the subliminal projection firms to the networks' ban on the secret pitch. I direct your attention to the quotation attributed to one of the company's vice presidents: "We never tried to sell TV networks subliminal advertising. All we wanted was an industrywide test. But if they don't want to use it, we've still got plenty of interested independent stations." In view of the concern over premature usage of this invisible selling method, it would appear timely to me for the Commission to remove the uncertainty by a definite prohibition against television use of subliminal advertising until your investigation has been completed and a final determination made. In your letter of November 17 you point out that one of the available protections is section 303 of the Communications Act giving the Commission control over services rendered and apparatus used by stations. Another is section 317, requiring sponsor identification, which you say "undoubtedly would prohibit broadcasters from subjecting audiences to messages received from undisclosed sources." Since the Commission does have this authority, I recommend that subliminal advertising be specifically prohibited for the duration of your present study. In the present limbo, television stations are not sure whether they could use subliminal advertising but the public is not sure they could not. I see no reason for extending this ambiguous situation when most of the television industry itself agrees that the process should not be used until it has been fully evaluated. May I be advised whether there is any reason why this definite prohibition should not be put into effect? Kind regards and best wishes for a joyous holiday season. Sincerely yours, William A. Dawson, Member of Congress ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
