Public Television Hearings

Then we'll put your entire statement in the record I gave it without any action so author and best Chairman Mao I qualify myself by saying that I care because the seat of the broadcasting industry is in New York. And in addition we are a very large state with a deep interest in educational television. And secondly that I have had a 20 minimum 20 year experience personally. With educational television as I have always favored the medium and the gone the considerable personal trouble. Too to make available to the educational TV even when it was struggling in its. Very smallest form. Public affairs. Discussions and seminars etc. so that I speak it with real feeling upon the subject. Here last night I had to accept that I had first what as I did rather active in the affairs of Latin America. That I have been urging that the United States join with the Latin American countries as part of the summit meeting which took place a hundred dollars to

finance a satellite a communication satellite. For the Americas and the whole operation we've had researched very carefully can be done something in the area of one hundred fourteen million dollars that includes ground stations. Very inexpensive and I will leapfrog a whole age of communications as Latin America is far behind in terms of industrialization et cetera. And the principal reason for this idea which is having very close attention at the at the summit and my judgment will be done within the next couple of years. The principal reason is educational television. So I would because this is what interests Latin America the fact that you can get tremendous amount of educational value out of the United States in this way. And I and Latin America can use that. Very advantageously especially in professional and technical and scientific fields.

So I would hope Mr. Chairman that as the committee considers this whole question it will just have in the back of its head. The fact that not only will these programs be vital to our own people but that in terms of binding the at least this hemisphere together there is an enormous opportunity. Technically it may also prove to be an opportunity with a ship. And with the whole world. But I know about Latin America because it is pregnant. It's inexpensive relatively. It's very much on the table and I have no doubt it will be done. And this is what the Latin American world wants the most from the United States in terms of communication. And I and I emphasize too that it would be two way that it would not just be U.S. to Latin America it would also be Latin America to us. I would suggest that that was just not in my prepared statement Mr. Chairman but as I'm deeply involved as the chair now I thought I might use.

Mr. Chairman I appeared before you today to testify in favor. Of S. 1 1 6 0 of the public television I could 1967. I believe that strong imaginative and independent noncommercial television and radio stations. Are vital to the best possible use of the airwaves which belong to all the people and that this use must be encouraged supported and aided by the federal government. And Thetic only as I was one of the fathers of the National Arts Foundation something I worked for for 16 years. I'm hopeful that the strong system of noncommercial television and radio and they can buy the bill will provide a new dimension for the Performing Arts in all parts of this country. One of the main reasons for the establishment of the Arts Foundation was to assure that the best an American art music and drama would be available in all sections of the country. Another important aspect of a foundation that is a national foundation on the arts is to provide us artists with greater opportunities to innovate and to experiment. If I can think of

no better I mean for the furtherance of these two goals that is the broader spreading of our cultural resorts and the innovation experiment of American artists. The noncommercial broadcasting which is capable of bringing the sight and sound of modern American creativity in the arts and the living drums in the smallest Hamlet. As well as those of the greatest cities. I'm a chairman It is precisely because of the potential power of public television and radio to penetrate into the home that we in Congress must do everything possible to avoid. Not only the substance but even the implication of governmental or political influence over the Corporation for Public Television established by the measure before you. We as legislators must do everything in our power not only to insulate the proposed corporation from the possibility of such influence. But to a show of the people by our words and actions that we will tolerate nothing less. But there's a reason Mr. Chairman. I wish to concentrate on two aspects of the bell and invite the subcommittees attention to

them and the discussion which will lead to a report on this measure. First. The bill's provisions for the appointment by the president the 15 directors of the proposed corporation with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in my judgment is not adequate to dispel the shadow of possible political influence. Second the lack of any specific mention at this time of long term financing arrangements of the proposed corporation similarly tends to imply that political and governmental influence could be an important factor. Since the bill now provides for financing through general federal revenues which means subject to the annual appropriations process I make it clear that my reason for concentrating on these on these two points is the hope that the subcommittee will find them useful and strengthening the bill for the trials ahead of it on the Senate floor and in the house. Well we're place we're faced with a new problem in American life. We want to strengthen and help improve the programming of noncommercial radio and television without subtracting a

toll from the independence of newsman right as direct as our technicians. All from the from the freedom of any station on network manager to use his own judgment concerning what will be broadcast in his community. That's why the Carnegie commission's report and the administrations measure both provide for the establishment of a separate non-governmental corporation to handle federal grants for the programming purposes. This I find eminently sound. And so are the provisions of the bell stressing that federal aid should go primarily to local stations and state networks to assure strong local outlets able to make judgments on their own concerning programming. And deal with the two points as follows. The apartment of directors. In my judgment to establish the separate corporation as insulation against government influence and then to require that its directors will eventually be responsible for dispensing some 270 million a year in all kinds of grants and technical aid. For them to be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate

seems to belie its purpose. The call of the president generally provides the nation with talent the man of integrity for the many presidential commissions and committees. But the question here is not one of the caliber of the men but of the nature of an institution. And this is a new and highly sensitive enterprise in which we are involved. The heart of this new institution the board of directors should by its very origin and nature rebut any implication of it being a political body. And so for the subcommittee consideration as I know people like us to be specific. I would like to suggest one alternative to the proposed plan for appointing directors. As follows 10 directors would be appointed to the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Five would be public members appointed under the criteria now in the bill. They could not be governmental employees they should be representative of as many geographical regions of the country as possible and come from others from diverse professions including radio and TV. But the other five presidential appointees. Would have to be

either employed by noncommercial radio on television stations networks or associations are nominated by the directors of such as host of such organizations and no two of these five appointees could come from the same state. Now what makes you feel that that gives you the guarantee that you want. Well I think it does for this reason when you saw it go to one to begin with. It gives you a diversity of sources and it gives you this be the source of the actual operating stations themselves. And I think the fact that they have such a burning interest in their own freedom of expression as we have some faith in the way in which these are organized and set up locally that it represents. An additional element of Checkmate as a war. With respect to the strict presidential appointee What do you think of the Carnegie recommendation that a set number be appointed by the president and those appointed to elect the others. Well I make as a senator I will find the same recommendation as the final

five. The only real change that I have suggested. Is that. Half of the 10 who will elect the other five should come from the educational TV feed direct field directly itself. And I submit that for the committee I do think. The chairman and the committee will want to think over very carefully the composition of this board and really if I do nothing else but zero you win on the fact that if you do have a presidential appointment. Advice and Consent of the Senate. Alone plus annual appropriation techniques you do raise the specter the possibility of political influence now I will say to the chair myself. That you take the Smithsonian Institution. Somehow or other by tradition. We have done extraordinarily well in keeping that. Whole operation free of any shadow of governmental influence off a lot of coal effect. This is however a very sensitive area. We've all heard so much testimony and discussion about the tremendous

complex of the government. Participation in the communications field. And that is why I if I do nothing else I hope the committee well whether they take my suggestion or some other just be extremely sensitive to this point. Well the only thing that disturbs me if I may say so and I I don't desire to debate the question and I I hope that the senator doesn't think I'm being critical of his Again I know because I do welcome it. And the trouble is this had already we've had several suggestions as to the composition. And I hope that we don't get lost in the maze of these suggestions and come up with nothing. I will make of the White House at some point at some point it's got to be resolved. And I know that if we deviate from the recommendation made by the administration we're going to end up in such a way that other people are going to be opposed to it anyway and each one has his own idea and they're all good ideas. But but. The way I look at it of course is that as the Supreme Court of the United States of America which really guides the destiny of our nation and its people and its

development of course they are selected by the president and usually when they when you get to a sensitive area that sharpens the responsibility of the president to make sure that he acts on behalf of all of the people. Now I don't care whether we take the Carnegie way of doing it or whether we take your suggestion of doing it or the president. But I only hope this that somehow we don't get lost in the maze of these suggestions and I think you agree with me I not only agree with the chairman but I will take a pledge to join him in whatever the committee finally gestates out. I have no doubt it will be. Well the senator from New York and myself we usually get along together usually are you may I say this too. I would suggest to the chairman that if. For practical reasons he finds that he cannot. Make any changes in the administration's recommendations. It might be wild that can set us some form of advisory commission committee which like the end of a like the one on the international field will really ride

herd in a critical sector. The total after it may be that if it can't be approach frontally through a rate composition of the board. But it could be approached by at least giving the the industry quote unquote. That is the broadcasters themselves etc.. Some way of piping into the operation on the policy level with a legitimate right to report something along the lines of the Advisory Committee on us I had this language exactly and I think that that's a good idea. That's all that I want as they're all the committee. Now as to long term financing. My second point has been discussed in and out of the broadcasting industry for many months because it's central. What noncommercial broadcasting needs now is money. What it needs tomorrow and next year will be increasing amounts of money. It is obvious to all of the financing arrangements embodied in the present ballot design merely to get the proposed corporation started. The bill provides 9 million from general revenues for

this purpose in the first year. Whereas the Carnegie report indicates that some 40 million would be needed the first year and 60 million the next. And that this would increase in future years. The president has health and education message. Said that after careful review he would make proposals next year for long term financing of public television. This is a cleric knowledge made of the fact that long term financing arrangements are central to the problem. It is also completely understandable why the president doesn't wish to propose a particular method of financing at this time. But whatever method or finance is finally approved it should already be clear that if the growth in noncommercial broadcasting come templated by this bill is to be assured the future financing of the plan should be divorced from general revenues and the yearly appropriations process I think this is a very very central point. If the corporation the bill proposes is to be free of government influence then it should be put not be put in the position. Of being required to justify its every act line by line

before Congress every year. If this corporation is ready to build a strong independent noncommercial industry we design. It should be able to rely on a steady supply of funds to make its plans and established its priorities for the long term. I would call to the chair's attention because he and I. Often have discussed business techniques that our large corporations CBS American towel NBC any of them are now on. Generally speaking a 10 year swing in some cases it's even more. I mean like the American Telephone Telegraph I understand just you know goes on for decades and their advance planning. And this is critically important. And in a matter like this I think they I know the committee will give that very very. Critical attention and I have a suggestion for that which I'd like to lay before the chairman. Now the president as I said before has promised to suggest a long time financing next year.

But because this is such a crucial part of the entire concept of public television. And because it's bound to cause considerable controversy no matter what decision is finally made the president will be able to use any assistance we can give him in reaching that decision. But this race I suggest that the subcommittee consider including in the bill specific authorization and specifically am OC funds. For the corporation to contract for a one year study of all the major proposals for long term financing. Through independent consultants. The independent consultants making the study would then be required to make recommendations to the corporation the Congress and the president. This would in no way hinder the president in making recommendations of his own. It would be designed to compliment and bolster his efforts by providing a report prepared by an independent group on the contract to a non-government corporation. The present controversy over long range financing would not necessarily be dispelled by such a report but such an authoritative document would aid all parties in

seeing the obligations we have to this new instrument were attempting before. May I give the chair a case in point. We passed the bill out of education in labor in which the chair and I was I'm the ranking member for international education. For the first year all we provided for all was a study. And the bill was to take effect after one year and after we had the study in hand. It's a very interesting technique. It resulted in dispelling all the opposition to the bill and we really will have our feet on the road to an intelligent approach to international education. And this was Senator Wayne Morse and I honor him for it. But it is a case in point in which that very technique which I'm suggesting as a possibility here was use what would you say to the assertion that could be made that this would be a duplication of what a kind of a commission is already done. I understand they went into this matter of financing in quite some depth. I think you had there some of the best minds the most intellectual people in this country who are

interested in education and yet a practical enough to know that what the trouble is here is raising the money. And they went into this in quite some detail and they came up with this manufacturer's excise tax. I have a suggest a reason I'd like to give the chair as to why I favor this approach. The Carnegie Foundation operated before the fact. Before a corporation before you had the right as before the Congress and acted before you had the impact of public opinion and public ideas on this whole question. Now I suggest an independent consulting firm. After the fact when they have the aid and advice A15 direct is when the Congress has acted when the enormous body of testimony on the subject will have been taken when the country will have reacted many more suggestions will be available and therefore I think the independent consulting firm technique. Simply on an advisory basis it doesn't bind anybody is its part and for those reasons make another observation.

I know how anxious the senator from New York is in achieving some protrude bill during this session of the Congress. What would he have to say with regard to the jurisdictional conflict of the committees with reference to the suggestions that he's made that it might be construed that we are you stepping the powers of the House Ways and Means Committee of the Senate Finance Committee. Well it seems in the making it upon ourselves and making any any instituting any procedure. By which we would determine the financing on the long range plan. I think there are two answers to that. Senator one is the fact that you wouldn't be determining quote unquote you would be providing a vehicle by which Alba's could determine. Second we have had that problem to one of the committees and it's always been settled by so distinguished and persuasive the chairman assent of the pastoring. Now now I know I'm in trouble now I know I would rather

talk with Sam and Mel and jamming along respectively to see whether this is generally speaking a sound. Bit of that. And whether they would find it useful to consider it. It's it's a good suggestion. Senator thank you very much and if you haven't. Had a vision or. Thought in this matter. I agree with you that it is important to keep this from the battle of the admiral appropriation process. Sen. Hugh Scott and I going to do it if we can. I. Personally feel that the Appropriations Committee. Is proud and prestigious as it is yes but still not. Take it amiss. If they received a little study and little help of a few suggestions from. Other committees having to do with the substantive nature of

registration. As to the vehicle as you put it by which we might proceed to finance. This proposal. Seems to me that if the committee is out of substantive legislation do not suggest means by which their ideas can be carried out. They are to that degree falling short. Of their own responsibility. And this committee as well as you yourself. Have members on the Appropriations Committee. And I find that they work very well together. The chairman of the full committee Commerce for example is also a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations on the independent offices. And this may be a coincidence but certainly is a. Very fortunate thing for the Commerce Committee for example. So that I. I am not.

Reluctant for us to look into. The means of financing I don't know what is the best method each group who are. Hit. By one proposal naturally suggested we try the other. But we certainly should look at all of them. And it seems to me that we are not precluded from making. A sound. Judgments of our own at least to the extent of suggesting. All human problems with our reactions which might. Prove to be the most feasible any in. Securing the objective which we all point toward namely. To make public television just as free and impartial and independent as we can and independent means and I as I see it independence from the Congress as well as independence from the. Network So independence from. Any pressure groups which might affect that impartiality Magister. And one word to what I said before in response to a very

gracious and very intelligent comments of Senator Scott. You have the power in this Commerce Committee to to authorize an appropriation. For a greater or lesser time no other committee has an authority you could write an authorization in this bill. Now suppose you wrote in a limited authorization for one to three years. It would then have to come back to you. For a new authorization. Seems to me you have a right to make provision in the bill which would enable you more expertly to determine what you will authorize or how you know what kind of a scheme you will authorize to finance this when it comes back to you. That's the that I think is the fundamental jurisdiction right now but just as we and me and education have the right to say we allow me study it for a year and then we will decide what we'll offer. Well the only thing that concerns me is that the president has asked for the indulgence of a year to make a study of this long range financing plan. I don't hate that precludes the Congress. But I was wondering if it was if in this

process of trying to join in this effort we wouldn't be stumbling over one another before we get down to concreting suggestions. I'll tell you very frankly the financing of this whole project is going to be the dilemma of the Congress. Everybody is for educational television. We've been for a play years but a long time ago we learned that we can't have an effective educational television system. Already our educational television system unless you have the necessary way with and it's a matter of money and the big question is how are you going to raise the money and that is very very serious. Well I don't think that I don't think that we're going to have the time I think that your suggestion is a good one that we could set up the instrumentality by which this could be determined. But if you're going to ask this committee to make a determination during this session the Congress without this bill even being heard in the house I'm afraid that we might lose the boat. I wouldn't do that. I only suggest to the committee and a means for getting to the result. And I point out to the chairman that we suffer constantly from the fact that we do not

have the machinery of the executive department Hence we rarely can be innovative unless we we think of some such scheme as this. You think then that we are right in the reporting we ought to put some provision in the bill setting forth an authorization by which. A commission or a committee could be set up to make a determination as to what would be the better plan a fine and give us a range of alternatives. Thank you so much. Any question. The next witness is Dr. Frank Stanton who is president of the Columbia Broadcasting System better known as CBS. It's always a pleasure to have you Dr. Stanton and you may proceed in any way you like. Mr. Chairman members of the committee. My name as the

chairman has indicated is Frank Stanton. I'm president of Columbia Broadcasting System Inc. The position of CBS in affirming the need for a strong noncommercial broadcasting service. Is not new to this committee. We have expressed our support by both word and action. But we have never considered existing facilities and resources in this field. Adequate to the needs and opportunities. Facing noncommercial television and radio. We welcomed and supported the Carnegie Commission report. Because it seemed to us a giant step toward meeting these needs and realizing these opportunities. We now welcome and support s 11:16. As a practical prudent first step. In bringing about the objectives of the Carnegie Commission. CBS endorses all three titles of the proposed legislation. My comments this morning however

are addressed the title to. Which would establish the Corporation for Public Television. There are three fundamental factors about which those engaged in charting this pioneer venture. Will want to be as careful and foresighted as possible. All have been discussed at past actions of these here. They are first. That legislation creating the corporation and its chartered. Have built in safeguards. Assuring to the maximum extent possible. Its independence from political control and reprisal. Second. That the financing of the proposed corporation be stable. Predictable. And sufficiently strong. And third that the corporation encourage and strengthen pluralism in the sources of noncommercial programming. It seems to me

clear. That both the president and his message of February 28 one thousand sixty seven. And the architects of S. 11 60. Earnestly sought the same objective. Title to goes about them in the right way. And with a suitable degree of caution. As these hearings have already abuse. There is justifiable concern. That the proposed corporation be institutionally insulated from political pressure. I'm inclined to agree. That the status of the board of directors as presidential appointees subject to confirmation by the Senate. Is in itself an excellent guarantee of the corporation's integrity. The record made over the years on the quality and performance of such appointees and other areas. Is both impressive. And persuasive. Also I think the term of six years staggered so that a third of the board is named every two years.

And the limitation of any director to two consecutive term. Erect an effective defense. Against the creation of a static stewardship. Now as to financing. I think the president has was wise to defer until after careful review. The proposals for the corporation's long term financing. This is a complex and of course a basic aspect of the proposal. But I think it would be wrong to get bogged down now. And nothing once it is concluded that public television is an appropriate object of federal support. The important point is. That financing be adequate. That it be stable. And that it be so conceived and structured as to insulate the corporation from financial reprisal. Should some of its broadcasts rubbed the wrong way.

As to pluralistic sources of programming the language of. Ass 11:16 guards against undue concentration of funds. On a single center of programming and wisely prohibits the corporation itself from owning. Or operating any program production facility. I am however. In general agreement with the position developed by James R. Killian Jr. chairman of the Carnegie Commission on educational television. That the proposed corporation should not be foreclosed. From arranging and scheduling interconnections as need an occasion occur. Many problems may arise surrounding these functions. But the prospect for the workable resolution. Will be much more promising. If they may be accomplished. Through the corporation rather than solely. Through the programme production agency. At the same time the decision as to whether and when the programme start is through such interconnections

will be use. Must be left with the individual stations in conformity with the Communications Act of 1934. Before closing. I would offer the observation. That of all the consideration given educational television over the years. None. Is the peer that conducted by the Carnegie. Commission. Our support for the present bill is motivated in large measure. Because it takes its lead from the Carnegie recommendation although it does not embrace all of them and its plan for action. I said upon its publication. And confirm now. That the Carnegie proposal. Seeks to well disparate constituencies. Into a complimentary whole. This. Is a difficult task. All the components are fragile and their

joining takes great skill. But the game. Is worth the candle. Mr. Chairman. This committee is to be congratulated for giving prompt consideration to ass 11:16. The bill is addressed to as to an important and indeed a pressing public need. The Uses and advantages to be derived from noncommercial radio on television will reach all our people. Cutting across lines of geography economics. Culture and age. There seems to me nothing more likely than public television. To effectively rally national resources. For public good. Thank you very much and. I'm particularly interested in what you had to say with reference to the authorization of this public body in connection with the interconnection.

Do you have a copy of the bill before you doctors yes or no. Will you turn to page 16. Line cri. Now you you mentioned in your statement the architects of this legislation. I don't know what they exactly had in mind when they wrote that subsection which begins on page 3. But since these hearings have commenced. Much of the discussion has been with reference to that on this question of interconnection. And it might well be the chances. We have detected certain problems that arise from that language that they didn't quite anticipate and I have said from time to time that what this committee intends to do is to call in all of the agencies and find out what the motive was and what the reason was behind the writing of that section. I think much of your comments have been directed to that and it reads as follows.

I have to go back to the Preface on page 14 the corporation is he is authorized to arrange by Grant. Or contract with appropriate public or nonprofit private agencies organizations or institutions for interconnection facilities suitable for distribution and transmission of educational television or radio programmes to noncommercial educational broadcast stations. Now could you be a little more explicit Doctor what is it that really bothers you about that. I guess the thing that bothers me is the same thing that bothered Jim Killian and I would gather other witnesses who have appeared before me. I believe that what you have proposed is very constructive in terms of getting people in who had a hand in this and who will have a hand in the future. To get a clear understanding before this goes to a vote. It may be that I'm worrying about something that doesn't deserve our attention here but

a number of witnesses have raised the same question. When Senator Javits. Talked about this satellite possibility for North and South America. It would seem to me. That unless. The corporation has some authority in the operating area. That to arrange that kind of programming exchange that will be brought about. Between let's say South America and North America. That there has to be some operating responsibility in the corporation because I don't see how a program producer. Can handle that kind of international. Arrangement it's a very complicated thing of standards and so forth having to do with technical transmission. And I think you need in the central body that authority I wouldn't say that that the program producers may not. Have interconnection authority. But I would certainly not foreclose the corporation from having it that's all I'm suggesting.

As a president of a commercial network. Do you have any apprehension at all that this creates another network. None whatsoever. I have. I know that. The vast majority of the witnesses that come before this committee. Have expressed apprehension and. If not apprehension and emphasize the need for. Having any educational television expanded Instead I. Completely free from governmental interference that Sen.. You have indicated that the matter of financing should be something to be taken not. Explored more fully later and not in this initial

bill my correct in that interpretation of what you said just correct. Do you have real apprehension. That. The Congress or any administration being under public scrutiny as we are. Likely to. Pervert the educational television for. Political partisan uses. I'm not asking you to characterize us but I'm asking as a principle. You know Senator Lott and I have I have deep concern about the financing and the problems that flow from that as a as they apply to insulation First of all I got the problem of getting the money but at the same time we get the money I want to be sure that there is as much insulation built in as it's possible to do. I would never

I don't see this as as Congress moving into this area of trying to subvert the. Activities of the educational television but. There is always the risk. And we've all lived through this at one time or another where one member of a committee in the appropriations area might take exception to something us rub him or an important constituent or a group of constituents the wrong way. Now that's the thing that I'm concerned about. And I thought that. That the proposal of the Carnegie Commission went about as far as you could go in trying to build in this insulation. But. I remember some of the cultural affairs of the State Department when they were sending. Roadshows out into developing countries into other parts of the world. That activity was stopped at one time because exception was taken to the kind of plays that were produced offshore. And I agree with someone who appeared before me that. You're more apt to have difficulty in the

drama field. If you will and you will perhaps in the hard news area. So that I want to go as far as it possible to go. To get this insulation. And I would hope that if you see one you see fit to. Go along with the suggestion that Senator Javits suggested of another study. That this be one of the things of course that be taken into consideration. Thats the whole thrust of what he was talking about. This is this is a big concern to me and you have the combination of that for me you have a combination of forces here you have the force of the. Of the construction or rather the composition of the board. And you have the question of where the money comes from. And everything that could be possibly done. To get the best people for the board and to get the maximum insulation. I'm sure this is what you want to accomplish.

Well as a matter of fact even in your own. Network and your. Companion networks I will say competing that yes that's what we are. They're very they're very competitive. You generously give. A good deal of time. To so-called public. Service. We certainly do. And. When you when you give this time to public service. And they are bringing out and informing the public about. Programs and benefits to which they are entitled. Of necessity and not being critical about this but sometimes I sit in my living room and watch television over a period of. Two or three hours and during that time a. Four five or six times the

picture of the president the United States was on the screen and he said something about. The destitute people and then the program is referred to and if you want to benefit under this program write two songs on such a department in Washington. I'm not his post criticize that because. He's president and he's my president. Frankly everybody but me voted for him I guess and. You can't do it you can't use your network to inform the public about their privileges their rights their benefits without some of that. But in a sense it's hard for me to conceive. Of educational television even though it was dependent upon direct appropriations from the Congress. Of being any more. Well political in a sense. Then. Then the

commercial networks Ah because you have to deal with the people who are in them the people who are doing things. How. Do you think present a greater likelihood that when everybody know. Suppose suppose Educational Television is supported by appropriations that go through our probation committees in Congress. Everybody knows. And they're even more alert the public is to watch. For bias and prejudice. Knowing that there is government finance then they are alert and watching for any possible by as our advantage in conventional networks is that wrong in that suggestion. I believe one of the things that's very useful in this particular context is disclosure. If the public understand. Who is footing the bill. I think this puts the public on notice about the program material it might come across I don't think this is going to bother the public. I'm glad you said any any political

science when you were talking about what the commercial networks do because. We're not. Politically oriented in the sense that our programming is one way or another. Our obligation is to report the news and to report the activities of our government whether it's the president or a head of a cabinet or department or our foreign the legislative branch. We have to report what we think. Is the information that the public is interested in receiving. Now we don't bend that information one way or the other depending upon the party in power. Man Rob I'm not challenging that. Well I don't for I know you weren't. And I just want to be sure that the record was clear on that point because I recall. Some eight or nine years ago getting a letter in which I was charged or we were charged with favoring the party then in power in the White House. And if I read that letter to you today and didn't tell you who signed it. It could have been written by. Someone from the Republican side about.

The White House activities on radio and television today in other words we face this problem every time there's a change from one party to the other in the administration. But the White House the president is the president of all the people. And the press. And I include ourselves in the press. We have the responsibility of reporting the activities of the. Highest officer in our country. So that it isn't done with any political orientation. And I don't think the educational people would do it either. But this depends upon the board again. Well just one more question. Along that line. You have mentioned and you show your. Your. Experience and knowledge of the workings of the Congress when you say it. That all the uproar is caused perhaps one single member of Appropriations Committee has is miffed at it and I suppose it's bias that he thinks he's a makes a great deal of noise about it. But it usually results only in noise because if it's only one if it's only one

discontented member it always is. And that publicity. Doesn't do too much time even though he may be biased and something of a crank and I'm just in the publicity because it keeps. It serves as a reminder for whoever guy is planning these programs be a commercial network want to be educational television. It serves as a as a break and a little stab to. To. Make a more watchful eye. Would you agree to that if. You wait for this answer. I agreed on the latter part of what you said sir but not the first part for the chairman. Oh I've never known a chairman of a committee to be biased. My. Right now I think there are some agencies in this magnificent city who have suffered from a one man attack on a an activity of the agency and. I don't want to particularize but I have

learned a lot as chairman of the Commission on information. And. I think it's too bad. But this is this is the world we live in we've got to be realistic about it. And what I'm trying to do is to say let's go in recognizing that there may be these attacks made upon it. But criticism as such. We should all have as much of it as we can have. Because. None of us is perfect and there are good ideas coming from all parts of this country and we should have that all the time. But the thing that concerns me is the man that's got the got the money on the on the purse strings. And that I think is very critical. Well of course I Want To many ways I think that this could be protected. For example I don't think this is something that you want to write into the legislation but you'd know more about that than I do. But I think that there is a great deal of protection and the math and the matching funds approach to this. In other words if if the corporation gives money. To a specific educational station. Then I would say. Put some matching

money from local. Or city or state funds are private foundations or private contributions to match that. You begin to get a pluralism man in your in your financial support. Another thing for example I'd like to see and I've always felt this way about these nonprofit organizations that work for the government. I would always like to have about a year of operating funds ahead of me. So that if I ran into a into a tough situation and its bonnet it's bound to happen someplace down the line. I would then have some fun. To operate into the future and either redeem myself with the. Committee that felt I wasn't doing a the right job. Or redeem myself with the public. Or get the public. To support my position on this thing because it's if this group is going to experiment in programming and if it just does what we're doing today the same things and it isn't living up to its charter. So if it experiments it's going to make some mistakes and those mistakes could be costly in this very narrow area or area of

relationship between money and operation. Just one more question if you have a minute Mr. Chairman. I know you're quite quite properly and with your own judgment. Chose to defer. Leave out questions of financing. In this particular statement and I don't want to try to push you into some decoration on the subject that you are prepared to offer advice but I do throw this out and if you can a comment I'd appreciate it if you'd prefer to reserve a comment. I quite understand. It's been suggested. By witnesses and I. I would think many witnesses of the time I've been here that there must be some bomb Mav of government support. To educational television can't rely can't raise enough money from foundations and from. Other sources. Now. Some at least one witness I recall suggested. That in order to

keep. The Congress and and the government out of it that is. To remove any possibility exercising authority that some kind of a tax on our tax on the. Television sets. Be put on it and that BMI act and go straight was what educational television and then they are in any way at the mercy of the whims of a committee of Congress that we've been talking about anybody else. Others have suggested that it should be. A federal appropriations unfasten to tax the SATs. And I was suggested to have both. Would you can to comment. With the understanding with. Your statement that you are prepared you didn't go into financing and gave very good reason why. But off the cuff. Without without being committed yourself or irrevocably Would you can't comment on this matter of sauces of

support. Yes I will be glad to. I did not include it in my statement for two reasons one because. As I read the. Testimony of other witnesses who have appeared before you I was under the impression that this was in a sense not germane to this particular discussion so that. This was something that was going to be handled by another committee. The second thing the second reason I didn't is because the president himself in his message said I will review this and come back to the Congress a year from now. But I have no objection to Steve saying hi feel about this. I believe that was a 963. That I made some remarks to our affiliated stations. In which I was. Trying to stimulate them to do in their own communities a fund raising job for the purpose of supporting educational television within their own backyard. Because it seemed to me. That educational

television was suffering from a shortage of oxygen in the form of money. And it was being nickeled and dimed to death. And it needed more fun. And I felt that commercial broadcasting should try to get the communities are going to rise to support their own activities by their own activities I mean the community activity. And the reason I did that. Wasn't because. I thought that was the only way to do it but it seemed to me that this was the best way to do it. To get this pluralistic support and to decentralize it and to keep it away from a strong federal funding. I was wrong because it didn't happen THIS THIS THIS. Not enough money was raised in my own community of New York I think it's too bad. That Dubey NTT suffers from a lack of funding it's its operating to be true but there are nights of the week when it doesn't operate and it should be operated. So that I was reluctantly driven to accept what the Carnegie Commission has come up with because I don't see any

other alternative. The excise or the excise tax. Referred to in the Carnegie Commission on the one you alluded to. I think gives you. A change in degree of insulation and other words I would prefer that kind of tax to the general funding because I think you don't have the appropriations problem that we referred to before. But if in the end and if in the wisdom of the Congress we can have. The excise tax which I think is better than a general one. Then I would. Go with the general funding. But I would try then to build in some of the things that I think would. Tend to take the place of the insurance that you get with the excise tax and these things I think I mentioned one is the matching funds approach. And the other. Is some kind of a surge tank. So that you begin to build up a fund. I think the Killian group

talk about it as a trust fund but I'm. Call it whatever you will. It's to have a little fact there. And case you get into difficulty. You've got some time to turn around because you won't be able to attract good people to this enterprise if they're on the end of a string. Where they are working almost by hand to mouth basis. This doesn't mean you give a blank check in perpetuity. But if you want to attract good creative people. I think you've got to give them some assurance. That they're going to have. A job. And these are some of the reasons why I come out where I do. On preparing the excise tax. Thank you. I thought of a. Civilized society to me. Television and Radio.

May be present but. It's a trace element. And the press. USAT our. Song of the day have no. Hesitation pretty rapidly in getting the president that ties Hadley's Park Place in. Letter chair. Public opinion you can't get. Over here you can in the press kit the cake. Now. I don't believe that you could get away with. Continuing Art Buchwald type of satire. You have a. Passing stand up comic who makes. A few. Remarks. But it does seem to me that. A continuing activity on the part of a radio or television which

involves as one of its elements a constant use of satire. Be a hard thing to break. In public television. I'd like to see it. I don't care whether kidding President Johnson or President Romney but I'd like to see it. That is an element which makes it even more important to enslave. This new instrumentality from the wrath. Of the king. If. Satire is hard to come by off from the wrath of royalty rather educating on the government next I know some of our friends offshore have had the same difficulty. I regret the the absence of. The kind of satire you're talking about. In our programme schedule but it's very very difficult to do and have it play in the sophisticated style that you're talking about. As you probably know there aren't many book walls

around and look at some of the productions of the great art club. There you've got the best creative satirist in the business. And they bombed out on occasion too. Even some of the speakers do. That's right. And they've had some good help on writing those scripts. And they only produce that show what twice a year now. The thing about television is that it has to come up. Virtually every week. Now there's nothing that says it has to. But that's been the great magic of television is that you can you know on a certain night of the week that you're going to get a certain program this doesn't mitigate against a special broadcast from time to time but if you had nothing but specials First of all you couldn't. Be too rich for the. For the production people because I don't think you could create that many specials. But satire every week is pretty hard to come by. And it isn't for the lack of any interest on our part that we don't have it. It's frankly a deficiency in our skill bank.

Well perhaps but not entirely I wasn't arguing that television suddenly becomes a terra cotta. All the times in every comic. But I wouldn't argue with you Erica. I do. Address. My suggestion to the. To the right to be sure Jericho and to the will to base a character there I think that there is a deficiency and will always be and we can have an insulated. Public Television which will dare to make fire as well as dare to educate any other way and dare to experiment and data experiment because if you don't have failures and experimentation in my philosophy you're not experiment right. And if you don't have conflict and controversy and not going to have an effective educational program. That's certainly true for a certain part of the of the schedule.

Talking about the sensitivity of people and I'm reminded of one of our most beloved a president. Who was an intellectual. Insensitive to criticism he could laugh it off better than any man I know soffits one time to discontinue his subscription of a New York newspaper. As long as you have man and man his man with all his frailties you're going to have sensitivities. That's the reason why we've been. We've been so reluctant to do something about modifying Section 3 15 of the Communications Act. And this is an old story but I think the hardest Not that we will have the heart is not that we will have to crack here. And I think we're all agreed with this I think the senator Scott has emphasized it more than any other member of the subcommittee this insulation that we're talking about. The freedom of. This corporation through its direct is. To be free from any influence

whatsoever. So that no one can challenge its judgment as specially if the judgment is reached at Ferry and I would assume that the kind of people that would be appointed to this tremendous responsibility would be men of courage and men of families. But just as you have pointed out. Of course the Congress of the United States could strangulate this whole effort by refusing to appropriate the money. All by cutting down the appropriation and you could render this thing almost impotent unless it had the the amount of money that we're talking about here. But coming back to the predicate that you laid that you would like to know in advance just about how much money you had next year. Now that's one of the hardest things to do in the Congress we constantly are opposing this backdoor financing. I had the secretary of state tell me one time if you gave the president. One billion dollars in foreign aid to use at his discretion he could do a job four times as well than the 3 billion dollars that you

give him each year because you can't program. You. You can't lay out your plans. I realize that. But you've got to realize too that business is a little different than the government. And the Congress of the United States is always sensitive that's been my experience here for 18 years to appropriate money unless it could account to the people as to how that money was being spent. Now maybe sometimes this accounting responsibility does lead to some problems. But it's the hardest thing we're going to do I think will have to do on this bill is to is to write in this freedom that we're talking about. And at the same time come up with federal funds and leave them out of the reach of the Congress and that's that to me staggers me because that's the hardest thing that will have to do. And that's not how we're going to do it I really don't know. I really don't know. In other words do you feel that the language on page 14. Subsection D is insufficient. Do you think that we can get enough assurance out of that that

we don't run into these pitfalls that we're talking about. Cause we say in very clear terms that they shan't be any interference with the widow or control of the program content of any activities. Because that's true. But then you put on a program that it's controversial and hurts the sensitivities as you said of some chairman of some subcommittee and it's his responsibility to appropriate the money. And he's going to have his day of accounting I suppose. And that does exist I mean it would be foolish for us to deny that that influence and that power does not exist in the Congress of the United States. It's true because it's true. And what the religion is denying that. But how do you overcome it is going to be the the Herculean job for us to perform here. And it had not to be but I repeat again that it's one of the practicalities

and the realism is that we have to face. And there's the real core question that I think the committee faces. Well now we're taking into account this subsection e that we're talking about which under the present writing does not make the corporation itself a network. Plus the fact that the final judgment is left to the local station. To either accept or reject the program. Don't you think that that in itself is does guarantee that we're talking about. No no no broadcasting station has to accept any one of these programs.