The First Amendment; First Amendment And A Free People: John Wicklein, BUSPC; 2

The following program is made possible in part by a grant from the courier corporation of Lowell Massachusetts. WGBH radio in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. Now presents the First Amendment and the free people and examination of the media and civil liberties in the 1970s. And now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr. Bernard Ruben. This is going to be driven with Carla Lewis of the Institute for democratic communication of the school of public communication at Boston University. Today we're going to be talking about press councils or news councils. And our guest is John Wick line the dean of the school and a former consultant to the news Council of the news Council idea seemed to be one that was whose time has come quite properly and perhaps I'll just give the audience just a little background on what news councils do.

Briefly they seem to look over the shoulders of the press and to comment upon the treatment of stories to see whether they're fair and objective to see whether the public interest is being served and nobody being hurt unfairly and to act as kind of a moral suasion on the press they're not part of any government organization they cannot demand from the press they can only persuade on August the 1st 1973 the national news Council was set up to serve the public interest in preserving freedom of communication and advancing accurate and fair reporting of the news it has 15 members five Advisors under staff and briefly it has no shortage of problems some of the things it looks into are full disclosure of possible conflict of interest access accountability the payment of fees to sources of information or checkbook journalism. The effect of monopoly control on press freedom the subpoena of reporters notes and outtakes of materials produced by Radio and Television shield laws to protect against such

subpoenas. The imposition of gag rules in the judicial process and the fair trial fair press controversies as well as editorial distortion bias and of course accuracy and fairness that in brief is that is what the press councils do. There is widespread support for the press councils and widespread suspicion of them by such organisations as the New York Times which doesn't cooperate with it. I think I'm just going to turn now to John and John what's your general impression of the Press Council news Council movement so far. While I think it's a very good idea I think that it has two sides to it which I think should be emphasized equally. One of them is the side that promotes freedom of the press and the other is one that promotes responsible press that grows out of those freedoms. So that for instance the national news Council which was set up several years ago by the 20th Century Fund and other foundations will take grievances against

national outlets for the press and investigate them very thoroughly and sometimes hold hearings on them. And then after giving each party to the grievance a chance to express his or her opinion about it will then publish the findings either up holding the grievance or or dismissing the case also. Son studies in the area of freedom the press and I think that's a very important side of what it should be doing. It hasn't done nearly enough work in that area as far as I can see. But it has had some very interesting cases come before it and I think it's brought attention to the question of fairness in the press attention to all the newspapers across the country where they cooperate with the Press Council or not. And I think that's to the good rulings against the press have been far less significant in the press Council's history. The news Council's history then have the fact they've looked into things from August the 1st 1973 to July 30 first 975 the news Council reviewed and publicized decisions in 59

cases in which complaints were raised against the media in relatively few of these complaints five to be exact. There were complaints were upheld. Thirty three were declared to be unwarranted. Twenty one complaints were dismissed so this doesn't seem to be a vendetta against the press but rather they are keeping up with their job to review and decision Carol. Well I just wanted to ask John why your view of the noble principles behind the national news kind of council does the New York Times which is a very powerful newspaper after all refused to cooperate what are the grounds on which it refuses to cooperate with the National Council. Well the grounds are that they feel that all editorial decisions must be vested in the paper itself and the editors of that paper and they feel that in some way the Press Council or a news Council decision against it might influence their editorial decisions I think that's their primary philosophical argument on why they are against it. I think it's just a hard nosed feeling in the New York Times that they're not going to let anyone tell them what to do in covering covering anything and I think the always had that attitude from inside that they

were going to be. Ruggedly independent of any outside judgments they have also suggested that this can be a judge and jury situation which I think is grossly overstating the case. If I think that an opinion expressed by a news counsel on an issue at the County Court certainly doesn't doesn't have any weight of law or government or anything it's an independent organization that is merely commenting on the press. I think also that the press traditionally has been unwilling to be criticized and certainly doesn't want to criticize. They don't want to criticize each other and they don't want outside criticism primarily. Well John does this then do you think exhibit at least the germ of an arrogance of power on the part of some of these rather powerful organizations that they really don't want to be second guess that they don't want anyone to be challenging the way they do their business. I think so that's very true I think there are there are others who realize that the public has an input into into such decisions at least from the point of view of moral suasion

and do uphold the idea that there should be some critics in the community. And really what Press Council idea is that these would be critics from the community to discuss. And really it should be the form of a dialogue rather than the Press Council sitting back and making a judgment on it. On a newspaper or on a television station or a television network. After all it was a it was not a new idea the press councils in England as we know way Denmark the Netherlands Austria West Germany we're just picking it up rather late. What about 23 press councils local ones in the in the states of the United States. You know the first one that really happened came to prominence and has the most standing today is the British Press Council and that that didn't come about because the newspapers over there volunteered to criticize themselves either that came about because in one thousand forty seven I think or thereabouts there was a Royal Commission of the government which made noises towards the direction of setting up a governmental Press

Council and sort of forestall that. The newspapers in Britain set up a Press Council to to look into stories and complaints against it. But for the first few years they did. They paid very little attention. And it's just had to grow over the years into a respected organization that has now the support of most of the newspapers in Britain. Let's really going back to what I wanted to pursue the other question and I think you've touched on it a little bit John is that we realize that the national news Council is really in a rather puny under finance thing. And I'm wondering how it really can do anything when you have these conglomerates and the great concentration of media power in this country I mean can't these big organizations just say buzz off we're just not going to listen to you. How is how is a council going to going to crack something like The New York Times. I think it has to develop its own credibility and I would I think it could develop more credibility by the kind of independent research it would do on its own into the area of freedom of the press. I once when I see the press councils and the

national news Council coming out with studies and reports in strong support of the First Amendment guarantees then I think it's going to develop a greater reputation among the press in general and more support for that from the press for it to act as a dialogue an agency of dialogue between the press and the public. Given the general press feeling that the First Amendment right is absolute. In other words nobody really can challenge you we've got a right to say what we want and do what we want. Isn't that really the kernel of the problem of the national news Council that the press itself has the feeling that its right is so absolute that who cares what a council that was aware Council says. Well I think that the press should be pretty wary of that kind of attitude given the attempts on the Nixon administration to suppress it and as a matter of fact one of the reasons why the national news Council was set up was that there it was to try to draw some of the lightning from the Nixon administration the Nixon administration had a calculated and orchestrated campaign to suppress freedom of the

press in this country both in television and radio and in the newspapers and did it from many angles and I think the people who are of the 20th century fun task force that investigated this thought that there should be some agency not tied to government. That would be critiquing the press and holding you to account and asking it to be responsible as a means of trying to make sure that the government itself again did not set up any kind of organization that would try to control the press or try to even critique it you know on an official basis. There was that's that's the danger and I think there's still a continuing danger with the atmosphere that exists in this country. And that was fostered by the Nixon administration against the press I think there's a ever present danger to the First Amendment guarantees. I think that the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press speech etc. is a problem here between these conglomerates as Carlin points out for example the electronic media are not covered in the same way as the print press

media. We have the Federal Communications Commission to supervise them and the print press goes to the courts. That's the only supervision that we could have if you have an objection. So you have an objection against a citizen you go to the courts. The laws of the land we don't have any regulatory agency and this came up in two of the cases the distinctions NBC TV in a program on American Samoa and the New York Times on herbicides in Vietnam and these are two separate cases were both called on the carpet by the news Council. NBC started decide to stay away from council hearings on the grounds that the FCC should be the one that did provide information. The Times took the same attitude. Now if the national news Council is to be successful isn't there a fundamental question here that the same rules should apply for a new news service to electronic journalism as applies under the First Amendment to the print press. Well there are there's a great difference of opinion on that

because the theory of the FCC regulations concerning fairness and equal time and all those other regulations is that the spectrum of the radio spectrum is limited and therefore there can be only a certain number of television stations and radio stations on air and those allocations have to be assigned by the federal government. Now by extension they say they're for the people who are taking those frequencies have a responsibility to the public to give public access and to treat issues in such a way that that everyone will have a chance to express his or her opinion on an issue on air. No such restrictions. Are put upon the printed press because supposedly anybody can get a photo offset kit and go to work and set up but John isn't the irony there really that there are fewer print outlets I think Rennard would agree with me on this there are fewer print outlets today than they are for example radio stations some of them thousand

exactly in some areas you have 12 maybe 20 radio stations and four or five television stations and one news paper. You know I think that the theory out there is invalid because there are all sorts of things that are coming along that are going to further invalidate it scientifically such as cable television which will make many more outlets possible. And now there's there's a new technique in which stations can be dropped in between the existing television station for instance. And so I think that we're going to be arguing an invalid case when we say that the federal government should regulate content at all through the FCC. So the if David Howe was driving two articles in the two recent issues of The Atlantic magazine. That involved a good deal of what went on at the Columbia Broadcasting System. Paley and Stanton and others you get these baronies established under the FCC theory is that within the networks themselves and we have stricter controls over press freedom coming from

administrative decision than we ever thought possible from the FCC It seems to me that Carl is absolutely right and I think we maybe agree that it's time to take a look at the question whether the theories are to be upheld now in the view of modern technology. Oh I think so very much. And I think that the networks and the local stations use such things as the Fairness Doctrine for instance the Fairness Doctrine is a very nebulous kind of rule that the FCC came out with that says that you must provide. An equal discussion or discussion from many points of view on any topic that you take up any controversial topic that is important to the public interest. I have found from being inside television that this is often used as an excuse by the top management for not getting into any controversial matters because they say well that already is a fairness doctrine issue. You know well so what. You know if you have any you know any dedication to journalism or digging into stories you don't care about that you care

to be fair but you're not going to let that put you off from from getting into the issue. But if you took away any FCC regulations recognizing this as in so many of us do that so many people that own particularly local stations see them as merely vehicles to make money. If you didn't have an FCC requirement for example of certain public service programming to be honest do you think you would have any public service programming which does not make money for stations. Now Woods isn't the danger particularly in the television business that without some controls from outside some imposition of standards that you would just have. Reruns of whatever Lucy going on forever and they will make money for the stations. I think there's a there's a strong danger of that but I guess on balance I would I would be against federal regulation of any kind of content on television or radio because I think that as the technology develops there will be diversification which will lead to presentation of news and public affairs on television or cable

television or in these new stations that are going to be dropped in. I think that yes many stations would would very much like to drop out of news and public affairs altogether because that costs a lot of money. It causes controversy and it and it gets flack to them. But I I just and so afraid of government regulation of the press that I think that I'd be willing to take that chance and go for the same kind of guarantee that the printed press has of applying to television ever since Greta the famous blue book of the FCC in 1946 47 talked about the marketplace of ideas you never got anywhere as an FCC commissioner to and to enlarge the concept of public affairs and now we come down to the state where so many of the public affairs programs on television are scandalous. The news programs on television are absolutely shocking for their unprofessionalism. These stations call in show doctors more often than they call in news men. The number of news men who don't have college degrees is shocking the number of. For people who cover any kind of a story or shocking their concern is more for many cameras than it

is for people in ghettos or people that need relief checks or people who don't understand politics. So if water seeks its own level then the news on radio and television must be released from the FCC and restored to the same level as news that comes through the process. And I agree with you completely Jon Karl. Not sure that I thoroughly agree maybe I have this this this awful feeling that we keep going back to some of our basic American ideas of the marketplace will solve our problems well you know it in terms of the economy I'm not sure it has what's happened is you have concentration and maybe a misuse of resources. Applying that to the television medium where even with some minimal FCC requirements on public service and news you have what I think is generally a sellout of much of the concept of news. I just am a little nervous about leaving it all to the marketplace I'm not sure it's going to work I'm not sure we're going to get anything good I didn't say that I didn't. I leave it to the market as I said leave it to the law. Not to the FCC we have we

have commissioners like former commissioner Hawke. Now maybe he was wrong or maybe he was right he is just retired recently from the commission. But in the case of whether Channel 13 in New York for example was meeting the needs of the Hispanic and black communities in the Greater New York New Jersey area he keeps crying out Oh he did cry out in that particular case that they were not meeting it and there was a vast injustice. But even on the FCC It seems to me that that was only token protest and got nowhere. Well I think that thats where news councils can be of service in place of the federal regulations I think community groups bringing complaints to news councils or news councils looking at their communities when their local news councils looking at their communities and pointing out to television stations radio stations and the press where they are failing where theyre failing to provide access to people in their community I think that can be a valuable service. I dont think its being done to any great extent now but I think its a much better area a much safer area than government. Even the

hint of government regulation. Well John you talk about local news Council. Seems to me that probably the greatest weakness in the media is at the local level the local local news yes even the local color and look at the local papers they're pretty TERRY Exactly. You say that this has not caught fire. I mean how widespread is the movement for local councils and how how well how successful are the few that are operate well it isn't it isn't a very widespread movement. The Maillot fund has set up some local news councils across the country. It's a fund headed by Ben back Dickie and a press critic and they have really sucked him up. The local councils have been set up a sort of dialogue agencies. They've gotten the cooperation of the local press the local newspapers and they hold meetings in which the local press the editors and publishers sit in with the meetings and sit in and confront face to face the people who are complaining against them and try to adjudicate problems that way rather than trying to impose any any rule on the on the local press and I

think that kind of community dialogue is good and I'd like to see much more of that happen around the country. Now the national news Council is reconsidering its mandate right now to include the possibility of having complaints from some local councils but that hasn't been decided yet whether they'll go into that. But but it's under active consideration right now. Isn't there a difficulty particularly when you talk about a local television station that is if it allows investigations by a local council It may also allow access to material that could damage it when it comes up for renewal of the license isn't is not really delicate area where the news Council may find it rather difficult that's where we're hung by a regulatory body started that moment. Well the national news Council rule on that is that no material that it develops can be used in and FCC hearing of course that they have to get agreement from the people who are filing the complaint that it won't be used. And I suppose local

councils could do the same thing but maybe they shouldn't. Maybe that should be all grist for the mill. You know you don't really need the cooperation of the station and there are some stations that will never give you cooperation because they don't want anybody looking over their shoulder and they don't want anybody telling them for instance that they should be doing more news and public affairs or that they should be giving local community groups access to their air they're going to fight that tooth and nail. But I think that's part of the democratic process to have community groups and I include press councils as part of the community groups impinging on the freedoms in that way of television stations to do just any damn thing they want to without concern for the public. Apropos of that John in the NBC case that I was referring to on American Samoa the council among other conclusions. I'm quoting directly no. While great latitude must be accorded to television producers in the case of any given documentary that is not to say that there is not or ought not to be a limit to the degree of distortion of misrepresentation that a producer can indulge in. We believe that the NBC documentary on Samoa clearly

exceeds that limit on NBC can fight back but at least there's somebody some group that said this and we can work from there. I think the moral suasion of the Council on all television producers in the future who read about this particular case whether they find it justified or not will be tremendous. Much more than any regulatory body could provide. It's to burn off but there is there is that other force that other pressing commercial forces jazz it up. Make it good show business you know harden up your story. I know that people like myself who worked in that commercial area I think are we're those pressures on you. You can be the most noble high minded producer or reporter on the scene and the pressure on you is well you know drop that phrase because that's going outside. INTRO TO THE had exactly no intro and very often those on the other hands and the things that are you know we all know that truth is not just black and white it has sort of shades of gray. But if the pressures and elevation are actually to make it we may also be all right. We

were all right into the firey place on commercials and good tight taunt entertaining commercials. But if we're going to succeed as a democracy there has to be some tempering of this enthusiasm for show business. You know any new development of more enthusiasm for interesting news you know I was content that you can make news and public affairs programming interesting and even exciting if you producing very well but still stick to the truth you know. But that's never been tested in commercial television up to any great extent and that bothers me greatly. One thing I wanted to point out that the national news Council says very specifically and it is absolutely necessary to freedom of the press and that is that. They are not critiquing anybody for holding an opinion or developing a point of view in a program or in a news story because that's the absolute right that we are guaranteed under the First Amendment and that must be made clear that so long as you are fair then you can develop your own point of

view and try to interpret the story in any way you see fit. What they're saying is that there should be this element of fairness and if if there isn't the element of fairness then the producer or the reporter or editor should have that pointed out to him or her and that perhaps that will be have a salutary effect as you say on the producer in the future. Well we certainly are far divorced from that now. I think especially with television because the hospital had a lead who comes in as I say brought in by the show doctors who is attractive on television knows nothing about news yet comments nightly on some of the most significant stories before the country. And one wonders whether the weather report is not as important as the war in Angola whether Vietnam is less important than the fact that somebody has something to say about cosmetics or whatnot so I'm We are against censorship but there has to be in my view some organizations like the National Council as an experiment to see

whether we can use some form of suasion where censorship is not good. Carol what do you think. Well I gree with you. I want to do two fruited two two. The fact that it hasn't been tried John you know and it is the thing that disturbs you so much but not in the commercial television field and as we all know most people get their news from television and Lord knows what view they get of the world from from that you know a brief glimpse at a film but I think we shouldn't pass by the opportunity to comment on public I really think that you know I think I think you are right. You and I having both worked there. It it to me it was a sort of like going from the ridiculous to the sublime in the sense that commercial broadcasting where I where I worked for a while. Does this jazz the showbiz thing and the urgent you know make it make it bright make it sparkle. And then you go to public broadcasting with that enormous potential and we seem to feel that we had the right to bore which is the other extreme nobody would have watched a

boy or any kid now somewhere in between there between that responsibility and the commercial responsibility. Is there some hope in using public broadcasting. Well let's hope that public broadcasting can become independent of government pressure on them to conform I think. Look at the BBC there was an independent authority was set up there and over the years it it developed in the public a sense that they wanted to see news and public affairs they want to see good documentaries you get audiences for documentaries in Britain a percent of the total share that you'd never get here because the whole tradition has been towards show business here. And I think you can make very fascinating documentaries or very fascinating public affairs program and certainly news programs. And I think that I hope that in public television is going to be the medium the yardstick towards that in the future. But I think that there has to be not under the pressure from Congress to conform or under the oppression of the Nixon administration to give only pap to the public and I don't that hasn't been solved yet how do we get an independent public

television probably by contributions to the station from the public which keeps it independent of the government. Maybe that's the long haul but I don't know how you do it nationally you have to have some independent funding sources. Way to be fair I think that the latest statistics I've been impressed with show that if there is any championship in the boring contest that the commercial networks are losing out daily and they don't know what to do they had the most disastrous season they've ever had with programs being cancelled and they don't know why. I think they're boring the public to death. I think people are going back to books which I may may that continue. John I want to thank you very much and economy Lewis and myself going to driven are very pleased that we could have John Whitman the dean of the school of public communication with us today to talk about the national news Council's Thank you. Deviate radio in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and people an

examination of the media and civil liberties in the 1970s. This program was recorded in the studios of WGBH Boston. The preceding program was made possible in part by a grant from the courier corporation of Lowell Massachusetts.