WGBH Journal; Media Ethics

Those of us who are concerned with Access chiefly are concerned with making it possible for community groups minority groups and women to be able to reach the mass public with their ideas and their proposals for the improvement of society. The question is who controls the access to the mass media. And the answer comes down to publishers of newspapers and magazines and the owners and managers of television and radio stations and cable systems access to newspapers becomes a very touchy First Amendment problem. Indeed in the Miami Herald vs. turn yellow case the Supreme Court ruled that a newspaper could not be forced to give a politician equal time to answer an editorial attacking him. The reverse of course is true in broadcasting the communication act of 1034 specifically requires that a station give equal time to a candidate that it has opposed or time for a reply to an editorial that persons or groups opposing the persons or

are groups opposing the station stand. So that we have one law of access for newspapers which is no law and another for broadcasting stations which comes out of the fact that that the airways in theory are owned by the public and the channels or station frequencies are assigned to stations as public trustees. Paradoxically it's been the newspapers that have traditionally given space to opposing views and open their columns to opposing views through letters to the editor and more recently to op ed pages. I don't think that's enough but it is it's better than the closed mind of this most station managers show when it comes to opening up what they consider to be their air to community groups who want to present their points of view and and present them without interference from the station management as you would in as you would be able to present it without interference and in say a letter to the editor. Although ultimately we

we would like to convince station owners and network managers to provide access to minorities and women because it is right it's more likely that we're going to have to rely on the law and on FCC rulings to open up the air to its rightful owners the people the way Everett Parker and the United Church of Christ have used the fairness doctrine and other statutes to give access to minorities and women has been ingenious. One of the methods has been to support local community groups in monitoring the broadcasting of a station that is closed to minorities and then file a petition to deny the station's license that gets their attention. And it was this method that was used in overturning the license of the station. BT TV in Jackson Mississippi which had consciously and consistently discriminated against black concerns and against hiring blacks on its in its programming. But there are other tactics short

of license Chalons have worked as well. And one of the things that Parker's group has done is to have the community itself monitor the station's programming and then go to the station with the obvious threat of a possible license challenge later and point out to them that they haven't been dealing with community issues or they haven't been dealing with one segment of the community and then negotiating with that station to see to it that those concerns are met. And that has succeeded in a number of cases around the country where stations have signed voluntary agreements to pay more attention to their own community problems and the problems of various segments of that community. I have differences with Everett Parker on the fairness doctrine however and we've debated it before I think he presents the best case I've ever heard for it. But I think that some other rules or legislation could be adopted to appease replace it.

And I hope in time that it will. First of all the problem I have with the fairness doctrine is that it's seldom the FCC rarely enforces the part of the rule that says a station must engage in programming concerning controversies confronting the community. There's only been one recent case in West Virginia and the case involving strip mining where station was required to take up that controversy in the community there been the FCC has been far more prone to enforce the requirement that stations or networks provide so-called balance in programming on controversial matters and that gives me a very serious problem because I don't think that any government agency should be able to dictate content of programming on a program by program basis. I think that's a dangerous power to give any any government. Second of all the threat. That the FCC has in its fairness doctors gives the stations a fine excuse to tell reporters and producers that no we shouldn't get into this problem

because what will happen is that we'll run into a Fairness Doctrine problem. We'll have to put up opposing people on the air all that kind of thing and we just don't want that kind of hassle. I've been told that personally in when I've proposed controversial subject to produce on air. And so then you have to fight to get them on air because they don't want to raise the prospect of a Fairness Doctrine challenge. And in that way it is suppression of controversial issues. So in the Fairness Doctrine I think you have a catch 22 issue when it comes to try to require controversy controversy and diversity in programming. I think it'd be far better to require stations to provide daily even in prime time if you could accept that heresy open time for community groups to present information that they believe is in the public interest. That way you eliminate government control of program content and you provide time on the air for material that's not specifically shaped to meet the station's primary concern of making a

buck. Radio station WRVO are in New York. The station I managed before I came to Boston University. We tried some experiments in Access that I thought were pretty interesting. First of all all our news and public affairs programs were open to call ins from the public so that on the the morning one and a half hour news and public affairs program and on the evening hour and a half news and public affairs program on controversial issues that a reporter would present a listener could call in and challenge that reporter on air or give an opposing viewpoint right at the time that that the issue was taken up or the story was presented and the reporter or producer could be challenged on what he had provided. We also hired minorities in excess of their percentage in the listening area and to a large percentage in excess about one third for the for the station. We hired.

Women To the extent that they made up one half of the producers managers and reporters and on air personnel on the station. And that helped shape content both of both those those measures because we did have people who understood the concerns of minorities in the community and who understood the concerns of women who normally don't get into the producing role in in broadcasting. And it it helped us also with a report with the community that we would have had otherwise because these people as reporters and producers could go into the community and get community groups to come out and appear on these news and public affairs mix programs in the morning and evening so that they could talk directly to their publics and also be questioned by the public because they were also open to challenge from from color ends. In the great day in the sky when we have a tremendous diversity through 100 cable television channels through many more radio stations through dropping frequencies in the VHF band then we may be able to say that we

have enough outlets to the public for women minorities community groups in general to reach the public with their messages and become effective in the techniques of production production so that they can reach the public. But I think that time is quite a way off. And such groups are going to have to keep practicing the art of persuasion at least so they can hit away at the curveballs that they're going to be thrown by station managers and owners who want to keep the championship in the field of profits. I sort of feel as if I'm an or as a newspaperman in the wrong pew. I see to me for print journalists this currently fashionable idea of unlimited access class biases is rather ridiculous. You really can't believe that anyone who has spent five minutes thinking about it. Could think otherwise. When you're talking

about print journalism I think you're missing the mark of newspapering in the real world. When you talk about unlimited access to the media I think it probably does make some sense to a radio and TV. But that's There are a couple of areas that I'm not an expert and I'm not about to become one in the first place. I get a little wary of always being accused by radio and TV people that we have a free ride. They have to operate under FCC regulations which is. And I think we got to talk about that from just to lay the groundwork. There's a basic reason why radio and TV must be considered distinct from print journalism. Newspapers are not under the FCC. They're on of the First Amendment. And why

aren't they. Why aren't we under government regulation. Well the answer is that TV and radio are currently paying the price for regulation requiring media access etc because they happen to enjoy the luxury of having that competition limited by law by the government. It's the FCC that limits the number of radio and TV stations in any given area. And I as a journalist having to put my head against more out in Framingham. I'd give anything to have my market place limited by the government. The competition is very fierce. Particularly for metropolitan newspapers we not only have to find out for the for the news and advertising dollar within the city but we more

importantly we're fighting it out with the growing subtle suburban papers the growing regional paper magazines and papers. So I would like to kind of lay to rest this theory that the poor old TV and radio stations are being asked to abide by certain rules such as the ones on a discussion today while we are not. That license that you get from the FCC is is some form of a guaranteed profit and you have to. I think those those two communication systems do after pay the price. Now in this matter of access to the press most successful most successful newspapers fulfill its pretty pretty well I think with notable exceptions by all of us.

We have to. There's nothing shy about our customers. If they feel I'm being shut out they let us know in various forms marches etc.. When it comes to specifics I'm just going to talk very briefly about the paper I know the globe. Here's what we do on this access now and I'm not I'm not standing here smugly and saying it's enough it's terrific because it isn't. But we were on an average of a half a page nearly a half a page of letters to the end of that every day. This is a little lesson I think a little more than the norm and most papers. That's sort of the prime time Forum idea that the John Work line was talking about. He suggested maybe radio and TV could do a world where people are

afraid to call in say their piece we do that every day. In addition we've just begun running our full column called on the other hand which is a vehicle we hope for the particularly well written particularly long reasoned letter that deserves more than the usual 300 words that we try to limit people to in addition to the letters to prominently we run about two full pages every week of letters to two thirds three quarters of a page actually of letters to the out of and we we do those through a. I don't think it doesn't bother me but we do it through kind of a mutual arrangement with

those nasty or old oil companies they are placing a schedule all over the country. They have for some time. They like prime space they are and they usually get at the New York Times gives it to him on the Op-Ed page quite often but we give him a we say OK and I have a page I would like a page of more space for letters will give you a page in front of the editorial page. You run your quarter page on well for letters and the rest on the rest of it seems to me it says that's one of those rare cases where the editorial people and the advertising people both when we solicit 0 on an average of six. Outside opposite of the trial page pieces and a lot of them come in and wait but we have to change it we have to invite him. Also if you have particular if you're interested in a special subject that's not a

debate you don't happen to have a good offering Carrie or write one column we do the thing that everyone else does we print corrections. I'm afraid almost daily I get where I am with them. We run Ask the globe we ask individual groups to come and have lunch with us we go out in the community have lunch with them. Sometimes they come on invited fine we like that. Sometimes people come chained themselves to the door. We don't like that. But there's a hell of a lot of communication with the public. I wish more but there's quite a bit and there's quite a bit of access. I'd like to focus for a few minutes on the question of access in terms of who controls the decision making process what is news and who decides what is newsworthy. If you

remember Ron McLeish said to cover something is a moral choice and not to cover something is a mild choice. I'd like to read you a little quotation. As long as newspapers and magazines are controlled by men every woman upon them must write articles which are reflections of men's ideas. As long as that continues women's ideas and deepest convictions will never get before the public. That was not written by Gloria Steinem. That was not written by Bill absolute that was written by Susan B Anthony in 1900. And as you probably know the situation hasn't changed very much for women in journalism since 1900. If you've ever watched a new show on television this season the Lou Grant Show this tells a lot I think about the newspaper business in many ways there are stories which

may or may not be mythical But there's one thing that's very real on the Lou Grant Show on Tuesday nights at 10 o'clock when the men at this mythical Los Angeles paper get together to decide what is going to be in the next day's paper. And they meet to decide what's going to be on page one what goes what doesn't go you look around the const consultation table and there are only men around the room. And it seems to a great many people. They're the business of the press controlled for the most part by white middle class men does make a difference in what we read that if perhaps there was some influence in a decision making way by women and by minorities than perhaps the media would not be accused of being the quote establishment media. This is an area strangely enough where we are not dealing in feelings

and attitudes and beliefs. We don't have to think or wonder about whether women and minorities are poorly represented It's not something that we that that we can speculate on. There are solid figures to back up the belief there is a fascinating new book out called The news people. And this book was written after interviews with something like thirteen hundred journalists all over the country and one of the things that they found based on the last census figures and U.S. Department of Labor figures is that while the labor force in general the total full time labor force in this country is approximately two to one men two women in journalism the ratio is four to one men to women. And I wouldn't even go into because I think you can you probably know that along with the the personnel differential there is at every age level quite a bit of

salary differential too. Women traditionally have not been denied entry level jobs so that everybody now Chris is having a hard time getting into the newspaper business. But at the entry level nobody is saying that the young girl fresh out of college with brand new ideas is having a rough time shes not having any more of a rough time than the young man is. This is not where the problem lies the problem does not lie an entry level. The problem lies when women want to climb into the ranks of the decision makers when they want to be given a voice in those editorial meetings as to what is going to be covered and what is not going to be covered. If you look around an organization like the AP Emmy The Associated Press managing editors for example which just met last week in New Orleans and I don't know what this year's figures are but I know from consulting last year's membership book out of over 500 members of the

AP Emmy there were eight women. If you go back and look through all the organizations to which both male and female journalists belong you see a great preponderance of men. Sigma Delta Kai the Society of Professional Journalists up until a couple of years ago did not recognize that women too were professional journalists and was a society of only men and debated this for many years and convention until finally I think about six or seven years ago they decided to admit women. The National Press Club up until a few years ago did not admit women. And there are very funny stories in connection with this in fact I will now steal an anecdote from my friend Carol Rivers who likes to tell the story of when she was covering Washington and was assigned to cover a speech by call Rowan at the National Press Club. She was not allowed to sit with the members of the National Press Club on the floor of the club she with the other women was relegated to the balcony

of the National Press Club. And so there she was up there taking notes and call Roland was talking about his background in the south and how he and other blacks had to sit in the balcony of movie theaters and as he was saying this all the reporters I slipped up to the balcony and there was Carole and the other women busily taking notes relegated to the balcony of the National Press Club. That situation has changed women are now allowed to be members of the club. Up until about four years ago I believe the Gridiron Club which is another highly prestigious Washington club did not admit women newsmakers journalists as as members. They finally three years ago admitted their first woman Helen Thomas. Now I'm not mentioning these things because women particularly like to belong to organizations and go to meetings there's more to it than that. What happens is you all know in organizations of people who work together. Is that a buddy system forms a support system forms so that you get a

network which is very rightly called the Old Boy network where when somebody understands that an opening occurs in a newspaper he calls a friend a friend is another man and a man very likely gets the job. And so a whole support system and network forms. And this is a system that for the most part women have been shut out of. Now I think we should all be aware that the situation is changing. It's changing in two ways First of all it's changing through self-help programs. Women have begun to form together to form their own kind of network to run management programs where so that if it's called They'll be ready you know shoes should the mantle fall on them. They've also taken the route of affirmative action lawsuits a lawsuit an affirmative action suit was instituted several years ago at the New York Times which has now become a class action suit. There have been other suits at Newsweek at Time magazine

still in litigation at Reader's Digest. I think the last round up I saw from the Guild said that there were at least 40 papers now involved in some kind of an affirmative action litigation. So I think it's I think it's too bad though that this this route has had to be followed. But for many women it has seemed to be the only route that they could follow to get into positions in the nation's press where they too would be able to help call the shots on what was going to be called and what was going to be covered and what was not going to be covered. I think the situation has got to change. If for no other reason than the fact that we have so many women now in journalism schools we heard Dana Klein say yesterday that now for the first time there are more slightly more women than men as journalism students at SPC. We have slightly more women than men in the graduate journalism program. Columbia University graduate journalism program this year for the

first time has slightly more women than men. Right now 43 percent of the nation's journalism students are women. So it seems to me that the sheer force of all these women at there who are going to be looking for jobs is going to somehow make some changes and and cause some movement in the nation's predominantly white male conservative newsrooms.