Public Television Hearings

The expressed hope that it might still be on zoo grounds from New York. A 23 story in midtown No no no broadcasting station has to accept any one of these programs unless it desires to show how we're going to force them you see the situation here is going to be a little different than your affiliates. You know clearly it's tie in with you they enter into a contract and they've got to look to you to in large measure they can refuse to take a program. Yes you're making my job sound a lot easier than it is. I know I know I know but I know but. The network is a real deals out the Qods. My local station doesn't have to play the hand but it deals out the cards in and if you're not the dealer then the game is all over anyway. But the fact remains that when you come here to educational television and you get hit educational television each station is independent. And now you're saying to me that chances are the answer to this is a matching of grants. Now would you be a little more

explicit. What do you have in mind and the matching of funds as I understand the one of the functions of the corporation would be a grant making activity and that the car to the local station to the local station or to a programming producing group that would take it to a station and what they have to charge to station then. I don't know the answer to that but I run reading the corporation I think I would have some quid pro quo because I don't know how I would keep my own I think that one of the basic problems here is that the local station broadcasting station itself doesn't have the money for operational reasons. But where would it get this money to match. Let's suppose well. Let's take the case in New York City which I think has an operating budget at the present time of approximately two and a half million dollars. Now I suppose that that that particular station came to the corporation and once it's all set up and operating and said we want to do a certain kind of program in New York City that will that we want to put

on seven nights a week and it will take let's say a half hour each night seven nights. This is beyond our present budget. We need funding for that particular program and the federal strike that please I really slipped on that. The corporation would you know if you'd just kept diving we would've noticed that I'm a corporation then in its wisdom might say to the station. We'll give you half of the fund you need if you can raise the other part yourself. Now I think that this is the kind of matching I'm talking about maybe it's one to three maybe it's one to one maybe it's one to two but I would like to think that the people in New York City or the people in Fort Wayne Indiana or you name the community had enough interest in the in going to the grant making corporation to put some funds in itself to help get this thing going. Now sure they don't have enough money

today that's that's true they couldn't take over the whole operation. But when this thing begins to roll and you get the show on the road I think you'll find an interest in helping to support this from corporations from individuals and from local foundation. Now do you see anything in the law that precludes that. Not at all not at all. In fact I wouldn't I don't think I'd want to see it on the wall I would like to have that he made at the discretion. That's right. Depending upon the program the second stances and now CBS has made an offer of a million dollars to this public corporation is that correct. That is correct. The office to expand it does. I think I now say it loud enough and does it still stand because you would. Muslims feel that you will have that the committee will have the text of what we said at the time the

Carnegie Commission report was published. On the 25th of January I sent a wire to the chairman of the commission James R. Killed in Jr. in which I said the report of the Carnegie Commission on educational television provided to the American people a balanced. Realistic and practical approach to a more adequate noncommercial television service. The report's reason that safeguards give assurance that educational television. Will be pluralistic in the sources of its support and of its programming and in its administrative control. As further evidence of CBS's longstanding interest with the support of noncommercial television. And to help launch the 25 million dollar and neighboring Endowment for the proposed Corporation for Public Television. CBS pledges an unrestricted gift. Of 1 million dollars payable the day the new corporation is chartered. Brand confirming letter to follow. Mr Paley joins me in sending congratulations to you and your distinguished colleagues who have worked so

long and effectively on this problem of vital interest to all of us. Signed by Frank Stan. The day I got the report from. Jim Killian and leader Britt. They came in to see me and I believe it was the night before or perhaps two days before they had their press conference and they made this same kind of a visit to all of the interested groups. I'm sure they came down and saw you before they had the. Announcement. I took the report home with me and I sat up and read it. And I was thrilled by what I read because I thought that they really had come to grips with this problem. And I kept saying to myself you know what can I say about it. It's good but. That's that's really empty there's only one thing to say and that's to say. You know put your money where your mouth is. So the next day we met inside my own corporation and decided that we would authorize this kind of a gift. The offer still stands. Thank you very much.

OK I think we ought to let the witness go on that note. Yes but just one quick. It is it is clear that you do not. Advocate that in this matter of matching funds by local stations that it be mandatory it's up to the will be up to the corporation to decide whether they require matching funds or not. Certainly because I can conceive and so often you are starting stations that may not have plowed the ground at all and have no support and can't raise any fines. And in order to prime the pump 100 percent of the fund me that's why I think they should have discretionary power. You talk about New York but I know of some small stations not not my state Incidentally I went out. Mega space in another state in the last city and they come around one meeting. To talk on the educational television station and I said well I'm going to talk about in whereupon they said well we don't care we don't know you we never have you before but you're visiting senator and we'll hide up we'll take anybody. Say many of the stations are just reaching for any kind of a program and they couldn't

afford to pay for it. And so it would be entirely optional discretionary in Oregon it should be that one. Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you back to stand Intel is a pleasure to have you. I next witness is the president of the National Broadcasting Company Mr. Julian Goodman. Mr. GOODMAN It's a pleasure and an honor to have you here. You may proceed in any way you. Desire. Thank you Senator. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to outline bases views on the level 60. And the CNRT process.

Some purposes of the bill which effectively carry forward the objectives outlined in the president's message on health and education. We believe that ass 11:16 like the president's message outlines a wise and constructive course for the development of noncommercial broadcasting. In summarizing NBC News I will try to deal with the principal rather than with the mechanics. They details will not on the major venture cannot be accurately blueprinted I think in advance but the principles are right. The best ways of implementing them will grow with experience. We believe this is the approach of the president's message. And the bill. The main divisions of last 11 60 are contained in Title 2. But before discussing these Let me comment very briefly on the other provisions which are also important to noncommercial broadcasting. Title 1 extends and enlarges the provision of the educational television facilities Act of 1962. This was the pioneer legislation that

has stimulated the striking physical expansion. Of educational television. The federal fund provided. Help in the construction of many new educational stations and enabled existing stations to improve their facilities. Title 1 extends these grants to educational radio as well as television and provides 10 and a half million dollars for these purposes in fiscal 1968. And effective system of noncommercial broadcasting must begin with an adequate number of properly equipped stations title one of the bell contributes to these purposes and NBC supports. Skipping over the title 3 that section authorizes a comprehensive study of instructional television. This highly specialized medium involves novel problems. Educators need to create methods for making teaching by television most more effective most effective and to learn how television teaching can best be integrated into the overall school system. They also need to know more about efficiency and about the cost of a broadcast teaching

facility compared with close seconds. They need to know more about information storage and retrieval systems and the many new varieties of teaching machines we favor Title 3 because it provides a means for identifying and exploring such basic technical problems which must be met with instructional television has to begin its growth. However since many of the same considerations apply to instructional radio we suggest the section be broadened to include radio like Title 1 of the bill. This brings me to Title 2 which outlines a new structure for noncommercial broadcasting to the general public. The concept of the system is set forth in the Bell expressing the congressional declaration of policy set forth in section 3 96 say NBC supports this declaration a policy without reservation. We agree as the section declares that it is of the public interest and the public interest to encourage the full development of noncommercial broadcasting. That this requires initiatives at both the local and the national levels that the

field affects the general welfare and is a concern of the federal government and that the creation of a private nonprofit corporation is a suitable way of pursuing these purposes including the essential one of insulating noncommercial programming from extraneous interference and controlled as a last consideration is underscored in the president's message which states noncommercial television the radio in America even those supported by federal funds must be absolutely free from any federal government interference over programming. We agree with this statement and its central importance in the subject you are considering. And then leave this entire section of the bill like title one covers the important medium of noncommercial radio as well as television. However the organization of established is called The Corporation for Public Television. This is not only incomplete but inconsistent I think with the heading of Title 2 which refers to a nonprofit educational Broadcasting Corporation and perhaps the name of the corporation could be changed to reflect its scope more accurately.

As the general approach to the general poach approach in Sonnet 11 60 it seems to us that three main issues have emerged from your hearings. 1. What are the standards for noncommercial programming too. How can noncommercial programming be insulated from government influence while supported by government funds. And 3 should the private nonprofit corporation have any operating responsibility or powers of decision or programming and distribution. I feel that merely serve as a conduit of funds to others. We believe that these issues may have been drawn more sharply than the situation warrants and they anticipate problems that may never arise. We must remember that sun at 11:16 does not seek to establish final and permanent patents for noncommercial broadcasting but represents a necessary first step. Toward the evolution of a system. That system I think will take clearer shape as experience is gained and some of the issues that now seem troublesome will evaporate.

The program standards in s 11 60 are necessarily very broad diversity and high quality are the key factors mentioned. However by its very nature programming cannot be covered by specifications because it's the product of creative effort. Nor could the bill define the exact audience levels or entries in which the programs should aim. Without unduly confining. Perhaps this is why the Carnegie Commission report uses a convenient device of defining the programming by giving it a label. Public television. We can quarrel with the accuracy of that term for a specialized service but we can accept the Carnegie Commission's general description of noncommercial broadcasting as a service covering all that is of human interest and importance which is not at the moment appropriate or available for support by advertising and which is not arranged for formal instruction. In other words noncommercial broadcasting as described by differentiating it from the commercial medium in terms of financial support rather than programme content. So far as program

content is concerned we recognize that there will be some areas of overlap between commercial and noncommercial broadcast. For example the NBC television network schedule some programs that might also be appropriate for noncommercial television illustrations or such programs as the NBC News three and a half hour program analyzing the development of American foreign policy. Another one that long covering organized crime the Profiles in Courage series the investigation which we put on recently a documentary and drama 90 minutes long on the Auschwitz trial franker trial and the NBC experiment in television a series we have broadcast this season which NBC will continue next. The difference as I see it is that programs of this type might someday be topical for noncommercial television. But our special offerings and commercial broadcast. This does not suggest a fault in the commercial medium or a property in its standards. Its function is different from noncommercial broadcasting. But no less honorable. As a mass medium and devotes most of its time to programs that

appeal to most people as a result it cannot wholly satisfy the more specialized interests of smaller audience segments that is the wrong noncommercial broadcasting which can perform this function because it is not an authentic Goodman but I'd like to ask you the question anyway. Because today. Commercial broadcasting is charged with a public responsibility. That is one of the predicates one of the requirements in in the FCC granting a license. Now if you you do bring out the fact that there are certain programs that are now being put through the media of advertising as public service programs like carry a Profiles in Courage investigation and. Other such programs. How do you see this. As an escape on the part of the commercial broadcasters. In carrying out their responsibility to live their lives to this bill. Well I know

the development of this whole idea of educational television. Now so I do not see it in any way as any attempt on the part of commercial broadcasters to avoid any responsibility which we have in which we feel strongly. I think that our development programmes such as I have mentioned here and others will continue and will not abate at all even with the growth of educational noncommercial you see it is possibly a shopping the element of competition between the commercial and the noncommercial. I do see that the creation of noncommercial broadcasting the growth of educational television will sharpen the creative competition between us both and improve both. In other words I think that we ought to make this abundantly clear in the record because I know that some people may be thinking about this on they be suspicious that. There has been a very very strong and phatic indorsement of this legislation on the part of commercial broadcasting. And we want to make the record clear. That the motive behind this is not

to escape any responsibility that you now have under the law. Is that correct. That is correct and I hope and hope the record will continue to show that Senator as far as I'm concerned as far as my colleagues on the other networks are concerned and as far as all responsible broadcasters I know which includes just about all of them. I say no avoidance of responsibility through our encouragement educational or noncommercial broadcast. Thank you. Well the role that I have been talking about is one I think it's more important than would be suggested by the size of the audience as noncommercial programs may attract. In a speech last night before the International Radio and Television Society Robert W. Sarnoff the president of RCA addressed himself to this point with these remarks. SIMON I've said although noncommercial television may attract only a small fraction of the audience its value cannot be judged in these terms alone. It should be judged by the same yardstick supplied for example to specialize they are magazines and books of limited appeal.

In other words it should be measured by the vitality of its service to minority interests. For these are the interest which often constitute the vanguard of experimentation and achievement in the sciences arts and humanities humanities. The results of such efforts often find their way to the majority of the people helping to enrich and elevate the quality of life. I would like to offer a copy of the speech for the record because I believe it deals with a number of points related to your inquiry. How long is it. Do you mind if we incorporated by reference by reference would be finds out. Without objection so ordered. The essential difference then between commercial and noncommercial broadcasting. Is that the latter's basic service aims at cultural and information programmes that may attract only small audiences while commercial broadcasting devotes a minority of its time

to these minority tastes. This is a difference of degree and how wide that difference should be is a sensitive question that will have to be tested by experience. If noncommercial broadcasting largely duplicated the programming of the commercial medium there would be no justification for supporting it with public funds. Why would public funds be justified if it became so highly specialized that it catered only to the most esoteric tastes. The proper area for noncommercial programming lies somewhere between these boundaries. But it is not a precise field that can be surveyed and staked out in advance. And some part of it overlaps with commercial broadcasting. We welcome the prospect of competition. As I've said between noncommercial and commercial broadcasting in the area where they overlap. Each medium can learn from the other. Just as commercial broadcasting creates an audience in being on which the noncommercial service can draw some educational broadcasting can serve as a program laboratory for all of broadcasting. In any event we do not look to the development of noncommercial broadcasting Senator just to

repeat this for the record as reducing our responsibility for cultural and informational programming. Our efforts to lead our audience and to pursue innovation. We do not regard these as burdens but as vital aspects of our service. Enable us to reach our audience segments important to a well-rounded program structure to keep a direct program channel open to the changing tastes of a changing society and offer advertisers access to viewers attracted by this kind of programming. The growth of the noncommercial medium may make these efforts more successful. In summary we suggest that although no detailed program definitions are specified in the bill this is not a shortcoming. The role of noncommercial broadcasting as a service complimentary to the commercial medium is well understood. Opportunity experience and public reaction will tend to give substance to the standards as it develops. The next issue involves an assumed conflict between two objectives of shielding noncommercial programming from government influence while recognizing congressional responsibility for

federal expenditures. We also stressed the central importance of freedom of all programming from government influence that we believe the particular concerns expressed in this hearing tend to exaggerate the situation and are premature. Any public medium that deals in the controversies of public affairs. Is likely to attract sharp reactions from organized groups from individual viewers and from public officials. This has been the experience of what I was in commercial broadcasting and it will undoubtedly apply. To noncommercial broadcasting which all agree must rely to a substantial degree on financial support from the government. However we question whether this situation would be altered by the form of government support they take. Whether from general tax revenues from dedicated taxes or federal action providing direct or indirect bounties. We also doubt that it would be changed by channelling government support to one part of the operation rather than another. Since facilities operations in programming are closely related. We believe that the pressures tend Obstat each other

because every controversy has opposing advocates and we believe that a competent organization can withstand improper pressures in any event. It would be fruitless to try to isolate a broadcast operation from all reaction. Now could it thrive in such an antiseptic atmosphere. However we believe the bill provides reasonable protections against government action that would seek to shape noncommercial programming. One is the congressional declaration of policy itself. Another is a concept of a private nonprofit corporation which can serve as a buffer against attempts to influence programming. Additional buffers are created by having program development and production carried on by a variety of independent programme contractors commissioned by the corporation. And perhaps as important as all these institutional safeguards is the force of public opinion which does not tolerate government influence on the content of a medium of expression. After all Congress has been providing funds for educational television facility since 1963

and this has resulted neither an abdication of responsibility in our government control of programming. Similarly we believe that asked 11 60 in protecting programming from government influence. Does not abandon proper and directional responsibility. The first exercise of congressional responsibility in this area will be its decision on whether or not to pass the present bill. And we hope that decision will be affirmative. A year from now. The Congress will have additional proposals before it and again it will have the responsibility for judging whether to continue the present provisions. Whether to modify the structure or to expand or limit it. And each year there will be an opportunity for the exercise of federal responsibility based on an overall congressional evaluation of the development of noncommercial broadcasting. That evaluation will take public reaction into account. As it should in this area and in all projects of public concern. With regard to the financing for fiscal 1968. S11 60 authorizes 10

and a half million dollars for physical facilities and 9 million for the corporation both from general tax revenues. In his message the president states next year after careful review I will make further proposals for the corporation's long term financing. Under this approach starting funds provided from general tax revenues to get the operation underway and the structure of future financing has left the judgment to be based on experience and on study. NBC believes this is a sensible procedure. However we urge that the guiding principles for the decisions to be made in the future should aim at adequate adequacy and stability of funds. And for financing on the broadest nondiscriminatory base. Another aspect of financial support relates to interconnection rights. On this subject as 11:16 would permit interconnection service to be furnished to noncommercial broadcasting on a free or reduced rate basis subject to FCC regulations NBC does not oppose the principle of preferential

treatment and believe the direct approach is preferable to the more complex one proposed by the Ford Foundation. We think the latter also raises serious policy problems. The intermixing satellite development the financing of noncommercial broadcasting S11 60 appeared to support our view on this point. However no sound decision can be made on the form are on the extent of preferential treatment until a great deal more is known about how interconnections will be used by noncommercial broadcasting. For example the Ford Foundation concept of simultaneous national networking and the Carnegie concept program distribution involve different connection of primes. These differences are significant. Because preferential rates for any class of users could be an economic burden on the whole communication system. Accordingly all concerned should know what is involved before the action is taken. NBC is years on the subject as relates to satellite communications are detailed in the April

3rd comments file an FCC is domestic satellite proceedings. I believe these comments may be helpful in the subcommittees consideration of the matter and offer a copy for the record Senator but I certainly don't insist on it if you. Will as incorporated by reference. Thank you. It's quite a lot of NSN. The third broad issue raised by s 11 60 concerns the operating authority of the proposed Corporation for Public Television. Several previous witnesses have assumed that the bell intends the corporation to function only as a grant making organization and not as an operating institution. Others have argued that the corporation is intended to have specified operating responsibility. Responsibilities and decision making powers. However I'll agree the diversity of program material. Programme sources and programme decisions. Diversity in all of these is particularly essential in noncommercial broadcasting because of its special role. The difference is on this issue really turn on a question of degree. Whether operating responsibility should be entirely

dispersed or whether some centralized decision is advisable. There also seems to be some confusion over what is meant by operating responsibility sets different witnesses have used this term in different senses. So let us see what Bill says. Es 11 60 provides that the corporation may not own or operate any television or radio broadcast stations system our networks our network or any connection our programme production facility. Accordingly it is perfectly clear that cooperation does not have operating functions in the sense of directly operating stations as a broadcaster are directly operating in a connection facilities as a common carrier or directly producing programmes. However the bill makes it equally clear that the cooperation is specifically authorized to make contracts for program production. And otherwise to procure programs that is specifically authorized to promote noncommercial broadcasting. And it is specifically authorized to arrange for interconnection facilities. The question has been raised as to the mechanics and a connection because the bell and sub

paragraph of section 3 96 G and two states the corporation has the power to make interconnection arrangements with quote. Appropriate Public or nonprofit private agencies but does not mention carriers. We do not know whether this was intended to limit cooperations method of making interconnection arrangements that we agree with Dr. Kelly and it ought to be able to deal with carriers and carrying on this function. The Carnegie Commission report proposed that the cooperation obtained programs by financing program development. And financing production on the part of major national production centers individual producers and individual stations. These programmes would be distributed the noncommercial stations. Except that the cooperation could also help finance local productions for local only broadcast. However each station would decide which programmes it wants to accept and when to broadcast those except this last point I think is very important. A lot of cooperation would have some power of initiative. It will have to satisfy the stations with the programmes it develops and distributes.

It seems to last that bell is consistent with this concept. Not in its declared purposes and in its specific provisions. Concept combines a wide diversity of programs sources and program stations with increased opportunities for local as well as national program production. It provides for national and regional distribution of the programs but it assures local autonomy in program selection and scheduling. However if the questions on the subject raise real doubt as to the intent of the bell the subcommittee's report can clarify the matter. In summary let me say that NBC favors the approach of S11 60. We believe that the differences of view expressed in this hearing relate to matters of degree in detail. They do not invalidate the bill and they can the result be resolved through experience. The bill establishes the principles on which the system of noncommercial broadcasting can flourish. It covers those steps that must be taken initially for this purpose and it wisely allows for time and for study to develop the approaches that will meet the

future requirements of growth. Thank you Senator. Thank you for excellent statement Mr. Goodman. Let me ask you going back to page 13 at the time S11 60 provides that the corporation may not own or operate any television or radio broadcast stations system on network or interconnection or programme production facilities. Will you give us your definition of a network. A network. That. Simply is an interconnected group of stations centered a commercial network such as ours interconnects a group of stations. For commercial purposes with advertising. Run a network. As such simply as a group of stations banded together and are connected by some method of transmission of program material. Well now the reason why I ask you the question. If we gave the

corporation the authority to contract directly with the carrier which of course you do as well you. Would not make it a network. That's reason why I should the question I mean I am wondering if we correct e whether or not we ought to come back and get a clarification on this other section that we've just referred to. I mean I think it was the anxiety of the architects of this bill. You say to preserve. This idea that it should not become a network and possibly they were. Now I don't know for sure that's a reason why we're going to hold a conference on it. Right. But I'm afraid that if we follow. Dr. Killian. Suggestion which you endorse Yes whether or not we are opening the door of making this a network. And I think that has to be clarified don't you think. Well what is the danger in making it a network senator.

What I kind of thought that when you said on network that you were actually given that your approbation you don't want this I think call it ration to become a network or don't you care whether it does or it doesn't. Don't answer the question if it's too fast now. I want to give it some thought like I have some thoughts. I mean let us know how you feel about karma I don't want a quick answer on that. Because I think it involves a lot of complex question. I think it involves the definition of what a network is and trying to do is complicated. That's right. Because I understand NBC CBS and ABC you you do contract with AT&T yesterday and now we're saying here that this corporation ought to be allowed to contract directly with AT&T if it wants to. That's correct Well now in that. In that context what I'm asking is doesn't this make it a network. Or the possibility of at least one on a threshold of in a network and I think that has to be resolved. I think it but I think we're going to get in

this in quite some depth and we hope to too. I no doubt. Any Is Senator. Norm. Good money on page 9 of your statement. I do not want to give. You your lane pressure. I'm speaking of the insulation problem the prices can't go off because every controversy has added. But does say to me that. Even if that be accepted the opposing advocates are not necessarily of equal weight. We've discussed. Committee chairman. I discussed executive you know I was talking Mr. Chairman. And. I don't. I can't find myself in agreement that the mere fact of

controversy as opposing AG. Is a protection. If one of the advocates call up. Somebody and say I come you did this to me and the other doesn't know anything about it. Even if the other doesn't know something about it the opposing advocate may have a very small weak and piping voice. But one person. Very large voice behind. What you're comment on that. Well I'm basing my position Senator on the competence of the organization that will be chosen to run this. And on the fact that they will be able to weigh these opposing voices and that their own standards of. Fairness and objectivity which we have in commercial broadcasting will be carried out in noncommercial broadcasting and that they will be able to forestall and weigh in their own minds these opposing pressures. And and as long as they are fair and objective in their own coverage and as long as the board that is responsible for this

organization is convinced of the fairness and objectivity and that this will be. The sufficient insulation. Well is there any real opportunity for example the way this so-called public service broadcaster. Statement is made. This program is presented to you. In the public interest. But it weighs that. Logic has no voice to matter. Also the responsible broadcaster ways that in our case we do in the case of this corporation that this bill seeks to create its officers would. Trade in the same paragraph you say and any it had it would be fruitless to try to isolate a broadcast operation from all reaction. Nor could it thrive in such an add septic atmosphere. Let me try go he has not isolate you from all reaction. But isolate you from the precious governmental reaction.

Which might make the atmosphere as I'm anti-septic most of your commercials think it is. In other words God people and his I gathered everybody smells as I watch the television although I don't find that uncommon but what's wrong with isolating broadcast operations. From governmental reaction. While there is a. Certain value to be gained from my own being in contact with people such as yourselves and all members of government even if they are protesting sometimes the voice of protestors It is an adequate expression of what is going on in the country and we we welcome it ourselves and we weigh it in our business. And pride are on your share perhaps as important as all these institutional safeguards is the force of public opinion. What do you want to qualify that to add if adequately informed.

Yes or I would be a suitable qualification. And how can public opinion be adequately informed if. A powerful government official calls a. Public television agency and says. If you keep running that particular series you're going to have trouble with the appropriations. The public doesn't know about the phone call. Well again Senator I go back to the quality of the men who are going to run this corporation and I have confidence that the men who are selected to do that will be wise enough to handle those calls properly. That's the demagoguery that Mr. Goodman has it. Mr. Thomas Jefferson Some like. Whether we have a government of laws or government of men. I don't trust anybody. And I think that's the way we ought to legislate on the basis of no man can be trusted. No government. Can be trusted. Man and governed. By the public interest just concerned must be

so. So. Guided and guarded by adequate safeguards. The public itself isn't a victim of over confidence. In government this is what concerns me now Mr I don't generally sign off very fine address makes this statement. And he says let me repeat what shares the cultural interests of the minority. Tend ultimately to share the majority and we can agree with that statement I'm sure now. If that is the case why isn't television today implying that principle. That one of our cultural interests of an arc intends ultimately to serve the majority will to want to lie about why it is that you are as the rest of your statement in general stunna statement points is to the majority although you are. Good enough to say in one of the statements that you would adopt a form of

proportional representation that is if the cultural people get a little bits and pieces out of it every now and then if they can watch it long enough. What what's wrong with applying general Sarnoff dictum to the. Operation of commercial rocket. Wow a senator I guess this is a place where I must respectfully disagree with you I see no inconsistency in accepting the speech in the quotation from Robert Sarnoff there and the concept that we have an NBC we do serve an audience of a great number of millions of people and we do to serve the brown interest but we also serve the special interest and we and we don't feel it is just in bits and pieces. We have about 25 percent of our television schedule is devoted to news and informational programming. We programmed about twelve hundred hours last year. This type of programming we have on tonight at 7:30 an original play at Hallmark Hall of Fame which out you

will watch one of the few that I am still able to watch. We have an experiment in television which I've been very pleased with this year and. We are I think doing. I think we are doing a good job in this field. We do not do it entirely. We don't devote all of our schedules to this type of programming because we do serve all of the country and some brown country of divergent interests and that's why we are suggesting that there is a way a public wish for a type of specialized service that this bill hopes to get started in the form of noncommercial broadcast. Can you recall the last time a television program appeared satirizing public officials federal officials. I guess that would have been on our program. That Was The Week That Was. The last time we didn't laugh at it. No sir but that was because we don't think we did it very well. DR.

Stanton testified that Santa is a deficiency in our skill Bank I think. He may have something that's very difficult to do it's been very difficult for writers to do successfully over the years not very much good sign I written these days. We tried it the other day. We tried it not been satirizing of public officials but in satirizing ourselves we did a program a one hour program on our experiment in television in which we satirize television itself that came out a little better than the ones in which we satirize from the. People on that was really it was worse said you're less opinionated and at times unpleasant not nearly always disagreed with them but it was an immensely entertaining program right now but. I think it's a pity that there are more of us. We hope it won't be the last of its type and we were sorry to see it go that. Way. You have but you have indicated that the right side of your program is our information or the

public. Beneficial to the public that is from the commentary rather than any pain. I realize I realize that experience in this committee that I have CC and that there are rules about equal time and all that sort of thing but how I want it and quietness maybe. Indicate my own ignorance of the situation. Is it entirely up to the network to NBC CBS ABC to determine for themselves what proportion of their time shall be information on public information what entertainment does the FCC or anyone else have anything to do with laying down rules about the proportion of the FCC does not have any anything to do with that WI.

We set our own standards and there is no magic in the 25 percent. We as owners of broadcast licenses and various stations we we serve in the public interest and we are required by the FCC to serve the public interest. And to that extent we do and and report the statistics but as a network we decide our own. Ratios and as I say this is just a compilation that we have have seen at the end of the year is the amount we have done in the past year and it's there's no magic to that and you are now in the case of the of the educational television. No. One could foresee. And I think I have observed examples of it in isolated instances in local space. It's getting into the point of all being classical and. Highbrow for body expression that only a small group of people can who are trained to enjoy opera and trained to

enjoy very profound fantasizes an allegorical. Grammar and so on one would appreciate it might. Develop into a situation on one hand. Of appealing to a very small segment of the people because it is so high standard right. On the other hand. It could go the other way of course and get into the field of too much of popular or popular entertainment. All that's not as likely now. Would you feel that this operation. It has now would have no direct authority about programming. Should have in view of the fact that this assuming that this is an activity. At least partially supported by public funds should

have some authority about indicating to educational television. What is entirely left to go racial TV's own judgement. As to the proportion of their programmes that will be completely purely informative and the proportion of their. Programmes. That might have some element of public entertainment. Nasr I think it would be wrong to set the standards in advance I think it would be better to permit this cooperation to develop the skills and the ideas as they as they see themselves as that as the. Program as a cooperation develops rather than setting a standard of percentages in advance. Well you say in advance but would you does that suggest that. At. That age they might have. Have some authority conferred upon them. If educational television appeared. To be

not. Perhaps not failing but not. Approaching its fullest. Spirit of usefulness ridging always number of people that they might. Have to the educational television going too far in one direction have some power of restraint. I should think this would be the proper area of responsibility for the governing members of the board. Who. Cares what I'm talking as a corporation. Oh yes I think they certainly should set policies. But you know it is. A very valuable thing to to try something to experiment with something to see whether it works or not and sometimes just the act of putting a program on help to develop another type programs like that in the program we did on the investigation was. A program you would not think would be watched by a large number of people. But it was and the fact that we put it on

creates. A willingness to. To look at that type program and book programming that's all to the good. Well as a practical matter dealing with this committee's problem of of. Reporting a bill is a just suggestion. And say that might you believe that education television should have the fullest thought id to experiment and to and to develop itself. Should we carefully withhold from this cooperation. Any supervision as to general policy. And with a view of later writing it into the legislation if we thought it became necessary. Or would you. In the initial act give them some authority to review general policy. Senator I believe that the bill as it is right now adequately vest that responsibility

in the governing members. Well. The other interpretation of do as written now gives to operation just what those who are already. In control like that would. But in establishing a policy of the type of production of educational television station. While I don't have the exact section in front of me but it appoints a board and a chairman will be elected and a vice chairman be elected and then proper officers will be named. I see the evolution of this cooperation as becoming something allying something along the structure of a modern networks are our stations now in an organizational sense. In the actual work the actual selection of. Producers directors subjects the actual letting out of contracts will be done by professional people. And they report to the board of directors. Just as I report to a board of directors and I think

the competence of the people chosen will will sap Tess and that's why I think there are sufficient safeguards in the bill to permit the supervision which you wish. So there is a provision in the bill out of extent that I'm suggesting. I would say I wisht it but I was. Inquiring from you. I'm far from a legislative expert but I think I think you're nuts. Now. Just one more question on page 11 of your statement. You say that you're the guiding principle for the decision to be made in the future should aim it added to see instability of fun and then I'm interested in the rest that sentence and for financing on the broadest nondiscriminatory base. What do you mean exactly by and for financing on the broadest nondiscriminatory base. You mean. Get some of their funds from foundations some

from. Their own operations some from public subscription and some from the government. What do you mean by the broadest. Base nondiscriminatory base. LOTT I would define it. As one that goes across the whole country and reaches all of the people. In a method does not single out one particular aspect I said I'm not a legislative expert neither am I a tax expert. I think the president has wisely allowed another year for study in the method of financing. But in the course of the study I think certain questions will have to be raised about whether for instance an excise tax would be discriminatory about whether it would be passed on to the consumer or whether in the competitive atmosphere today it might be absorbed by the manufacturers. And I think there would also have to be other questions raised in the course of the study or even

know the president and I think very wisely. Grants are suggest granting some time to take care of the financing and do face of problems. We all know that the next one of this act that the financing is coming along soon just as sure as night follows day. What would you say as to the relative merits of an excise tax on Sat. Television sets or direct appropriations by the Congress. Senator I would prefer not to take a position on that until we have a chance to study it more I think it is a complicated question and that many things will have to be studied and I just. Don't. Think I can stand and stand. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Goodman. We are now at the hour of twelve. And my list of witnesses reads

as follows as Dori Sheri. Leonard Golden's and. Then Cynthia was a little ski. Commissioner Robert Lee. And Edward Pease. I will have to come back this afternoon. My problem is whether we should recess now until 2 o'clock unless it is someone. Whose name I've called out to have some of the agency this afternoon can't come back. All right. All right Mr. Sherry Then why don't you. Write to. A witness coming forward now as Mr. Shorrosh Area Council Member of the dramatists guild incorporated to follow your study you rightly will be the last witness before the lunch and recess. You're next on the list anyway.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Dorothy Sherry and I reside in New York City. I am a dramatist and screenwriter and I appear before you today on behalf of for organizations. Of American authors who support s 1 1 6 0 0 0 and strongly urge you to knock. These groups out the drama the scale the Writers Guild of America the Authors Guild and the Authors League of America. Permit me to identify these organizations and explain the nature of their interest in the present and future state of television and our nation. The drama scale is a society of all. This is Bill Hileman reporting. The cost of living spirals upward and the cost of new cars follow the United Nations here is an idea for peace in Vietnam and grow make all meets with a rusk in a dinner date at New York. Reports tonight include correspondents filing from London Tokyo Spain and local

reports include campaigning with Ted what the White Citizens Council.