People talk back; Radio-TV: In the halls of Congress?, part one

Suppose you were asked the question Should important debates of Congress be broadcast on radio or on TV. What would you say. You might agree with some people in Massachusetts Oklahoma out in Iowa New York and even in Australia as they talk back to a United States senator who opposes such broadcasts. Listen to some of the things they said I don't think we should make a peep show out of our Congress. What do I mean if I ever omit I'd like a time limit about stuff and I like to say that was somebody was doing something they welcome what I just wave waive the right but I only pay the taxes to keep them going. Newspaper men are allowed to take pictures in Congress and to report just as they see whatever's happening. Why can't television and radio people come in with their cameras and microphones and report it with their means the people are confused by large government and anything we can do to make it more understandable to them will help make democracy work better.

So it certainly would if nothing else Keith some of our senators on the ball in and probably a good deal on would have many red faces. As you can hear these people are beginning to express their opinions to talk back to a leading figure in public life now like the rest of us. These are people who have been bombarded in radio print television and film with requests that they believe this or that they reject that. Most of this in such situations of wanted at one time or another to be able to answer the voices and the opinions we hear on radio or on television that people talk back is a new type of radio program which is intended to make that possible. This is how the program works. First an important person in public life a man like a senator or a labor leader or even a member of the United States Cabinet

states his case on some major issue. This is recorded on what is called a tape recorder which can be taken out onto the street into your home your office or into a workplace. There the people hear what the senators had to say and then they in turn Talk Back. They may support him or question him criticize him. That's their affair. After that it's up to the public figure to try to answer the people now that they have talked back to him. So in a sense with this series the radio becomes a kind of two way and not only a one way channel of communication. Well in a nutshell that is the central idea of the people talk back. The National Association of educational broadcasters decided a short while ago that it was

a worthwhile experiment. And that's how this series began. I suppose I should explain who I am and what I do on this program. My name is Robert Merton. I'm a teacher at Columbia University and I have a professional interest in the communications now on this program. It's my job to act is what's called a clarifier. Let me explain what a clarifier is supposed to do. It's not up to him to take sides in the discussion. When the people talk back to decide that one or the other is right no one is wise enough to do that in any case. But it is his job to listen carefully to everything that is being said and then to try to analyze what actually happens in this give and take between a public figure and the people who talk back to him later in this discussion. I'll be

coming back to compare notes with you just to see if we happen to notice some of the same things that have been going on when the people talk back to their leaders. Well so much for the clarifier the general idea and for the series itself. Now let's spend a minute on this particular program which we're about to hear. Senator Wallace F. Bennett the senator from Utah recorded a three minute statement of his views on a major issue of the day namely should important congressional debates actually be broadcast on radio or on TV. We then took this recording and sent it to Oklahoma to Iowa to Massachusetts and to New York where producers of educational radio programs took this recording out into the community and played it to

the people in the community. And suppose we paused for a minute and hear just how Senator Bennett sounded to these people as a result of the committee hearings which were very unusual crime investigations there has been some demand for the broadcasting by radio or television of Congress in session. There are many reasons why this in my opinion is thoroughly impractical in the first place. It would be obviously impossible to broadcast all of the activities of both houses of Congress. Therefore we face the question who's going to decide what will be broadcast. Many people feel that the broadcasting of Congress in action would educate our American voters in the process by which laws are made. Well. There are

from three to five thousand bills introduced in Congress each year. Who's going to decide which bills should be followed through the process of making a law involves committees subcommittees and conferences as well as debate on the floor of the houses of Congress. This process drags out for weeks or months and under the rules may come up unexpectedly more or less at any time. Who is going to clear the radio and TV channels when somebody decides that a part of this process might be interesting at a particular time. And then if the process itself is not interfered with obviously the weeks or months of study and discussion will drag the thing out to the point where the listener will have completely lost contact with the process as begun. And in another sense it would be impossible to give a realistic picture of Congress in

action by radio or TV because it would have to be dramatized in order for people to understand that the ordinary process is laborious sometimes doll and often difficult to follow. If we attempted to jazz up the legislative process we don't put our microphones to demagogues and scene stealers and we'd be more concerned with the show than the legislation. Broadcasting and televising would destroy the Senate's rules of free and unlimited debate because you can't operate that way over the airwaves. And finally it seems to me that there is a better way to do this job through actual dramatisation by trained people in television or radio shows or through the discussion programs that already exist.

Well now we know what Senator Bennett thinks about this issue and in a moment you're going to hear what people had to say when they talked back to him. There are various ideas were recorded. And then Parker Wheatley manager of station WGBH in Boston brought the recording to Senator Bennett so he might listen to these opinions and reply to them in turn. I suppose we listen in on this recorded discussion for a while and later will interrupt the discussion to examine what they've actually had to say what their major ideas were and how apparently they came to believe what they do believe. Senator Bennett we sent your statement on broadcasting and televising important congressional debates to four different areas in the country. And our producers of recorded people talking back to you up in Boston over in Syracuse New York out in Ames Iowa and two places

in Oklahoma Norman Oklahoma and Oklahoma City. Naturally we wish it were possible to have these people here in person to talk with you. But it wasn't possible and it would be very practical. So we would like to tell you a little about these people play back to you what they said on this tape recorder and then record your replies and I will also try to ask a few questions which they might have asked if they had been here with us. One person who had something to say back to you was Mrs Mabel and the Hawes of Ames Iowa. This is Hawes is president of the Ames League of Women Voters. Senator what about the idea of a voter in a democratic country having the right to know what these representatives are doing. After all this new media television is here. We we have

as voters perhaps we cool that we have a right to use it. After all there's a gallery in both houses of Congress which is open to the public. And the meetings are open to newspaper writers. But most of us can't get to Washington to sit in the gallery. When we read the newspapers we feel that we lose the fleeting expressions of the ring of sincerity or insincerity which might be in the voice of the speaker. I can see that it would be necessary to be selective. In such telecasts. But I think that if the voters could see their Congress in action that such a telecast would arouse a much needed interest in government. As far as the question of the right of the voter to know what goes on in

Congress Mrs. Hawes I'm sure that's fully met by the publication daily of the Congressional Record which reports everything that is done on the floor of Congress. Actually I'm sure you realize that most people who come into the gallery in the Senate and the House come out of curiosity sit for five or 10 minutes and then move on on their tour of Washington. They are not students who have come there to study what's going on on the floor. Congress also has the right. Mrs. Hawes in the event something very serious is under consideration to clear the galleries that apparently is the privilege of the house. It's true that newspaper reporters are present. It's also true that the material they write is available to radio and television commentators just as it is available to newspaper reporters. Another person to talk back Senator is Mrs. Robert Bush a

housewife in Norman Oklahoma. You mix of station W N and A D. The educational radio station in Norman the University station interviewed Mrs. Bush in your home. If you think for example that during the conventions there was anything in the ordinary business of the convention. That you didn't understand or that was an interesting or dealt to you simply because it was a more or less formalized meeting. Oh I think it was very informative and I think the average person understands it. Have they appreciated seen it on television. Would you like to see a congressional debate in our congressional meetings our committee hearings on your television set. Yes if they're important do you think that you and your husband get enough. Thought of the newspaper have you got all the information that you would like to have about government activities through the newspaper.

You get most of it maybe I think you get more actually watching and when the biased viewpoint. You mean because the very fact that the person interprets and writes the material that he sees and hears it is more or less by human nature to have some sort of bias whereas if you saw a television set you would see the actual proceeding as it went on without any decoration. Yes and you could form your own opinions without taking notice of someone now. Do you have any questions that you'd like to ask of Senator Bennett. You might answer but I wonder why I think they have to dramatize it to put it on television they didn't do that at the convention or the crime hearings and people certainly watched it. I wish I could agree with Mrs. Bush particularly that the crime hearings were not dramatized. I think we shall long remember the crime hearings because of the picture they showed of Costello's hands which is very effective drama. I should like to remind Mrs. Bush too

that there is nothing more fascinating to the average American than a crime hearing it itself is great drama. Apparently the reputation and to some extent even the freedom of individuals was at stake in that crime hearing. And when you talk about the conventions they were preliminary steps and yes they were almost middle steps in the process by which we will choose a president and that is very great drama. It will affect the decisions made there will affect the history of our country and the world. But the ordinary day to day routine problems that face the Senate are far from drama. Occasionally we have flashes of it. But unfortunately you can't predict those. And if you tried to set up television and radio to catch them they might

lack drama when they were produced it's the flash of conflict of debate. The unexpected thing that produces drama and now the conventions lasted for five days each and we all got pretty tired of them before they were through. Last year the Senate was in session for 10 months. This year it was in session for six months. I don't think any drama can be sustained that long and pretty soon you'd be turning us off and turning over to John's other wife or some other hope for more interesting problems. I think Senator Bennett Mrs. Bush also mention bias and now may I comment on the idea that the information you got about Congress through the newspapers is biased and that if you actually saw what was going on you would somehow escape that. The man who gathers the news has an advantage over a television viewer because he can

review the whole process go through all the steps in the legislative process up to the point that a decision is made. He can go back and review congressional records over many months of time on the same problem was under consideration and it might be that if you looked in on the final decision alone without any background you would get even more distorted point impression of what had happened than you could possibly get from your newspaper. It's my impression that the news reported as news is not apt to be biased when you've got commentators expressing their opinion on what happened. Then you get the bias of the commentators. We have another comment from a good friend of ours Ed Waggoner Edward Waggoner who is the Program Development Director of w o i TV the

Iowa State College educational television station incidentally Senator you might be interested to know that TV was the first television station in the United States to be licensed to a college or university. I don't think we should make a peep show out of our Congress and there should be some places in this world I believe which are not open to public view. I mean I think there should be places where quiet and sincere deliberation is taking place. If this is true of the halls of Congress then the point you make about. The lights and the cameras and the staging and everything else is quite valid. Here is one place however that I think you could you could give a point and it would make sense. Now it may not be possible to follow a major bill from first draft to signature or veto but

when a major bill of great proportions and of great import to the American people is being debated on the floor of the Senate or the house let's say it has to do with atomic energy let's say it has to do with the draft as it has to do with price control or rent control. I believe that that would be the time to turn in the full glare of publicity on and let the people who are going to pay the bill. And who do pay the bill every day. Have a look in on the of the people who will decide whether the bill is passed or whether it is not. I think there will be great value there in being able to see and hear and be there when the major arguments take place. This might be impossible in the sense that these debates might continue over a week's time but I think with. People at the helm who are attuned to judicial rather congressional

procedure keeping their ears attuned to the day by day events in Congress that they probably be would be able to predict when. The important words were going to be spoken and when the great scene would take place which the American people could use in their homes around their television sets. My one of my chief points throughout this whole discussion has been the fact that you can't predict these things. I notice Mr. Wagoner says maybe we could live through a week of debate in order to get a high point in it actually consideration of bills as important as those he describes. Take many weeks when I first went to Congress the first big issue was the question of troops to Europe. We debated that for six weeks. And there's another thing our debate is not continuous on a given subject under the rules of the Senate. Any man who gets the floor might talk about anything he pleases. So you don't

stay on one subject until you finish it. And also in this process of debate a speech made today by a proponent of a bill may invite rebuttal which might take a week or 10 days to prepare so that by the time. We you hear you might hear the answer. You have lost all contact with the speech which was being answered of course the contact can be established by studying the issues of the Congressional Record. But television moves with time and you couldn't establish the contact if you were trying even a selective day to day reporting by television of Congress. Senator Bennett isn't true that the Senate doesn't limit debate for certain purposes. That's right but debate is only limited by unanimous consent

when everybody is sure that the major discussion is out of the way and we are prepared to move into a vote since it must require since it requires unanimous consent which means not a single objection any man who still feels he hasn't had a chance to say what he wants to say or who is going to need more time to prepare well withhold his consent and thus the unanimous consent device would be very difficult as a device which would bring some an issue to a head at a particular time. I was thinking senator of the final day of an important bill. As near as you can anticipate it when there are scores of amendments being voted up or down. And I also wonder about the chance of seeing and hearing the final vote itself. Well of course there are half a dozen ways by which the Senate votes and not all of them but one you can't tell

how your representative voted. I'm thinking of votes on important bills senator. Well it's been my observation that on these important discussions you usually have a courted vote on many amendments. But after those who would amend the bill have exhausted their possibilities then the bell is usually finally passed even by a declaration that the bill is passed. I suppose maybe as much as half the time the proponents of the bill will insist on a recorded vote on final passage but usually you can judge the attitude of a senator or representative. Let's say a senator because I know more about that on a given build by his votes on amendments than you can judge it by a final passage. To get back to Mr. Wygant I said that he agreed with you that it wouldn't be wise or feasible to follow.

This is Robert Merton fleetly of all things before we go on to listen to Mr. Wagner again. Why don't we take a minute to examine what has been happening in this conversation so far and notice one of the things which may continue to happen through throughout the rest of the conversation. Now we've often heard it said that when you want to form a solid opinion on the new decision or a new issue that it's advisable to look at past experience and to learn from it. And quite evidently that's what's been happening in the preceding parts of this discussion. Mrs. Bush for example the lady from Norman Oklahoma feels that there have been some parallel experiences to the matter of televising or broadcasting debates in Congress namely such things as the political conventions and the crime hearings

by the Keith über Senatorial Committee. Now you must have noticed just what things she drew out from this past experience. The fact that they were broadcast at all indicates that this can be done. Moreover it's a matter of common knowledge. She points out that there were millions of listeners and observers who found this interesting and she reports that she herself found it extremely informative she said she had learned many things about the political process that she hadn't known before. I think it was very informative and I think the average person understands it and they appreciated seeing it and out of it. So that's one set of ideas drawn from a previous experience. Now what happens when Senator Bennett looks at this very same set of experiences.

Here you notice that he sees entirely different things in them. First of all he pointed out that they were relatively brief duration. The conventions lasted for five days each and we all got pretty tired of them before they were through. Last year the Senate was in session for 10 months. This year it was in session for six months. I don't think any drama can be sustained that long and pretty soon you'd be turning us off. I'm turning over to John's other wife or some other hope for more interesting problems. And so he doesn't see a parallel between the two. Mr. Bennett also points out that there's a great deal of inherent drama in the political convention and particularly so in the Senate crime hearings. And not only the inherent drama that there was even he suggests a tendency to dramatize some parts of these events.

I think we show long remember the crime hearings because of the picture they showed of Costello's hands which is very effective drama. In other words weapon you see here is that it's not a simple matter to fall back on past experience to use that experience to arrive at a new decision. The same facts seem to look very different when they're examined from different points of view. Now this is a conception that will want to keep in mind as we listen in on the rest of this discussion. Let's consider throughout whether the participants in this discussion see the same things when they look at the same facts that at least there's a question which I want to leave with you now as we return to the discussion. Get back to Mr. Wagoner senator. He agreed with you know that it wouldn't be wise or feasible to follow important bills completely through all phases of the law making process.

Nevertheless he had a suggestion to make to you.