Public Affairs; Boston Hearings: Future of Public Broadcasting

I'll next call Diana Callum director of radio activities the CPB who will discuss CPB radio qualification standards rationale and benefits of the policy discount. Thank you very much and I do thank you for inviting me to talk about something that I have grown up with for as long as I can remember which is public radio. And by the way I'll. Provide copy copies of these remarks later on if you should that you'd be helpful since the very first day I joined CPB and early 1971. This is before we began emulating the iris. I've heard the question why have criteria for CPB financial assistance for radio. Now the answer to that is both philosophical and practical to fund all and any group that secures a noncommercial license from the FCC

would include high school operated Class D stations that are an extra curricular activity some of which operate on under a thousand dollars a year and only for a portion of the day and not on weekends and certainly not on holidays or during vacation time. It would also mean funding primarily religious stations. And vocational schools vocational training schools. There would be no standards applied and the only requirement would be an FCC license. Now practically had we provided financial support to all stations operating non-commercially in 1970 it would have meant that each station would have received just over a thousand dollars each. Now that's more than the station's budgets for some of them at the time and in 1977 had we divided the CSG funding among the thousand stations or so licensed as noncommercial. It would have meant that we could have provided just over $6000 apiece to each of those stations

less than the first CSG grant that was made in 1971. And again more than the operating budget for at least a quarter of those thousand stations. Clearly public radio would still be at the 970 stage of development. Had we chosen this approach. Now so far. I've not spoken with anyone that seriously suggested that we do this. Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be required. However at that point we part company. And each can suggest a different set of criteria. Indeed the initial radio advisory council wrestled with various combinations before recommending the growth pattern that let all stations to meet at least the minimum standards. By 1976 and those minimum standards are minimum. We're talking about five full time staff operating 18 hours a day 365 days a year. A studio with a separate control room sufficient

operating budget to pay the staff and run the station in a minimum power standard for reach into the community. And a programme scheduled via devoted primarily to programming of an educational informational or cultural nature. And at the time we stress that these were minimum criteria minimum standards. No one would seriously propose that you could provide a consistently reliable programme service without significant impact on a community say like Boston. With only five full time staff. Nor do I believe in our experience supports this. That even a basic radio station can be run by a core group of FIDE professionals that has more than one primary responsibility. And that's why we insist that a basic five be full time radio. Rather than counting to half time positions or four quarter time positions as one full time. As a full time equivalent. That approach

is folly for the individual trying to split time and do it all well. I've had a split contract before. And it didn't work. And it's folly for the satisfactory operation of the radio station. Now after a basic core staff of five five professionals then fine go with half time and volunteers. You need all the help you can get to build an effective radio service. Therefore the question of standards or criteria really always turns out to be not. Why have criteria. But why not adopt a criteria I think is best rather than yours. Now ours has worked. And I see no reason not to continue to maintain these minimum criteria. The CPB criteria have proven their effectiveness and case after case from a struggling hand full of 73 stations in 1970 with at least one full time staff.

And there was only a handful of stations at that time that had had more than a staff of nine which is the average in 1077. From that we now have over 200 stations in one thousand seventy eight which meet or exceed at least the minimum criteria and most of them exceeded by agreed by a considerable amount. Now. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind and I've been watching it for seven years that the carrot in the stick approach the is the achievement award approach you get to this point on your own and will give you a grant to go even further that this approach has worked and it continues to provide the leverage and the incentive required for growth and development in public radio rather than relaxation. And some say stagnation. Now in 1976 we the CPB and the entire NPR membership

voted to change the carrot or the achievement standard since virtually all had reached the minimum criteria we needed a new incentive. What was needed for continued growth which would inevitably lead to a better radio service for the community. Well the answer had to be increased income to hire more producers and to increase the awareness of what was available. Awareness of what the community was missing if you will. So we all agreed that the incentive the carrot should be a reward for increasing the station's income from whatever source except federal. And that there were certain activities which were essential to the further economic growth of the station and the responsiveness or responsiveness of the station to the community. So that now a station is awarded in addition to the uniform based grant and incentive grant based on the amount of its non

federal financial support. And bonus grants for significant activity in the areas of development. That's a euphemism for increasing income awareness which is promotion in advertising and public participation in the station's activities. Now we're just approaching our third round with this new formula but it seems as if we have another smash hit on our hands and we'll soon know. The average operating budget. Is up from well under a thousand hundred thousand dollars in 1971 to around two hundred thirty thousand dollars in 1907 with the result a measurable increase in full time staff. The ones who create and produce the programs. And the hours on the air are also increased now that they have programs to broadcast. I know all of this over the past seven years with only fifty two million dollars from CPB over those seven years that

averages out to between 6 and 7 million a year and that includes funding for NPR. Now I think that's incredible. That we could have come so far with so little. I can't help feeling just what. What it could have been. Rather than undermine what we believe are the essential minimum standards. We've developed various Grant projects to assist new or expanding radio stations to begin a public radio civic service. What starts out meeting at least the minimum standards and we believe that that is working quite well. To date close over 30 existing stations began with CPB assistance grants. And we've just completed a proposed refinement and expansion of the coverage expansion grant project to assist people in getting public radio stations started where there are none from the rural areas to the major urban centers. And that's at least 40 percent of our country. It's a larger unserved

percentage. If we're talking about a night time service when public radio listening is the heaviest. And that's when our 14 large am limited stations must sign off the air at sundown. Now the expanded grand project also addresses the need to upgrade the service and and visibility of existing stations in the top 15 major metropolitan areas containing a very large portion of the country's population. Now our goal here is really very simple and that is that people will no longer go hah. When you ask them if they've ever heard of All Things Considered. Now that's our problem. Penetration and impact. But we are solving from less than a million weekly cume in 1971. To as high as 14 million for the Panama Canal debates in 1988 and that is just the tip of the iceberg

for public radio. In 1977 the overall radio income increased at a far much faster rate for both total and non federal income than television. So we must be doing something right. I believe radio's time has come and the time has come for significant dollars. We've proven that we can handle it. If we're at 64 million dollars in 1977 the total income for public radio then projecting 200 million for the radio system in 1901 is actually the minimum. Clearly radio will be bringing in well over 100 million all by itself. And given our track record it's not at all outrageous to expect an equal sum from other sources given the satellite distribution system that will be fully operational by then. The absolute must to providing at least a single public radio service to the entire country even if it means translators and cable to the more rural areas and add to

that the basic essential. The programme services local and national for various minority interest groups than 200 million is a minimum. What makes good programming. Creative people who are given an opportunity to create with state of the art equipment at a decent living wage. Try these figures and then ask why radio isn't further along. In 1977 the average salary for a reporter in public radio was ten thousand dollars. A producer $12000. A program director. The one who decides what you'll hear $14000. Any wonder. Why as soon as they develop and demonstrate their talent that they're rated. And yet we do what we're doing for 64 million.

Well 200 stations broadcasting 18 hours a day means that on the average those stations combined broadcast a million three hundred fifteen thousand hours per year. I shudder to think how many minutes that is. But the cost is about $41 per hour for all the radio heard all across the country. And that includes funds for NPR. Just think what we could do. If we could devote twice that much to you. Public radio and television because of the very nature of the two mediums will never consistently attract mass audiences and consequently mass popularity. These are public media and they belong to the community in the same way that libraries museums schools and national parks belong to and are supported by the community. And in some cases tax dollars. The question. Is not whether these are valuable resources and deserve support

but how extensive each service should be and consequently what level of public funding is required. Now Public Radio began with the goal to reach 90 percent of the country by 1976 will reaching 90 percent is still our goal. But it is now clear that it will be well along in the decade of the 80s before that's accomplished. And 90 percent is a single service goal. Already we realize as you've heard today that a single service is totally inadequate to serve the diverse needs and interests of listeners especially in significant population centers and especially with the advent of the satellite delivery system. 200 million for radio income in one thousand eighty one for at least 250 stations much less NPR. Well the fact is that's not nearly enough but it would be twice more than twice what we have now and I think a start on really doing it right. I thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Discount question. A copy of your testimony. Yes thank you. That was Johnson. That percentage was determined as to what part of the money would go to which medium you know the rationale for the percentage that was determined for radio. Yes I remember that day. If it had been a long hard two three four five weeks or so of hassle between representatives from radio and television about how do you divide the pot. What is the fair way and everyone had their own own approach to it in and the room got very smoky. This was before the nonsmoking being human and voices very loud. And finally an exasperated. CPB official said well look let's just for one year only say let's just stop frame it let's see

how much radio spent last year of CPB funds and how much television spent last year let's just take a look at people do their jobs accounts came back and you said all right a total CPB appropriation last year sixteen point seventy five percent went to radio in whatever the complement to television. And so they said fine just so that we can get over this argument and get going with our business because we're planning to do and will go out for this year only without prejudice and not to set any precedent at all that's going to be the division that was in 1903. The division is now sixteen point five nine for radio somewhere we slipped a hundred fifty thousand. I think that was a. Is there any. I guess the word I'm searching for is systematic effort to use this

grand procedure to try to deal with some of the frequency allocation problems that were discussed by the first three speakers that is. Could you devise or have you devised a program that would seek out stations that are upgradable and provide an incentive to them to get over that threshold so that you could begin the process of network building not just by reallocation of frequencies but also by taking stations and working them over that threshold. Indeed we have. We seriously began it about two years ago. It's called the coverage expansion grant project and a significant amount of money is available on the top in as much as three quarters of a million dollars over five years to upgrade an existing station in a major metropolitan area. Yes but as much as in our under our revised plan which we're proposing within a couple of weeks we're talking about close to half million dollars to help get public radio stations started

or upgraded. To at least. Meet qualification or actually we require extensive criteria far higher than the minimum criteria to receive one of these larger grants. Two areas unserved we in fact are a soon to propose although And this is yet to of course go to CPB management and to our board but a way to to assist stations in markets where we know there are absolutely no frequencies available. And assuming that the FCC will continue to study the problem of 10 want political ration and that sort of thing a way to assist stations perhaps in effect the name if not a transfer perhaps an out no purchase. We have a grant program that we're just now suggesting that goes one extreme into the rural areas which desperately need service because they know they are to Chicago and they don't have museums and galleries and other radio stations.

So we have the whole we think the whole Continuum covered. We're limited in the amount of grants we can give in those areas of course because of the dollars. Radio on behalf of the question raised earlier relative to spectrum space and is there a formula that CPB can devise to assist radio in protecting that limited spectrum space it's being utilized by religion or others that the FCC is considering was in it was originally proposed by CPB in 1972. We're very we consider that part of our leadership role. I'm not sure I'm understand actually how do you handle the delicate question of allocation of limited space to raid 2 or religious applications. And my I was just wondering if c p p. Well we don't know that I might be able

to assume we have not taken a stance on it. And if I could if I could. As Frank Mankowitz said to tell you this is my fantasy only and represents no one else at all but me. It seems to me that I would disagree with the FCC and allocating the religious stations to the reserved portion of the ban. I believe that they belong in the commercial frequency and I'll just stop right there. I think that's the answer. Show that the chairman is smiling. That's my fantasy. Just every point of view. Very good thank you very much miscounting. We move on now to paper by Franke Guillard retired managing director of BBC Radio and since 1989 a consultant to CPB Mr. Gaillard. The most interesting title creative counter-programming in public radio.

Thank you Mr. Chairman it's very good of you to give spectrum space this morning to somebody who's annually described by the IRS as a non-race nonresident alien. I must add that I don't feel I'm an alien in this in this context. As you said I've been a consultant to CPB since almost since he was inaugurated but long before that in fact from the 19 early 1950s on which I was the BBC's informal and unofficial liaison man with educational broadcasting and the United States that over the years I've spent untold I was at school many many schools of public radio stations and public television stations come to that in this country. To European ears. Mr. Chairman. In this country. Commercial radio

sounds very much like just a mechanism for the dissemination of ready made material somebody else's gramophone record somebody else's rip and read and you can then use cost somebody else's commercial announcement and so on. In Europe as you know radio has. Succeeded even in the fully arrived television age of retaining its status as a creative medium in its own right. I want to endorse everything that has been said by Frank and by Sam and by Tom and by Diana. And to say that in Europe it's there and it works it really works. I assume that vast numbers of people in this country approve of or at least to acquiesce in the. The way radio has gone in the in the United States over the last 15 or 20 years. But

public radio in the last 10 years. Has certainly shown that others are unhappy at the misuse. Perhaps one even Microsoft's so far as to say the degradation of the medium and which after all is a made a major medium of communication. And I suggest to you that very many more people who don't even realize it at this moment are in fact missing something which might give them valuable service and very great pleasure. The founding father of broadcasting in Britain was a man much revered called Reith Lord Reith who used to say that if you go on giving people for long enough. What they believe they want they'll come in the end to think it's what they need. You may remember Newton Minow safer isn't that what interests the public is not necessarily in the public interest which I think also has an application. But the point I'd like

to make to you is that while Radio in Europe is certainly strong in entertainment particularly popular music entertainment and it's strong in news and so on and so on. It also covers a much wider range which is so much more rare in radio in the United States I'm thinking about extended services for minorities I'm thinking about educational programming and I'm thinking perhaps most of all of cultural and artistic programming including as Frank Mankiewicz was saying radio drama. SAM HOLT gave you I thought a fine catalog of why radio what radio can do that makes it unique what radio can do that makes it so valuable even in the television age. He just left out one quality which I would like to emphasize because I I think it is a terribly important one and this is the unique capacity that radio has to stimulate human imagination. Now the mind's

eye ladies and gentleman can be a source of immense satisfaction and enjoyment almost as much as the natural eye to those who have the quality of imagination. I think it was one of your former FCC commissioners one of the more outspoken and perhaps I might say notorious ones who used to say that television can stretch the imagination 27 inches and no more. Radio of course has an unlimited capacity to stretch the imagination. And I would put it to you that his really deplorable to deprive society of this valuable instrument and radio drama in most of the countries of Europe is still a highly appreciated source of enjoyment. And in Britain there's a radio play and I'm not talking about soap opera on the air at least once a day and often more frequently. But.

Radio as a whole. In the UK and in most of the countries of Europe radio is still the greatest patron of the arts in the country. And radio is still the greatest purveyor of the arts to the people. And this is the kind of objective I suggest to you that radio should set itself in this country in addition to all the other services which have been referred to this morning. Some of which are of course met and supplied very fully on commercial as well as on public broadcasting. I do put it to that radio in Europe has survived in all these forms mainly because primarily radio in Europe is public radio. Commercial radio techs are second rate place and the first purpose of public radio in Europe here everywhere else is to move people rather than to move goods. So my point time being very

brief so. Is that public radio fully creative as it should be can have an immense range of human interests. In fact far more interests than one Broadcasting Channel alone can possibly hope to handle. It is impossible with this range of interests to be all things to all men on a single Broadcasting Service. If you attempt to do so you finish up meaning very little to two very few because you are spreading your services far too thinly. And so my plea is that there should be a concept of public radio in this country not just one station per community but a number of stations or at least a number of channels some of them of course maybe cable in each

community offering a very carefully planned range of alternative services. May I just illustrate from the United Kingdom because of course that's what I know best. Where the BBC offers the public for national networks for networks which are universally available throughout the land and in the major cities it also offers local broadcasting services. Here may I say that local radio came very late to the United Kingdom. It was only introduced in 1907. It fell to my lot to be the the man who had the job of introducing it. And it involved a campaign stretching well over 10 years to convince governments and all sorts of other people that radio could do for the local community the kind of service which it it had already proved itself capable of doing at the national level. And I want to add that the fact that I

was able to do it. I undertake that propaganda drive in Britain which in the end was successful mainly because I had been able to observe what public radio was doing for local communities in this country and BBC local radio owes a great debt to local radio. Public Service local radio in Britain. But let me talk just in conclusion about these four channels which the BBC offers as national networks throughout the whole of the United Kingdom alongside the local community service. They are generic services that is to say each one has a separate character. They are to pick up a point that was made earlier this morning I think during Frank session and fully listed in all the press radio listings are given every bit as much prominence in the UK and in Europe in US papers as television listings. And may I also add that radio is often

a frequently quoted in the press. I mean I saw this week I saw. I happened to pick up here in the United States a copy of last Sunday's Times newspaper in London and the main lead story on the front page was based. This is last Monday's Times I'm sorry. The main lead story on the front page of Monday's Times concerned something that was said on BBC radio on Sunday. And this is a commonplace I mean radio holds that sort of position in the media in Britain. Now these four channels than. The first one called Radio 1 is a is a service which frankly appeals to a mass audience. It is a service almost entirely of entertainment music pop music which is a certain amount of news and public affairs carefully designed for the sort of audience which is most likely to come to a popular music channel. The second Channel Radio 2

is a middle of the road kind of service designed for middle aged people designed for the housewife at home who want some easy listening but is not particularly keen on the top 30. The third Channel Radio 3 derives from the old third program one of the great cultural monuments of Europe but of a sacred cow as well perhaps I can say that in passing but there it is it is a service of throughout the day of serious music and throughout the evenings of music of that nature coupled with artistic and cultural programs of a wide range designed for people who take radio seriously and are prepared to sit down and give their full attention to it. And then the fourth channel is the BBC spoken to a channel which days does six seven eight hours a day of news and and topical information and journalistic broadcasting. Together with radio drama of the middle of the road type.

And documentaries and programmes of that nature you might like to know that an upwards of 30 million adults a day listen to the four BBC networks. And they listen on an average for two and a half hours each which isn't bad. And they divide up as follows which is quite interesting. Forty four percent of the people who listen to the BBC's network turn generally to Radio 1 and that's far more than the teenage population of Britain. Thirty two percent turn usually to radio to the middle of the road service 2 percent turn to Radio 3 and the balance 22 percent turn to Radio 4. The people who work for Radio 2 are by know about Radio 3 are by no means discouraged at the fact that their percentage is as low as 2 percent. They feel that to give a high degree of satisfaction to a relatively small number

of people. Is as meritorious a service as to have. An audience numbered in millions who merely have the radio on in the background. And the BBC spends more money on Radio 3 with its 2 percent audience than it does on any of the other services. Now some listeners remain with one channel they hardly ever go off on to. The other channels but the majority of people according to research switch about between one two three four all the local service according to the mood of the moment and the need of the moment. Perhaps I can best illustrate this by by quoting from our last prime minister Harold Wilson Nasir Wilson who was prime minister during most of my term as managing director of BBC Radio. Now

our relation with our relations with the prime minister. Where as usual something that range from oh guarded reserve to downright animosity. It's not the business of a public broadcaster to make things comfortable and cozy for a government. And governments react accordingly. But during one of the periods when relations were not too bad Harold Wilson came to lunch at the BBC and I was absolutely astounded. At his anatomical knowledge of the radio services. I mean he he knew how to sleep think he knew more about what was on at what time than I did. And all throughout she was telling me about this that he heard on Radio 2 this that he heard on Radio 4 and Mary and I never never missed that program and some other programs on it. And I said to him Well I really don't know how you as Prime Minister find time to do all this listening and he said well you know every room that I have that I use in Number 10 Downing Street which of course is the prime minister's headquarters

has got your four networks there on buttons and he said when I'm alone working in those rooms I have one or other of those buttons on if I'm reading papers I have some music. If I'm doing something that's fairly light or I'm relaxing I'm might listen to Radio 4 to hear the news or what he hasn't. The talk show of some kind. Now I think he's very typical of how people up and down the country use radio. And. My hope is. And this is my final sentence Mr. Chairman that in this country this commission will enable public radio. To progress in its task of allowing the American people to rediscover the richness and the diversity. Of the services that radio can offer them and the potential of this rich and very stimulating medium and to enjoy the full range of services that it can so effectively

and so efficiently provide given really the simplest of resources and really. No exceptional sum of money in order to supply them. Thank you. Are there questions commissions. That you know you presented here maybe. I think they've really been quite extraordinary. I think beyond the question they might be of interest wider audience. They could always do something. We. We have submissions. In writing on several of the papers all of our proceedings are on tape. They will be transcribed and I suspect that if there is. Any serious amount of interest in the

proceedings shall of course will produce them for you. Seems to me to be the least we can do in rendering a public service course was fairly clear. The larger the relationship the between Public Radio in Britain and the Open University I know that the university does work through true television the radio cooperated all in the instructional aspects of the university. When the Open University was set up. Which would be about 1968. It was of course set up as a government interest institution and probably charted as you know it was a full university. It came to the BBC with full government backing and requested at time the request was for 33 hours of air time on television and 33 hours of airtime on radio although it put us on the

spot because that's rather a lot of air time per week. We were more than prepared to discuss with the Open University how we could do this and we readily supplied it. The problem was how we could at the same time do this and retain our editorial independence and integrity. The Open University naturally wanted to have full discretion in the use of the time that was turned over to it. We felt that it was still BBC airtime on BBC channels and that we would have to maintain some sort of control over this. I am happy to tell you and I think it's a terribly important precedent which might well be studied in this country. I'm happy to tell you that we sat down with them and we worked out a formula which didn't compromise the BBC and did allow the Open University all the scope that it was required. It was only as lines that for each course of study there should be a production group of people which should be eco on which should be it should sit equal numbers of Representatives of the Open University and of the BBC.

And that the chairman of each of those groups would be elected by the group and sometimes would be an academic and sometimes would be a BBC person. We refused to come in on the basis that we would just promise. We agreed to come in on the basis that we were an integral part of the whole operation both in terms of its intellectual content and in terms of the nature of its presentation on the air. And it has worked extraordinarily well and very smoothly. The problem now is of course the Open University is such a success that it wants much more airtime and it is becoming increasingly difficult to accommodate it. But the radio on is very important to the Open University. It has not totally displaced the educational work the BBC itself was doing. That's that goes on as well in addition. That is one question you've

advised the growth of public radio in this country and also from the radio system in England. How do you how do you feel about the kind of struggle for budgets that have gone on inside of public broadcasting as compared. I take it to the somewhat more disciplined system that has grown up in England. The elements within the BBC don't fight publicly with each other before the Parliament for greater shares of funds or do they. Well wonder how you feel that whether you feel that there ought to be some effort in this country to coordinate to keep those kinds of discussions inside the family which I take it has been one of the strengths of the BBC. It's certainly being kept inside the family but the problem is still that until about four years ago. It was less of a problem the fact it wasn't a problem because as you know the BBC is supported by license fee it draws its almost all its income from license fees. They say that the total income of the

BBC is almost exactly equal to the total amount of money going into public broadcasting in this country. The difference is that of course in public broadcasting it is largely disseminated locally in the BBC it's concentrated in a centralized way. But to get back to your question until a few years ago the license fee was a certain sum of money for television plus a certain sum of money for radio. So radio and television had their respective incomes and there was no argument between the two. To arms. Then the government found that almost every home had a television and that the cost of collecting a separate license fee made it an economic to do so and so instead you pay a broadcasting feed now. And it is for the BBC board to make the allocation between radio and television. Well the formula is pretty much what it was in the days when you had two separate licenses. In fact the allocation is three to one in favor of television. That's how it goes. There is

never any public argument about this. There is I have no doubt continuing pressure within the BBC on the right side to get more of the cake and continuing resistance from television. It never however gets into the public timeline nor will it unless the BBC board is forced to meet in public. Thank goodness that's not happened yet. Oh yeah. Thank you very much with the splendid discussion. Our next paper is going to be offered by John Beck. The radio manager of WGBH in Boston and Bonnie Cronin the general manager of WB You are in Boston. The Boston plan cooperation and counter programming in a multiple station major market. Just back mis Cronan. Thank you very much for coming.

The Boston playing in cooperation and counter programming in a multiple station marked major market is the title of our presentation. Actually there's a third seat to be added to very crucial cross promotion in developing a strategy for public radio. WB You are in WGBH you've been very conscious of the need for cooperative planning thoughtful program scheduling to provide the widest possible range of listening alternatives and effective and well placed on air promotion so that the public radio audience is aware of what programming is available. That audience in a major metropolitan area is made up of a great number of small audiences. Those who like classical music or jazz or bluegrass women older people teenagers and minority groups have a staggering racial and ethnic diversity. No one station can offer all the programming services that people want to meet.

Even taking into account the large number of commercial radio stations in the area there are still a vast number of people whose cultural and informational needs are not being met. Public broadcasting talks of being an alternative to commercial broadcasting. But given this diverse and pluralistic society how can we possibly deal with just one alternative. And how can we justify using the precious and scarce resources of the public airwaves to duplicate services. WB You are in WGBH are engaged in a course of planning that hopefully will lead to even greater coordination of effort sharing of resources and cooperative planning to the end result of more choices and better services for the audiences along the path to that goal are formidable obstacles. Questions raised by different licensees with differing expectations of the station's problems and parity of coverage difficulties of financing and fundraising are but a

few of the rocks in our path. There's a great deal easier to coordinate programming on more than one station with all the stations involved or under a single corporate administration and where the financial success of a relatively more popular format or one which appeals to a relatively more affluent group can easily be used to support programming of a more specialized appeal or of appeal to a less affluent segment of the population. But are there not some inherent strengths in diversity. Different licensing entities imply different policies and goals which may well add to the appeal of the total programming mix. Too great a concentration of decision making power may serve to narrow program policy and ultimately program choice. Perhaps Mr Lorenzo mile my head something of the angels on his side when he petitioned the FCC to extend the Nandu optically rule to non commercial licensees. The problem of efficiency and ease of coordination vs. diversity is not an easy problem to solve.

But here in Boston we've made some beginnings that resolving the difficulties of cooperation and counter-programming between two licensees. Back in 1971 when we completely revamped WB program schedule we realized that morning Pro Musica had a large and enthusiastic audience. Although WB You are historically had also programmed classical music in the morning. We felt it was poor programming and an inefficient use of the public airwaves to spend scarce resources trying to duplicate what was being done well right down the dial. We instituted a new morning a jazz program which has proven wildly successful for us and the public radio audience now has a choice of jazz or classical music in the morning. NPR's Morning News Service or the news edited and reported by your morning host. Our classical music programming is between noon and 7:30 and WGBH has started a new program Music America which has a large jazz component. In that time period besides its heavy public affairs and news blocks during

those hours. We've tried various cooperative methods when it comes to national public radio programming especially with regard to hearings coverage. Sometimes we have covered the hearings completely and sometimes WGBH us. Sometimes we have covered the full hearings and they have run summaries in the evenings sometimes the reverse. Sometimes we've alternated days where we would run one day and they run the next. In all these cases though that third see cross-promotion is crucial to letting the public radio audience know what's available. We communicate frequently on who's going to carry what and if in our judgment a program is worth being carried on both stations such as the production of Lady be good. We take care to broadcast it in different times. Again with cross promotion. One of the intriguing questions in public radio with its diversity of licencee type school board community group with or without a jointly license TV station State System State University and of course

private university is whether there are different missions for stations inherent in the licensee. And that of course raises the question of what that means in the context of a multiple station market. President Carter has raised the issue of different rules for different licensees with his proposal to allow editorializing on public stations except those license to governmental entities in Boston. The higher education capital of the nation we are particularly conscious of the advantages of the university licensee. The Lowell Institute parent institution of WGBH has the presidents of the major institutions of higher learning in the area. On its board among them Dr. John R. Silber president of Boston University. WB You are of course is Boston University Radio and we feel that being licensed to one of the country's largest private universities is a very special kind of resource for the station. Historically universities have been the conservatories of the best of the past and the

place where new ground is broken for the future. The Seems to me to describe public radio's mission very well by keeping alive the musical traditions of the past. Jazz classical folk by reviving the art of radio drama and by tapping not only scholars but also the ordinary people who lived through the beginnings of the labor movement. The first wave of feminism the civil rights movement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an alum of Boston University and his classmates have much to tell us. We preserve and transmit the past to new generations. By giving your time to contemporary composers and musicians playwrights and philosophers by experimenting with the oral medium and pushing it to its outer limits and beyond we lead the audience into the 21st century and restore to radio what it is missed since the early 50s. Excitement experimentation and a sense of real importance in people's lives. Being a university licensee is a unique opportunity to draw in the university as a

resource and to share that with thousands who otherwise have no contact with that university. Dr. King's letters to prisoners in the 20th century collection of Boston University's Mubarak library is a natural program resource. If the noted pianist Anthony to Bowman Tura a faculty member of our School of Music gives a recital he will probably fill the school for the Arts concert hall some 400 people. But when that concert is broadcast over WB You are literally thousands of people hear it and are exposed to the unique artistry of this fine musician. Events in southern Africa have been much in the news lately and when the story broke in our news department wanted to give the audience a perspective and a framework for current events apply as well as the what where and when events. They went to one of the top five export tons a year in the United States who is also currently the acting chairman of the political science department at Boston University. Their public radio this man's

expertise was transmitted beyond the walls of the classroom to the public radio audience. Which brings us back once again to that audience. Who are they and why. Public radio audience rather than WB R's audience talking to listeners reading their letters and studying audience surveys. We seem to find quite a number of people who switch back and forth between the two stations. The feel the personalities of the two stations may be different but both stations appeal to those listeners who are interested in more than background music. The stations offer quality music formats to different times and interesting informative news and public affairs both national and local. Also at different times. So by using the term public radio audience we imply that the majority of our audience will listen to both of these stations. Choosing at any given time the kind of program service desired then. This in turn implies a canny and creative system of self and cross

promotion. And who are these people. The answer is everyone at some time or another. We all have special needs and interests. We all need information to help control our all too chaotic law I was and to make informed choices. And we all need music and drama and poetry to keep us civilized and and meeting in depth to our existence. Public radio offers these things. But no one station can meet the many needs of a large urban population and no one station can have the impact the visibility of a single television station. That impact and visibility are crucial to public radio. How can we enrich the lives of people unless they know we exist as Channel 2 has 7 other TV stations in the market to compete with and establishing their image and their value with each viewer. WB You are has over 40 radio station competitors serving many and diverse audiences. How much better than to be able to present the public radio service to achieve

impact. WGBH and WB are better yet three or four or five stations all with high quality programming in a coordinated programming schedule and all an hour into the dial. With the advent of the satellite in its four channels the options and national programming will increase dramatically. The diversity of population in the Boston area will continue to mandate a wide variety of local programming to meet local needs. Clearly two stations do not begin to be adequate to serve the public radio audience no matter how fine our communication and coordination. But and this is a theme you've heard before. Believe me there is no collusion involved it's simply very evident fact of public radio life. The number of low power stations licensed to colleges and in some cases even the high schools used to student activities continues to grow. So the possibility of other noncommercial licensees taking the step to full power full fledged CPB

qualification is precluded. We need a multiplicity of stations so that public radio can serve all of its publics. Then through the cooperation counter programming and cross promotion we can increase the impact of public radio geometrically. Offer a choice not an echo and serve the public by making responsible use of the airwaves. Potential for service cooperative program public radio stations working toward that goal is difficult to do just to work out the questions. She's mentioned the tough questions of equal coverage areas of responsibilities and resources service. There are delightful questions broadcast opportunities in the wider public

service that could be accomplished. I think at this stage the hard questions so that we can get on with the commission copies of any working papers we may develop. He has spoken about our experience and cooperation so far and one thing we've learned is that we don't both need to do the same. So instead of repeating what she has said I want to say a little bit about WGBH radio how it works. I think it's working well with cooperation I think each of several public stations could work just as well. First off we're licensed to the WGBH Educational Foundation whose board of trustees includes along with General representatives of the public. The presence of. Taking a deep breath. Boston College the Boston Symphony Orchestra Boston University Brandeis Harvard the Lowell Institute MIT the Museum of Fine Arts the

Museum of Science the New England Conservatory of Music Northeastern University Simmons College Tufts University of Massachusetts College and impressive list which I haven't read aloud since I was a part time announcer signing off the station. This structure gives the professional staff of access to enormous programming resources through the presidents of those organizations. It means the particular. And it means that our board is always representative of the widest educational and cultural concerns of this community. It provides just what we might look for in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Access to resources independence and high ideals. WGBH radio is also what we call a joint licensee. The public TV stations in

Springfield Massachusetts are licensed to the same board. Being a joint licensee is sometimes a mixed blessing for those of us who realize that radio is the greatest medium ever conceived capable of being part of WGBH TV specifically an enormously ambitious and competitive place that is never what it could do that makes radio feel like a pilot fish sometimes. But mostly the business of being enormously productive in the very good name we had as a radio station helped the TV get started in radio came first and had a remarkable service even 25 years ago. In the 70s the era of public broadcasting the fame of WGBH TV productions have made GDH radio welcome wherever we can be received. We don't call ourselves channel to radio that would cause confusion I think.

But if we did people might say oh yes Channel 2. That's a good station. You're radio now are you. But a crucial a crucial reason being a joint licensee with WGBH TV is a good thing. Is the sense of fairness about funding and promotion and development that we have shared in the last few years. Every dollar we can reasonably is being directed to Radio's efforts goes to radio and because there is also a gray area we can't quite pin down additional funds support full time people working on radio in the promotion department. These radio people are working with a dozen or more other top professionals raising funds and promoting channel two and forty four. And the chance to work together is helpful to both radio and TV. Promotion is not well-developed yet we do intend to let our audience know what is available to them on both media. In some situations radio is seen as a highbrow music service by its TV partner and the ambitions of radio

staff are reined in by a less than aggressive promotion and in those situations the joint operation of public radio and TV may be bad for public radio. In our situation we have made it a good thing and can make it better. Though I can't yet recommend that as a national model. WGBH radio is funding shows another interesting aspect of our service and our outlook. Three fourths of our discretionary budget comes from listeners at least four hundred fifty thousand dollars this year. This kind of local support gives us the strength to develop a special daily service like the spider's web that other stations will want from coast to coast. That quantity of support gives us some assurance about future income to lose half our funding say we would have to alienate some 12000 individual listeners. This listener support also gives us independence based only on the perceived quality of what we do. There is a danger that a station will base its support on some kind of format especially classical music.

The classical listener is devoted and generous and is responsible for perhaps two thirds of his radio support. But listener supported stations must occasionally stand up to their audiences. And I say that knowing that these remarks will be broadcast on radio tomorrow afternoon. The question of funding has led to the question of audience. WGBH is lucky to reach a large listening area including portions of six New England states and the region's three largest cities and Massachusetts. Since we started promoting ourselves and better organizing our schedule three years ago our audience has more than doubled five percent of the people who listen to radio in this area. And that's just about everyone. Sometime during the week that comes to more than 200000 people. We know that GBH radio is important to these people. They contribute generously of course but they also write in April. We received five hundred seventeen pieces of mail with eight hundred thirty

specific references to programs some specific comments were negative but others showed a commitment. GBH radio is one of the main reasons we live in this area. That's a comment we receive regularly. I'm submit I'm submitting a copy of the listener mail report for April prepared to your staff. I also want to point out that part of WGBH is strength in the technical area who is recording today's session has been with WGBH since 1951 the year we signed. He has engineered the symphony hall broadcasts of the Boston Symphony all these years and many of us feel that the orchestra never sounds as good in commercial recordings as it does Public Radio. We also recently finished rebuilding our second control room. It looks on too and is designed especially to work with a moderately large recital studio with a good piano and harpsichord with the best available equipment in the control room we can now do music and drama productions up to our listeners highest expectations. In fact I suspect we will teach our listeners to

expect more and better than they've ever heard before. Last but most important is programming. We use six hours every morning and additional time in the evening to broadcast classical music so-called. We do that not because well-to-do people like it but because it expresses human experience and resolves in rhythm and harmony of the strains and conflicts of human life. We broadcast American music especially improvised music or jazz afternoons and late on week nights ahead of us in this area. But we know that we too have a duty to this wonderful kind of music. Often classical music and jazz seem to speak to different audiences but I think they have some of the same things to say about living and sharing. One of our jazz presenters said that music heals and I think the whole staff believes that. We carry ALL THINGS CONSIDERED present local public affairs and broadcast local forums people like Bill Buckley Studs Terkel Heywood Broun. We have comedy from the BBC and

wish we could afford to produce some of that in our own. We have reading aloud an old family custom and the spider's web. A new and growing family custom that promotes reading and listening offers folklore biographies of great women and stories from the experience of minorities and even environmental sound portraits. We also have an insidious series called poetry in Massachusetts. Each five minute show is stuck in all over our schedule for a week through radio. There are probably a hundred thousand people hearing some poetry this year and we hope by the end of the series they'll want more of it. Let me just end with a comment from a student in Providence. I've just found WGBH and I love it. I hope the members of the Carnegie Commission have found Public Radio today if not before and they will want to cherish it. Mr. Evans in your cross promotion Do you ever time

I retired do you promote on each other's way or the other person's program. Yes a lot of times we will say for example if we carry a PUBLIC RADIO NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO hearings we will say summaries of today's hearings will be aired on WGBH in point seven at 7:30 tonight. We've done a number of things when we switch from jazz to classical music and when they switch from jazz to classical music or classical music to dance classical music continues on WGBH etc. etc. So we cross back and forth but if you're a listener support as compared to the. Do you have a miniscule. Oh no not really. Yeah arses is growing. And has been growing at the rate of about $20000 a year. I believe this year it's going to come in right around 90 to a hundred thousand dollars. We also get a fair amount of support approximately thirty

nine percent of our budget from Boston University. The rest from CPB from other grants and foundations. Our budget and our staff thing are significantly less and no we do VH I just I just bring it up to sort of underscore a real problem for the commission in the micro its model which was five stations for every city. Over a million if you count on listener support to support as a as an important part of the independence and insulating structure for public radio. The question is whether there is sufficient listeners to support in the cities the size of Boston support five stations with enough money to assure its independence from from government and from other funding dictates. I think we understand that there must also continue to be other sources such as Boston University all different kinds of licensees. But listener support can keep growing at a great deal I think. We're expecting it to end. And we've been having around 30 percent

growth in that for the last couple of years. It's optimistic. I think also there are two two things I would say here. First of all public radio has not begun to tap the business and corporate income the public television has started to tap we're not even we're not even looking at that in anywhere the same term so there that is a whole area that is on tap for us. I also think there are economies that can be made in the sharing of resources. When we get the satellite we were talking the other day. We are trying to record two different stereo programs stereo music programs say coming down those four channels we need to dedicate for tape recorders to it. Well now it strikes me as not a very good planning to have say four stations in Boston all dedicating for tape recorders to recording the same four programs there's a better

way to do that there's a better way to share those resources in those ways I think that the Mankowitz model of multiple stations many more than two are realizable. One other important way of sharing that's also a technical benefit if it can ever be accomplished is that. Actually any number of stations or certainly five could be broadcast from one transmitting facility off one antenna. This would not only be some savings all together but it would eliminate the interference which is presently a problem even between WGBH and WB You are in parts of the city let alone with the other 10 watt stations where you comment. Yes I did buy it if I might take just a moment because I think that's an important question that needs to be answered and I've had a personal experience there that speaks to it. I was manager of the AM and FM joint licensed stations in Columbus Ohio about

10 years ago and we have had an unusual opportunity to test that kind of thing where we were silent casting R.E.M. an FM signal the majority of the day and we split programming and started doing two separate things. When we split the programming had cost us about twice as much money almost twice as much money to operate the two stations but the audience tripled and I think if you simplify it you can begin to see why. Let's take classical music is something that we've talked about. Already. If in a given community there are a hundred thousand people who have some interest in classical music that will range from an intense dedication to a very casual interest. And if that program service is available a couple of hours a day every day on your public radio station the people with the intense interest will listen to it all the time and others will listen to it occasionally. But you might tap 10 or 15 percent of those hundred thousand. On the other hand if that can be available 60 or 70 percent of the

broadcast day because there are enough other stations to allow one to concentrate on that and another to concentrate on some other kind of programming then you can tap to two thirds or maybe only one third but by say half of the potential audience because it's there when the listener wants to hear it. And it's easy and listener habits are reinforced in the services more readily used. More people use the service more people pay for it and as a result listener support does increase in the. Example that both Frank and I mentioned in Washington we have five stations there w a radio raises more money in a given fund raising drive than a television. The next station down raises about 65 to 70 percent of what the radio raises. And all five of those stations one time two years ago raised fines along with the six station being the public television station in the same month the same week and not one of them had any problem achieving its fundraising goal. So I don't

think that kind of diversity is a problem because you really are serving different needs and many people are members of two or three different stations if they can clearly identify the different services that they're supporting. And also we have just recently two years ago and done all by funds contributed by the listeners. Gone from 20000 watts to 50000 watts. We're still about an inch and a half above average terrain and consequently don't have near the kind of penetration into the market the WGBH does. So. And also once you increase your coverage it takes a little while to get the folks out there who have started listening to you to realize that they have some obligations to public radio so we're seeing some significant growth in our income in these new areas. Now given parity of

coverage and given some time and some promotion I think we could probably do as well as attracting listener money for the discussion. If you determine that there are trust laws don't apply to you. As far as to gather here the idea is wonderful but it sounds to me like I imagine you have an opinion about that. Well I think if we were commercial It certainly would. I doubt that the noncommercial situation the same rule would apply. I think what we've been doing so far is a product mostly common sense and some other purpose. We've just shown differently and I trust laws too. I can't offer a legal opinion but my experience with educational cooperation is that it doesn't threaten any sense of

trust. I think it's rare and it's occurrence. I think there's also the final sort of bottom line that when it comes right down to it if John decides that they're going to carry something and we decide that we absolutely must carry it in the same time period etc. etc. there's nothing to prevent that. We still have each licensee still has the discretion to have a discreet program service now we do. When that has happened upon a couple of occasions very rare very rare. The listeners call and scream bloody murder. They don't find that a responsible use of the airwaves and they are not below the Telus cell which is quite proper. I'd like to ask a question that I've been waiting for because we wanted to get to the powerful well-heeled Public Radio representatives and here you are.

And it it is that one of the things that has been immensely stimulating to us over the last year has been the. Technological front tear that the the opportunity that the public media have for providing informationally rich. Broadcast activities that are really not commercially feasible has. Has there been any effort with either of these stations to develop high technology broadcasting techniques you know artificial stereo separation in live broadcasts things of that sort. That would represent an experimental effort on the technological frontier that could not be achieved commercially or it wouldn't be commercially viable.

I can speak for WGBH on that it's been a central purpose and I didn't mention the technical area. We began FM broadcasting at a time when the FCC had just moved the frequency spectrum allegedly to give us more space and had thus made all the existing transmitters and receivers obsolete. The commercial I am powers that was fine but most of the people in Afghan were failing or going out of business. We signed on as a service that would provide the Boston Symphony in particular in high quality full fidelity monophonic broadcasts within about 10 years we were working with a commercial station to provide stereo to FM channels before multiplexing. In the late 60s we did quad with a commercial station that also carries the B.S. So we've done simulcast with Channel 2 of course to

provide appropriate quality sound with TV and the sort of equipment that we've been trying to install is equipment that is up to the standards people are accustomed to in commercial audio recording because of radio with its potential for outstanding high fidelity distribution doesn't equal what the recording industry is doing that will be noticed. So we we have we don't have the football field length console's they have in Nashville but we have smaller versions that are what we would actually need for for good drama and music production. And I think we really aim to stay ahead in that area because there's a growing interest in high quality sound. You see all the stereo ads that are all over the place and Af-Am is actually better than tape or disc at this point. We

broadcast some master tapes a couple times a month from commercial companies and they make record sound sick. They're second generation plus Af-Am the disks you buy in the store about a generation. And so we're trying to keep the public aware of that and here that is. Thank you very much Iraq.