thumbnail of NER Washington forum; Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, part two
Transcript
Hide -
Orchestrations must be the bedrock upon which public television was the right. Of the Commission's own overwhelming need for a national institution. Which could provide high quality programming and leadership and strong public television of the whole. The voice you just heard was that of Dr. James Killian one of many witnesses to appear recently before the United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on communications as it investigated the proposed public television Act of 1967 this week. The N E R Washington forum presents another special report on those Senate hearings spotlighting differences in the proposals of the Carnegie Commission on educational television and plans offered by the Ford Foundation. I many our public affairs director Bill Greenwood. This program was produced by national educational radio through the fish. Days of W am you f out. American University Radio in Washington DC heading the distinguished Carnegie
Commission membership was chairman Dr. James Killian of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology heading the Ford Foundation delegation to the Senate hearings was Foundation president McGeorge Bundy the first possibility of controversy came as Kilian spoke for the Carnegie Commission and orchestrations must be the bedrock upon which public television is directed. But the commissions are an overwhelming need for a national institution. Which could provide high quality programming and leadership and strength for public television as a whole while leaving to the local station autonomy with respect to its own operation. Redoubtable recommended that the Congress establish a nonprofit non-governmental corporation to be known as a corporation for public television. It should be authorized to receive federal funds but it should be insulated to the maximum degree from the budgetary and I knew all appropriations and procedures. Commission considered the
creation of the corporation fundamental to its proposal and what I've been most reluctant to reprimand the other parts of its plan. Unless the corporate entity brought into being. In a manner that I will explain later. The corporation should receive federal funds. We recommended also Howard this that at the start the coporation should have an endowment. From private. Sources. I've tried to at least 25 million dollars. And we contemplated that it should solicit and receive year in and year out additional funds from foundations individuals and corporations. We attach great importance to the floor our private funds into this corporation rather prospects for that. From your experience I believe that the prospects are excellent that this would command support from a wide variety of sources of private plans. They have the ability of such funds would help the corporation maintain its private status. Although it would require we
must point out large federal funds to support an effective system of public television in the am. I'm not talking about the first year or the cost of the system such as the capital and basic operating cost of the local stations which support the substructures for both public and instructional television. May ultimately bring the total annual cost to approximately 270 million dollars a year. These product cost and the amount of one hundred seventy million dollars should be met by state and local governments by the federal government acting through the Department of Health Education and Welfare. And by foundations and other private sources. The proposal of the commission it should at least grasp agree is an important perspective of all the proposals which have been made recently as for example the proposal of the Ford Foundation. They can make a commission and a broad foundation to quote a statement that foundation it's often made recently are united in their view that Educational Television has
unlimited potential to deepen the R.A. and understanding of the American people. And to raise the quality of American life. That the prime source of the required funds must be the federal government. That new institutions must be created to direct and manage this developing resource including a nonprofit corporation to receive and disbursed fund. And that such institutions must be independent of the normal processes of repeated review authorization appropriations and other aspects of control by the Executive or the Congress. The Ford Foundation proposal however as we understand it goes beyond the domain started but they can make a commission and raises broader issues of national policy and starting a national satellite communication organization and operation. We did not study this particular restaurant. Now have we any recommendations to make with respect to the organisation of our domestic satellite system. We did feel.
That we would hope that this issue can not necessarily get in the way of making decisions with respect to public television. That the issue does not have to be resolved before a programme to strengthen on commercial television is under attack. Moreover it is uncertain whether the board proposal would ever provide enough funds for the cooperation. We concluded that the most urgent problem before us was to begin to build without delay. A strong system of public television. Whatever decisions might ultimately be made about domestic satellite communication. Public Television can progress with any one of the proposed satellite systems. In addition to the above variations in the two proposals. They can make a commission advocated the use of in a connection facilities primarily to distribute programmes to the station whereas the broad proposal places stress on live network.
We of course anticipated that. However communications satellite technology is managed in the end that it will provide cheaper and more copious on a connection for public television. In fact we recommended free satellite and a connection for public television. The commission anticipated the use of domestic satellite satellite in a connection and it recommended that co-operation should not itself seek to construct such facilities but to rent them and urged either free or reduced rates while the runnel of the necessary facilities. S 11 60 differs from the commission's recommendations on a connection in one respect. It limits a cooperation to assisting others and providing a connection. Specifically Section 3 96 sub paragraph B authorizes the corporation to arrange for interconnection facilities with appropriate public on non-pro private agencies. The corporation is not authorized to deal directly with common
carriers who would normally provide that facility. Instead it would be limited to providing contracts or grants to an intermediary organization that would undertake the in a connection and you would prefer to have a direct yes. We firmly believe that the corporation itself should have direct responsibility here. There is an important principle involved from our point of view. The commission viewed on a connection primarily as a means of programme distribution and not as a means of dis. Establishing a fixed schedule of network kind of operation. This is a very important innovation in our approach to educational broadcasting in this country. We stopped a pasta local autonomy rather than the establishment of a powerful centralised network agency. We would use it in a connection to bring to each local station. But surely all programs designed for more than local use which of finance for the corporation. We would expect that there would be an abundance of programs available to the stations through in a connection.
It would be the responsibility of each station to decide which programs coming over the lines are suitable and desirable to broadcast to in its community. Normal of the programmes would be transmitted over the interconnection facilities during the morning and afternoon and early evening. And each station would be required to make its own decisions as to which programmes at which to record on videotape for broadcast on the stations for some of. The station decided not to carry a programme sent over the on a connection. I would be that that would be the responsibility of the station and the cooperation clearly would be exceeding its authority if it started to control the station's program schedule. The cooperation God provide each station with descriptive material regarding each program. This would be designed only to assist the local station manager in his decision as to whether it would be rather proud to record the program for later broadcast. The underlying principle. Of the corporation's control Obama connection is to send the
greatest abundance of programs to each station rather than to select some programs where on the connection and exclude others. Normally the contracts for programme production made by the corporation with the production centers of the stations would provide that the programs financed by the corporation would grow over the interconnection lines. We feel that control of the ANA connection must be with the cooperation. If a national program production center for example were to have the responsibility for interconnection then we would have the. Program production tied with distribution. And this makes the underground image of a networking system which we would avoid. This a party would almost inevitably tend to develop a program schedule to transmit to the affiliated stations. And this schedule would be based on the programmes produced by that productions on earth are obtained by the production side or approved by us if I may interrupt your doctor at this point.
Do you see any element of reprisal. By the corporation against a local station if it refused. I see no problem whatsoever in the anything in the bill that would even create such as his behavior or not is the any such element in the bill in other words the choice is exclusively of the local State of the bell over the cost of the India connection if they still decide to accept it would be paid by the corporation. The cost of the connection would be provided by the corporation. So I think that local station alerts to the heart of the system would be independent and free and would be under normal substantial pressure of any car. In the determination of what its programme should be in other words a local station will not be asked as affiliates not to day thank you must commit yourself as to time. And as to circumstance. In the beginning. And I remember our program to last let's say a set number of months or a year or a cell
the Chinese will be a human being in this way you certainly do. Well I cannot over stress a critical need for federal aid. To a local station operation. I would express reservations as to the wisdom of placing this responsibility on the Corporation for Public Television. The commission recommended the sort of station operations be provided through the Department of Health Education and Welfare. We did so for several reasons. The sums that are required from federal sources for station operations are substantial. Initially we estimated the use of 30 million dollars annually. Later increasing to 50 million a year. And to raise the sums in addition to the other needs of the corporation might require a higher. Excise Tax when we were source was all a part of our total. Social. IQ meaning yourself a little bit in coming down the hill. I think you start out with a very very serious premise that you want.
Freedom of interference on the part of the government. With reference to programs. And other essential part of the life. Of its creation its operation. Yet you would take this or parity away from the corporation which is independent of the government and you would put it in the AGW which is a government agency. Now are there couldn't you like societies control or some influence over programming. We are made the distinction between the programming responsibility of our republic the maximum sensitivity involved. And clearly that should be. Handled by the private corporation corporation for but yeah but how are you going to show any kind of a program unless you have the money corroborate. And it will shut off that's all. We we have had of course the educational television for some of his eyes which has been handled by you. That's right and that's just the construction. That's how I talk about operations like you know now you're suggesting here that you would
prefer to see the operational grants W. rather than the corporation. And I'm just spinning you round on whether or not here we're not bringing back in the government where you would have us we try to leave it out in your report. The questions from Senator John and my story went largely unanswered as did I ask two representatives of the Ford Foundation senator accused Scott made an initial lengthy inquiry of the Ford Foundation adviser and former CBS president Fred Friendly as well as Ford Foundation president by George Bundy. Here was Senator Scott state friendly I agree with you that the measure of the Independent. Television made here. Freedom from the appropriating and by making the budget making process fundamentally an executive right. Well be
confronted. If it is to be influential and. God has the future of this system that will be confronted by the people who each year. That I like what kind of a deadline. That I had about you. Like when I heard where they kind of me. They didn't have too much at bureaucrat. Did they. Make fun of me. Maybe I'm not being very helpful but I'd like to know. That unless it's free it's worse. Than not having it. And I've got to support whatever measures I think. That well can disappear. Because I want this. Electricity that could flow through the system. To shock. But I don't want. Those who are hot. To turn
around and try to do. To use your brains we must insulate the scratch. And I don't like the idea of insulating it is crucial and I do think that one way not to have those who are occasionally going to be shocked by this and. Be able to register that shock on an annual basis is by having that park which is in contemporary affairs get its funds from the dividend of the satellite. And I think that is a way if it doesn't work and the whole thing is a boss. 5 or 10 years from now nothing goes on forever. But it would mean that if certain broadcasts were on or certain hearings were on about. Sad of course is that you guys were used to. This thing would have prominent funding. Substantial amounts of private contributions and state contributions rather than the private.
I would hope that no private source gave very much including anyone foundation. The way it is now I would have to tell you that one of the most difficult parts of Mr. Bundy's job. Is that so much of this money comes from the private foundation for public television right now. Educational Television and I think that's wrong. I quite agree with you and I think that puts it right back squarely as to the source the revenue is coming from some type of federal operation including that. I agree with that satellite right now on a satellite. I've gone through this before but just the way we can do better than we did where I was talking. The point remains what you have here is a technological breakthrough is that correct. That's right and as a result of a technological breakthrough there has been a great reduction in cost of transmission or will be will be yes art will be as right and this reduction is even greater than was originally anticipated. It's going to be greater literally nobody is more pessimistic than they were a year ago it's the other
way around. That's right and they're going to come into a great bonanza money. And what. Mr. Freeman yourself are saying really is this news. A new gold mine in the sky. Is available to be utilized to be broadly put into the general trade that's a distributed and reduced rates to the commercial stations. That's what you're saying is hold the rates where they are and substance. Take the difference. After all they're operating now on the basis of making a profit on the basis of the present cost. The difference between the two and put that into a special directed toward. The thing called Public Television an instructional television. But is it your intention to provide just simply then for our. Programming and. Their connections as distinguished from the hardware. Are. How would you place it. How would you utilize this front in the three broad sections which are involved. That is construction
operations and programming. I don't want to try to define that because too sharply because it seems to me that we are now in the area where the. Corporation for Public Television ought to have reasonable discretion as to how it estimates where the points of sensitivity are. Now I can quite understand the Friendly's view from his experience at Public Affairs broadcasting is a very sensitive business. And as long as he has anything to do with it it will be that way and that there will be a need to insulate him. There are other things that can create shocks. The largest single thing that this corporation needs is a sense of its own independence and integrity and my own preliminary judgment would be that the private money ought to be at the general disposition of the corporation and that the corporation will indeed usually feel that the part that needs the most protection is programming and that within programming the most sensitive area as a
rule is the area of public in contemporary affairs but I wouldn't earmark it in such a way that it could only be used for that. Let me ask you this is it you or do you have a point of departure from the Carnegie with a statement serious face that made that article in this morning in regard to the continuation. The grants made by you. Know I don't feel it as a sharp point of difference there my own. Feeling is that the bill is right in in making it possible for the Corporation for Public Television to make grants for costs of operation make payments for costs of operation when that is necessary I also agree with the view that many have expressed that Mr friendly has just repeated that its facilities are not as sensitive and probably the salaries of Engineers are not as sensitive as the salaries of broadcasters. I see no great pain in having to channel 1 through
AGW and Ron in cases where it may be appropriate to have the corporation free to use its money for that purpose I think that the corporation will feel a very heavy pressure to protect its resources for programming simply because programming first class programming is very expensive. Now programming is very expensive then in view of the fact you're making a substantial contribution to anything at the present time. Do you feel that the programming is going to have to be in greater depth and greater. Really a great deal more attention being given to programming than it's being presently given and even on a limited number of stations that are appearing. Oh yes Senator hockey that's an important point. Any team currently produces 5 hours a week of new programming that isn't very much. Carnegie Commission recommends 10 hours a week of new programming. I would say that's a minimum and that down through time we will
see a demand and insist and an insatiable demand for a larger level of new programming than that on a national regional our varied basis. What would you recommend. Well if it were only to come from federal funds and I were young enough to still be a practitioner I would want no part of the news and public affairs part and I nobody speaks for anybody in this but I think a great many people who have my background feel the same way. But if the satellite were not were not available and it is my fondest hope and prayer that it will be available and I know it is others and if the excise tax which the Carnegie people put such faith in is not available. There are other ways in the Carnegie report. There was I guess you'd call it the McConnell reservation in which he's asked for an exploration of ride the licensees who have been given this great land Jass might not pay some kind of rent for that. Will they have licenses that's been suggested before. I rather I know it's not for you now. What
I'm trying to say rather clumsily is that the satellite and the excise tax is not the only way and that the tax on general funds is not the only way and that there are other ways in that I would rather suspect that a combination of all of them in the wisdom of the Congress and this committee might be a road to go down. And I'm. Coming to that Senator Harkin say that. We feel very strongly and I take it this is also the position of the Carnegie Commission. That. We don't want a public television corporation. Without some form of protected revenues. We believe that that will mean a need for a dedicated tax. I myself would I would hope very much that this record could show and that the eventual legislative record in the Congress would show that this is a first step which cannot fulfill its promise unless the second
step is taken and that second step does imply a dedicated tax. And we hope satellite revenue to the root of the problem here is poverty. Desperate father they really throughout the system of educational television and as the private organization which has been the largest contributor to public television to instructional television. We are necessarily the big banker in the eyes of the people working in the field. That puts us in a very difficult position. We are not subject to political feelings or to political pressures in the degree that men in political life are and we have been joined by our trustees as administrators from interfering in any way with the programs which are funded by our grants. But the fact is nevertheless that that we are too big. Compared to the total size of what goes into television and I fully agree with Mr friendly that down the road
there ought not to be any single private force with that larger role. That's of course again one of the reasons for our beliefs. There is a special opportunity in the satellite because there you would generate the funds essentially from a great technological development which has been financed by the American people. You would not generate them from the decision of any private group however well-disposed are virtuous and naturally we're inclined to think we're both at the Ford Foundation in regard to that. The present time is most your money going to instructional television your public. Function and a grand instructional television most that Heikki it's hard to divide it really because a great deal of our money goes into the local stations and the local stations in a majority have double functions. Actually I think the larger part overall currently goes to public television
simply because our largest single Grant is the six million dollars a year that we have been giving in recent years to any National Education Television Center which is currently the only national programming center where this is what I was coming to. Who is going to really finance. I understand that but who is going to finance anything. It's a president who's going to finance this big. Operation of programming who is going to do that. If you move that in other words as I understand what you're saying and substances you want to move out of the. In the in the proportions in which you're in at the present time is that right. That's right in the long run let me hasten to say that we recognize our board of trustees recognizes that this is a period of transition for educational television public television or instructional television they have no disposition to cut and run before the show is on the road but down the road yes. Now the same thing is true then also of state participation it's the minimal
state participation varies by states in some states. The one I happen to know about is my new state New York it's increasing rapidly at the moment. But state participation has. Not been what I believe it will become. The instructional side on the instructional side but rather than on the public or on the instructor have been on the public eye at a guess right now. Do you do you have any proportionally. Reduce the pace in which you anticipate work around for example from private sources from state sources. At this thing we've been. Really what amounts to that in some type of government source. I think the. Difficulty in predicting there is very great. I do think that the record. Educational Television as a whole. Over the last. 15 years. Demonstrates that not in peril sources are just not forthcoming.
I mean order of magnitude that's need. I think that's a fair conclusion and something is going to have to be done rather than what's being done to present time if you're going to stimulate stimulate any type of non federal sources that you're going to have to have something come with the bride arriving back up on that section and you know if you bring that type of money into it I do not know. You have just heard another condensation of the Senate Commerce subcommittee hearings on the proposed public television Act of 1967 as the NDR Washington forum presented a look at the proposals offered by the Carnegie Commission on educational television and by the Ford Foundation. I'm Bill Greenwood a public affairs director for the national educational radio inviting you to join us again next week as the ne r Washington forum presents another aspect of those Senate hearings. This program was produced by national educational radio
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Series
NER Washington forum
Episode
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, part two
Producing Organization
WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
National Association of Educational Broadcasters, WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-8k74zj2b
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-8k74zj2b).
Description
Episode Description
This program, the second of six, explores the Senate hearings on Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Highlighted testimony includes Dr. James Killian, who cites differences between Ford Foundation and Carnegie Commission proposals.
Other Description
Discussion series featuring a prominent figure affecting federal government policy.
Date
1967-04-18
Topics
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:29:39
Credits
Host: Greenwood, Bill
Producing Organization: WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
Producing Organization: National Association of Educational Broadcasters, WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
Speaker: Killian, James Rhyne, 1904-1988
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 67-24-5 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:29:20
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “NER Washington forum; Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, part two,” 1967-04-18, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed January 24, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-8k74zj2b.
MLA: “NER Washington forum; Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, part two.” 1967-04-18. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. January 24, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-8k74zj2b>.
APA: NER Washington forum; Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, part two. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-8k74zj2b