Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Government witnesses, part two
Continuing with testimony from Secretary of Health Education and Welfare John W. Gardner. Senator Norris Cotton Republican of New Hampshire made an interesting point during the Senate hearings on the public television Act of 1967. Here is the question from Senator Cotton. I mean raised we were very happy to date women very well who would you want to isolate them from the money bag. And I there are rarely come in there. On the other hand I had consented. To a certain insanity. The entertainment of the performance activities on educational television could be sparse provided is sponsored only as I have noticed some of these programs. I guess they're probably illegal
where it simply says this program is being made able to present this program because of the generosity and because of the contribution of American Airlines or something else. And no commercial id. would you supplement the public monies and would you at the same time. And somewhat too if you provide if you restrict it to a certain percentage or if you authorize the club rules and to restrict such programmes to a certain percentage of the form time with them. We completely oppose that consider it as a dangerous and wrong way. Senator I haven't thought that through. Station directors differ very strongly as you know on this. Some believe yes but isn't that out about nationalism. The minute you begin to advertise the grant. Even those philanthropic it's
advertising I don't think it's going to play down this bill at all. If you want to make it I suppose you'd have to make it anonymously. I mean published in the paper but you couldn't you couldn't broadcast that on the show we have a problem. I want and I would grant that was this ruling whatsoever. My question however is why we were directed to Reuben Campbell sent. On the program. And if it will restrict their advertising which I granted commercial but it's a far cry from this business of listening there that day after day night after night you know you have bad rap bad rap and all that. I mean apart from that I'm simply inspiring and that's what I advocate. I'm simply inquiring about the farmers couldn't be supplemented and an incentive for
making programs that Frank did it to a limited percentage and will that limited commercialism which I grabbed was outright commercialism. Whether it would be worthy of consideration by the nudist would be Can I have against it. I have always felt that it was a regrettable development in educational television I've had Station directors give me very eloquent arguments as to why it is. Now worse than industrial concern to do their standard give a million dollars to the college. Help a chemistry laboratory which they do a lot of the time but it seems to me that in this kind of legislation we would be diminishing the need for a four program directors to seek that kind of. Support and I think in general to the public good it would be opposed to any of it. I prefer not to say yes.
And bear in mind that the part that I was it was aimed at was good that it wasn't allowed to. If you have the right to grow larger than a very small percentage that is one reason one reason we get inside track. Or barely. Over the private network. Is that the incentive behind the whole thing is that they get sponsors and. Programs that are completely popular for the general run of people and I agree with you that they're underestimating I think underestimating the tastes of our people. But on the other hand a small degree of of having the added incentive. To make their programs. It seemed to me was really considered too obvious when
that was Senator Norris Cotton of New Hampshire questioning Secretary of Health Education and Welfare John W. Gardner. Next to appear before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on communications as they studied the public television Act of 1967 was the governor of the Virgin Islands the honorable Ralph by one skate. I appreciated having the opportunity to express my support at 1 1 6 0. The public television Act of 1967. This proposal will provide support for a program. Of vital importance to the educational system of our state and territory. As governor of the Virgin Islands which is making a major effort to provide better education to its people I urge this committee stimulate the use of educational television through enactment of S. 1 1 6 0 0 0 in the program recommended by President Johnson. I urge that this committee provide
for the increase in Brunswick television radio facility construction authorized the fiscal year 1968 such an increase will enable this program to have maximum impact on all other states and territories. Mr. Chairman I am particularly pleased that section 1 0 5 of S 1 1 6 0 corrects a lot in the 1962 educational television facilities act by including the Virgin Islands grom American Samoa and the trust territories of the Pacific Islands. Within the definition of state within the definition of states. This amendment will enable the Virgin Islands to be fully eligible for assistance under the new Iraq. And as governor of the Virgin Islands I urge that Section 1 of the fire be enacted in its present form. The Virgin Islands expect to make full use of the opportunities afforded under the Public Television act of 167. As the committee knows the Federal Communications Committee and set aside to chair and it was for use by educational television stations in the Virgin
Islands. It is our intention to apply for the construction grants for educational television under Section 1 of the arm for one of those channels which we hope to have in operations in the very near future. At the outset our operations in the Virgin Islands will depend largely on tapering and use of the programmes with the National Educational Television Network. It will take time for us to develop adequate instructional personnel and to record in film and on visual experiences which could be particularly adapted to the educational needs of the island. Initially we expect to develop a series of educational programmes which would support supplement daily classroom work to be broadcast after school hours and during weekends and holidays. We also expect to use educational television for orientation programs for new teachers in-service training for instructional administrative and other supporting personnel preschool and adult education and for general programs designed
to enrich the cultural life of both children and adults in the community at large. In addition we would experiment with the use of educational television by community agencies dealing with welfare and housing in carrying out their missions to further use would be reaching parents crank thing that a parent teacher relationship and having the parents to appreciate the value of their childrens education and to better understand their students. Children during this initial period we will absolutely moving ahead rapidly to develop programs and train the teachers necessary to support a full scale instructional program for use in schools in the Virgin Islands. I want best teachers and leaders in various fields would participate in this program. I might point out to the committee that we do not expect to establish a system identical to that which has been proved so successful in some educational television and some more has filled the gap which resulted from the lack of teachers and proper educational facilities
in the Virgin Islands we do have a considerable number of highly skilled teachers and adequate classroom facilities and instruction in structure of materials. That's where paints with a somewhat different situation and will not you will utilize educational television as a substitute for teachers and classrooms instruction. But as a supplement an expansion of the work of the classroom. In conclusion Mr. Chairman I should like to take a moment to emphasize the special importance of educational television to the Virgin Islands because of our isolation and our insular like the children of the Virgin Islands do not now share in all the broadening and enriching and experiences of the children who live in the continental United States amid a variety of wonders and its cities and great Americans. President Johnson might well have been referring to the impact which educational television could have been our islands when he said in his message to the Congress in February 28 and I quote. Yet we have only
begun to grasp the great promise of this medium which in the words of one critic has the power to arouse I would dreams satisfy our hunger for beauty takers and journeys enable us to participate in events present present great dramas in music explore the sea and the sky and the winds and the hail. It is precisely the dream the dreams and experiences of which the president spoke that we can bring to our islands and most particularly to the children in those islands through educational television. In addition this new medium can play an effective role in bridging the language gap which exists among some groups in the island. Mr. Chairman again I wish to thank you and your committee for your courtesy. That was the governor of the Virgin Islands the honorable Ralph. I want to skate next to appear were representatives of the Federal Communications Commission led by their chairman Russell H. HYDE Chairman Hyde outlined the financial
aspects of the Educational Television act the public television Act of 1967. Let me discuss first the important provisions of Title 2 of the bill which embodies the bodhran imagine the concept of an independent nonprofit corporation to we assist in developing and distributing educational programs. The bill follows President Johnson's message to Congress on this subject of Feb. 28 967 its provisions for a private corporation are also similar in many respects to the recommendations of the report of the Carnegie Commission on educational television on Jan. 19 67 entitled public television a program of action such a corporation should be of significant assistance in developing the full potential of noncommercial indication of broadcasting. While there are some differences in approach there is I believe substantial agreement on three basic principles. First a noncommercial broadcasting must be assured of
adequate financial support. This of course is Cardinal. There is a proposed appropriation of 9 million dollars for the first year's operation. The president next year will make recommendations for the corporation's long term financing. The matter is thus one for resolution by the Congress after consideration of the president's recommendations and other appropriate views. Second the composition and status of the corporation must be such as to assure that its policy judgments particularly in the area of programming must be completely independent. Finally when I program a federal support for noncommercial broadcasting which provides. For effective networking in this area it also must contain safeguards to assure local autonomy in the choice and selection of programs. This is basic to the American concept of broadcasting. These fundamentals then adequate financing corporate independence and local
autonomy along with effective networking are the keys to success. I should like just briefly to invite the committee's attention to a few respects in which we believe Title 2 could be clarified. We. Will have several suggestions but they are intended to be constructive. I assure you the bill does not make clear whether the corporation is expected to charge for its programs are distributed them free. If as I understand was the intention the corporation is to have full discretion in this respect. It may well it may be well to clarify this point. Also as 1 1 6 0 0 0 does not mention the question of distribution of programs to commercial stations thus raising a question whether such distribution is intended to be permitted distribution of programmes to commercial stations on a secondary basis. Would make the programs available to a wider audience. Distribution for foreign use could also be considered.
We believe Congress should consider permitting such uses with appropriate safeguards for example of the programs not be initially distributed to a commercial station in an area where there is an educational outlook outlet. Also we assume that programs could be made available to stations in the important instructional television fix service a non-broadcast service for in-school television which I will discuss more fully later stations in this service should be eligible to receive programmes which have been produced for educational broadcast use and therefore any doubt in this respect should be eliminated because this may be quite important and I'd like to get your opinion on it because of your experience and background. You are suggesting. That the record may be made clear as to whether or not a charge will be made to educational broadcasting stations for other programs that are furnished by the corporation is that correct. That's
right from now what is your opinion should there be or should they be charged. I think it might mean you're permissible what you hear. In other words that the corporation ought to have some discretion in the matter. Well then. Doesn't that get us into the field of commercialism. Oh I believe not sir. Err. I think here we are where we're at we're making federal grants. In order to build the station because they don't have the money was which to build them. And we're setting up a nonprofit corporation in order to program. Now we're going to end up charging the people who don't have the money to build nor have the money to do their own program. It would now I mean aren't we just meeting ourselves coming down this hill. But this is a nonprofit corporation and I would expect that any charges would be in terms of. Cost or something like that. Well I was wondering how much that might stifle the whole process. Well I certainly wouldn't want to suggest a policy that would be a threat to
its further development. I had thought to myself and perhaps the questions might be. Studied. Yes we want to get to it is a rare about leaving it to the next question of the corporation you might get in the field of favoritism. Unless you begin to charge everybody. But charge no. I'm afraid you're going to. Be going to inherit a lot of problems. I would hope that. Your government would give this some thought and I would like to get a paper from you will be pleased to answer this further and because that will be one of the questions raised and I would like to get your thinking on my initial approach to it is to give the corporations that an incredible amount of discretion and flexibility. All right. Our. Now your age. You go a step further you say that you would even allow them to distribute these. Among the commercial educations for a price. I made this
suggestion. Also adding that I think it would be. Desirable to have some appropriate safeguards to protect the educational services as such and to prevent it from being let's say Well you know you've got a definite limitation you would have. There's only in places where you don't have educational facility. This is a this is a. Seems to me might be an appropriate to provision there I did suggest in my statement that the. That the educational station in the community should have the first priority the first opportunity to show the program. I am advised that this is the practice with the education network as of the present time. One of the things that kept prompted the suggestion on our part is of course the urge to make the programmes which would be produced by educators available on as wide a basis as possible.
I think that what the appropriate safeguards this could be accomplished. Well I would like to know from you gentlemen because of your experience and background give me a paper on that told us when we hear that you will develop your guest had like to have that pill or we will be pleased to do so we will develop these. This recommendation a little further and with some suggestions as to what we think might be about really anything in there so I would hope that when I suggest going here that this company can become. The Santa Claus to the affluent. You may proceed from. Section 3 9 6 and G to see also provides for payments to stations to finance local programming costs. And other costs of operations. General operating costs and educational TV are quite high and presently are a deterrent to the development of stations and a limitation on the quantity and quality of their services.
We would hope that the corporation would give serious consideration to providing substantial support for station operation. Although we recognize that its major concern will be for the development of quality programmes. I hope for an expected development of educational broadcasting is to be achieved in a reasonable future consideration will have to be given to even larger sums for future appropriations. Section 3 9 to be how the Communications Act now limits to one million dollars the amount any state may receive under the matching fund provisions Section 102 of S. 1 1 6 0 0 0 would amend this to specify a limit of 12 and a half percent of the preparation for each year raising the. Present limit is highly desirable since a number of states have used up their quotas or counterpart to do so. Moreover in some states such as those with large areas are populations to be surveyed have greater needs than others and
therefore could probably be entitled to a larger share of the money than would be available under the present system. The present arrangement limiting each state to one million out of 32 million or about 3 percent permits relatively little deviation from a strict mathematical inequality basis which would give each of 50 states 2 percent for funding and thanks to this bill is going to and from the kind of the recommendation. Yeah wow. As a matter of fact the Carnegie recommend right could be a bank that in order to guarantee. No interference on the part of the government would relate to the educational process. That money should be raised through the medium of an excise tax. Imposed upon television. Which would be out of the control of the Congress of the United States want to kill. So that they could. Lauren is one without any supervision at all on the part of the Congress of the
United. That correct and right. I resurrect when the Carnegie Commission I would have died in the Iraq you let me finish. Let's get some of the twit and Kerr. Now with the suggestion and the recommendation made by the president and contained in this bill. We are disregarding completely the recommendations of the so-called imposition of the excise tax. We are going to the criteria of the United States and asking for an authorization of this current year. 9 million down. Here. And I talking about a hundred and seventy five million. We're not talking about two billion to 20 billion. We're talking about nine million dollars which will have to be. Appropriated by the Congress of the United States. And when they come back. When they come back next year after having used the nine million dollars.
Talking about overtime. The Congress of the United States will have the authority and the responsibility to review our request. That will be submitted by the administration. And for the amount that they desire to have appropriated for the next year. Is that correct. That is correct. But in order to ensure even under this bill with the payment of taxpayers money we have written in the law that they shall be knowing a parent with regard to programming on the part of the government. Right. Here in. This field. They approach what you say and what I'm trying to find out we're talking about who have oversight. You're talking about another agency idea no responsibility to the people but not to the Congress of the united we don't have to appropriate a mickle of the nine million dollar Havana and we don't have to repeat the appropriate if we feel that this is the point yet
this is all subject to the scrutiny of the Congress of the United and that's the point I want to leave here. If not it is not an independent be joined venture where people can go off willy nilly 15 of them and spend the taxpayers money without being responsible to no one and that the expression used by my colleagues the narrative that there was no responsibility corporate responsibility is the answer to the Congress of the United States as to how they spend the one million dollar of the money. And I know that the very heart of the argument made by the door of the broadcasting magazine a lot there and that is that they say that it is that because this review as I understood the chairman he said that the reason for establishing a separate corporation was to roid budget your budgetary process. There was a recommendation by the kind of commission looking toward the damage Mondavi charge which would be. From which funds would be. Collected. And they would be used
without budgetary examination but this is not a creature of the bill before the committee at the time. As I understand it. What we're considering here is a in the initial appropriation of one million dollars to get the new corporation going. And there is to be any further recommendation by the chief executive who. I regard as a matter of long term and financing. I expect that. There will be a good deal of attention given to the matter of how best to finance the. Operation for the long term. During take the twists and turns out it happened on. The point of it is what your thing now is very simply that you're giving the authority to this corporation to the family and the recommendation of the means by which they later on are going to operate their financial conditions is that right. No not exactly the year. This corporation went there.
Before. Perform certain contractual studies. And it would undoubtedly have. Had some abuse but I understand from the president's message to the Congress that he contemplates any. Further recommendation as to ways and means of financing the. Long range program. And the chairman. I want to direct your attention that to title to page 14 where purpose of the activity of the corporation. Am I right or am I wrong in that approach and I'm not trying to pass. At the moment we're any better judging on America whether your system should be utilized but you can't go both ways Thing time. You cannot that under the direction of the Congress and under the control the appropriation process and out under the budgetary control at the same time that not it has to be one where the other cannot be both. And unless the purpose of the activities of the cooperation as specified on page protein
and they are getting there in order to achieve the objectives and so forth. And with this 9 million dollars which is being requested at this time our general tracery isn't that going to be used for the purposes stated they're in. Certainly and this is not to make a study of how we're going to finance a corporation or how you're going to do they're going to be active bigger developing a program for television and they are going to facilitate the program and. They're going to have education Broadcasting which programs of high quality diverse good will be made available I'm going to stand between development of efficient interconnection. You know anything about any study about how to finance the ABS operation of a growing bio grown organisation called The Corporation the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission the honorable Russell H hide saying that educational television stations need more money.
- Government witnesses, part two
- Producing Organization
- National Association of Educational Broadcasters
- WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
- Contributing Organization
- University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
- AAPB ID
- Episode Description
- This program, part two of two, features Senator John Pastore (D-Rhode Island); Hugh Scott (R-Pennsylvania); Robert Griffin (R-Michigan); Vance Hartke (D-Indiana); Philip Hart (D-Michigan); Russell Long (D-La.); and Frank Moss (D-Utah).
- Series Description
- Senate Hearings on Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, held during April 1967.
- Public Affairs
- Media type
Host: Greenwood, Bill
Producing Organization: National Association of Educational Broadcasters
Producing Organization: WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
Speaker: Pastore, John
Speaker: Hart, Philip A. (Philip Aloysius), 1912-1976
Speaker: Scott, Hugh, 1900-1994
Speaker: Griffin, Robert P. (Robert Paul), 1923-2015
Speaker: Hartke, Vance, 1919-2003
Speaker: Long, Russell B.
Speaker: Moss, Frank E., 1911-2003
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 67-Sp.5-1 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Government witnesses, part two,” 1967-04-14, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed October 5, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-vm42ws3r.
- MLA: “Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Government witnesses, part two.” 1967-04-14. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. October 5, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-vm42ws3r>.
- APA: Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Government witnesses, 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-vm42ws3r