The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, the U. S. and Soviet Union agreed on the nuclear arms treaty to be signed at the summit. Cuban prisoners holding hostages still control prisons in Atlanta and Oakdale, Louisiana. A sharp earthquake shook a rural part of California, causing only minor injuries. The government reported unexpectedly strong growth in the economy. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy? JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary we go first to the newly nailed down arms control accord between the U. S. and the Soviets. A former Pentagon official, an arms expert and a congressman debate the deal. Then, obscenity in broadcasting. We have a documentary report. Next, Cuban prisoners in revolt. We get an update on the standoff still underway at the prison in Atlanta. Finally, essayist Roger Mudd on making every vote count.News Summary MacNEIL: The United States and Soviet Union ended two and a half years of negotiations today with final agreement on a treaty to ban intermediate range nuclear weapons. It will be signed at the Washington summit on December 9. The deal was clinched with a handshake between Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze at the U. S. mission in Geneva. Shultz and Shevardnadze had met for two days to overcome final differences over verification procedures. Shultz said today, ''We are very pleased that we have this agreement. '' The Soviet Foreign Minister had a similar reaction.

EDUARD SHEVARDNADZE, Soviet Foreign Minister [through translator]: I think that what we have done is in the interest of all nations on this planet. And we have no doubt that the summit meeting in Washington will be successful. MacNEIL: President Reagan said that the deal included a ''reliable and credible verification package,'' and predicted it will win ratification from the Senate. Mr. Reagan was speaking to reporters in Denver on his way to the Martin Marietta Aerospace facility, which is working on the strategic defense initiative. In a speech, he vowed again that he would not give up SDI in negotiations for a strategic arms agreement.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: I appreciate the extraordinary effort that each of you is making. Your mental prowess and creativity, and, yes, your hard work will make or break the program. And I want you to know that what you accomplish will be put to good use in protecting your country, the free world, and perhaps all mankind against the threat of nuclear holocaust. You're not working to build a bargaining chip. It will not be traded away. MacNEIL: From Colorado, the Reagans went on to California to spend the Thanksgiving holiday at their ranch. Judy? WOODRUFF: The situation remains tense at two federal prisons, one in Atlanta, the other in Oakdale, Louisiana, where Cuban prisoners hold a total of more than 100 hostages and continue to press for a guarantee that inmates will not be shipped back to Cuba. Both incidents were touched off by an agreement with Cuba the Reagan Administration announced Friday, that included plans to deport the prisoners. In Louisiana today, the inmates brought two of their 28 hostages to a gate to show that they are being well treated. From Atlanta, where prisoners are holding 75 hostages, we get a report from our correspondent Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, officials were still battling sporadic fires set by Cuban detainees inside the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary compound. SWAT teams shuttled in and out of the facility throughout the morning, and federal officials maintained a virtual news blackout about the status of negotiations to free 75 prison employees held hostage by about 1100 Cuban detainees and a handful of American prisoners. In early afternoon, warden Joseph Petrovsky confirmed that negotiations with detainees had been proceeding, but that progress had ground to a stalemate. JOSEPH PETROVSKY, warden: Last night about 7:30 I felt very comfortable that we could have it wrapped up by about 7:45. We found out very quickly that as soon as you agree to a set of demands, and new leadership takes over, and you get a whole new set of demands.

HOLMAN: The warden also confirms that prisoners seen arriving in buses and entering the facility this morning were among some 300 Cuban and American prisoners who broke with the revolt and turned themselves in. The remaining prisoners, who are armed with homemade weapons, also released one prison employee who complained of a health problem. The warden said that only one person, a Cuban detainee, has died in the revolt, and the remaining hostages were being treated well. He said as long as talks with inmates continued, officials will not try to retake the prison by force. But for families of the hostages, and for families of the Cuban detainees, the waiting and the worrying continue. WOODRUFF: This afternoon, a bus load full of relatives of the Atlanta inmates arrived at the JusticeDepartment in Washington, where they pleaded with officials not to send their family members back to Cuba. After a meeting with Associate Attorney General Stephen Trott, the relatives, mostly wives and mothers, made a public appeal to the inmates to free the hostages they're holding. ALIDA DOMINGUEZ, hostage relative: Please, we beg you as your families, these men that have these hostages, please let them go. Let's work this out once and for all. We're begging you as your families, please do it so that we can get on with this and all of us be reunited at once. STEPHEN TROTT, Associate Attorney General: We have promised them a full, a fair and equitable hearing. But we will take into consideration the crimes that were committed by the people involved, the family situation, any changes of circumstances, any things that we might have missed, any mistakes that might have been made, and that again this is a full review, with nothing up our sleeves. And it's the best we can offer them, and under the circumstances we think this gives them an opportunity to help themselves. WOODRUFF: The Associated Press reported today that the offer made by Attorney General Meese yesterday to review each inmate's case did not go beyond the review which each case was due to receive under routine circumstances. MacNEIL: The second strong earthquake in 12 hours hit California's Imperial Valley at dawn today, but caused relatively minor damage and few injuries. Both quakes were felt as far away as Phoenix, Arizona. The quake, measuring 6. 3 on the Richter scale, struck the sparsely populated desert area east of San Diego, breaking windows, cracking walls, and causing power outages and gas leaks in small towns. A quake registering 6 on the Richter hit the same area last night. Both were stronger than the 5. 9 Richter earthquake which struck the Los Angeles area on October 1, causing three deaths and millions of dollars in damage. WOODRUFF: The Federal Aviation Administration today released a voice recording of the pilot whose Air Force jet crashed into an Indianapolis hotel last month. The tape indicates that once the pilot saw his engine was dead, he asked air traffic controllers if there were any houses in the area where he might have to ditch his plane. The audio tape, which has been edited, indicates there was no answer from the control.

VOICE OF PILOT: (unintelligible) there's any kind of housing area up close, because I have to get rid of this -- VOICE: (unintelligible) VOICE OF PILOT: (unintelligible) and it looks like I may have to get out -- I'm going down in (unintelligible) area -- VOICE: (unintelligible) In the approach just about (unintelligible) VOICE: Did he crashed out there? WOODRUFF: The pilot was able to eject safely, but ten people were killed when his jet crashed into the lobby of a Ramada Hotel. A spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration said today that he could not say why the air traffic controllers had not responded. MacNEIL: Stock prices rose today on the strength of two pieces of good economic news. Central banks in West Germany, France and the Netherlands lowered interest rates as part of an orchestrated move to stabilize the U. S. dollar. The U. S. has been urging such action in particular on Germany. And in Washington, the Commerce Department revised its estimate of the gross national product for the July to September period, from 3. 8 to 4. 1%. On Wall Street, prices rose from the beginning of trading with more than two stocks rising for each one declining. By the end of the day, the Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks closed up 40 points, at 1963. 53. Two hundred million shares were traded. WOODRUFF: That wraps up our summary of today's news. Just ahead on the NewsHour, the arms deal just agreed to between the U. S. and the Soviets, the debate over obscenity in broadcasting, Cuban prisoners revolt in Atlanta and Louisiana, and essayist Roger Mudd on voting times. Disarming Deal MacNEIL: We begin with arms control, and the announcement that the U. S. and Soviets have agreed on all aspects of a medium range missile treaty to be signed at the Washington summit next month. We'll be talking about the INS and future arms accords with three experts in a moment. Some details about the INS treaty, especially about verification, remains to be disclosed. But the treaty represents the first time the superpowers actually will reduce nuclear weapons. The Soviets will dismantle 441 SS 20 missiles in Europe and Asia, and another 112 SS 4's. Those missiles carry 1435 warheads. The U. S. will dismantle 108 Pershing 2 missiles, and 64 Cruise missiles in Europe, with a total of 364 warheads. The U. S. and West Germany will also dismantle 72 short range Pershing 1 missiles. And the Soviets will abandon 20 SS 23's. In his speech today, the President hailed the INF Accord, but renewed his pledge not to bargain away the strategic defense initiative in any future talks with Gorbachev.

Pres. REAGAN: As you're all aware, General Secretary Gorbachev will be visiting Washington beginning December 7. We hope to sign an historic treaty that will eliminate a whole class of U. S. and Soviet nuclear arms intermediate range missiles from the face of the earth, the first mutually agreed upon reduction in our nuclear arsenals ever. And this could well be just the beginning. We have just had word from Geneva, where Secretary Shultz is, that we are right to speak so optimistically about the upcoming treaty, the INF Treaty. They have made great progress there. We hope we can see forward movement on a number of other fronts. The United States, for example, has proposed a 50% reduction in U. S. --Soviet offensive strategic forces. Much progress has been made toward a Start Agreement, as we call it, and more is possible. But let there be no doubt, giving up the strategic defense initiative and the protection it will provide, is too high a price to pay for any agreement. Neither the INF Treaty we hope to sign during the upcoming summit, nor any other agreement that follows, will be built on trust. Agreements with the Soviet Union must be based on reciprocity, verification and realism. And while we want to bolster the peace, do our part to improve relations, no agreement should ever be signed simply for the sake of signing an agreement, for the sake of atmospherics. MacNEIL: Not everyone in Washington is euphoric about the INF deal. We go first to a Pentagon official, who was one of the architects of the zero option plan for intermediate missiles. He is Frank Gaffney, who served as deputy to Assistant Secretary Richard Perle and then succeeded him briefly earlier this year. Mr. Gaffney resigned on Friday, saying he was concerned that the U. S. was negotiating the INF Accord under the deadline of the summit. Mr. Gaffney, aren't you confident the treaty agreed today is a good treaty? FRANK GAFFNEY, former Pentagon official: No, I'm afraid I'm not confident of that, Robin. I very much take heart in what the President said about not signing an agreement unless it's verifiable, not signing an agreement unless it is on the face of it sound and in our interests, and certainly not for the purpose of creating atmospherics. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that may not be the prescription that's been followed in reaching the agreement described today. As you've said, a number of the details, particularly in the verification area, have not been disclosed. My guess is that a number of details remain to be worked out. Some of the language that Secretary of State Shultz and even the President himself used today, allude to the fact that work does continue to be finalized. The treaty language in particular is a painstaking process. There is not much time to do it. I wouldn't be surprised if some problems don't get emerged in that process. MacNEIL: So you still fear that they have rushed to meet the deadline, and gone a bit too fast for a prudent approach? Mr. GAFFNEY: I don't think there's any question about it. I don't agree with Senator Nunn on all points, but he has made a point, and I think he's right in doing so, in insisting that this treaty and its negotiating history will receive careful Senate scrutiny. My guess is when that scrutiny takes place, it will be revealed that a tremendous amount was done in these last few days, weeks, months, and not all of it can be described as in our interests. Indeed, I think it will be revealed that much of the verification work that has now been presumably completed, has represented rather massive departures from longstanding U. S. positions. MacNEIL: What will confirm your fear? If you turn out to be right, what will turn up as evidence that you're right? Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, I think -- it's hard to point to any specific aspect of the treaty, especially when so much of it is yet to be revealed. MacNEIL: What would enable you to come back here and say, ''You see, I told you!'' Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, first, your invitation to come back, and then I'll give you a fuller answer. But my guess is anticipating what's come out, that there will be decisions taken on a number of verification procedures, which will largely debase the value of the on site inspection regime, which is going to be one of the arguable centerpieces of this agreement. I noted that Secretary Carlucci today made much of the fact that this agreement goes where no other agreement has gone before, particularly in terms of intrusive on site inspection. We've long supported that. That has indeed been a cardinal principle of this administration, but I think it must be borne in mind that the arrangements, the procedures, the modalities for inspection can be so circumscribed as to make an on site inspection really little more than a Potemkin village drill, and after all, it is the Russian tradition that has brought us that experience. MacNEIL: You mean that the Soviets would agree to let American monitors or inspectors go and look, but in your view they wouldn't be able to go often enough or look far enough to see what you think they need to see? Is that putting it too simply? Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, there are a number of variations on the theme, but the old story of the drunk looking under the lamp post, because that's where he can see, even though that's not where he dropped his keys, is, I think, indicative of the kind of problem that we face here. MacNEIL: Why would an administration of a president as conservative and as much a hardliner on these matters as Mr. Reagan, get an inferior deal, after all the rhetoric and positions taken over the last seven years? Mr.GAFFNEY: Well, I hope he won't, Robin. My own view is that there remains enough time before this treaty is signed for a careful stock taking to take place. What we have is apparently ad referendum agreement, and I think if that means anything, it will be that the treaty, and particularly the language yet to be developed flushing it out, will have to come back to capitals, to Washington in our case, to be reviewed carefully. And it would be my hope, and my strong recommendation to the President, that he engage in that review senior members of the United States who will have to take active and leading roles in the ratification debate, and other experts, some of whom may no longer be inside the government, but I think of several who once served in it -- who might be able to shed light on potential problems with the agreement as it has formed up. And if he finds that the advice of people who will indeed be involved in this ratification debate is such that it provides for a stormy, if not problematic future for this treaty, in the second part of the process, namely the ratification step, I think he would be well advised to think further about improvements, adjustments, that might yet be made that will avoid the kind of conundrum you've described. MacNEIL: Okay. We'll come back. Let's get two other perspectives now on the INF Treaty and the Strategic Missile Accord that the Administration wants to begin negotiating with the Soviets at the Washington summit. Congressman David McCurdy is a member of the House Arms Services and Intelligence Committees. He chaired intelligence committee hearings on arms control verification, and its report was released last week. John Steinbrunner is Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution and has written extensively on arms control. Mr. Steinbrunner, from what you know, is this a good treaty? JOHN STEINBRUNNER, Brookings Institution: From the public discussion, I would say it's a good treaty. The terms intrinsic to the treaty are desirable. The main question is whether it leads to a larger agreement, or whether it diverts the process from that. MacNEIL: You mean in itself it is not that valuable? Mr. STEINBRUNNER: In itself it is valuable, but its main significance is its effect on the larger process. It's valuable on its own terms, but it still has a larger effect. MacNEIL: What do you say to Mr. Gaffney's fears that this may be the product of a too rushed agreement? Mr. STEINBRUNNER: Well, they've been negotiating since 1982, so we should have had plenty of time to do our homework on the subject. And I rather doubt that that would be a major factor. MacNEIL: You just think his fears are baseless? Mr. STEINBRUNNER: Well, people have various kinds of fears. The degree to which you think everything has to be pinned down has to do with to some extent your interest in having the agreement in the first place. And it's well known that many people not particularly desiring any agreement have burdened them with very heavy expectations, and they're never quite satisfied that they're being met. MacNEIL: You're saying his fears are based on the fact that he doesn't want an agreement? Mr. STEINBRUNNER: No, I'm just -- we have to see what he's talking about before we can make any sensible comment. All I'm saying is that there has been plenty of time to negotiate this, and it will be a surprise if some major provisions have not been adequately worked out. They've had plenty of time to think about it. This did not come up recently. MacNEIL: Mr. McCurdy -- Congressman McCurdy, you're one of the congressional experts on verification. What do you think of the proposed treaty and the verification package, as far as you know? Rep. DAVE McCURDY, (D) Oklahoma: Well, again, Robin, we haven't seen all the details, but I think this existing proposal and treaty as best we can tell is certainly better than what we started with -- at least with the zero/zero option, you're talking about the elimination of an entire class, all missiles, all launchers, and also the cruise missiles. The cruise missile presented a real problem, and some people wanted to hold off and have conventional warheads and eliminate the nuclear, and that presented a very difficult verification problem. But by including all those ground/launch cruise missiles, I think it eliminated that. So from that perspective, I think that they've moved very close with on site inspection and national technical means, to have a reasonable treaty. MacNEIL: National technical means being spying from satellites on them? Rep. McCURDY: Plus other sources, yes. MacNEIL: What do you say to Mr. Gaffney's worries? Rep. McCURDY: Well, again I think we have to see what the details are. Evidently it's a very lengthy treaty. You can't have a perfect treaty. I don't think you can get -- protect every single aspect of possible cheating, or deception. But I think in this case we've gone about as far as we probably can. And again we want to see what the national language is. But I'm more confident today in having had those sets of hearings on the classes and types of systems that we're discussing here that we're in a better position to monitor and verify with a high degree of confidence. MacNEIL: Mr. Steinbrunner, is the verification of this kind of treaty particularly difficult, given the means available now? Mr. STEINBRUNNER: Well, there are new principles involved, on site inspection and the issue of challenge inspections and that sort of thing presumably will be involved. But we should keep in mind that the verification of this agreement should not intrinsically be difficult. There's very little incentive for the Soviet Union to produce more SS 20's. That is an old system. The SS 25 that is replacing it is much better. We don't have to go through enormous hoops to determine that a company producing a 1988 BMW is not going to produce a 1975 Volkswagon on the sly. MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, Congressman, there isn't much incentive for the Soviets to cheat on this one? Rep. McCURDY: I think in this treaty. I think there are other treaties, and I think we have to again look at the experience with the Soviets, but when you talk about just the INF Treaty itself, I don't think that there's a great deal of incentive. I don't think there's a great deal of military benefit to be achieved by cheating in this area. MacNEIL: Mr. Gaffney, what do you say to that? The argument that they don't have much motive to cheat on this one, therefore, at least as far as the INF on site inspection and other verification is concerned, it ain't so difficult? Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, I tend to disagree with the view. I think the truth of the matter is that the Soviets have shown themselves willing to cheat, even where it doesn't seem to us, based upon our military assessment and so on, to be particularly justifiable. They do it I don't think just for the pure pleasure of it, but they seem to be operating under the basis that they have military requirements, they have perceived needs, which we may not be in a position to judge. And the issue isn't merely -- if I may, Robin -- the issue isn't merely producing more SS 20's. The question is will we know that all of the SS 20's that exist now have been captured by the treaty and are being eliminated pursuant to its terms, and you can argue whether 100 or 200 or 300 illegal covertly deployed SS 20's make a material difference. The premise of this treaty, after all, the premise of our deployment which made this treaty possible, was that such a size force did in fact make a military difference, in particular to our allies in Europe. MacNEIL: Is your argument that the only way to have a really good agreement this time is to have an absolutely watertight guaranteed system of inspection, that there is no way that the Soviets can cheat, there's no room or space for trust left -- is that your position? Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, I don't think there's any space for trust, period. And I think that's pretty widely agreed within the community of experts. My concern goes beyond that. I believe, frankly, that you have to anticipate that there will not be a perfect verification regime. We will never know that the Soviets are fully complying with the terms of an agreement as long as the Soviet Union is the society and state that it is, a secretive, closed, enormous, largely military organization. My concern is the verification regime that we have sought -- and here I take John's point -- we have had it right, I think, for six years, in insisting upon a demanding, rigorous verification regime -- not because we thought it would be perfect, but because it would do two things. One, it would create a climate in which it was costly and inconvenient for the Soviets to cheat, and two, it would create circumstances in which we could try to deter them from cheating by giving the possibility of catching them at it. MacNEIL: Congressman McCurdy, I know it's not the House that ratifies, it's the Senate. But you must have some feel for that. With people like Mr. Gaffney around, sowing doubt, is this going to be a really difficult treaty to ratify? Rep. McCURDY: Well, I think the President has his work cut out for him. MacNEIL: You really do? Rep. McCURDY: Yes. I think -- well, within his own party, more specifically. The -- many on the far right, and Senator Helms and others have talked about delaying tactics and filibuster, and a number of efforts. I think he has to convince them that the verification requirements within this treaty are sound, and that we are entering into a new era of cooperative measures with the Soviets on this type of treaty. Again, this treaty with the double zeros is so much better than what they started out with that I think that should bode well with the majority of the Senate. MacNEIL: Mr. Steinbrunner, what do you think of Mr. Gaffney's idea that they should bring the treaty back and let a lot of people, experts in and outside the government, look at it and make absolutely sure that it isn't going to create a huge fuss in the Senate -- this is how I interpret what he said -- before going ahead with ratification. Mr. STEINBRUNNER: Well, it's inevitable that it will happen. We're a democracy and it will be debated. People care about this matter. We have had difficulty reaching a national consensus on any agreement whatsoever. And if we have to have every last person resolve his or her last doubt, obviously we'll never make the national decision. So some practical attitude has to be adopted by a workable majority to have any treaty at all. MacNEIL:Mr. Gaffney, what do you say to the response that you just raise all these difficulties because you don't want an agreement, you're one of those who would prefer that they didn't make an agreement with the Soviets? Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, I like your introductory remarks in which you gave me some credit for having formulated the original proposal, and indeed I think Congressman McCurdy is not referring to our original proposal, but an interim step that we proposed at Reykjavik, which departed from the zero option. And I thought that was a mistake at the time, and I'm delighted that we moved away from it. But if I may just come back to the point that John just made -- the issue isn't having everybody completely satisfied with the treaty. There are certain people who are going to be leaders in the Senate and outside the Senate in the debate about this treaty. My view is that the signature of this agreement is a watershed. We can see I believe, our alliance come unglued over the fact that we will have a signed treaty that may not be ratified, a political environment created in Europe -- MacNEIL: Excuse me for interrupting, but we just have under a minute. I just want to be clear on a point. Are you saying they shouldn't sign it? The President shouldn't sign it until these extra reviews that you are proposing have been made? Mr. GAFFNEY: Well, my suggestion is that we have 10 days or so before the summit takes place. That's plenty of time for the President to convene several meetings with senior officials former officials and key senators and make a reading, having given them an opportunity to acquaint themselves, which none of us have had thus far -- I emphasize that point -- in terms of the treaty. MacNEIL: We do have to leave it there. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Gaffney, Congressman McCurdy, and Mr. Steinbrunner, for joining us. Expletive Deleted WOODRUFF: We turn now to the business of broadcasting and the issue of obscenity. The Federal Communications Commission met today and reiterated its tough stand on indecent and obscene broadcast. It did, however, slightly modify a ruling reached last April when the FCC began legal proceedings against one Los Angeles radio station, a member of the sometimes controversial Pacifica Radio Network. Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET in Los Angeles prepared this background report before today's ruling. ACTOR: I was in Vietnam. I saw what immoral means. I learned what immoral means. And nobody, but nobody, tells me I'm immoral if I love a man. If I love a hundred men in one night --

JEFFREY KAYE: This play is entitled Jerker, and it depicts two homosexual men discussing sexual fantasies over the phone and engaging in masturbation, phone sex. In October 1986, Los Angeles radio station KPFK, a Pacifica station, broadcast excerpts from the play. The broadcast included the graphic sex scenes. Larry Poland, a Southern California pastor, heard the program and was outraged. Poland preaches at an evangelical church. He regularly monitors radio and television programs and writes to broadcasters about his concern. Poland says he was driving in his car when he heard the KPFK broadcast. He took note of offensive passages as he drove, and the next day sent a letter of complaint to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. Weeks later, he received a call from a FCC employer. LARRY POLAND, Southern California Minister: Finally he said, ''Well, you're going to be famous. '' I said, ''I don't want to be famous. '' He said, ''We're going tomake this a landmark case. We think it's one of the clearest cases of indecent and/or obscene (unintelligible) that we've had to deal with, and we intend to pursue it all the way to the Supreme Court. JAMES F. QUELLA, FCC Commissioner: The Jerker language in Pacifica is disgustingly obscene.

KAYE: On April 16 of this year, the FCC acted on Poland's complaint and announced a new get tough policy towards broadcast indecency. It sent warning letters to KPFK and to two other radio stations. And it asked the Justice Department to consider prosecuting KPFK for violating obscenity laws. FCC general counsel Diane Killory told reporter Jeff Goldman that the Commission just wants to enforce the law. DIANE KILLORY, Federal Communications Commission: It's directed at children. The law makes -- the law prohibits the broadcast of sexually explicit material to children. There certainly was no intention on the commission's part to take any action against the specific broadcaster. We did it solely based on the specific programs that came in as a result of complaints. In fact, it wasn't until we were writing up the item toward the end that we realized that this was the same Pacifica that we'd had the action against in the 1970's.

KAYE: KPFK is one of the five listener supported Pacifica stations, located in the business district of North Hollywood. KPFK broadcasts an eclectic assortment of programs, ranging from poetry to drama to news and public affairs, to music, Spanish language shows. Its sister station, KBFA in Berkeley, California, has a similar program schedule, as do other Pacifica stations in New York, Washington, D. C. , and Houston. Pacifica was founded in 1949, as an alternative to commercial radio. Its policy of providing a forum to unconventional performers and radical viewpoints led to a long series of run ins with government. In the early 1960's, Pacifica was accused of being subversive. Later, the Pacifica stations' heavy coverage of the anti Vietnam war movement prompted more government scrutiny. In 1974, the kidnapped heiress Patricia Hearst, using the name Tanya, sent a revolutionary taped message to KPFK. Authorities subpoenaed the tape, but the KPFK general manager at the time, Will Lewis, claimed reporters' privilege, and spent 16 days in jail, rather than turn it over. WILL LEWIS, media consultant: If Pacifica isn't in trouble in some way, then Pacifica really isn't doing its mission.

KAYE: Now an independent media consultant, Lewis believes Pacifica's mission has been to push the limits of acceptable broadcast standards. Mr. LEWIS: I think it's important that Pacifica test those boundaries and that there be an institution like Pacifica that can open up the media as Pacifica has. It's pioneered almost every major advancement, in my opinion, that we see in the media today. GEORGE CARLIN, comedian: Sometime I was trying to get a list of words together that would fairly represent the dirty words.

KAYE: This George Carlin comedy routine was aired by Pacifica's New York station WBAI in 1973. That broadcast led to the FCC's last major ruling on indecency. Mr. CARLIN: My list was just trying to isolate the words that were always filthy, not the ones that were sometimes dirty.

KAYE: Carlin listed the seven dirty words you can't say on television. Pacifica aired them on (unintelligible) radio. A lengthy court battle ensued, and as a result, in 1975 a standard was set. Broadcasters could run programs with the seven words, only after 10:00 at night, providing the shows followed a warning like this one often used on television. VOICE: This program contains explicit and coarse street language. It's not intended for children's viewing. Parental guidance is advised.

KAYE: For KPFK and other broadcasters, the old seven dirty words rule was simple to follow. But twelve years later, the new decision announced this April has left stations without clear cut guidelines. There is now no safe late night time period to broadcast objectionable material, warning or not. And no definitive list of dirty words. LUCIA CHAPPELLE, KPFK Program Director: What is indecent? The person who does the children's program had to call me and ask me if she could say ca ca and poo poo in a children's story! What is indecent? KAYE: Could she? Mr. CHAPPELLE: We didn't know! We had to call the lawyer and finally she said, ''You know, never mind. I just won't run the story'' That's what it's done here. SYLVIA MAGUITE PEPPER, KPFK Program Host: The fact is I can't deal with subjects that are of tremendous interest to older people, and to younger people who are approaching, as always, the point of age. And I -- KAYE: Such as what? Ms. PEPPER: Dealing with their insides, with their functions, their bodily functions, dealing with sexuality. WANDA COLEMAN, Poet/KPFK Program Host: It's censorship. It's just blatantly censorship. And frankly it makes me angry. I can't even read my own work on the program, for instance. I mean, you know -- KAYE: Why not? Ms. COLEMAN: Because of the language I use. I use a lot of the black idiom, I use a lot of slang. There's a lot of nasty words. Ms. CHAPPELLE: You don't really know what is allowed and what is not allowed. They've essentially said, ''When you mess up, we will let you know. '' And it's really not much to go by.

KAYE: At the September meeting of the Pacifica Board of Directors, station representatives shared war stories. Pacifica officials have instituted rigorous self censorship, despite the decision by the Justice Department this July not to file criminal charges against KPFK for broadcasting excerpts from the sexually explicit play, Jerker. Pacifica is pursuing a lawsuit, seeking to reverse the new FCC ruling. In the meantime, the foundation's executive director David Salniker has told Pacifica stations to overcensor themselves in order to avoid expensive legal battles. DAVID SALNIKER, Pacifica Foundation: We definitely don't want to get in a license battle. Cost a half million dollars in a license battle. And I'm not going to go to license fight to say the word, ''crap. '' But I will go to a license battle if it means we can't do news with integrity, drama with integrity, poetry with integrity, musical program with integrity. KAYE: Larry Poland is proud that his principle stand has had a chilling effect on Pacifica's programming. He wants broadcasters to think twice about what they put on the air. Mr. POLAND: It just seems like it's time that somebody says, ''Enough, already!'' It isn't right for us to be bombarded by values that are so dissimilar from even the common citizen's -- I'm not talking about conservative Christian people, which is what I happen to be -- I'm talking about the values of John and Mary Public. And my children who are out at that time of night and plenty capable of taking in that program could have had in 30 minutes the innocence lost that I've protected at this point in their lives in order to lead them into the knowledge of the way the world works under my guidance. And as far as I'm concerned, that does injury to me and my family potential. Mr. SALNIKER: I think that people ought to learn to turn off the radio if they're bothered by something. And that's -- there are lots of things on radio that I consider gross -- even some commercials that I consider very gross. And I move the dial. Mr. POLAND: To use the argument that the listener's responsibility if paramount, to turn the dial on or off, is like asking a person who's already been mugged somehow to turn back the -- the damage has been done by the time you've heard it.

KAYE: No damage was done by broadcasting excerpts from Jerker, according to Pacifica representatives. They argue the play was social commentary, broadcast on a late night program, aimed specifically to gays and lesbians. Pacifica argues the FCC has failed to distinguish between broadcasts with redeeming social value and shock radio programs with sexually explicit references, heard on some commercial stations. Mr. SALNIKER: We're not trying to build huge audiences by shocking audiences. We're not trying to titillate the American public. We're trying to present pieces of serious merit. WOODRUFF: Today, the FCC restated its tough obscenity guidelines, but said that it would allow certain indecent material to be broadcast after midnight. The commission refused to issue a comprehensive list of words or pictures that it considers objectionable. David Salniker of Pacifica Radio called the clarification ''virtually useless,'' and asked, ''Who is going to be in the audience after midnight?'' Standoff WOODRUFF: Next tonight, we return to the prison siege story. As we reported earlier, Cuban prisoners in Atlanta are holding still as many as 75 hostages at the Federal Detention Center there. Meanwhile in Oakdale, Louisiana, another group of Cuban detainees are holding 28 hostages. The Cubans are demanding a guarantee that they will not be deported to Cuba, as called for under a treaty announced last week. In Washington today, Justice Department official Stephen Trott, reiterated the offer made yesterday by the Federal Government to review each individual case.

STEPHEN TROTT, Associate Attorney General: It is our intention before anybody is returned under this agreement, no matter where that person may be at this time, that anybody will receive a full, complete, equitable hearing with respect to this matter. We told them that the agreement will remain in full force and effect, that there will be people who will return under this agreement. Nobody will be returned without this type of a hearing. But we will take into consideration the crimes that were committed by the people involved, their family situation, any changes of circumstances, any things that we might have missed, any mistakes that might have been made, and that again this is a full review, with nothing up our sleeves. And it's the best we can offer them, and under the circumstances we think this gives them an opportunity to help themselves. And that the best thing they can now do is to stop the uprisings, release the hostages, and that way they will certainly not damage what they are interested in. We have not indicated in the slightest, though, that we intend to abrogate this agreement. The agreement stands. WOODRUFF: Joining us now for reaction to today's development are two men who have been involved in the issue from quite different perspectives. Georgia Republican Congressman Pat Swindall, a member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration for Refugees and International Law. And Gene Guerrero, executive director of the Georgia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has worked to provide legal representation for Cubans in detention. They both join us from Atlanta. Let me begin with you, Mr. Guerrero, what is the situation there at the prison -- I know there's a limited amount of information available, but what do you know at this point? GENE GUERRERO, American Civil Liberties Union: There's been really little change over today. The basic problem is the inmates in the prison apparently do not have leadership at this point, and so there's been in effect no negotiations during the day today, as I understand it. WOODRUFF: Why is that? Do we know why there's no leadership? Is it they just can't agree on what the demands are? Mr. GUERRERO: I don't think we know. I spoke with one of the attorneys who is in the prison last night and this morning. And they're just waiting to see what the inmates do in terms of choosing a spokesperson for their groups. WOODRUFF: Congressman Swindall, what information do you have about how many inmates are involved in Atlanta? I have not seen that information? Rep. PAT SWINDALL, (R) Georgia: Well, essentially you're talking about a Cuban population of roughly 1400, and I understand that close to 300 of those Cubans have chosen to leave the area where the riot has occurred. So I think you're talking about roughly 1000 individuals, and of those 1000, slightly more than 300 would be subject to deportation under the 1984 migration agreement. WOODRUFF: How dangerous is this situation, congressman? Rep. SWINDALL: Well, I think it's very dangerous, if for no other reason you've got a Cuban population there that has at best conflicting agenda and objectives. And I think that's one of the reasons that there's such difficulty in establishing meaningful negotiations. If you analyze what the Attorney General said just yesterday, he basically made about as broad and generous a starting point of agreement as one can make under the current restrictions in the law. Basically, he set a moratorium, no retaliation, and full review. WOODRUFF: Well, I just heard the clarification, or whatever, from the associate attorney general, Mr. Trott. Mr. Guerrero, why isn't that enough for these inmates, do you think? Mr. GUERRERO: Well, I think what makes the situation so dangerous is the distrust of the inmates of the government. And the action of the administration so far simply reinforced that distrust. All we've seen so far, really, is half an offer from the administration. They've issued a moratorium, which is welcome, but they've refused to explain how they will in fact guarantee fair hearings for the Cubans. The problem is the inmates know that in the past they have not had fair treatment from the government, and in the recent past, they've not had fair hearings to review their situation under a hearing plan that's been held since this past June. Under this plan, there's no right to an attorney to represent them. Some of these people are not literate in Spanish, much less fluent in English. And the decision as to whether or not they will be eventually released or not is made by an INS officer, the same person who's keeping them in prison. WOODRUFF: That's the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It sounds like you're saying they're not necessarily looking for an absolute guarantee that they not be all returned to Cuba -- the ones who are -- Mr. GUERRERO: We don't know exactly what their demands are. The attorney who met with them yesterday came out saying that one of their demands -- simple demands -- was for fair hearings. I was disturbed by the news conference today by the Justice Department spokesman, because he refused repeatedly to clarify what in fact he meant by fair hearings. And he refused to issue any guarantee that would lead me, at least, to believe that they are going to have fair hearings that comport with requirements for due process. WOODRUFF: Congressman Swindall, how could that be guaranteed, that each man will get a fair and equitable hearing? Rep. SWINDALL: Well, my subcommittee on which I'm ranking, the immigration subcommittee of the judiciary committee, has already decided that we are going to hold hearings -- and this was long before the riots, long before the reinstatement of the agreement -- that we were going to hold hearings in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary to review the progress that has been made with respect to the current INS plan that is already in effect, under which 91 individuals have already been released since June, and another 800 plus individuals have been certified to be released. WOODRUFF: Do you think they should be given special consideration, the ones who are most likely to be sent back under the current arrangement? Rep. SWINDALL: Well, certainly, any further consideration would be special consideration. And because of my deep concern for these hostages, and my deep concern that they be returned healthy, yes, I would be willing to make special consideration and absolutely guarantee that yet another hearing will be held and that it will be the type of hearing that guarantees due process, and I can assure you that Congress will assert itself in making certain in an oversight capacity that that occurs. WOODRUFF: Are you satisfied, congressman, with the way the government's handling this situation? Rep. SWINDALL: Yes, I am. I think that when all the facts are known in retrospect, you'll see a great deal of wisdom in terms of how the situation was handled after the riots occurred. I have some misgivings in terms of what occurred with respect to the timing of the announcement, as well as what occurred in the Bureau of Prisons itself, with respect to taking precautionary measures. WOODRUFF: You mean the fact that there was no warning given, and the fact that no precautions were made to make sure there would be no riots. Rep. SWINDALL: I don't feel that there was adequate lead time given to the Bureau of Prisons before the announcement was made, nor do I feel that precautionary measures that should have been taken were taken. WOODRUFF: Mr. Guerrero, what do you think about the way this has been handled? Mr. GUERRERO: Well, I think the real question is how it's been handled in the last two days, since the riot began. And we're seeing a failure of leadership by the administration. We need decisive action by the Justice Department spokespersons to assure these prisoners that they will be treated fairly. They have not been treated fairly by day one when they first came to this country from Mariel, seeking new opportunity in the land of the free. They've been mistreated over and over again, and promises that have been made to them have been empty promises. So we need decisive action right now. We've got a very dangerous situation, a lot of lives are at stake. So we need leadership from Attorney General Meese and his associates at the Justice Department, to assure these inmates that they will be treated fairly. If I were in their shoes, I would be skeptical of what I've heard so far. WOODRUFF: Congressman Swindall, why hasn't that sort of clear assurance been forthcoming from the government? Rep. SWINDALL: Well, first and foremost, it has been. Let's remember that 129,000 individuals came over here in 1980 as a result of Jimmy Carter's decision to accept them. Of those 129,000, all but 150 have been released into society. Each and every one of the individuals, with the exception of those 150, who are clearly a threat to the public, have been reviewed, have been released and have chosen on their own free will and accord to commit crimes that subject them to deportation. We're talking about over 500 murders, we're talking about 94 rapists, we're talking about 400 robbers, we're talking about burglars in the neighborhood of 400. We're not talking here about petty offenses, we're talking about people that made a decision to basically violate the conditions under which they were brought into this country. Every other person that has ever done that has been deported. That's our law. And the truth of the matter is that we've already made special consideration -- because Castro has so (unintelligible) Mr. GUERRERO: We're not asking for special consideration. All we're asking for is the same consideration that any alien would get if they were being deported from this country WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we thank you both for being with us. This is certainly one that we're going to continue to watch. Gene Guerrero, Congressman Pat Swindall, thank you both for being with us. Viewing the Vote MacNEIL: Finally tonight, our regular Washington essayist Roger Mudd looks at television coverage of election night returns.

ROGER MUDD: In less than six weeks we will once again embark on America's quadrennial, longest running, most expensive, pre planned special event, the campaign for the presidency. It lasts from January to January, from the aisle of the caucuses to the convention, to the poll debates, to election night, and finally to inauguration. And once again, our companion almost every step of the way will be television. It was not always that way. Back in the 1940s and '50s, television and politics were strangers. TV reporting was rudimentary, and coverage was designed mainly to sell TV sets. ABC did not even broadcast the '52 convention. NBC's anchor man was Bill Henry, CBS's was Walter Cronkite. Delegates were told to wear blue shirts. But today, competition among networks can sometimes overshadow the competition among candidates. The competition can also create unwelcome problems for the networks. Who can forget election night 1980, when NBC declared three hours before the polls had closed out west that Reagan had defeated Carter? CBS and ABC were furious. They had been badly beaten. No less furious were western politicians who claim that NBC's prediction of a Reagan victory at 5:15 Pacific time, had stopped many voters right in their tracks, especially Democratic voters, causing the narrow defeats of Senator Frank Church in Idaho, and Congressman Al Alban in Oregon and Jim Corman in California. There has never been any convincing proof of that, but there is evidence that many voters west of the Rockies now believe that their votes count for less than those east of the Rockies, that they are genuinely disturbed about what they suspect is network penetration of the ballot box, and that they feel it borders on arrogance for television to tell the nation something has happened before it has actually happened. The network answer is that its projections and predictions are based on the actual votes from key precincts in each state, that it is journalistically indefensible not to call an election once a candidate has accumulated 270 electoral votes. And that after all, this is the age of high tech television brisk and bright, and not the good old days of radio when H. V Kaltenborne and Lowell Thomas would talk until dawn, waiting for the farm vote to come in. Such an answer, however compelling, has failed to overcome voter resentment toward television, or to solve the election night problem imposed on the networks by the country's four time zones. So last week, the House of Representatives tried again to help the networks with their societal problem. The House approved for the second year in a row, a bill requiring simultaneous poll closing time of 9:00 p. m. , Eastern Standard Time in presidential elections. For their part, the networks have pledged in writing not to predict, project, prognosticate, proscribe or presume a presidential winner until all the polls are closed. That would mean that election night coverage would not begin until 9:00 p. m. Eastern time, but the next few hours would be very intense. No longer would there be stately transcontinental march of returns from Connecticut and Kentucky, westward through Ohio, on to Colorado and ending in California with the big electronic map popping up red and blue from East to West. Henceforth, the map would begin popping all at once. First would come the big margin states. Then would come the states quickest to report, like Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey. Then would come the closely contested states. At the end would come the traditional paper ballots, the slow states like South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia. And finally, bless its heart, Cook County, Illinois. Given a landslide of 1984 proportions, election night could be over by 10:30. Given a cliffhanger of the 1960 variety, election night could take a while. So it would not be much different than it is now. Except that no longer could the printer out in Seattle, Washington complain as he did in 1980, ''They told me on the radio there was no sense in my voting. '' Recap MacNEIL: Again, the main points in the news this day. The U. S. and Soviet Union agreed on the nuclear arms treaty to be signed at the summit. Cuban prisoners holding more than 100 hostages still control prisons in Atlanta and Oakdale, Louisiana. Good night, Judy. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.