The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Interview with Charles Ferris

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. If you get mad at something you don`t like on television, there are a lot of people you can complain to. If you`re really steamed up you can go as far as the FCC in Washington. The Federal Communications Commission is the agency which regulates broadcasting and other forms of electronic communication. What kind of action you get depends in part on the spirit in the FCC at any one time, and that spirit - - zealous or relaxed -- depends a lot on the chairman. Right now the broadcasting industry is watching with some puzzlement a smooth and dynamic character who`s headed the commission since last fall. He`s Charles D. Ferris, and broadcasters are still waiting to see whether he`s going to be a lion of reform or a lamb of peaceful coexistence. Tonight, the thoughts of Chairman Ferris. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, 150 members of Congress showed up seven months ago when Charles Ferris was sworn in as FCC chairman. They came to congratulate one of their own; Mr. Ferris had been general counsel to then Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield for thirteen years, and was general counsel to House speaker Tip O`Neill when appointed to the FCC. He`s a native of Boston and was a research physicist, a Navy engineer and a college professor before getting his law degree and joining the Justice Department here in Washington as a trial lawyer in the early `60s. He`s been in Washington ever since, and he`s with us tonight.

First, Mr. Ferris, how much television do you watch yourself?

CHARLES FERRIS: Well, my wife thinks too much. I watch an awful lot of sports, I think; I watch a lot of news programs; but other than that, not a great deal.

LEHRER: What about radio? Do you listen to radio very much?

FERRIS: Going to work and coming home from work, to a great extent, and I`m forced to listen to an awful lot that my daughters have on in the house as well.

LEHRER: I know that problem. Look, what are your general impressions about the quality of broadcast programming in this country?

FERRIS: Well, I have strong views about the programs that I watch and whether I think they could be improved or not, but I think I`d like to say right at the outset that I think that I should separate my personal views and my program tastes from my responsibilities as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I don`t think I should have the power, the responsibility -- and I think the constitution limits my power and my responsibility -- to impose what I think is good taste upon the American public by having what I think is good or bad accentuated or eliminated from programming. So I think from the standpoint of what I think is good, do I think it could be improved, of course it could be improved. You could have much greater diversity because I probably would watch an awful lot more television if there was a great deal more appealing on television to me. But I don`t think as chairman of the FCC that

I should involve myself and the commission should involve itself in legislating or emphasizing certain tastes. As much as I might find that delightful now, I might not find it as delightful when someone replaces me and imposes his or her tastes upon me.

LEHRER: You made a speech last month in Las Vegas to the broadcasting industry, the National Association of Broadcasters, and you said the following, and I quote: "Commercial broadcasting can and must represent more than the survival of the tired, the timid and the imitative." Now, those sound like the words of a man who has some views about how public and commercial television is doing its job right now.

FERRIS: I do think that there is, in commercial television especially -- and not because of any grand scheme; I think it`s to a great extent because of the economics of the television industry and the commercial broadcasting, and really based upon a decision of the Federal Communications Commission in 1952 in the basic allocation of frequencies -- the economic drive of the three commercial networks is to seek out the lowest common denominator of tastes of the American public. Each of the three commercial networks seeks to reach 100 percent of the market; they all compete for everyone. And when they do that, you do have this lowest common denominator mentality and as a result the American public can get the blahs when it comes to television.

LEHRER: And the result is the tired, the timid and the imitative.

FERRIS: Well, that`s right. You have a successful program and everyone tries to imitate that program; and then when it`s imitated for five years it goes on reruns for another five years. And so you do have what I think - - that was a fair evaluation, but I think the point I was trying to make there was not to attempt to invade the detail of any program but to really attempt to open up the economic infrastructure that drives the networks to a great extent.

LEHRER: You`ve only been on the job seven months; you must have some overall impression of the job that broadcasting is doing in the public interest, do you not?

FERRIS: I don`t think one can generalize. There are 8,500 licensees who broadcast in this country, radio and television, so I don`t think one can generalize as to how broadcasters are doing. There are some exceptional broadcasters, and there are some marginal broadcasters, and that`s a great deal of the responsibilities at the commission at license renewal time, trying to sort out the good from the not-so-good, especially when there are competing applicants for these responsibilities. So I don`t think one can make a generalization; I wouldn`t want to make a generalization.

LEHRER: Okay, I`m going to give up trying to get you to do so. But one of your predecessors, Newton Minow, called television a vast wasteland. Do you agree with him about that?

FERRIS: Well, I don`t know -- and when Newton Minow made that statement, it was before the NAB back in 1961, I think television was a different medium than it probably is now. I mean, I just look at what has taken place on television and what a force in society it has been since 1961. You know, you look and see what television did with respect to bringing the country together on many national events; it did it with civil rights in the early `60s, it was the march in Selma and the reaction in Selma that really led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was the event around which people mobilized. And the bombing in Birmingham was the event which millions of people saw on television in 1963 that led to the `64 civil rights bill. And these were two of the most significant legislative achievements that we`ve had this century. And then what took place in the late `60s -- you know, what we witnessed on our news every evening on Vietnam, the killing; and it was news, but we saw it all, and people became aware and it became a part of them. And I think that, to a great extent, put a sense of urgency and mobilized the country to get the government to change a policy and to end a tragic war. Kent State had that same type of effect.

I think what took place in the `70s, with the investigation of Watergate, and the whole televising of the impeachment proceedings in the House -- what took place was the American public was a part of that process; it was a process that took two years, and I know people overseas in parliamentary forms said, "We`d have a vote of no confidence and get rid of someone very quickly," but our process doesn`t work -- we have orderly changes of government. And it was because of television`s participation that this noble transfer of an orderly government survived. So those are things that a vast wasteland doesn`t do. So I don`t think that one can condemn television totally. It has great achievement, and I suppose one wants to compare television, which can broadcast almost twenty-four hours a day on programs -- I understand there are about 40,000 books that are published in the United States each year, and I don`t think all of them are worth reading, but I don`t think television twenty-four hours a day is worth watching. So I think one can make some fair comparison about quality and mediocrity.

LEHRER: All right. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, Mr. Ferris, you also said in that speech in Las Vegas in April that while you shouldn`t exceed your authority to interfere in specific program decisions you thought that we ought to encourage controversy. What does that mean, and how will you use the FCC to encourage more controversy?

FERRIS: Well, controversy from the standpoint of, I don`t think the government should be involved directly in the specifics of programming, but I think there is a journalistic aspect to television -- your public affairs programming -- and I think that the fairness doctrine, which is the doctrine that governs broadcast journalists, has two parts. The first part of the fairness doctrine is that broadcast journalists will cover controversial issues, and when they cover controversial issues they will do that fairly. So I don`t see any real problem with that as a doctrine, I think that should be the doctrine that every journalist, whether he`s a print journalist or a broadcast journalist, should have on his wall.

MacNEIL: But you don`t think there`s enough controversy on the air?

FERRIS: No, I think that the problem is that there are a limited number of broadcast licenses. There are 8,500, and there are only 8,500 individuals in a country of 220 million that can be broadcasters. So the views of those 8,500 -- in television it`s far less than that -their views cannot totally represent the total views of our society. So hopefully there will be an awareness on the part of those that have broadcast licenses to recognize that their viewpoints don`t represent the total viewpoint of society, be sensitive to that, to hopefully open up their facilities to viewpoints that might not be their own and those that they don`t think have a great sense of urgency. I think one can take the example of the New York Times, which opens up its editorial page to commentators who aren`t employed by the New York Times -- I think that type of stimulation, diversity and percoation o viewpoint is something that hopefully broadcast journalism can strive for and achieve more fully than they are today.

MaCNEIL: Coming back to programming generally a moment, you talk about the tyranny of the Neilson ratings in the three networks particularly, and you say that arrangement cannot be acceptable to the American public and must not be acceptable to professional broadcasters. What can you do about that?

FERRIS: Well, to a great extent the economic infrastructure that

I mentioned earlier drives that to a great deal. From the standpoint of the process as it exists, I don`t think the FCC should do anything specifically, but I think the type of free speech option that an awful lot of private citizens are exercising now with respect to Neilson ratings -- those Parent Teachers Associations and others who are complaining to certain advertisers of certain programs that they don`t find it the best type of program for their children or for their homes -- they`re making their views known, and I think that`s a very constitutional process that is being undertaken by private citizens. Now, that`s the type of ventilation and checks and balances that I favor much more than government getting involved and dictating a particular viewpoint. But beyond that, from the structural aspect, I think hopefully what we can do is provide the opportunities for much greater diversity of programs coming into one`s home. The technology is expanding in this industry at an exponential rate; there are competing methods of bringing signals into the house. You can get them now not just over the air but in thirteen million homes in our country already they come in by wire, through a cable system, which has much greater capacity than over-the-air broadcasters.

In Japan they`ve already put up a satellite; in the next few months they`re going to have direct broadcast from satellites to the home, where homes in Japan -- not every home, but eventually maybe every home -- will have a little satellite dish about two feet in diameter which costs about $250, the system they have in Japan, picking up signals directly from the satellite. Now, this type of system is a different method of bringing signals into the home; the cable system with fiber optics has a capacity of bringing in much more than could be needed, fifty channels could come into the home; as well as the existing number of channels that come in over the air. Well, if you have that type of capacity to bring program diversity into the home, I think you`re going to change the basic drive of the economics of the industry, and I think rather than trying to reach 100 percent of the market it`ll be like the radio broadcasters in the large markets; they seek to reach ten percent of the market, at best. And when you seek to reach ten percent of the market rather than 100 percent, I think you will tailor your programming and the taste of programming will be much different, and I think we`ll get a much greater variety and I think a much greater degree of satisfaction, and I don`t think it will be just the imitative, the tired that we`ll have on television.

MacNEIL: You mentioned license renewals. There`s a widespread impression among observers of broadcasting in the country that in the past, and perhaps at the present still, licenses issued for three years are in effect issued in perpetuity. You said that you`re going to enforce the public interest standard. What exactly are you going to do? Are you going to be tougher in requiring stations to prove that they are broadcasting in the public interest?

FERRIS: Well, I`ve noticed in the seven months that I`ve been at the FCC now that there`s been somewhat of a subtle double standard with respect to license renewals. There is far greater reluctance to use the severe remedy of revocation of a license on a large-market and economically viable broadcast licensee than there is on a small radio station operator. I think that the rules of the FCC apply to both equally. The public airways belong to the public. When an individual gets a license from the FCC for three years, I consider him a public trustee, not just an entrepreneur, and he owes a very high duty to the public. And I think we at the FCC, when we apply the responsibilities of a public trustee, we apply it to the big as well as to the small in equal fashion. And so the idea of it being tougher or not tougher, it`s just going to be fair, and it`s going to be applied the same to the big and to the small, with one standard and not have any double standard of the deep-pocket or economically viable stations being treated differently than the smaller-market stations; and I think to some degree that has been the case in the past.

MacNEIL: Is it conceivable that a large station could have its license taken away or a renewal refused?

FERRIS: Oh, it certainly is.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: You`ve said that you want the FCC to explore whether or not broadcasters are doing their job in children`s programming specifically. What`s caused your concern about children`s programming?

FERRIS: Well, the concern with children`s programming is the fact that preschool children watch more television before they go to school than the number of hours they`ll be in school through high school. Now, this is a very, very impressionable age; the premises of children and their attitudes -- social attitudes which will stay with them through life -- are determined in that period of time when they`re one to five, before they go to school. And the great amount of their information is coming by television. Now, the content of what`s on those programs and the message that they`re getting is very, very important for determining what the future structure and attitude of our society is going to be in the next generation and the generation to follow. So it`s not the idea that I think the FCC should prescribe what should be on those programs, but I think we should heighten the sensitivity of the broadcasters and the program producers as to what the social impact of their product is going to be for society.

LEHRER: As you know, the Federal Trade Commission is involved in a dispute with the broadcasting industry, as well as members of Congress, over regulating the types of commercials that are seen by children. Is that a proper function of the federal government, in your opinion -- to regulate that sort of thing?

FERRIS: I think the Federal Trade Commission`s responsibility there is generally to correct any deception that occurs in commercial activity, and I think their focus on advertising is the deception of children`s advertising to the children, and the level, or the threshold, of deception is determined to a great degree by the receptivity of the child. So the threshold would vary depending upon the receptivity of the child. I think that responsibility of theirs is a very valid one. I think for them to be doing that is a very valid undertaking. I think from our standpoint we would have much greater sensitivity, at the FCC, looking at the specifics of a particular commercial and the content of that only because we have a greater sensitivity to invading ourselves into any sort of program or content per se on any specific program.

LEHRER: As you know, some have suggested that all commercials be banned that are around children`s programming. How do you feel about that?

FERRIS: I think a case could be made for that. Back in the `50s they had what they called sustaining programming on television; it was the idea that certain types of program be lumped together with very profitable programming and together you make a profit on it, and should children`s programming be included in the so-called sustaining program. I think that we`re going to be concerned, at the FCC, with getting under way a children`s inquiry in which we`re going to be looking at the...

LEHRER: Are you going to be looking at that specific question of banning commercials?

FERRIS: That would be one specific remedy. What we did in 1975 is we had an inquiry, and what took place was, the commission decided rather than taking action they would permit the broadcasters themselves to self police this, and they promulgated certain types of rules. We`re going to go back and find out how those rules work. I think one of the options would be reducing the number of minutes of commercials per hour from the existing nine to something far less than that, including going down to zero -- I think that`s within possibility; and the others are, if you do have commercials, clustering the commercials at the beginning and the end so that the children will be able to discern to some degree which is which.

LEHRER: Another programming problem that`s been in the news a lot lately is that Sears & Roebuck recently announced it would no longer sponsor programs that were heavy with sex and violence and is urging other sponsors to do the same -- in fact, is having a meeting of other major sponsors to try to get them to do the same thing. Is Sears` position a healthy development, in your opinion?

FERRIS: Well, it`s far better for Sears as an advertiser to be doing it than, I think, for the FCC to be doing it or the government to be doing that. As a matter of fact, I don`t think the government should be doing it at all. And I believe the Sears action was the response to a parent group that petitioned Sears and even picketed Sears and expressed themselves to Sears in that way. I think if there`s going to be a self-correcting mechanism it should be in the private sector rather than in the government sector.

LEHRER: Do you share the concern of Sears and others about too much sex and violence on television? Whether or not the FCC does anything about it or not, are you concerned about that? Do you think there`s too much, in other words?

FERRIS: Well, I think it`s awfully hard to generalize there. I saw on public television some programs that I thought was the best programming I`d ever seen. I saw every episode of "I, Claudius." I thought it was marvelous, I sat there with my two daughters, and we watched every episode as it appeared, and I think that if you wanted to clinically look at that, there was more sex and more violence in "I, Claudius" than I`ve seen on other programs, though I haven`t watched that much. But it`s the context in which it`s done, the motivation, whether or not it`s exploitive; so it`s awfully hard to make a judgment about whether there`s too much sex and violence on all programming. I don`t watch it all the time, though.

LEHRER: But you don`t think that is something the FCC should ever get into, is that right?

FERRIS: I don`t.

LEHRER: All right. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes; you say one of the possibilities would be to try and reduce the number of commercial minutes in children`s programming. The last time the FCC tried to reduce the number of commercials per hour in general broadcasting, to require broadcasters generally to adhere to the NAB, National Association of Broadcasters, own code, the Congress slapped them down. Congress, it`s frequently been said, is so friendly to broadcasters that anything the FCC wanted to do that the broadcasters didn`t like, the Congress wouldn`t allow. Is that still the case? Has it been true, and if so, is it still the case?

FERRIS: I don`t know if it`s been true. I don`t think that what we should do at the FCC should be driven by how we think the Congress will react. We are a creature of the Congress, we are an agency of the Congress, and they are our parent body and it is from them we get our charter. But I think that what we should do at the FCC is to develop a case that we believe is a sound case, that the recommendation and the policy judgment that we make is based upon the facts and the record before us, and we`ll stand on that. And if the Congress then, in its wisdom, chooses to overturn our action by legislation, that`s their prerogative and we certainly would live by that. But I don`t think that we should regulate at the FCC by a raised eyebrow attitude towards the Congress.

I don`t think Congress expects us to do that, and I certainly don`t read the Congress in a way that they would expect me or the rest of the commission to act in that way.

MacNEIL: You know the Congress very well; do you sense that it is less sympathetic to the broadcasting industry, generally speaking, than it might have been a few years ago, with more mood there to look for re form or more regulation, or whatever?

FERRIS: Well, I think most people in political life, to communicate with their constituents is the lifeblood of political life, and of course the broadcasters are the most efficient means of communicating, so there is a sensitivity there; but I think that Congress` attitude has evolved over the years as well so that they know that the type of raised eyebrow from broadcasters to members of Congress is not as severe as it conceivably could be, and I don`t think many members of Congress would change their views on the basis of how they think the broadcasters would treat them in the local district. I think there`s a much greater degree of sophistication on the part of members of Congress and a much greater degree of maturity on the part of broadcasters to have that type of retribution that`s implicit in that type of attitude that was commonly held a decade ago.

MacNEIL: You also said in your speech in Las Vegas that the FCC needed to be independent and not the agents of the regulated. Do you feel that the FCC has in the past been too sympathetic to the broadcasting industry that it regulates?

FERRIS: Well, having been there just this past seven months and not being there before, I certainly don`t want to make judgments about what has been. I think...

MaCNEIL: Well, why would you say that if ...

FERRIS: Well, because I think implicit in that was, I hope that we at the FCC can develop a capacity to evaluate the information and to get our information from more varied sources than I think has heretofore been the case. I learned my first year in law school, as I read through the cases in the law books, that if you let me write the facts, I`ll tell you what the judge`s decision is going to be. And the facts that we`ve been receiving at the FCC have been ones that came primarily from the industries we regulate. I think the diet of information that should feed the FCC should be much wider than from the industries we regulate. I think the lawyers, the legal community in the communications field, have run the FCC, and the bar in Washington -- the communications bar -- has fed much of the information to the FCC. We have several hundred lawyers working for the FCC, and we have several hundred engineers. We only had a handful of economists...

MacNEIL: Mr. Ferris, I hate to do this, but in the interests of watching our time we must stop this. Thank you very much for joining us.

FERRIS: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That`s all for tonight. We`ll be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.