The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. These are the main news headlines of the day. U.S. and Canada pressed investigations into the air crash that killed 248 U.S. soldiers in Newfoundland. The White House offered a compromise to save the tax reform bill. Inflation in wholesale prices jumped sharply in November. Details of these stories in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Our primary focus tonight will be the air crash tragedy. We'll get the latest from the man heading up Canada's investigation. Next, tax reform. House Republican leader Robert Michel tells us whether it's been given a new lease on life. Then a report on the Great Communicator and his Saturday radio address. After that, the latest on California's fight to smarten up its textbooks. And we'll close with a look at one Iowa town's struggle with tragedy.News Summary

MacNEIL: At Gander in Newfoundland, they continued recovering bodies today from the wreckage of the chartered jet that crashed yesterday, killing 248 soldiers of the 101st Airborne. U.S. and Canadian experts found the DC-8's flight recorders and began what could be a lengthy investigation. Some details emerged, but there was no certain connection with the crash. For example, the airport managers said the pilot of the Arrow Airways charter did not request de-icing of his wings. Reuters news agency reported that the radical Islamic Jihad in Beirut had claimed it planted a bomb in the plane, but there was no other confirmation of that. Here is a report from Gander by Whit Fraser of the CBC.

WHIT FRASER, CBC [voice-over]: All day investigators have been sifting through the wreckage, looking for clues, trying to find out what happened to the DC-8, what caused the death of 248 American soldiers and eight members of the crew of the airline owned by Arrow Air of Miami. The U.S. marking was one of the most visible items among the devastation, and the searchers got a setback. They were counting on the flight recorders to tell them what went wrong, but at a news conference the chief investigator was pessimistic about the condition of the recorders.

PETER BOAG, crash investigator: Both recorders had sustained extensive internal damage in the crash.

REPORTER: Internal damage?

Mr. BOAG: Yeah. And at this time it remains to be seen if any useful information is to be retrieved.

FRASER [voice-over]: And neither is Boag able to say what may have gone wrong. There are questions, though, whether the aircraft should have had its fuselage sprayed with de-icing fluid. That wasn't done. But there were indications that there was freezing rain at the time.

Mr. BOAG: Light freezing drizzle was falling between zero seven four zero and zero nine four five.

FRASER [voice-over]: Reporters were also told there were no conversations with the air traffic control tower. When the flight left everything was normal. But as they were given a guided tour at the area today, RCMP spokesman Roger Tinkham explained the flight did veer off its path.

Sgt. ROGER TINKHAM, RCMP: No, it's not on a straight line from the runway.

REPORTER: The plane veered to its right as it was taking off?

Sgt. TINKHAM: Yes, sir. It seemed to just skim the treetops.

REPORTER: It does seem to skim the treetops.

Sgt. TINKHAM: As you can see with the top of the trees, it appears that the aircraft went on an angle, just to the right of the runway. It kind of veered to the right. Here's where it started clipping the tops of the trees, and on our left is where the aircraft started to go down and hit the ground.

FRASER [voice-over]: This morning a military transport arrived with more than 200 coffins. As yet there is no indication when arrangements will be made to send the remains home. In the meantime, the Americans continue to shuttle people and materials back and forth between this Newfoundland airport and the United States. So far more than 30 Americans have been sent here to help with the investigation.

[on camera] Often in these air crashes, investigators try to establish an early focus. Was it pilot error, engine failure or something else? But by tonight they say there is really nothing they can zero in on, and the damaged flight recorder is clearly a setback. Increasingly, though, there are questions about icing conditions yesterday. Some pilots did de-ice, that is, they cleared the ice and snow from the wings and fuselage of their airplanes. Others did not, and the pilot of the DC-8 is one of those who did not.

MacNEIL: President Reagan ordered White House flags flown at half staff and said he wanted to attend a memorial service for the victims. At Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the shock of the disaster overwhelmed the home base of the 101st Airborne. Here's a report by Phil Bell of station WTVF-Nashville.

PHIL BELL, WTVF [voice-over]: Their sorrow far from over, the men and women of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, are in the process of renewing their strength and in some cases rebuilding their lives.

WALTER HOLMES, 101st Airborne: And we have shared tears with our comrades. Our heads are down. We're soldiers, and we'll go where we're told to go and do what we're told to do.

Maj. Gen. BURTON PATRICK, base commander: Remains are -- the plan is that they will move from Gander, Newfoundland, to Dover, Delaware. The exact timing on that is still uncertain, but I believe it will be in the very near future.

BELL [voice-over]: An honor guard from Fort Campbell will be waiting with the final salute when the bodies are returned home for identification.

MacNEIL: Arrow Air, the charter company which operated the DC-8, was fined $34,000 last year by the Federal Aviation Administration for a series of violations of regulations. These ranged from failing to perform maintenance and preventive maintenance on its aircraft, to inadequate record-keeping. Randy Stirm, a mechanic who said he was employed by a maintenance subcontractor, told the Associated Press that last summer he wouldn't sign a maintenance log on the jet that crashed yesterday. He said, "The plane was in such bad condition that I didn't want the responsibility of putting my name in the log." An Arrow Air spokesman refused to comment today on Stirm's allegation, but did say all improper procedures cited by the FAA had been resolved. Judy?

WOODRUFF: President Reagan and his men continued their frantic efforts to resuscitate tax reform today, but it wasn't clear if those attempts were leading anywhere. The White House claimed it had at least 34 House Republicans now willing to vote for a Democratic tax plan. But many of them were making their support conditional on making major changes in the plan. House Democratic leaders have not yet said if the changes are something they could live with, and they are still insisting the White House has to turn up at least 50 Republican votes before they'll bring the measure up for a vote again. Even so, leaders on both sides were sounding moderately optimistic about working something out by Monday.

Rep. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, (D) Illinois: I think that the President is doing his job. He's talking to members and I'm impressed. I would observe that I don't know that he's gotten to what the speaker has suggested, the 50 or 75 votes. I'm sure that when he gets there he'll call the speaker. I'm hoping that happens in a very short while. I don't want to change my committee bill, and I dislike very much the opportunity for them to, but that's negotiable.

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, House Minority Leader: We've had a lot of people, an opportunity to talk, and maybe particularly on our side -- there was a lot of resentment for a lot of reasons, some justified, some unjustified. Hope springs eternal and I have to be an eternal optimist, and the door is still ajar over this weekend for us to do whatever we can do and whatever the President can do.

WOODRUFF: One of the major sticking points is over how large a personal exemption individual taxpayers can claim. Republicans want everyone, no matter what the income level, to get a $2,000 exemption. The Democrats would cut that to $1,500 for people who itemize their deductions.

MacNEIL: In economic news today, prices soared again on Wall Street on rumors that the Federal Reserve might cut the discount rate and lead to lower interest rates generally. The Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks rose 24 points to close at another record high of 1535.21. The government announced a rise of 0.4% industrial production in November and a spurt in wholesale price inflation. Driven by a surge in beef and fuel prices, the Producer Price Index rose 0.8% in November.

WOODRUFF: In Japan, the government said voluntary restraints on auto exports to the U.S. will be dropped on April 1st. That will end a five-year concession intended to give the American auto industry breathing space to revamp its manufacturing methods. U.S. senators from auto-making states reacted immediately, calling Japan's move unreasonable, unfair and likely to provoke tough trade legislation next year.

MacNEIL: The White House disclosed today that President Reagan's new national security chief, Admiral John Poindexter, visited five Central American countries this week to review the current situation. White House spokesman Larry Speakes said Poindexter visited Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica and Honduras. Asked about reports that Poindexter went to persuade these countries to help the Nicaraguan contras, Speakes did not give a direct reply. He said, "We support democratic actions in Central America, and that," meaning the contra opposition, "is one of them."

WOODRUFF: At a meeting in Brussels, the foreign ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization endorsed the U.S. position in arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. Lord Carrington, the secretary general of NATO, said the allies were encouraged by the Geneva summit meeting and anxious for results. Secretary of State Shultz promised that the United States would search hard for any good agreement.

MacNEIL: In Cyprus, two Palestinians and a Briton were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing three Israelis aboard a yacht last September. When they left the courthouse in Nicosia, all three raised their arms in victory salutes. During the trial they refused to say what Palestinian organization they belonged to, and insisted they work for the Palestinian people as a whole. They said the dead Israelis were spies and said they had no regrets about killing them.

WOODRUFF: That concludes our news summary. Still to come, the latest in a search for a cause of the Canadian air crash, the prospects for tax reform, a report on how Ronald Reagan uses radio to get his message across, an update on California's efforts to smarten up its textbooks, and a look at a rural Iowa town's struggle with tragedy. Looking for a Cause

WOODRUFF: We focus first tonight on the aftermath of yesterday's air crash in Canada, the worst military aviation accident in U.S. history, in which 248 members of the 101st Airborne and eight civilian crew were killed. With us from Ottawa is Tom Hinton, director of investigations for the Canadian Air Safety Board, which is conducting the Canadian investigation.

Mr. Hinton, I know you don't yet have the final word on what caused this crash, but what can you say now after almost two days of looking through the wreckage there?

TOM HINTON: We just moved our investigation team into Gander yesterday, and the team now is following the standard International Civil Aviation Organization procedures, the ICAO procedures for conducting an investigation. The investigator in charge, Peter Boag, has organized his investigation team into a number of groups. For example, there's a weather group, there's a human factors group. The human factors group considers the medical condition of the crew, their training, their qualifications. There's a structures group which looks at the aircraft itself. its structure, its controls and so on. Engines group. There's an aircraft systems group, air traffic control, airport services and facilities, flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder and so on. So all of these groups are collecting all of the information they can within their particular group, and that information will be assembled by the investigation team, and once they've assembled as much information as they can, they will then move in to the analysis phase.

WOODRUFF: Have you been able to rule anything out yet? For example, as you know, there's a report that this group, the Islamic Jihad, is claiming that they have planted a bomb on board. Have you been able to rule out that sort of sabotage possibility?

Mr. HINTON: Yes, we've heard those reports. We haven't specifically ruled it out, but I don't think we're giving it a great deal of attention. You have to keep in mind that it's not unusual after an air disaster that people make claims of this kind.

WOODRUFF: What makes you -- why is it that you're not giving it -- paying too much attention to that?

Mr. HINTON: Well, I didn't say we weren't paying too much attention to it, but I don't think we're overemphasizing it. But these kinds of claims are not abnormal.

WOODRUFF: There were some eyewitnesses who said they first saw a bright flash and then they later heard an explosion. Does that tell you anything?

Mr. HINTON: Again, the investigation is being conducted in Gander, and all the information from all the witnesses has to be assembled and analyzed. And I don't think we can go on just any one or two witness reports. We as the investigators have to look at all the available information.

WOODRUFF: How much of a factor was the weather? We of course heard a few moments ago the report that the pilot did not request to have the wings de-iced, even though there was evidently light freezing rain at the time.

Mr. HINTON: Yes, the information we have is that the weather at the time the aircraft departed was 700 -- there was a scattered cloud layer at 700 feet above the airport. There was a ceiling, an overcast ceiling at 1,200 feet. And there was light precipitation, the visibility was 12 miles, and the surface wind was very light. There was no report, official weather report, of freezing precipitation at the time the aircraft left. But earlier weather reports did report freezing drizzle.

WOODRUFF: So under those circumstances would it have been ordinary procedure for the pilot to have the wings de-iced?

Mr. HINTON: I think that would depend on the amount of ice on the aircraft. If the amount of ice on the aircraft warranted having it removed, then most pilots would get the ice removed.

WOODRUFF: That's a pilot's decision, is that right?

Mr. HINTON: That's right.

WOODRUFF: And at this point you're saying you don't know, you don't have enough information to know whether he made the right decision or not?

Mr. HINTON: That's correct. You have to keep in mind, he was only on the ground a short while in Gander. So it's going to be difficult to try to determine how much ice there was on the aircraft.

WOODRUFF: We also heard in that report a moment ago that the plane veered off to the right. I mean, according to the wreckage there on the ground, that it did not stay straight on its path as it took off. Does that tell you anything?

Mr. HINTON: Not necessarily, although it could be indication of some other kinds of -- for instance, a change of direction to the right could indicate perhaps a wind from the left; it could indicate an engine problem on the right-hand side of the aircraft; it could indicate a control problem that caused the aircraft to move in that direction; it could have been that the pilot was trying to fly in that direction for some reason -- it's too early to say. I think perhaps I should point out that while the investigation is being conducted in Gander, what we're doing here in Ottawa is analyzing the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. They arrived here at our laboratory last night about 9 o'clock, and we were working on them late last -- early this morning, and that work is continuing today.

WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask you about those. We also just heard that those were badly damaged. Can you tell us, say, what condition the voice recorder, to begin with, is in?

Mr. HINTON: Okay. Starting with the cockpit voice recorder, it was not damaged by fire. However, there was some impact damage, but not severe damage. When we opened the cockpit voice recorder, the tape inside was found to be broken in two places. It was carefully removed; it was repaired and played, andfrom that initial playing of the tape, we -- and it was just a very preliminary analysis that we did -- we cannot -- we don't have any information that points to any cause. So further work has to --

WOODRUFF: So you've been able to listen to it, is what you're saying.

Mr. HINTON: That's correct. This was just a first examination of it, and further work needs to be done.

WOODRUFF: Is it possible there's more information there on the voice recorder and you just haven't been able --

Mr. HINTON: Yes. Yes. It is possible. Now, as for the flight data recorder, it was very heavily burned in the post-crash fire. When we opened it, even the -- it's an older-type of flight data recorder, what we call a foil recorder. It only has five parameters on it, and the --

WOODRUFF: Now, what does that mean, five parameters?

Mr. HINTON: I'm sorry. The recorder records five different parameters of aircraft performance. They are the aircraft's air speed, its altitude, its heading, its magnetic heading, the normal acceleration or gravity forces on the aircraft, and the time.

WOODRUFF: And will you be able to get any information out of that data recorder?

Mr. HINTON: We were concerned last night that we might have some difficulty, but today the people in our lab have been carefully cleaning the recorder, and we can now see that there are some traces of data on the foil tape, and the work will continue on trying to recover that data.

WOODRUFF: And can you share any of that information with us now?

Mr. HINTON: We haven't taken any of the data off. The tape is still being cleaned in a solution to remove the charring, the smoke and the soot.

WOODRUFF: I see. Aren't those boxes, both those data recorders, the data and the flight, supposed to be better protected so that they would survive even a fiery crash as this one was?

Mr. HINTON: Yes. They are very heavily protected, and -- however, you know, how far do you go? There was a lot of fuel on board the aircraft, and it was a very severe fire, and the flight data recorder was damaged. But it is protected.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Hinton, we thank you for being with us and we'll be watching your progress as you continue this investigation.

Mr. HINTON: You're welcome.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour, a newsmaker interview with Republican House Leader Bob Michel about efforts to save tax reform, a report on the significance of President Reagan's weekly radio chats, an update on California's drive for better school textbooks, and a report on a small Iowa town stunned by a shooting rampage. Reviving Tax Reform

MacNEIL: As we reported, the White House bounced back from its defeat on tax reform with a full-court press to save the bill. Specifically, the President and his aides were trying to change the minds of House Republicans who refused to vote for the Democratic bill he had backed. To tell us whether the arm-twisting is working, we talk to the House Republican Leader Robert Michel, who joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Congressman, you were one of those who refused to vote for the bill on Wednesday. Have you changed your mind?

Rep. ROBERT MICHEL: Well, no, I'm obliged to vote against it on final passage, as I indicated to our Republican conference. But I would be willing to give the President another opportunity by way of giving him a rule if we get some concessions from the speaker and Mr. Rostenkowski on that score.

MacNEIL: Giving him a rule means that the Rules Committee would permit a vote on the substance of the bill on the floor.

Rep. MICHEL: That's right. And of course, that's the traffic cop of the House of Representatives, and for us, what we would ask is that, number one, a rule be made in order that would extend the effective dates for any tax reform that might take place, say, until January 1st, 1987. Let's face it: if we pass something in the House of Representatives, the Senate won't get to that thing 'til May or June or July and finalize 'til August or September. There's too much apprehension and anxiety out there as to what the business industry or the entrepreneurs out there would do next year. That's an important point for people on our side to switch their vote in favor of a rule. The second point, very important, is one that would give our approach a $2,000 personal exemption for each individual, no matter of what income, rather than the $1,040 -- or the $1,500 only for itemizers in the Democratic proposal, and that's a significant change. We would ask for a rule that would provide for our amendment to be made in order to the Rostenkowski proposal on that score.

MacNEIL: I see. Now, those of you who objected to the bill in its present form refused to vote for this rule; now some of you are willing to vote for the rule. How many Republicans have been persuaded today to let it go to a vote on the floor?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, we haven't got an accurate account on that, but there are indications that the number today is something in the range of 40. The speaker initially and Mr. Rostenkowski said we needed some 50 votes. I think it's quite obvious that not only for the rule but the -- Danny would like to have --

MacNEIL: Danny is Mr. Rostenkowski.

Rep. MICHEL: Danny Rostenkowski would also like to have at least 50 votes on final passage, as would the speaker. Because there's been some erosion on their side of support for both the rule and final passage.

MacNEIL: Yeah. Mr. Rostenkowski's chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which produced the bill that you were voting on --

Rep. MICHEL: That's right.

MacNEIL: -- or would have voted on. Now, you were with the group that went to present this sort of compromise idea to the House speaker, Mr. O'Neill, today. What was his reaction when you did that?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, as a matter of fact I met with the speaker privately --

MacNEIL: Oh, privately.

Rep. MICHEL: -- after the other group met with him, and I had an opportunity then to make my case very forcefully to the speaker. And of course, his response was that, "But, Bob, if we give in to you on one change, then there'll be those on the Democratic side who'd want some comparable change." My argument to that was, those who are asking for other amendments to Rostenkowski's bill are not providing the revenue component to make up for the goody they want to get. What we want is a $2,000 personal exemption. That is costly, but what we would do to get the revenue for that would be to wipe out the interest on purchases of items -- consumer interest, I guess is what we call it.

MacNEIL: So if you buy a car and take out a loan on that at the moment, you can deduct the interest charges on that loan.

Rep. MICHEL: But if you take a $2,000 exemption for everybody in the family and all members of the family and at all levels, without talking only about itemizing -- we're talking about non-itemizers and itemizers getting that exemption -- I think it more than compensates for what one would lose by that deduction for consumer interest.

MacNEIL: Explain to me simply, if you can, why it would bring Republicans like yourself to vote for the bill to extend the universal deduction to $2,000 for everyone -- why that would make this bill so much more attractive to you that you would end your opposition to it.

Rep. MICHEL: Well, it isn't all that much more attractive. Let's face it: what we prefer to have is our Republican substitute, which does all the things -- not all the things, but most of them, that we'd like to have done to track with the President's program of lowering marginal rates to 35% rather than 38%, increasing personal exemptions from $1,500 up to $2,000, for making a number of other provisions. We would provide in ours, for example, for 5 of the investment tax credit and better depreciation allowances for heavy businesses and industries that produce jobs. My district, for example, is one of those that would be hurt by the Rostenkowski bill to the degree that I cannot vote for it in that form. I've got to have some kind of relief for our heavy basic industries.

MacNEIL: So you can't vote for it -- you're pledged to vote against it in any case, is that it?

Rep. MICHEL: That's right. But at least it gives enough of a movement on the Democratic side to attract some votes, and it would get my vote on the rule to give the President the opportunity to then make his case more forcefully with other Republicans, to get a final passage vote.

MacNEIL: Now, with a weekend left for the President and his aides and perhaps the Republican leadership to persuade more Republicans at least to bring it to a -- give it a rule and bring it to a vote on the floor, what do you expect the situation to be by Monday? Are you confident it will actually go to a vote now?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, what I would expect, we're going to have a Republican caucus on Monday afternoon, after members get back to Washington, and we will make the leadership, both Trent Lott and Jack Kemp and I, who are in that position of some degree of flexibility, although Dick Cheney has just dug himself in, absolutely opposed to both the rule and the bill -- we have some opportunity to make the case with our --

MacNEIL: Are you confident now you'll be able to make it?

Rep. MICHEL: Well, I'm not all -- you never know until you try. The door has been left ajar by Mr. Rostenkowski. I appreciate that. It's been left ajar by the speaker. I know he's going to have a problem selling his members, but that's our -- this isn't unique that the rule went down. And the reason in times past has been there's got to be an adjustment either on the rule or the substance of the bill, and the big point we're going to have to sell to our membership that there's enough of a movement on the substance of the legislation, to give us a rule and ultimately maybe final passage.

MacNEIL: Could we sum this up in a word -- is the prospect for tax reform, as we sit here tonight, still pretty iffy?

Rep. MICHEL: Yes.

MacNEIL: It is.

Rep. MICHEL: No question about it. And the President is pretty key in this thing. There are members, frankly, who need some assurance from the President, for example, that he will stand for certain principles of his original proposal. And one of our problems is not trusting the other body, the Senate, to do what the President would like to have done on those basic four fundamental issues that the President clearly announced.

MacNEIL: Well, Congressman Michel, thank you for joining us.

Rep. MICHEL: Okay.

MacNEIL: Judy? The Great Communicator

WOODRUFF: Speaking of the President, normally when you mention his communications skills, people think of television. This President has set standards by his performance in front of a TV camera that some believe will be difficult for other chief executives to follow. But there is another medium even closer to Mr. Reagan's heart that he and the White House have used almost as much as they have television.

[voice-over] On any given Saturday afternoon at exactly six minutes after 12, if you happen to be anywhere near a radio you're likely to hear a familiar voice. It's Ronald Reagan, and his weekly five-minute speech may be on anything from taxes or the budget to peace in the Middle East. On the weekends leading up to the recent Gorbachev summit, the subjects ranged from aid to the Red Cross

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: Please, contact the Red Cross chapter nearest you.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: to an open appeal to the people of the Soviet Union.

Pres. REAGAN: This is Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, speaking to you from Washington about my upcoming meeting with General Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva and my hopes for a better relationship between our two governments.

LARRY SPEAKES, White House spokesman: We have an old radio announcer that's President of the United States. The President likes radio; he's extremely good on it.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: White House officials, like press spokesman Larry Speakes, point out the President's background makes radio a natural for him. He was 21 years old and just out of college when he landed a job as a sports announcer at a small radio station in Davenport, Iowa. The next year, in 1933, he moved to a bigger station in Des Moines. Even when he became an actor, his first role was as a radio announcer.

[clip from 1937 film "Love Is in the Air"]

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Media experts, and even Democrats like Chris Matthews, House Speaker Tip O'Neill's press advisor, marvel at the President's radio skills.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, House Speaker's press aide: He knows how to use his voice to be interesting, like any trained radio reporter would have that ability. But I think he also has the ability to use pauses effectively. He will pause, he will change pace, he will even change point of view. He'll become almost a person speaking dialogue in a play. He's very effective at it.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Former White House communications director David Gergen, who was one of those who first came up with the idea of the radio speeches, says there's another reason they've been so successful.

DAVID GERGEN, former Reagan communications director: This President sometimes gets an itch and he has to scratch it, and the Saturday radio address is a wonderful way to scratch. It is a catharsis for him. He looks forward to it. Sometimes he'll get a little idea and he doesn't want to give a formal speech, but he wants to go out and just talk to the people about it.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Gergen also says there's an advantage to making a weekly speech on radio instead of television.

Mr. GERGEN: Television is too hot a medium, it's too intrusive a medium, and if a President goes on television every week, he rapidly wears out his welcome, he's overexposed.

Mr. MATTHEWS: The President has full access to television. He's on five days a week on television regularly. I think he uses radio for a totally different purpose. I think he uses it to create this intimate relationship with the American radio listener, who oftentimes tends to be a person who listens to all-news radio, who's very concerned about issues, angry in many cases, and the President beautifully shares their anger. The beauty of radio is it allows the President to be seen from Camp David or wherever he happens to be that weekend, not as head of the government but as a concerned citizen.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Whatever his purpose may be, the President's radio audience, estimated at six million at noon and more later, is nothing to sneer at.

WILLIAM STAKELIN, Radio Advertising Bureau: Then I think you have to take into consideration that throughout the rest of the entire broadcast day, all of the networks are using excerpts from the original comments of the President during their newscasts, let's say. This probably would add another eight million exposures for the President on network radio in that given day.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The benefits don't stop there, however.

Mr. SPEAKES: The spinoff effect of the radio address is important. Its repetition in radio through the afternoon on Saturday, coverage on television that night and coverage on the Sunday morning newspapers.

Mr. GERGEN: The weekend is time when people aren't being bombarded with as many messages as they get during the week. During a very busy week, you know, things are happening all over the world, the Congress is in session, the stock market's open -- whatever's happening. And you as a consumer just have these hundreds of messages come at you during the day. On the weekend there are only very few, and so you can focus more easily -- the message gets through more easily on a weekend than it does during the week.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: For reporters who cover the White House, the weekly radio address turns normally quiet Saturdays into potential news days.

IRA ALLEN, UPI reporter: We obviously wouldn't be able to generate any fresh news from here without the speech.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The reporters' bosses acknowledge because the speeches come on Saturday they sometimes get more attention than they deserve.

ROBERT KAISER, Washington Post: That's why these radio addresses were originally scheduled for Saturday, because there is a good chance that we will feel desperate for a news story, and the President made news because of his speech the day before. And there are occasions which we're embarrassed about in retrospect when we grab on the speech as the only news of the day, and overplay it, because we have nothing else.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: New York Times editors also acknowledge the speeches may get more attention than they merit in the Sunday paper.

HOWELL RAINES, New York Times: If I would Just, for example, pull the clips over the past month of the Saturday speeches, and there are three front-page stories, most of them summit-related, and then one very short story that ran inside the paper, which was President Reagan making a fundraising appeal for the American Red Cross.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Even before the speeches are picked up by the newspapers, they're often run on network television Saturday night, reaching fewer viewers than on a weeknight, but still in the millions.

ELIZABETH MIDGLEY, producer, CBS News: It's an item very often. If not as a piece of actuality where we use his voice and with a White House correspondent, at least as what we call a tell item, that is, that the anchor person tells what he said.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: ABC's executive weekend news producer gives the White House a lot of credit.

DORRANCE SMITH, executive producer, ABC News: If they have the President speaking on Saturday afternoon and then one of their spokespeople on the morning talk shows on Sunday and they're getting play in the newspapers on Sunday morning and on Monday morning, I thnk that's their stragegy for dealing with the networksfrom the White House.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The President may be guaranteed good coverage, but for the Democrats, who get equal radio time on Saturday, it's a different story.

Rep. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, (D) Illinois: I don't like the close.

AIDE: Okay.

Rep. ROSTENKOWSKI: Aren't we too far way from going back to what we're talking about when we're talking about evening the score.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Occasionally the Democrats will coordinate with the White House, as Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski did last weekend on the subject of tax reform. But usually the Democrats are on their own.

Mr. RAINES: I would have to say that in the way the real world works, the President of the United States speaking for his policies gets more attention than a senator or a congressman speaking for his party.

Mr. MATTHEWS: There's no doubt, the media is focused on the presidency in our country. That's a fact. It's not in the Constitution, but the media focuses on the White House.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: For all the attention the President has received, however, at least one media analyst believes the radio speeches have been a net minus for Mr. Reagan because of this offhanded comment he made last year.

Pres. REAGAN: All right. My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

MICHAEL ROBINSON, media analyst: The polls showed a five or six percent drop in President's Reagan's approval after that particular fiasco, and there's no way on earth that President Reagan has built five or six percent support for his program or himself through these little radio clips over the last five-six years.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Most observers, though, think the President has helped himself a little, or at least not hurt himself with the Saturday speeches.

Mr. RAINES: I don't think they have made a great deal of difference in policy. I don't think they have, for instance in the President's relationship with the Congress, I'm not sure they made a great deal of substantiative difference. But I think they have been a very effective vehicle for him to communicate with the American public.

Mr. KAISER: There are people out there who every Saturday probably listen to this thing who may feel they've established a kind of a personal relationship with Reagan through the radio.

Mr. GERGEN: You know, Roosevelt taught us the power of radio, but I think Reagan has really revived radio. I think you'll see a lot more politicians in the future talking to their constituents through radio.

WOODRUFF[voice-over]: Whether future politicians will be able to pull it off, however, the way this one does, no one is willing to say.

Pres. REAGAN: Until next week, thanks for listening and God bless you.

WOODRUFF: Normally the White House does not permit TV cameras in to record the radio address. It relies solely on radio to get the message out. But late this afternoon the White House announced that it will make an exception for tomorrow's speech. Mr. Reagan will be trying to persuade members of Congress to support tax reform, and the White House wants all the news coverage it can get. Smartening Up Textbooks

MacNEIL: Today in California a new chapter in a controversial campaign against watered-down textbooks was written. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNGER-GAULT: Robin, the state of California's Board of Education today voted to approve new seventh-and eighth-grade science textbooks to be used next fall. Ascience panel of the board rejected the earlier texts four months ago because they said publishers were not adequately treating controversial subjects like human reproduction and evolution. The move was a reaction to charges that publishers are deliberately "dumbing down" textbooks are avoiding subjects to appease pressure groups. Reporter Stephen Talbott of public station KQED has more on the story.

STEPHEN TALBOTT, KQUD [voice-over]: The publishers whose books were rejected in California denied that they have tiptoed around tough controversial material or that they have been intimidated by religious fundamentalists. But D.C. Heath & Company, Prentice-Hall, Macmillan, Charles Merrill and Holt, Rinehart & Winston all declined to be interviewed on camera for this report. Donald Eklund, a vice president of the Association of American Publishers, says that the industry is caught in the middle of many conflicting demands.

DONALD EKLUND, Association of American Publishers: The publishers have responded to many demands, some very legitimate demands. But then in different parts of the country you will have reactions in different ways. Just to give you an example, that you can take the same textbook, and in one part of the country it might be cited because there are too many women in nontraditional roles and in another part because it didn't have enough. It's the same book. So this is a very diverse country.

TALBOTT [voice-over]: In California, the science review panel found that all the new textbooks they examined "minimize the use of the word "evolution,' perpetuate popular ignorance about the nature and content of the theory of evolution, create false impressions about the scientific view of evolution, and in short, deny the importance of evolution as a part of contemporary science." Francie Alexander is the state's textbook development director.

FRANCIE ALEXANDER, textbook developer: You don't hear any modern scientists mentioned, you don't have information from areas like biology and blood chemistry and modern paleontology brought into the whole discussion. So it's what's not there is largely the problem. They've just started a discussion group of the theory of evolution; they haven't carried it through, they haven't made it modern and up to date.

TALBOTT [voice-over]: Since the early 1970s, fundamentalist groups in California have tried to cut back or eliinate any discussion of evolution in public schools.

KELLY SEGRAVES, Creation-Science Research Center: They shouldn't tell my child, "Hey, what you believe at home isn't true." In other words, the textbook now says that man evolved from an ape. That really says that God didnt' create man. We believe God created man. Now, unless evolution is a fact of history, provable beyond a shadow of a doubt, they can't teach that to my child.

TALBOTT [voice-over]: The California Board of Education has also ordered publishers to expand and deepen their superficial treatment of human reproduction.

Ms. ALEXANDER: It's basically a birds-and-the-bees curriculum, and the youngsters have to make inferences in quantum leaps to really understand then how the human reproductive system works.

TALBOTT [voice-over]: The revised sections on reproduction will be handled in supplementary optional textbook materials which parents have the right to review. but that doesn't satisfy Kelly Segraves: Ms. SEGRAVES: The real problem I see is that when you're emphasizing that man is a primate, that man is a member of the animal kingdom and that man is just a mammal, and sex is a biological function, and you can't present any of the moral absolutes that we would have as a religious concern, that now this discussion I think leads to more sexual activity.

TALBOTT [voice-over]: Board of Education officials respond that the new textbook guidelies stress sexual responsibility and ethical behavior. All six publishers whose books were sent back for revision announced that they would make the changes to meet California's science guidelines for evolution, ethics and human reproduction. Financially the publishers don't have much choice, since California represents 11 of the nation's $1.3-billion textbook market. when California talks, the publishers can't afford not to listen.

HUNTER GAULT: We find out now about today's developments from the man who is leading the campaign to upgrade not only the textbooks but the entire California educational system. That's state superintendent of public instruction, Bill Honig. He joins us from the studios of public station KQED in San Francsco.

Dr. Honig, just how different are the revised texts from the earlier ones?

BILL HONIG: I think there's a marked improvement. The board asked for revisions in three areas: talk about the theory of evolution, explain about natural selection and give some examples from the variety of fields that scientists use as evidence. They did that, and I think that strengthened the books quite remarkably.

HUNTER GAULT: Can you give me any specific examples that would show a difference between the old and the new?

Dr. HONIG: Coverage, the amount of pages that are devoted to the subject. Whole chapters were put in. Examples from blood chemistry. The initial books said the word "evolution" and then maybe gave you one or two sentences about it. Now you have a whole explanation utilizing both the fossil record, utilizing blood chemistry, talking about skeletal analogies and so forth. and I think it does give our students some sense of what this theory is about, why scientists believe it, how they support it and what the implications of these ideas are for specific discipline.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you go into human reproduction in any greater depth as well?

Dr. HONIG: They do. There are whole supplements on those areas. They stress both the physiology, but they don't talk about the human factors, responsibilities; give some background to students. Startling statistics: one out of our or five of you are going to be pregnant by the time you're 19. And I think it gives some realistic appraisal of what's going on in society.

HUNTER-GAULT: How did you arrive at these changes? Was there a committee or something that made these determinations?

Dr. HONIG: Well, there's a science committee of the curriculum commission; they reviewed the books, reported to the curriculum commission. The curriculum commission reported to the board. And everybody was unanimous that these books just did not measure up. this happened in a controversial area in science. But the next year we're going to be adopting mathematics textbooks, we're going to be adopting reading textbooks the year after that, and finally we're going to be working on history. Same problem in these three areas. We're going to set standards, we're going to be clear about what we're looking for, and then we're going to stick to those standards with the publishers. And I think they'll respond and give us the books that are necessary.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Our reporter today spoke with some people in California, and particularly one scientist, who said that some of the revisions are more incoherent than the original texts. And in fact, some of the things are just wrong, like for example dinosaurs are descended from reptiles. How do you respond to that?

Dr. HONIG: There were some statements about erroneous or factual misrepresentations. So the board delegated to the curriculum commission and Francie Alexander, our staff person -- if there are gross errors that are picked up, they'll be changed in the next short period of time.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think then -- I mean is it possible -- these changes were ordered just a little over three months ago. Were they rushed too fast into print?

Dr. HONIG: It was a tough time line to meet for the publishers. We're trying to get the books out by next fall so that our students in California have books to work with. These books right now I think are the best in the country. And one or two of them are I think almost excellent materials. That does not mean we don't have a long way to go. This is a continual process. We're not going to stop with this batch. In fact, the scientific community has agreed to participate with us in designing a new framework and working with us right from the start, and keeping this effort for high-quality materials going. I think --

HUNTER-GAULT: Excuse me. Some of the fundamentalist groups we discussed in the piece said today that they were going to sue over these revisions. Do you think they would be able to stop the distribution of the books?

Dr. HONIG: I don't think so. We were sued by the fundamentalist groups before, and they lost. We have an anti-dogmatic policy. Part of the objections of some of the scientific community was that we said things such as "scientists believe" or "the evidence indicates" or trying to show that science is always problematic. And because the books are written that way, I don't think there's any chance that the court's going to overturn us, because that's what they said to do before. And interestingly enough, the recent issue of National Geographic -- and this came out at the hearing -- the recent edition talked about in the same tone that we used in these books. So I think we met the objections of theory always being based upon the facts as we know them. If the facts change, that theory may change, and I think that's the way it should be.

HUNTER-GAULT: So do you see this as a victory over the fundamentalists?

Dr. HONIG: I think it's a victory for our children, and I think it's a victory for quality education. Because a major state has said what it wanted, stuck to those criteria and standards, and gotten revisions by the publishers to give us the books that we need. And now we're going to do the same thing for getting better stories in English and better understanding of what this country's all about in history, what our values are, what our beliefs are, getting better mathematics books. I think the process worked, and we can look forward to these kinds of changes over the next years.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think the changes that you've been able to make in California are going to spur other states to follow your lead, given particularly the amount of the market that you control? The textbook market.

Dr. HONIG: I think the other states have shown tremendous support for what we're trying to accomplish here. Other districts, superintendents, teachers have called, have written. They're saying it's about time somebody stuck to their guns and took a stand for quality. So this is not just California; this is the whole nation, I think, is working in this direction. And the second stage in this state is for now local districts who have to adopt these books, in their deliberations to make sure they ask the same kinds of questions that our curriculum commission asks and that they adopt those books that they feel are the highest quality. And if the scientific community is interested in helping us at the local level in that process, I would hope they get involved. I would hope they'd contact science teachers, that they make presentations to the local committees and to the boards, and that they keep involved in this effort of quality.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Dr. Honig, thank you very much.

Dr. HONIG: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: We'll follow your progress with interest.

Dr. HONIG: Thank you. Iowa: After a Tragedy

WOODRUFF: For American agriculture, this season has brought a harvest of discontent. And as we've seen, the pain has sometimes been more than just financial. That was clear this week in Iowa, when one farmer's financial problems pushed him to a violent rampage. By the time it was over, 63-year-old Dale Burr had taken the lives of his wife, the town's bank president and a neighbor before turning the gun on himself. As Kwame Holman reports, the incident may have shattered economic relationships as well as lives in this rural Iowa town.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: The crippling shock of Monday's murders and suicide have begun to fade in Hills, Iowa. The once-intense scrutiny of the news media has dimmed. The people of southeastern Iowa, like grain dealer Jim Stockman, want to try to return to normal.

JIM STOCKMAN, grain dealer: Since it's happened, and it happened here, it's a horrible thing, but I guess -- I hope it wakes up some people and does some good for the Midwest's economic crisis here.

HOLMAN: Rural towns like Hills base their economic survival on farming. The livelihoods of farmer, banker and merchant depend almost completely on each other. When farmer Dale Burr killed his banker, he compounded the tension, mistrust and fear that have grown between farmers and bankers since the financial crisis in agriculture began.

[voice-over] Merchants in Hills and throughout the Farm Belt have felt that growing stress. Jim Stockman has had to change the way he does business with farmers.

Mr. STOCKMAN: When a farmer sells grain here and somebody has a lien on it, like a bank or an implement company has a lien, we have to put their name on the check, and that tells the farmer that they don't trust him. As far as us being cautious here, I guess you just have to go on your own feeling, I guess. Tempers are so short anymore; it's a fast reaction now.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: And not only are business relationships changing, the economic crisis threatens to reshape the social fabric of whole communities. Iowa mental health counselor Peter Zevenbergen.

PETER ZEVENBERGEN, mental health counselor: The trust relationship that once was a very, very important relationship between the banker and the farmer for whatever reason, probably no one at fault, has changed dramatically, really. It's in some ways a house of cards, that if one component of it's affected, all of us will be. And I think we're increasingly seeing that the rural community's economy is not diverse enough to be sustained unless agriculture turns around.

WOMAN: We have had a very tragic time in our county, and I would like to ask all of you to join me in standing in a moment of silence for the four people who died. Thank you.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Perhaps because of the deaths in Hills on Monday, a farmers' self-help group filled an Iowa City meeting room to near capacity last night. Dale Burr, the man who killed three people, then shot himself, was talked about.

BILL ELLIOTT, former farmer: It's hard for me to really tell you how it feels until you've been in the corner. I can fully sympathize with Mr. Burr's situation this last week because I have felt that way myself. It's just that I didn't go quite as far as he did.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Groups like these want to reach farmers and others before they break. Group member Virginia Moser.

VIRGINIA MOSER, counselor: Like what happened in Hills. I feel deep regret because maybe if we would have had funds, the farmer-to-farmer would have had funds, we could have maybe gotten to those people. And if you talk about these things and vent your feelings that way, you're not going to do action.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Many believe that the tragedy in Hills will encourage more communication, especially between farmers and their bankers. Farm banker Ed Flaherty attended memorial services for both of the men shot to death by Dale Burr, farmer Richard Goody and Flaherty's fellow banker John Hughes.

ED FLAHERTY, banker: I have hope that there may wind up being this sort of renewal of effort on the part of farmers and lenders to understand each other and to treat each other as human beings.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But the economic stress is likely to continue to take its toll.

Mr. ZEVENBERGEN: I think what it encourages is a lot of fear and paranoia. My guess would be that if you sat in a bank you'd be watching everyone who came through the doors. I think the people who are on Main Street who have people owing them money have some fears. It will change relationships and it will change the dynamics of the institutions in the rural community, and I think irreparably.

WOODRUFF: Farmer Dale Burr and his wife were buried today near their farm in Lone Tree, Iowa.

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. U.S. and Canadian investigators pressed their investigation into the air crash that killed 248 American soldiers in Newfoundland. The White House offered a compromise to save the tax reform bill. Wholesale price inflation rose sharply in November, and the stock market rose 24 points today.

Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.