The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. In the news today, President Reagan insisted that he wants a negotiated settlement in Nicaragua. Talks to end the TWA strike broke off without progress. The Philippines government is investigating allegations that Marcos tried to buy influence with the Reagan White House. Details of these stories in our news summary coming up. Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: After the news summary we have three major focuses on the NewsHour tonight. First, the increasingly bitter battle over aid to the rebels in Nicaragua. Congressmen Michael Barnes and Newt Gingrich join us for a debate, followed by a report on each side's efforts to get its story out on television. Next, the story behind the bad report card going out on some of the nation's hospital. And, finally, a look at the newest show in the radio and TV lineup, the United States Senate. News Summary

WOODRUFF: President Reagan stepped up his campaign for aid to the rebels fighting the government of Nicaragua today by dispatching a special envoy to Central America. He is long-time diplomat Philip Habib, whom the President has also used in the Middle East and the Philippines. Habib left today for a trip to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. At his White House sendoff, the President was asked why Nicaragua was not also on Habib's itinerary.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: You don't go where you're not invited.

REPORTER: Are you leaving it open? Are you opening the possibility --

Pres. REAGAN: I'm trusting his judgment. If anything comes up that would show that there might be any prospect for any profit in doing that, I am sure that he would make that decision.

REPORTER: Does he have the flexibility to go to Managua if it becomes necessary?

Pres. REAGAN: You bet he does.

SAM DONALDSON, ABC News: Mr. President, your critics say that this is just a cover. You're not interested in negotiations. He's just sent down to try to prove to them that you are when in fact you aren't.

Pres. REAGAN: Sam, the critics have been making ridiculous noises for a long time, and that's one of the most ridiculous. Nine times we have tried to persuade the Sandinista government to enter into negotiations, and nine times we've gotten nowhere.

WOODRUFF: A spokeswoman for the Nicaraguan Embassy said later that her government had invited the U.S. many times to talk, but that the U.S. had never accepted the invitation. She added that if Mr. Habib were in the region, he is "definitely welcome to Nicaragua if the administration honestly wants to negotiate." Elsewhere in Washington, there was word that Senate Republican leader Robert Dole has sent the White House an outline of a compromise in the President's aid proposal for the contras, the rebels in Nicaragua. Robin?

MacNEIL: Talks aimed at ending the six-day-old TWA strike broke off today without making any progress. The strike by 6,000 flight attendants has grounded about half the flights of the nation's fifth-largest airline. The talks were held in Philadelphia under the auspices of the National Mediation Board. Victoria Frankovich, president of the flight attendants union, said the talks made no progress because TWA Chairman Carl Icahn was not there. On this program last night Ms. Frankovitch said Icahn was asking for wage and working concessions that the flight attendants could not make. On the same program Carl Icahn said more concessions were needed for TWA to stay in business.

WOODRUFF: The Navy says that it may have found part of the right rocket booster which has been blamed for the explosion of the shuttle Challenger. That word from Navy divers off the coast of Florida. Elizabeth Brackett reports on the continuing underwater search for clues and the on-going investigation into the causes of the accident.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: Four members of the presidential commission plus top NASA officials met at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, today to hear results of new tests done to try and pinpoint the cause of the Challenger explosion. The NewsHour has learned that the panel will review a new series of tests done to determine if a possible defect in the steel casing on the right solid rocket booster caused that rocket to fail shortly after liftoff. The tests were conducted by engineers from Marshall and from Morton Thiokol, the manufacturer of the rocket booster. Investigators believe the steel casing could have failed at or near the seam that joins the rocket segments for several reasons: 1) the steel casing on 51-L had been used on four previous flights and could have been weakened; 2) wind shears 35 seconds into the flight may have caused the weakened steel to give way; 3) the steel casing may have been damaged when a special tool was used to make the rocket segments round enough to fit together. Panel members will also hear test results on the putty used to seal the rocket's joints. Investigators want to know if the low temperatures on launch day affected the ability of the putty to seal the rocket's joints.

[on camera] While commission members review tests on rocket-booster parts in Alabama, the search for the damaged rocket continues here off Cape Canaveral in Florida, and NASA said today that parts of the lower portion of a rocket booster have been found. They say it is likely that the piece is from the right-hand booster rocket. Commission members have said repeatedly if that critical piece is found it will be crucial to understanding the cause of the explosion.

MacNEIL: The Philippines government sent an investigator to Washington today to look into allegations that former President Marcos tried to buy influence at the Reagan White House. The investigator is Jovito Salonga, chairman of the Commission on Good Government set up by President Corazon Aquino. Allegations that Marcos tried to spend more than $57 million were raised by a group of Filipino bankers and published today in the Manila Inquirer. The story said Marcos wanted to capture key officials of the Reagan administration and key Reagan advisers using financial sweetheart deals, public relations contracts and consultancy contracts. Salonga told reporters there was no proof to the allegations, adding, "The truth or falsehood will be a matter for the commission to determine."

Mrs. Aquino presided at the first meeting of her new cabinet today. The main business was choosing the members of a commission which she appointed to look into the question of whether she should proclaim a revolutionary government. The purpose would be to reorganize the government institutions set up by Marcos. Many of them are still controlled by his appointees and members of his political party. The commission was instructed to report back in a week.

The Spanish people voted today apparently to keep Spain a member of NATO. Official projections showed the pro-NATO side leading with more than half of the vote. It was a victory for Socialist Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez. He'd placed his own prestige on the line with a personal campaign to stay in NATO without being part of its military structure, and said he would abide by the referendum result.

The Reagan administration's point man on South Africa today accused the Pretoria government of a deliberate sham. Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker told a congressional committee it was a sham for South Africa to signal its willingness to negotiate with the black majority while politically banning two black leaders yesterday. He said the U.S. condemned in the strongest terms the orders barring two Port Elizabeth black leaders, Henry Fazzie and Mkhuseli Jack from political meetings and restricting their movements.

WOODRUFF: Here in the U.S. the hospital industry reacted angrily today to a government report listing 270 hospitals with unusually high or low death rates for Medicare patients. The statistical tables were released by the Health Care Financing administration which runs Medicare and which cautioned that they should not be used as a quality guide to hospitals. Industry representatives attacked the report as unfair, misleading and meaningless. Jack Owen, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, said, "You can't tell from the list whether a hospital is good or bad. Our concern is that it will frighten or cause apprehension among the elderly."

MacNEIL: That's our news sumary. Coming up on the News Hour, two congressmen discuss the heated rhetoric of the Nicaragua debate. We have a documentary report on the new propaganda field -- local television. We have a newsmaker interview with the head of the government agency behind the controversial report on hospital death rates for Medicare patients and a look at the Senate's cautious move into the age of broadcasting. Bitter Battle

WOODRUFF: We focus first tonight on the on-going battle over aid to the anti-Sandinista rebels of Nicaragua, the contras. While President Reagan sent his diplomatic troubleshooter, Philip Habib, to the region today, supporters and opponents of aid were continuing to trade insults. A few days ago White House aide Pat Buchanan wrote in the Washington Post that "With the vote on contra aid the Democratic Party will reveal whether it stands with Ronald Reagan and the resistance or Daniel Ortega and the communists." Democrats like Maryland Congressman Michael Barnes in turn accused the administration of McCarthyism, and today a group of House Republicans held their own news conference to get back at Buchanan's attackers. We now join the debate with two of those involved, Representative Barnes and Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican from GhKorgia.

Mr. Barnes, let me begin with you. The President today has sent Philip Habib down to Central America. How significant a diplomatic move do you think this is?

Rep. MICHAEL BARNES: Well, I hope it's significant. I'm confident that the message that Ambassador Habib will receive from the leaders of the Western Hemisphere is the same one that they gave to the secretary of state some weeks ago when eight foreign ministers of countries that are friends of the United States, almost all of them democracies, came to Washington in a rather unusual move and pleaded with the Reagan administration not to make this requset of the Congress for additional funding for the military effort in Nicaragua. I'm sure that Ambassador Habib is going to hear that same message from our Latin American friends, the democrats all over the hemisphere who oppose the Reagan administration's policy. Just within the last two days, the president of Colombia, as you know, President Betancourt, said that the Reagan policy is wrong and that all of the democracies in Latin America are united in opposition to it.

WOODRUFF: Do you believe the President when he says as he did today again that he is continuing to look for real negotiations with Nicaragua?

Rep. BARNES: Well, I hope he is. If he is I think then we can join with our friends around the hemisphere who have been engaged in a serious diplomatic effort for some time. They argue, publicly and privately, that the United States is not part of the solution, but part of the problem, and that their diplomatic and political initiatives have been undermined by U.S. policy and, as you know, they've been urging the administration not to pursue this military policy in Nicaragua and urging the Congress to reject the President's request for the aid.

WOODRUFF: But are you one of those who thinks the administration hasn't done enough in the past?

Rep. BARNES: Oh, absolutely. I mean, that is just prima facie. I mean, there is no debate on that, but that administration withdrew from bilateral talks with the Nicaraguans. The administration has repeatedly rejected overtures of our friends around the hemisphere, the Mexicans, the Panamanians, the Venezuelans, the Colombians. They've now been joined by the Brazilians and the Argentines, you know, Peru, Equador, all over the hemisphere the countries are opposed to our current course and urging that we engage in a serious diplomatic effort.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Barnes says the administration hasn't really been trying to negotiate.

Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think first of all that it's pretty clear in Contadora and in other ways that the administration has been trying to talk with the Nicaraguan communists. But there's a fundamental difference in our analysis in most of the Latin American countries. We are convinced that we're engaged in a global contest with the Soviet empire. We are convinced that negotiating with Cuba hasn't gotten us anywhere. It is still a communist military dictatorship. It has 35,000 troops in Angola; it has troops all over Africa. It sent troops, for example, to help Syria in 1973. It's part of a Soviet network of power. We are convinced that the current communist government of Nicaraguais a real long-term threat, because it is the first communist foothold in the North American continent --

WOODRUFF: Even though the countries that are right next door to Nicaragua --

Rep. GINGRICH: Well, in the first place, the countries right next door aren't the ones that Mr. Barnes mentioned. It's fairly clear that El Salvador is frightened. It's fairly clear that Honduras is frightened. It's fairly clear that Costa Rica is frightened. But also, if you were a small country in Central America and you watched this Congress, would you really want to rely on the United States? I mean, we've seen a certain erosion of belief in our will over the last year and I don't think we should be surprised that it becomes circular. We have members who get up on the House floor who say, "We're never going to help the freedom fighters" who then go down and see the very people who are watching us. And, frankly, I think one of our dangers right now is that we have to stand firm and say we ought to be negotiating not just between the U.S. and the Nicaraguan communists, but what about the 15,000 guerrillas who are on the mountains? Shouldn't they be at the table with the Nicaraguan communists? Shouldn't they be involved directly in this kind of a --

WOODRUFF: All right, but just to pursue the point that I was asking Congressman Barnes about, if the President's really interested in diplomacy, why isn't Mr. Habib going to Managua, to Nicaragua?

Rep. GINGRICH: I suspect, first of all, he may go to Managua. But I think there's a deeper issue here that we ought to quit kidding ourselves about. We can negotiate with Castro all year and Cuba is not going to be any less communist. The current communist government in its current form shows no indication it wants to change in any serious way. We have, year after year -- in fact, the House defeated at one point any aid for the freedom fighters last summer, and Mr. Ortega the next day left for Moscow.

WOODRUFF: All right, let me stop you there. Mr. Barnes, what about that?

Rep. BARNES: Well, let me comment on my friend Newt's point about the neighbors of Nicaragua. The president of Costa Rica has said that it is wrong for the United States to pursue this policy. If little, democratic, tiny, undefended Costa Rica thinks we're engaged in the wrong policy, then we ought to be seriously questioning whether anybody in Latin America will ever support this approach. The issue is a fundamental difference of perception about what's at stake here, and with respect to the historical sense of what's happening. The Latin Americans understand that if a military intervention is necessary to deal with what they regard as a problem in Central America, and I regard as a problem in Central America, the military threat is not a serious one to us. I served in the U.S. Marine Corps; you know, I have great confidence in the U.S. Marines being able to go in and do the job in Nicaragua if that were necessary. It would be terrible for that to have to happen, high cost in terms of loss of lives on both sides; the political cost to the United States would be enormous. But if there is to be a military solution to a problem in Central America, wouldn't it be better, given the historical realities of the region and the U.S. military interventions, wouldn't it be better for the Latin Americans themselves to be making that judgment? And there are mechanisms for them to make that judgment.

Rep. GINGRICH: That's nonsense. That's nonsense. The largest, most effective Latin American military force is the Cuban army. I mean, the Cubans are onthe side of the Nicaraguans, the Soviets are on the side of the Nicaraguans, the Nicaraguans are going to get all the advisers and all the military equipment they need. Nobody in Latin American is going -- you know, Harry Truman said in 1947, if the United States doesn't balance off the Soviet empire, nobody on this planet can. Now, the notion that, as you put it correctly, helpless, unarmed Costa Rica or even Brazil. I mean, Brazil could not defeat the Cuban-backed Nicaraguan army.

Rep. BARNES: Newt, we're talking here about a $100 million. Brazil, as you mentioned, Argentina, Mexico --

WOODRUFF: Seventy million of which is --

Rep. BARNES: These are countries with resources. They spend more than that on interest on their debt every week or so. We're not talking about a huge amount of money. If they believed, if the Latin Americans believe that the answer was to support the contras in Nicaragua, they have the capability of doing it. What we're debating in Washington, rather arrogantly, I think, is whether the United States should be engaged, essentially unilaterally, in opposition to all the countries in the hemisphere, engaged in a military intervention in Central American.

Rep. GINGRICH: But don't --

WOODRUFF: All right, gentlemen. Is there room for compromise on this? The administration says we want the aid --

Rep. GINGRICH: No, there's a fundamental difference here. He just put it out I think very fairly. We don't think this is a Central American issue. We think it's a question of the Soviet empire. We think it's a question of the Cubans. We think the fact that there are Hind helicopters manned by Cuban pilots in Nicaragua is a direct, long-term threat to American security.

WOODRUFF: But the White House is sending out signals right now that the President would consider delaying the aid and who knows what other --

Rep. GINGRICH: I think if the President's choice is getting nothing at all or getting as much as he can get -- Ronald Reagan's a good former labor president. He's going to get the most he can negotiate. But I'll tell you flatly, the fundamental difference between the left wing of the Democratic Party and the President of the United States is a matter of analysis. It's an intellectual argument. It's an argument where Truman and John F. Kennedy were clearly in Ronald Reagan's tradition. They would -- this is not a regional issue --

Rep. BARNES: Newt, is Senator Nancy Kassebaum a member of the left wing of the Democratic Party? Is the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee a member of the left wing of the Democratic Party? Senator -- you know, the chairman --

WOODRUFF: You're naming some moderates in the Republican Party.

Rep. BARNES: They are opposed to this policy, and I see that the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee that has to appropriate these funds has indicated he's going to vote against this policy. So let's not make this into some kind of partisan issue. It isn't. It's a question --

WOODRUFF: But hasn't it turned into that? I mean, when you have --

Rep. BARNES: It shouldn't be, and it's -- it is not a partisan issue and it's unfortunate that you and others in the Republican Party are trying to make it partisan.

Rep. GINGRICH: Oh, come on! Of course it's partisan. The great bulk of the --

Rep. BARNES: A lot of Republicans are opposed and concerned about this policy.

Rep. GINGRICH: The overwhelming bulk of the Republican Party in both the House and the Senate will vote to help the President and will vote to try to stop the Soviet empire.

Rep. BARNES: And the Democrats will vote to advance the Soviet empire!

Rep. GINGRICH: The Democrats will vote to vacate the battlefield and allow the Soviet empire to dominate.

Rep. BARNES: This kind of really irresponsible --

Rep. GINGRICH: It's not irresponsible --

Rep. BARNES: -- and reprehensible statement -- and it's --

Rep. GINGRICH: What's irresponsible about it?

Rep. BARNES: It follows on the statement of Mr. Buchanan.

Rep. GINGRICH: It's accurate. You want to withdraw from the battlefield.

Rep. BARNES: It follows on the statement of Mr. Buchanan that you either support Ronald Reagan and the resistance or you support communism in Central America.

Rep. GINGRICH: I didn't say that.

Rep. BARNES: It is absolute nonsense --

Rep. GINGRICH: I didn't say that.

Rep. BARNES: And that kind of talk --

WOODRUFF: All right --

Rep. BARNES: -- really has no place.

WOODRUFF: Let me --

Rep. BARNES: Let's talk about the merits of the issue, the substance of the issue. Let's stop calling people names.

WOODRUFF: All right --

Rep. GINGRICH: I didn't call anybody names. I said very clearly --

WOODRUFF: But you did say you think it's a partisan issue --

Rep. GINGRICH: I said very clearly that I thought that to vote against aid is to make it functionally easier for the Soviet empire to impose its will. Now, I don't see how you can intellectually disagree with that.

WOODRUFF: All right, all right.

Rep. GINGRICH: It is easier for the Cubans and the Soviets to dominate --

WOODRUFF: All right. We're not going to get any agreement on that. Quickly, are your constituents in Georgia and in Maryland as exercised about this particular vote as so many in Washington are? What do you hear?

Rep. BARNES: I nd that my constituents are concerned about it. Whether they're exercised about it, I'd have to say probably not. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are not as focused on this issue as they might be. They are concerned. They are concerned, and I've been getting a lot of phone calls and letters about the level of the debate and the tone of the debate, and it's very unfortunate that the administration and others have chosen to engage in what the Baltimore Sun referred to in its lead editorial this --

WOODRUFF: What do you hear?

Rep. BARNES: -- weekend as modern McCarthyism.

WOODRUFF: What do you hear from Georgia?

Rep. GINGRICH: I hear, first of all, that when you describe the Soviet empire and the Cubans, they're in favor of our doing something. Second, I hear from refugees from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, all of who say to me as refugees they hope this time we'll stand firm.

WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, it's one that we're going to be watching. We're looking for a vote in the House. I think it's one week from today. Congressman Gingrich, Congressman Barnes, thank you both for being with us..

Rep. BARNES: Thank you.

MacNEIL: The matter of aid to the contras is also being debated on the nation's airwaves. Two conservative organizations in Washington recently launched video campaigns in support of the President's aid plan. A liberal group in San Francisco is trying to distribute a film that opposes it. Both groups are prepared to buy the broadcast time they need. Steve Talbot of public station KQED-San Francisco has a report on what gets on the air and why. Buying Public Opinion

NARRATOR [political Commercial]: Qaddafi used to be far away, but now he sits on our doorstep supplying arms and terrorist experts to the communists in Nicaragua.

STEVE TALBOT, KQED [voice-over]: This television ad is trying to scare up supportfor resuming U.S. military aid to the contras in Nicaragua.

NARRATOR [political commercial]: What can you do if the communists use Central America as a base for nuclear missiles?

TALBOT [voice-over]: This commercial is targeting 33 Democrats for defeat.

NARRATOR: You can blame Congressman Alexander. Help President Reagan defeat Congressman Alexander.

NARRATOR [political commercial]: A synagogue is defaced and burned.

TALBOT [voice-over]: In it's multimillion-dollar campaign the NationnDl Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty claims it will get its message across in 25 major markets with a potential weekly viewing audience of 35 million people. Under the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, television programmers are supposed to give equal time to opposing viewpoints, but it doesn't always happen that way. Some groups are even being told their viewpoints are too hot to handle.

NICK ALLEN, Neighbor-to-Neighbor: We're five years into the Reagan administration, and I think there's a kind of a climate of fear out there among broadcasters.

TALBOT [voice-over]: Nick Allen is the executive director of a San Francisco group, Neighbor-to-Neighbor, which produced "Faces of War." This half-hour program strongly opposes U.S. military intervention in Central America, but unlike the pro-Reagan groups, Neighbor-to-Neighbor is having trouble buying network-affiliated TV time.

Mr. ALLEN: While a newspaper editor will, you know, run opinion columns with a wide variety of opinions and a newspaper editor will generally be very happy to get 10 or 20 or even 100 letters disagreeing with the story; for the TV broadcasters, they're afraid of getting a couple of calls criticizing their show, and they think the roof's going to fall in.

TALBOT: The television networks have never really developed the equivalent of an op-ed page, but today more and more partisan groups and individuals are buying time on independent commercial television to express their views and to raise money.

JOHN M. FISHER, President, American Security Council Foundation [political commercial]: If you share President Reagan's concern about the future of Central America, we'd like to hear from you.

TALBOT [voice-over]: The American Security Council in Virginia has become the most prolific generator of political commercials disguised as documentaries. All their films are unabashedly pro-Reagan. This one, "Crisis in the Americas," warns that the Russians are about to devour Central America.

NARRATOR [TV commercial]: The Russian bear, expanding across Eastern Europe, then to Cuba and Nicaragua, tomorrow, the rest of Central America, if not stopped.

TALBOT [voice-over]: Another American Security Council film called "Peace Through Strength" urges support for an all-out U.S. military buildup. According to the Council's chairman, John Fisher, "Peace Through Strength" and "Crisis in the Americas," have each been shown 900 times on television. However, network-owned or affiliated stations usually refuse to carry this sort of paid political statement.

ANN MILLER, KPIX Program Director: We do not have a blanket policy that says we do not sell our airtime to one of these groups. However, we very rarely make our airtime available to them.

TALBOT [voice-over]: On the other hand, an independent station such as Channel 2 in Oakland tends to welcome these partisan programs if they can be balanced by opposing views.

IAN ZELLICK, Community Affairs KTVU: We received a request for a program called "Israel: Key to America's Survival," and this program propounded a very religious view as to why we should back Israel. I mean, namely, God will strike us dead if we don't. And I have to admit that was a point of view we had never put out on the air before, so we went ahead. We accepted it. We accepted their money. We called the Arab community. The Arab community came in and looked at it, and we put together a program with the Arab community refuting some of the things that had been said on this show. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty good programming. We got a whole series of new viewpoints.

TALBOT [voice-over]: Conservative programs by the American Security Council have reached millions of viewers over the past several years. Many of them responded with financial contributions. Most of the money raised is ploughed back into buying more airtime. The real payoff is the list of people who send in their money. Their names and addresses are added to computerized mailing lists which are used over and over again by conservative groups and politicians. All this has come to be known as direct response television, and today it's big business. Liberals and leftists are latecomers to the direct response hustle, but they're learning how to play the game, too.

BURT LANCASTER [political commercial]: Make no mistake. The power of the radical right is growing. Both political parties are making more and more concessions to them.

TALBOT [voice-over]: Peace groups, especially those opposed to the nuclear arms race, are also having success with their direct response TV programs. Veteran Bay Area filmmaker Bill Jersey is best known for his Emmy Award-winning cinema verite documentaries like "Children of Violence," a film about a Chicano gang in Oakland. But Jersey has also made direct response films for causes he believes in.

NARRATOR, "In Our Defense": The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that in the first 30 days after a nuclear attack, 80 million people would die.

TALBOT [voice-over]: Jersey's film, "In Our Defense," has often been shown under the fairness doctrine as a counterweight to the American Security Council's "Peace Through Strength."

BILL JERSEY, lmmaker: I'm happy to see my show back to back with any other show and hopefully let people draw their own conclusions. And hope they'll draw the right ones.

TALBOT [voice-over]: But TV viewers in the Bay Area haven't had the chance to reach their own conclusions about Jersey's latest direct response program, "Faces of War." Every local station has refused to broadcast this half-hour program.

NARRATOR, "Faces of War": Thousands of Salvadorans have vanished without a trace. Their mothers come here to identify the dead and the missing, even at the risk of reprisal. It's a task almost too painful to watch. But these courageous mothers must keep looking.

Mr. JERSEY: I'm glad I made it. I'm glad we took the point of view we did. I'm dismayed at all the hoohah over it.

TALBOT [voice-over]: There's no doubt that "Faces of War" is a blatantly partisan appeal, but it's still a mystery why there has been so much resistance to it when other direct response programs, liberal and conservative, have been allowed to buy their way onto the airwaves. Nick Allen suspects that the reason is political.

Mr. ALLEN: For instance, I talk with the national sales manager at Channel 44, and he said, "Look, Nick. I've looked at the show. It's beautifully done. In fact, it made me rethink my views on Central America. But with the climate as it is, we wouldn't want to run a show like this because we're afraid some government agency might come down on us."

TALBOT [voice-over]: But Ian Zellick, community affairs director for Channel 2 in Oakland, insists that his station rejected "Faces of War" only because they've done so much on Central America already.

Mr. ZELLICK: The decision not to air "Faces of War" had nothing to do with some of the things that we and other stations have been accused of, of being, for instance, afraid of the Nixon -- Nixon! Boy! Talk about a Freudian slip! Of the Reagan administration. If we were afraid of the Reagan administration, 50 of our community affairs programming wouldn't be produced.

TALBOT [voice-over]: Zellick says he may reconsider showing "Faces of War" in six months' time, but for now the program remains unseen by Bay Area television audiences. Two very serious issues have been raised by the "Faces of War" controversy. First, should TV stations, like newspapers, make room for partisan political appeals? And, secondly, if so, who should decide which voices will be heard?

Mr. ZELLICK: Somewhere along the line each individual station is going to have to make some sort of a policy, and what you're finding with "Faces of War," I think, is a group of stations in the middle of trying to form policies.

MacNEIL: Since Steve Talbot's report was prepared and the Nicaragua debate has heated up, "Faces of War" has been scheduled for broadcast by independent television stations in four major markets.

WOODRUFF: Still ahead on the NewsHour, the story behind the government's bad report card for some hospitals and a look at the U.S. Senate as it steps into the age of radio and TV.

[PBS pledge week intermission] How Safe?

MacNEIL: As we reported, the federal government today disclosed the names of more than 100 hospitals that have death rates for Medicare patients higher than the national average. The hospitals were listed in a report by the Health Care Financing Administration which found that 142 hospitals, including many big-city medical centers, had death rates higher than would have been expected. Another 127 hospitals had death rates significantly lower than expected. The report specifically studied Medicare patients who were treated in 1984. The release of the list of hospitals caused an uproar among many hospital administrators who called the report misleading. They said it was unfair to use the statistics to judge the quality of care at individual hospitals. Here to tell us more about the report is Dr. Henry Desmarais, acting head of the Health Care Financing Administration.

Dr. Desmarais, should people take this list as a warning to avoid hospitals with a higher than normal death rate?

Dr. HENRY DESMARAIS: Absolutely not. It was never intended as a consumer report or a report card on hospitals. It was intended to be used by medical experts, peer review organizations, so they could do an even better job monitoring the quality of care in hospitals.

MacNEIL: But the underlying purpose was to decide whether hospitals were giving good quality care or not.

Dr. DESMARAIS: It's simply a statistical observation. There could be many reasons to be above average. For example, it might be a teaching hospital that happens to care for the sickest of patients in particular diseases and so the fact that they had above-average mortality would be no cause for concern. They'd simply be treating the sickest patients.

MacNEIL: Or it migh. be, as in the case of one of the ones in the list, a hospice in Nevada whose job it is to look after terminal patients.

Dr. DESMARAIS: That's exactly correct.

MacNEIL: How did that get on the list?

Dr. DESMARAIS: It got on the list with the same statistical analysis. Again, this was not meant to be used by the public in any way. It was meant to be used by the people who monitor the quality of care for Medicare in hospitals.

MacNEIL: So, now, just to follow this through, if you hadn't made this public it would have gone where and been used how, specifically?

Dr. DESMARAIS: It was to be used by our peer review organizations. These are local physicians under contract to the federal government. They monitor the quality of care given to Medicare patients. And that's what the intended recipients of this report were. We were legally obliged to release this report upon request by the media and others under the Freedom of Information Act.

MacNEIL: But they, the peer review groups, then, who found anomalies in death rates, if they did, what would they have done about those?

Dr. DESMARAIS: Well, they're already reviewing Medicare cases in all the hospitals in this country, and when they do find a problem they either use education or they may use actual penalties against a physician or hospital in order to prompt them to correct any unusual behavior.

MacNEIL: Or, say that that hospital cannot receive Medicare patients? Is that the ultimate sanction?

Dr. DESMARAIS: If the problem was severe enough, in fact they could be removed from the program and not receive Medicare payment for any purpose.

MacNEIL: Now that this report has been made public -- you said you couldn't avoid it legally, do you think it's a good thing to have this kind of discussion of the quality of hospitals out in the public arena?

Dr. DESMARAIS: Well, I think it's good to discuss the quality of care. I think this report, unfortunately, could be misused or misunderstood by the public at large. That is of great concern to us and to others. So our hope is that what the public will understand here is the federal government is using every tool available in order to help assure good quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries.

MacNEIL: Should Medicare patients, like people who pay for their full cost, perhaps with their private insurance, should they shop around for hospitals?

Dr. DESMARAIS: I think there's no reason not to shop around for either better quality or less cost. I think people do that in general.

MacNEIL: But to shop around they would need some data to base their choices on.

Dr. DESMARAIS: And in fact, even before we released this report, we've always encouraged people to look to the peer review organizations for information about their local hospitals.

MacNEIL: Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Public Citizen Health Research Group, the branch of the Nader organization, said it was great that this was released because people could now make choices that they were shut out from making in the past. From what you said before, do you disagree with that?

Dr. DESMARAIS: I guess I would disagree to the extent he would want people to make judgments about quality of care, solely because the hospital was on or not on these particular lists.

MacNEIL: Well, he noticed something more specific than that. He said the really interesting figures in your list are the death rates in hospitals after certain surgical procedures. And he claims that they are much higher, the death rates, in hospitals which do very few of certain procedures -- say, less than 100 a year -- and much lower in hospitals which do many such procedures, say, over 300 a year. Do you agree with that?

Dr. DESMARAIS: Well, certainly there's a lot of research that has been done to show that practice makes perfect, and the more you do of a particular procedure, generally the better the outcome is for patients. So I'm not surprised if that were the case.

MacNEIL: Well, is it appropriate to take coronary artery surgery -- Dr. Wolfe pointed out that in hospitals doing fewer than 100 a year of those, the death rate could vary between 14 and 20 percent, whereas in hospitals doing more than 300 a year of those it was less than 2 . Now, is that an acceptable range of quality in the Medicare system?

Dr. DESMARAIS: Well, you know, you've got to look at the different patients in different hospitals. I think the beauty of the new payment system we have in place today is that it's encouraging hospitals to specialize because that's more efficient, and obviously also helps to deliver better quality of care. So we're actually encouraged that hospital prospective payment is moving things in the right direction.

MacNEIL: So the publication of statistics like this might encourage some hospitals, say, with a high death rate after a particular -- comparatively high death rate after a particular surgical procedure to get out of doing that particular procedure and therefore not specialize in that?

Dr. DESMARAIS: Well, most hospitals actually review the kind of work they do, and medical staffs are much interested in the outcomes in their facilities. So I think they themselves review their survival and so on and make appropriate changes. I think the payment system is also encouraging people to do -- to specialize.

MacNEIL: But is there a system in the administration of Medicare with the peer review group looking and confirming the results -- say, a high death rate after surgery -- in a particular hospital to tell that hospital, look, you shouldn't be doing this and you won't be paid, you won't be compensated under Medicare for doing that procedure? Is there such a --

Dr. DESMARAIS: That's exactly the kind of thing peer review organizations do. They use education and they use stronger tools, such as payment denial or actual removal from the program, when they uncover problems.

MacNEIL: You're obviously concerned about the public misreading or misusing this report. In simple terms there are millions of Medicare patients and their relatives, or potential patients. What would you advise them, reading these lists in their newspapers, to do about it?

Dr. DESMARAIS: I think they don't need to do anything at all, actually, but be aware of the fact that this kind of information will be used by medical experts to assure that good quality of care is maintained all across the country, whether a hospital is on the list or not on the list. If they have further questions, they could contact the local peer review organization.

MacNEIL: How do they do that? Where do they find that?

Dr. DESMARAIS: Well, each state has a peer review organization and every hospital will be, I'm sure, delighted to give the address of the local organization to anybody who asks.

MacNEIL: Well, Dr. Desmarais, thank you very much for joining us.

Dr. DESMARAIS: Thank you. The Senate Reaches Out

WOODRUFF: The founder of the modern German state, Otto von Bismarck, once said there are two things the public should never see being made -- sausage and laws. The United States Senate, which today debated provisions of a proposed balance-the-budget amendment to the Constitution, is about to put Bismarck's theory to the test. Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio explains how.

COKIE ROBERTS, National Public Radio [voice-over]: Today the United States Senate started an experiment by broadcasting sound from the Senate floor and paving the way for eventual television coverage of the chamber's activities.

Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM, (D) Ohio: This isn't what the senior citizens of this country are entitled to. This isn't what they worked all their lives to provide. Our obligation is to see to it that those funds be protected.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Only once before, in 1978, has the listening public been able to hear from the Senate, during the debate of the Panama Canal treaties, and only once, in 1974, has the chamber appeared on TV, at the swearing-in ceremonies for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.

NELSON ROCKEFELLER, Vice President: I, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller --

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: -- do solemnly swear --

Mr. ROCKEFELLER: -- do solemnly swear.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Several senators have made something of a cause out of getting their institution on television. Colorado Republican William Armstrong explains why.

Sen. WILLIAM ARMSTRONG, (R) Colorado: For the same reason that it's important to have a public gallery, so that the public, the people, can know what's going on in their government, in the United States Senate. As far as I'm concerned, it's really nothing more than that. Now, some people argue that if we don't televise the Senate, that in the long run the House will become a more important legislative chamber, and I think there's some truth to that.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: The public started getting a chance to see the workings of the House in 1979. It's the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network, or C-SPAN, which, according to its chairman, Brian Lamb, brings the House into millions of homes.

BRIAN LAMB, Chairman, C-SPAN: We have 24 million homes on cable that can watch C-SPAN network. The last time we took any kind of a demographic study, which is about a year and a half ago, it showed that some 20 million Americans, that's individuals, are involved in watching this network on a monthly basis with those kind of statistics.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: And those viewers have made something of folk heroes out of some of the regulars on the House floor.

Rep. ROBERT WALKER, (R) Pennsylvania: I reclaim my time! And I asked a specific question. The gentleman gives me rhetorical gymnastics. I nd all over the country that people come up to me, recognize me because I spend a lot of time on the House floor, and say that they're watching intently and that they know what's going on and that they are either appalled or impressed, depending upon what it is they've seen most recently.

Sen. ARMSTRONG: It's not just the House that's televised. It's many state legislatures. It is the committee hearings of the Senate itself. It's the parliaments of other countries. We're a generation that has really grown up with television. This is not some strange, unusual instrument.

SPEAKER, Canadian Parliament: With respect. Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order, please!

ROBERTS [voice-over]: It's exactly these kinds of scenes in the Canadian Parliament which strike fear in the hearts of some senators who worry about what television would mean for the U.S. Senate. Louisiana Democrat Bennett Johnston believes the institution just won't play well on TV.

Sen. BENNETT JOHNSTON, (D) Louisiana: The television tail will be wagging the Senate dog as far as I'm concerned, and that means that ultimately, I think, that we're going to have to change the rules to accommodate television and not to accommodate the real business of the nation.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: But others in the Senate believe television could provide some discipline for an institution much in need of it. Charles Mathias is chairman of the Rules Committee.

Sen. CHARLES MATHIAS, (R) Maryland: As Dr. Samuel Johnson once said, the greatest inducement to a good conscience is the suspicion that someone is watching. And when the television lights are on we will not only have a suspicion that someone is watching, we will know that a number of people are watching and that that simply will make senators do a better job.

ROBERTS: That idea, that a number of people are watching, has some critics certain broadcasting will lead to grandstanding for the cameras and become a forum for political purposes, as they say it has in the House. Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich has earned a reputation for using the House floor for his partisan agenda, often speaking after normal business hours to C-SPAN's television audience. After one such occasion, House Speaker Tip O'Neill chastised Gingrich for such tactics in an unusual display of temper.

Rep. THOMAS O'NEILL, (D) Massachusetts, Speaker of the House: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you challenged their Americanism. And it's the lowest thing that I've ever seen in my 32 years in Congress.

Rep. GINGRICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time?

ROBERTS: Despite an occasional outburst, the House of Representatives operates under strict rules of procedure, which makes television coverage comprehensible. The Senate was designed as a different sort of place with disorder and delay built in to protect the rights of the minority. Unlike House members, who have to face the electorate every two years, senators, with their six-year terms, are supposed to consider issues at something of a distance from the voters in a deliberative fashion. Some senators fear it's that very ability to deliberate which television threatens.

Sen. JOHNSTON: The Senate has been called the saucer where the passions of politics are cooled, where you slow the process down intentionally so that impetuous, ill-thought-out, emotionally charged legislation is stopped for awhile so we can look at it from all sides, decide whether we really want it, and any bill that really has a broad national consensus will eventually get through.

ROBERTS [voice-over]: Johnston fears television will alter the Senate's ability to step back from a currently popular cause and take stands which might be in the long-range interest of the nation. Senator Mathias disagrees.

Sen. MATHIAS: I don't think television is going to make people either more or less courageous than they presently are. If they're wimps they'll be wimps on television; if they really have guts, that won't change either.

WOODRUFF: Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio. You won't be able to see the Senate on television until the first of June. After that senators will have a chance to vote on whether to continue live broadcasting or not.

MacNEIL: The Lurie cartoon tonight looks at the growing fuss over President Reagan's demand that the Soviets reduce the size of their U.N. mission.

[Ranon Lurie cartoon: President Reagan drives Soviet U.N. mission representatives from the Garden of Eden, where the Tree of Knowledge is one of U.S. secrets. The Soviets' fig leaves fall as they go.]

Once again, the main stories of the day. President Reagan insisted that he wants a negotiated settlement in Nicaragua. Talks to end the TWA strike broke off without progress. The Philippines government is investigating allegations that Marcos tried to buy influence with the Reagan White House. 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.