The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, another bombing claimed as many as 150 lives in Sri Lanka. Accused Nazi war criminal Karl Linnas arrived in the Soviet Union. And Soviet arms negotiators said they hoped for quick U. S. approval of a European missiles deal. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Robin? ROBERT MacNEIL: After the news summary, columnist Anthony Lewis debates Patrick Buchanan, former White House Communications Director on the deportation of alleged war criminal Karl Linnas. Then, an extended look at broadcasting. First, a documentary report on the way the television news business is changing. Then two former FCC Chairmen, Mark Fowler and Charles Ferris, debate whether broadcasting still needs a Fairness Doctrine.News Summary MacNEIL: A bomb exploded in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, today, leaving 150 people feared dead and 200 injured. The bomb exploded outside the central bus station in the third violent incident on the island nation in less than a week. Police believe the device was planted in a car and was detonated during the evening rush hour. Many of the victims burned to death or were killed by smoke inhalation in six parked buses that were engulfed in flames. As yet, no one has claimed responsibility, but the government issued a statement blaming two Tamil separatist groups. Late today one of those groups denied it was involved in the attack. Tamil speaking rebels have fought for four years for a separate state for their Hindu minority, claiming that the government, dominated by Sinhalese Buddhist, discriminates against them. The government has refused a separate state, but has offered some autonomy to Tamilarians. Jim? LEHRER: Karl Linnas is in the Soviet Union. He arrived there today after a flight from Prague, Czechoslovakia. The accused Nazi war criminal was deported from the United States last night after the U. S. Supreme Court refused to delay the action. He is under a death sentence in the Soviet Union, where he is accused of supervising the execution of more than 12,000 men, women and children at a concentration camp in Estonia. The 67 year old Linnas's daughter was among those who protested the deportation this afternoon across the street from the White House.

ANU LINNAS, daughter of Karl Linnas: They have kidnapped my father, and they are sending him to his death. He has never had a criminal trial in this country. My father was a patriotic Estonian citizen, fighting an oncoming, massive attack of Soviet soldiers, defending his people against bodily harm, deportation and murder. He was not a Nazi. He will never be a Nazi. He did not kill millions of people. LEHRER: In New Orleans today, Attorney General Edwin Meese defended the U. S. government's deportation of Linnas. He said Linnas was given the full benefit of the U. S. court system to make his case before the final action was taken. MacNEIL: On arms control, the Soviets increased the pressure on President Reagan for immediate agreement, while Congressional leaders urged caution. Arriving in Geneva for a new round of talks, Soviet negotiators said they will present a new draft treaty on medium range missiles, and urged the United States to agree immediately. Deputy Soviet negotiator Alexei Obukhov said he had instructions to get a treaty this year. In Washington, President Reagan told congressional leaders the Soviets give every appearance of wanting to move ahead but that there were many details to be worked out. On the Senate floor, majority leader Robert Byrd urged caution against racing into an agreement which is cosmetically attractive, but at bottom works against the cohesion and steadfastness of the Atlantic Alliance. The Pentagon warned Congress that cutting funds for SDI, or Star Wars, would endanger arms control. The point was made by General James Abramson, who heads the Strategic Defense project.

Lt. Gen. JAMES ABRAHAMSON, director, SDI: It isn't helpful to have these kinds of cuts that Congress is making at a time when we need all the leverage we can get to get the most productive and the most effective arms control proposal. I think it's just inconsistent with the kind of support that the nation should be providing the President and our arms control negotiators. LEHRER: In Argentina, a court today suspended the trials of 14 naval officers charged with human rights violations. At the same time there were reports of new military rebellions in the wake of the uprising that was put down on Sunday. The government of President Raul Alfonsin announced that 19 highranking military officers have resigned or have been dismissed since that incident. But Alfonsin denied that the ousters were part of a purge agreement to end the rebellion. LEHRER: Back in this country, there was more talk about trade wars at the White House today. President Reagan met for 20 minutes with a personal representative of Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone. Shintaro Abe was the representative, and he told reporters afterward he had urged Mr. Reagan to rescind the sanctions he ordered last week against Japan, but he acknowledged Japan must do its part to increase imports by opening its markets to U. S. products. Trade was also the subject of a meeting Mr. Reagan had with Republican Congressional leaders. Senator Minority Leader Robert Dole said Mr. Abe's visit will not head off strong trade legislation.

Sen. ROBERT DOLE, minority leader: On the Senate side, it's been brewing for two or three years, and I think coming now when we're on the eve of passing legislation in the House, and maybe in a couple or three months in the Senate, it comes a bit late. LEHRER: The Senate voted late today to make the Fairness Doctrine the law of the land. It came on a 59 to 31 vote, and followed moves by the Federal Communications Commission to do away with the doctrine, which is now just an FCC rule. MacNEIL: The Supreme Court broadened the permissible use of the death sentence today, saying someone who is not the actual killer may constitutionally be condemned to death. By a five to four vote, the justices ruled that people who play a major part in a crime that results in murder may get the death sentence if they showed a reckless indifference to human life. In another decision, the court gave the green light to states to regulate hostile takeovers. In a six to three vote, the court upheld an Indiana law imposing a 50 day delay on tender offers and other restraints on acquiring companies. LEHRER: And in another court, a Federal Appeals Court in Salt Lake City today ruled against people seeking damages from nuclear tests in Nevada. The three judge court threw out a lower court decision which said residents downwind from the 1951 to 1962 tests could sue the government for negligence. The case grows out of a 1982 trial over the claim of 1,192 plaintiffs in Nevada, Utah and Arizona that the tests caused them cancer. Reuters News Agency reported today that the Special Senate Committee investigating the Iran contra affair voted to grant limited immunity for former National Security Advisor John Poindexter. The story said a similar committee in the House is expected to take the same action tomorrow. MacNEIL: And finally, strong corporate earnings reports, and a bond market rally helped ignite Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose over 66 points by the final bell, the second biggest one day gain on record. That's our news summary. Still ahead, deporting an alleged war criminal, news about the news business, and TV's Fairness Doctrine. Paying for the Past LEHRER: The argument about accused Nazi war criminal Karl Linnas is where we begin tonight. Linnas was put on an airplane last night at Kennedy Airport in New York City against his will for a flight to Prague, Czechoslovakia. This morning he was taken on to the Soviet Union, where he is under a sentence of death. Linnas had come to the United States in 1951 from Estonia. He became a U. S. citizen in 1959. But that citizenship was stripped away in 1981, after a series of Federal Courts agreed with the Soviet Court that Linnas was a war criminal, that he had supervised the deaths of more than 12,000 men, women and children in the Estonian concentration camp of Tartu. The Soviet Court had tried him in absentia, and sentenced him to death. The U. S. Justice Department then moved to have him deported. Linnas fought it in the courts, but it happened last night, after the U. S. Supreme Court earlier in the day had refused to delay deportation any further. Linnas was not alone in his unsuccessful campaign to remain in the United States. Among his most prominent supporters was Patrick Buchanan, President Reagan's White House Communications Director until March of this year. Mr. Buchanan has returned to his work as an author and commentator. Buchanan's activities on behalf of Linnas and other accused war criminals have drawn strong criticism from New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis. Mr. Lewis joins us from Boston, Mr. Buchanan from Washington. Mr. Buchanan, you do not believe Mr. Linnas should have been put on that plane last night? PATRICK BUCHANAN, former White House Communications Director: No, I think it's a shameful act for the government of the United States to be collaborating with a regime like the Soviet Union. The Soviet system of justice is a farce -- we all know it. The Soviet Union has no moral authority in Estonia. It only controls that little country because it got it in the Hitler Stalin pact. LEHRER: What should have been done then with Mr. Linnas? Mr. BUCHANAN: I think Mr. Linnas should have been tried, prosecuted in the United States and if convicted, punished here. We have no law to do that now, but this clearly shows a need for a law to do it here, because sending people down to the Soviet Union is really sending them back to be lynched. LEHRER: Well, if there is no law that that could have been done under, what then should have been done with Mr. Linnas? Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, I think that the members in the OSI at the Department of Justice -- a preferable course -- LEHRER: That's the Office of Special Investigation -- Mr. BUCHANAN: -- a preferable course would have been to permit Mr. Linnas to be deported to some other country that would take him and not interfere with him. Now, that's not justice, but it is preferable to what's going to happen in the Soviet Union, which is certainly not justice. LEHRER: This is not justice for Mr. Linnas? Mr. BUCHANAN: Look, I believe with regard to Mr. Linnas, there is an element of doubt about whether or not he is guilty. The 12,000 figure you quoted is basically Soviet disinformation. There were some 400 individuals out of 900 at the Tartu camp who were taken out and executed. They were executed because they were believed to be communists. The Soviets had taken over Estonia, the Germans took it back. The Estonians collaborated with the Germans and they executed people they believed to be traitors. In other words, there's an element of doubt here. This whole thing should have been laid out in an American court of law. I don't think you get justice in the Soviet Union, and I don't think any American believes you do. LEHRER: Anthony Lewis, what happened was not justice to Karl Linnas? ANTHONY LEWIS, New York Times: Pat Buchanan says it all should have been laid out in an American court. It was laid out in many American courts repeatedly, and every one of them found that Mr. Linnas was a war criminal. The highest court to write a full opinion on the matter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, said he had ordered the extermination of innocent men, women and children, kneeling at the edge of a mass grave, that he has grossly, callously and monstrously offended humanity. That's the reason that Attorney General Meesesaid what he did earlier today, quoted during the news summary. That's the reason that Mr. Linnas was deported. Because he had had a full traditional opportunity in this country, and he was bound to have participated in Nazi crimes. LEHRER: What about Mr. Buchanan's point that the Soviet Union has no moral authority in this case? Mr. LEWIS: I have doubts about the Soviet system of justice, of course. And I also have doubts, I may add, personally, about the death penalty. And hence I would not ever rush into a matter such as this -- to send a man like Mr. Linnas back to the Soviet Union. But the fact, as I say, is that the Soviet system of justice was not the basis on which this decision was made. It was made by the American courts after very careful trial that was utterly convincing to the Appellate judges who passed on it. Mr. BUCHANAN: Jim, he was never put on trial for these crimes before a jury of his peers. Out in Chicago, about the same time as the Linnas case, Frank Walus was put up before court. LEHRER: Now who is Frank Walus? Mr. BUCHANAN: Frank Walus is a fellow who lives in the South Side of Chicago, who was claimed to be a Nazi war criminal. Simon Wiesenthal came in and said, ''You've got a Nazi war criminal living in South Chicago. '' Twelve eye witnesses identified him as the Butcher of Kielce. Jewish holocaust survivors from Israel identified the guy as the one who pulled the trigger. Subsequent evidence found he was in Germany, 19 years old at the time, a farm worker. He was 5'4'', too short to be in the Gestapo, wrong nationality and everything. A horrendous mistake. What I'm saying is these eyewitnesses, so called holocaust eyewitnesses -- have made mistake after mistake after mistake. And to send a man to the Soviet Union on the basis partly of Soviet evidence, to me is a greater mistake even than that. LEHRER: Tony Lewis? Mr. LEWIS: Well, we could try lots of cases here, and none of us has the information on Mr. Walus. The fact, as I say, is United States judges, for whom I have the greatest respect, heard this case. They heard the case of Mr. Linnas. And everyone that heard it found that he was in fact a war criminal. That's enough for me. Mr. BUCHANAN: That was enough for Attorney General Meese. LEHRER: And also the U. S. Attorney for New York, Mr. Giuliani made a statement saying there was no question about this man's guilt. There's a question in your mind? Mr. BUCHANAN: Look, I don't know the Linnas case as well as I do the other one in Israel, Demjanjuk. There's an element of doubt in my mind because of reports I've gotten on one side and on the other. But, you know, Tony Lewis wrote this morning that we have to have remembrance here. And we really do. One of the things we've got to remember is Hitler's senior partner in starting World War II was the Soviet government. The Soviet government controls Estonia, because it was Hitler's partner. As Susan Sontag said, communism is the most successful variant of fascism. And our government is dealing right now with the most successful variant of fascism in finding evidence against American citizens. And I find that appalling. I believe in the American system of justice. If Linnas had been prosecuted, tried, convicted and sentenced to death here, I would say okay. LEHRER: Tony Lewis, what about that? Mr. LEWIS: What Mr. Buchanan wanted to do in the Demjanjuk case was -- LEHRER: Sorry, let's make sure people know -- that's another case also involving an accused war criminal in the United States, who's now in Israel on trial. Mr. LEWIS: Exactly. What Mr. Buchanan wanted to do was prevent his deportation to Israel for trial. Mr. Buchanan claimed that certain evidence, a Nazi identification card for Mr. Demjanjuk was forged by the Soviet Union. Well, in fact, Mr. Demjanjuk's lawyers had a documentary expert, to whom that card was given by the government. He examined that card at his own time and at his own place, and then he did not testify for Mr. Demjanjuk -- a fact which speaks very loudly. Mr. BUCHANAN: You don't know the case, Mr. Lewis. That was 1981. Mr. Demjanjuk had the kind of lawyer a retired auto worker who made $300 a week can afford in that court -- against four people from the Department of Justice. The Soviet ID card -- they finally produced it. The Israelis had to send Armand Hammer finally to get it from the Soviets. It's one of kind. We've never been able to uncover an identical card to that. Secondly, the Soviets say Mr. Demjanjuk was not at Treblinka. They say he was at Sobibor and Flossenburg Regensburg -- two other camps altogether. Now, if that's not a reasonable doubt whether a guy is guilty or innocent, I don't know. I argued that Demjanjuk ought not to be sent to the Soviet Union, exactly. If he had been, he have been dead now. LEHRER: He was sent to Israel. Mr. BUCHANAN: Sent to Israel. It is better that he be put on trial there, obviously, than anywhere else. But I believe that the emotion of that trial in Israel where they're saying this is a natural, we're going to educate the Israeli people about that -- that is not the best format. The best format is right here in America. Mr. LEWIS: I will simply say that listening to this, one would just be astounded at the sympathy -- I'm all for sympathy for defendants, I'm all for full rights. But there again, in the Demjanjuk trial, a distinguished federal judge in Detroit, Frank Battisti, passed on the evidence and dealt with the matter at length -- in a very long and careful opinion. I just find it amazing that we're going to retry cases like that on television. And I tell you who finds it more amazing -- much more important than my view -- is those who are the children of and the survivors of the victims of the holocaust. They are distressed that an attempt at last to catch up with these monsters who were involved in the most terrible crimes humanity has known -- that there should be objections to a fair American proceeding about those people. Mr. BUCHANAN: Mr. Lewis, it was not Detroit -- it was Cleveland. Now, in addition to that, there has been Ivan Stebelsky in Denver, Tscherin Soobzokov in New Jersey, Frank Walus in Chicago -- and there are other individuals against whom the Soviets have produced evidence, against whom Mr. Wiesenthal has made charges, who have stood up and said, ''We have evidence to disprove it, Mr. Wiesenthal,'' and he has backed down. Those victims of the holocaust cannot want innocent blood on their hands. And the way to make sure it is not innocent is to hold the trial right here in the United States. And these people, Tony, you and I know, are not tried by a jury of their peers, they're not able to confront everything with the kind of defense attorneys you need to go up against the Department of Justice. Mr. LEWIS: The standard of proof in these cases was exactly the same, or very nearly the same as it is in a criminal case. And I repeat, if it's tried by United States judges, lifetime judges who have every reason and training to be fair -- in my judgment are fair -- LEHRER: Why are you so worked up about this? Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, I interrogated Allan Ryan about 1982 -- LEHRER: Allan Ryan who was head of the Special Office of -- Mr. BUCHANAN: I had no interest in it at all, and Warren Rogers called me up, who was a former journalist with the Herald Tribune, and said, ''Pat, you ought to look into some of these cases. '' He sent me these briefs and things. LEHRER: Where were you at the time? Mr. BUCHANAN: I was a columnist. And so I started looking into the cases and reading the briefs, and I called up -- I finally heard about this Demjanjuk case, and I saw that the lawyer was [unintelligible] and I called him up. And I guess it's like a lot of legal cases, you get involved in it, and caught up in it, and you start writing about it, and eventually other people came to me with other cases and arguments -- and the whole thing seemed to focus on some real abuses in this Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice. And I sort of took a leave from doing it while I was in the White House. But -- LEHRER: What do you say to Tony Lewis, though, about the stress of the families of victims of the holocaust, who see you and others defending going after these people responsible, allegedly, for so many deaths. Mr. BUCHANAN: I think if they saw us saying that no Nazi war criminals, like a Klaus Barbie in France -- that he ought to go free. I think they really ought to have objections about us. But I have no problem -- in France, if they put Barbie on trial and convict him and shoot him, I don't have any difficulty with that at all. I think, though, that the victims of the holocaust and their children will not want in the future to learn that innocent blood was taken because of a mistake, or because of hysteria, or because of overreaction. And I think that's happened in a couple of cases. Mr. LEWIS: I just think there's -- no matter how many times you say it, there is not the slightest evidence that any innocent blood or injustice has been taken or committed here. In fact, the one or two cases that Pat Buchanan mentions, in which a jury or a judge found the other way, shows that the American system of justice works in these cases. And I repeat, those who know the case of Demjanjuk and Linnas well -- and including particularly the Attorney General of the United States, a member of the same administration that Pat Buchanan served, came to an absolutely unalterable conclusion that these men were not just [unintelligible] but they were monsters. Mr. BUCHANAN: I admire this high regard for the Attorney General Mr. Meese on Mr. Lewis's part, and I hope his writings will reflect that. But what I'm saying, Tony, is fundamentally this. Look, we can make a terrible, fatal blunder -- irreversible -- if we send him back to the Soviet Union whose system of justice is a farce. You and I know it. That's sending him back to certain death. What I am saying is in the American system, you have room for these doubts, and you have ways to work it out. What is wrong with passing legislation to prosecute, convict and punish these people right here in the United States? Mr. LEWIS: What's wrong with it is first of all, as Jim mentioned earlier, there is no such legislation now, and I don't think under our constitutional system that it could be retrospectively made applicable to someone like Linnas or Demjanjuk. I think it's very doubtful. What we do have is legislation that makes a person who comes in fraudulently concealing his role as an SS officer, as a mass murderer, makes it required that he be forced to leave the country. That doesn't seem to me to be illegitimate. Mr. BUCHANAN: No, it is not. It's not as long as you don't collaborate with the Soviet Union where there's an element of doubt in sending over to a certain death. The Soviet Union -- remember, the Soviet Union was Hitler's senior partner during the whole battle of Britain. They were right on Hitler's side. Mr. LEWIS: What exactly -- the Battle of Britain? Please, come on, the whole Battle of Britain, really -- Like it or not, you are quite right that at the start there was the Nazi Soviet Pact, which we join equally in deploring. But after that, for a period of years, the Nazis and Hitler were at war with the Soviet Union, and they were extremely valuable allies of ours in Britain. Mr. BUCHANAN: Let's get the historical fact correct. The Battle of Britain was in 1940. On whose side was the Soviet Union? They were providing oil to the point where Churchill wanted to bomb the oil fields of Batum and Baku. Mr. LEWIS: At the beginning they were allies, that is true. But then Britain would say, as Churchill would have said, Churchill was the greatest advocate of the alliance with the Soviet Union -- not because he loved Stalin, far from it. Because he knew necessity to beat the greatest threat civilization has ever known, Adolph Hitler. Mr. BUCHANAN: Adolph Hitler was the Soviet Union's ally of choice. We were their ally of necessity. LEHRER: Let me bring it back to 1987 for a moment. Mr. Buchanan, am I understanding you correctly? That you believe that beginning yesterday and working back, the majority of the U. S. Supreme Court, all the Appeals Courts who looked at it, the Lower Courts looked at this case for eight years, the U. S. Attorneys, the Attorney General of the United States -- all have some ulterior motive? Mr. BUCHANAN: No, no, I don't. LEHRER: What is the problem? What is the accusation? Mr. BUCHANAN: First, in these cases, it's a legal process. If they go in first, they denaturalize the guy. And all you've got to do to denaturalize them is -- LEHRER: We know that. But what I'm trying to get at is what is your complaint that Ed Meese and Sandra Day O'Connor -- actually she was on the other side -- but all these other -- Mr. BUCHANAN: My complaint is not with the court system -- or even some of the court decisions. They follow the rules. My complaint is really with the government of the United States -- as a policy ought not to deport people to the Soviet Union for trial, because that's preposterous. Especially people from the Baltic countries, and the Ukraine which had been taken over by the Soviet Union, part of them as a consequence of an alliance with Adolph Hitler. It is Orwellian to do something like this. LEHRER: But in the meantime, while legislation -- where there are no laws -- Mr. BUCHANAN: Lock them up. LEHRER: Lock them up where? Mr. BUCHANAN: Keep Linnas locked up where he was. That law -- if the President proposed it under the Genocide Treaty, something like that would go through in a second. But whatever you do, Jim, you don't have to do something wrong. LEHRER: Tony Lewis? Mr. LEWIS: That is assuming it is wrong. I say that if it were a perfect world, we would have a World Court, or some detached body passing on war criminal cases from this most terrible period in man's history. We don't have that. We make do with the laws that we have. And one thing that we can be sure of -- as best we can -- is that Nazi war criminals are not allowed to remain in the United States. LEHRER: And that is not your number one priority. You don't share that priority, right, Mr. Buchanan? Mr. BUCHANAN: My central concern on this is that alleged Nazi war criminals not be sent to the Soviet Union. And secondly that Soviet evidence be stood up to American courts, and third that they be held American trials -- LEHRER: But do you think the U. S. government should continue to search for Nazi war criminals in this country and take action against them? Mr. BUCHANAN: I think if evidence of Nazi war criminals comes up, like a Barbie in this country, we ought to prosecute them, deport them, the way the French are doing right now -- but not to the Soviet Union. Mr. LEWIS: And yet a few years ago Mr. Buchanan mocked what he called ''hairy chested Nazi hunters in the Justice Department,'' and said those resources would be better used to fight organized crime now, than to go after what he calls 70 year old camp guards. Mr. BUCHANAN: I said that after a 75 year old man walked onto a railroad track in Chicago and let a train run over him, and I was asking Allan Ryan a question. I said, ''Why don't you leave somebody like that to God?'' And so Allan Ryan says, ''We wanted to decorate the engineer. '' Now that motivation there is not justice, it's vengeance. And when people have a motive of vengeance, Mr. Lewis, they make mistakes. And an awful lot of mistakes have been made here. LEHRER: Anthony Lewis in Boston, Pat Buchanan, thank you both very much. MacNEIL: Still ahead on the News Hour, a documentary report from Los Angeles on big changes in television news. And two former FCC Chairmen debate the need for the Fairness Doctrine. News about News MacNEIL: Over the past few weeks, television news operations have been making news, not just reporting. There have been strikes by writers at CBS and ABC, and rumors of a strike by technicians at NBC. The latest round of layoffs at CBS news included some well known on air news broadcasters. Jeffrey Kay of Public Television Station KCET, Los Angeles, filed this documentary report on the health of commercial television news in a rapidly changing climate.

JEFFREY KAY, KCET, Los Angeles [voice over]: For more than six weeks, these striking writers at the CBS station in Los Angeles watched the news from the outside. The settlement of the bitter union dispute is not a sure labor piece of the networks. ABC writers remain off the job, and 2800 union members at NBC have been working without a contract since April l. The new ethic in TV news is cost consciousness. The unions are caught between management's new regard for the bottom line and their old ''the sky is the limit'' approach to news coverage. Organized labor's nemesis at CBS is president Laurence Tisch, who owns 25% of the network. Since March, CBS news has trimmed its $300 million budget by 10% and has laid off more than 200 news people. LAURENCE TISCH, President, CBS, Inc: While this has been an extremely painful period at CBS, and particularly for the individuals whose jobs have been eliminated, it has been necessary to deal with the changing economics of our business. We have had to establish a realistic cost structure, and assert firm control over our expenses.

KAY [voice over]: Tisch was speaking at the recent annual convention of the National Association of Broadcasters. He told industry leaders gathered in Dallas that broadcasting faces more tumultuous times. The Dallas convention showcased new equipmentthat is forcing change in the industry. But there's also a new mentality that's changing the business of TV news. All three major TV networks are now run by new owners, who no longer accept the premise that news should be prestigious, but unprofitable. New York banker Anthony Hoffman came to Dallas to explain the economic outlook. Hoffman specializes in broadcasting, and says change was inevitable. ANTHONY HOFFMAN, Broadcast industry analyst: The big change in TV news has come about just like all of the changes that are happening in television, because of the changing economics of the business. We were in a period from about 1976 through 1982 of very fast growth in the broadcasting business. That was fueled largely by a very high rate of inflation.

KAY [voice over]: The growth spurt produced celestial salaries for network news superstars, spiraling labor contracts, and extravagant use of expensive resources. Inflation caused built in budget increases. But when the rate of inflation dipped, revenues from advertising dropped off, even though costs kept rising. Hoffman said that something had to give. Mr. HOFFMAN: News was the most obvious area to cut. It had at all three networks budgets that were in the $250 million area, direct revenues from the nightly news broadcasts of about $150 million. There was a gap there.

KAY [voice over]: Economic changes are not the only ones affecting this industry. A technological revolution that includes microwave trucks, satellite communications, and lightweight gear has led to intense competition in TV news. film clip of commercial : We got reporters, they got reporters, we got typewriters, they got typewriters, we got a helicopter, they got a helicopter, we got a pencil sharpener, they got a pencil sharpener, we got a mobile satellite uplink -- they don't.

KAY [voice over]: The new technology allows any station with the right equipment to become a national, or even international, broadcaster. The use of satellites is challenging the dominance of the networks. One company, CONUS Communications, has helped transform the news business. In two years, CONUS has linked 51 stations into a consortium. By using vans equipped with satellite dishes, member stations send each other reports, both live and prerecorded, from all over the country. CONUS vice president is Stanley E. Hubbard II of Hubbard Broadcasting in Minnesota. Hubbard sells the specially equipped vans that CONUS stations use. STANLEY E. HUBBARD II, CONUS Communications: Fifty television stations -- not only couldn't afford to send a crew when the shuttle exploded to Houston, to Washington, D. C. , to Morton Thiokol, to Concorde, New Hampshire, where Christa McCauly was from. They couldn't afford to do it, they couldn't get them there on a timely basis. By these television stations working together, you have a reporter in each one of those locations. In the past, only the networks could provide coverage of those national stories that affect the country. KAY [voice over]: Hubbard's business and those like it are giving new life to local stations. Now smaller news operations can compete with the networks. Jeff Wald of Los Angeles television station KTLA runs a news department that uses stories from various sources, including Cable News Network. Wald has come to Dallas to shop for new equipment. His station is owned by the Tribune Broadcasting Company, and his evening newscast often draws a larger audience than the news programs broadcast by the local network affiliates. JEFF WALD, News director, KTLA: What I'm always concerned about is beating the competition. Everybody's got a live truck, people are getting into SMGs, so I'm really worried about the setup time. KAY [voice over]: Wald's news program is one example of how technology has altered the business. Mr. WALD: Well, it's allowed us to scoop the competition. I'll give you an example. The night of the Ontario plane rescue, where a small plane was coming in for a landing at Ontario Airport, and as it came in it got caught up in high tension wires, flipped over on its back and hung literally 90 feet in the air over the Ontario Airport. We got out to the scene, and we're ready to go live immediately, and in that way we were able to get on the air before everybody else. [film clip of live coverage] REPORTER: John, can you get in there, and let's see just what we can see. Now, this plane, as I said, is hanging from the high tension wires, all the power is off --

KAY [voice over]: Live coverage is one way a relatively small station can broadcast competitive news stories. Satellite technology gives KTLA and stations like it a global reach. This KTLA news program included reports from Moscow, from Beirut, El Salvador, San Francisco, Chile, and from Washington. Mr. WALD: Our news philosophy here is that at 10:00 o'clock the viewers in Los Angeles want to know what went on today. They want to know what happened not only on the local scene, but locally and internationally. KAY [voice over]: News director Jeff Wald says his viewers miss little by watching KTLA instead of the networks. Mr. WALD: The only thing I think they may miss would be some in depth serious report or a particular correspondent that may have a particular expertise on a particular subject. But as far as covering the news of the day, we cram as much news in that hour news broadcast as anybody can take. KAY [voice over]: Competition from local newscasts as well as from cable operations such as CNN is siphoning advertising revenue from the network news divisions. And although the networks still dominate the TV news industry, they are changing the way they do business. The NBC News Bureau in Los Angeles, for example, has developed a close partnership with the NBC station here, KNBC. In the past, the network and the local station would often each send a crew to the same event. But that's changed. At this morning meeting, NBC producers discussed how to cover the funeral of Dean Martin's son. NEWSPERSON: Dean Martin is something we can negotiate with KNBC on. NEWSPERSON: I don't know what your call was, but --

KAY [voice over]: Later, NBC's Ed Kraft represents the network when KNBC's executives plan their day's news coverage. The Martin funeral is a big local story. ED KRAFT, NBC: If possible, we'd like -- if you guys could send a feeder out to the Martin funeral, we'd like to have some of that fed in.

KAY [voice over]: The Martin funeral turns out to be a crowded media event. There's a lot of interest in the celebrities who show up. But interestingly, each of the networks is sharing a crew with its local station -- an economy that would have been overlooked just a year or two ago. A KNBC microwave truck sends pictures back to the station and to the network. The material shot at the funeral will be made available to any NBC station. By sharing the footage, NBC reduces its costs. Because they're covering an increasing number of stories this way, the Los Angeles Bureau Chief for NBC News, Bob Eaton, anticipates that layoffs may be in the works at NBC.

BOB EATON, NBC News: I think that as we have begun to change the way we're doing business, the way we're covering the news, the way we're presenting it, we don't need as large a staff as we did before. The closer cooperation with KNBC, the use of more affiliate material has simply reduced the number of people we need to do what we're doing. KAY [voice over]: Like its competitors, NBC News is reshaping its nightly broadcast. Network news stories these days are often longer, more analytical and cheaper to produce than in years past. Mr. EATON: We don't do the minute and fifteen kind of quick piece that we used to -- which used to involve a lot of running around the country. I think that now we're more likely to do a longer story, which may take more time to do, may involve the people for a longer time, but does not involve having to be in as many cities as the same time as we would have before. KAY [voice over]: The newsworthy changes in the news business have caused some members of Congress to jump into the fray. The House Telecommunications Subcommittee plans to hold hearings later this month to examine whether the cuts in network news are in the public interest. The inquiry was requested by Ohio Congressman Dennis Eckart. Rep. DENNIS ECKART, (D) Ohio: Frankly, as at probably no other time in broadcast history, the major news networks in the United States are in disarray. Whether it's pickets and a strike, or whether it's major takeovers and deep budget cuts, the view for many of us is that news has become a mere pawn in network parades towards profits.

KAY [voice over]: CBS President Tisch says he will testify before Congress, even though he believes the hearings raise serious First Amendment concerns. Tisch makes no apologies for the cutbacks. Mr. TISCH: If I thought for one moment that we would hurt CBS News by any cut that was made, that cut wouldn't have been made. REPORTER: Why were the cuts made? Mr. TISCH: The cuts were made because in the long run they will be better for CBS News. It'll be a stronger product on the air. I would never do anything -- no matter what it cost -- in any way to harm CBS News. That's the Crown Jewel of CBS and it's going to remain the Crown Jewel of CBS. MacNEIL: That report by Jeffrey Kay. Right to Reply MacNEIL: Now another hot television issue -- hot to broadcasters, at least -- the Fairness Doctrine. That 1959 code requires broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for conflicting views on issues of public importance. Many broadcasters want the rule scrapped, and recently the Federal Communications Commission has tended to agree with them. Last year, a U. S. Court of Appeals said that the Fairness Doctrine did not have the status of law. The prospect of appeal has alarmed the doctrine's defenders, like Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina. He has sponsored a bill that would firmly establish the doctrine as law. That bill passed in the Senate today by a vote of 59 to 31 after several hours of debate this afternoon.

Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS, (D) South Carolina: These deregulators, jumping up and down like minuets on a string, deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. I happen to believe in the fundamental of government. And in the regulation and particularly in this communications field, because we've tried it otherwise. Sen. JOHN DANFORTH, (R) Missouri: It seems to me that the best arguments in favor of the Fairness Doctrine have to do with the power of the media and the idea of the media as a public trust. I don't think the power can be seriously disputed. Television is so important, the mass media are so important to this country, to our ability as public officials to influence, to communicate with audiences, and we recognize that as a matter of course. We will drop anything -- ask us to be on a morning talk show. Ask us to get up at quarter to six in the morning in order to go down to a television network for a morning talk show so we can speak for five minutes, or less, to the people of this country -- don't we believe that that's important? Sen. ROBERT PACKWOOD, (R) Oregon: My good friend from Missouri uses the argument that all of us in politics realize the dominance of broadcasting. We'll get up at a quarter of six in the morning to go down and be on a talk show. Any radio station that wants to interview you, we hop, skip and jump down to the studio. That is not quite the truth, I think. In many markets with 10 or 20 or 30 stations, I'll wager even my good friend from Missouri has turned down numerous opportunities to appear on radio shows -- even television shows. But for the moment, let's give him his argument. His argument is this: radio and television are so powerful, are so pervasive in our thinking that the Federal Government must tell them what to do, what to say, how to think, how we shall think. It stands the First Amendment on its head. This bill, Mr. President, is more than just this bill. It is symbolic of whether or not the Federal Government has the constitutional power to tell broadcasters what they must program, when they must program it, how they must report the news, which news they must give, and which news they can't give. And that is a terrible power. A dangerous power, Mr. President, to put in the hands of any government -- ours or any others. MacNEIL: Joining us are two former Chairmen of the FCC who have very different views about the Fairness Doctrine. Charles Fairness -- Ferris, Chairman from 1977 81 -- you don't mind me calling you Charles Fairness, do you? (laughter) From 1977 to '81 has been an ardent supporter of the rule. Mark Fowler, Chairman since 1981, completed his term last Friday. In keeping with his general philosophy of deregulating broadcasting, Mr. Fowler just as ardently favors repeal. Now that we've gotten your names straightened out, gentlemen: Mr. Fowler, first of all, what do you think about the vote in the Senate today, and if it goes through the House and becomes law, what is your opinion about that? MARK FOWLER, former Chairman, FCC: Well, Robin, I'm not surprised, because politicians want to control the electronic press. In fact, I have no doubt if they could do the same with the printed press, they'd do that, too. Under the Fairness Doctrine, for example, there are editorial rules that say if you editorialize on behalf or against one candidate, you have to provide time to the others. Well, what happens? No broadcaster editorializes. And who does that benefit generally? Of course, the better known incumbent. It's the same with the equal time laws. They see that if the Fairness Doctrine is declared unconstitutional by either the commission or by the courts, the equal time laws are next. So as far as I'm concerned, the members of Congress are not disinterested parties in this debate. MacNEIL: Are you pleased today, Mr. Ferris, that the Senators made this vote? CHARLES FERRIS, former Chairman, FCC: Yes, I think the judgment of the Senate reaffirms what I think has been the longstanding doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, that those that are privileged enough to received the very valuable resource of a broadcast license have to assume some public responsibilities for the use of these public airways. And all the Fairness Doctrine does is obligate those that are privileged enough to receive these licenses to spend a short part of that broadcast day to cover the issues in their particular communities and cover them in a fair and balanced way -- that obligates them only to spend a little of their broadcast time to do whatever a good journalist does, cover stories in your community and cover it in a fair and balanced way. It doesn't do what Senator Packwood said on the Senate floor in my mind at all. It's a structural remedy which leaves to the broadcaster the total discretion of how they cover in their communities. And the only remedy available to the FCC -- if there is in those few insignificant number of cases -- I think six were the citations during Mark Fowler's last year, out of 5,000 potential cases that were raised in the community, only six cases came to the FCC -- the only remedy is that the broadcaster go out and cover that story again. It isn't revocation of license, it isn't at all the draconian remedy that was alluded to on the senate floor. As a matter of fact, it's far less severe an intrusion by the government than what the FCC did just last week when the FCC said that the FCC can go in and review programming and make judgments as to whether or not it was decent or not. That is a role for the Federal Government that I'm very fearful of, and I think far more intrusive than anything that the Fairness Doctrine could provide. MacNEIL: Let's leave decency out of this for the moment if we can, to keep the argument straight. I'll bring it up again in a moment. But, Mr. Fowler, what harm has the Fairness Doctrine done? Mr. FOWLER: When Chairman Ferris said we only had six complaints, we documented so many different instances in a 1985 comprehensive study, where broadcasters were discouraged from putting things on the air, where groups came to them and said if you put this on the air we'll file a complaint with the FCC, you'd better take it off. That happened in numerous markets. But more importantly, the chilling effect can't be documented. We have I would imagine thousands of instances where broadcasters elect not to cover something which is controversial because it puts their license in jeopardy. It never gets to the complaints. MacNEIL: Why does it put their license in jeopardy to cover something controversial? Mr. FOWLER: Because a complaint can be filed with the FCC alleging that they didn't comply with all the strictures of the Fairness Doctrine, and in fact in one case the Commission put a broadcaster into a hearing on the allegation that he violated Fairness Doctrine. NBC spent 00,000 defending against a Fairness Doctrine complaint when it covered the question of pensions. And so because of the expense, because of losing the license, that is the problem with the Fairness Doctrine. There is nothing wrong with fairness. But when the government determines whether or not a journalist has been fair or unfair, I think a) that's unconstitutional under the First Amendment; b) it is bad for the public because it keeps things off the air; and c) it is not needed. MacNEIL: But this is a licensed journalist. Mr. FOWLER: It is a license, but it is a license for technical reasons. And technical reasons alone. Because we have to regulate them technically is no reason to regulate content. I advocate going to the print model. Just as if the New York Times, USA Today, they use the spectrum today to broadcast to their printing plants. And I don't hear -- I hope -- Chairman Ferris advocating that because of that, and because they're licensed in that sense, that we ought to impose an equal space law on the newspapers or a fairness doctrine. MacNEIL: Well, let's ask Mr. Ferris. The situation has changed a lot since 1959, hasn't it, when this doctrine was first promulgated. Then there was a -- the broadcast channels that were available and awarded under license locally were very limited. And now there is an almost unlimited number available. Isn't that a very different situation? Mr. FERRIS: Oh, I don't think so. I think the broadcast properties back in 1959, if you use the marketplace forces that Chairman Fowler has such great respect for as to why -- if you look at what market prices were back in 1959 for a broadcast station in Washington or New York or Boston, or Los Angeles -- now those stations and those communities sell for close to $400 to $500 million. Back in 1959, these stations, these companies were valued at probably 0 million. So that the notion that the market forces can determine to some degree whether there is a scarcity or there is a greater demand for properties, I think the case now is that there is a much greater demand for these properties. I can't be a broadcaster in Washington, D. C. I can't afford that price, nor is there a station available for me to apply and get. MacNEIL: What's the answer to that, Mr. Fowler? Mr. FOWLER: Well, first of all, I don't see why it's relevant to talk about the value of broadcast stations, when the Washington Post is easily worth as much as Channel 9 in Washington, D. C. The second point is -- and he overlooks this again and again -- is every time the government steps into one of these cases, it does have a chilling effect on the general public. And what I don't understand is why he thinks that if I took the Washington Post news room and put it here at Channel 26, the method of transmitting the news that is written by the journalists and assigned by the editors is the same. It's identical, and if you were to operate at the Washington Post and have what you do printed in the Washington Post, but the operations themselves, editorially, I believe are essentially the same, and under the First Amendment, as Justice Douglas and Justice Black and others, including the President, President Reagan, have said, it does not -- I believe -- permit any law -- because the First Amendment says there shall be no law abridging freedom of speech and the press. And lastly, I consider the electronic press to be part of the press. MacNEIL: And you don't, Mr. Ferris? Mr. FERRIS: Of course I do. I think it's specious to talk about the fact that the journalist uses the telephone line, or the newspaper uses the satellite to transmit to a remote printing press its newscopy. That's very, very different than a broadcast medium. A broadcast medium has -- they assume very special responsibilities. The broadcasters came to the Federal Government back in 1926, when prior to that there was no licensing, and anyone who had a transmitter could put it up and transmit it. They came and demanded regulation. They asked, and Herbert Hoover happened to be Secretary of Commerce at the time. Herbert Hoover said, Yes, we're going to propose a series of regulation. But the price of those of you who are lucky enough to get these licenses is going to be that you're going to have to use that license as public resource to serve the public. And in serving the public, what you're going to do is to devote some of your time to fulfill informational needs of the general public. Which is to inform the public about what is going on in the world around them. And the Roper surveys that have just been refreshened and were just published, demonstrate that 50% of the American public gets all of their news from the electronic media. Now, this is a very valuable resource, and as Herbert Hoover said, it is too important and too valuable to be left to purely commercial chatter. Mr. FOWLER: Excuse me, may I just say one thing. We get, Robin, 8,000 Fairness Doctrine complaints a year. That in and of itself has a gigantic chilling effect on electronic journalism. And what I'm saying is if we took that stricture away tomorrow -- we have documented, we believe, the chilling effect -- we would see more robust discussions on television and radio, a willingness by broadcasters to tackle controversial issues. The problem now is that the government judges fairness, and the government also is the one that licenses these journalists. MacNEIL: Isn't that the point that the thing requires a broadcaster -- if he deals with a controversial topic -- to give both sides of the controversial topic? Mr. FOWLER: But the problem here is that the government then determines whether or not he has properly balanced the story. And that is unacceptable, I believe. MacNEIL: Mr. Ferris, do you agree that if you took it away that you'd have more robust and hardhitting journalism? Mr. FERRIS: Absolutely not. In commercial broadcasting, the profit margins for news and public affairs are far less than Wheel of Fortune or entertainment. And if you take away the obligation of those that are fortunate enough to get the broadcast licenses to serve the informational needs by covering the news and public affairs, the drive to maximize the profits on commercial broadcasters will permit the elimination, I think, eventually of all news and public affairs. I think it's too valuable a resource, and the obligation that goes when you get the license to use this public resource is to use it not just always to maximize profits, but to fulfill the informational needs. Any broadcasters that are chilled in covering news and public affairs should step aside and let someone else assume that license who won't be fearful of taking on a controversial issue and fulfilling the informational needs of that community. MacNEIL: Mr. Fowler, your predecessor says it would remove news and public affairs. Mr. FOWLER: That really is an argument that says that newspapers can't be trusted, I believe. Because that is totally unregulated, and I would argue that over 200 years newspapers have served the American people very well -- particularly because they are totally unregulated. His words about trusteeship, and so forth, and the like, comes down to one word: the ability of the government to censor. And I think that's unacceptable. I want a free press. I don't want a press electronically that the government has anything to do with. MacNEIL: Well, let's come back to the point Mr. Ferris raised earlier. Why, if it's wrong for the government to censor, is it right for you, just before you left the FCC to rule that some program content was obscene? Mr. FOWLER: Because indecent and obscene programming is not fully protected under the First Amendment. And if I could read some of the transcripts which we ruled on -- we took those specific cases -- and we said that inone case we find this to be obscene. We have a statute, the law requires us to enforce that statute. And in other cases we found that we had indecent programming that had to be channeled to late hours when there were not young children watching or listening. Mr. FERRIS: I find the FCC monitoring programs and making judgments as to what is indecent far more fearful from the standpoint of what a precedent establishes. I would much prefer -- it's another doctrine that Mark has recommended be abolished -- is the comparative renewal. I would much rather -- rather than the government looking at the content and making a value judgment of whether it's indecent or not, I would rather have someone in the community that was offended by a particular broadcaster who broadcast something that was indecent -- permit someone in that community to come in at license renewal time and to file an application to the FCC and say, ''I can do that job better than that person can do, and this is what I promise to do with that license. '' I think that's the free market approach, and removes the government from the notion of looking at content and making a specific value judgment as to what is good or bad. That to me is very fearful. MacNEIL: Gentlemen, I don't think this is the end of this argument. I thank you both for joining us, former Chairman Ferris and former Chairman Fowler. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday. More than 100 persons were killed in a bombing at a bus station in the island nation of Sri Lanka. The killings were believed to be the work of Tamil rebels seeking independence. And accused Nazi war criminal Karl Linnas arrived at Estonia where he faces the death sentence for supervising the death of thousands in a concentration camp. He was turned over to Soviet authorities in Prague this morning after being deported from the United States. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's the News Hour tonight, and we will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.