This Week with Bill Moyers; Nicholas Johnson

to Good evening, I'm Bill Moyers.

In 1934, the Congress passed the Communications Act and stated flatly that the airways, radio, then television now belonged to the American people. The act went on to say that this valuable public resource must be operated in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. These simple declarations laid the groundwork for one of the most popular fictions in modern American folklore, that you, the individual citizen, really do have a measure of control over broadcasting, and that broadcasters have been busily operating in your behalf. The men charged with responsibility for overseeing the broadcast industry are the seven political appointees who make up the Federal Communications Commission. Their job, ostensibly, is to represent and protect your interests in the incredibly huge

and wealthy world of broadcasting. How will they do their job, is the story for this week. During the past six years, one FCC commissioner has been called a Godfly, stupid, and the most avid publicity seeker in the FCC's history. Nicholas Johnson has also been described as a spokesman for the people, a defender of your right of access to the public airwaves, and a tireless enemy of communications monopolies. Tonight we explore how he became a hero to some and a villain to others.

How he's influenced the commission, and how his job at the commission has influenced him, a change that has been described as the greening of Nicholas Johnson. Mr. Johnson, I read that fascinating article you wrote for a Saturday of You in which you described the process by which you changed your own lifestyles. You said, and I quote, it soon became obvious that if I was going to criticize television for not offering alternative lifestyles, I was going to have to be able to find the answer to the question, how can we make life in the corporate state more livable and more human? And you set out to change your lifestyle to the consternation of some of your critics, and this may have some of your friends. What was your experience? What happened? What did you do to find that different lifestyle? Well, it can be answered very simply. I think the kinds of things I felt are the kinds of things that you and many Americans have felt in the last few years, the upheavals of the racial disorders, and our awareness

of the plight of blacks in America, and concerned over the Vietnam War, and it brought all of us, I think, or great many Americans at least, to rethink many of the underlying basic assumptions about their lives. There's something about the FCC that tends ultimately to bring all of the society's problems to you in one form or another. The Courner Commission, when it looked into race relations in America, ended up devoting a chapter to the implications of television in the worsening state of race relations in America. The Eisenhower Commission studying violence after the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy, ended up devoting two entire volumes of staff studies to the implications of television for violence in our society. You begin to get involved in the moods and changing ideas in the society because you have

to. It's a part of your job. It's a part of the impact of television, therefore it's a part of your responsibility. But you talked in this article about doing something other than being involved in the problem. You took your sons to West Virginia, lived on a mountain top for a couple of weeks close to nature. You talked about learning to tend to garden, men some of your own clothes, learning to play a guitar, writing a little poetry. How do those affect you at the FCC? Well, I think that here again, I've tried to personally participate in anything that I'm trying to study. When I wanted to know about what the creative people in television confront with censorship at every hand, I spent a little time trying to learn to play the guitar, incidentally using Laura Weber's guitar lessons on the public broadcast. When I wanted to know something about how you make television pictures, I tried to make some films.

And so now, with people complaining about the corporate control of our lives and the phony sense of values and the hypocrisy in our society, I tried to personally involve myself in that a bit and decide how much of my own life is something that's simply been forced upon me or a mold into which I have been forced by the standards of the mass media and the schools and the jobs that you hold. And you discover an awful lot of it has. And as you get into the question of what can you do that is different, you begin to question some of these assumptions. Do I have to have all these functions provided for me by large corporations? What can I do for myself? And so I bicycle, for example, instead of taking cars and other internal combustion propelled devices. And in order to think about those things, I think getting in a natural setting and a wood somewhere is the best place to think it through.

So that's what I did, but it's nothing very dramatic or a great drop out. It's just a two-week vacation. And a great many millions of Americans do it, and I think that everybody comes back and rich from it. But not very many millions of Americans or members of the Federal Communications Commission, not many members of the FCC, bicycle down the streets of Worst and to their office are grew a mustache as you once did and adopt what some of your critics have said was a hippie lifestyle. Do you feel that in making what to many people was a rather radical and startling transformation impaired your effectiveness as a commissioner? Do you think people may pay more attention to your habits than to your ideas about reforming television? Oh, I hope not. I suppose that's always a problem. The detractors are always looking for something to leap upon. And if they can point to a beard, and thereby avoid the ideas, they're a lot happier with that kind of an offense, I think, and having to deal with the merits. But I think the ideas are getting through, at least if my male is any judge.

And I think more and more, there's a much greater tolerance in this country, I think, than there used to be. I think it's interesting that I got much less talk about my long hair in West Virginia, where one would assume from films like Easy Rider that I was flirting with assassination, you see. Then in Washington, D.C., where all the snide remarks are made, you've traveled around the country and engaged this effort to kind of get a sense for the field of American people. I don't know if you feel the same way. But I think there's a much greater acceptance of a man for what he is, and let him wear his hair and his clothes, however he chooses to. And what's important is how decent a human being is he? How does he treat other people? What kind of respect does he have for them and for himself? What kind of ideas does he have? What kind of ideals and moral values does he have? And at least my sense is that more and more people are interested in those fundamental things

and are less affected by the superficial externals. Do you think that your ideas about television or beginning to find a hearing are changes coming as a result of your efforts in the last four years? I think so, Bill. I think it would be inaccurate as well as the modus to talk about my ideas. I think what I've tried to do is provide something of a broker function. There are a lot of very smart people in this country who have been thinking about television long before I have. And to take the best of these ideas and to try to give them a public hearing and let them have some impact. But have there been changes? Yes, I think there have been changes. Is there hope? Yes, I think there is hope. But is there a lot more to do? Your darn right there is. What's been a lot of people working? That's the important thing. And without that, there would have been no impact. What's been the most important change as far as you're concerned in the last few years and access on the part of private services to television?

Well, in some ways, the most important thing has been simply the rising level of public awareness, which has taken the form of foundation interest in communications like the Ford Foundation, the research organizations like the RAND Corporation, academic community, the proliferation of courses, increased interest on the part of students. But is television really different for the average viewer who's sitting out there watching it day in and day out? I think it is. I think we tend to, you know, we look at it and we say, wow, you know, I never suspected this year's season could be even worse than last year's and here it is. You think it is? And things are always getting worse and so forth. But, you know, there has been progress. I mean, just in the, in the few years that I've been at the FCC, we forget that we started off in the 1930s with perhaps seven or eight hundred radio stations at that time. Of course, radio began in the 20s, but I mean, by the mid-30s, we now have ten times

that many stations. In addition to AM radio, we've got FM radio. In addition to AM and FM radio, we've got VHF television. In addition to VHF television, we've got UHF television. And what's this meant? This is meant that in many communities in the United States, they're not the very largest cities where they formerly had one or two television stations. They may now have four and they have all three networks and they have an independent station as well. Has the diversity brought improved quality? Well, I think that, of course, you were right, that while London may only have three radio stations and New York has 70, the people of London in some way have more diversity and quality available to them than the people of New York. And I've made that argument. I think that's valid. But, but I think also that there is something to be said for diversity. And the fact that you can't just categorize all of television.

Some people like to watch the movies on television, even with the tremendous quantity of commercials and so on. What do you watch? What do you watch? What do you watch? For those who do. For those who do, they have in many large communities more movies available to them in a week than Hollywood used to put out in a year. Now, that's not a tremendous achievement, but it's something. The broadcasting has come along in the time I've been on the commission. Cable television has grown in the time I've been there. And my point is, I think that we are making some progress. AM and FM radio stations now that are commonly owned have to be separately programmed. They used to have the same programs on them on both. Now, they have different programs. That gives people a more diversity. The networks this season have to give up a half hour of prime time so that independent suppliers of programs can come in. UHF stations are providing some support for independent programs. Let's take that one issue.

Networks are giving up more time to the local stations. And yet in many areas of the country, those local stations are using that time to run shows that rerun or offer very little in terms of quality. Is that a change for the better? Are you satisfied with that? Well, of course I'm not. Actually, I find myself in a very uncomfortable position here in this discussion with you, because usually, of course, in an interview on television, I'm on precisely the opposite side. And the fellow interviewing me is explaining how marvelous American television is and how it couldn't possibly be better. And aren't we all grateful for this marvelous American commercial television system? And I am pointing out some of the defects in it. And here you've got me in the reverse role. But so I do want to keep it in balance. Of course, it's horrible. And of course, many of the fellows running the business are simply greedy or responsible businessmen and so forth. But I think that we are making some progress. There is some improvement. And I think it's a mistake not to recognize that. I think it's a mistake to throw up one's hands in a sense of utter hopelessness and assume

that there's nothing that can be done, nothing ever has been done, it just gets worse and worse every year. There's no point in trying and so forth. The number of radio stations owned by blacks in this country has doubled in the time. I've been on the commission. It's still a small fraction of a percentage. But I mean, the point is there has been an improvement in that area. There's been an improvement in employment of blacks in the industry. And sure you're right that with the prime time that's been made available to the local stations. There's no longer the total hammer lock control that the networks had on prime time. But some of those local stations will not use that time in a constructive creative fashion. They will, some of them, I think, are almost determined to put on the worst programming they can find to prove to their local community that the FCC's rule is a bad rule. But I think there are other broadcasters and I think there's something people local community ought to take a look at.

What are their local stations doing? What do you know, I say to your viewer, what is the station in your community doing with that half hour of time, is he using it to bring you more local programming, more creative programming? Or is he just running more reruns? Because this is the opportunity, this is an opportunity for local community to complain and stay about. What you've said in your book and in speeches and in other appearances that the viewer out there can do more than simply talk back to the television set. He can inform himself, he can express his views, he can write letters, visit the local management, he can join with other groups, he can use the FCC. Is that slightly misleading, I mean, can that fellow sitting out there really make a difference in Dallas or Houston or San Diego where he's dissatisfied with local programming? I think he can, Bill. And I think that that's a terribly important thing to get across to people. There are tremendous number of things that can be done and I'll describe some of them. But before I get to them, I think it's important for the individual to know that he can

have an impact. I think one of the great problems in this country today is the sense of lethargy and apathy and sense of frustration. On the part of people who do care for this country and who would like to make it better and who do intend to go on living here but who don't quite know how to go about it, they're greatly disturbed by what they see and they don't know what they can do. And I think a part of what Ralph Nader has been trying to teach all of us is the impact that the individual can have, not necessarily functioning as Ralph does on a full-time basis. But on a part-time basis, what does citizenship mean? It means keeping your eyes and ears open and it means more than just voting and election time. But I really would like for it to get specific. I mean, every man can't be Ralph Nader or Nick Johnson on the FCC and here's a fellow sitting out there with a beer can in one hand and a television guy in the other hand and he's unhappy about the programming he's getting. What can he do? All right, just to go through the list. He can join with local organizations.

I think that's always a valid principle in any kind of social reform. You'll do better if you group together with others of like mind and hire some professional talent to help you with your problem, whether it's trying to beat a zoning board rule leaner to improve television programming. If there's not a local organization, he can start one. There are national organizations he can write to for help in doing that. And my little paperback how to talk back to your television set that you referred to, on which I should say I get no royalties. But in the back of it, it lists organizations that you can write. He can, just in terms of writing letters, I think that letter writing is both overrated and underrated. A lot of people say, wow, it's a letter, I just got a form, reply, what an even read and so forth. There are a lot of people do read their mail. I read my mail and answer it, sometimes late because there's a lot of it, but we get around to it.

It does have an influence, I think. It's a mistake to assume that the writing and mailing of a letter is equivalent to the writing of a legal petition and filing a lawsuit, it's not. And the one thing that John Banzaff taught us, when he got the fairness doctrine ruling out of the FCC, requiring the anti-smoking commercial announcements on television when those came along, was the difference between simply writing a letter, protesting the existence of cigarette commercials and filing what was called a fairness doctrine complaint, which gets sent to a different branch of the FCC from the mail and files room and has to be processed and acted on by the commission and either accepted or rejected, in this case it was accepted. And a letter, which will simply get a reply, but it will have an impact. And letters to stations and networks and advertisers and the FCC do have some impact. The FCC does list and if people yell, you hear them? Yes, I mean, that is to say we receive the letters, they are put in the station's complaint file. They are looked at at license renewal time. If the complaint is, it depends what the nature of the complaint is.

If the complaint is about a station owner's deciding to preempt one program for another, which may be totally within his rights, you haven't raised any problem. If you complain that he's running more commercials per hour than he's represented to the FCC, he was going to. He may be in very serious trouble because of your letter. So what the FCC does with regard to the letter depends in large measure on what it is the letter says and whether it points out a problem that in fact violates the law or FCC regulations or the station's commitment to the FCC or not. Can the FCC really enforce its rules? Well, there again, you have a number of problems. One is that it's starved for resources. At one point we had three inspectors to cover some of the entire United States and they traveled in pairs. We now have put in for money for some more men to investigate some of these complaints. Also you've got the problem simply of lack of will.

I think that the FCC, like most regulatory commissions, local, state and federal alike, do not receive public attention because people are not participating as active citizens in all across the board and government as they must, if government is to work. The agencies tend to be ignored by the citizens, by the mass media, but they are not ignored by the special interests that have so much to gain in terms of millions of dollars of benefits from the actions of these agencies. So that even the commissioner of the greatest goodwill is going to find himself inundated with industry representations. This morning, for example, the FCC commissioners were visited by group of broadcasters, commercial broadcasters who once sit down and talk about some of their problems. Well, there's only evil in doing that. It's probably a good thing to do. But the problem is that there are far more broadcasters and telephone company representatives and satellite company representatives than there are public interest groups coming around

to ask. Could a group of private citizens have had an audience at the FCC this morning if it had requested it? There was a group of women in Boston called Action for Children's Television who requested an audience with the FCC commissioners to talk about their concerns about children's programming, and they were granted it. They were invited into the chairman's office and we sat around with the commissioners and these women explained to us their concern about children's programming, and I think there's no question about the fact that I think that groups started with three women. They were not trained as lawyers, they were not professionally experienced in dealing with the FCC, but they were concerned originally about the cancellation of Captain Kangaroo off of one of their local stations, I think. And then that got them into a broader concern for children's programming and about them hopping mad. Yeah. And so then they ultimately came to see us and asked for rulemaking in this area, and Dean Birch, chairman, has at least picked this up in speeches, there's been very little action

on the FCC, but at least I think they did play a major role in just simply getting the attention of the commissioners addressed to this problem. What's the one change that would make the most difference in the operations of the FCC itself? Is it obsolete, is there something you can do to make it more effective? Well there are great many things you could do, the principal problem I think, Bill, is the incredible political and economic power of the commercial broadcasting lobby in this country. I think it exceeds without question. The political and economic power of any other industrial or union or any other group. We all elected public officials are, if not totally dependent, at least they find the broadcast are very important to their re-election. He can give them free time, he can play them well on the news or not, he can give them time from Washington for a report to the people from the senator, that congressman or what not.

And there are just very few senators and congressmen who are really willing to take on this industry and do it as a full-time thing of kind of criticism from congress of the performance of the broadcasting industry. That I would say is the number one problem and on those rare, so the FCC feels this pressure. We get it directly on us from the broadcasting industry, we get it indirectly on us through the congress and through the White House because the president, you've had some experience of that, he can't totally ignore the impact of television on his power to govern the country. Don't you think in that regard that television has become a politician's best ally and that the people in a sense are at the mercy of television and politicians because when a politician speaks, what he says is so until it's proven otherwise and it's very seldom proven otherwise before the same audience or an audience of equal size. Are we at the mercy of politicians through television?

Well I think you could speak to this in some way better than I in terms of past administrations but my impression from what I've studied and from what I've seen is that never before have we had in the White House as concerted an effort to control the content of the mass media and ways favorable to the administration as we now have. Don't you think George Washington would have tried if television had been available in that very position? That's why I say I think we have to look to prior administrations. I think Roosevelt's use of radio was clearly an effort to get around newspapers that he felt to be hostile. I think President Kennedy was very conscious of his capacity to use television in his press conferences and you know of President Johnson's experiences with television. I think all presidents are of course conscious of this so I don't mean this as a partisan remark at all. I think there's been a gradual escalation in the sophistication of politicians about the importance of mass media and the importance of dominating and controlling it. I think there's been an acceleration in the number of people employed by the president.

Somebody computed there were 20 or 30 just public relations people now on the White House staff. Holy aside from speech writers and other people working on the media side of it. At one time Mr. Johnson you were optimistic about the capacity of cable television or the potential of cable television to improve broadcasting and offer diversity and greater quality. Are you still optimistic about the future of cable? Well I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the future of any technology. It's a question of how it's used. A cable could be used in a way that would be terribly beneficial to this country or it could go down a path that would leave it as nothing but simply another money making device for the same people who now control them. Is that happening? That tends to happen yes and the way in which it can be prevented from happening more than any other is if in local communities around this country people will organize, go to see their city council or their franchising authority and insist on some very fundamental

and simple kind of propositions in the franchises that the cable television operator be required to make essentially an unlimited number of channels available, not a 12 channel or even a 20 channel system but something more like a 30 or 40 or 60 channel system which some cable operators as a matter of business judgment are putting in anyway. Secondly that those channels be made available to anybody who wants to use the channel who will pay a rate for leasing that channel so that access is then open to anybody who wants access to the system. There are a lot of other provisions that are needed and there are groups that are available to advise local citizens on what they can do with cable television franchises but I would say that those two principles for starters are about as important as any. I want to thank you very much for being our guest tonight on this week and wish you well in the two years you have left on the commission.

Thank you Nicholas Johnson. Thank you very much. Whether you agree with Dick Johnson's tactics, philosophy or powers of prophecy he has been and remains someone to reckon with in the communications industry whether his views will prevail over those who oppose him is still of course undecided but with Nicholas Johnson in there swinging from the floor the battle in the next two years will be fascinating to watch. I'm Bill Moyers in Washington D.C. and for this week good night.