Senate Communications Subcommittee Hearings; 1

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . annual budget of about $58 million. NET, the National Educational Television Network, has about eight additional millions for program making. Commercial televisions, annual revenues in comparison, exceed $2 billion or about 30 times as much as the ETV budget. The educational stations get their limited financing from a variety of sources. $33.5 million of the money or half comes from state and local governments.

It's primarily earmarked for classroom programming, but it does help support facilities and personnel for all of ETV. The second largest source of station funds is foundations, primarily the Ford Foundation. The third source is the federal government, but federal assistance so far has been limited almost entirely to the construction of facilities. About $4.5 million a year come from contributions, the rental of ETV facilities and from grants for specific programs or projects. Many ETV stations receive annual subscriptions from viewers who pay a modest membership fee and receive program schedules and other information from the station. Finally, industry and commerce make outright donations. Those figures are totals for all stations, the financing of any given individual station may be quite different. Just as sources of money vary considerably the sources of programs we're talking here about educational programs apart from classroom instruction. On the average however, station makes up its schedule this way.

About one third to one half of its evening programs come from NET, the National Educational Television Network, which is itself a producer and which also imports foreign productions. NET programs are generally shown in prime time. The average station produces about 15% of its programming itself. Locally. Another 15% comes from film sources. Motion pictures provided gratis by government agencies, industrial firms and other organizations. 10% of the average station's programming comes from other educational stations on an exchange basis. The final 10% is obtained from state networks, from commercial television and from various other sources. A feeling that educational television needed long range planning and a reliable source of income led the Carnegie Corporation in 1964 to set up a commission to study the subject. Its members were appointed by President Johnson and its report,

proposing the establishment of a corporation for public television is at the heart of the president's recommendations to the Congress and of the actual bill which the Senate began considering today. The Carnegie Commission came up with a new term as a substitute for educational television. Commission Chairman, Dr. James R. Achillion, Jr. defined it when he released the report in January. Very early, to certain basic conclusions that were fundamental in the writing and preparation of our report and its recommendations. The first of these was that we should concentrate our attention on that part of educational television that relates to the home, the kind of television that reaches the general community, that we have come to call public television. We had to invent a phrase for this kind of television because we felt that educational television in itself was not adequate to indicate what we were talking about. Although at all we are centrally interested in educational television.

This kind of television, as a part of educational television, we distinguish from instructional television. The kind of television that is designed to go into the classroom to be a part of the formal processes of education. Present federal participation in non-commercial television is based on the Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962. It expires this year. One section of the proposed new bill would extend it. Another would provide for a survey of classroom instruction. But the most important part of the new bill is the provision for the public television corporation. The bill outlines $9 million for the first year of the corporation and leaves the question of future financing open. Under the Carnegie report, however, the corporation would get about 50 million a year initially rising to 100 million a year by 1980. The money would come primarily from an excise tax on television sets. There would also be contributions from other foundations and other sources.

Such an infusion would permit educational television greatly to expand its programming in areas which commercial television treats likely. Educational television would continue to concentrate on children's programs, cultural and public affairs programs as it has in the past, but it would be enabled to enlarge the scope, diversity, depth, and specialization of its subject matter. The bill calls also for a special study of classroom television as distinct from educational television. This first day of hearings on the bill was reserved for testimony by several distinguished public servants. They appeared before the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee headed by Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island. It is worth noting at this time that non-commercial educational TV has been chronically underfinanced, understaffed, and underprogrammed since today 15 years ago when the FCC reserved 242 channels for that purpose.

A number which has grown to 632 reserve channels as of today. When the legislation leading to the enactment of the Educational Television Facility Act was first introduced more than 10 years ago, there were about 31 non-commercial operating TV stations on the air. Today, there are 130 on the air, 46 under construction, and 25 more represented by request for grants for assistance to construct. The Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962 has proven its worth. It was a simple and a Mars beginning. Its expansion and extension are necessary. The 632 reserve channels must be activated and S1160 is designed to assist in that endeavor. However, the time has now come to move dramatically in the direction

of not only more educational television facilities but higher quality educational TV program and services. The proposal to establish a public corporation to achieve this goal is both daring and imaginative. If this legislation is enacted, I predict in time it will lead not only to a remarkable uplifting of non-commercial television programming but will have a salutary impact on the programs of commercial broadcasters. I believe that non-commercial educational program programming is not only supplementary but that it can and will become competitive in an appealing way with commercial TV services. This competition will benefit both types of service. In the arena of competition of ideas and formats, some elements of commercial TV's format and showmanship

may find their places in educational programming. And concepts of public programming will be adaptable to commercial television in its endeavor to entertain, inform, and stimulate its large numbers of views. This is a good time, as any, to put to rest an observation heard over and over to the effect that upon the enactment of this legislation and the growth of non-commercial TV services, the commercial broadcaster will feel relieved of his responsibility to present public affairs and public service programs. It will not and should not happen. Each broadcaster receives a valuable franchise from the FCC conditioned on the fact that he will operate in the public interest and we're not ready to bring that to an end. This includes public affairs and public service programs as well as entertainment.

He cannot escape that responsibility. Because of the use of federal funds by the public corporation created by this, the act we are considering today, it is natural for one to raise a question about government interference over programming. Therefore, the words of President Johnson in his recent message are most reassuring and are worth repeating. He said non-commercial television and radio in America, even though supported by federal funds, must be absolutely free from any federal government interference over programming, end of quote. And I heartily endorse that position and I know that all of my colleagues on the committee do as well. The first witness before the committee today was a former senator, now a member of the House, Claude Pepper of Florida. He is introduced a similar bill in the House and he said today that as far as he knew, he was the only House member so far who have come out in favor of the measure.

Congressman Pepper then addressed himself as Senator Pastore had done to the charge made by its critics that the proposed public television corporation might be an agency of political control. As well as many of my colleagues knowd out in both houses, have recently been deluged by mail in opposition to this legislation and especially regarding the public television corporation. Most of the correspondence is called our bill, a Hitler-type propaganda ministry, end quote. In other words, they said that by the passage of such a bill, quote, the people of this country have lost the last vestige of freedom, end quote. Mr. Chairman, this could not be farther from the truth. These people whom I am sure have good intention have not had an opportunity to read this bill. Because of these statements and accusations, I feel it necessary that we should give in some details some of the provisions which relate to the federal government's participation in this program. The proposed corporation for public television

is quite specifically prohibited from any, quote, takeover, end quote, a program control on the nation's educational station that Able Chairman has made that clear. President Johnson's educational message to the Congress states that, quote, non-commercial television radio in America, even though supported by federal funds, must be absolutely free. From any federal government interference over program, end quote. Again, a statement of Able Chairman emphasized that proposed public television act made this chart specific, page 14, subtraction D, that the corporation, quote, carry out its purposes and functions and engage in activities and ways that were most effectively assured, the maximum freedom of the non-commercial educational TV or radio broadcast systems and local stations from interference with or control of program contents or other activities, end quote. The corporation is further forbidden from any political activity

and no political test can be used in selection of its staff or its board member. The corporation is insulated in other ways from political interference. Its board members are chosen by the president and are confined by the Senate. Both, of course, are elected by the people. Furthermore, the corporation is forbidden from being the originator and operator of any broadcasting itself. It, quote, may not own or operate. Any TV or radio broadcast station system or network or other or interconnection or program production facility, end quote, page 16, section three, and president. Most significant of the means to prevent any takeover is that each local TV station is itself a complete, locally controlled entity. Stations are licensed to universities, school systems, and educational organizations, themselves responsible to local legislatures or citizens' boards, that charters and the Federal Communications Commission

for big federal program censorship of any sort, parentheses, communications, act section three, 26, and princesses. At last, the dreams of the great medium of educational television have been realized. I hope these dreams can become a reality, the kind of reality that can use communication to erase ignorance. Educational television and radio has a great message to offer its audience the message of learning and hope. It's chairman I'd just like to add that I think this is one of the most meaningful opportunities ever offered to the American people for the use of this technological marvel in the education of that children and in the education of the people generally. I was at Harvard Law School before I ever lived in a city where there was an art museum or where there was a gallery or where there was an opportunity to see and hear good music today there's no excuse for the most to remotely resident American,

not to have an opportunity to enjoy the best cultural influences and activities and performance at all the world by the use of the satellite as well as the television facility. Children in a country school should be able to take a visit to the finest art galleries of the world and come to know the masters and the works of art as they come to know the common things that they study in their books by the medium of this marvel of communication. The school of course one teacher or an able teacher can teach thousands or perhaps even millions for that matter and now they have heard on the radio there the day in my car where while a program is being broadcast they can call in information through these marvelous communication centers you can almost have instantaneous communication between one teacher and all these students that are seeing and observing the television on the screens and over the sound of devices

in the several school rooms and classrooms of the country. This is another way it's also bringing to the public the libraries, the great libraries. Every person doesn't have the same incentive to go to a public library and open a good book and learn and study from it and derive pleasure from it. But it's much easier to turn a knob on this television set in this living room and see the content here, the content of the things that he could see in here in the great libraries of the country. In other words the knowledge, the culture, the learning, the magnificent accomplishments of the cultural past a man's living room to a boy or girls classroom about the medium of this model of communication. The next witness was John W. Gardner who has a double identification with this bill. He's a former president of the Carnegie Corporation whose commission produced the report

on which the proposed law is based and in his present post a secretary of health education and welfare he is the cabinet officer most closely associated with educational television. Through Gardner's department some federal money has gone into the medium under the Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962. Gardner was accompanied today by Assistant Secretary Ralph Hewitt, Deputy Undersecretary Dean Coston and Commissioner of Education Harold Howe. I believe that the intrinsic merit of the subject matter will outweigh any amateurism in production but a whole generation of viewers has grown accustomed to professionalism in presentation. To hold audiences, public television must approach the production standards established by commercial television. The time has come to make available to public television the manpower and funds to do that job. The time has come to give economic support to those creative people who are willing to explore

the potentials of this medium. The time has come to match technological sophistication with program excellence. But do we want excellence? It's fashionable in some circles to maintain that a democracy is sterile ground in which quality cannot flourish. That the people's preferences are invariably for the inferior in the commonplace. Are refused to believe it. President Johnson has recommended the establishment and funding of a nonprofit corporation for public television. Its mandate is to encourage and facilitate the expansion and development of non-commercial broadcasting and a program diversity. To achieve these objectives, the corporation would assist by grant or contract in developing programs for national, regional, or local transmission over non-commercial stations. The corporation is also charged with facilitating interconnection among stations. This interconnection would make possible simultaneous transmission of an event requiring it

or could be used to store programs for broadcast at the station's convenience. The corporation would have funds to help local stations create innovative programs. It could establish a library of broadcast material. In short, it would serve the public interest by taking any and all appropriate steps to make a genuine choice of programs widely available. This proposal maintains the independence of local stations, which would continue to determine for themselves what they should or should not broadcast. To ensure this autonomy, the corporation is prohibited from owning any station or network, any interconnection system, or program production facility. The corporation would not and should not in my opinion be an operating organization, but would provide support to operations carried out by others. The corporation would be managed by a board of directors appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. The integrity of the board

is, of course, central to the success of the venture. It would consist of talented and imminent people from appropriate fields and from across the nation. They will, after the first year, appoint their own chairman. The officers and employees of the corporation will be selected by the board. The bill has strong conflict of interest provisions governing the officers of the corporation, and forbid political activity or any political test in personnel actions. The corporation would be required to submit an annual report to the President for transmittal to Congress. An authorization of $9 million is requested for fiscal year 1968, with such sums as may be necessary for the ensuing year. Support for President Johnson's proposals are crucial to the full realization of this country's educational ambitions. Through its sponsorship of the first Educational Television Facilities Act, this committee has brought non-commercial television to the threshold of maturity. Now, we must move

from facilities construction to program development. In terms of our commitment to education, the investment required in this field to turn potential into reality is small but critical. The proposals of this bill are wholly consistent with the position this committee took when it sponsored the first Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962. Hindsight, which always possesses 2020 vision, reveals the clarity of your perception then. Today, the circumstances for approval of this bill are no less timely. Without your approval of this proposal, the facilities you've made possible by your initial action will be in complete monuments to a great hope. I urge your favorable consideration of the bill. I believe it may well prove to be one of the most significant steps taken by the Congress this year. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We'll be happy to answer questions. Deputy Undersecretary of H.E.W. Dean Coston helped

write the proposed law. We'd be placed in the position if this bill were enacted of getting the cut before the horse. Would we have enough television stations and operations that could absorb this programming that we're speaking about under Title 2? Oh, yes, sir. I think there's no question. It wouldn't be a gap there at all. No gap, whatever. I think there's a present hunger for good programming. Oh, I think this is clearly so. Any tea, for example, is presently providing about five hours of programming per week. And this is used up as quickly as they can provide it, and the stations cry for more. This medium of television, as any broadcaster will tell you, uses materials at an incredibly rapid rate. You can't satisfy the hunger for new innovative, imaginative, effective programs under any system that I can contemplate now.

You do the best you can with what you have, but it just uses material as fast as it can be produced. Now, you have said that we have, was it 221 stations, either in existence or under construction? Is that correct? Now, will you answer my previous question if we appropriate to ten and a half million dollars? How many stations do we envision over and above to 221? Using the ten and a half million? Yes. The average grant has been in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand to a quarter of a million for a new station construction. This would get you going with another 20 to 25 stations. We're afraid. New Hampshire Senator Harris Cotton is the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee. He wanted to know if public television might not be too high-brow for most of the public. One of the statements that has been repeatedly made by witnesses in the past and by members of this committee is that there is some gain to be made by

educational television being to a certain extent and in a certain sense a competitor with commercial television systems. It can't be a competitor. It can't serve to improve by competition. To improve are the material over commercial systems unless it acts in certain in a certain sense as a competitor. Now, we are focusing our attention a good deal on what you were very well said. On providing for the people who have good tastes, who hunger for good programs, who like the opera,

who like the arts, and who appreciate them. I'm reading up to a question to forgive me for laying the foundation so low. I happen to have a rather average mediocre mind. I don't know that I want that sent back to New Hampshire, but... We'll keep that off the record. I'm afraid it's so. I went to a good school and a good college, neither of which could I get into now with the standards they have. But I find myself because of Mrs. Cotton's help, I find myself listening for quite periods of time, many evenings, television. I don't know how the youth gentlemen have time to listen to them, but I think it's perfectly

sickening. It's far below the standard of my rather mediocre mind, many of the programs that I get commercially. These business of Batman and Captain Nice and these people that fly around and many of the entertainments, I think, sickening. They may slap sick stuff and, like, F-troop, and the rest of these things may amuse children of some extent, but I think that the children are capable of something better than that. And then I turn to... I turn to the educational television. I find some very fine material on it. But I also find many rather profound obscure fantasies, and I find... I find much time devoted to some music and acts that are a little over my head.

I find evidence, however, of we have some very good... very good plays, very good dramatic performances, historical, like I've used this before, like the Profiles and Carriage and other similar that are intensely interesting, and I think it would be interesting to the public. Now, if... educational television is going to perform the function, not only of education, not only of giving educational and uplifting and developing programs, but also to have the added function of... of lifting up the type of commercial programs. There's cooperation for a doesn't exercise censorship, and we don't want

exercise censorship, and I'm not afraid it's going to exercise censorship in the term of politics or any other of the isms. In your opinion, doesn't it have some function in seeing to it that educational television, which partially at least will be supported by public funds, functions in the way that I have in mind, so that it does sugarcote the pills, so to speak, and attract the general run of people, adults who hadn't the advantage of the background, classical background, what would be your comment on that? Well, I would be very disappointed if education television did not offer a considerable diversity of programs or a diversity of tastes. And one of the major

objections to commercial television today is that it's something of a straight jacket, and perhaps necessarily so, in the nature of the medium, in the case of publishing, you can walk into a bookstore and have a choice of 10,000 books, but there are only three prime evening hours, and so many channels, and you're limited. And because they're appealing to a very large audience, they try to find a comment denominator, and that does limit choices. This is a way out of the straight jacket, and it certainly seems to me it would be unfortunate if we didn't capitalize on the opportunity to appeal to diverse tastes, those who want the classical drama, and those who want current events programs, those who want discussions, those who want art. And it's a matter of offering options, and when you offer options, you're inevitably

in some kind of competition. Well, the kind of competition that would worry the commercial networks greatly, but nonetheless, a kind of standard setting. If ETV establishes effective cultural standards, the networks will certainly move up to it. Do you feel that in some way we have this Bill Williams over backwards, properly, Williams over backwards to preserve absolute independence on the part of this corporation, absolute known policy, an absolute right of any censorship. Don't you think it would be more effective when we build these facilities and have these fine facilities? Wouldn't it be just a viable for the corporation to have some policy of supervision and encouragement of different farms of the entertainment that shall come over

educational television? Do you think that's dangerous? I actually, as it works out, the stations which would receive this program money almost invariably have a critical constituency. They exist in a community. Some of them are parts of universities. They are subject to continuing appraisal of the quality of their programs so that they are not without a critical constituency. Now in some cities and some areas, the dominance of commercial television is so great and the audience for educational television so slight that constituency really isn't very effective but as we increase the coverage of VTV, it seems to me perfectly clear that there are going to be a great many people who will express themselves as to the quality and the diversity

and the acceptability of the programs and the only thing we did not want to insulate the stations or the programmers from public reaction or the healthy feedback of criticism and comment. We wanted to insulate them from the control of someone who had the money bags and we didn't want the corporation to be a controlling device. That was. But if there is income, there is supporting funds and not affected in any degree by the acceptability and popularity of their product. Where is the incentive for them to hit the happy medium and to make their programs really entertaining at least a certain percentage of them as well as

education? Is there any real incentive? I think the incentive is built into the American approach to these things. I think if you look at the history of museums and see the degree to which museums in the past 15 years have moved toward doing a job of educating the school children in the community of reaching out to people who are not scholars and not specialists or not especially grounded in one or another scholarly field or art field. You find that in general American institutions do want to serve, want to bring in a broader reach of people, even institutions devoted to cultural pursuits. I think they will be responsive to the community attitude toward their programs. Well, I'm interested.

I have one more question. I'm interested in your very app statement and very well noted that you want to isolate them from the money bags and I thoroughly, thoroughly commend that. On the other hand, have you considered whether a certain percentage of the entertainment or of the performance, the activities on educational television, could be sponsored, provided is sponsored only as I have noticed some of these programs and I guess they're probably illegal. Well, it simply says this program is being able to present this program because of the generosity or because of the contribution of American airlines or something else and no other commercial item,

would you supplement the public monies and would you at the same time add somewhat to, if you restrict it to a certain percentage. Or if you authorize the corporation to restrict such programs to a certain percentage of a full time, would you be completely opposed to that considered as a dangerous entering wage? Sunder, I haven't thought that through station directors differ very strongly as you know on this. Some believe that this is the idea on that point isn't that out and out commercialism? The minute you begin to advertise the grant, even though it's philanthropic, it's advertising. I don't think it's contemplated on this bill at all. If you want to make it, I suppose you'd have to make it anonymously. I'd be published in the paper, but you couldn't broadcast that on the showing of the program. I would think that. I grant that, Mr. Chairman.

I'd love to disagree with you whatsoever. My question, however, is whether if it were restricted to even 10 percent of the programs and if it was restricted to that type of advertising which I've mentioned in the commercial, which is a far cry from this business of listening day after day and night after night, you know you have bad breath, bad breath, and all that stuff. It wouldn't be a far cry from that. I'm simply inquiring. I'm not saying that I advocate, but I'm simply inquiring. Now, whether the funds couldn't be supplemented and an incentive for making programs attractive if to a limited percentage and that limited commercialism was our graduate without right commercialism, whether it would be worthy of consideration, whether you would be

competitive against it. I have always felt that it was a regrettable development in educational television. I've had station directors give me very eloquent arguments as to why it's no worse for an industrial concern to do this than to give a million dollars to a college or help a chemistry laboratory, which they do all of the time. But it seems to me that in this kind of legislation we would be diminishing the need for program directors to seek that kind of support and I think in general to the public good. You'd be opposed to any of it. I'd prefer not to say it, yes. And, bear in mind that my only thought that I was presenting was this, that it wasn't allowed to, if it wasn't allowed to grow larger than a very small percentage,

that one reason, one reason we're getting such tracks over the private networks is that the incentive behind the whole thing is that they get sponsors for programs that are completely popular for the general run of people. And I agree with you that they're underestimating I think, underestimating the taste of our people. But on the other hand, a small degree of having that incentive to make their programs attractive. It seemed to me was worth considering. But I appreciate your observation and I'll tell you what that is. Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana, whatever may be his final position on the bill, provided today some probing and implicitly critical questions. He raised a whole series of problems

which he feared might be involved in the setting up of the proposed public television corporation. Chairman Pastry often disagreed with the questioning. Apparently did not consider the witnesses reply as adequate and argued with Hartke himself. Secretary Gardner referred some questions to Education Commissioner Harold Howe. The whole thrust of this bill goes toward local programming isn't that true? Yes, sir. Let me ask you a question. Does the Civil Rights Act apply? I might ask Mr. Howe, Mr. Costigan, too? I mean, this is it. Would the Civil Rights Act apply to this bill? You understand where I'm going. I'm going to Alabama real quick. I don't know the terms in which you mean the question I'd like to ask. I believe, Senator, that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act would apply in sense that federal funds granted through this program would have to be given to grantees not practicing discrimination.

Yes. And all federal funds through any program sponsored by the federal government through appropriations by the Congress have to have to pass through that particular requirement. So my interpretation would be that it would apply. Whether there is a problem about determination there because the federal funds will be granted to a independent agency which will then make subgrants. I'd like to get some legal advice on as to exactly how that subgranting process by the independent agency is appropriately refereed. Well, I can see this as representing a problem. But I think it goes back to a bigger problem which is the heart of what I was driving at. And that is the fact that basically, as I understand this legislation, it is oriented toward individual units on individual areas. It's oriented toward a complete lack of identity toward a network system on the other side. Isn't that correct? There is the intention here

of building a considerable interconnection among independent educational TV stations. But the option remains with the individual station as to whether it will use that interconnection for network possibilities. Well, isn't it doesn't even go further than that? Doesn't it really orient itself away from the so-called network concept? True, there'd be interchanges, but there would not be a so-called network programming of educational programs as we look at today as NBC, ABC, and CBS. I believe that's correct. There would be complete local option of stations. Local options and even greater than that developing local programs. Now, how do you make this determination as to what programs are going to be utilized and what section of the country, for example? This, again, repeating your earlier remark, almost verbatim, will have to be a matter of the local station making its decision as to what programs it carries at what times?

I think the major purpose of the new corporation here is to increase the options that that local station has and to increase the quality of all the options that it has. All right. Now, how would it apply in relation to the systems which are now operating? In other words, the system, we have a limited system now and operation isn't that correct? We have a limited educational system operation. In any sense that there's limited coverage in their areas, not covered in zone. What you're saying is that what you're really going to do is just explode the limited coverage to greater areas. Is that right? We seek the 100% coverage. Yes. And it would also increase the possibilities of interconnection and network-like operations. Yes. All right. But who makes this or going to be anybody who's going to make the determination is how the speed's in. And if you don't, otherwise we may get into some fail-cuz. All right. We can still initialize authority. Here's going to go on and say this week at 9 o'clock we can present a program

on the question of Social Security coverage, for example. How's it going to feed in? In other words, how do the local programs, how do they find They will have information about programs which are available and they will use the network to make the programs available to them for distributing through the tape process and then encouraging local choice about tapes to be used. And what authority will the corporation have though to say, for example, that this program, a high top-rated program which is demand and so forth. Does it have authority to propaganda eyes? No, sir. None whatsoever. Just simply to educate the stations is a nicer word than propaganda. Well, these the people who run these stations are pretty well-informed people. They know what the resources are and they will very quickly become familiar with the possibilities available through the corporation. I don't think there'll have to be any active. Well, is your authority, though, for the corporation to educate the or instruct the local stations as to the quality of the program and the type of program?

It has authority to establish and maintain a library and archives of non-commercial educational television and radio programs and related materials and develop public awareness of and disseminate information about non-commercial education. Is that phrase too? What does that mean? Including the publication of a journal. What does this mean? Another word's here. Where is that? It's page 15, page 15. What does that phrase mean there in subsection D and develop public awareness of and disseminate information about? What does that mean? Well, what this means, Senator, is that the corporation has a public information function. Publication of a journal would be one of the functions it would have. It might support scholarly papers and research in the area of educational broadcasting. It would I assume publish a program guide which

would be available to all stations. The program guide might include both real-time distribution and storage distribution. It could say, for example, that on Saturday evening at 9 o'clock, the network will carry program X. You may wish to carry this live off the network at 9 o'clock on Saturday. You may wish to tape this program and carry it at some other time. Or you may choose to put your own program on at 9 o'clock and reject both options. I think this kind of information has to come from the corporation so that everybody knows what's available when it shows up on the network so that they can make decisions as to whether they want to use it in real time, whether they want to store it, or whether they want to ignore it. I'm drawing attention to the fact that there is criticism which I'm sure that you're well aware of. The nature of this type of

instrumentality being using federal funds and one of those is contained in the April 3rd issue of broadcasting magazines and their editorial and the substance of which is that nobody, however, should be misled by the appearances of innocent. I'm quoting, if adopted in the form of its submission, Lyndon Johnson's public elevation bill would establish the mechanism for a federal television system responsive to the prevailing center of power. Now what I'm asking you is to really explain how this type of operation could really be awarded. I would imagine you would not want to be that type of instrumentality, but could it be utilized for such a purpose? Senator, I think the most important thing is that the corporation could not, as commercial networks do, have optional required time when the local station must carry the program supplied by the central source. As you know, networks do block out certain periods of time and require the station to carry their programs. This corporation could

not do that. No station could be placed under any requirement to broadcast any materials produced by grant or by contract directly or indirectly by funds supplied through this corporation. Senator, if I may say so I think the assertion in the editorial is ridiculous and I think anyone who reads the bill and examines the whole record of this can't possibly imagine that that makes sense. Now, in other words, it almost assumes that the President of the United States in every instance is a rascal for some reason or others becoming fashionable. The one man that's elected by all the people of this country for some reason can be trusted even by nominating 15 people who are going to be confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Of course it's ridiculous. Senator Frank Moss of Utah brought up the economic aspect of educational

television. How does the overall budget for this non-profit corporation compare with that of a large commercial network? Comparatively, what are we talking about? Well, this is a tiny fraction of what would G.I. have no idea. I know the amounts of money invested in commercial networks are staggering. We're talking here about $9 million which would probably not carry a network of operation for a week. It's just such a small part of the total commercial operation. The commercial television is a two-billion-dollar-a-year industry. So we then be in difficulty on quality as compared with commercial quality. I mean technical quality that would make the educational television suffer. Well, I

think we will be in difficulty for good many years on quality because we don't have that. We will not have the high budgets. We will not be able to lavish money on this. But over the years both radio and television, education radio and television, I've learned how to live on a shoestring and the kinds of funds made available here will be will produce an enormous gain in their capacity to achieve quality. The Federal Communications Commission, the government agency which regulates all of television and radio, was represented by its long-time member and President Chairman Rosel Hyde. He noted that his commission, along with the Pastory Subcommittee, had played a role in nurturing educational broadcasting to the point from which the bill now under consideration points to the next step forward. Early in the history of American television, the FCC began allocating channels for educational use. Today Hyde bought the

conditions endorsement to the proposed new law. To Chairman, this bill you are considering today is the most significant legislation in this area to come before the Congress in many years. It holds great promise of a real breakthrough in making non-commercial broadcasting a truly vital force benefiting millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission wholeheartedly endorses S1160 and it gives me much satisfaction to tell you this on behalf of the Commission. Our agency along with this committee and the Congress has played an important role in nurturing educational broadcasting to the point where this significant legislation becomes the next great step forward. Let me discuss first the important provisions of Title 2 of the bill which embodies the bold and imaginative concept of an independent, nonprofit corporation to assist in developing and distributing educational programs. The bill follows President Johnson's message to Congress on this subject of

February 28, 1967. Its provisions for a private corporation are also similar in many respects to the recommendations of the report of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television of January 1967 entitled Public Television, a program of action. Such a corporation should be of significant assistance in developing the full potential of non-commercial educational broadcasting. While there are some differences in approach, there is, I believe, substantial agreement on three basic principles. First, non-commercial broadcasting must be assured of adequate financial support. This, of course, is cardinal. There is a proposed appropriation of $9 million for the first year's operation. The President, next year, will make recommendations for the corporation's long-term financing. The matter is thus one for resolution by the Congress after consideration of the President's recommendations and other appropriate views. Second, the

composition and status of the corporation must be such as to assure that its policy judgments, particularly in the area of programming, must be completely independent. Finally, while a program of federal support for non-commercial broadcasting must provide, for effective networking in this area, it also must contain safeguards to assure local autonomy and the choice and selection of programming. This is basic to the American concept of broadcasting. These fundamentals then, adequate financing, corporate independence, and local autonomy, along with effective networking, are the keys to success. Let me ask you that you actually think we need another agency of government to move out. In other words, we have the FCC in the Department of Health Education and welfare, but we still need a third agency now, a new corporate structure in order to go into this next field, is that right? I would say this Senator Harky that what we're talking about here is the funding of program services and the

construction of stations, which would be licensed by us. I think it's desirable that each function should not be combined in one agency. Well, now under Title I, the present time, that's administered by the Department of Health Education and Welfare. Yes, there is a coordination between Health Education and Welfare in ourselves. All right. Stations must get permits from us, and as a means of showing their financial responsibility and ability, they show us the funds that they have, and then we obtain evidence that matching funds will be available, and it's on the basis of this information that we can make a grant of a permit. Now, but in regard to this bill before us today, it's in three titles. Title I is an extension of the present law, which deals with responsibilities primarily handled by the Department of Health Education

and Welfare. Yes. Title III is a new study in which I understand that you're feeling that HEW at least could very well coordinate their activities with whatever opportunity there is for FCC to help in that study. We think that in light of our experience with this, that we could be helpful. Yes. So what I have done then is eliminated all but Title II. And for Title II, we're being asked now to establish a new agency, the government, not responsible directly to the government, not responsible directly to the people in fact, but with staggering terms, far removed, not alone from control by the federal government, but very definitely even removed from the control by the people of this country. Effectively removed. In other words, they're not elected, and there were period of years as they took a turn of events which directed themselves into what might be a course of activity, our education, which maybe some of the

general public was opposed to. The only recourse you'd have would be to repeal the law. As Senator, the members of the Board of Directors, who are appointed for seven-year terms, no six-year terms, six-year terms, confusing with the term of an FCC commissioner, which is seven years. In this case, it's only six years and they may serve only two, and there are certain qualifications that are required in the proposed statute, and they are required to serve without salary as such. There are certain expenses they may receive. I'm not too sure that I even like these non-salary people. I like to pay people for what services they render, and then hold them responsible for their actions. I mean, there's no old saying about a lawyer that you know about the advice is worth exactly

what you paid for it. Yes, I know of that, Senator. May I mention that these directors must also be confirmed by the Senate. I understand they got to be confirmed by the Senate, but after they're once confirmed by the Senate, they're only subject to removal. Not far, anything except malfeasance or something of which you'd have to be in the verge and the nature of something very severe and practically criminal conduct. I will agree with you, sir, that the selection of the men to be appointed is a most important to aspect of this matter. The act says that the members of the board shall be selected from among citizens of the United States who are imminent in such field as education, cultural and civic affairs, or the arts, including radio and television, and shall be selected so as to provide them as nearly as practicable a broad representation of various

regions of the country, various professions and occupations and various kinds of talent and experience appropriate to the functions and responsibilities of corporation. I would expect that from this language that the President would be looking for people of stature and prestige that whose participation would provide assurances of objectivity and the high purposes of this. I would hope the President wouldn't select people of low quality and no prestige and no competence on that the Senate if it did see such a person would not confirm them, but the point still remains aside from that fact you still are creating a new agency of government here. Yes, and while a whole new bureaucracy under the designation of a corporate structure which will not issue any corporate not in a case of Comsad where you had a issuing of financial obligations or are

you going to issue financial obligations? No, I believe not. We're going to depend on power on federal funding. No, not they may receive grants I understand from foundations and others. They can receive gifts. Yes, but the federal government can receive gifts too. Yes, nothing to use about, but I'm talking about is the fact that there is no corporate function as such being a utility used here. No, it's a corporate name, but for all intent and purposes it is another bureaucracy being established and titled a corporate structure. It says that the Board of Directors shall not be government employees and while it will be funded by government it's well who's going to pay them except the government I mean and whatever salaries and expenses they're going to come or either going to be gifts what you're going to be given to this governmental our agency. You're quite right, their principal source of funds will be the government. So whether they're declared to be governmental employees or not or whether they're contracting employees of the government they're in the same

general categories that so we're establishing a third bureaucracy here. Now why is it that we cannot trust the Secretary of Health Education welfare to take on these operations of title two or why couldn't the Federal Communications Commission which had a long and distinguished record of fairness and in this field why couldn't they administer this program or jointly administer this just judging by the study which was prepared by the Carnegie Commission it seems to me that this plan was devised as a means of avoiding possibility of government intervention in programming that the an effort was made here to eliminate them from the usual type of budgetary review and direction that the conventional agency of government must pass. Yes, in other words what we're really creating here is a separate bureaucracy without the usual safeguards of a congressional watchdog looking over children including the general accounting office. There must be an annual and the budget to

bureau. Well there isn't that true. In other words it wouldn't be subject to the budget bureau. Am I correct or am I mistaken? I think somebody nodding his head. I can't tell you nods yes or no. Well the the programming function as I understand it would not be subject to the budget girl but the funding of the appropriation of funds would I suppose have to be agreed to by the budget authorities. What about the so-called gifts that come on into the corporation would they be subject to the budget bureau would they be included in the budget amounted as far as maligated so far as would those be just surplus funds be utilized by the agency in any way they solve it. As far as I am able to recall from my reading of it there's there is simply a requirement of a annual detailed report. There wouldn't be an title to the same type of legislative

oversight that other agencies of government have isn't that true. I do not think it would be subjected to the same kind of oversight and I think that that's by design to prevent interference with the independence of programming and to and to provide insulation against possibility of political interference. What has prompted the proposal of course is the search for a way to finance educational broadcasting, non-commercial broadcasting so that the American public could have the benefit of a different approach to broadcasting. We do have a very competitive system of commercial broadcasting provides tremendous services but the hope here and the promise here is that you

will provide a broadcasting service, a finance from a different basis. The thought is that such a service would not in any sense displace what would be an added service and that the two the commercial and the educational or non-commercial would provide a cross-pollinization to each other and that you'd have the usual benefits from competition that you find in other fields. Mr. Chairman the question still comes that somebody's going to have to establish the standards of performance of these programs and who's going to be the judge of these standards and who are these standards going to be subject to review. Stations that use these programs will have to file renewal applications with the commercial. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that I'm sorry. This corporation would supply programs to stations. The stations as such must apply an usual way to the

commission for an original permit or for a renewal license. But answering your question is to who passes judgments on programs. This must always be the public in the overall. It's no question. Well let me ask you then are you saying that on the time when the application comes up for renewal that the station could be denied a right to have it's a charter renewed on the basis that it had not followed certain standards of conduct and who's going to establish those standards. No I'm not saying that but what I am saying is that when he files their application they'll have to show as is the case with other applicants that their operation will serve the public interest convenience and necessity. It must show that they have a technically sound setup that they or financed sufficiently to offer a public service and their application must show evidence of public responsibility. Somehow it appears to me that possibly it's that maybe what we're afraid to do is to meet to the responsibility of

providing for our own citizenry the type of high-quality television on this level and we're ready to duck out the responsibility of being held responsible for especially to the people themselves. Senator Hartke then tackled Chairman Hyde on the financing of educational television. There was some confusion here because of differences between the bill and the chronic commission report on which it's based. The bill itself merely proposes that the public television corporation be given nine million dollars of money for its first year. It leaves the question of subsequent financing open. The report however foresees a corporation budget of 50 million a year fairly soon and of 100 million by 1980. The report advocates that the money be raised by an excise tax on television sets. Chairman Hyde. The Carnegie report suggested an expenditure of 104 million a year. Total expenditure by the corporation. This would cover everything programs and

the such other assistance they gave. But not out of the Treasury of the United States. All the corporation's funds. And they suggested an excise tax in order to raise that money. Now that's what we're losing side of. This figure is only useful for the purposes of indicating what the level of spending might, might be. And in your opinion then that would cover not alone network programs, dissemination of the network programs and local programming. No, no, no, it would not. This as I understand it would be the sum that the corporation would would afford to the total operation. But this would not be, this would not

include the amounts that might be raised locally or are resources that might be available to the local station. You're not I'll go that's enough that first of all on instructional television. Are you familiar with the situation which I directed to the Department of HEW and that is whether or not instructional television in school corrections and school programs are now using television educational television stations. Oh yes, we do have information about that. It's I'm informed that about 43% of the programming of the educational stations is devoted to instructional purposes. I mean it's it's in the part of the school program. Yes, I'm I'm advised that perhaps 12 to 15 million students so you get part of their instruction by this technology. Well, this is double the

highest estimate that's been provided by the study of Indiana University in which they indicate that there is six and a half million students in the schools in which educational instructional television was now being offered which they considered an inflated figure because of the simple fact that it did not reflect all those students which were actually receiving it but it reflected the total number of school children in the schools which were receiving instructional television which is a different figure entirely. Well, I encourage you to and I think maybe for the record I'd like to include at this place in the record that summary. I'm not really questioning what I'm really trying to find out and I'm hopeful we can come up with an answer is whether or not schools at the present time are using educational television or instructional purposes and if so to what extent and not just one time the year or something like that I think I would I think I'm here television use

and schools expanding in which the National Center for School and College Television report under date of March 6th. I don't submit this for accuracy but just as a statement of their their that objection. All right, I would I think it would be helpful that someplace among the line if we could have that information as to exactly the best evidence available. I'll be pleased to supply you the best information we have and this will go to the extent of which educational stations are being used for instruction which is a part of the course of study for other words where the school is using the educational television station and part of its instructional purposes. There is a substantial use and I will try to get you definitive figures on it. Well now so that we've made better understand the provisions of this bill in so far I'm speaking now of title two in so far as the funding aspects of this

bill is concerned this is a deviation from the Carnegie recommendation. Yes well as a matter of fact the Carnegie recommendation was to the effect in order to guarantee no interference on the part of the government with relation to the educational process that this money should be raised through the medium of an excise tax imposed upon television sets which fund would be out of the control of the Congress of the United States once constituted so that they could draw on this fund without any supervision at all on the part of the Congress of the United States. That correct? That's right that's a recommendation Carnegie commission. Now wait a minute I didn't in the interrupt you let me finish this let's get some of the twists and curves out of this testimony. Now the suggestion and the recommendation made by the president and contained in this bill we are disregarding completely the recommendation of the so-called imposition

of the excise tax. We are going to the Treasury of the United States and asking for an authorization of this current year nine million dollars. Period. I'm not talking about 175 million. I'm not talking about two billion or twenty billion. We're talking about nine million dollars which will have to be appropriated by the Congress of the United States and when they come back when they come back next year after having used this nine million dollars talking about oversight the Congress of the United States will have the authority and the responsibility to review a request that will be submitted by the administration as to the amount that they desire to have appropriated for the next year. Is that correct? That is correct. But in order to ensure even under this bill with

the payment of taxpayers money we have written in the law that there shall be no interference with regard to programming on the part of the government. Right. Chairman I don't dispute the approach what you're saying what I'm trying to find out. You're talking about who has oversight. You're talking about another agency. I didn't know responsibility to the people with a whole responsibility here under this law is to the Congress of the United States. We don't have to appropriate a nickel of the nine million dollars that's been asked for and we don't have to repeat the appropriation if we feel that this is a failure. This is all subject to the scrutiny of the Congress of the United States and that's the point I want to leave here. This is not this is not an independent disjointed venture where people can go off willy nearly 15 of them and spend the taxpayers money without being responsible to no one and that's the expression used by my colleague of Indiana that there was no

responsibility to anyone. Cost there is. Responsibility is to answer to the Congress of the United States as to how they spend the nine million dollars of taxpayers money. Chairman this is that the very hard of the argument made by the editorial and broadcasting magazine. And that is that they say that it is subject to this review and as I understood the chairman he said that the reason for establishing the separate corporation was to avoid budget the usual budgetary process. There was a recommendation by the Carnegie Commission looking toward the establishment of a charge which would be from which funds would be collected and they would be used without budgetary examination. But this is not a feature of the bill before the committee at the time as I understand it what we're considering here is an initial appropriation of nine million dollars to get the new corporation going and there

is to be a further recommendation by the chief executive as regards the matter of long-term financing. I expect that there will be a good deal of attention given to the matter of how best to finance the operation for the long term. So we can take the twists and turns out the testimony. The point of it is what you're saying now is very simply that you're giving the authority to this corporation to establish and the recommendation of the means by which they later are going to operate their financial conditions. Is that right? No, not exactly. This corporation would perform certain contractual studies and it would undoubtedly submit views but I understand from the president's message to the Congress that he contemplates sending a further recommendation as to

ways and means of financing the the long-range program. Mr. Chairman, I want to direct your attention to title to page 14 where purpose is an activity as the corporation. Am I right or am I wrong in this approach? Now I'm not trying to pass at the moment, any passage judgment on the merits of whether which system should be utilized but you can't go both ways at the same time. You cannot say it's under the direction of the Congress and under to control the appropriation process and outside under the budgetary control and at the same time it's not. It has to be one where the other cannot be both and on this these purposes and activities of the corporation as specified on page 14 and beginning there in order to achieve the objectives and so forth. In this this nine million dollars which is being requested at this time out of the general treasury. Isn't that going to be used for the purposes stated there

in? Certainly. And this is not to make studies of how you're going to finance the corporation or how you're going to do that. This is going to be absolutely developing the programs for television stations. They're going to facilitate the full development. They're going to sit obtain from a education broadcasting which programs of high quality obtained from diverse sources will be made available from assistant establishment development of a system of interconnections. You don't talk anything about any study about how to finance it. All these deal with the absolute operation of a going viable organization called a corporation. Well they will just had it a year ago. Yes sir. Mr. Hyde didn't say that. He said the president mixed here. Maybe rather than asked for a renewal of the nine million dollar appropriation we'll come up with a different plan. It may be the Carnegie plan. It may be the same plan as we have here asking for another nine million dollars. It may be some other plan. But he

didn't say that the corporation was going to make that suggestion. He said that he the president of the United States will study it and then come up with any proposal that he desires to make to the Congress with reference to the funding. Now we do respect the chairman committee. I mean I'm not even in a process of trying to argue that point. I'm trying to find out what this law is going to do. This law is going to be acted on one way or the other and if it's passed away it's written. Then it's going to be either control of the Congress. Is it not Mr. Chairman? It is. And then if it's either control the Congress or in any question about it's under the control not alone as to money but as to how that money is spent. Is that right? No. You mean the Congress is going to authorize expenditure of money and not be allowed in question how it's been spent? Every every time there's a I read at the time of the annual review of the appropriations Congress exercises full discretion control. That's true. I mean

that is exactly the charge it's made about not positioned to the bill. I mean I'm not saying whether they're right or wrong or whether it should be or shouldn't. I think that's a legitimate charge then about the fact that it does give the Congress that type of control over ultimate programming. In other words they can pass that statement at that time. Senator one moment. Nothing matter. Yeah but I think it's a legitimate interpretation then of the bill whether it is a one which is desirable or not maybe another question but it is a legitimate interpretation. Wow according to the Senate it from the end of the certainly not according to the Senate up for Ronan. Speak for yourself John. The last witness of the day was an administration official in the field of culture chairman Roger Stevens of the

National Council on the Arts. For television we recognize the general support for educational television programming is necessary but we feel that the arts council can make its greatest contribution by placing an emphasis upon innovative projects programs which will be in themselves agents of change in the public media. There's hardly a matter of dispute that helpful changes in mass media are desirable. In our opinion both television and radio have been largely derivative. In our view in the rush to use nearly every acceptable content designed for the more established performing arts television and radio have failed to examine their own unique forms and have rarely inquired into the nature of their special art. We feel that is in the developmental experimental innovative work with a form and art of public media that the arts council can make its most significant contribution to

quote from the Carnegie Commission report in one respect public television possesses a great advantage over commercial television. It can enjoy the luxury of being bencheson. Unaffected by the large financial investments that are at stake in each commercial program public television is free to experiment. It is precisely this bencheson spirit which the arts council wishes to encourage. We are prepared to cooperate with the corporation for public television in every possible way to foster the creation of experimental programming. There's another public media role for the arts council that bears a direct relevance to the program production responsibilities of a corporation for public television. I refer to the entire range of arts programs supported by the council. Programs in music, literature, theater, dance, architecture, and the visual arts. A public media dimension should and could be added to virtually

all of these programs of adequate funds were available. Adding a radio or television or film component to most of our grants in the arts would immeasurably enhance their effectiveness or would extend their range to the largest possible national audience. The concerts, operas, poetry readings, plays and exhibitions made possible by federal support should be available to all Americans, particularly those who live in relatively inaccessible parts of the country. Supplementing our regular programs with immediate dimension is presently well beyond our financial reach. We estimate that mass media extension of our projects would require at least an additional one-third of any budget for the arts. The point I wish to emphasize is that we have no proprietary interest in the program to support. We do not feel that it must be the arts council which adds the media dimension to the projects we underwrite. What we do want to make clear is that some of the finest artistic talent

in America has been and will continue to be poured into the programs we are supporting. This talent could be made available to the entire nation through production and distribution services of the Corporation of Public Television. We sincerely hope that an arrangement can be worked out with public television so that its media capabilities may be joined systematically with the performances, the exhibitions and other activities sponsored by the arts council. Such an arrangement well we believe cast an entirely new light upon the arts in America. Exposing the full range of our rich artistic heritage to the citizens of this country and in the world at large. In closing I would again like to point out that under public law 89209 the Council on the Arts is specifically charged with developing television and radio as art forms and therefore we have a great deal of interest in this legislation. Part of the commission got the advice of some hundreds of people. One of them was E.B. White of the New Yorker magazine and an

excerpt from his letter to the commission is published in its report as a preface to the first chapter. It reads his followers. Non-commercial television should address itself to the ideal of excellence not the idea of acceptability which is what keeps commercial television from climbing the staircase. I think television should be the visual counterpart of the literary essay should arouse our dreams satisfy our hunger for beauty take us on journeys enable us to participate in events present great drama and music explore the sea and the sky and the woods and the hills. It should be R.I.C.M our Chatequois our minskies and our Camelot. It should restate and clarify the social dilemma and the political pickle. Once in a while it does and you get a quick glimpse of its potential and of quote. The development of that potential is what this bill is about and what these hearings are about. Good evening. Tomorrow night NET will continue its coverage of highlights from the Senate

hearings on educational television. Among those testifying will be James Killian chairman of the Carnegie Commission and make George Bundy of the Ford Foundation. This has been a production of NET the National Educational Television Network.