thumbnail of Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Carnegie Commission, part two
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
National Educational radio now continues with this second in a series of five reports on the Senate Commerce subcommittee hearings on educational television. Speaking is the chairman of the Carnegie Commission on educational television. The honorable James R. Kilian Jr. He tells the senators now about the responsibility for a live interconnection of educational television stations in the United States. The commission recommended that the corporation provide educational television and expeditiously as possible with the Philippines provide then a connection. I was the most economical and desirable means of programme distribution. Initially these facilities would consist of a conventional radio relay and direct to a cable facility is now available. Subsequently the commission anticipated the use of domestic satellite satellite in a connection and it recommended that the corporation should not itself seek to construct such a facility
but to rent them and urged the pre or reduced rates while the rental of the necessary facilities. Ed Sullivan 60 differs from the commission's recommendations on a connection in one respect. It limits a cooperation to assisting others and providing a connection. Specifically Section 3 96 sub paragraph B authorizes the corporation to arrange for in a connection facilities with appropriate public a nonprofit private agency corporation is not authorized to deal directly with common carriers who would normally provide that facility. Instead it would be limited to providing contracts or grants to an intermediary organization that would undertake the in a connection and you would prefer to have a direct yes. We firmly believe that the corporation itself should have direct responsibility here. I would hope that the contractor or take note of this. There is an important principle involved from our point of view. The commission viewed on a
connection primarily as a means of programme distribution and not as a means of dis. Establishing a fixed schedule of network kind of operation. This is a very important integration in our approach to educational broadcasting in this country. We sought to foster local autonomy rather than the establishment of a powerful centralized network agency. We would use it in a connection to bring to each local station. But surely all programs designed for more than local use which of finance for the corporation. We would expect that there would be an abundance of programs available to the stations through in a connection. It would be the responsibility of each station to decide which programmes coming over the lines are suitable and desirable to broadcast to and its community. Normal of the programmes would be transmitted over the interconnection facilities during the morning and afternoon and early evening. And each station would be required to make its own
decisions as to which programmes at which to record on videotape for broadcast on the stations for some of. The station decided not to carry a programme sent over the on a connection. I would be that that would be the responsibility of the station and the cooperation clearly would be exceeding its authority if it sought to control the station's program schedule. The cooperation would provide each station with descriptive material regarding each program. This would be designed only to assist the local station manager and his decision as to whether it would be rather proud to record the program for later broadcast. The underlying principle. Of the corporation's control of on a connection is to send the greatest abundance of programs to each station rather than to select some programs where on a connection and exclude others. Normally the contracts for programme production made by the cooperation with the production centers of the stations would provide that the program's finance for the corporation would go over the on a connection line.
Basically the stations by their individual decisions as to whether they would broadcast the programmes I would not would determine the success or failure of the programs that had been produced. This of course is not the whole story. There would be some programs carried over the on a connection during evening hours either on a regular basis on special occasions which would normally be intended for simultaneous broadcast. But even here each station should have the right and obligation to determine for itself whether it would broadcast the programme as it came over the line or delay it or not carry the programme at all. So important do we believe is the desirability of using the honor connection for thought this principle as a method of programme distribution rather than of central networking that we feel that control of the ANA connection must be with the cooperation. If a national programme production center for example were to have the responsibility for and the connection then we would have the. Programme production tied with
distribution and this makes the underground image of a networking system which we would avoid. This a party would almost inevitably tend to develop a program schedule to transmit to the affiliated stations. And this schedule would be based on the programmes produced by that productions on earth are obtained by the productions are approved by the CM. If I may interrupt your doctor at this point do you see any element of reprisal. Why the corporation against a local station if it refused. I see no relevance whatsoever. Is there anything in the bill that. Would even create such as his behavior or not is the any such element in the bill in other words if the choice is exclusively of the local state or the bell rung at the cost of the interconnection if they still decide to accept it would be paid by the corporation. The cost of the connection would be a problem provided by the corporation. So I think that local station alerts to the heart of the system would be independent and
free and would be under no substantial pressure of any car in the determination of what its problems are. In other words a local station will not be asked as affiliates not a day that you must commit yourself as to time. And as to circumstance. And. In the beginning. And I remember our program to last lets say a set number of months or a year a cell will be per item as you envision it up where you certainly don't you want to comment on that's not what the doctor and. Rose I think that are important. Thank you. This is one of the two or three elements that I saw Mr. Chairman as being central to the whole proposition there are obviously some elements that are not necessarily centralist one I think is. Because the great opportunity as I as one individual sought for public television is to exploit the tremendous diversity that that is America. And if you have it centralized there were networking system that pumps out programs where simply
making something else which deadens that diversity the control has to be in the local station at the same time it can't simply be an affiliation of local stations because with the tremendous costs of the television technology there has to be programming done at central places where the those costs can properly be met. But the control and this of course can be negative as well as the primitive We recognize that because that's one of the elements to a diversity. What I see in this particular proposition the one of the heart and part of the heart and core of the whole proposal. And I might add that this in a connection responsibility vested in the corporation seems to us to support the local responsibility. Let me turn now to another part of the of the Bills section 396 Gees to see which authorizes a corporation to do this. To make payments to existing and new noncommercial educational broadcast stations to
aid in financing local educational television or radio programming cost of substations particularly innovative approaches there to another cost of operation of some states. Here I'm specifically concerned with the last clothes and other cost of operation of such states. The Connecticut commission recommended that the federal government share with the state and local governments and private supports the source of the support of the operating cost of the local stations. Such operating costs include salary cost as well as light power communications rent insurance Pia's and materials and supplies. And generally might be considered to include those kinds of operating costs that relate to the instructional responsibilities of the local stations. The poverty of the present educational television service in this category is extremely damaging. At the present time the lack of adequate operating funds results and shutdown of stations on weekends operation with a skeleton crew
and a bulleted to recruit and growing in adequate managerial and production and technical personnel absence of experimentation and innovation and above all the inability to store properly local community meet. For many managers of educational broadcast stations the daily tasks the simplest of arrival. They're rendered is all focused on raising enough funds from contributions and from local government sources to keep their stations alive. Many of the stations are victims of a cycle. Too often they are merely transmitters lacking the resources to provide a service which reflects the life and activities of the community. And because of this line the stations make no impression on their public and therefore fail to draw the necessary financial aid. While I cannot always press a critical need for federal aid to local station operations. I would express reservations as to the wisdom of placing this responsibility on the Corporation for Public Television. The commission recommended the
sort of station operations be provided through the Department of Health Education and Welfare. We did so for several reasons. The sums that are required from federal sources for station operations are substantial. Initially we estimated the use of 30 million dollars annually. Later increasing to 50 million a year. And to raise these sums in addition to the other needs of the corporation might require a higher excise tax than we were as this was all a part of our total system. We also believe that the corporation should be limited to public television and should not be involved with instructional television. We wanted no part of something lodging educational instructional activities in the meeting yourself a little bit coming down the hill. I'm sorry I Q meeting you sound a little bit in coming down the hill. I think you start out with a very very serious premise that you want. Freedom of parents on the part of the government. With reference to
programming and other essential part of the life. Of its creation its operation. Yet you would take this or parity away from the corporation which is independent of the government and you would put it in the AGW which is a government agency. Now are. There can you exercise control or some influence over programming. A We are made the distinction between the programming responsibility where we felt the maximum sensitivity was. And clearly that should be. Handled by the private corporation operation of the yeah but how are you going to show any kind of a program that had the money to operate. And if I shut up that's a loss. We we have had of course the educational television facilities II which has been handled by you. That's right but that has to construction out as how it cannot be about operators like you. Yes now you are suggesting here that you would prefer to see the operational grants
made through a GW rather than a corporation. And I'm just reading your route on whether or not here we're not bringing back in the government where you would have still with us we try to leave it out in your report there was another aspect of this that led us to the conclusion that we reached and that is that we wanted to make a distinction between instruction or. Television and public television. And we felt that the corporation should not get involved in instructional television and so much of the operating funds that are involved in the local station are have to do with instructional television. How much emphasis do you put on this position. I simply stated as one of our conclusions. I think it is a matter of words or careful consideration as to what is lodged in the record of cooperation and what is lodged in AGW. In terms of the responsibility for the local station I hasten to say that I
am impressed by your emphasis on the importance of freedom of these local stories. This was partly funded to have EVER system. Thank you. This woman wrote I didn't want to fire this because let's put this in focus I mean I don't think there is anything any fancy magic in the fact of how you get taxpayers money where you take it from an excise tax which is a regressive form of taxation which I oppose. But whether you take a graduated income tax it's still tax revenue in its tax fund. And if you put it over into a trust fund for the government all you're doing is establishing the procedures by which it can be utilized and expanded and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of civil service our public bedding or things of that sort. This is a question of how you take tax money and how you're going to allocate it and what you're proposing is to take tax money which is a citizens money again. Putting it into a special plan with our public accounting.
That's what you're saying. Well me there. Are two aspects of that as one of them is the aspect of what that governmental academy that BMR without a governmental accounting I think the commission was was extremely concerned with the matter of insulation. And as this report indicates and as Mr. Comey in Aceh. In its view this is critical to its proposals for public television because of the sensitive nature. Of the subject matter much more sensitive than a good many other things for which funding has been proposed. Now it is for that reason that there is a proposal for a private corporation you know. Where Dr. Killian does where the. Crimes would come from. I think the private on tactical problem and I think the private funds for the corporation can come from
any difference or no I mean and in pursuit of the senator's God's ideal. Namely no government where with the private money going to come. I take it you were not suggesting that there would not be federal funds available to the corp. I'm guessing that the independence of a public corporation. I would suggest shifting the emphasis of this bill. To the. Private enterprise. Pages. Maximum feasible control. Within the corporation over the operation of the system. And total freedom that could be had. In programming and in the precinct. Take. The idea and in the protection of the thought we have a this is a home. Opposition the protection of the laws of this country for example who like to get out and run the protection of the
beatnik the crackpot The Jackass the poor and the protection of anybody. If you're worried about minority groups let's worry about the right to be unpleasant. Be different be arrogant. Be to be wrong and I wonder whether or not you may be heading into sort of a black and governmental program a grand corporate programming and how do we protect. The Internet. Opportunity. For people to be entertaining. They're already there. One person impact on a community mind. While we thought we feel that the independence of the local station the fact that the local community stations of which there are some 30 to 40 in this country with their own boards of
trustees representing responsible members of that community are determining the policies of those stations having freedom to do so. As one of the best insurances that we can have that they will be independent and that they will not permit any kind of venue influence in their program and if they're not it is good that the record has got on the so far and pleading for the maximum up here and very good begat that I think nothing. Is more. To. Freedom. Than for those to be free to flourish. Now I want to guarantee that right there. Because isn't this essentially where you part company with the Ford Foundation proposal. Because the Ford Foundation is really non-governmental. They shoot up a satellite. They rent out it's still a TV collect that money and they do their programming and there's no federal approach
to the bridge. May I answer that Mr. Chairman I have in my hands the most recent submission of the Ford Foundation in dated April 30. And the Ford Foundation represent is that here and we'll talk to you about this later. We'll hear from them. But this. This statement emphasizes very strongly that the Ford Foundation supports the Carnegie report and supports Bell 11 60 and that proposes that if there is a domestic satellite nonprofit corporation that the profits from that corporation shall be fed into the public television corporation. If the Congress creates it and that property from the domestic satellite should be fed into the Corporation for Public Television which will then be the instrument for the programming as we have proposed there for Ford Foundation proposals entirely consistent with ours that would provide a new source of private funds into the Corporation for Public Television which would help support its programming activities.
So I do not think that there is a difference between the Carnegie and the Ford proposals in this respect. Well I only say I hope you're right and I would I would make one other observation. They're certainly uncertain as to whether the on the board proposal for the must exult allied cooperation can provide formulas on a sufficient amount. To begin to meet the needs of the public No I was not talking about that now we're getting into the practical question again. Yes but you've got to admit that whether you go through the route of Title 2 as presently written or you go through the Carnegie Foundation you have governmental involvement because the Congress has to pass your excise law and Congress has that is supervised the excise law and the Congress can repeal the excise law so you get government interference. If you want to comment interference it involves no matter how you look at it and I'm merely saying this. Then to what Senator Scott said in a very wonderful if we could do all this and not involve the
taxpayers of this country at all but even the Carnegie Commission has recognized the fact that the government is going to come in with this and I just brought up this proposition about the Ford Foundation because what they proposed to do They were asking whether or not they agree with this is a part from the point. But their proposal does not require any federal appropriation. Their proposal would merely give them the right to create a nonprofit corporation. They would shoot up the satellite and the satellite itself would be the medium all revenue raising and then of course they would use those plans you see them in the program and do what whatever they suggested. I mean that's I'm just merely drawing that distinction right. We are we have the funds coming from this kind of source of it came into being might be used to reduce the taxes required by the public television Congress. May I may I could that this or that but you may conclude that I've discussed important aspects I've asked 11:16 particular in relation to the work
of the commission in the final analysis I want to make clear. That I strongly endorse the purposes of s 11 60. Because it will set in motion a new and beneficial force in American life. And discussing these alternatives that I have touched upon here. I do not diminish our enthusiasm for the great purpose and bold vision represented by this bill. That purpose was described in the report of the commission as freedom. We celebrate on from the constraints however necessary in their context of commercial television. We sought for Educational Television freedom from the pressures of an adequate one. We saw it for the artist the technician the journalist the scholar the public servant freedom to create freedom to integrate freedom to be heard in the most far reaching media. We sought for the service and freedom to view. To see programs that the present system by its incompleteness denies.
Because this freedom is also the basis of US 11:16 we are confident of the outcome to rally the American people in the name of freedom is to ask no more of them and they have always been willing to provide. Thank you for a very very excellent day. There are moronic. There are fundamental premises of cooperation to be established a carrier policy is defined by Congress as being in the broad public interest. And mad that a corporation should not be an agency or establishment of a government. I think it follows. That it not did you mean that Congress Babbitts only the right. Policies here. Shouldn't that attempt to. Spell out the nature of the program. For example the percentage of time to be devoted to any given my pursuit of it that would be
disastrous if that was but. I'm not as concerned I must admit as my. Colleague is on the excise tax approach. And I want to commend you on seeking this insulation. Let's look to the degree that you can and from budgeting and appropriation procedures I. Am anxious for Congress. To know where money goes and do the responsible for the method by which money is raised. But I am not too concerned that that would do any harm to the operating profit. Do you have any idea that you have not included in your statement the type of god. Which could be added to minimize the impact of the appropriation from Gen 1. Have any other thoughts
on the. Appropriateness to the cooperation you say on page 13 of your statement that in the interim we urged that safeguard be added to minimize the effect of the appropriations from general fund. Another right you said I very much agree with here that the point of this fundamental view of the corporation character should not be. Compromised at its inception and I had said that I thought the emphasis in the bill ought to be shifted to do that. Do you have any added thoughts or comments. As to. What this committee might do to writing in any further safeguards. Again directing our comments on God to the specific God first year provides for the nine million dollar appropriation and it was just to get the cooperation on the way. We were concerned that down and getting the cooperation underway and providing this initial
appropriation out of general funds that it be kept in mind that there was a second step to this process. Our comment here was directed toward the second Stoute would be involved in making funds available to to the corporation. We understand fully why there should be a appropriation out of general funds to get the cooperation underway. But we were hopeful that in the specifications and design of this cooperation as provided in the original bill as provided in 11 and 60 years it may be asked 60 has it made 11 60 as it may be modified that the safeguards be incorporated to anticipate. The protection of this corporate entity as a private institution and that it not as a result of the initial action become encumbered with the normal kinds of procedures that would be involved in a government kind of institution. So this is what we were commenting upon and we feel this is
this is very important the concept of the cooperation right from the start. Embody the safeguards which we listed and our state. And I have some concern about the tribesman but I don't like either method very much and I don't know any better way of doing it. I'd like everybody to be thrown in by the president and I think that and I. Think. That. Critical of the president if I were betting with God that I would do the same thing but I don't think. I don't necessarily get you the greatest technical lawyer. Who do you want to be in a board that was United States senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania one of many senators members of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on communications. Senators asking questions of members of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television questioning occurred as the
subcommittee began its hearings into the proposed public television Act of 1967. Members of the Commerce Subcommittee our chairman John O'Neill story of Rhode Island a democratic Also Democratic members Mike MN Ronie of Oklahoma banks Hardy of Indiana Philip Park Michigan Senator Russell Long of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Frank Moss of Utah Republican senators serving on the committee are accused Scott of Pennsylvania whom you just heard James Harrison of Kansas and Robert Griffin of Michigan senators whose voices you heard on this program or senator's story. Roni Hart Moss and Scott. Senator Norris Cotton of the New Hampshire and not a member of the subcommittee a member of the full Senate Commerce Committee also sat in on the hearing and also asked questionis the man to whom the questions were directed was Dr.
James R. Kilian Jr. He is chairman of the Carnegie Commission which investigated educational television. His full time job is that of chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other members of the Carnegie Commission who fielded questions from the Senate subcommittee included Mr. Edwin H Land president of the Polaroid corporation and Leonard Woodcock vice president of the United Auto Workers of America. This special report on the Senate hearings on public broadcasting has been produced by national educational radio through the facilities of W am you FM American University Radio in Washington DC. This is national educational radio public affairs director Bill Greenwood inviting you to join us tomorrow for part three of this five part series. Tomorrow we feature members of the Ford Foundation before the show will feature educational television witnesses. The fifth and final
Series
Senate hearings on public broadcasting
Episode
Carnegie Commission, part two
Producing Organization
National Association of Educational Broadcasters
WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-rb6w297j
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-rb6w297j).
Description
Episode Description
This program, the second of two parts, features Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., chairman of Carnegie Commission, speaking on educational television.
Other Description
Senate Hearings on Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, held during April 1967.
Date
1967-04-14
Topics
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:30:34
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Host: Greenwood, Bill
Producing Organization: National Association of Educational Broadcasters
Producing Organization: WAMU-FM (Radio station : Washington, D.C.)
Speaker: Killian, James Rhyne, 1904-1988
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 67-Sp.5-2 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:14
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Carnegie Commission, part two,” 1967-04-14, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed December 2, 2021, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-rb6w297j.
MLA: “Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Carnegie Commission, part two.” 1967-04-14. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. December 2, 2021. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-rb6w297j>.
APA: Senate hearings on public broadcasting; Carnegie Commission, part two. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-rb6w297j