PAGENO="0001"
I i~/~
~iJ J~
TELEVISION BROADCAST POLICIES
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
OVERSIGHT ON TELEVISION
BROADCAST POLICIES
MAY 9, 10, AND 11, 1977
Serial No. 95-60
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-122 0 WASHINGTON 1977
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina TED STEVENS, Alaska
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky HARRISON H. SCHMITT, New Mexico
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
EDWARD ZORINSKY, Nebraska
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan
JOHN MELCHER, Montana
EDWARD A. MERLIS, Staff Director
THOMAS G. ALLISON, Chief Counsel
JAMES P. WALSH, General Counsel
MARY Jo MANNING, Communications Counsel
MALCOLM M. B. STERRETT, Minority Staff Director
WARD H. WHITE, Minority Staff Counsel
H. STEPHEN HALLOWAY, Minority Staff Counsel
SUBCOMMIrFEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, Subcommittee Chairman
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada TED STEVENS, Alaska
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky HARRISON H. SCHMITT, New Mexico
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
EDWARD ZORINSKY, Nebraska
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Page
Opening statement by Senator Hollings 1
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
MAY 9, 1977
Erlick, Everrett H., senior vice president and general counsel, American
Broadcasting Co 10
Howard, Robert T., president, NBC Television Network 2
McGannon, Donald H., president and chairman of the board of Group W
(Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc.) 42
Robinson, Glen, professor of law, University of Virginia School of Law 54
Prepared statement 59
Schneider, John A., president, Columbia Broadcasting System/Broadcast
Group 15
MAY 10, 1977
Blake, Jonathan, counsel, Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc. ... 141
Block, Richard C., chairman, Council for UHF Broadcasting 127
Prepared statement 130
Harris, Henry, president, Cox Cable, representing the National Cable Televi-
sion Association; accompanied by Robert Schmidt, president, National Cable
Television Association 146
Prepared statement 156
Land, Herman W., president, Association of Independent Television Stations,
Inc.; accompanied by Leavitt J. Pope, president, WPIX, New York, N.Y 115
Wasilewski, Vincent T., president, National Association of Broadcasters 107
Wiley, Hon. Richard E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission;
accompanied by Robert E. Lee; James H. Quello; Abbott Washburn; Joseph R.
Fogarty; Margita E. White, Commissioners; Wallace E. Johnson, Chief,
Broadcast Bureau; and Richard J. Shiben, Chief, Renewal and Transfer
Division 65
Prepared statement 92
MAY 11, 1977
Bonk, Kathleen, National Media Task Force Coordinator, NOW; Pluria Mar-
shall, chairman, National Black Media Coalition; and Ulysess W. Boykin,
vice president and general manager, WGPR-TV, Detroit, Mich 301
Prepared statement of Kathleen Bonk 305
Prepared statement of Pluria Marshall 311
Bradbury, Bill, news director, KCBY-TV 169
Proxmire, Hon. William, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin 178
Rothenberg, Dr. Michael B., professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, director,
Child Psychiatry-Pediatrics Liaison Services, University of Washington
School of Medicine and Children's Orthopedic Hospital and Medical Center,
Seattle, Wash 175, 187
Attachments 195
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
IV
Page
Sauter, Van Gordon, vice president, program practices, CBS, New York, N.Y.;
Archa 0. Knowlton, media services, General Foods, White Plains, N.Y.;
Robert Choate, president, Council on Children, Media and Merchandising,
Washington, D.C.; Loring Mandel, president, Writer's Guild-East, Hunting-
ton, N.Y.; and Ted Carpenter, executive director, National Citizen's Commit-
tee for Broadcasting, Washington, D.C 211
Prepared statement of Van Gordon Sauter 220
Prepared statement of Robert B. Choate 263
Attachments submitted by Loring Mandel 279
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from South Carolina 203
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS
Blake, Jonathan D., counsel, Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.,
letter of May 10, 1977 146
Council for UHF Broadcasting, letter of July 21, 1975 137
Cowen, Eugene S., vice president, American Broadcasting Co., letter and
enclosures of May 27, 1977 373
Erlick, Everrett H., American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., letter and questions and
answers of September 2, 1977 385
Gerbner, George, professor of communications and dean, University of Pennsyl-
vania, the Annenberg School of Communications, letter and enclosures of
May 18, 1977 430
Harris, Henry W., president, Cox Cable Communications, Inc., letter and
questions and answers of August 19, 1977 418
Jones, B. H., executive vice president, National Livestock Feeders Association,
letter and enclosures of May 9, 1977 426
Lindow, Lester W., president, Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
Inc., statement 143
Mater, Gene P., CBS Inc., letter and questions and answers of September 1, 1977 393
Monderer, Howard, National Broadcasting Co., Inc., letter and enclosures of
June 28, 1977 327
Radio Television News Directors Association, statement 438
Rothenberg, Michael B., Children's Orthopedic Hospital and Medical Center,
letter and enclosures of June 24, 1977 296
Sauter, Van G., CBS Television Network, letter and enclosures of May 18,
1977 290
Schlosser, Herbert S., letter and enclosures of March 2, 1977 362
Schmidt, Robert L., president, National Cable Television Association, letter of
May 10, 1977 164
Schneider, Jack, CBS Inc., letter and enclosures of April 25, 1977 422
Schneider, John A., president, CBS, Inc., letter of May 17, 1977 391
Television Commission of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers,
statement 436
Television Station Employment Practices 1976 "The Status of Minorities and
Women," article 452
Wilkin, Eugene W., president, Wilkin Associates, letter of April 8, 1977 420
Wiley, Richard E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, letters of:
July 26, 1977 104
October 3, 1977 questions and answers 408
PAGENO="0005"
TELEVISION BROADCAST POLICIES
MONDAY, MAY 9, 1977
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE
AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., room 235, Russell Senate
Office Building, Hon. Ernest F. Hollings (chairman of the subcom-
mittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR HOLLINGS
Senator HOLLINGS. Good morning. Today we begin 3 days of
oversight hearings in consumer broadcast policies with particular
attention to television.
As we do, I cannot help but draw a comparison between broad-
cast and energy, a subject I have been deeply involved in for
several years. In the energy field, we are experiencing severe short-
ages. It is a pleasure to turn my attention to broadcasting, a field
of great abundance, both in audience and progress.
Television competes with all alternative ways in which we can
expend our time. Yet with 97 percent of our households owning
television sets, with an average of 6 hours of programing watched
each day, the only activity competing with TV for our time is sleep.
Television is a success story; undeniably, it has become the
strongest social force in our country.
I am certain many of the witnesses we will be hearing from
would be happy if we turned our attention back to the energy
crisis, exclusively, and left them and the industry alone.
However, with the success of television and its significant influ-
ence, has come new public responsibilities. Broadcasters, like Mem-
bers of Congress, enjoy a public license. We occupy the public seat.
The broadcaster occupies the public home. Both our licenses are
periodically reviewed and extended for good performance. Part of
the review process involves evaluating the performance of the
whole group.
Accordingly, during these hearings it will not be our purpose to
look at the performance of individual licensees, but rather to fulfill
our mandate to review the activities of the industry in the totality
to determine if the public interest is being served.
We have no preconceived notions, but several areas cause specific
concern.
If, for example, charges of excessive violence, sexuality, obscen-
ity, and lack of special attention to the needs of children and
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
teenagers and failure to fully implement equal employment poli-
cies are well founded, then the broadcasting responsibilities are not
being met and remedial action would be considered.
When appropriate, we are fully prepared to improve the broad-
caster's ability to serve the public.
We are equally prepared to applaud the broadcaster's successes.
The broadcaster enjoys a high degree of credibility and communi-
ty support and has a reputation for fairness and attention to local
needs and issues, which we support and encourage.
During this first day we will focus on network practices. Each of
the networks is represented, and we will hear from them individ-
ually, followed by a question period directed to the three witnesses
as a group, if that meets with the pleasure of the committee so as
to save time and not be repetitive in the questions.
I would make one other observation with respect to submitting
statements ahead of time. We always ask that the statements be
submitted 1 week ahead of time, so the staff can review them. We
can save time and pick up the important points that the committee
members are interested in. When they come in as late as Saturday
afternoon before the hearing on Monday morning, hereafter, we
will consider canceling the appearances of witnesses.
The first witness is Mr. Robert Howard, president of NBC Televi-
sion Network.
Mr. Howard, we welcome you and ask you to come forward,
please.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. HOWARD, PRESIDENT, NBC
TELEVISION NETWORK
Mr. HOWARD. Good morning.
My name is Robert T. Howard and I am president of the NBC
Television Network. I understand at this session of its hearings, the
subcommittee is interested in getting a broad factual overview of
television networking-its structure, how it operates and how it
relates to other elements in television broadcasting.
That is what I will try to cover. With the permission of the
chairman, we thought it might be more interesting if we used
slides in our presentation.
Our presentation sketches the basic industry elements: The sta-
tions that provide programing directly to the public; the sources of
that programing; the functions of the networks; the nature of the
network relationship with affiliated stations; the development of
network programing, its economics, and supervision of its stan-
dards; advertisers; the role of news and sports in the network
program structure; and finally, the ultimate question-how viewers
judge our service.
We call it "The American Connection." [Slide.]
That's how we regard television-as a central communications
institution instantaneously linking the population from all parts of
the country, all walks of life, in city apartments, suburban homes,
solitary farmhouses-in a uniquely American connection. [Slide.]
The television service in this country is provided directly to
viewers by more than 700 commercial stations, and more than 250
noncommercial stations. [Slide.]
PAGENO="0007"
3
Television has developed to the point where 96 percent of the
homes in this country have a choice of four or more stations-66
percent have a choice of seven or more. [Slide.]
Television stations are independently owned, either individually
or as members of a group. Station ownership is highly decentral-
ized. There are literally hundreds of owners of individual stations.
[Slide.]
There are almost 100 different group owners-that is, companies
who own more than one VHF station-a station on channels 2
through 13. [Slide.]
Fourteen of them, including the three national TV networks,
each owns five VHF stations, the maximum allowed under law.
Many others own both UHF and VHF stations. [Slide.]
Many of the programs presented by stations are produced by the
stations themselves-documentaries, community and public affairs
programing, local sports coverage, local entertainment, and news, a
lot of it. [Slide.]
In fact, local station newscasts in total fill many more hours
than network newscasts, have more viewers and bring in more
revenue. [Slide.]
Stations also but individual programs and series from syndica-
tors-program suppliers who sell directly to stations. [Slide.]
Syndicators offer original productions, such as "Sammy and
Company," [slide] movies [slide] and reruns of network series. And
stations affiliated with networks also receive the network [slide]
program schedule. [Slide.]
Of the more than 700 commercial stations, 100 are not affiliated
with any network. They rely on local programs and-for the most
part-on syndicated programs, many of them reruns of popular
network series. [Slide.]
The majority-more than 600-are affiliated with one of the
three television networks [slide] so that each network has affili-
ation contracts with about 200 stations. [Slide.]
The networks provide affiliated stations with a daily schedule of
varied programs; through these stations, the programs reach a
national audience. [Slide.]
Networks lease and administer most of the facilities that inter-
connect the stations on a full-time, national basis. [Slide.]
And networks sell commercials in network programs to national
advertisers, paying the stations an agreed monthly amount, called
network compensation, based on the number of network commer-
cials in the programs the station carries. A contractual formula is
negotiated with each station. I'll talk more about compensation
later. [Slide.]
Affiliation contracts give station first call in their community on
the programs of their network. Frequently, they decline network
programs in favor of local programs, or in favor of syndicated
programs that may provide higher revenue for them. Of almost 600
prime time programs offered by NBC so far this broadcast season,
less than 50 were carried by every affiliate. [Slide.]
But most stations do carry most of their network's schedule.
[Slide.]
PAGENO="0008"
4
The variety and volume of the network service-and the cost of
creating it-are such that no station could develop it on its own,
nor could any group of stations. [Slide.]
And no other organization is prepared to undertake this daily
service because the costs and the risks are so high. [Slide.]
The average prime time half-hour program costs a network
$155,000 for two showings-that's only one episode, not the series.
[Slide.]
The average program, $335,000. A feature made for television,
$882,000. [Slide.]
Together, the three networks provide more than 16,000 hours a
year of programing [slide] at a total cost of more than $1 billion a
year [slide] some of it on programs on which we lose money: major
news event coverage, for example, and documentaries, religious
programs, some sports events, even a number of entertainment
shows. [Slide.]
But mass entertainment programs do overall pay their way. In
fact, they earn the money that makes the entire service possible.
[Slide.]
The networks finance the development of entertainment pro-
grams, and pay for the rights to present them. [Slide.]
But paying these costs does not mean ownership of the programs.
Networks themselves produce and own only a handful of the enter-
tainment programs they offer. [Slide.]
Only 1 of the 28 prime time series scheduled by NBC this season
is owned by NBC. [Slide.]
Most entertainment programs are produced and owned by inde-
pendent suppliers. [Slide.]
Networks are not allowed to have any financial interest in the
programs they underwrite. In effect, we rent; we buy only the right
to present the program one or two times. The outside suppliers own
the programs, and hold them for any future sale, usually to indi-
vidual stations through syndication. [Slide.]
As a mass entertainment medium, a network survives by engag-
ing the interest of the widest possible segment of the population
[slide] which puts us in the business of trying to forecast public
taste in entertainment. It's a risky business. Movies and Broadway
shows fail much more often than they succeed. [Slide.]
Network television's no different. Over the past 4 years, only
one-third of the new prime time entertainment series introduced
each year survived the first full season, and this year the rate of
failure was higher. These failures involve heavy losses to the net-
works. [Slide.]
Before production, a network must commit to the production
company for a given number of episodes. If a series is canceled
early due to lack of public response, the network absorbs the cost
of the episodes not shown, including those in various stages of
production. Today, million dollar losses are not uncommon. [Slide.]
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the series that do
get on the air in a typical year are as many as 50 completely
produced pilots [slide] selected from as many as 140 scripts [slide]
culled from some 300 program outlines. [Slide.]
In almost every case, we pay for the outlines, used or not; in
every case, we pay for the scripts, produced or unproduced. [Slide.]
PAGENO="0009"
5
We finance all, or most of, the production costs of the pilots,
broadcast or rejected. [Slide.]
And pilot development runs high, it averages $293,000 for a half-
hour pilot, $560,000 for 1 hour. Over $1 million for a 2-hour pilot.
And we'll pay for the testing of the pilots, before sample audiences
in theaters, or over selected cable TV channels where viewers can
watch at home, in urban and rural areas, and then give us reac-
tions in a telephone survey.
Networks create opportunities for a large number of program
suppliers, both major and minor. [Slide.]
With our doors open to a diversity of suppliers, a wide array of
program ideas pour in. NBC considers more than 2,500 in a typical
year. They may be original; or conceived as a vehicle for a particu-
lar performer; or drawn from novels, short stories, motion pictures,
the stage, other TV series; or based on actual events. [Slide.]
Interestingly, all the statistics I've given on programing are in
the process of changing. Television is a medium of constant evolu-
tion, and new forms emerge. [Slide.]
The miniseries-"Roots" or "Jesus of Nazareth," for example-
are designed to run for a limited number of episodes instead of an
entire broadcast season. And the number of different prime time
series introduced each season is growing steadily. At NBC, we used
to consider 12 a lot; this season we introduced 21. [Slide.]
So the trend is for more changes of programing, not just in
September and January, but spread throughout the entire broad-
cast season. Among the three networks, 33 of the 66 prime time
programing hours have been changed so far this season, which
means fewer repeats, more original programing, more diversity,
more development, more cost, more risk. [Slide.]
For networks do seek out new forms, new ideas. It's the only way
to respond to changing audience appetites. It's essential in a com-
petitive industry. [Slide.]
To some of our critics, who look for a revolution rather than an
evolution in public taste, it may not always seem that way. But
there's no brushing aside the fact that it's a long way from "Father
Knows Best" to "All in the Family." From "Ed Sullivan" to "NBC
Saturday Night." [Slide.]
So we seek ideas-but many factors go into the selection process
before an idea becomes a reality on the screen. There are tangible
ones: Can an idea be well written, cast, acted, directed, produced?
[Slide.]
There's the intangible-the one we spend the longest, hardest
hours at: Will the program have the ingredients to attract a large
enough audience for a mass medium service? [Slide.]
Then will there be problems of taste? NBC has a large staff in a
department called broadcast standards. The other networks have
equivalent departments. These men and women specialize in judg-
ments on propriety and taste-on conformity to contemporary stan-
dards. [Slide.]
They are involved in every entertainment program, every day of
the year. For a proposed new program, they'll review concept and
theme, script, rough cut, final cut. Their advice will be an essential
element in the decision to go ahead with a program or to make
changes in it. [Slide.]
PAGENO="0010"
6
And, of course, we're concerned with the competition. Will a
program be competitive? Where can it be scheduled competitively?
The rivalry among the three networks is a daily and nightly affair.
It spurs program development, improvement and innovation.
That's how we attract audiences and compete for advertising rev-
enue, the financial base for the entire system. [Slide.]
And after we complete all the steps of development, production,
scheduling, and the programs are on the air, the viewers decide.
[Slide.]
People often ask us, "How do you know what I really like?" Well,
there's no way to survey each of the Nation's 201 million viewers.
[Slide.]
But as in almost all political poils, U.S. Government studies, and
business surveys, a scientifically selected sample will yield a consis-
tently reliable estimate. [Slide.]
The most widely used national audience measurement service is
that supplied by the A. C. Nielsen Co. Nielsen installs audimeters
in a scientifically .selected sample of 1,200 homes throughout the
country. The homes chosen are kept confidential, and at least 20
percent of them are changed each year. [Slide.]
The meters automatically record which station each set is tuned
to, minute by minute. They measure what viewers actually do, not
what they say or remember. The resulting figures-the well-known
Nielsen ratings-represent which portion of the available national
audience actually tuned to which program. [Slide.]
Are 1,200 homes enough of a sample? Laymen are often skepti-
cal-but experts are not. [Slide.]
Most social surveys of the full population use that sample size-
or smaller-successfully. So do most surveys taken for American
industries and for the U.S. Government.
The reliability of this sampling size was demonstrated in a study
by CONTAM-this is the Committee on Nationwide Television Au-
dience Measurement-some years ago. The study used graduated
samples from 100 to 2,500. It measured 10 different programs, with
many different graduated samples, and found that once a sample
size between 1,000 and 1,200 was reached, any possible improve-
ments in accuracy would be relatively small. [Slide.]
But with millions of dollars at stake, we can't afford less than
the best and most complete market research available. Many other
techniques are used to cross-check audience size, and to judge
audience anticipation, interests and desires-techniques that in-
clude viewer diaries, questionnaires in the mail, telephone surveys,
panel discussions, indepth interviews. [Slide.]
TV entertainment programs live in a daily national referen-
dum-probably the Nation's most direct democratic process-to be
accepted or rejected with the flick of a channel selector. [Slide.]
Networks react quickly to adjust their service to consumer
demand-more so than any other industry. For us, it's a matter of
good business, which flows from good service. [Slide.]
And as programing has evolved, so has television's advertising
structure. [Slide.]
In TV's early days, advertisers bought entire programs, produced
them, and identified with their programs and performers. [Slide.]
PAGENO="0011"
7
But television grew rapidly to massive dimension-the broadcast
day expanded-and more and more advertisers clamored for a
chance to use the effective new medium. New patterns had to
develop. [Slide.]
Today, very few programs are sponsored by a single advertiser.
In this way, network television has become open to a wide range of
advertisers. Many place commercials across network schedules, in
time periods that promise the audiences they want to reach. [Slide.]
In the current season, 554 different advertisers bought network
scheduled time, and 62 of them were new. NBC's advertisers
ranged from America's largest companies to one which bought
network time for only $2,000. Now, this is just the NBC story.
[Slide.]
Advertisers typically do not produce programs, but they do pro-
duce their own commercials, through their advertising agencies.
However, these are broadcast only after screening by specialists of
the broadcast standards department. They examine claims, demand
factual substantiation, and the advertiser's research in support of
the claims. [Slide.]
But while commercials in mass entertainment programs bring in
most of the revenue, the entertainment programs are only a por-
tion of the total network service. And reaching the maximum
audience is not always our standard. We know, for example, that
many specialized programs-in the children's, religious and cultur-
al areas-will reach a lesser audience than broad-appeal entertain-
ment programs. And, of course, that's true of many news programs.
Each of the three networks operates a national and international
news organization. They have a constant capability to cover and
report news developments anywhere in the world. [Slide.]
At NBC News alone, more than 1,400 people are employed, at 20
bureaus around the world, covering and reporting for NBC Televi-
sion, NBC Radio, NBC's owned stations, and supplying a daily
news-film service available to affiliated TV stations. [Slide.]
Our network television programing includes "Today" [slide]
"Update," the news magazine Event, Weekend, Meet the Press
[slide] special reports, some of them spanning an entire 3-hour
broadcast evening, political coverage-the candidates' debates, pri-
maries, conventions, election. Television has come to play a central
role in the national electoral process [slide] and major news event
coverage, sometimes continuing for days if needed. The three net-
works are the only organizations ready to provide instant, nation-
wide TV coverage. [Slide.]
While NBC produces almost none of the entertainment programs
it presents, all news programs are produced by the NBC news
division. We must do this if we are to be accountable on matters
relating to public issues and information. So the network takes the
responsibility and the cost. [Slide.]
Maintaining a global news organization is costly. For NBC, more
than $100 million a year. Political coverage alone this past election
year ran to $20 million. And many news programs are presented at
a loss.
It may surprise you that some of the major sports events also are
not profitable. [Slide.]
PAGENO="0012"
8
Top sports events draw huge audiences, and carry commercials
sold at high rates. But the rights to cover them cost millions, and
the technical job of coverage additional millions. Some events earn
money for the networks-but others run at a loss. Yet it's only
through the continuing service by the networks that the entire
national public can see top sports events-without charge. [Slide.]
So the cost of networking is high-for entertainment programs,
news, sports, network interconnection, research, and many over-
head services. [Slide.]
Advertising revenue is the primary source of meeting these costs
and returning a profit-for networks and for the stations. [Slide.]
As I mentioned earlier, networks not only give their affiliates the
network programs, the networks pay the stations for carrying
them. This payment-it's called compensation-is negotiated with
each station. Size of market, and audience contributed by the affili-
ated station, are among the factors in formulating compensation. A
key point about compensation is that the stations get compensated
on the basis of the number of network cOmmercials within a pro-
gram, even if the network loses money on it-so compensation is
free of risk to the affiliated stations. [Slide.]
Compensation paid by networks to stations ranges from about 8
percent of the annual revenue of large market stations to 20 per-
cent for smaller markets. [Slide.]
Network affiliation is particularly important to them, for smaller
markets have trouble attracting national advertisers directly.
Without network programing furnished free, and without the net-
work compensation, smaller market stations would have to cut
back on their service, or go out of business. [Slide.]
But even more important than the direct network payment to
affiliated stations is the indirect value generated by network pro-
grams. These draw large audiences, which makes them attractive
to advertisers. The networks provide commercial positions in their
schedule for stations to sell directly to local and national adver-
tisers. So stations have valuable commercial time, with no program
costs attached. [Slide.]
The largest portion of the average stations' revenue-in some
markets as high as 65 percent-is from its sale of these commer-
cials in and around network shows. [Slide.]
In a parallel to the network operation-where revenues from
:mass entertainment programing supports news and other unprofit-
*able services-this station revenue helps to subsidize local public
affairs and community programs. [Slide.]
Naturally, the relationship between network and stations is
more than just a checkbook affair. We visit stations; they visit us.
Frequent large-scale conferences are held. There are phone calls,
letters, and telegrams by the thousands as we exchange views on
new programs, current programs, news coverage, and different
community needs. [Slide.]
And previews of programs are arranged via closed circuit to
stations-as much as 20 hours a week of such previewing-a large
proportion of the total prime time schedule. Station reactions play
an active part in shaping the course of network programing to be
seen in their markets. [Slide.]
PAGENO="0013"
9
Stations accept responsibility for everything they broadcast in
their communities, and the network service takes that into ac-
count. As business enterprises in the community, and as residents
of the community, station interest is self-evident. [Slide.]
But they're also accountable under law. A station can exist only
with a license granted for a 3 year term by the FCC. That applies
equally to stations owned by networks, affiliated stations, and
those that operate without network affiliation. [Slide.]
The Commission also excercises various regulatory powers in
connection with its grant of licenses. So television lives, in part, in
a wide area of regulation. But because the Commission is barred by
statute from censorship of programs, and is subject to first amend-
ment requirements, Government and broadcasters tread a delicate
constitutional and legal line on the form and extent of regulation.
[Slide.]
Is the system working for viewers? They're the ones who truly
shape the course of national television. A series of nationwide
Roper polls that began in 1959 indicate a high degree of public
confidence. [Slide.]
The latest edition shows: 70 percent of those polled rate the
performance of television stations as good to excellent [slide] rank-
ing it ahead of all other community institutions; [slide] 64 percent
cite television as their main source of news-far ahead of all other
media; [slide] 51 percent call television the most believable source
of news-also far ahead of all other media; [slide] 75 percent say
television is the leading source for acquainting them with candi-
dates for national office; [slide] 75 percent believe having commer-
cials is a fair price for being able to watch television. [Slide.]
What the public says is supported by what it does. It watches
more and more. Ten years ago, a TV set was in use in the average
home 5 hours and 41 minutes a day; today-6 hours and 20 min-
utes a day. [Slide.]
So stations, networks, program producers, advertisers, and the
public are linked in a uniquely American connection. Not a perfect
system. It will not please everybody at every given monent. But the
alternatives are worse. And it is a system instantly responsive to
the needs and desires of the vast majority of the public it serves. If
we cease to do that, we'll be out of business.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just read one other statement.
Senator HOLLINGS. Surely. Surely.
Mr. HOWARD. Late last week we finalized our new schedule for
the new television season, and I am pleased to announce it was
consistent with the commitments we had made, that there would
be a reduction of the hard action series on the network. We have
distributed to the committee, I am sorry it is late, and the staff,
our press release regarding this new schedule.
As you can see, there is a heavy emphasis on entertainment
formats that do not rely on hard action.
Thank you very much.
Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Howard, you obviously get better than a
70-percent rating, unless you brought that audience with you. I
never know. But we appreciate your statement.
We will withholdquestions as I indicated earlier.
PAGENO="0014"
10
We will now hear from Mr. Erlick, senior vice president, general
counsel of American Broadcasting Co. Inc.
Senator GRIFFIN. Can I interrupt for a definition of "hard
action"?
Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Howard, what does "had action" mean? I
want an answer myself.
Senator GRIFFIN. You used the term "hard action." I guess you
will have to tell us what that means. We are not that familiar with
the term.
Mr. HOWARD. The question on "hard action. A definition--
Senator GRIFFIN. What does it mean to you?
Mr. HOWARD. Programs would be-let's just say a police action
type program, where there would be chase involved, there would be
physical action, heavy physical action and--
Senator SCHMITT. I think he is trying to say "violent."
Senator GRIFFIN. Violent. That is what you mean.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Erlick, We will be glad to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF EVERETT H. ERLICK, SENIOR VICE PRESI-
DENT, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO.,
INC.
Mr. ERLICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am Everett H. Erlick, senior vice president and
general counsel of American Broadcasting Co., Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in these hearings.
Originally, I had intended to offer the subcommittee an overview
of the television industry, similar to Mr. Howard's excellent pre-
sentation. To avoid duplication, I shall comment only briefly on
some of ABC's television network practices and operations.
Also, I would like to offer ABC's views, in summary form, on
certain issues currently subject to congressional and FCC consider-
ation.
The heart of the ABC Television Network is our program sched-
ule, consisting of 4,300 hours of entertainment, news, public affairs,
and sports per year.
Of ABC,s 1,300 prime time hours during the 1976-77 season
approximately 182 hours are devoted to news and public affairs;
117 hours to sports; 104 hours to variety series and specials; 182
hours to situation comedy; 143 hours to dramatic series and spe-
cials; 169 hours to detective and action series; 182 hours to fantasy
and adventure series; and 130 hours to movies, both theatrical and
made-for-television. The balance of the hours are not yet scheduled.
Each of our prime time entertainment programs, other than
theatrical features, goes through a full developmental cycle-from
idea to story line, to script, to pilot, to series. From initial concept
to telecast, there is an average lapsed time of approximately 18
months. Annually, ABC spends over $500 million on the acquisition
and production of network programing.
Each year, our program department evaluates hundreds of pro-
gram concepts, approximately 200 of which are scripted; 40-50 are
made into pilots; and 5-10 hours ultimately evolve into series,
depending upon our requirements. Of the total entertainment pro-
grams telecast, the great majority are acquired from outside suppli-
PAGENO="0015"
11
ers; the rest are produced by ABC. Only about one-third of new
series introduced each year are successful. And program failure
can be, and often is, very costly.
ABC's news, public affairs and sports programing is almost all
produced "in-house."
ABC's goal is to develop and present a program schedule of
diversity and balance, reflecting quality and taste, which will be
entertaining and informative to broad segments of the viewing
public. ABC's philosophy on televised violence was recently sum-
marized by Frederick S. Pierce, president of ABC Television, as
follows:
The principal program issue in the public forum today is violence. It has become a
daily topic with the press. Its popularity as a subject to criticize our industry is
increasing in geometric proportions.
What has been lost in the intensity of rhetoric on this subject is the fact that
ABC, while increasing the balance and diversity of its prime-time schedule, began to
diminish the number of action programs in prime time and the incidents of violence
in those programs well before the subject became a popular drum.
We have decreased on a year-to-year basis the amount of programs dealing with
violence and we have decreased the incidents of violence portrayed within those
programs. We have implemented, and we will continue to implement, strict stan-
dards as to the actual portrayal of acts of violence.
Mr. Pierce's March 2 statement before the House Subcommittee
on Communications, reference copies of which have been furnished
to this subcommittee, contains a detailed analysis of ABC's pro-
graming operations.
The program selection process is a team effort requiring close
cooperation between network management and the Department of
Broadcast Standards and Practices. This is also true of program
content. In both instances, discussion with our affiliates is involved.
Completion of the program schedule is a step-by-step building
block process, commencing with, among other things, consideration
of our own family viewing policy. Fully weighed in the final deci-
sions are balance, audience flow, competitive factors, quality and
taste.
Comedy and variety programs have become an increasingly im-
portant part of our prime time schedule, and have received a great
deal of emphasis in our development activities. As a result, we
recently announced that all six new shows which will be intro-
duced on our 1977-78 prime time schedule starting next fall will be
comedies in a wide variety of forms. The new program series are
described in the attached press release of April 25. This is the first
time we can recall that a television network has introduced exclu-
sively comedic form programs in its new fall schedule.
As to sales: In network television, advertising time is sold pri-
marily to advertising agencies acting on behalf of national adver-
tisers or, in some cases, regional advertisers. Advertising rates are
determined in a very competitive marketplace and are influenced
heavily by prevailing economic conditions and the degree of confi-
dence existing in major consumer industries.
Prices are also keyed to the size and demographic composition of
the audience reached by a particular program.
Network sales patterns have altered dramatically over the years.
In 1957, for example, approximately 77 percent of all ABC prime
PAGENO="0016"
12
time entertainment programing was sold on a single or alternate
week program sponsorship basis.
In 1965 there were only 270 national advertisers on ABC.
Today, due largely to dramatic increases in program costs and
advertiser desire to spread risk of program failure, 95 percent of
our network sales are on a participating basis-that is to say, 30-
second or 1-minute advertisements are purchased in a variety of
programs by a number of advertisers.
Changes have permitted many more advertisers, including small-
er ones, to use the medium, and to do so throughout different parts
of the broadcast day. Today, about 450 advertisers, both large and
small, purchase time on our network each year.
ABC seeks to generate sufficient revenues in entertainment pro-
graming to cover program and operational costs and to return a
profit, used in part to offset the deficit incurred principally in news
and public affairs.
Our news and public affairs programing, although usually spon-
sored, does not generate sufficient revenues to cover the enormous
costs involved, for example, in maintaining a worldwide radio and
television news service with 17 bureaus, and well over 1,000 em-
ployees.
ABC has primarily affiliation agreements with its 5 owned and
187 other television stations located throughout the United States.
An ABC primary affiliate is entitled to first call on all ABC
Television Network programs; however, the station is not obligated
to telecast any particular program or series of programs.
Affiliated stations not only have the right to broadcast ABC
network programs without paying for them, but they are compen-
sated by us for the sponsored network programs they carry.
ABC, of course, receives its revenues from advertisers whose
commercial messages appear in those programs.
In addition to the network compensation, a major source of affili-
ated station income is national, regional, and local commercials
which appear adjacent to, and sometimes within, network pro-
grams. All the revenue from those commercials goes to the station,
not the network.
Prior to telecast ABC's affiliates receive written advance pro-
gram advisory bulletins which describe in detail the offered prime
time program. Also prior to telecast, all prime time first run enter-
tainment programs, news specials, documentaries, short story spe-
cials, after-school specials and the premiere episode of each day-
time series are closed circuited to stations over network lines.
These procedures enable affiliates to prescreen and evaluate the
programs before they are actually carried.
Having described some of ABC's network practices and oper-
ations, let me discuss a few of the more pressing issues which the
Congress and the Commission are presently considering. These in-
clude the Communications Act rewrite; pay cable; section 315 and
the "fairness doctrine"; and the Commission's network inquiry.
As to Communications Act Rewrite: As you know, your col-
leagues on the House Subcommittee on Communications are con-
sidering a rewrite of the Communications Act. ABC has no objec-
tion to a thorough review of the Communications Act, and the
manner in which it has been implemented over the past 40 years,
PAGENO="0017"
13
but we doubt that a wholesale rewrite of the act would be wise or
productive. It bears pointing out that under the act, this country
has developed by far the most effective and competitive system of
radio and television communication in the world. This fact alone
suggests that rewrite, for its own sake, is unnecessary.
We do believe that certain specific areas require legislation. In
the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in United States v. Midwest
Video, Chief Justice Burger observed:
(T)he almost explosive development of CATV suggests the need for a comprehen-
sive re-examination of the statutory scheme as it relates to this new development, so
that the basic policies are considered by Congress and not left entirely to the
Commission and the Courts.
These concerns are, of course, more acute today than they were
in 1972, as the recent Home Box Office decision, which I shall
discuss, makes clear.
While we have generally supported the desirability of legislation
extending license terms, providing greater stability in the renewal
process, we must frankly state that we consider this to be of less
urgency than congressional action with respect to the pay cable
issue.
As to pay cable: There are now in excess of 1 million pay cable
subscribers in the United States, many of whom are serviced by the
Home Box Office Network, utilizing satellite interconnection.
Stanford research has forecast that, by 1985, there will be 15
million pay television users generating annual revenues of $2.5
billion-approximately double the combined program expenditures
of the three television networks in 1975. So far, this estimate is
proving to be realistic.
However, the costs associated with wiring the Nation indicate
that for the predictable future cable and pay cable will remain a
service available only to an affluent, urban minority of the U.S.
population.
It is estimated that it would cost $250 billion to wire the entire
Nation, but only approximately $15 billion to wire the one half of
the Nation living in the densely populated areas.
Yet, if permitted, this subscribing minority will generate suffi-
cient revenues to permit pay cable to outbid the networks for some
of the best product.
In this regard, the March 25, 1977 decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Home Box Office,
Inc. v. FCC, is most significant.
The court there held that the Commission, under present statu-
tory authorization, is powerless to prevent pay cable from utilizing
this economic potential to siphon any and all program material it
can from the free television system, principally, sports and movies.
We do not believe this decision to be compatible with the con-
cerns consistently expressed by many of the Members of Congress
responsible for national communications policy. We have long be-
lieved that legislation in this area is essential; the decision, in our
view, makes such legislation a major priority.
ABC's views on the pay cable issue have been brought to the
attention of the Congress on other occasions. This subcommittee
has been furnished with reference copies of my May 25, 1976,
testimony before the House Subcommittee on Communications.
20-122 0 - 78 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
Section 315 and the fairness doctrine: Two other topics of recur-
ring concern and interest to ABC are section 315(a) of the Commu-
nications Act, the so-called "equal-time" provision, and the fairness
doctrine. As to section 315(a), it is our view that a permanent
suspension should be enacted for Presidential and Vice Presiden-
tial candidates. We have also supported a trial suspension of sec-
tion 315(a) for all other candidates-Federal, State, and local, and
continue to urge adoption of these measures.
Such legislative revision would afford broadcasters greater free-
dom and flexibility in their campaign coverage and would, in turn,
benefit the public by permitting the most effective presentation of
the major party candidates plus the most comprehensive explora-
tion of important issues.
The presentation of the Presidential and Vice Presidential de-
bates last fall exemplifies the valuable contribution that broadcast
coverage can provide to the public.
Nevertheless, as the subcommittee is aware, broadcast coverage
of those debates was possible only because of an interpretative
ruling by the FCC, upheld by the courts, that debates, arranged by
those other than broadcasters and candidates, could qualify as a
"bona fide news event," exempt from the "equal-time" provision.
However, the coverage was not without its difficulties, and broad-
casters are still precluded from arranging debates.
We continue to believe that a permanent suspension is necessary
to resolve lingering ambiguities and to permit even greater flexibil-
ity in the political broadcasting area.
As to the fairness doctrine: In general, ABC believes that its own
news policies and practices would be substantially the same, re-
gardless of the doctrine's existence.
On the other hand, as a regulated medium, we recognize that
without the fairness doctrine, pressures would increase to institute
something we regard as even more onerous, such as mandatory
access.
Therefore, ABC has not urged abolition of the fairness doctrine-
rather, we have emphasized the need to place continued and even
greater emphasis on licensee discretion in the FCC's administration
of the fairness doctrine.
As long as licensee discretion may be freely exercised and the
Commission does not attempt to second-guess the broadcaster, the
networks and individual stations will be able to function as respon-
sible journalists. A more detailed expression of ABC's views on this
important subject is contained in our statement presented to this
subcommittee in April 1975.
In January 1977 the FCC initiated an inquiry into commercial
television network practices. The inquiry is concerned with two
principal matters; first: The relationships between networks and
their affiliated stations; and, second: The relationships between
networks and entities that produce programs for network tele-
cast-typically, Hollywood production companies.
ABC believes that the present network system, involving a work-
ing partnership between networks and local stations, has served
the public well, making possible a rich diversity of high quality
news, entertainment, and sports programs.
PAGENO="0019"
15
We also believe that network production of some entertainment
programing carries with it no inherent evil; to the contrary, net-
work production efforts have provided the viewing public with
programing of substantial merit.
Also, such production may be essential to the development of
new forms, such as ABC's "Good Morning America" program.
ABC intends to cooperate fully with the Commission's inquiry.
We are confident that, when the record has been compiled, the
Commission will conclude that existing relationships between the
networks and their affiliated stations, on the one hand, and their
program suppliers on the other, are proper and in the public inter-
est.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Erlick.
We will withhold questions. We will now hear Mr. John A.
Schneider, president of the CBS broadcast group.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. SCHNEIDER, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM/BROADCAST GROUP
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HOLLINGS. Good morning.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. My name is John Schneider, president of the
CBS/broadcast group.
I would like to direct my remarks today to the dynamics of
programing, for that is what television is really all about-what
the viewer sees when the set is turned on. And within the basic
concept of programing may be found many of the issues that this
committee may wish to discuss.
At the outset, I want to stress the fact that television is here to
inform and to entertain. To this end, television offers a mix of
news, informational, and entertainment programing. To a large
degree, this mix and these programs reflect the interests of the
viewing public, for it is the viewer who ultimately decides what
will be on television.
There is, of course, one major exception to this basic rationale.
The major exception is news, where sheer popularity plays little
part. We have accepted a commitment to aid in establishing and
maintaining an informed electorate. At present, of the 22 hours, of
prime time, making up the CBS Television Network schedule, 2
hours are regularly devoted to informational programing-"60
Minutes" and "Who's Who." During the broadcast season, "CBS
News" preempts 20 hours of regularly scheduled entertainment
programing for CBS-produced news specials.
All of this, of course, is in addition to the "CBS Evening News"
with Walter Cronkite, the "CBS Morning News" with Hughes
Rudd and Bruce Morton, and such regular series as "Face the
Nation." CBS News also produces the twelve 2½-minute "In the
News" programs for children on Saturday and Sunday mornings
and the half-hour "What's It All About?" series for children.
While our fundamental goal is entertaining and informing, in
the children's area we go one step further, with the inclusion of
prosocial messages.
There is an unfortunate tendency for our critics to lump all of
children's television together and claim that "there is nothing good
PAGENO="0020"
16
on for children." This is completely untrue, and generally comes
from those who have not taken the trouble to watch children's
television, to take into account what children will watch, to under-
stand the problems of programing to children who have limited
attention spans, and to avoid making television a sixth day of
school.
Initially, most children's programing was derivative. We offered
much of what had been successful Saturday movie house fare-
cartoons and short comedy films. Some were good, some were bad.
Many people wanted something better.
As a result of years of development, CBS introduced two new
concepts in 1972-informational programing and prosocial mes-
sages. At the same time, we called on a number of experts to help
us put together these programs: Child behavior specialists, educa-
tors, social scientists. The result was an array of programs that
children found enjoyable and which served a distinctly useful pur-
pose-the communication of factual and prosocial messages.
Rather than take the time of this committee with the details of
what we did and the success of that effort, I would like to make
available to each member of this committee and to submit for the
record a booklet that CBS recently issued. The title really tells it
all. It's called "Learning While They Laugh."
We program for children in other ways than our Saturday morn-
ing schedule.
We present a series of broadcasts each year called "The Festival
of Lively Arts For Young People," in which we have introduced
children to Shakespeare, to poetry, to ballet, and other art forms.
This fall, CBS will launch another series for children. Called
"The Winners," it will be a profile-in-courage series about young
people. Starting in October, "The Winners" will be an after-school
series on the second Thursday of each month.
But it is general entertainment programing that probably con-
sumes more time of more executives than any other aspect of
broadcasting. It is here that reflections of public thinking and
interests are most fully put to bear on what is-and isn't-offered
on television.
We do not operate in a vacuum. Although the ultimate responsi-
bility for what goes on television is the broadcaster's and cannot be
shared with others, much goes into the mix of comment and
thought in program development and scheduling, including:
Our affiliates, who visit, write and telephone on a daily basis,
and meet with us in one national and three regional sessions each
year, and, I can assure you, who are not shy in voicing their
opinions;
The letter-writing public, with some quarter million pieces of
mail each year, praising and protesting;
A wide variety of public interest groups, both national and local,
who are quite vocal in making their specific wishes known;
The ratings, for ratings are to broadcasters as votes are to elect-
ed officials as an indication of success and failure;
What our competitors are doing, for television is certainly one of
the most competitive industries in America today.
And into this decision mix goes more than a program's viability.
We have to take into account not only what the public wants. We
PAGENO="0021"
17
have to consider what some perceive as problems in television-
violence, language, permissiveness, sex.
There are, of course, many parts to the Network Schedule. That
schedule represents a broad spectrum of programs and audience.
On CBS, it ranges from the instructional "Sunrise Semester"
early in the morning to "Captain Kangaroo" to the world's longest
running soap opera, "Guiding Light," that started in radio in 1937
and moved to television in 1952, to "The Waltons" to "Kojak" to
"Mary Tyler Moore." There are also sports programs and movies
and entertainment specials that go into the mix.
In effect, we have to program to meet the interests and needs of
the broadest possible audience.
Of course, we cannot expect to satisfy everyone. Indeed, it would
be foolish to think that any one network or station could have 100
percent of the audience attention at any one time. But there is
enough variety there, on our network and the others, for each of us
to find something that will satisfy our particular interest in enter-
tainment programing.
Those who are dissatisfied complain. While one never gets accus-
tomed to severe criticism, most of us accept it as one of the prices
of success. In fact, dialog with our critics is a daily occurrence for
virtually all broadcasters, and poses no problem. Indeed, construc-
tive, informed criticism could do for television what such criticism
has done for most art forms.
I have no problem with the individual who chooses not to watch
one program or another, for whatever reason, or with the parent
who restricts his child's viewing. And I have no problem with the
preacher who preaches or the teacher who teaches that certain
programs should not be watched for any reason. In fact, I would
encourage more parental guidance about television viewing, just as
the parent has a voice in the selection of the books a child reads,
the clothing a child wears and the friends a child brings home.
There is one final point that I would like to make.
There could be a tendency to look upon broadcasting as some
sort of monolithic institution. That is as incorrect as assuming that
because all the members of this committee are Senators, you think
and act alike. The witnesses on this panel are all broadcasters, but
there the similarlity ends.
We don't think alike, we don't act alike, we don't program alike.
We differ on issues both large and small.
And we are not perfect, but we are satisfying millions of Ameri-
cans every day with diverse programs to fit everyone's needs and
interests.
There is also an occasional tendency on the part of some of our
more vocal critics to feel that we are not doing things right, or that
we are not doing enough.
Ofter these people seem to feel that if they could get their hands
on the network controls they could cure everything from the
common cold to crime in the streets to illiteracy to the corn blight.
Would that it were so easy.
Instead, television entertains and informs-and I believe that we
do it well. Indeed, I am firmly convinced that the American system
of broadcasting is the best in the world in terms of service to the
most diverse and demanding audience anywhere.
PAGENO="0022"
18
Thank you.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
I invite now Mr. Howard and Mr. Erlick to come join you at the
table.
We will proceed to the questions of the subcommittee. We will
not have any particular alternating between majority or minority
or any particular time limit. Perhaps we, as a subcommittee, can
interrupt each other and move from subject to subject perhaps in
an orderly fashion. If we get bogged down then we will have to
split up the time.
What I really want to do is yield after one question, because
Senator Griffin and I are enthused with the attendance today.
Senator Schmitt has been with us. We want these others to get a
chance to ask questions; we want to encourage a continued inter-
est.
Mr. Howard, we have gone through the entire subject. One of
you took care of all the children, and the other went to comedy to
eliminate violence and the other entertained us.
You all work pretty well together.
With respect to the pay TV, I take from Mr. Erlick's statement
that the sky is falling on this magnificent broadcast industry if pay
cable is allowed to expand.
Assuming that is true, Mr. Howard, what would you like?
Would you give an exclusive franchise and monopoly to the
broadcasters bands in this country and decree that there should be
no pay cable TV?
If there should be, how would you as a Senator legislate it?
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, NBC feels that as far as cable
television is concerned as a supplementary service, we feel we are
for that.
Our big concern with pay cable comes particularly for sports
events, where a few systems could outbid the networks and the
Nation could be shut out of these events. I think that is our biggest
concern.
Senator HOLLINGS. You think if we passed a bill regulating the
access to sports events, then the major part of the problem with
the HBO decision would be satisfied?
Mr. HOWARD. I think it would go a long way toward possible
correction. I think it is something we want to call your attention
to. I think it has to be followed and examined and it certainly
seems you are doing that.
Senator HOLLINGS. Do you think so, Mr. Schneider?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Obviously, it is something that has been dis-
cussed and debated a great deal over a long period of time. I will
try to summarize our position as briefly as I can.
In referring to Mr. Erlick's testimony as a data base, he did
indicate it would take a relatively small amount of money to wire
the best areas of the Nation. In that case, cable could, in a relative-
ly small percentage of the Nation, outbid commercial networks
that try to serve the entire Nation. So, domination by the few could
deny access to the many. This is something that legislative bodies
have to address.
PAGENO="0023"
19
Basically, I am opposed to Government interference with the free
marketplace. It would be nice if we could openly compete in the
marketplace for broadcast rights.
However, the cable systems grew up, off our backs. They were
using our broadcasts at no cost to them to wire the percentage of
the country they now have wired. Off that matrix, off that grid of
wires, with connections to all of those homes, then the pay service
started. It was basically an unfair system to begin with.
I am afraid, however, that we are never going to get Humpty-
Dumpty back on the wall, so now we have to deal with the situa-
tion.
Relatively few homes in this country could be in a position to
outbid the many. The most clear and present danger is sports.
Senator HOLLINGS. Suppose you had to legislate it, how would
you do it?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think you can protect those sporting events
which have already been broadcast by commercial networks. This
is not just a network problem. This would be hometown baseball,
hometown basketball, or hockey being offered by a local station. On
a pay basis the local station can be outbid. Those people who can
least afford to pay for cable, for the pay cable for an entertainment
or sports program, who now stay home and see it all free, will be
denied that opportunity on a pay basis.
Senator GRIFFIN. If we were to completely rewrite the act, as has
been suggested in some quarters, certainly one of the questions
that would come up is, whether or not the networks should be
licensed.
It seems to me, in the background of that is the question of how
much independence and control do the affiliates really have, those
who are licensed. Since this is an overview session, where we are
learning the basic successes and fundamentals, I would like to
know more about the recirculationship between the networks and
the affiliate stations, how much advance opportunity do they have
to screen network programs and decide whether or not they want
to run them?
Would you begin, Mr. Howard, and give me some education in
that area?
Mr. HOWARD. As I had stated, Senator, we go down about-send
down the line about 15 to 20 hours a week. Now, we have 22 hours
of prime time programing. The main questions that arise with
some of our affiliates are in the prime time area. Usually they will
get it 3 to 4 days in advance of the air date. Now, their problem is
with the Television Guide, which usually has a TV ad date approxi-
mately 4 weeks in advance of the sceduled on-the-air date.
Sometimes it is 3 weeks. But they would be concerned if they are
going to take off the program and it is going to appear, say, in
television guides. That is just one of the problems that does exist
for them.
I would think though over the year, taking a look at the number
of programs that a station or stations have taken off, they have not
been taken off because of content, but more frequently to supple-
ment in prime time their local public service and, I think the
schedule we announced today again points out that we, at least at
PAGENO="0024"
20
NBC have lived up to our commitment to reduce some of the
programs that they were concerned about.
Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Schneider, isn't it possible to give the affili-
ates more of an opportunity than a couple of days?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Regretfully, Senator, we don't take delivery on
most of our programs until 5 or 6 days ahead of broadcast. We do
prescreen, speaking only now for CBS, every one of the programs
that has a history of causing an affiliate problem. Every "All In
The Family" is prescreened. We have 22 hours of prime time
scheduled and about 10 of those hours can be previewed. Almost
every feature filmed is prescreened for the affiliates. Every "All In
The Family," every Maude," and programs of that nature that deal
with topical issues that might have a theme that bothers some
people, is prescreened. I don't think it is necessary, and I don't
believe it is the feeling of the affiliates that it~ is necessary that
they preview every "Mary Tyler Moore Show," every "Waltons," or
programs like that that have not represented a thematic or lan-
guage problem.
On top of this we can't prescreen a program like "60 Minutes"
because it is put together very shortly before showtime.
Senator GRIFFIN. Is it a fact the "Who's Who" program you
referred to is being canceled?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. No; it had its last broadcast on Tuesday, and it
will be on Sunday night. When we see what the public response to
it is following "60 Minutes"-which we think is the more appropri-
ate lead in-the program may continue. If the public rejects it
following "60 Minutes," then we would have to reexamine whether
it should be on the air. The public decides in that case.
Senator GRIFFIN. As I understand it the profit situation for the
networks is improving.
What about the improvement? What about the news segment? Is
that a profitable part of the business?
Mr. ERLICK. Speaking for ABC, it is not. We lose substantial
amounts of money in the news division on an annual basis and, of
course, in an election year, where there are heavy additional ex-
penditures, for primaries, conventions, and the election itself, that
loss increases sharply.
Senator HOLLINGS. That surprises me.
I understand you have come up in the ratings, in a dramatic
fashion in the last 2 or 3 years. I have been led to believe that
success has been due to the tremendous investment you put in
news and the wide news coverage.
I thought that the news was the moneymaker for ABC and you
say it is the money loser?
Mr. ERLICK. It is not a moneymaking division, as far as the
network is concerned. As I understood Senator Griffin's question,
he said he had understood, in general, that the news divisions of
networks, television networks, are a loss operation and he wanted
to inquire, I think, of each company as to whether or not that was
a fact.
Senator GRIFFIN. I indicated, I generally believe the profit pic-
ture of the networks is looking better. I was wondering about the
news part of it.
PAGENO="0025"
21
Mr. ERLICK. Your assumption about profits in general is quite
correct. It is particularly correct about ABC. We have had a very
substantial increase as a result of the success of particularly the
prime time entertainment schedule.
Nevertheless, what I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in my state-
ment is that the overall Department, of 17 bureaus, well over a
1,000 people, and so forth, when you consider the total expense of
that division, the expense of specials, documentaries and so forth,
as well as the cost of the Monday through Friday evening news
program, weekend coverage, all the other coverage, it is not profit-
able. Significant losses are incurred by us on an annual basis. I
can't speak for the other two.
Senator CANNON. Gentlemen, this is a period when Congress and
the executive branch are concerned with the issue of regulatory
reform. This committee has already gotten involved in one indus-
try, in which it about scared the participants to death, when you
talked about lessening the regulation.
I would like to ask the three of you, do you feel you have too
much or too little Federal regulation and do you think that Con-
gress ought to do something about loosening up the regulatory
aspect?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I will begin. I am antiregulation. I wanted the
record to be perfectly clear. I think that we probably have too
much regulation. Speaking for CBS, we are not in favor of a
complete rewrite of the Communications Act, if that is implicit in
your question.
Senator SCHMITT. Would you say that again.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We are not in favor of a complete rewrite of the
Communications Act. I think we have a first-rate communications
system in this country. I think the communication system of radio
and television, as we know it, certainly renders a better service to
the American public than any foreign service I have either seen or
read about.
And I see no reason to rewrite the Communications Act, top to
bottom.
I think that there could be alteration to it, such as my colleague,
Mr. Erlick, suggesting that section 315 might quite properly be
abandoned.
But for that, you don't need a complete top to bottom rewrite.
You can simply amend the act. The act has been amended many
times since 1934. And I think that our responsibility, both the
stations and the networks, in handling news, makes the fairness
doctrine obsolete.
I think we have paid our dues sufficiently to have full standing
under the first amendment, such as our competing news media
have. So from that point of view, I would say, yes, we are overregu-
lated.
Mr. ERLICK. In general, I agree with that. I would like to add a
couple of postscripts. I think we have to recognize that in an
industry like this, where we are dealing with a scarcity of frequen-
cies, that regulation really as far as licensing is concerned is inher-
ent in the medium. And I don't see any way that Congress or the
Commission or an administration can avoid the fact that you are
dealing with a scarcity of spectrum space in certain areas and
PAGENO="0026"
22
regulation directed toward an equitable solution of that situation
has to continue.
Second, it is very fashionable to be against regulation, and of
course, I feel that way, too. I guess everyone does. I think we also
have to recognize there are certain situations that call for regula-
tion or congressional action, hopefully, which would direct regula-
tion. To come back to pay cable, I think that is a perfect example,
Senator Cannon.
If we were dealing with a normal marketplace situation, we
would not be here making this point.
ABC was born out of a free competitive situation, which Con-
gress helped to foster. That was our birthright. We are not going to
sit here and argue against competition, nor are we going to sit here
and tell you that a fourth network should not exist.
If there is a market for it, and they can make the grade, good
luck to them.
Senator HOLLINGS. Do you think a market should exist for that
gentleman to put down his cable and bid, let's say, on a movie or
event and buy it and deliver it to persons that he has within that
cable area?
Mr. ERLICK. Yes, sir.
This was our position originally and it still is: We are not against
cable television as such. We are not against another competitive
medium, as such, had they been licensed and had they been treated
as broadcasters with responsibilities and obligations, as well as
privileges. And if they had to go into the open market and buy
their programs, as ABC did, in order to compete with NBC and
CBS, we would not be taking that position.
But what has happened is, that Congress has given this industry
an enormous subsidy, as a result of the Copyright Act which was
recently passed; $9 million a year is what the cable industry pays
for the use of over $2 billion worth of broadcast programs.
Now, that is not a marketplace situation.
What that amounts to, as I understand it, is 7 or 8 cents per
home per month. That, of course, is passed on to the subscriber and
the company itself is paying literally a token fee for the use of that
programing.
That cable into the home gives pay cable the right to hitchhike
on its back into the home, into a ready market.
Pay cable, and the cable systems are operated by the same
companies. They use this privilege and this subsidy which Congress
has given them and before the Commission gave it to them, where
they pay nothing at all, in order to get a pay cable entry into the
home. Using that base, that economic base, they would now bid
against us for the very programs which are the economic founda-
tion of our industry.
That is not a fair marketplace situation, as we have understood
it before in American commerce.
That is the thing we feel should require some kind of congres-
sional attention.
Senator HOLLINGS. When you say congressional attention, what
you are saying is, if we licensed them with full-fledged rights and
responsibilities, such as we now require of the broadcaster, then
that would remove the inequity or the unfairness?
PAGENO="0027"
23
That is what you would do if you were a Senator? You would put
in a bill to do that?
Mr. ERLICK. I am not sure you can do that. I am not sure you can
turn back the clock 25 years.
I am not sure that is realistic.
I am not saying this is the answer, but 5. 2283 was introduced in
July of 1973 by Senator Beall. That bill provides, in part, that the
Commission shall regulate pay television in such a manner that (a)
the development and provision of pay television will be consistent
with the establishment and healthy maintenance of free over-the-
air television broadcast service, available to all members of the
public, and (b) pay television program originations will be innova-
tive and supplemental to the program services of television broad-
cast stations and will result in increased local community expres-
sion, and so forth.
That is one approach that might be taken.
Senator HOLLINGS. The legislation says they would be supplemen-
tal?
Mr. ERLICK. That is a policy directive which the Commission
would authorize them to implement.
I think they should be encouraged to do innovative and new
things and not bid against us for the things we have given free to
the public.
Senator CANNON. Mr. Howard?
Mr. HOWARD. I hope, Senator, the Communications Act will be
looked at. We feel it is a good vehicle and it has led to the United
States having the best service in the entire world.
As we were discussing, I hope you will look into the aspects of
315. There are other parts of it that should be looked at. But,
overall, we feel that it is a very good act.
Senator CANNON. In your presentation, and in the specific sug-
gestions for change by Mr. Erlick, nothing was said about the term
of the license.
A few years ago, we had quite a drive on to extend the license
term beyond the 3-year period.
What is the feeling among you gentlemen as to the license
period?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, there will be licensees who will come
before you who will speak to the issue of longer license periods. I
am here to speak for CBS, which owns five television stations and
14 radio stations. While we would like a longer license, we aren't
complaining that we are handicapped by the license that exists.
I think the longer license period would be helpful to the smaller
radio and television stations, where it is an expense, so that the
general manager and his immediate staff are involved very deeply
in the license process paperwork.
Fortunately, our stations, by and large, are large enough, where
we have the staff and we are not as inconvenienced.
I don't want to make a claim on behalf of other broadcasters who
are perfectly capable of making it themselves.
Senator CANNON. The burden for filing an application for renew-
al is a tremendously heavy burden under the regulations now.
PAGENO="0028"
24
Mr. SCHNEIDER. It is even for us, but we consider it such a
privilege to be in the broadcasting business that it is not something
that we think is appropriate to complain about.
Senator CANNON. You take the small one-man radio station, it is
a tremendous burden.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. One application we made, according to my recol-
lection, was about 8 inches high. It is regulation, and we have to
accommodate it.
Mr. HOWARD. It is a particularly heavy burden for the smaller
operator, especially because he determines the community needs on
a daily basis. He is there with the people, and particularly for the
smaller stations, I think, it would be helpful for an extended time.
For the larger stations, as well, as Mr. Schneider said, it is a
very expensive operation to put together.
Senator CANNON. But you find no particular problem with it,
being one of the biggest operators?
Mr. HOWARD. That is correct. We would like to see it.
Mr. ERLICK. We feel the same way, Senator. I think we are in
agreement with that. I am in agreement with you. I think in the
case of some of the smaller stations, particularly radio stations, it
presents a serious administrative problem, but I feel due to various
cases which have taken place since WHDH that this whole ques-
tion of stability and the licensing process has been greatly im-
proved.
I think a good operator today is not really fearful that someone
will come along and outpromise him and get his license at renewal
time, which some people concluded after WHGH. And by the same
token, I think it is fair to say that a poor operator is not going to
be saved by legislation. In our judgment, the presumption of renew-
al which really goes to the credit of a first-class bona fide operator
probably exists already in terms of the present rules. And other
than the administrative problem which you quite properly bring up
with regard to small stations, we do not see a significant overall
problem.
Senator CANNON. We continue to receive complaints about exces-
sive violence or more and more emphasis upon sex in the TV
programing.
Recognizing that we have a censorship problem, the first amend-
ment rights at stake, what recommendations can you gentlemen
make in this area and how do you respond to those people who
insist that the network can't deal with the problem, that that
ought to be a problem for either the Congress or the FCC to deal
with?
Mr. HOWARD. Senator, as I stated earlier, I think the action of
NBC as far as its scheduling, speaks to that. I think that action is
better than words and I think analysis of that will show we have
lived up to the promise we had stated earlier that with our new
season we would have the reduction, it's there, and I think that's
the best answer I can give.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Senator, since 1972, when the whole violence
question was first addressed in public forums, the CBS Television
Network has had a reduction of 35 percent in violent incidents in
its prime-time schedule. And in the season next fall you will not
see coming back such programs as "Nashville 99," "Delvecchio,"
PAGENO="0029"
25
and, "Hunter," and so on, so there has been a net reduction in that
sort of thing at our network as well.
If I may, may I expand on that just a little? I think that we have
had action-adventure shows and we had had violence on television
for a very long time. I think that the thing that brought it most
recently to the forefront of public attention has been an evolution
from a different kind of violence displayed in westerns in the late
sixties, to police shows which largely reflect crime in the streets.
As crime in the streets came to the forefront of everyone's atten-
tion, in public forums and discussions, and indeed on the campaign
trail, the programing on television, the entertainment programing,
was reflecting crime in the streets, as well, so there was a very
delicate sensitivity.
The fact is, violence has been coming down on television for some
years, but the public is perceiving it as being increasing. We have
vastly less violence on than we had when we all had a lot of
westerns on. Then there is another kind of perception. Whenever
we start talking about violence, we have to talk about definitions. I
don't do this to beg the question, but is "Six Million Dollar Man" a
violent program? Is our new program that we will be putting on
next fall, "Daniel Boone," as Daniel, age 25, goes through the
Cumberland Gap to Kentucky with a young companion, if he's
attacked by a bear, is that violence?
Many of these people counting violence today would define that
as a violent program. We don't think it is. We think it will be good,
wholesome adventure. There aren't going to be Indian scalps but
there is going to be jeopardy. Is this violence?
Speaking of programs, if my colleagues will permit, is "Six Mil-
lion Dollar Man" a violent program? Is "Bionic Woman"? Is
"Wonder Woman"? "Roots" had violence on it. "Jesus of Nazareth"
had violence. So as people talk about violence they talk about
various things. I think that what made the public so terribly vocal
about violence were the police shows reflecting street violence.
It's been a self-correcting influence. There were too many and
the public responded to it. I referred to three coming off and--
Senator HOLLINGS. You haven't decided between "Roots" and
"Daniel Boone." Whatever you decide, perhaps on a cumulative
basis, you could determine the volume of violent shows. Someone
was telling me that a high school graduate has seen 15,000 mur-
ders by the time he gets out of high school.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I never said anything like that.
Senator HOLLINGS. Maybe you call it hard action instead of vio-
lence. On a cumulative basis, it mounts, and it does have an
impression. Don't you think there is some responsibility on the
part of the networks. Granted you will have to be Solomon to
decide what is without violence, but you certainly can take it all
and add it up and say when there is too much.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think it is a network responsibility. I think we
do accept that and I think we are willing to be accountable for
what is on the air.
Mr. HOWARD. Senator, I think that's true. We have an awful lot
of input from all over the country. We have 212 affiliates, we are
constantly talking to them. We get a tremendous amount of com-
munications with the public. But decisions have to be made, just as
PAGENO="0030"
26
you have stated, based on what you believe, and what the other
people that I work with believe in. If we were to look at-we had
231,000 pieces of communication with the public last year. Of that,
if I remember the figure correctly, about 777 letters had to do with
violence.
Now, that's less than three-tenths of 1 percent but we are not
acting off of that. Our schedule was based on a commitment that
we had made last year, and that we have lived up to and will
continue to do it, because we believe in it. I think that's our intent.
Mr. ERLICK. Mr. Chairman, may I just add from ABC's stand-
point, two or three thoughts. First of all, I really think it's impor-
tant for this committee, and I am sure it will, to look at the efforts
of the three networks from an overall perspective, and not simply
at two or three shows which happen to have drawn a lot of criti-
cism.
In ABC's case, and while I'm referring to last year's schedule
now, the number will be reduced next year. As indicated in my
statement, all six new programs will be comedic form. However,
detective action programs in the 1976-77 season, represented only
10.8 percent of the entire schedule.
Now, I grant you that in some cases there may have been ques-
tionable judgments. We are not perfect. We try to do our best. We
have 70 or 80 people in the program standards area reviewing
these every day. But 10 percent in an overall program perspective
is not really out of bounds, I would think, or unreasonable. If you
look at the 30 most popular series on the air from September to
April of 1977, you find only 3 detective actions shows in the top 30.
"Baretta," "Hawaii 5-0," and "Starsky and Hutch." It is not as if
the network is solely devoting itself to this programing because of
the ratings. Actually, the top five shows are comedies.
Finally, I would say that there is, as Jack points out, a defini-
tional problem here. The Johnson committee, which made the
survey on which a lot of these criticisms are based, defines violence
as an overt expression of physical force, with or without a weapon,
against oneself or other which may be an intentional or accidental
action, humorous or serious or a combination of both.
Now, in other words, a pie in the face in a certain situation or
that type of event, under this definition, is an act of violence. We
think we ought to get together with some of the public interest
groups or definitions and I think if we could clarify the definition,
some of the facts might tend to get sorted out and be put in a
better perspective.
Senator CANNON. From what each of you have said, while you
didn't answer my question directly, I take it you feel there is no
action required by the Congress or by the FCC in this area, that
the matter is being properly handled by the networks.
Mr. ERLICK. We certainly do.
Mr. HOWARD. For self-regulation, I think that would be the as-
sumption.
Senator FORD. Starting with Mr. Howard and working to his
right, how much effect has the criticism of violence on TV had, not
on the networks themselves but on your advertisers? There have
been direct turnoffs of TV; religious organizations and churches are
saying we are going to turn TV off for 30 days, they have gone
PAGENO="0031"
27
directly to your advertisers and complained. Has that affected your
programing?
Mr. HOWARD. There have been programs that certain advertisers
will drop out of. That doesn't mean all police stories are wrong,
either. We have a program, "Police Story" that I think is one of
the finest on television. That portrays the police officer's problems,
why are so many of them alcoholics and all the other problems. It's
a dramatic form and it does it well. There are others we feel, as
well as advertisers that we should eliminate from our network
schedule and have done so.
There has been an effect in working with advertisers, certain
advertisers will drop out of a program, sometimes I don't think it's
right, I think they will drop out of a program for the wrong
purpose and it will prevent us from putting on sometimes or possi-
bly could prevent us from putting on programs of a controversial
nature that could be helpful to the American public.
We have a program on by "NBC News" on incest, which is a
very serious problem, and 50 percent of the advertisers dropped out
of it because of the nature of the program which was on at 11:30 at
night. Now, this is a problem to the American people, and it should
be put on the air. We have put it on the air, but advertisers
dropped out. It does not mean that they don't have the right to be
able to do that. I believe they do. And they take advantage of that
right.
But there are other programs, where I feel it does help to discuss
and reveal a problem, and sometimes it's done in a dramatic form,
where advertisers will drop out, but they have a perfect right to
and have been doing it.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Advertisers on occasion will ask for relief-it's
our euphemism for dropping out-if it's a program they don't want
to be associated with. That program can be something like "Helter-
Skelter" broadcast by CBS. Based on the title they thought it was
going to be violent, though it didn't contain a violent act.
It was really the detective story surrounding the murders.
They also drop out of programs because they think they are
going to be too violent and don't want to be associated with them.
There are pressure groups who are directly in touch with adver-
tisers and to say they are not mischievous would be incorrect.
Mr. ERLICK. We have had the same experience, Senator Ford,
with both advertisers and serious public interest groups that have
attempted to organize a boycott of a particular sponsor or show or
series.
We try to handle these things fairly and in good faith. On the
other hand, we are concerned about two aspects of it. One is that it
becomes a highly orchestrated thing, originating from widespread
public interest groups. Undoubtedly they have very sincere mo-
tives. I'm not deprecating anyone's motive. If a massive action is
encouraged one way or another, then we are talking about some
sort of a prior restraint, in terms of our own decisional process.
That, I think, could be a dangerous problem down the line. I
don't think it has reached that point yet, but I think it could.
Second, when you attempt to organize an economic boycott, ac-
tively, and without any punches pulled, there is some question as
to whether or not that action is proper or legal.
PAGENO="0032"
28
We have these concerns, but so far, despite the fact that there
are problems, I think like Jack and Bob we are attempting to meet
the thing as reasonable businessmen.
Senator FORD. I think most of you have covered the scheduling
for the new season as it relates to the violence.
You brought that out in your testimony, so I won't dwell on that.
I understand that Dr. George Gerbner of the Annenberg School of
Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, has issued vio-
lence studies every year for the past several years.
Is his analysis of violence on TV-do you accept it as to which
programs are really violent or not?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Let me attempt to answer. Dr. Gerbner reports
from the Annenberg School of Communications, and he's done a
violence profile. We have to understand what the profile is. The
profile is Dr. Gerbner's invention and depends on who-what the
economic and racial status of the offendee and offender are. He
also only measures 1 week a year.
Now, we have all seen in this year's television schedule any
given week is certainly atypical. At CBS we have been conducting
parallel studies to Dr. Gerbner's and years ago we decided 1 week
was not a fair experience. So we extended it to 13 weeks and we
publish our findings every year.
I have sent to the chairman a copy of our rebuttal of Dr.
Gerbner's findings and I would be pleased to put in the record the
CBS analysis of Dr. Gerbner's findings, as well as the CBS violence
count for the broadcast year 1976-77. And, therefore, I think your
staff and each of you can receive that and make your judgments.
We have definitional problems, we have definitional disagree-
ments with Dr. Gerbner. I must make it clear that what Dr.
Gerbner is calling his violence index, is not a violence count, al-
though it has been convenient for our critics to pick it up and say
it is a count or absolute measurement. It is weighted in many
unusual and nonprojectable ways, whether it is men or women or
minorities or children or comedic, and it is very convoluted, and we
disagree with it completely.
Senator FORD. Any of you other gentlemen disagree with that?
Mr. ERLICK. I share Mr. Schneiders' opinion on it.
Mr. HOWARD. I think that was a good summation.
Senator FORD. I think each of you referred to screening of the
programs, and you can give your affiliates some time in advance,
maybe not as long as some think they should have and others long
enough. It is my understanding we will have them to testify short-
ly, that Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. would like to have network
programing available to them for review at least 4 weeks prior to
the time it is shown on the air.
What does each of your networks do to prescreen programs and
would it be in your best interest, or can you do at least 4 weeks
before airtime?
Mr. HOWARD. Senator, we have a major production problem of
getting a product to send down, as we call it, down the line or to
have it previewed 4 weeks in advance.
Currently, it is NBC's practice to preview 15 to 20 hours per
week of programing, up and coming programing, usually the week
preceding will show what is coming up the following week.
PAGENO="0033"
29
Sometimes it is only 3 or 4 days in advance of on-the-air.
The production community, because of the changes that we have
today, particularly with the NBC event-type scheduling, where
there is not 1 week that is made up entirely of series that are on a
continuing basis, each week there is something new coming on.
From a producing point, we just can't get the delivery to do it 4
weeks in advance.
As I said a little earlier, one of the problems is Television Guide,
which demands for advertising in its publication submission 3 to 4
weeks in advance, and if you were working at a station, I can
certainly understand a problem that you said, well, I don't want to
take that particular program, all of a sudden there might be an ad.
That is only in the major markets.
It would not occur in the smaller markets, or it would be on-the-
air promotion that they would be concerned about, but as I say,
there are very few of those programs.
The usual preemptions we are really talking about are due to
insertion of public affairs programs or other types of entertainment
programing that is beneficial to the local station, that they want to
put in for increased revenue purposes.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We preview at CBS about 10 hours a week. We
have been just a little remiss in previewing our feature films,
because we do have those in advance.
So, with feature films, we have not been providing previewing as
early as we might. We will correct that in the fall. But for other
programing, it is a very real problem, because we don't take deliv-
ery on it. A man sits down at the typewriter with a piece of paper
and starts to write the show, and he puts it off as long as he can,
and he keeps improving it, and chances are it doesn't improve, but
he thinks he is improving it, and that is his perception of reality,
so he submits his script at the last possible moment. Then the
actors work on it until the last possible moment, and the editors,
and so on. They know if they get it to us 3 or 4 days before air
date, it will make the air.
While we have contractual commitments to get the material 12
to 14 days before air, it is rarely there on time.
We can go back to the fellow and say, "Hey, we want it 2 weeks
ahead of time like our contract calls for," or we can go and change
our contract and ask for 28 days--
Senator FORD. Do you have a default paragraph?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. You want to have the best possible people work-
ing for you, and you try to accommodate them. And the joke in the
business is, "Do you want it funny, or do you want it Tuesday?" So
we say we want it funny. OK. You get it Friday, because he wants
to work on it for 3 more days. In an effort to get the best program-
ing on the air, we are engaged in a very inexact science. We just
don't get programs until the last possible moment~ We are not in a
mechanical business, where it must be there in 28 days or it
doesn't go on the air. You have never turned on your television at
8 o'clock at night and found a blank screen because something
didn't come in on time.
There is something on the air. So we have a great writer or great
producer or a fine actor who says, "I can't make the 28-day dead-
line or the 14-day deadline." What are you going to do? You are
20-122 0 - 78 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
going to give him a couple of more days. That is how, over time, we
have gotten it down to the last possible moment.
Now, do we have to prescreen "The Waltons" every week? I don't
think so. Do we have to prescreen "Mary Tyler Moore" 28 days
ahead of time? I don't think so.
Every affiliate prescreens the opening one or two episodes of
everything that is on the air in the fall, then we presume that the
series is going to follow that pattern, and by and large they do.
When they don't follow that pattern we tell the affiliate. We
warn early and prescreen the episodes.
Mr. ERLICK. About the creative process, all of our contracts nor-
mally require delivery from 14 to 30 days or more ahead of time of
a program or series but we are not stamping out bolts and nuts
here. The creative community is going to have its problems, just as
Mr. Schneider described, so that to be realistic I think there will
always be a number of shows each week which will not be in our
hands more than, let's say, 2 or 3 days prior to broadcast.
ABC's policy up until about 6 weeks ago was to prescreen ap-
proximately 15 hours a week of its prime time schedule. Currently,
we are following a policy of rescreening all prime time first-run
entertainment. That necessarily means some of that programing
does not go down the line until 2 or 3 days before broadcast for the
reasons Mr. Schneider described, but presently we are prescreening
all prime time entertainment, news specials, and documentaries.
Senator FORD. I am concerned about the whole communications
law, and I think we ought to be very slow in taking off on that. We
hear a lot about the mail system, the U.S. Mail, but one of the
theories is we have allowed private enterprise to come in and take
the cream off of that and we have been left with rural free deliv-
ery. We have the Bell Telephone built up, and worrying about
others moving in, taking the cream off their crop and raising the
rates to residential users.
Now we hear today that pay cable has piggybacked the commu-
nications system into our homes and that is going to cause a
considerable problem where they might eventually be able to usurp
the bids for particular sports events and that sort of thing, so I do
think that what decision we make here will reflect a broad spec-
trum as it relates to the free enterprise system and the ability of
so-called idea people out there.
You might suggest in your contract if they want to be funny, be
on time.
Senator RIEGLE. First I want to say I appreciate your appear-
ances today, your statements and your responses to questions we
pose. I would like to start by making one comment on the violence
issue, then I want to raise two questions, one on profitability and
one on pay TV.
I for one am pleased to learn that the trend lines show you are
moving away from more violence portrayals of situations on televi-
sion. It just would be my thought, and I gather probably as many
people have opinions as there are people on the subject, that even
one, special vivid impression, say, of a violent murder on television
is likely to have a profound impact on somebody. I mean I don't
think you have to keep drumming this in until you have finally
hardened somebody to the point where they are immune-violence
PAGENO="0035"
31
is part of the ethic or standard practice in society. I think that
even a limited amount of that programing, if it is done in an
excessive fashion, can be harmful and I worry about it. I would be
among the last to interfere with programing content and I think to
scale down the amount is one thing, but I think also there is the
residual question of what it is that is still there, and how it is done.
The power of television is so great to be able to create an enact-
ment in front of somebody's eyes of a particularly violent crime has
got to have a profound impact on somebody. It is not the same as
seeing it in person but it is the next closest thing to it.
I think there is an enormous amount of responsibility that goes
with the kind of power which you have, the power to take and jolt
people and give people those first-hand experiences. I think it is
possible over time to create an atmosphere where people begin to
think of these things in a matter of fact way, as a part of life, and I
think people, some people particularly can become hardened to
that and sort of accept that as part of the prevailing ethic. I am
concerned about it, so while the number of murders or number of
muggings or rapes or whatever may be going down, I still think the
way that subject is handled, even if it is handled once, still has
relevance in terms of a possibly adverse effect on people. I just
raise that point in passing.
In the area of profitability, I would like to ask what the networks
are making today. I assume each network is a separate profit
center. If not, please tell me so, but what, for example, would be
the prospective level of net income of each of you over the last
reporting period.
Mr. ERLICK. May I say this to that question? Customarily net-
works have not individually publicly disclosed their profitability.
The figures are submitted to the FCC and the FCC issues a com-
bined profitability report, which is public information, but normal-
ly we have not given that type of information individually. I am
sure we would be glad to furnish it to you privately.
Senator RIEGLE. Why is that? What is the reluctance to make it
public?
Mr. ERLICK. It is simply not a breakdown which has been given
in the past for competitive reasons.
Senator RIEGLE. So your argument would be you would be ad-
versely affected if either of these two fellows knew what the net
income was of your network in a given year. I fail to understand
why that is so. Can you indicate to me why that is so?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We are different companies, organized in differ-
ent ways, we allocate our costs differently. It clearly may not be a
comparable figure.
Senator RIEGLE. I take it that is because you are a part of a
larger corporate entity. That is, each network is owned by a compa-
ny bigger than the network and the way it is allocated and the
various other things make it difficult. I think there may be some
value in knowing publicly what the levels of profitability are. Can
you give me any running average for a running year, or is that all
just secret information?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We make other disclosures, regulatory disclo-
sures. I believe they involve SEC regulations, that I simply couldn't
disclose at this time.
PAGENO="0036"
32
Senator RIEGLE. Do you make a lot of money or a modest amount
of money? Are you making a profit?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. The CBS Television Network is a profitable en-
terprise.
Senator RIEGLE. Let me ask you this question. How many people
would any of the three of you employ at salary levels, say, above
$60,000 a year? What would be the size of the number of people on
the payroll, roughly; perhaps you don't know it off the top of your
head but, say, earning above $60,000 a year in the network? Would
it be $25,000, $50,000, $200,000, $500,000, what would be the figure?
Mr. HOWARD. I wouldn't even attempt to guess at that, Senator,
but I do know that some of our cameramen have made over $60,000
a year.
Senator RIEGLE. One of the three of you ought to be able to make
some kind of educated estimate.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Our difficulty is the television network, in any
case, you add news to that----
Senator RIEGLE. The whole thing; everything that falls under the
network as a profit center.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Our news division is not in the network. We are
not organized like that.
Senator RIEGLE. Your news department is outside the network.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes.
Senator RIEGLE. What umbrella does that fall under?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Under the broadcast group.
Senator RIEGLE. What does that fall under in a bigger company?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Following down the ladder, we have four groups.
In the broadcast group there are four divisions: CBS News, CBS
Television Network, the owned-television stations, and CBS Radio.
Senator RIEGLE. Let me stop right there for a moment. It seems
to me, from the way you described it, the television news could be
recombined with broadcast, and wouldn't those two pieces make up
the whole of telecasting in the network, or not?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Part of CBS News is the news service for----
Senator RIEGLE. Can't your accountants break that out for you?
Every corporation in the United States has shared costs within
different parts of their organization and that is why they have cost
accountants to make those assignments.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am saying we do not now break it out and
analyze it that way. -
Senator RIEGLE. Here is my concern. Some would say you are not
doing that because you don't want anybody to really know what
the profitability is. I think your case might be stronger, especially
because you worry about pay-TV, which I want to get into in a
second, if you were able to be more forthcoming about what you
actually earn, what your expense picture looks like. If there is an
awful lot of fat on your bones, that you don't want people to know
about and therefore you hide behind the cloak of secrecy, I think
you have one kind of a problem. If on the other hand, this is not an
excessively profitable business and there are a lot of tough years
along the way, the full story will bear that out, then you have a
stronger case to argue. I leave it to you to decide which way you
want to play it, but I think you would strengthen your case by
being much more forthcoming about the profits.
PAGENO="0037"
33
Mr. ERLICK. I understand your point, and we would be happy
privately, as I said, to give you any information we have at our
disposal. Second, there was a time in the history of this industry,
when ABC was considering merging with a larger corporation be-
cause of its economic needs, and these figures were public between
the years of 1961 and 1971. The ABC television network lost a total
of approximately $115 million. During that period, had we not had
the privilege of owning stations, which furnished the economic
basis for real investment spending and building in the various
areas, I don't think ABC would be sitting here today in front of you
as a fully competitive national network.
Senator RIEGLE. You are in a new situation. You are now making
money.
Mr. ERLICK. Absolutely true.
Senator RIEGLE. One other question. I don't want to take more
time than the others. With respect to the issue of pay television,
one of the questions in my mind which I would like to think about
with you conceptually for a minute, is whether free television is
really free. I was looking in one of your presentations at the list of
advertisers, I guess in one case, there were about 450 advertisers,
that basically do the bulk of the advertising and I assume that is
where the great bulk of revenue comes from.
I assume they are advertising because they have found this is a
very good way to do it. If they didn't, you wouldn't be advertising-
I know from prime time last fall in our election even 15-or 20-
second segments aren't cheap. In any event, I assume they are
buying that time because it is a good economic decision for them
and because they are in turn making money on that investment. It
is an investment, that is a profitmaker to them. So in effect, what
happens to the viewer out there who tunes in and gets this shot of
messages, not only getting programing content but this constant
wash of advertising, is that he goes out and buys these products
and ends up, in effect, paying for the advertising and the program-
ing.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Not necessarily~
Senator RIEGLE. That may be where we have a disagreement but
in effect somebody is paying for the advertising.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Not necessarily.
Senator RIEGLE. We will get to that, because I would like to know
how the advertising is paid for. My own experience on the corpo-
rate side, especially with companies that are merchandising prod-
ucts is that advertising expenditures are cost of sales and if you are
going to be in a profitable business you have to, in the price of your
products, ~build in those costs and recoup those costs in order to
stay in business. It would be my strong feeling that every major
advertiser on television of any consequence, I am talking about
people selling things to consumers, would be recouping their cost in
their selling price, the cost of their advertising.
In any event, to the extent that is true, you may want to argue
that is not true all the time, maybe that is right, I would argue it
is true~ most of the time, but the thing that concerns me is that
people in effect are paying for the television they get. They are
paying for it in the price of the product they are buying, that they
are having advertised. We won't get into the merits of the prod-
PAGENO="0038"
34
ucts. I think sometimes the products with the least merit do the
most advertising because that is a way to move the product. I don't
want to get down that side road right now.
What I am saying is, if that line of reasoning holds true, then in
effect free television isn't free. The viewers are paying for it in a
disguised form. The reason I raise the issue is, if one had the
chance, say on a network, forget cable for a moment, to buy televi-
sion access without the advertising, without having the movies
interrupted and getting a lot of the other things that I think is a
lot of the advertising base anyway, it is a personal comment, that
is the way I feel about it, somebody might be willing to pay for
clean television without all the unwanted messages, if you will, and
actually come out ahead. Instead of getting a bombardment of
advertising all the time and ending up paying for it in terms of
inflated product prices for things they end up buying.
Now, I would appreciate any of the three of you sort of respond-
ing to that set of thoughts.
Mr. ERLICK. I will start first. On your first point, Senator, the
cost of advertising, there is an equally strong school of thought
which says that due to the increased demand which advertising
generates, the products are produced at a much lower cost and are
available to the consumer at a much lower ultimate cost than they
would be without such advertising. Robert Nathan & Associates
have quite a study which I will be happy to submit to you if you
are interested.
The cost of advertising conceivably could range between 1 and 2
percent, in some very large companies, maybe up to 5 percent or
more for others. The theory of Mr. Nathan's treatise, which he has
testified to, is that the cost of the product has been reduced signifi-
cantly more than that amount, therefore the public is benefitting
from a product which it is buying ultimately cheaper.
Laying that to one side, as far as pay is concerned, and the kind
of a choice you are suggesting, we don't have any problem with
that choice at all. We have no problem with the fact that if an
individual wants to pay $1 or $2 or whatever to see an event
without commercial interruption, he should be able to do it. We
don't have any problem with that. What we are talking about is
the use of what, in effect, is a mammoth governmental subsidy by
the cable companies and the pay-cable companies to enter the
American home, and then to take `our product and resell it at a
profit. That is where, you know, we part company.
Senator RIEGLE. I understand your argument in that area. I don't
have any trouble understanding that point but I wonder if the
other gentlemen will respond to that.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I have nothing to add to Mr. Erlick's statement.
I agree with the economic principle, that the volume brings that
product to the consumer at a cheaper per unit price so the adver-
tising on television becomes self-liquidating.
Senator RIEGLE. That is amazing. You believe that in the case of
every product? Is that true for automobiles?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Particularly automobiles. When the volume goes
down the unit cost soars.
Mr. HOWARD. I think there are cases available you can see. It is
realistic. It is there.
PAGENO="0039"
35
Senator RIEGLE. I am interested in seeing Nathan's argument
but I would be surprised if that is true across all products.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. That is the goal. Some people advertise so badly
and have such a bad product it doesn't work out that way.
Mr. HOWARD. The intent is there.
Senator RIEGLE. If you follow that all the way to the end, if
somebody had a fairly decent product, they could buy so much
television time and sell so many units and drive down the cost so
much, finally they could just end up giving it away.
Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Howard, with respect to the responsibil-
ity, which you assume for programing, all three networks have
testified on awareness on the violence question, and with respect to
children's programing, the testimony was to the effect that almost
all the trouble lay in permissive parents. Do you accept any respon-
sibility for the advertising on the programs?
Mr. HOWARD. Yes. We have a standards department that works
very closely and checks out every piece of commercial that comes
in, for advertising, whether it be in children's programing or in
any other part of the schedule. We are particularly aware of the
children's commercials. We worked very closely with outside
groups and we are very selective in the type of programs that we
have. I think we have a balanced schedule, not only on Saturday
morning, but in prime time such as the Disney program.
We also have after-school specials that have been very effective.
In recent years there has been a reduction in the commercials in
children's programing and we are constantly analyzing it.
Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Schneider, you were testifying that the
parent had just as much control on what the child reads and what
he wears.
As a parent I have had a difficult time on what they read and
what they put on. It is a struggle.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Up until the age of 10 perhaps.
Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Riegle wins out, I think they look
better with longer hair. A child will see 21,000 ads in 1 year, and
less than 2 percent relate to anything really nutritious.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I don't know how they can be prevented from
seeing the advertisements. On the school bus, as he goes down the
road, he sees advertisements.
We have 84 people that go over the content of everything this is
broadcast on our television network.
Senator HOLLINGS. You make sure everything nutritious is
screened out? Only 2 percent coming in, the facts show.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I don't understand.
Senator HOLLINGS. Two percent of the advertising on children's
programing, are for regular nutritious foods, dairy products or
otherwise, most of it is for other products.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am sorry. I am simply not familiar with the
statistics you are referring to.
Senator HOLLINGS. What volume do you think on advertising-
does the competition keep that fairly much in line, or you have
increased the advertising I noticed for the past several years?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Over the past few years we have reduced the
amount of commercials in children's programing. The NAB Code
reduced what we call nonprogram matter, that includes promotion-
PAGENO="0040"
36
al announcements, advertisements and the like. Several years ago
the television advertising code permitted 16 minutes of nonpro-
gram material in 1 hour on Saturday morning. That has been
reduced to 9½ minutes. We did it in steps over the past few years,
so there is a different standard in children's programing from
other programing as to the amount of nonprogram material per-
mitted; I think it has been a positive step the industry has taken in
self-regulation.
Senator HOLLINGS. What is the industry doing for deaf viewers?
There are about 13 million deaf citizens, of which 1,700,000 are
totally deaf. I was watching last night, and it just struck me that
the deaf are really shut out. Now public broadcasting is going to
captioning.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We are trying to find ways to do it. Public
broadcasting has disagreed with my company's position. They think
it is simpler. The technology is not, in our opinion, sufficiently
sophisticated to do the job properly.
Senator. HOLLINGS. Is technology holding you back or the cost?
Mr. ERLICK. Let me add this to what Jack said. I think there is a
basic misunderstanding about the problem and the scientific, tech-
nical aspects of it. We all received, I guess, a letter from the
President on this subject and he inquired as to how we could help,
and what we would suggest. I think each of us replied. ABC replied
somewhat along these lines: that we do not regard this as purely a
network problem. This is a national problem. This is a problem of
national health, as you point out, of millions of citizens so we have
suggested that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
convene a summit meeting if you will, of all the interested parties.
That would include equipment manufacturers, it would include
networks, include broadcasters, include production companies, it
would include the unions involved, whose rules and regulations
may present some inhibitions here. I think if everyone took chips
in this problem and everyone endeavored to meet the problem,
including the Government of the United States, because I think
part of it is a governmental problem related to health, that we
probably could find a solution. But I don't think it is fair to look at
the three networks here and say, in fact, what are you doing about
this problem, because it is not exclusively our problem.
Senator HOLLINGS. But public broadcasting is moving on it.
Mr. ERLICK. Yes, sir.
Senator HOLLINGS. They are not waiting for a summit meeting.
Mr. ERLICK. We have, too, Senator.
Senator HOLLINGS. You don't look upon it as an opportunity for
the relative costs? What cost studies have you made, Mr.
Schneider, that found it was too expensive?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We took an episode of "The Waltons" and went
through the entire captioning process and we found it cost us about
four times what public broadcasting said it cost them to do it.
Now, that was our experience and we~ tried to do it the best way
we knew how. And--
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an enormous cost
factor here for both, with different systems that could be used,
there we are investigating and looking into, but there is also the
cost there for the deaf consumer and that is the reason, I think,
PAGENO="0041"
37
Mr. Erlick is referring to getting a summit group together, to work
out all the problems.
There are a lot of problems and we are aware of that.
Mr. ERLICK. Including hardware.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Each television set would have to have a black
box converter that would cost $150 at the minimum.
Senator HOLLINGS. Well, for the deaf recipient?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, sir.
Senator HOLLINGS. All right. We have some other questions.
Senator GRIFFIN. Let me preface this by saying I don't think
there is anything wrong with making a profit. I think that is the
name of the game when you are in business, but in view of the fact
the question has been raised about profitability, we ought to put
into the record the FCC information, which doesn't take up very
much space.
Advertising sales from network operations were $2.7 billion for
1976, up 23.9 percent. Pretax profits from network operations for
the three networks for 1976, according to this, were $295.6 million,
up 41.8 percent from 1975.
According to the FCC, net broadcast revenues of the television
networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and their 15 owned and operated televi-
sion stations, were 2.6 million for 1976, up 25.8 percent from 1975.
Profits before Federal taxes were 445 million, up 44.5 percent from
1975.
If any legislator thinks we are dealing with an industry that is
on the ropes that wouldn't be quite the case. I have another ques-
tion or two.
Mr. Howard, in your presentation you pointed out the fact that a
very large percentage of the American people rely on television
news, and that a large percentage rely on television coverage for
their familiarity with political candidates and issues, which be-
comes very important, not only during campaign time but between
campaigns.
Mr. Schneider, what is your policy at CBS as far as covering the
loyal opposition during the periods between campaigns? For exam-
ple, during the period now when we have a Carter administration,
just what do you think the responsibility of the network is to see
that the party out of power has some fairness and equity?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. We think we have some responsibility. I think
sound and proper and fair coverage of current events means that
in our regularly scheduled news broadcasts, voices of opposition of
Presidential policy are sought out, and frequently we are successful
in getting a spectrum of spokesmen to speak out in opposition to a
Presidential initiative.
The most recent example of that, in the weeks President Carter
was introducing the energy program to the--
Senator GRIFFIN. He was on national television three times that
week.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. He had his press conference, he addressed the
joint session, and his message. CBS broadcast 1 hour of that week
of voices in opposition from 8 to 9 on Friday night. All of those
people speaking against the President's energy initiative were not
necessarily Republicians, but they were people in opposition.
PAGENO="0042"
38
I think it's unfortunate in this country that we don't have every-
thing broken down into Democrats and Republicans, and we have
liberals from the East and the people from the South and people
from Texas and other areas.
Senator GRIFFIN. Is it a consistent policy compared with the
treatment accorded to the Democrats during the period when, say,
President Ford was in office?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I believe, it's consistent, although I must tell
you, Senator Griffin, that the decision is ours. It's a news decision.
The judgement is made in our news department and I don't know
of a better way to do it than that.
We did have Democratic voices in opposition when the Republi-
cans had the presidency. They were not limited to Democratic
voices in opposition. They were simply voices in opposition.
We don't have the cabinet system as they have in England, and
we can't particularly have it as well organized. We have to deal
with the way our government and the voices in opposition to our
Government are organized in this country.
That is the best way to do it. I think if we look at votes in
Congress, there are times when Democrats and Republicans cross
the line. There may be Republicans supporting the Presidential
initiative and Democrats not supporting it.
That is why we can't limit it to party line. It's ideological, geo-
graphical. It's economic. It's from all over the place. I think that is
what makes our process work so very well.
Senator GRIFFIN. You have a serious and grave responsibility
resting on your shoulders as you make those decisions.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I think every time we make news judgments on
a national level we have a great responsibility. I am not begging,
but I hope you think we do it well. If you don't, we are subject to
your criticism and the criticism of everyone out there. We don't
operate under a bushel basket. Everybody sees what we do. We are
subject to everybody's criticism.
Senator GRIFFIN. I must confess, I haven't been watching CBS all
the time, so I am not really sure that I know enough about the
record to pass judgment. But I would like, in view of the fairness
doctrine and the responsibilities that we have, to be aware at least
of what the networks are doing. I would like to ask you, Mr.
Schneider, if you would provide the committee with a record going
back through the beginning of the Ford administration. I would
like to know the extent to which President Ford appeared on
television, fireside chats, and otherwise, which are certainly avail-
able to you.
Then I would like to know when and if and to what extent CBS
provided television coverage for the opposition party spokesmen.
And I would like to have you carry that record right up through
the Carter administration today.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Certainly.
Senator GRIFFIN. Including those who appeared as guests on your
"Face the Nation" program, et cetera. You can do that?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes.
Senator HOLLINGS. Can the three of you expand on that a little?
Not just CBS. And all of you go on back to Mr. Nixon. Would you
make a particular comparison on President Nixon and his hours
PAGENO="0043"
39
explaining executive privilege vis-a-vis Mr. Carter explaining the
energy crisis?
If I can get Mr. Carter as much time explaining the energy crisis
and energy needs of this country as Mr. Nixon spent explaining
executive privilege, I would like that comparison.
Senator GRIFFIN. As amended by the chairman's request, we will
go back to the beginning of the Nixon administration.
Senator H0LLING5. Yes. That is what I seem to remember most.
Mr. ERLICK. We will be happy to supply it. In general, our policy
is very much the same as CBS. We attempt to achieve fairness and
balance, Senator Griffin, and we use our best judgment for that
purpose.
We likewise gave the Republican Party or its spokesmen an
opportunity to respond to the energy message in prime time.
Senator GRIFFIN. I noticed that, Mr. Erlick, but I noticed CBS
refused that opportunity to the Republicans.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. That is not true. We had a broadcast that Friday
night, 8 to 9 o'clock.
Senator GRIFFIN. Was that the one Ralph Nader appeared on?
That was the Republican hour?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. No. I didn't say it was the Republican hour. I
said it was voices in opposition.
Mr. HOWARD. We will be happy to supply the chairman the
information.
Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you very much
Senator HOLLINGS. I thank the panel very, very much. It's been
very helpful this morning. We appreciate it.
Our next witness is Donald McGannon--
Senator RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, before they leave, is it appropri-
ate to give them some questions to respond to?
Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. The record will be open for questions.
Thank you very much.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record:]
THE FREENESS OF FREE TELEVISION
(By Robert A. Nathan, Associates)
Mass advertising of the kind exemplified by commercial broadcast television plays
an essential role in the mass-production-mass-distribution economy of the United
States. It is clear that the economics of mass production and the rising productivity
characteristic of the American economy depend in significant part on advertising to
channel demand toward standardized, identifiable products which lend themselves
to the economics of large scale output and distribution. The question of the "free-
ness" of commercial television to the viewer depends, in turn, on whether television
makes this process more or less efficient, considering the costs and benefits not only
of advertising but of selling and other functions of the distribution process.
Conventional broadcast television is, of course, free to the viewer at the point of
viewing, in the sense that any quantity of viewing is available at no cost other than
the cost of operating the receiver. What, then, of the transactions that support the
free viewing-the large outlays for program production and transmission and the
offsetting revenues received by broadcasters from the sale of commercial announce-
ments? Although in the aggregate, and at any point in time, advertising outlays are
part of the structure of costs that have to be met from the prices of goods and
services, they represent a very small and stable fraction of consumers' outlays; and
there is no basis for concluding that consumers' prices would be lower in the
absence of television advertising. Indeed, the opposite may be the case.
Total outlays for advertising over the 20 years since television broadcasting
became a significant factor have ranged between 3 and 31/2 percent of personal
PAGENO="0044"
40
consumption expenditures (table A). The percentage is not now significantly differ-
ent from what it was in 1950 (or in 1940, before television). Thus, it does not appear
that television has added appreciably to consumers' costs per dollar of personal
consumption. Indeed, since this comparison takes no account of the greater efficien-
cy of television as an advertising and selling medium, the advent of television
advertising may have lowered the total costs of distribution per dollar of sales,
including not only media advertising but other advertising, selling and distribution
costs.
Television advertising in the aggregate in 1971 was about one-sixth of all advertis-
ing, or about one-half of one percent of personal consumption expenditures (table B).
What appears to have happened is that the advent of television has precipitated a
marked shift among advertising media. Of the five leading media, which accounted
for about three-fourths of all advertising expenditures in 1950 and 1971, there has
been a marked shift from newspapers, magazines, and radio to television, because of
its greater advertising efficiency.
ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES IN LEADING MEDIA, AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES
Percent
Media 1950
1971
Newspapers 1.09
Magazines 0.27
Radio .32
0.93
.21
.21
Subtotal 1.68
1.35
Direct mail .42
Television .09
.44
.53
Subtotal .51
.97
Total of leading media 2.19
2.32
TABLE A-PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES AND ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES, 1940-71
[In billions of dollars]
Personal
consumption Advertising
Year expenditures expenditures
Advertising
as percent of
consumption
1950 191.0 5.710
1955 254.4 9.194
1960 325.2 11.932
1961 335.2 11.845
1962 355.1 12.381
1963 375.0 13.107
1964 401.2 14.155
1965 432.8 15.255
1966 466.3 16.670
1967 492.1 16.866
1968 536.2 18.127
1969 579.6 19.482
1970 617.6 19.600
1971 667.2 20.500
1972 726.5 23.060
3.0
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.2
Source: Personal consumption expenditures from U.S. Department of Commerce. Advertising expenditures from trade sources cited
in "Statistical Abstract of the U.S.,' 1972, p. 757.
PAGENO="0045"
41
TABLE B
ThSt1'jlmtiOn (mci Services
No. 1t~GO. Al,\'mt'rISTNG-ESTIMAThD EXPENDITUI1ES, iv MErnt'sr: 1950 TO 1971
(In mifllona ol doilnto, ei~cpt prit-ent. .Set' nt~o llistorir',I .93ati'ffra, Colonial `Ilinci 1~ 1957, serIes It 03-192,
it 110-1 3. nIL 1' 3 1i-J5i~
~~_J ~17o~191(oreU
Per Ex- Per- Ex- Per- Er- I 1cr- Ex- Per- Ex- Per-
flcfl(1. cent if 1'end- CCIII of )cn(t. cent of jeut- cent o puIt(i- cent 01 pit1- cent of
Iturea total itures total tileS totok lutes totrit ttires total tuna total
5,710 100.0 0, 191 100.0 11,022 190.0 15,257 iO1).0,fOO 100.0 2(~,50O ioe.o
7',ntlon ` 325 ~ 0151) S S 7W1C11 5 ft 4 It S S fl 0 37
Local.... 2, 4(3 43.0 3, 7s8 41.2 4, r~0 ss. o 5, t.St) 35. `3 s, so 4. 0 s, 7t0 42.8
~ 30.3 3,0~) 23.6 3,703 31.0 4,457 20.2 5,'~I5 20.3 9215 30.3
National.... 933 ft. 3 7~3 5. 1 Ls6 7.1) 861 5. 7 1.01 1 5.2 1, 1.5 5.5
1, 542 27. 0 2,345 25. 5 2, 897 21.0 3, 687 23. 8 4, 73I 21. 1 5, CrY.) 248
ltri'lio. 005 10.6 545 5.0 652 5.8 017 0.0 1,31o~ 0.7 5 364 (.7
Ni-track 108 7.4 84 0.0 43 0.4 `1) 0.4 ~ 0.3 76 6.3
Opot 331% 2 4 131 1.5 222 1.9 266 1.7 371 1.0 1s7 LI
local 273 -1.0 l.'9 0 - 4.~ `3 6 5.) 3; ~-t `ix
Televicton 171 3.0 1,0~S 11.1 lEo 13.3 2515 16.5 3,89 18.3 3,526 17.2
Network 5,5 1.5 SIt) 5,9 753 ,.f, 1,337 ~t t,60~ ILl 1,776 7.7
Spat 31 0.5 210 2.5 :i7 44 913.3 (.7 1,2-11 6.3 0,160 0.6
Local 65 1,0 22.5 2.4 241 2.3 412 2.7 794 i 6 7a5 3.9
Magnsin~s - 515 9.0 720 7.0 041 7.0 1,191) 7.0 3,323 6.7 1,405 6.9
WeekIta~ 21,t 44 390 4.3 525 4.4 910 4.0 917 3.1 (1.10 3.',
\Vcnne~"s... 120 2.3 161 1.5 1St 1.5 2139 1.8 3tt 1.5 310 1.7
Montlila's 85 1.5 133 1.4 20') 1.7 282 1.11 371 1.9 4o~ 2.0
Farm, nationaL.. 37 0.13 30 0.4 32 0.3 37 0.2 31 0.2 21) 0.1
Farut papers...... 21 0.4 34 0.4 35 0.3 34 0.2 31 0.2 23 0.1
Direct mall 5313 14.1 1,200 14.3 1,830 18.3 2324 18.2 2,7t0 34.1 2,1;56) 14.4
BusIness paisers 251 4. 4 446 4. 9 eiJ 5. 1 671 4. 4 740 3.8 705 3.4
Outdoor 143 2.5 392 2.1 203 1.7 180 1,2 234 1.2 2101 1.3
Nation7l 3)0 1.7 . 130 1.4 137 1.3 120 0.8 193 0.8 175 0.9
Local. 46 0. 8 63 0.7 66 0. 6 60 0.4 51) 0.4 55 0.4
Miscdtancous 1, 125 10. 7 1, 936 20.0 2. 324 10. 8 2, 051) 19. 4 3.8.57 19. 7 4,0.37 10.7
Notional 610 10. 7 1,010 Ii. 3 1, 314 11. 5 1,750 11. 5 2, t-t4 11. 0 2, 10 10.7
Local 515 0.0 9t3 0.7 3)90 8.1 1.2u') 7.61 1,713 5.7 1517 0.0
Sourca: MeCaim-Erickson, Site. 3950.lt;1%.S, coinj'it''l for fleek,r Conununkations, Inc., New York, N.Y.;
In J',inlcrs' I.ik (copyright). Beginning 10711, coinpitet) for Cram Communications, Inc.; lii ilclrutiainq ,lçc (copy'
rjght). . -
Coupled with relative declines in minor advertising media (e.g., outdoor advertis-
ing), these data demonstrate that the increased use of television represents largely a
substitution of a more efficient medium for less efficient ones, which, given the fixed
ratio of advertising to consumption, is to the advantage of consumers at large.
To the individual viewer, the decision to watch broadcast television at anyu given
time is costless, except for the trifling cost of operating the receiver: his receiver is
in place, and it costs him no more to watch than not to watch. In this sense,
television-viewing is a free good.
The value of this costless choice, of course, depends on the quality of the program,
as, perceived by viewers. There are, theoretically, several ways in which this value
might be measured. One way would be to find out what prices would how many
viewers pay for various programs if they were required to pay. Depending on the
program, this might be zero for some viewers, a great deal for others, and for most
somewhere in between. Another measure would be the amount by which incomes
would have to be raised in order to permit consumers to obtain the same satisfac-
tion in other ways if there were no television. A third way would be to value
programs by "shadow prices," that is, the prices of buying equivalent or comparable
entertainment or information through other media, for example, motion picture
theaters.
The amount spent by advertisers may be a very crude proxy for the value of
television to viewers: the "better" the program, the more the viewers. Thus adver-
PAGENO="0046"
42
tisers weigh the added cost of program "improvement" against the value of the
added audience. A more direct measure is exemplified by a recent study, based on
experiments with subscription TV, which concluded that "the value of free, over-
the-air television to Americans is at least $20 billion-$25 per month per TV
household, or about 4 percent of after-tax household income. This is about seven
times the present revenues of television." 1
An alternative procedure is to assign an arbitrary value to an hour of viewing
and multiply by the total of viewer-hours. For example, assuming that the value to
the viewer of each hour of viewing is worth, on the average, as little as 10 cents this
procedure yields an estimate of $24.68 billion as the total value of free, over-the-air
television.
On the other hand, "shadow pricing" of categories of programs according to type
of program and time of day, multiplied by estimated numbers of viewers, yields an
estimate of $174 billion as the value of free over-the-air television, based on prices of
comparable program content purchased from other media. 2
All such measures are necessarily imprecise because it is not possible to place
precise values on services which, though very valuable, are provided free. The
imprecision is evident in the wide range of the estimates. But it is clear even from
the lowest of the estimates that the value to the viewers of free, broadcast television
far outweighs the costs-if, indeed, there are any costs beyond the costs of owning
and operating the television receiver. Consumers are reaping a huge "consumer
surplus"-the difference between what they pay (almost nothing) and what they
would pay if put to the market test. Moreover, this consumer surplus appears to be
tilted in favor of low-income families, since they are reported to spend more hours
per week in television viewing: those with incomes under $5,000 view more hours
than those with incomes between $5 and $10 thousand who, in turn, view more than
those with incomes above $10,000.~
We will next hear from Donald McGannon, president and chair-
man of the board of Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.
STATEMENT OF DONALD H. McGANNON, PRESIDENT AND
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GROUP W (WESTINGHOUSE
BROADCASTING CO., INC.)
Mr. MCGANNON. Senator Hollings, members of the Communica-
tions Subcommittee, I am Don McGannon, president and chairman
of the board of Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., which is known as
Group W.
I welcome the opportunity to talk with you this morning about
the overall state of broadcasting in this country. I have with me
but he will not be participating in the direct dialog, Mr. Wallace
Dunlap, our vice president stationed here in Washington and John
Lang, partner in the firm of Hedrick and Lane, a Washington law
firm, who is our attorney.
I know your time is limited and the subject field is voluminous
with multiple facets, each one of which has its own constituency,
history, and background. And I therefore have opted to merely deal
with a few of the subjects I feel are involved in an oversight
hearing such as this is. I would like, however, to take a moment to
discuss with you a little bit of history in this particular connection,
because Westinghouse was the first licensee in the United States
having been granted a radio license for KDKA in Pittsburgh in
iNoll, Roger G., Peck, Merton J., and McGowan, John J., Economic Aspects of Television
Regulation, Brookings Institution, 1873, P. 42.
2Robert R. Nathan Associates estimated for the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
1969, updated to 1972.
`A. C. Nielson Co., cited in Noll, Peck, and McGowan, op. cit.
PAGENO="0047"
43
1920 and the first program to appear on the night of November 2,
1929 were the results of the Harding-Cox Presidential election.
Since that time in the field of radio, we have been privileged to
add radio station operations in New York (WINS), Los Angeles
(KFWB), Chicago (WIND), Philadelphia (KYW), Boston (WBZ), and
Fort Wayne (WOWO), in addition to Pittsburgh's KDKA.
In this connection, I would like to comment a little bit about the
hour of these media and while talking of radio, I would like to
point out that 25 years ago, there were only slightly more than 100
million radios in the American homes or 2.3 per household. Today,
there are 425 million radios-or 5.7 per household, plus over 95
percent of the automobiles on the road have radios as well.
And through the years, other aspects of the broadcasting indus-
try have also grown in importance. In 1927, when the first legisla-
tion was enacted to regulate broadcasting, television did not exist,
nor was it even mentioned in that act or in the Communications
Act of 1934. And just 30 years ago, in 1947, 12 television stations
were licensed to broadcast to the 14,000 homes in the country
which had television sets.
Today, there are almost 1,000 television stations, and over 71
million homes in the country-over 97 percent-with television
sets. Television has also become all important and ever present in
everybody's life. The average American family watches television 6
hours and 18 minutes each day. The average child under 12 years
of age watches for over 4 hours each day. And people have become
so dependent on television that in my opinion today it is one of the
most powerful social forces in the country.
From the earliest days of the television industry described above,
Group W was a licensee of the television medium. In Boston,
WBZ-TV went on the air on June 9, 1948 as the first television
station in New England. Subsequent to that time, we were again
privileged to have been granted licenses to broadcast in Philadel-
phia (KYW-TV), San Francisco (KPIX-TV), Pittsburgh
(KDKA-TV), and Baltimore (WJZ-TV).
It is our belief the most important foundation of the industry
which has developed over the years of its growth is the local
orientation of the broadcasting system. This is important, since the
system in this country differs from those in other parts of the
world, and it has been designed to be responsive and accountable to
local communities. Most other systems are owned by governments
and are national in scope, direction and content, and ours is pri-
vately owned and local in its orientation.
This local emphasis has been stressed throughout the history of
the industry and as early as 1942 the Supreme Court "chain broad-
casting" decision pointed out that "The licensee is obliged to re-
serve to himself the final decision as to what programs will best
serve the public interest."
Earlier, in 1952, the FCC issued its "Sixth Report and Order"
distributing broadcasting frequencies to as many communities as
possible to insure maximum opportunity for local self-expression.
In 1960, the FCC reiterated this point of view, saying that "~ * *
the basic responsibility for all matter broadcast to the public at the
grassroots level (is) in the hands of the local licensee."
PAGENO="0048"
44
Of course, as the local aspect of broadcasting was being rein-
forced, another element of the broadcasting structure was growing
and flourishing * * * namely, the networks, now of course, as the
local aspect of broadcasting. Through the years, the networks have
provided indispensable services to the people of this country. They
have supplied a wide variety of programing, from entertainment to
documentaries, from a box seat at every major sporting contest to
news coverage of every event and development in all parts of the
world.
Given this brief historical sketch of the broadcasting industry, I
would like to talk with you for a few minutes about the current
structure of television. As you have heard from the preceding
speakers, which I am sure you know from your own experience, by
and large the industry consists of four elements: local stations,
networks, programs and producers and suppliers, and advertisers
and their agencies. these elements interact in a variety of ways.
Basically, television networks sell access to a national audience
to advertisers. To attract this national audience to the television
set, the networks buy programing from program producers. The
networks contract for time under their network affiliation agree-
ments with their local station affiliates-numbering approximately
200 per network-and then simultaneously transmit the program-
ing and the commercials to those affiliates through the facilities of
the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Now, you have heard me mention the word "group" in the course
of the last few months. A group is not a network. As indicated by
one of the network spokesmen it is an entity that owns more than
one station and is, as the word implies, simply a group of local
stations under common ownership and is therefore quite different
from the structure and function of the network as they are known
tobe.
In the early days of television there existed a cooperative mutu-
ally beneficial relationship between the networks and their affili-
ates. And in those years the hours of the day which the networks
offered programs to their affiliates were considerably more limited
than they are today.
Then, the networks sold blocks of time to advertisers, who broad-
cast their own programs during those time periods. Only later on
did the networks begin to sell time-called spots-within programs
which they had produced. Progressively, over the years, as one
network began to offer programs in another part of the day, the
others followed suit and gradually the networks programing filled
more and more of the broadcast day. At the present time, two-
thirds of the broadcasting day from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. on most
network affiliates consists of programs from the networks. And 100
percent of the prime-time hours from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. is pro-
gramed with network offerings-7 days a week.
These changes present certain problems, both for local affiliates
of the networks and for the people of the communities they are
licensed to serve. The broadcasting system of the United States was
primarily directed toward local needs and interests, as I indicated
before, but was also designed to accommodate networking. Howev-
er, the latter was never intended to be the dominant factor in the
industry, in my opinion, and the system was not intended-as were
PAGENO="0049"
45
other broadcasting systems in the world-to be national and identi-
cal across the country.
What may be deemed suitable by community standards in one
area of the country might be deemed less acceptable in another
part. This diversity is to be expected and is, indeed, desirable in a
pluralistic society. It is the very reason for the Commission's licens-
ing so many individuals and organizations to serve the particular
needs of their varied audiences.
But the role of the networks in this process creates two problems
for local licensees in their commitment to fulfill their responsibil-
ities to their communities.
Involved in the first problem is the availability of time to broad-
cast programs, produced locally, about local interests and local
problems. As I said before, 66 percent of the broadcast day on
affiliated stations is devoted to programs from the television net-
works. Because of this, it is increasingly difficult to program about
issues which deal with the important interests of local viewers.
Further, since two-thirds of the time of the station is being
programed by the networks since the programing is selected, sched-
uled, and contracted by the networks without real input from the
licensee, the local station has a real problem. If the station is going
to be responsive to the needs of the audience and thus carry out its
responsibility for all of its programing under the Communications
Act, then the station will have to look at the network programs in
advance of the time they are scheduled to be broadcast and make
decisions regarding suitability. While the networks provide some
opportunity to preview their programs, it is unfortunately general-
ly a case of too little too late.
I say this because it is the network which determines which of
the preproduced programs will be offered for previewing and the
networks which also determine when this will occur. Most of these
programs come into the station within a day or two before their
scheduled broadcast dates. This does not give the average broad-
caster the necessary time to look at the program involved, to
arrange for the best possible substitute program in the event the
stations decide, for whatever reason, that the network program is
unsuitable.
Further, it does give the broadcaster a chance to weigh the
merits of a network program against a variety of alternatives,
including the station producing its own program, which would be
available if more leadtime were permitted.
This condition has become progressively more serious over the
past few years and has become increasingly alarming as national
programing has contained such an abundance of crime, violence,
and adult content.
For a number of reasons, no arm of the Government can or
should regulate or control the content of these programs. Instead,
the only one that can do this is the individual station licensee, and
the licensee's power to do this must be reinforced.
The role of the Commission in this regard should simply be to
insure the stations' ability to live up to that responsibility to broad-
cast programs which are in keeping with the broadcaster's judg-
ment as to the community's tastes, needs, and interests.
20-122 0 - 78 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
46
And let me say that we do not view this, as some have character-
ized, as more Government interference. Quite to the contrary, the
return of this responsibility to the local stations was one of the
significant elements in a petition Group W filed before the FCC
last September, in which we also requested the Commission to
reexamine the proper role of the networks in the overall structure
of the broadcasting industry.
The FCC concurred this past January that such a reexamination
was needed, and voted to begin such an inquiry.
I have~ not attempted to discuss any aspects of the current debate
regarding cable television because it is my understanding that you
will be holding separate hearings on this subject this coming
summer. Needless to say, if my information would be desirable for
input, I would be pleased to give you any information we may
have.
I have also not raised the rewriting of the Communications Act
of 1934. I appreciate the significance of the act to the American
people over the last 50 years and I do not suggest that it be
discarded carelessly or arbitrarily. But I must also point out that
the technological advances which have occurred during those years
are bound to continue in the future.
In order to take advantage of this progress, we must be better
able to assess the results which such technological advances will
have on the people of this country. We must more successfully
coordinate our current abilities to accomplish this or the govern-
mental structure currently in existence will have to be reorganized
to make the best possible use of one of our greatest national
resources-the electromagnetic spectrum.
To summarize the points I have discussed in greater depth, it is
like that, in order to reach the full potential of the medium of
television, it may be necessary to take a step backward in order to
take many steps forward. A step back to the original foundation of
the local orientation of the broadcasting system. And steps forward
toward a broadcasting system which will effectively serve the inter-
ests it was meant to serve; that is, the interests of the people of
this country, determined where the people live. That prospect, to
those of us in broadcasting at the local level, is a most challenging
one and I welcome this opportunity to present them to you this
morning and afternoon.
Senator H0LUNGs. Do you think, Mr. McGannon, that the inqui-
ry by the FCC at your initiation, is adequate for the time being or
is legislation recommended?
Mr. MCGANNON. The petition was a very substantial one and had
a great deal of scope to it. Shortly after we filed it, we filed an
additional motion to sever the issue of program review because we
saw the amount of time that was going to transpire before final
action would be taken to finalize the basic petition that we would
lose 1, 2, or 3 years possibly insofar as programing was concerned.
Regrettably, this petition was turned down, we think inappropri-
ately, and we now have a motion for reconsideration of this motion
to sever, but irrespective, I think whatever the programing coming
on for next season will be lost for this purpose, for whatever
influence it could have had on it.
PAGENO="0051"
47
I think, Mr. Chairman, it will depend on how the inquiry devel-
ops. Bear in mind this is not the first inquiry by any means. There
was one conducted in 1958 by Dean Ruscoe Barrous and one earlier
they named the "Broadcasting Report."
Senator HOLLINGS. You would introduce a bill to do what with
respect to the relationship between the local station and the broad-
casters?
Mr. MCGANNON. If the Commission or this hearing or otherwise
didn't do the job I would suggest it request a Senator to introduce a
bill so there would be the restoration, if you will, of the responsibil-
ity and the duties and obligations of local stations.
When you have 66 percent of the program delivered to you in all
of the prime time heavy audience period, you can realize there is a
considerable loss of direct control. I don't say that is, per se, wrong.
I am talking about the quantity, perhaps, that is out of balance.
Beyond that there is a limited amount of programing we do con-
trol, substantial portions of which are low audience time when we
have what we call our local prime time, which is from 5 p.m. to 8
p.m.
One-half of it is local news and some stations carry 1 hour or 1½
hours of news.
So you can see there is very little creative involvement on the
part of local stations which I think has a debilitating effect.
Senator H0LLING5. Looking at the overall percentage of 66 per-
cent, from your experience, is that almost too great or does it
become too great when it approaches 80 percent? What percentage
would you use?
Mr. MCGANNON. No, sir. I think that is too great already
Senator H0LLING5. You think they ought to have what percent?
Mr. MCGANNON. I don't think it is either desirable or possible to
give a hard number. I think it ought to be done in terms of the
relationship of what periods of time are necessary in order for the
local licensee to fulfill his obligations.
I think, for example, the fact you have to preempt the period of
time in prime time in order to present the public versus program-
ing, is a cumbersome and undesirable way to do that. I think local
stations ought to program all day in all day parts. That includes
prime time. The problem with preempting a network show is, there
is always that segment of the public that is disappointed they lost
that program and there is a lot of efficiency and loss of economic
values involved, nevertheless, we do it on our stations and will
continue to do so, because we think it is a mandatory obligation.
Coming down to a finite hard number is not necessarily the way
to arrive at that. I think they should be in the course of this
discussion with the networks and the FCC, the inquiry to deter-
mine what is necessary in order to effectively program for the need
of each community.
Senator H0LLING5. Well, I understand, yet I know in the Wash-
ington area they don't seem to have much difficulty preempting
prime time programing in order to put on the Bullets Basketball
game in the evening or some other event, but maybe I am not
looking at it properly. Just one thing and I will yield.
You said you would not comment at this particular time, but pay
TV, cable TV, has come up.
PAGENO="0052"
48
Do you have a comment you can give us?
Mr. MCGANNON. I want to harken back to my comment about
Westinghouse being involved in broadcasting since 1920. We are
very much committed to it, we take pride in what we do and,
therefore, I would think if there is going to be an evolution from
our current system into a cable system, Group W will be involved
in it.
My deep concern about cable is the manner in which it is unfold-
ing. That is one of my reasons for supporting some review of the
Communications Act. I think what is happening at the moment, by
the erosion and by the progression of time we are inadvertently,
perhaps not inadvertently, establishing a new system. And there is
going to come a critical mass stage at some point, as indicated by
some of the network representatives, there is going to come a
critical mass stage where the capability of cable is going to com-
pete with them in order to get programs.
National Football League programs, for example. I think it is
counterproductive at that point to have the American public pay
for that program when they can get it free, in all deference to the
Senator who was talking about what possible impact advertising
costs would have on the cost of products. I think also there is a
very serious problem involved in that, because I think people in
areas that are sparsely populated are going to find there is nothing
good to be a service because the economics, as you say this morn-
ing, are not feasible and I think the same thing would be true in
the lower socioeconomic level in the inner city who would have a
tremendous problem in maintaining the economics that program-
ing is in paying for the things that programing is at the present
time.
I think Congress should take a look at these two systems and
determine how the blending of one or both of them will give the
greatest service to the American public over the years, before the
end of the century, before it gets so big you can't stop it.
Senator HOLLINGS. Would you do it just on sports programs?
Mr. MCGANNON. No, sir, all programing. Sports programing hap-
pens to be a part that is organic and definitive, but it applies to all
sorts of programing. Once the balance is swung over and there is
an economic base for cable to present programing of the caliber of
National Football League or similar programs, they could buy any
program. They have the buying capability.
Now, competition is not what I am worried about in this process..
What I am worried about is the fact that you would then proceed
to erode, if you will, a system that has served well, essentially
speaking, and now you are going to substitute it for a system that
is going to cost the American public direct out-of-pocket dollars and
possibly disenfranchise two significant groups of people, the subur-
ban and rural people and possibly the urban people, especially of
low socioeconomic level.
Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. McGannon, I think you made an excellent
statement. I wish we had more time than we have.
How much real impact and effect do the affiliates have on pro-
graming decisions made by the networks?
Mr. MCGANNON. I would say none, Senator.
Senator GRIFFIN. That is what I thought.
PAGENO="0053"
49
Mr. MOGANNON. We are a large affiliate. I don't recall-and I
have been head of this company for 22 years, I don't recall ever
being consulted about a specific program, in anticipation of a pro-
gram. And the aspect of previewing is a very serious question,
because I respected the network people who were here before, but
we took their recent offer of expanded program schedule and this
included a solid week for all three networks and I must point out
there was only one program in two parts that had more than 7
days' preview notice. That had 14 days in one case and 17 days in
another, and that was "Jesus of Nazareth." Everything else was
down usually around 3 days or 2 days.
Now, with a 2-day lead time you can do something. There is
nothing you essentially can do in that particular situation. If you
have programing in the house, that probably has been run many
times before. As a consequence of that, it is not a fair substitute for
what otherwise might be first-run material or just second- or third-
run material. You have to have, in my opinion, at least 30 days, to
make the decision, to secure programing on to produce programing,
and then to inform the public so they are not mislead by the items
in the various scheduling situations, what is really going to be on
the air on a given night.
And also to promote it, because after all you are going head on
with network programing.
As a consequence, I don't think we have addressed ourselves to
this problem. Also, I think in all respect to the network people, I
understand it. We started talking to them about this problem 3
years ago, and we heard the very same thing and we haven't had
an answer to the basic question as to why you can't simply put
back another 30 days, in other words, start 30 days earlier than the
schedule, and then the creative people and other people would
have their opportunity to do all of that over-the-weekend polishing
they were talking about.
I think also you ought to consider talking to some of the creative
people because in some of the indications we have had, they are
not opposed to the idea and could readily handle the situation if in
fact, it was a desirable thing from the public's point of view.
Senator GRIFFIN. Yet despite the fact you have practically no
impact on program decisions, you get little opportunity for advance
feed-in, and very limited time to preview, as Mr. Schneider of CBS
said in his statement.
The ultimate responsibility for what goes on television is the
broadcasters, the licensee. I think this is a basic fact of life that
seems a little odd in view of the realistic circumstances.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How would you characterize the distinction between yourselves
and the network.
Mr. McGANN0N. Well, sir, we simply have the privilege of oper-
ating five stations. We don't create any interconnection between
them except for public affairs programing. The only program we
produce is public affairs on an individual basis. You may have
recently had occasion to see a program called "Six American Fam-
ilies" which was a Bicentennial effort on our behalf in conjunction
with the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist
PAGENO="0054"
50
Church which dealt with the whole ethical considerations of family
life today.
That appeared not only on our five stations but it was run on the
Public Broadcasting Network. We produce that kind of program,
usually of public affairs nature.
We also produce the Mike Douglas show which is not sold as a
network program but syndicated, sold to individual stations around
the country.
Senator CANNON. Are you affiliated with a network?
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes, sir.
We have two stations with NBC, two with CBS, and one with
ABC.
Senator CANNON. It is just your individual statiOns that have the
affiliation.
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes, sir.
Senator CANNON. Do we know whether or not the local audiences
have a preference for more local programing or would they prefer
the networks?
Mr. MCGANNON. Well, I am not necessarily offering a formula. I
avoided that when the chairman asked me a specific quantitative
question. I am not sure we should at this point make a determina-
tion as to what the quantity of that should be or what the program
should be. What I am looking for is an open option, an opportunity
to do that when the occasion arises or is dictated.
Senator CANNON. You are saying you do not have enough lead
time to make a decision?
Mr. MCGANNON. And the networks are programing 66 percent of
every day.
Senator CANNON. What happens when an affiliate does not carry
an acceptable level of programs?
Mr. MCGANNON. There is, or course, a concomitant economic
impact because by not carrying the program you do not get the
money. Also, I think it becomes counterproductive insofar as the
network is concerned and the affiliate is concerned. Networks
become very disturbed by it, and understandably so.
Senator CANNON. Do the affiliates run the risk of being canceled
out as an affiliate?
Mr. MCGANNON. There is certainly a risk in that connection. The
risk is limited because most communities only have three television
stations. As a consequence, therefore, there may be a shifting about
if they are a weak network, perhaps you could find yourself being
put in that position.
Senator CANNON. Do most of the affiliates really have the re-
sources to do their own programing? Suppose they screen the pro-
gram, did the advance screening. Have they really got the re-
sources now to go out and program?
Mr. MCGANNON. I think it was adequately described before,
when I think Jack Schneider said, "It is not necessary"-maybe
Bob Howard said, "You don't have to preview `The Waltons' very
often." All programing does not have to be previewed, and if you
preempt it you certainly would not be preempting in my mind a
large quantitative amount.
Also, with the preview opportunity, in my mind, that is the
quickest way to solve the crime and violence question, because with
PAGENO="0055"
51
that situation is going to come a high degree of accountability. And
with accountability, I think, is going to come alleviation of the
problem.
Senator CANNON. You are saying the local affiliate, if they
turned down a few of those programs on that basis, would make
the networks stand up and look?
Mr. MCGANNON. And ask why; yes, sir.
Senator FORD. I have got a little problem here trying to unwind
some things. We are definitely discussing programing of major
networks in this country today, and the objection, if any, is direct-
ed toward them, and not you as a local station owner, unless they
give it to you to move on up the ladder. It seems we are beginning
to say or looking at very hard, the possibility of getting into some
policy decisions as it relates to programing, which gets into legal
problems.
Not only are we placing this on the back of the networks, but
you are suggesting that the affiliates have the ability to pull out
any program they want to.
Now, do you pay the networks any amount of money?
Mr. MCGANNON. No, sir, they pay us. They pay us for the time
which they in turn put their programs in and their spot announce-
ments in.
Senator FORD. So your affiliates then would be in a position
when you file for your license, based on what the network was
doing, you then would go to the viewing public and in turn you
would-you are figuring your net income or gross income from that
affiliate, what they generate?
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes, sir. If I understand you correctly.
Senator FORD. So your profit figure would come from whatever
the network does, basically.
Mr. MCGANNON. No, sir.
Senator FORD. At least a portion of it.
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes, sir.
Senator FORD. They do not want to go broke, so they apparently
will come up with programs, try to come up with programs you
would want. Do they do advertising for you or do you do your own
local advertising?
Mr. MCGANNON. We do our own local advertising.
Senator FORD. Say "Jesus of Nazareth" you talked about you had
a 14-day or 17-day lead time. Was there any publicity by the
network for that?
Mr. MCGANNON. I think it was mostly on this promotion, Sena-
tor.
Senator FORD. Now, we are talking about looking at the net-
works and maybe making some policy decisions, and you are saying
the affiliates should do that. Am I correct you ask for a 4-week lead
time on all programs?
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes. In order to preview and look at the pro-
graming that is going to appear on the station we are licensed for.
Senator FORD. The statement from this morning I remember,
"Do you want it Tuesday or do you want it funny?" The networks
say we want it funny, and they indicated they are dealing with a
specialized group that felt like they have got to do things, got to
get the feel of it. Maybe they do not get the feel of it on Tuesday, it
PAGENO="0056"
52
is Thursday before they really get into it. And they want it for the
next Tuesday, maybe they get it Saturday and get it to you. So
they would prefer to have a good program rather than have it on
time. What I am trying to get to, it looks as though all onus is
going to one place, and not necessarily on you or others.
Mr. MCGANNON. The issue of, "Do you want it funny or do you
want it Tuesday?" is the question of what Tuesday we want it. I
think that can be arranged because I think it can be carried out.
If you talk with these creative people, that this is not an impon-
derable subject.
Senator FORD. You are asking for the responsibility of screening?
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes. Which I think we have now as a matter of
mandate and law.
Senator FORD. I think the NAB established what we called a
family viewing period. You are familiar with that, I am sure.
Mr. MCGANNON. I am, sir.
Senator FORD. And the district court in California struck that
down. Do you think we should observe the theory of a family
viewing program? Are you taking the responsibility for what is on
your network or affiliate, then getting sued and carrying that load?
Mr. MCGANNON. No, sir. That would never arise, in my opinion.
As the law is now written, we have this responsibility. We are not
attempting to interpose this judgment on anybody, anybody or
anybody else-any place else but our own station, where we have,
as I say, right now, under the stipulation of our license, the obliga-
tion to do that.
Senator FORD. Do you carry product liability? You do not carry
product liability. Are you not producing a product, in essence?
Mr. MCGANNON. Yes. But I do not see that----
Senator FORD. What I am saying, you are taking the responsibil-
ity and you are wanting the responsibility, and you want the
decision to be yours, nobody else's, what goes on in your affiliate.
Mr. MCGANNON. But we have that responsibility right now, but
the practicalities of it, it does not work.
Senator FORD. What I am saying, if your station would get sued
by a group of people over a program you had on your station that
came from a network, would you not get them to come with you
and help you out of your trouble?
Mr. MCGANNON. Well, it has never occurred, Senator, so I do not
see it being a serious jeopardy.
Senator FORD. I am not a lawyer, so I can ask legal questions.
You say you provided a series for public broadcasting or you sell,
you have sold some things to public broadcasting.
Mr. MCGANNON. Just that one incident.
Senator FORD. Do you have any problems with the public broad-
casting interfering with your affiliates' business?
Mr. MCGANNON. No.
Senator FORD. I have not talked to the networks along this line,
but many affiliates are very concerned about public broadcasting
and the foundations. They see the name, and they are getting
about as much advertisement from foundations making donations
to public broadcasting.
Mr. MCGANNON. We have supported public broadcasting from
the beginning. We are responsible for the New York station right
PAGENO="0057"
53
at this moment in their fundraising drive. I think the ability to use
foundation money is a highly desirable thing, and I think public
broadcasting is an important adjunct of our communications
system.
Senator FORD. Let me ask another question. You are an affili-
ate-I am trying to look at your problem-you have a good many
stations in large areas. Are you worried about drop-in stations?
Mr. MCGANNON. Well, I am worried about it to the extent it
would cause greater competition for our stations, but I am not sure
that is necessarily all bad. We have a station in San Francisco
where there are four VHF television stations and some UHF. We
compete hard. Insofar as the VHF signals are concerned, I do not
think it would be appropriate from my point of view to resist
anything that legitimately, effectively, and logistically could help
to provide more service to the public, so to answer your question, I
am concerned, because we have to work harder, but I am not
concerned over the basic public thesis involved.
Senator FORD. The reason I asked this question is that in rural
areas, southeastern or south-central Kentucky, for example, their
reception is very poor because they are beginning to get out of
range.
Partly the problem is, dropping in a station between one commu-
nity and another, and when they begin to overlap, those in those
fringes get nothing. The people in the fringes are entitled to see
this TV like everybody else, but the drop-in station has created the
problem. And the FCC, I think, has some so-called drop-in station
petitions before it now. But you do not see any problem with drop-
in stations? It just makes you work harder.
Mr. MCGANNON. I am also presuming there is not going to be a
serious interference factor that will destroy----
Senator FORD. I do not think a drop-in station is going to go to an
area that does not have viewers.
Mr. MCGANNON. But the manner in which the Commission will
handle this or is supposed to handle it is by being very discreet in
the areas in which they locate those, and also the power of those
stations.
Senator FORD. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator H0LLING5. Thank you very, very much.
Senator FORD. Let us just ask about 5-year renewal.
Mr. MCGANNON. We have testified at various times and I have
said 5-year renewals are not something that is of high urgency in
our regard. We are satisfied with the 3-year renewal. We would
like to see some means worked out by which criteria for renewal
could be established, so that stations can work against, if you will,
a goal, and have at least a prima facie position of renewal when
you go back into the situation, and not be confronted by, if you
will, what I call strike actions in some situations.
Senator H0LLING5. Thank you very much, Mr. McGannon. We
appreciate you and your colleagues' appearance here.
The final witness, Mr. Glen Robinson, professor of law at the
University of Virginia School of Law.
PAGENO="0058"
54
STATEMENT OF GLEN ROBINSON, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
Glen Robinson. I am a professor of law at the University of Virgin-
ia, to which I came from the Federal Communications Commission
a year ago. I served on the Commission for 2 years. I am pleased to
be here to testify at the request of the committee on the role of
networks in our broadcast system.
Mr. Chairman, in deference to the hour, I wonder if it would
please you for me to submit the written statement for the record
and just touch on some of the highlights?
Senator HOLLINGS. Good. We will include the statement in its
entirety. You highlight it as you wish, and I apologize for the
lateness of the hour.
Mr. ROBINSON. No problem. I think, in fact, I can summarize the
burden of, pretty much the bulk of the paper, the first 12 pages or
so, by suggesting that what I attempted to do was to review the
history of the Government's policy toward networks-in particular
reviewing some of the early rules, the chain broadcasting rules
which were first adopted in 1941. Then I give the subsequent
history of one particular rule, the option time rule and then review
the prime time access rules, first promulgated in 1970 and the
financial-interest and syndication rules, also promulgated in 1970.
The burden of, and the point of, all this was to suggest that
basically the rules have not worked. The aim was to regulate
network broadcasting vis-a-vis, first of all, the affiliates-to reduce
the network dominance and its influence over the affiliates-and
second: In 1970, to regulate the networks as buyers of programs as
against the Hollywood film producers. That was the point of the
nonsyndication and financial interest rules. I think the rules have
been misdirected and indeed, I am sad to say, I think the current
FCC inquiry is misdirected, although I am pleased that it was
instituted when it was, and I think the misdirection comes in fixing
too hard a focus on the contractual relationship between the net-
works and affiliates and in ignoring the basic economic structure.
I think the Commission has throughout its history assumed that
the contract was the controlling determinant of economic power. In
fact I think that is quite wrong. It has tinkered with the network!
affiliate relationships; it has also attempted to intervene in the
network producer relationships-all to very little avail because it
has not recognized that the basic economic power of the network
stems from its economic structure and not from any contract
terms.
I think this is to some extent also reflected in the current FCC
inquiry-I will here pick up the threads of the formal statement on
page 12, if I may-the current inquiry launched in 1977 had its
genesis in the petition by Westinghouse Broadcasting, which called
for Commission investigation of three aspects of the network affili-
ate relations: One, increases in scheduled network programing,
two, network practices which foreclose the ability of the affiliated
stations to preview programing-about which you heard a great
deal this morning, and three, the network compensation to affili-
ates-about which you heard very little.
PAGENO="0059"
55
The FCC's inquiry is in response to this petition and also in
response to a Justice Department antitrust suit that has been
pending since 1972, which was, I might note, initially dismissed,
and then reinstated. The FCC inquiry has been touted as a new
Barrow report, a new investigation comparable in scope to the 1958
report on network broadcasting. Indeed I hope it is, but I hope that
in some sense it will be even broader, and perhaps more penetrat-
ing.
Reading the initial notice of inquiry, for example, I am struck by
the fact that the Commission's approach is still imprisoned within
a rather confined and static conception of industry structure. As in
the past, as with all of the prior rules, the Commission's approach
basically assumes the continuation of the present industry struc-
ture and looks only at the behavior within that structure.
The Commission proceeds on the implicit premise that broadcast-
ing will continue to be the dominant delivery system for electronic
mass communications and that this is necessary and desirable in
most of the cities.
Nowhere in this inquiry has the Commission, or anyone else I
am aware of, even raised questions about these premises. I might
note, parenthetically, the same is true of the Justice Department's
antitrust suit which, making allowance for the necessary differ-
ences, follows basically the approach of the Commission in both its
past and present efforts. Unless we think about the more funda-
mental questions, we are unlikely to effect any change in the
character of television service.
The Commission has expressed concern over the network oligopo-
ly but has never pursued the question why that oligopoly exists
and how it might be altered. Perhaps this reflects the policy of
conscious neglect for there are three television networks, for one
important reason: Basically, it is because FCC allocations policy
has dispersed VHF station allocations to allow most households to
receive no more than three strong competitive VHF services. Be-
cause of the inferiority of UHF it remains to be seen whether UHF
allocations can provide the basis for additional networks. Up until
now it is very plain that UHF has not provided a sufficiently
strong base to support a fourth competitive network and certainly
not a fifth or sixth. With only three fully competitive stations in
the market comprising two-thirds of the station's television house-
holds, there can be no more than three brokers for any 1 hour of
national broadcast. As a result, program decisions will be virtually
the same as those being made currently by the three national
networks, reflecting their perceptions of the taste of the mass
audience.
Now we can, of course, change the identity of the program sup-
pliers. We can limit the time periods in which they are permitted
to sell their wares but the economic incentives will remain un-
changed because they are basically set, according to the number of
competitive outlets. Firms will tend to program to~ maximize audi-
ence shares in light of the viewing options, currently limited by
basically three local outlets. So long as the number of viewing
options remains the same the strategy of commercial programing
will remain the same for any networking agency and the degree of
diversity enjoyed by the public will remain unchanged.
PAGENO="0060"
56
If there is to be a serious attempt to reduce network dominance
and therefore to increase program diversity, it must begin with
recognition that the basic source of the problem is the limited
number of economically competitive stations in each market. Un-
fortunately within the present structure of communications, signifi-
cant enrichment of programs services is very limited, insofar as it
rests on the full, competitive development of UHF-which is an
uncertain hope for the foreseeable future.
I think that the more substantial promise for new programing,
and for diversified communications services generally, lies beyond
UHF, and even beyond broadcasting-at least beyond broadcasting
alone. In particular, it lies with the full development of new broad-
band service facilities.
At this point the network issue must be put into a broader
perspective; it is necessary to ask not merely what is the role of
networks in broadcasting but what is the role of broadcasting in
electronic mass communications? This is not the occasion for
launching into a discussion of new technologies and the like and
how they may affect our communications services. But it bears
notice that a continued preoccupation with the traditional broad-
cast structure as the dominant form of electronic mass communica-
tions effectively forecloses any lasting resolution of the problem of
program diversity-which is the core of the network problem.
We need to think beyond mere tinkering with the network-
affiliate, or the network-producer relationships and to consider new
forms of communications delivery such as broadband communica-
tions systems such as cable, fiber optics, direct broadcast satellites.
I do not say, and I am sure you will not believe, that broadband
communications systems are free of problems of their own, and you
have heard about some of those problems this morning from the
networks.
In particular the full development of broadband communication
systems will require us to take a close look at our localism policies.
Is it necessary to sacrifice some degree of local broadcast service? I
personally think it will not be. If it is, how much are we willing to
forego in order to receive additional services? Can rural areas
continue to be served as effectively as now-or might they be even
better served? Again my personal view is they will be better
served.
Assuming the desirablity of a new communications system, how
can we get there from here-with a minimum amount of economic
cost and political bickering? These are not easy questions, but I
think they take us to more important issues than we have to date
encountered in the debate over "chain broadcasting."
Senator HOLLINGS. How do we increase the number of viewing
options? You say you don't answer it. Now, you have me curious. I
want to know how would you do it? How would you break out of
this three-broadcast campaign and go to beefing up UHF?
Mr. ROBINSON. I think UHF has limited potential. There are a
variety of plans to try to beef it up. The Commission has before it a
proceeding to look into ways of strengthening broadcasting largely
by fixing new standards for TV receivers.
I think that is not likely to have much immediate promise. When
I said it is necessary to look beyond broadcasting, I guess I really
PAGENO="0061"
57
had in mind cable and fiber optics which I think will shortly
replace cable.
Senator HOLLINGS. Cable or fiber optics, you can see the difficul-
ty we are having with that right now.
Mr. ROBINsoN. Yes.
Senator HOLLINGS. One witness testifies to the fact that you
ought to adopt former Senator Beall's approach in the bill intro-
duced some years ago, for cable to be supplemental. What is your
view of that?
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that is precisely the wrong
approach. It seems to me if anything it ought to be the broadcast-
ing system that is supplemental. If we had it to do all over again,
that is almost certainly the road we would take. We would see that
the protected conduit offers promise for a vast array of services
which would provide the basic service. Then you would look to the
broadcast service to reach out to outlying areas which could not be
effectively wired. we are coming upon an era within a decade or so
where fiber optics will be economical to install perhaps as part of
the regular telephone service.
That is already being done as far as trunking between switching
plants now. At some distant point, maybe 10, 15 years-maybe a
little longer-it should be economical, I think, to install fiber optics
in lieu of the copper wire pair. At that point, it is really quite
incredible to think that we would still be content with the present
TV service.
Senator HOLLINGS. We had one estimate it would cost $350 bil-
lion to wire America.
Mr. ROBINSON. I think the estimate was for copper-talking
about coaxial cable. There, you see it being laid on in addition to
new telephone plants. I am talking about something that would
carry telephone service, as well as television service. There are
some advantages to fiber optics that do not come with coaxial
cable.
Senator FORD. I know you are a professor of law at the Universi-
ty of Virginia.
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir.
Senator FORD. Yet, you come today with your testimony and you
are more in the engineering field than you are in the legal field.
What puts you in that position? You come and tell us not about the
law but what we ought to be doing in the research and develop-
ment field. What prompted you to do that?
Mr. ROBINSON. You flatter me by referring to me as an engineer.
Senator FORD. You are asking for new technology.
Mr. ROBINSON. I am asking for new technology assessment, Sena-
tor. I think it is time to really break out of the old mold. If we are
seriously interested in new diversity, I think the system we have,
which is a good system-I am not here to knock the system; it is a
good system-but if we want major improvements in the system, I
think we have to think about new system design. I think instead of
this worrying about the network affiliate relationships, we are
going to have to worry about new networks and how are we going
to get the networks; the present broadcast over-the-air system
could provide them perhaps only with some strain. I think on the
PAGENO="0062"
58
other hand, with new technology-let us say cable or fiber optics-
we are reaching the point where half a dozen services--
Senator FORD. Let's look at satellites. Isn't that a new innova-
tion, a new creature that everybody took advantage of?
Western Union sends its telegrams now by satellite. We are
seeing what the President is doing, almost instantaneously, by
satellite. What kind of improvement would you make on that?
Mr. RoBINsoN. We don't yet have the direct broadcast satellite
service. Satellites are used purely as common carriers. The net-
works themselves use them, but they are not being used or not
being thought of primarily in terms of service direct to the user.
However, the technology is available and at some order of im-
provement in cost, it will become available widely. I have seen
estimates, for example, Comsat has an estimate that indicates that
over the northeastern sector of the country, it would be possible to
provide 12 simultaneous services-12 television channels-to every-
one in that area, roughly an area bounded by Boston, Philadelphia,
and Washington. I think the equipment would cost-the earth
station equipment would cost-a couple of hundred dollars. Those
costs are coming down constantly.
There is no question in my mind that some point in the very
near future, that presently feasible technology will also become
economically feasible. Then the question is whether or not we
promote that service or we retard that service.
Right now, our policies of localism would discourage that service,
because it would skip over the local broadcast stations. At least
that is what the broadcast industry has said.
Senator FORD. You commented on the study by the Commission.
You referred to the fact that the last study was done in what year?
Mr. RoBINsoN. The study I was referring to in 1958 was actually
a congressionally ordered study. The~ Commission has conducted a
number of studies of its own.
Senator FORD. The Commission is venturing into a study now.
Mr. RoBINsoN. It now has an inquiry underway.
Senator FORD. Would you say it would be in our best interest,
those of us who have to make a judgment on revamping or rewrit-
ing or altering the Communications Act, would it be best to wait
until that study is completed before we jump in and rewrite the
Communications Act?
Mr. ROBINSON. No, sir, I think that inquiry, as I have seen from
the notices, is very, very limited. The questions being asked are not
far-reaching. They may be important--
Senator FORD. In what respect?
Mr. ROBINSON. They wouldn't change the economic structure-
the networking at all. As near as I can tell, the most ambitious
proposal put on the table is to forbid the network ownership of five
owned and operated stations, but even that would not change the
basic economic structure of the broadcast industry.
They claim doomsday, but I think the facts are otherwise. What I
am saying is, that it would not alter the kind of questions that I
have suggested be put on the table, and that your House colleagues
are considering as part of the communications--
Senator FORD. What is that?
PAGENO="0063"
59
Mr. ROBINSON. The kind of questions that the House committee, I
think, is pursuing would not be affected by this inquiry at all. They
go much more to the kind of delivery system you are going to have,
whether it is going to be a mixture of broadcasting, fiber optics,
satellites, and so on. It sounds kind of far out and futuristic until
you realize that all of the other advanced nations of the world are
studying this.
Senator FORD. You think we are not. That is all I have.
Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Robinson, we appreciate your coming.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF GLEN 0. RoBINsoN
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today at
the Committee's invitation to testify on the role of the networks in our broadcast
system, and more particularly on the course of regulatory policy towards network
broadcasting. In the presence of top representatives from the three major networks
I think it would be presumptuous as well as pointless for me to review the particu-
lar organization of the networks and how they perform their networking function. I
shall instead focus on the public policy perspectives on networking. In doing so I
would like to pass over aspects of detailed regulatory oversight that take us into
matters of program supervision and the like. I propose to deal with questions that
are foundational to operational oversight insofar as they involve the basic structure
and role of networks.
Since the beginning of broadcasting public policy towards networking has been
rather clouded and ambivalent. On the one hand, the Communications Act of 1934
and before it the Radio Act of 1927, presumed a decentralized system of more or less
autonomous local stations responsive to distinctive local needs, tastes and interests.
On the other hand, as the system grew this concept of decentralization and local
autonomy soon found itself in tension with the development of an efficient system
for distributing programs nationwide. And the assumption of locally produced and
locally oriented programming increasingly conflicted with the public demand for
high quality programming that not only appealed to a nationwide audience but
required such an audience to support it. This tension has never relaxed; it was
intensified with the advent of television which made all the more imperative a
nationwide system of distribution.
Nor has public policy found a satisfactory accommodation of the two competing
communications models-decentralized localism on the one hand and an efficient,
high quality, integrated, nationwide system on the other. The FCC has maintained
the original conception of localism at least as a legal fiction by insisting that the
stations are the primary obligors of public service. At the same time the FCC
accepts as it must the economic reality that it is the three national networks which
dominate the system.
To be sure, the Commission, like virtually everyone else, has fussed a great deal
over this network dominance-insofar as it undercuts the central premise of local-
ism that has guided regulatory activity from the beginning. And, insofar as the
network dominance was concentrated in only three firms, the Commission and
others have worried about the effect of network dominance on program diversity.
Unfortunately, the Commission's efforts to come to terms with these perceived
problems has been something less than successful, as a review of the history will I
think reveal.
I. THE EARLY YEARS: THE CHAIN BROADCASTING RULES
The Commission initiated its efforts to cope with problems of networking when
both it and the networks were in their infancy. In 1938 the Commission instituted a
major investigation into "chain broadcasting" with a view towards promulgating
regulations to limit network influence. The result three years later was a series of
rules which survive today as the backbone of network regulations. The chain broad-
casting rules were primarily concerned about vertical integration of the industry-
the control of the stations by the networks. The rules did deal with horizontal
concentration in two respects. One, they forbade common ownership of more than
one network, and required NBC to divest itself of one of its two networks (the
divested network became ABC). Two, they imposed a restriction-one not confined
to networks-against ownership of more than one station in any community.
PAGENO="0064"
60
The main thrust of the rules, however, was to impose limits on network-affiliate
relationships. The Commission, for example, prohibited networks from preventing a
station from carrying the programs of another network and also agreements by the
network not to transmit the programs to any other station in the same area. In
addition to banning territorial exclusivity the Commission put limits on the dura-
tion of affiliation contracts, prohibited the networks from setting station rates, and
restricted the amount of time which the station could commit in advance to clear
network programs. The latter practice-option time-was originally banned, then
permitted subject to limitations on the amount of time that could be "optioned"
subject to some other restrictions. Some twenty years later it was again banned
altogether.
In keeping with the Commission's historical commitment to localism, the object of
the rules is to minimize the degree of dominance of local stations by national
networks; also it was desired to ensure that the stations had at least some degree of
flexibility as among the networks and to restrict the degree of vertical integration
between a single network and its affiliate. The assumption here was that this would
not only enhance local responsibility but would make the networks more competi-
tive among themselves if their control over their affiliates was limited.
As every viewer can see the rules have not quite lived up to their .intent with
respect to television. (We can ignore radio broadcasting since networking has ceased
to play much of a role there in the age of television.) In practical reality network
dominance of television stations has grown despite the restrictions on affiliation
agreements. There is, for the most part, no fluidity in the relationships either:
except in one and two station markets, where secondary affiliations exist under
special contract arrangements, the affiliation agreement is rather firmly fixed with
a single network. To be sure under the affiliation contract, only certain demands
can be imposed (and with one, insignificant, exception all the demands run in one
direction only-to the station), but the contract has little to do with the economic
reality underlying the network-affiliation relationship.
Neither do the Commission's rules, which have mistaken the form of network
power with its substance. Under these rules the station is presumed to be legally
the boss in the station-network relationship when the economic reality is the
contrary. One thinks of the quip of one of Dickens' characters when told that the
law presumed him to be the master over his wife: "if the law presumes that, it is an
ass." As in marriage so in networking, the reality cannot be captured in a con-
tract-or in a law prescribing contract terms.
II. NETWORK DOMINANCE AND OPTION TIME, AGAIN
Despite the chain broadcasting rules network dominance increased as television
programming became more expensive, requiring wide distribution in order to spread
costs. As a consequence Congress in the mid 1950s directed the Commission to
conduct a study of the problem. It did, and after a couple of years produced the so-
called "Barrow Report"-a suitably impressive volume and a laundry list of recom-
mendations for amendments to the network rules to make them tougher. Chief
among the recommendations was one to abolish option time. The theory was a
continuation of the basic conception underlying the 1941 rules, merely extended a
little further. The Commission did not at that time accept the recommendation to
abolish option time, but it did accept the underlying supposition that the formal
contract relationships between station and network were controlling. It accordingly
imposed a still further restriction on the number of hours in each four-hour day
part segment which could be "optioned." In 1963, it went further and banned option
time altogether. (In the same year it also invalidated a variable compensation
formula under which stations were induced to clear minimum amounts of time.
However, in a different form such compensation schemes have continued to exist-
without official notice being taken of them until 1977.)
It is important to emphasize at this point that the Commission did not forbid
stations to clear network programming. Indeed, its basic assumption was that the
stations would continue to clear network programming on a regular basis even
though not compelled to do so by contract. That assumption reflected reality. But it
was a reality only dimly understood by the Commission, for if the option time
contract did not make a crucial difference to the pattern, of clearances, neither could
its abolition make a substantial. difference in network dominance of programming.
This last fact soon became obvious. Despite the doomsday prophecies of the net-
works that abolition of option time would ruin networking, they continued to
prosper and grow and the concern for network dominance reappeared.
Two years after it abolished option time the Commission turned to another
alternative. This time instead of focusing on the networks' oligopoly power vis-a-vis
PAGENO="0065"
61
their affiliates, the Commission directed its attention to the networks' oligopsony
power vis-a-vis independent program producers. Essentially the theory was to break
up that power, to strengthen the independent program distributors, creating more
independent sources of program supply for stations and thereby reduce network
dominance of programming. It began in 1965 with a proposed rule which would
limit direct network production or licensing of programs to no more than 50 percent
of the regularly scheduled entertainment programs during prime time. The remain-
ing 50 percent would then be provided to the stations by independent program-
mers-presumably through advertisers. The so-called "50-50" rule was basically
intended to return to advertisers the program brokerage function which they had
prior to the late 1950s when the networks' began excluding them from this function.
(Today, virtually no programs are brokered by advertisers.) This would, it was
presumed, increase the number of brokers-creating more competition for program-
ming while at the same time enhancing local station responsibility.
The 50-50 rule was not adopted, instead the Commission opted for a substitute set
of rules which had been initially proposed by Westinghouse (a group owner of
affiliated stations which has long been a major antagonist of the networks). These
were the prime time access and the syndication/financial interest rules.
III. STATION ACCESS AND NETWORK SYNDICATION
As is often the case with FCC regulations the detail of the access, syndication/
financial interest rules is rather complex (sometimes to the point of inscrutability).
However, the essential thrust is plain. The syndication/financial interest rules are
designed to curb the networks' supposed oligopsony power by forbidding them to
engage in domestic syndication (distributing programs to stations after an initial
period of direct network distribution-a period which varies from series to series) or
from acquiring a permanent financial interest in programs produced for the net-
works by independent program producers (today networks produce only a small
fraction of their entertainment programs, most of it being produced by Hollywood
producers and licensed to the networks). In conjunction with these rules the Com-
mission passed the prime time access rule which forbade network programming in
one hour of evening prime time. The object of the access rule was to create a
market for independently produced and distributed programming.
In one respect at least the new rules reflected an increased sophistication over the
option time rules in their recognition that the problem of network dominance
inheres in the economic structure of the industry rather than in a mere legal
contract. However, the Commission's misdiagnosis of the structural problem caused
it once again to miss the mark with its remedy.
Consider first the syndication/financial interest rules. The basic supposition is
that network buying power has enable them to "exploit" program producers, forcing
them to sell to the networks the residual rights (rights to sell after the network
run). This has, the theory goes, weakened the independent producers and thereby
also created disincentives to new entry into the production business) and at the
same time increased network control over programming. That supposition seems to
me most dubious. While network ownership of syndication rights did, I suppose,
augment network control of program distribution, it is far from evident that the
effect was to diminish program supply. If anything the converse seems more prob-
able since by prohibiting networks from buying residual rights to programs pro-
duced initially for network showing, the rules effectively prevent small producers
from shifting part of the risks of production (the risk that it will not play long
enough to recoup costs) to the networks. By forcing suppliers to bear the risk of
syndication runs, the rules do not, contrary to their intent, favor small companies,
or new ventures. Rather they favor the larger, existing Hollywood producers who
have better access to risk capital to finance the cost of programming.
It should be emphasized that the networks have no incentive to restrict the
number of program producers or otherwise limit the supply. Quite the contrary, as
buyers, their incentives are to have as competitive and diverse a source of supply as
possible in order to keep the price of programs down. Thus interference in the
network-producer relationship could not be justified on the ground that it would
increase competitiveness among producers, but only on the premise that strengthen-
ing the producer's power vis-a-vis three networks would increase the competitive
supply of programming available to local stations. However, given the networks'
historic control over access to the stations, it was perceived by the Commission that
some form of guaranteed access to stations was essential. Abolishing option time
had proved futile; therefore it was deemed necessary not simply to forbid the
networks from preempting time on the stations, but to forbid them to program
20-122 0 - 78 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
62
during a certain segment of the day. This was the point of the prime time access
rule.
The subsequent history of the prime time access rule, though comparatively brief,
is rich with insights into the labyrinthine ways of regulatory policy. Originally the
rule forbade television stations in the fifty largest markets from carrying more than
three hours of network programming during the four-hour evening "prime time."
Further, in order to prevent stations from filling up the "access hour" with old
network programs or movies, the rules forbade stations from carrying "off network"
or feature films formerly shown in the market within the two previous years. By
forcing the stations to seek out new program sources this was designed to promote
new program production (including-though this was not a chief purpose of the
rule-local programming).
The ink was scarcely dry on the rule before the Commission was presented with
requests for waivers for news, sports, "off network" programs and old movies, for
several years the Commission pursued a course of ad hoc judgments consisting of
attempts to balance the worth of individual programs against the damage to the
integrity of the rule. The choice proved to be highly subjective and somewhat
erratic giving rise to charges by Chairman Burch, himself unsympathetic with the
rule itself, that the Commission was "hip deep" in program judgments. On the other
hand the granting of waivers was certainly understandable given the alternative
programs that the access rule produced and which were characterized by low budget
game shows most of which were revivals of old network shows or "new" episodes of
daytime game shows); recently discontinued network series-(such as "Hee Haw"
and "Lawrence Welk") and various nature/wildlife features which relied essentially
on stock footage. And if the rule did not yield much in the way of new creative
programming (unless one is willing to classify "Bowling for Dollars" in that genre),
neither did it unleash any notable array of new creative energies. Largely the
access programming was the product of the established suppliers. And such new
"talent' as was encouraged was made possible only by the absence of any quality
competition.
In short the access seed which the Commission had planted in the hope of
bringing new beauty to the "wasteland" produced little more than foul smelling
weeds beside which the rankest of network shows seemed like rare gardenias. Even
those who were reliable critics of networks found themselves calling for a repeal of
the rule. The Commission, hard pressed to hide its own embarrassment, considered
such a repeal in 1974 only to back off with a compromise which essentially cut the
amount of access time in half and also permitted exemptions for certain categories
of network programs (those for which waivers had theretofore been granted). How-
ever, the court of appeals, dissatisfied with the Commission's procedure remanded
the decision to the Commission for correction in procedure, but with a strong
suggestion that the Commission take a harder look at the merits of its revised rule.
The Commission took another look in 1975, and this time came up with still another
version-"PTAR III" as it was now known among the cognoscenti-which was
another compromise, this time between the original 1970 rule and the 1974 revision.
It retained the rule, but also retained most of the exemptions for network program-
ming of the kind that the Commission liked-"children's specials, public affairs and
docementaries." This time the revised rules was upheld by the court.
IV. THE CURRENT FCC INQUIRY
Quite apart from the effect on the public which still had to view the impoverished
program fare that the access rule produced, the revised access rule did not bring
tranquillity to the industry, to industry critics or to government. A year after the
access rule was adopted a petition was ified by one program producer to expand it
so as to bar "stripping"-multiple exposure of episodes of the same program. The
Commission no sooner denied that relief (quite correctly in my view) than it was
presented with a petition by Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. calling for Commission
investigation of three aspects of network-affiliate relations:
(1) increases in scheduled network programming;
(2) network practices which foreclose the abffity of affiliated stations to preview
programs;
(3) network compensation to affiliates.
In January of this year the Commission responded to the Westinghouse petition
and also to claims being pressed by the Justice Department in a separate antitrust
PAGENO="0067"
63
suit (which was originally brought in 1972)' by initiating a broad inquiry into all
aspects of network operations, including not only network affiliate relationships, but
network-program supplier relationships, and even network ownership of stations.
I support the Commission's inquiry insofar as it promises a broad investigation
into the role of the networks. however, reading the initial notice of inquiry I am
struck by the fact that the Commission's approach still seems to be imprisoned
within a rather confined and static conception of industry structure. As in the past
the Commission's approach basically assumes the continuation of the present indus-
try structure and looks only at behavior within that structure. The Commission is
evidently proceeding on the implicit premises that broadcasting will continue to be
the dominant delivery system for electronic mass communications, and that local
broadcast allocations in as many cities as possible are necessary and desirable.
Nowhere in the inquiry thus far has the Commission-or anyone else so far as I
am aware-even raised questions about these premises. (I might note parenthetical-
ly that this includes the Justice Department's antitrust complaint which essentially
takes the same approach as the Commission's past and present efforts. 2) I think,
however, that unless we begin to think about some of these deeper questions we are
not likely to effect any significant change in the character of television service. The
Commission like many others has expressed concern over the network oligopoly, but
it has never really pursued the question why it exists and how it might be structur-
ally altered. Perhaps this reflects a policy of conscious neglect, for the search for the
source of network power leads swiftly and clearly to the Commission's own televi-
sion allocations policy.
V. COMPETITION, DIVERSITY AND THE INDUSTRY STRUCrURE
There are three television networks for one important reason-our allocations
policy has dispersed VHF station allocations so as to allow most households to
receive no more than three. Because of the inferiority of UHF it remains to be seen
whether UHF allocations can provide the basis for additional networks. But up to
now it is plain that UHF has not provided a sufficiently strong base to support a
fourth conpetitive network-and certainly not a fifth or sixth. With only three fully
competitive stations in markets comprising two-thirds of the nation's television
households, there can be no more than three brokers for any given hour of national
broadcasting. As a result, program decisions will be virtually the same as those
currently made by the three national network firms, reflecting the tastes of the
mass audience.
We can of course change the identity of the program suppliers; we can limit the
time periods in which they are permitted to sell their wares, but the economic
incentives will remain unchanged. Firms will tend to maximize audience shares in
light of the number of viewing options. So long as the number of viewing options
remains the same, the strategy of commercial programming will remain the same
for any networking agency and the degree of diversity enjoyed by the viewer will
remain unchanged.
If there is to be a serious attempt to reduce "network dominance," and thereby to
increase program diversity, it must begin with recognition that the basic source of
the problem is the limited number of economically competitive television stations in
each market which effectively precludes the development of new networks and,
correspondingly, new sources of program choice. Unfortunately, within the present
structure of allocations the potential for viable new networks or for significant
enrichment of program service is limited insofar as it rests on the full, competitive
development of UHF-which is an uncertain hope for the foreseeable future.
`The Justice Department's antitrust suit seeks to prohibit the networks from: (1) buying any
interest in independently produced programs beyond the right of the network exhibition; (2)
syndicating entertainment programs; (3) producing entertainment programs itself; (4) using its
control over access to the network to obtain unfair competitive advantage in any other field.
2J~ fact, the first two of Department's proposed remedies have already been ordered by the
FCC. The third assumes that network production is a threat to competitive supply of program-
ming and I see no evidence and no persuasive logic to support this assumption. The networks
currently produce very little entertainment programming (news and public affairs would not be
affected by the Justice Department's proposed remedy). I take it they resist giving up program-
ming principally because maintaining the option of production is an important constraint on the
prices charged by program producers. It is not clear to me how giving the networks this option
prejudices competition in program production. In fact quite the converse seems to me more
plausible. About the fourth proposed remedy I am uncertain concerning the factual basis,
though it is alleged that the networks have engaged in various tie-in type arrangements. If so, I
have no difficulty with this proposed remedy-but it will not significantly affect the basic
oligopoly/dominance problems that should be the core concern.
PAGENO="0068"
64
I think that the more substantial promise for new programming, and for diversi-
fied communications services generally, lies beyond UHF, and even beyond broad-
casting-at least beyond broadcasting alone. It lies in the development of new
broadband service facilities.
At this point the network issue must be put into a broader perspective; it is
necessary to ask not merely what is the role of networks in broadcasting but what is
the role of broadcasting in electronic mass communications? This is not the occasion
for launching into a discussion of new technologies and how they may affect our
communications services. But it bears notice that a continued preoccupation with
the traditional broadcast structure as the dominant form of electronic mass commu-
nications effectively forecloses any lasting resolution of the problem of program
diversity-which is the core of the "network problem." We need to think beyond
mere tinkering with the network-affiliate, or the network-producer relationships
and to consider new forms of communications delivery such as broadband communi-
cations systems-cable, fibre optics, direct broadcast satellites. I do not say, and you
will not believe, that broadband communications systems are free of problems of
their own. In particular the full developement of broadband communications sys-
tems will require us to take a close look at our localism policies. Is it necessary to
sacrifice local broadcast service? (I think probably not.) If so, how much are we
willing to forego in order to receive additional services? Can rural areas continue to
be served as effectively as now-or might they be even better served? (I believe the
latter.) Assuming the desirability of a new communications system, how can we get
there from here-with a minimum amount of economic cost and political bickering?
These are not easy questions, but I think they~ take us to more important issues
than we have to date encountered in the date of "chain broadcasting."
Senator HOLLINGS. The committee will be in recess until 9:30
tomorrow morning, and we will meet in room 5110 in the Dirksen
Building.
[Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned, to reconvene the follow-
ing day, Tuesday, May 10, 1977, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Build-
ing, room 5110.]
PAGENO="0069"
TELEVISION BROADCAST POLICIES
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1977
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE
AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at
9:37 a.m., room 5110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Howard
W. Cannon presiding.
Senator CANNON. This morning the subcommittee continues its
communications oversight hearings. We will pick .up where we left
off yesterday in exploring the various issues of concern of those in
the broadcasting field.
The subcommittee chairman, Senator Hollings, has a budget con-
ference going on right now, but I expect him to be joining us later
this morning.
In the interim, we will begin by calling Chairman Richard Wiley
of the FCC, who has a prepared statement. I understand the Chair-
man will be joined by other Commissioners who will participate
when we begin our questioning.
The FCC panel will be followed by Mr. Vince Wasilewski, presi-
dent of the NAB.
Mr. Chairman, you may proceed, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, FEDER-
AL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY
ROBERT E. LEE; JAMES H. QUELLO; ABBOTT WASHBURN;
JOSEPH R. FOGARTY; MARGITA E. WHITE, COMMISSIONERS;
WALLACE E. JOHNSON, CHIEF, BROADCAST BUREAU; AND
RICHARD J. SHIBEN, CHIEF, RENEWAL AND TRANSFER DIVI-
SION
Mr. WILEY. I would like at this point to introduce my colleagues
here at the Commission. We have all of the Commissioners here
save Commissioner Hooks, who is making a speech.
First we have the dean of our FCC, Robert E. Lee, who served
more years than any other Commissioner.
Senator CANNON. Why don't you invite the other Commission
members up here to join you.
Mr. WILEY. This is Commissioner Robert E. Lee. On his left, Mr.
Washburn. On my immediate right, Ms. Margita White, Mr. Jim
Quello, Mr. Joe Fogarty. As I said, Commissioner Hooks is not with
us this morning. I also have with me Wally Johnson, chief of the
(65)
PAGENO="0070"
66
Broadcast Bureau. He is supported by a number of members of his
staff.
We appreciate this opportunity to present an overview of broad-
casting from the perspective of the Federal Communications Com-
mission. I have with me a 38-page statement. What I would like to
do is go through this, hitting the high points and submit the whole
statement for the record, if I might.
Senator CANNON. The statement will be made part of the record
in full, and you may summarize.
Mr. WILEY. Thank you.
As you know, Congress created the Federal Communications
Commission in 1934 for the purpose of "regulating interstate and
foreign commerce in communication." Thus, the Commission is
empowered to regulate not only broadcasting but interstate and
foriegn telephone and telegraph, communication by satellite, as
well as public safety, industrial, transportation, amateur, and citi-
zen's services.
We also regulate certain aspects of cable television, although the
actual licensing or franchising of such systems is a matter for
determination by State and local government.
At present there are more than 9,150 radio and television sta-
tions on the air, and several hundred more have been authorized.
Most of these are for commercial operation, and are supported by
advertising revenue, but there are also numerous noncommercial
stations as well.
Mr. Chairman, relative to broadcasting, the Commission has a
number of responsibilities. I would like to take you through some
of the most important.
First, allocation of broadcast channels. This is one of the basic
responsibilities of the Commission, and we are engaged in alloca-
tion of the portions of the spectrum to civilian use, both domestical-
ly and in conjunciton with foreign countries internationally.
In recent months we have considered several issues concerning
the allocation of channels within the broadcast service. Let me
take you through those.
First of all, VHF drop-ins. What we are discussing here is the
concept of the general reduction of the number of miles required
between VHF stations operating on the same or adjacent channels.
After conducting an inquiry and performing additional studies, the
Commission decided that because of increased levels of interference
it would not serve the public interest to make a general reduction
in the separation standards.
However, we did find that, in four markets, the potential benefits
of new television service for a large number of people appeared to
outweigh the harm caused by adding "short-spaced" or "drop-in"
station.
Early in 1977 we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking propos-
ing that one additional VHF channel be allocated to each of those
cities: Charleston, Johnstown-Altoona, Knoxville, and Salt Lake
City.
In a separate proceeding, the Commission considered and reject-
ed the possibility of a VHF drop-in for New Jersey. Such a station
had been one of the proposals presented by groups concerned about
the difficulties of getting local news, public affairs, and political
PAGENO="0071"
67
coverage in New Jersey, when all of the commercial VHF stations
serving that area are licensed to the adjoining cities of Philadel-
phia and New York. The Commission found that a preferable
means of dealing with the problem could be found without chang-
ing the existing channel allocations structure. Accordingly, the
Commission has placed a special New Jersey service obligation on
the television stations in the area, and has already received from
the larger mass-audience stations statements of commitment of
equipment and personnel to New Jersey coverage.
Senator CANNON. What sort of a thing are you talking about
there?
Mr. WILEY. Well, for example, the requirement, would be that
there be news services provided for New Jersey like electronic
newsgathering services that would provide the people of New
Jersey quick, fast-breaking news and public affairs coverage. In
other words, we wanted to make certain that the New York and
Philadelphia stations would recognize their obligation to New
Jersey.
Senator CANNON. So part of their programing would be oriented
specifically towards New Jersey?
Mr. WILEY. That is right. We have already received from larger
mass-audience stations statements of commitment of equipment
and personnel for New Jersey coverage. It is a difficult situation
because New Jersey is one of several States that has no VHF
stations specifically assigned to it. We are therefore placing this
requirement on the New York and Philadelphia stations. There
may be, of course, another answer to this whole area. That is the
one I am moving to now.
It is clear from our study of the VHF drop-ins that any substan-
tial further growth in the number of television stations must come
in the UHF frequencies. The problem here has not generally been
one of channel availability, but more one of technical difficulties
and competitive disadvantage.
The Commission is working toward a master plan for the full
development of UHF television, and I might say including both
governmental and private sector actions. I am hoping we can con-
tinue to work with the industry and with the public in this regard
to develop UHF into a comparable situation with VHF television.
These channels are there. There is a tremendous opportunity for
more service to the American people, and I think the Commission
is committed to trying to make UHF fully comparable to VHF.
Senator CANNON. Why has it moved along so slowly so far? Why
has it been so far behind the VHF system.
Mr. WILEY. I believe it is a combination of technical problems in
UHF in areas of communications which the Commission does not
regulate. For example, in the receiver sets, and the way they are
being developed, we recently came out with a rulemaking which
might lower the noise figure as far as UHF reception is concerned,
replace it with a new requirement to the set manufacturers that
when they ship the sets-they have heretofore attached a VHF
antenna to the set, simply put the UHF antenna in the box, and
many people do not know enough to hook it up and how to utilize
it.
PAGENO="0072"
68
There is also a problem with the transmitter in UHF television-
a problem with the antennas. To some extent there has to be more
investment in the private sector, more confidence in the private
sector, and that they cannot look only to Government to solve
these problems.
The Government now is recognizing more, and the FCC is recog-
nizing more, that there is a public interest factor associated with
the development of UHF television. It has moved along slowly, but
it is going to move much more quickly in the future.
I might say there is now a council of UHF broadcasting that has
been working rather effectively with the Commission in this area.
Also, the Public Broadcasting Service has recognized that their
future lies with UHF, and they have been associated with the
Council of UHF Broadcasting.
So, for the first time, we now see a concerted private industry
sector and Government effort designed to develop this portion of
the frequencies. I believe it is in the public interest. I think all of
my colleagues agree.
I mentioned subscription television. We are talking here about
over-the-air pay television, Senator Cannon. I will just skip over
that and say that this is a coming development.
I will also mention FM, which is becoming more successful every
year.
Finally, let me get to the AM broadcast band. It is clear that this
broadcast band is intensively used in most parts of the country.
There is a special characteristic of the AM frequencies which
makes channel allocation problems quite different from the ones
raised in the other frequencies we have discussed. At nighttime,
the AM signal is reflected from the ionosphere and returns to
earth at a great distance from the originating station. Many AM
stations are authorized to operate only during daytime hours when
this nighttime or "skywave" phenomenon does not occur.
If a large number of those stations were permitted to operate at
night, the interference situation could be chaotic. While we have
attempted to get as much AM service to individual communities as
is consistent with good engineering practices, there are severe
limits which must be recognized.
By international agreement, certain AM channels are set aside
for exclusive nighttime use in the United States. Until 1961, 25 so-
called clear channels existed on which no more than one station
was permitted to operate at night. In a proceeding concluded at
that time, 12 of those channels were changed so that an additional
station on each channel could be operated with a directional anten-
na at night. Currently underway is a study aimed at seeing wheth-
er it would be in the public interest to continue the present pattern
of clear channel stations, or increase the power available for use by
some or all of those stations, or permit additional stations to use
those channels at night by breaking down some of the clears.
This has been a proceeding that has been going on for about 20
or 30 years in the Commission. I have stated, and the Commission
agrees, I believe, that we are going to resolve this longstanding
proceeding once and for all within the next year or so.
Let me turn to another important function. We just covered
allocation. Let me turn to licensing. Of course, this is a basic
PAGENO="0073"
69
commission function. We have to assign stations in each of the
radio services with a specific location, frequency, and power. While
the chief consideration in this process is to avoid interference with
other channels, many of the Commission's policies are promoted
through the licensing function. For example, the Commission pro-
motes diversification and avoidance of undue concentration of con-
trol in the broadcast media through its rules prohibiting the licens-
ing of more than one AM, FM, or TV station in one community to
the same person or group, and through its limit on the total
number of stations in the same service that can be commonly
owned.
Broadcast stations are licensed to serve the public interest, con-
venience, and necessity, and they are granted a 3 years' license
period. Every 3 years we have to make a determination of whether
their overall performance has lived up to their obligations to the
public. We have to look at whether their service is in ~the public
interest.
Accordingly, we have to look at the degree to which licensees
have been responsive to problems, needs, and interests of their
community. We require the broadcaster to ascertain these prob-
lems and needs.
Senator CANNON. Let me go back just a minute to where you say
"through rules prohibiting licensing of more than one AM, FM, or
TV station in one community." There are areas where one owner
owns a radio station and TV station. Is that permitted now on new
license applications?
Mr. WILEY. No; not in the future.
Senator CANNON. Is it grandfathered for those people who had
them?
Mr. WILEY. That is right. The Commission made that decision.
Senator CANNON. Is there a time limit on that?
Mr. WILEY. No.
Senator CANNON. So they are grandfathered in perpetuity so
long as it remains under the same owner?
Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir, with one exception. If they sold, they would
have to break up. Similarly, with a newspaper-broadcast located
across ownership. The concept, of course, in the newspaper area
was that we originally thought that newspapers were needed to
develop broadcasting in the journalistic tradition. But as years
have gone by, of course, this is no longer true, so the Commission
decided it would not permit any future coownership situations to
occur. But we did not find the kind of abuses that would require
divestiture in these areas.
The court of appeals in Washington, of course, has decided that
differently. We are appealing it to the Supreme Court.
Senator CANNON. What is the status now? Say a man has a radio
station, TV station, and newspaper, where does he stand?
Mr. WILEY. Under the decision, if the court of appeals is af-
firmed, he is going to have to sell either the newspaper or televi-
sion or his broadcasting properties. He cannot have a colocated
situation under that court of appeals decision.
We disagree with that decision, and are appealing it to the
Supreme Court. The court of appeals has stayed its mandate. So for
right now the Commission's rules are still in effect. They can
PAGENO="0074"
70
retain that operation unless they sell, in which case they have to
break up.
That is true for television and aural facilities and newspaper
broadcast facilities.
I have been discussing license renewal. As you know, Senator, we
require broadcasters to ascertain problems, needs, and interests of
the local community in order to serve those problems and needs.
In the past, the ascertainment procedures required by the Corn-
mission were quite formal. Specific guidelines for such things as
interviews with leaders of community groups and for a survey of
opinion of the general public were set forth by the Commission.
As part of its reregulatory program, the Commission undertook a
comprehensive study of the ascertainment procedures for renewal
applicants. That study revealed that much of the formality and
paperwork associated with the ascertainment procedures was un-
necessary. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted new, simpli-
fied, and more flexible procedures for renewal applicants.
Senator CANNON. I hope you do something simplifying those
procedures because one of the big areas of complaint that I have
had, and from my constituency, is the undue burden placed on the
small operator, to comply with your regulations, to go through the
procedural steps and go through the paperwork.
I have been shown the volumes of paperwork that has been
required in the past, and to me, it seems to be an absurdity.
Mr. WILEY. I think much of that has changed in the last several
years. If you were to talk to broadcasters today, you will know
there are still areas in which we have not reached the millenium,
but there have been substantial changes. For example, in ascer-
tainment. We no longer require the broadcasters every 3 years to
go through one single ascertainment procedure. It's now a continu-
ous process going on throughout their license term consistent with
the way they really run their business as they have told us. They
don't have to send a lot of material to Washington any more. They
simply have to have the interview forms put in their public file for
the public to consider.
They no longer have to make every ascertainment themselves.
Fifty percent of the interviews with community leaders can be
done by nonmanagement personnel. They can do it by telephone or
group ascertainment.
This is a much more flexible process. More importantly, in com-
munities under 10,000, Senator Cannon, we have taken the broad-
caster at their word in those communities that they know that
community by living in it and interacting, and we have taken off
all formal recordkeeping requirements.
We are going to study that and see whether or not we can get
away from the formal recordkeeping and simply look at the bottom
line, what is the programing responsive to the 10 top problems and
needs and interests that they ascertain.
There may be a great possibility in moving in that direction and
I have spoken out personally in that area. The Commission, howev-
er, has limited their decision to less than 10,000 as an experiment,
so I think the Commission is moving.
I might say in other areas as I get into this, we also have a short
form radio application which has cut down the burden in filing
PAGENO="0075"
71
renewal applications for radio stations markedly. It's down to a
two-page document. So the Commission has been in the forefront in
trying to get rid of unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations
and trying to have less time spent on paperwork and more time on
serving the local community.
I agree with your view on that all the way.
Senator CANNON. All right, sir.
Mr. WILEY. If I can move to the contested renewal application,
we would like to see, Senators, if possible, the problems between
broadcasters and the public solved at the local level.
We believe broadcasters are public trustees and we hope that
there can be a resolution of citizen complaints through dialog,
continuous dialog with broadcasters. Sometimes, however, these
efforts fail, in which case, the citizen has a right to contest the
renewal of a station. Typically, he can file a petition to deny.
Contested renewal applications require considerably more review
than uncontested. Accordingly, a great backlog developed in the
past.
I'm pleased to say that backlog has been cleaned up over the last
several years. We are now very current on renewals, we only have
about 20 petitions now being worked on, and the idea of 200- or
300-petition backlog is a thing of the past. We have cleaned that up
in the last 2 years.
Senator CANNON. What is the position of the Commission when a
contested application is filed and, assuming that the broadcaster
has done a reasonably good job in the community, there haven't
been a lot of very outstanding complaints against that broadcaster,
what position does the Commission take? Do you go in there with
the idea that someone who comes in and promises they can do a
better job serving the community is entitled to a crack at it, rather
than demonstrate performance on the part of the man who has had
the license?
Mr. WILEY. We have to understand that we are talking about two
kinds of protests. One is the petition to deny. The second one that
you are now referring to is the petition that says not only don't
renew it, but give me the license. In that area, I have taken the
position, and the Commission has taken the position that a com-
parative renewal involving the incumbent licensee simply doesn't
make sense. We have recommended to Congress that you abolish
the comparative renewal process altogether, because what you are
comparing, as you are suggesting by your question is, the incum-
bent's performance against a challenger's promise. You are com-
paring an apple and an orange and we simply say it can't be done.
Instead, we recommend that the Commission at renewal time
should make a searching review of the licensee and find out wheth-
er he's doing a good and faithful job of serving his community
without serious deficiencies. If he's doing that, I say he should be
renewed no matter what the challenger promises.
Senator CANNON. In other words, there ought to be a presump-
tion in favor of the man in there and performing, and based on his
past experience, there certainly ought to be a presumption that
he's doing a good job if you haven't had a lot of complaints against
him other than complaints on the part of the person who's trying
to get the new license.
PAGENO="0076"
72
Mr. WILEY. I think there has to be a reasonable renewal expec-
tancy, or otherwise we aren't going to have the kind of stability
you need in the broadcasting area to attract financial and manpow-
er resources to give people quality broadcast service. Yes, I agree
with you.
Senator CANNON. I saw, personally, one situation where a group
of people got together solely for the purpose of contesting a license
application. It wasn't based on the fact that the licensee wasn't
doing to good job, it was based on the fact that they wanted to
come in and contest him and get that license. I was very disturbed
to find out the type of situation that could occur under those
circumstances.
Mr. WILEY. That is still the law. We have made this recommen-
dation to Congress, but in the meantime, until such a law might be
passed, we are continuing, of course, to go through the process of
what many times are expensive and very prolonged proceedings.
We tried to cut that down through reform of our administrative
procedures, adjudicatory procedures. I'm frank to tell you they are
still going to be very long, protracted and expensive procedures. I
don't think ultimately the Commission can come out with a ratio-
nal decision in many of those cases. We have tried to put out a new
policy statement which simplifies our process, but I think it's an
area which requires and needs Congressional guidance and atten-
tion.
Senator CANNON. When you say you only have 20 petitions unre-
solved on a petition to deny--
Mr. WILEY. Right.
Senator CANNON. Is that a situation where someone is just ob-
jecting, they are not trying to get a license?
Mr. WILEY. That's right.
Senator~ CANNON. They are just saying, "We want you to deny
the license to this applicant because they haven't performed their
duties"?
Mr. WILEY. That is exactly right. We had in 1974, when I became
Chairman, about 250 petitions to deny pending, and many times
the citizen and broadcaster would have to wait until the next
renewal period and still we hadn't made the decision of the last
renewal period. That is unacceptable and through a lot of hard
work on the part of our staff and through new procedures, we have
cleaned up that backlog and, in fact, many of the 20 are still in the
pleading stages, so we are current now.
Senator GRIFFIN. You were commenting on some of the reasons
these groups got together and contested a petition. I recall a con-
cern that I had last year about the fact that in some situations the
contesting groups really don't hope to get a license. What they are
really angling for is some special interest arrangement with the
broadcaster whereby he will alter his programing in their interest,
their special interest, as a tradeoff for dropping their contest.
There have actually been agreements entered into in order to get
this dissident group to drop their contest-that they would do this
or that, would put so many people on the air or would have certain
programs. I don't know whether you cover this later in your state-
ment.
Mr. WILEY. No.
PAGENO="0077"
73
Senator GRIFFIN. If you don't, will you bring me up to date on
that? You recall my interest in it.
Mr. WILEY. I do. We have had a number of discussions on this.
Senator GRIFFIN. That is a form of blackmail, I would say.
Mr. WILEY. I would say this. The broadcaster has a nondelegable
duty, obligation and right to make the programing decisions inde-
pendently. He cannot simply say to a citizen group, that is pushing
him for a certain result, that we will do whatever you want unless
he truly believes that is in the public interest. We do permit
citizen-broadcaster agreements because we think if local disputes
can be resolved locally, that generally proves to be in the public
interest, rather than bundling it all up and sending it to Washing-
ton and making it a Federal case. But we have looked at those and,
in some cases we have refused to approve them because they have
involved a delegation of the broadcaster's independent judgment
and programing functions to a special interest.
Sometimes they have not. Sometimes the broadcaster has recog-
nized through citizen input and dialog that perhaps he hasn't been
serving for example the Spanish community in his area quite as
sufficiently as he should. I think that is in the public interest.
On the other hand, if he yields to a special interest that he
doesn't think is serving the public interest, he may be in more
trouble with the Commission than the citizen group.
Senator GRIFFIN. I agree the whole question is what is in the
public interest. The concern I had when the subject came up before
was the extent to which the FCC does exercise responsibility. Are
these agreements required to be filed with the FCC, and does the
FCC review them?
Mr. WILEY. Dick, can you respond?
Mr. SHIBEN. Generally speaking, they are filed with the Commis-
sion--
Senator GRIFFIN. Why do you say "generally speaking"?
Mr. SHIBEN. All agreements are not required to be filed.
Senator GRIFFIN. I see. There are no Commission regulations
requiring that.
Mr. WILEY. But they have been put in the public file if they are
not filed with us. They are filed with us, I think, Dick, isn't it true,
where there is a dismissal of a petition?
Mr. SHIBEN. Where there is a petition to deny, or something
pending, and they are seeking dismissal.
Mr. WILEY. Otherwise we require they be put in the public file so
that everyone can take a look at whether or not, for example, they
made an agreement with some particular female group, let's say,
that another group might disagree with. They are all in the public
file for public consumption.
Senator CANNON. Mr. Chairman, would you identify your assis-
tant for the record?
Mr. WILEY. That is Mr. Shiben, Chief, Renewal and Transfer
Division of the Broadcast Bureau, and he has primary responsibil-
ity in this area, so I think the system is working much better than
when you and I talked about it before. We clarified our policies; we
are seeing fewer petitions to deny today than in the past, and
maybe that is because there is this continuing dialog going on
between broadcasters and citizens.
PAGENO="0078"
74
But, I think we have made it crystal clear to the broadcast
industry that they are not to delegate their independent program-
ing function to any group or person.
Frankly, I have seen relatively few instances of that.
Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you.
Mr. WILEY. I would like to make one point clear. I oftentimes
hear the Commission renews everybody and we look at statistics,
99 percent of all broadcasters get renewed' and there is sort of a
feeling that the Commission simply rubber stamps every renewal
application.
I would like to say that does not comport with reality. The facts
are that within the limits of our resources, which are rather limit-
ed, we do make a real effort to review every renewal application
carefully. We engage in considerable correspondence with the sta-
tions involved and, ultimately arrive at an informed determination
as to whether the license should be renewed.
Senator CANNON. You don't try to lean over backwards because
of that charge and deny a few applications when really they ought
to be approved to you.
Mr. WILEY. I don't think we do. I will say this. We have gotten
tough on taking away more licenses in the last several years than
anytime in the Commission's history, but if you looked at those
individual cases, you would agree that those are cases which frank-
ly do the broadcast industry a lot of harm, where you have had
fraudulent conduct and they have cheated the public and the Com-
mission has justifiably taken strong action.
In many of the other areas, we recognize it is a service provided
to the public and if there is no complaint by the public and there is
a general good faith job being done by the broadcasters, I don't see
any reason to take the license away and we don't do it.
I don't think the fact that 99 percent of the broadcasters get
renewed in a significant service shows that the Commission is not
doing its job or that the broadcast industry is not doing its job. It
may be quite the reverse, that the public is being well served.
Senator CANNON. It may be that you are doing your job very well
in seeing that they do adequately perform the service they should
be performing.
Mr. WILEY. Yes, the fact is that the ultimate decision on renewal
may come after there has been considerable work by our renewal
branch in working with the stations to try to determine what
problems exist and see if those problems can't be solved short of
the ultimate sanction of taking the license away.
We are not in the job or business of trying to grab all the
licenses we can. We are in the job of trying to see that the broad-
cast industry serves the public interest. That is the bottom line it
seems to me.
One of the things in the renewal process, we probably spent
more time on than anything else in the last few years has been
equal employment opportunity portion of the application. Let me
say that EEO is the law of the land. It is right both morally and
legally and the Commission was, the first and only regulatory
agency to adopt EEO regulations for its licensees.
Frankly, the broadcast industry has responded well to those
regulations. We hear a lot of criticism, but if you look at statistics,
PAGENO="0079"
75
there has been a general increase in improvement in the overall
equal employment profile of the broadcast industry. Based on the
data available to us, job opportunities for minorities and women
are continually increasing and the actual employment figures re-
flect the fact that many broadcasters are making an affirmative
effort to open the doors of opportunity to those for whom they
previously have been closed and I support that concept.
Unfortunately, not all licensees comply with our requirements as
fully as they should. In such cases, the Commission has taken
strong and positive action to effect compliance and we are going to
continue. Licensees who are not living up to the letter of the law in
our regulations-who are not making opportunity available-I am
not talking about quotas here-I am talking about making opportu-
nity available for ethnic and racial and sexual minorities, are going
to run into problems with the Commission.
Senator CANNON. I fully support that concept, but I hope you
don't get carried away as an example I saw yesterday, not with the
FCC, but a contractor who had been notified by compliance division
that he was not in compliance because he hadn't taken adequate
steps for employment of minorities and the man only had two
employees, two employees and he was being cited because he
hadn't taken adequate steps to insure the employment of minor-
ities.
Now, I don't know how far you are going to carry this sort of
thing. I hope it doesn't-if I get a complaint like that about the
FCC, you are sure going to hear from me on it.
Mr. WILEY. Well, you won't. Let me say this. In a rather contro-
versial action, we have raised the level of the stations which are
required to file affirmative plans, from five to ten, because we
recognize there is a burden on the smaller station that has to be
balanced with the social goods that we are trying to foster through
our EEO program.
Smaller stations sometimes don't have the resources to engage in
training programs and to engage in other things which will foster
EEO. We do place our requirements on them, but we are trying to
lessen some of the paperwork burdens on the smaller stations.
So we are going for a balanced program. My view is that broad-
casters are making the effort to give these people opportunity. We
are not going to look at quotas. But we are going to look at the
broadcasters statistical performance. If we find it falls below the
statistics in his work force, we are going to question it and we will
then look to see what the broadcaster can show us as to what he is
actually doing to provide opportunity.
That is really what we are looking for. This is a difficult area.
Many broadcasters are finding themselves being questioned by the
FCC today. We send them letters requiring more information and
explanations. Sometimes we put reporting conditions on them, to
show us how many people they have hired and how many minor-
ities have been hired.
Sometimes we condition the license: sometimes we set it for short
term renewal and finally sometimes we designate licenses for evi-
dentiary hearing.
EEO is the law of the land and we intend to carry out our
responsibilities in this regard. I do think we have to recognize that
PAGENO="0080"
76
there is progress being made in the broadcast industry and some-
times all the criticism obscures that fact.
Senator GRIFFIN. Before you go on. You refer to conditional
renewals. Are those renewals without hearings?
Mr. WILEY. Yes.
Senator GRIFFIN. Haven't you had some cases in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia that affect the practice of
authorizing renewal without hearing?
Mr. WILEY. We have had several recent cases come down just in
the last several weeks, which have suggested that in some cases it
may be necessary to give discovery rights to citizens, petitions to
deny or people who have brought complaints against broadcast
stations prior to the Commission making a decision on the petition.
Now, I happen to feel that where the station is below the zone of
reasonableness perhaps that kind of effort might be required. I
question when a station is within the zone of reasonableness
whether that kind of procedural remedy should be required of
licensees who are doing an effectively good job because, let's face it,
that is going to take time and cost money.
So, we will be looking at this in deciding whether or not we want
to appeal those decisions or seek rehearing.
Senator GRIFFIN. Another embarrassing question-Last year
Commissioner Hooks was quite concerned about what kind of a job
the FCC was doing in its own house in the area of equal employ-
ment opportunities.
Mr. WILEY. I think we are doing a much better job. We have
formed an internal EEO unit; we have an internal EEO officer.
When I came in, we had never had a black supergrade. That has
been changed. I hope in the next month to be able to recommend to
the commission the first Hispanic supergrade position. We are
making a real affirmative effort to try to get more minorities and
women, and in all of our areas. We find better success in the legal
area, more difficulty in the economic and engineering areas, which
have not traditionally attracted minority members as much as they
perhaps should.
The Commission has not reached the millenium either in its own
house, but we are working on it because we think certainly if we
require it of our licensees, we have to expect if of ourselves.
Senator GRIFFIN. I was wondering if you might be entitled to
some sort of conditional renewal as a Commission.
Mr. WILEY. Well, I think that is well stated. We have our own
affirmative EEO plan, as a matter of fact, that we are moving
toward and we have expressed that. I think we should bear witness
the same way as we expect licensees to do.
Senator GRIFFIN. I think we as a committee have an obligation to
ask you to provide us with real information and statistics: Where
were you 2 years ago; where were you 1 year ago; where are you
now in these areas?
Mr. WILEY. Fine. I would be pleased to do that. The important
thing again is not only statistics, but the opportunity that is made
available. In other words, the fact that we are going out and
seeking these people and taking actions to get them. Sometimes we
find we have difficulty just like private broadcasters, because a
good minority graduating from law school, with an excellent record
PAGENO="0081"
77
is in demand today as he should be and sometimes we are not as
successful as we would like to be in the ultimate job of catching
him and acquiring him. But equal opportunity is the important
thing and we expect it of ourselves and of broadcasters.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record:]
TABLE V-BUREAU AND STAFF OFFICE COMPOSITION BY NONMINORITY/MINORITY GROUP MEMBERSHIP MARCH 19751
Commissioners
Opinions and review
Administrative law judges
Office of plans and policy
Office of executive director
Office of chief engineer
General counsel
Field operations bureau
Common carrier bureau
Safety and special radio services bureau
Broadcast bureau
Review board
Cable television
(ithIrl
1~
162 1
3~ 1
39 9
50 2
34 5
89 3 1
1~ 1
35
25
27
1 196
4 129
1 49
7 397
1 171
1 156
4 209
26
73
1The FCC employs no Aleots or Eskimos.
456 21 2 19 1,503
Spanish
Organization Black American
American
Indian Oriental Nonminority
20-122 0 -78 -6
PAGENO="0082"
78
-~ ~
a~ c-j r~
- C~ C~) (~) c~)
~
PAGENO="0083"
MINORITY CODES AND SEX BY PAY PLAN-GRADE-AID 03/14/76-Continued
WG-09.
WG-08.
WG-07.
WG-06.
WG-05.
WG-03.
WP-24.
WP-18.
WP-16.
WP-15.
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
7 7 6 6
2 2 1 1
2 2 2 2
1 1 1
1
3 3
2 2
2 2
3 3
1 1
1 1
Total FCC 2,077 1,227 850 458 138 320 21 11 10 3 2 1 20 12 8 1,574 1,063 511
Pay plan-Grade
Total number Negro Spanish surnamed American Indian Oriental All others
All M F All M F All M F All M F All M F - All M F
3 3
4 4 1 1 1
1 1 1
2 2
6 6 3 3
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
TotalWG 22 22 10 10 2 2
WP-13
WP-12
WP-09
WP-08
WP-06
Total WP 20 19 1 18 17 1
10 10
_____ -z1
2 2
PAGENO="0084"
80
Senator GRIFFIN. Chairman Wiley, I understand that this is the
kind of information that would ordinarily be expected to be reflect-
ed in the annual report of the FCC. But the Commission, I am
advised, hasn't been issuing the annual reports required by law.
Mr. WILEY. Yes, I think we have been very dilatory in this
respect and I have spoken to the Executive Director and Public
Information Officer and expressed my displeasure at the tardiness
of that and we have not got one of the reports to the Government
Printing Office and we are going to get that up to date. There is no
question about it, that has not been one of our bright spots.
Senator GRIFFIN. Would that be the 1975 report?
Mr. WILEY. Yes.
Senator GRIFFIN. Because you haven't filed one since 1974; is
that correct?
Mr. WILEY. That is correct. My understanding is-and I don't
have the most recent information, but I understand that the 1975
report will be submitted to the Government Printing Office in late
June. There are delays there, too, I want to point out, and actual
printing often takes up to 5 months. There is no question, we have
not done an exceedingly good job in getting the annual report out.
It has not been an area, frankly, which I have spent any individual
time on until I found out that we were so much in arrears and I
have spoken to our staff people and expressed the fact that Con-
gress and the public is entitled to getting those reports at an early
time. So, let me acknowledge that that is not one of our bright
spots. But I hope to clear it up.
Senator GRIFFIN. Right.
Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman.
Senator CANNON. Senator Stevens.
Senator STEVENS. Because the full committee is meeting in just a
few minutes, I wonder if I could request if Mr. Wiley would jump
over to the question of family viewing and violence and obscenity
on TV for just a minute, it is two or three pages ahead, and come
back to political and fairness doctrine, if you would.
Senator CANNON. Sure.
Senator STEVENS. If I may do that, having read your statement, I
would like to ask you and other members of the Commission if they
wish to comment on whether in view of the district court's decision
on family viewing you feel it would be improper for the Commis-
sion to go forward with any further action on this matter until the
court of appeals has reviewed your appeal and if you have the
same feeling I do, that it would be improper, if you have a feeling
as to whether Congress should not set up an independent Commis-
sion to review the question of violence and obscenity and indecency
in terms of the broadcast media and make recommendations to us
as to what, if anything, the Congress ought to do about this subject.
Mr. WILEY. Well, my answer is yes and no.
Yes, I think you are correct in saying that we probably can't
take any action while that case is pending, but no, I don't think
that an independent agency ought to be set up.
Senator STEVENS. I am talking about an ad hoc commission as we
had on other matters. We had one once before as I recall; the
Eisenhower Commission dealt with a similar problem.
PAGENO="0085"
81
Mr. WILEY. I have personally spent more time on this issue than
practically any other since I have been chairman. It reflects the
great concern that I have.
I do think there is too much violence on television, there has
been traditionally too much gratuitous excessive violence.
There will be some kinds of violence on television because it
reflects life, but it seems to me that television which is such a
pervasive force that enters the American home so ubiquitously, it
seems, it does place some higher standards on broadcasting and
television.
I never thought the FCC could regulate in this area, I felt we
were dealing with sensitive first amendment values, I thought we
were dealing with very subjective questions: for example, what is
too violent to you might not be too violent to me.
I don't think it is an area in which the Federal Government can
operate constitutionally or practically.
I did think, however, I could express my viewpoints publicly and
directly to the broadcast industry and that was Senator Pastore's
view when he said in one of these hearings, why don't you talk to
the broadcasters directly.
I called them in and discussed it with them and the response I
got was very affirmative and positive. They all testified as such.
I think it is rather interesting that they are all appealing this
decision with the FCC. The National Association of Broadcasting
continues to appeal it, and the networks are continuing the family
viewing hour as a matter of complete voluntary self-will, because
certainly it was never the concept that the FCC would enforce
family viewing.
I believe we are going to see some positive response by the
industry. Certainly there will always be programs some of us will
object to. My solution was that we think about intelligent schedul-
ing, that maybe if you are going to have a more difficult program
that you have it later in the evening hours when fewer children
are watching.
Certainly in homes where parents let their children stay up late
in the evening they are going to see some programing which per-
haps would offend others, but I think these are decisions that have
to be made in the American home by individual citizens.
But I do feel that the industry has a responsibility and with all
due respct to the court I believe it was incorrect in saying that the
NAB code might be a violation of the first amendment.
If we don't have self-regulation in this area and we can't have
Government regulated, I don't know what the solution is.
So we are going to appeal that decision and I hope some parts of
the decision can be reversed.
Senator STEVENS. If you hold the power of renewal it seems to
me that the court is right, there is an ultimate threat if there is
not some movement toward the views of the Commission. That is
the problem; isn't it?
Mr. WILEY. There is no yes in all these programing areas. We are
in a difficult area. Congress has told us to regulate in the public
interest but not to censor.
In other words, when it comes to renewal time you are reviewing
a broadcaster's performance, and obviously programing is one of
PAGENO="0086"
82
the most important decisions as to whether he is serving public
interest.
If you look at it too deeply you may well be entering proscribed
areas. So we are on a tightrope throughout this area.
The traditional view of the Commission has been to set up gener-
al guidelines for affirmative duties and place the individual respon-
sibilities in specific areas, in the hands of the broadcaster, who is
the man who must make programing decisions.
Senator STEVENS. Perhaps we are different, but we have gone
through a period with cooperation of the industry and the Commis-
sion and the military and we are now extending the television into
very remote areas of Alaska.
The comments that I am getting from parents and from some of
the children, many of whom have never been exposed to television
before, indicate to me that there is a real, overwhelming reaction
to change in their culture as a result of the programing and there
are comments about violence and obscenity and their values as far
as cultural values are concerned.
That is a unique problem I know, but if we have got that among
people who are first viewers, whose overwhelming reaction is grati-
tude for coming into the 20th century then I think it must be even
more acute in the suburbs of the megalopolises of the country.
Mr. Wiu~y. I agree with you.
Senator STEVENS. Something ought to be done and if you can't do
it then we ought to find, I think, through some form of government
interaction what we can do to bring it about.
I don't think the family hour is sufficient if there is just 1 hour
and there are three to four channels all on the same hour. I don't
think that is sufficient.
I think somehow or another there has to be some scheduling of
these family hours so there will be an hour on one network and
subsequent hours on another and subsequent hour on another, and
that involves some difficulty.
I see people shaking their head, I know we can't do that. But
somehow or other the result has to be that there ought to be
viewing for children and for those people who don't want to be
exposed to this on the networks so that they can participate and
not have just the alternative of turning off the TV.
Mr. WILEY. I think the family hour concept is one of the most
least understood concepts despite all that has been written about it
that I have ever seen. It is not my concept.
I will continue to say that as long as I am around, but I do
support it. First it is 2 hours, the first 2 hours of prime time.
My view is that if the networks had been given encouragement
and the broadcast industry had been given encouragement instead
of being attacked by all sides, attacked by those who wanted more,
attacked by those who thought this was a terrible affront to the
first amendment, it might have worked. I think it may still work.
The point is that programing that goes into those 2 hours may be
quite different depending upon whether the station is a network
affiliate or independent. Many of the syndicated programs which
are yesterday's network programs will be run by independent sta-
tions in those 2 hours.
PAGENO="0087"
83
If they are excessively violent they are going to have difficulty in
selling them into syndication and that has been proven to be true.
I think that will affect the way programs are made in their
inception and we will find a challenge in the program industry,
broadcast industry to do a lot of diverse programing without the
unnecessary concomitant of gratuitous violence.
It can be done, and without an affront to the first amendment,
but I don't think the Government can make those overall judg-
ments.
Senator STEVENS. Don't misunderstand me--
Mr. WILEY. There are however, some encouraging signs in this
regard. Industries are working more together with the public. The
broadcast industry has had discussions with the National PTA, the
Hollywood program production community, I have hopes that there
are some lasting and meaningful solutions on the horizon in the
private sector.
I think that is a far more fertile area for improvement than to
set-up another Government agency.
Senator STEVENS. I am not suggesting an agency.
Mr. WILEY. Well, I think oversight is important but I don't think
you can ultimately make those programing decisions in any kind of
a government forum.
Senator STEVENS. I am not attacking you or the industry. I think
there has been a great deal of volunteerism as you indicated and
an attempt to solve the problem. It is not necessarily violence, it is
the whole cultural concept of some of the programing as it hits
various parts of the country that I think is important.
Mr. WILEY. I agree with all that.
Senator STEVENS. In terms of obscenity or indecency.
Mr. WILEY. Obscenity and indecency is a little different situation.
There you do have a specific statute which forbids it. We have
construed obscenity and been upheld by the courts. We did it
primarily on the presence of children in the audience.
Along came a program up in New York City in which the seven
most basic obscene or indecent language was utilized, four letter
words so to speak. We ruled, using the same concept there, that the
presence of children in the audience should control and we tried to
put out a declaratory order.
The court of appeals reversed us and we are seeking a rehearing
so we can come back to you and tell you what the law appears to
be and then you can decide whether Congress wants to take fur-
ther action in this area.
Senator STEVENS. Are you still interested in the legislation sub-
mitted last year on the definition of obscenity?
Mr. WILEY. Yes, we will revise that in light of the court of
appeals decision. I might say this was introduced only by one
Senator on the last day of the session. It never was introduced on
the House side.
The question I would ask is whether Congress is interested in
that legislation because frankly, during oversight hearings there
was a lot of talk in this area and the Commission has tried to
fulfill the will of Congress as we understood it, but I am not quite
sure what the will of Congress is.
PAGENO="0088"
84
It would be helpful for the Commission to receive that guidance.
Is Congress concerned about obscene and indecent programing, do
they want the Commission in this area? Or do they feel this is an
affront to the first amendment?
I don't know and I would welcome your guidance.
Senator STEVENS. Are you sure about your separation of obscen-
ity and indecency from violence? You seem to have the two com-
partmentalized as far as the Commission's reaction.
Mr. WILEY. First, there is a criminal statute in the obscene and
indecent area. The Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on ob-
scene programing.
In the indecent area, we tried to make a distinction on the
concept that broadcasting is different than any other media. It
seems to me if you want to buy Hustler magazine or go in and
watch an X rated film and you are adults, it is a free country. You
can make that decision.
I wonder about broadcasting, however, in which it directly enters
the American home, is readily accessible to your children and
mine. I am wondering if there aren't different standards that
should be placed on the broadcast media.
I question whether or not that is the law in light of the court of
appeals decision. We are trying to find out what it is because we
have a lot of people coming in arguing both sides of the issue, and
we are in the middle.
I would like to know what the law is.
Senator CANNON. I, certainly, for one, hope you have success in
that field.
Senator STEVENS. I share your feelings about the success in the
field, Mr. Chairman, but I don't share the Commission's feeling
about the Commission's continuing role and ability in the area in
view of the original court decision. I think you have been con-
strained no matter what happens on the appeal.
Mr. WILEY. You are, no doubt about it, depending on what the
appellate court says. There is even a question today now whether
we can have any kind of jawboning, if you want to use that term,
and say, "Hey, I think you ought to clean up your act."
I think it is very questionable that that kind of action should go,
and the Commission basically is going to be out of this area. That's
right.
Senator STEVENS. That raises to me, again, the question of
whether something-someone involved in the Government ought
not to be at least reviewing if not jawboning-at least reviewing it
on a continuing basis and not leave it totally to a voluntary ar-
rangement.
I will be frank with you. I have got a resolution or bill drafted, to
create such a Commission. I will let you know if I get any support
in Congress on the thing.
Mr. WILEY. That is fine.
Senator STEVENS. It deals with all three subjects. You compart-
mentalized them into two separate areas because of the existing
statute, I assume.
Mr. WILEY. Yes. Also because of the first amendment values
involved, because the court has upheld the ban as far as obscene
programing is concerned. You can set up commissions, continue to
PAGENO="0089"
85
study it -and I think we all should. I think Congress should contin-
ue to look at it as well as the Commission.
But you are going to come down ultimately to the difficult ques-
tion of what do you do about it. I am saying that there are first
amendment questions.
If the FCC can't even talk to the broadcasters, if we can't even
make suggestions without the overhanging threat of or possibility
of threat of license revocation or whatever the court saw, I don't
know where the Government is going to go in this area.
Senator STEVENS. We also have to address the first amendment
questions of libel and slander and those involved in the public
arena one of these days, too. That is going to take a little fortitude
and probably is just as nebulous an area.
But I think you are correct that Congress hasn't taken the full
reins that we should have., But I don't see how we can do it
without someone examining the area totally.
If we directed you to do that, as I understand the district court,
first thing we would do is have another appeal.
Mr. WILEY. Suffice it to say that I think we are going to continue
our interest in this situation, but I don't think the Commission is
in a position to be able to take any regulatory actions.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CANNON. Thank you.
All right, sir.
Mr. WILEY. Let me skip back. I think we are entering the area of
programing here.
I have covered pretty much the renewal area, licensing area,
with one exception. We do support a 5-year license renewal term
for broadcasters with Commissioner Hooks dissenting on that
point.
Senator CANNON. Is the Commission unanimous on that?
Mr. WILEY. We were before. We have had two new Commission-
ers join, but when the Commission voted it was 6 to 1. Commission-
er Hooks was the only one-I don't know how the two new Com-
missioners stand on that area.
The theory on our part is that while the length of the license
term is not the most important question-the most important ques-
tion concerns standards for renewal at license time-it does seem
to me a longer license period would provide some needed stability
to broadcasting that would give us a better chance, more time to
zero in on the relatively few broadcasters who really need atten-
tion.
Now we have to look at about 3,000 license applications every
year. We could spread that out over a longer period of time and do
a better job, frankly. The savings in paperwork time would re-
dound to the public benefit all the way around.
Senator CANNON. I completely agree with you, I might say, on
that point.
Mr. WILEY. Now, programing, page 15.
Here we are once again on the tightrope, that is, trying to
balance the interests of the listening public against those of the
broadcasters, and it is a tough, tough job.
We have looked at it in the violence area. I don't have any big
solution in that area. I thought our actions served the public inter-
PAGENO="0090"
86
est in trying to get the broadcasters' attention and making them
aware of public concern in this area, and indeed, congressional
concern.
I still feel that way.
Senator CANNON. I thought the networks made a good presenta-
tion yesterday in showing the improvement that had been made in
that particular area. I was impressed by it.
Mr. WILEY. Yes, I think there have been improvements and I
hope there will be more. I hope family viewing principles are
implemented with reasonableness and good sense, and with respect
for the public-that is assuming the broadcaster decides to contin-
ue the family viewing hour, which is their decision.
The fairness doctrine, of course, is one of the most important
aspects of program regulation. What it involves basically is this,
Senator. Broadcasters have to devote a reasonable amount of time
to discussion of controversial issues of public importance, and they
have to give a reasonable opportunity in their overall programing
for contrasting points of view.
In that process-necessarily and appropriately-we give a lot of
discretion to the broadcasters. We don't want the Government
going in and deciding what we think are the controversial issues,
who we think are the appropriate spokesmen, and what we think
should be the division of time.
We want the broadcasters to do that. Only where they are arbi-
trary and unreasonable under all circumstances should the Gov-
ernment step in. If you have more Government intrusion, you will
get blander and more insipid programing.
Generally, the Commission has done this: In some instances, we
have intervened where the broadcaster has been clearly unreason-
able.
I think the fairness doctrine is working as Congress intended in
this area. When we get to the question of equal time-as you know,
Congress, when it first passed the equal time law, which applies
only to legally qualified candidates, it applied in all instances.
Then in 1959, Congress passed four exemptions to equal time stat-
ute: bona fide newscasts, news interviews, documentaries, and fi-
nally, on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event.
In 1962, in a series of decisions, the Commission narrowly de-
fined that fourth category, on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news
events, to exclude debates between candidates covered live and
remote from the studios, and candidates' press conferences.
In September 1975, the Commission overruled these decisions.
This decision was upheld by the U.S. court of appeals and resulted
in the League of Women Voters sponsored Carter-Ford debates,
which I think served the public interest.
Just last week, the Commission voted to recommend to Congress,
that it revise section 315 by exempting coverage of Presidential and
Vice Presidential candidates. In other words, those two areas
should be totally exempt from the equal time law.
We will also recommend that Congress consider an exemption
that would apply the law only to major parties or candidates who
have demonstrated substantial support among the electorate,
either through voting percentages in the last election or signatures
on petitions.
PAGENO="0091"
87
This is, of course, a decision for Congress to make. We have made
our recommendations accordingly.
Another area of concern and interest to the Commission, the
Congress, and the general public is the matter of children's televi-
sion programing and advertising.
Some would dictate that there should be so many hours a week
or no advertising on children's programing. The Commission re-
fused to do that. Instead, it put out a children's television report
and policy statement which provides general guidelines which,
among other things, state that stations must devote a reasonable
amount of time to programing for children and that a significant
portion of this programing should be educational or informative in
nature.
The report also provides guidelines for children's television ad-
vertising practices, and cautions stations to take particular care to
avoid overcommercialization on programs designed for children.
We are going to continue to study, along with the FTC, where
the primary responsibility for advertising rests. We worked with
the FTC, for example, in recent hearings concerning over-the-
counter drug advertising, and probably will do so again in the
future.
I mentioned family viewing, obscenity, and indecency.
I don't think I have to go into payola and plugola. I think that is
spelled out for you. Let me turn to networks. Under the Communi-
cations Act, the Commission has always held that it is the individ-
ual broadcast licensee who has the right and responsibility to make
programing changes, not the networks.
The rise of networks in the development and distribution of
programs has brought with it a concern that in some cases individ-
ual licensees may have delegated their responsibilities to the net-
work.
In January, we instituted a wide-ranging inquiry of alleged "net-
work dominance" of the television industry. This is the first overall
study of the networks by the Commission in some 20 years, and it
is going to examine the relationship of networks, on the one hand,
with their affiliated stations and on the other hand, networks with
their program suppliers.
It is going to be a very important study. We are going to be
asking Congress for additional resources in the nature of $350,000
to do this job appropriately.
I won't try to make any judgments at this point. One of the other
areas we have looked at in the whole area of network dominance
has been the prime time access rule.
Senator CANNON. Before you go into that, go back on this payola
and plugola issue you skipped over.
Mr. WILEY. In late 1974, we resumed our inquiry into this area.
Under the act, the taking of money by a station employee for
* playing a certain record or plugging a specific concern over and
above what the station receives is strictly prohibited. It is against
the law.
We are looking into specific cases where employees may have
been using station facilities to further their private interest. For
example, a disc jockey taking money to run a certain record.
PAGENO="0092"
88
We are hopeful, that by holding public hearings relating to cer-
tain stations we will encourage citizens to give us information
about these practices and perhaps inhibit them at the other sta-
tions.
We aren't trying to single out certain owners or disc jockeys
alone, but we are trying to educate the broadcast industry and
public about the pitfalls of payola. After all, if a disc jockey is paid
to play a certain song, the public isn't receiving what would be in
the public interest. He is receiving what that disc jockey's private
interests dictate.
So we want to try to work with the Department of Justice in an
effort to bring these pernicious practices to a halt. We hope the
broadcasters will take an active role in working with us and do it
as a matter of self-regulation. In any event, we are going to see the
law is upheld.
We have had good cooperation with the Department of Justice
and we have certainly tried to cooperate with them. I have covered
network inquiry, mentioned the prime time access rule which
limits basically network programing to 3 of the 4 prime time hours.
We are trying to give the rule a full and fair test. I am not sure
whether it will ultimately serve the public interest or not, but we
will give it the full test it deserves.
In the area of technical regulation, we believe the American
people should receive a clear, interference-free signal. While insur-
ing this objective, the Commission along the lines of your com-
ments, Senator Cannon, has also tried to lessen some of the unnec-
essary regulatory burdens in this area.
We found, for example, that broadcast equipment has changed
over the years; it's become much more modern, more stable. There-
fore, our regulations ought to change. Instead of requiring broad-
casters to read the meters every 30 minutes when they don't
change as frequently as they used to, when you had different kinds
of equipment, we have extended it now to every 3 hours.
I think we are going to go, frankly, even further. With the
advent of the automated transmission system, something the Com-
mission has been pushing for a long time-this may bring about a
whole new revolution in our technical regulation where we go to
the bottom line, a broadcaster is told what his frequency and power
is and how he gets there, how he stays within the limitation; it
may be more up to him. I think that will ultimately serve the
public interest and save resources.
The automated transmitter has been approved only for FM sta-
tions and nondirectional AM stations. A couple other areas of
technical broadcast regulations we will be looking at, involve possi-
ble new services which I hope the Commission will be exploring
within the next month or two: AM stereophonic broadcasting and
quadraphonic FM. I think notice of inquiry in both of those areas
will be presented to the Commission next month.
In December of 1976, the Commission voted to amend its rules to
permit closed captioning of television programs for the benefit of
the hearing impaired. Closed caption is a technique by which coded
data signals are transmitted along with a regular video signal
enabling decoder-equipped TV receivers to display visually the in-
formation contained in the aural segment of TV programs.
PAGENO="0093"
89
If this can be economically harnessed it certainly would be a
great service to those many millions of Americans who have a
hearing impairment.
We also think that uses for traditional captioning may be ex-
panded to include weather information, news releases and other
informational services. We are very interested in this area and I
hope that the industry will be able to work to make this program a
reality.
I have mentioned broadcasting regulation. In a 1972 study, the
Commission established a reregulation task force to look at all our
regulations. I think you would be pleased to know that over the
last 5 years we have succeeded in modifying or eliminating some
500 rules in the broadcast area, particularly those rules which
affect a small broadcaster.
I agree with you very much and the efforts you have always
made to try to lessen unnecessary regulatory burdens on small
licensees.
I have mentioned short form radio renewal. I might also say that
in the radio network area, we practically deregulated the entire
area.
Let me finally turn to one segment of my statement, citizen
participation. I happen to think that citizen and public participa-
tion is very important. We have got to have an informed and aware
public if they are to participate fully in the broadcast media, and
the Commission has developed an extensive program designed to
stimulate such public contact and interaction with our agency.
Let me mention the areas in which we have been active. When I
became chairman, I thought it would be helpful to the Commission-
ers themselves and to the public to put out a calendar of meetings,
so throughout my term, we have had 3-month calendars stating
exactly the date on which the Commission would take up a particu-
lar item. Sometimes we missed but more often than not, we have
stuck with those deadlines.
With open meetings, we now have an obligation to put out a
public notice. So we have dispensed with those 3-month quarterly
calendars. We have also initiated a weekly Actions Alert publica-
tion in which we have told the public what is coming up before the
Commission, what the filing dates are on certain rulemakings, and
what questions they might want to address themselves to.
There has been a good reaction from the members of the public
on this publication and we have improved that Actions Alert publi-
cation recently. We also published a "Procedural Manual" which
attempts to explain in layman's language the Commission's pro-
cesses and policies.
Senator, you come from a State far removed from Washington,
D.C. I think many Americans out where you live and where you
come from, the Middle West, think the Federal Government is a
very remote agency far from where they live and work. Many
citizens don't understand the processes of Government. We have
tried to take Government out of Washington and I think uniquely
among Federal regulatory agencies, we have held a series of region-
al meetings in which many Commissioners, myself and top staff
people, have gone out, held workshops for broadcasters and cable
operators and have had open public meetings for the public.
PAGENO="0094"
90
On one 2-hour television program out in the Bay area, we had
47,000 phone calls to the station which shows there was a real
interest in communications out there among the public. I think
this effort has helped the American people to better understand
what our policies and rules are, what our authority is and what it
is not.
We supplement these regional meetings with a monthly meeting
of the full Commission in which citizens groups or industry groups
can make an appointment and come before the Commission and
say whatever they want to the Commission about interests of their
own. We have had black groups, Hispanic groups, female groups,
homosexual groups, industry groups, appear before the Commission
in these meetings.
Perhaps most importantly has been the formation, a little over a
year ago, of a consumer assistance office. I think the average
citizen, senator, when they come to a department or agency is
rather confused. There is a bureaucratic maze there. We have
formed this consumer assistance office so the consumer would have
some place to go within the Commission to find some responsive
people who would tell him look, go to the, this particular office, see
this particular publication, it will answer your question.
I have received good feedback about that consumer assistance
office. We plan to continue it.
In 1976, November, we adopted on an experimental basis an
assistance program designed to facilitate participation of impover-
ished citizens in our Commission's proceedings. We don't encom-
pass in this proceeding reimbursement of attorneys' fees. We don't
pay people for commenting on our rulemaking proceedings. We
have suggested-that is, the majority of the Commission-that we
need specific funding in this area and we hope the Congress will
take a look at this on an overall basis.
I will finish with one last point, and that is, about 2 weeks ago
we held a conference on minority ownership in the broadcast in-
dustry at the Commission. We brought together minorities, mem-
bers of the broadcast industry, brokers, financial industry represen-
tatives and we talked about the problems of getting more minor-
ities owning broadcast stations and cable systems within the free
enterprise system. We plan to follow tht up.
I think of course, that such ownership would enrich the broad-
cast industry and ultimately enrich the cable industry as well.
That concludes my statement. I would be glad to take any ques-
tions you might have.
Senator CANNON. Do any of the other Commission members have
anything they would desire to add?
I wonder if you would address yourself to the question of pay
cable?
Mr. WILEY. Yes. For many years the Commission has felt the
development of pay television, pay cable would be in the public
interest providing more options for the American people. At the
same time we have been concerned that certain programing that
the American people have been used to receiving over the conven-
tional television system allegedly for free might be siphoned off
free television.
PAGENO="0095"
91
So we established some rules to limit the movies and sports
events that would be available to pay television.
Senator CANNON. How do you provide that limitation?
Mr. WILEY. We had rulemakings and made decisions based on
the comments that we received. We basically held that in the
movie area, pay cable could get any movie that was less than 3
years old. Basically all the new movies have been made available
to cable or most all, through that process.
We said that thereafter, such movies would be made available
only to cable if they were also available to a broadcaster in the
same market. The court of appeals overruled that judgment about
movies and we have acquiesced in the court's decision.
We have found through experience that our rules probably aren't
needed to protect the broadcaster and have not really inhibited
cable in getting its product. They basically haven't done much of
anything in this area, in our opinion. We feel less certain about
sports.
Senator CANNON. Wait a minute. On that point now, are you
saying that there really is no regulation in the field?
Mr. WILEY. In movies, that's right.
Senator CANNON. Insofar as movies are concerned, do they have
to be made available to the public television as well as the cable?
Mr. WILEY. It is up to the owner of the movie now. There is no
regulation now. It is up to the producer; it is a free market situa-
tion.
Senator CANNON. He can sell to the highest bidder or sell to both
if he were able to find a purchaser?
Mr. WILEY. That's right. They have claimed in the past that the
marketplace would handle this. They would go first to theaters,
then perhaps to pay cable, then perhaps to free television. Sort of
like a hard cover, soft cover in books.
I think you may ultimately see some delay in some of the films
on television, but what the movie producers and pay cable interests
have argued is that they will all get there eventually, therefore
there is no siphoning. Therefore, the Commission has decided to go
along.
In the sports situation it is a little different. You can see "Casa-
blanca" many times and still enjoy it. I have seen it many times
and will continue to want to see it. However, I am not sure I would
want to see yesterday's ball game. The Commission is concerned
that some sports attractions may, in fact, be siphoned off of free
television and onto a pay fOrm and the Commission is going to
appeal the court's ruling.
Let me say that I don't think we are bound to the precise
formulation of our complicated sports rules. The Commission may,
if it gets the power someday to look at this again, want to reform
those rules in light of continuing experience in this area, but we
are concerned that ultimately there could be some harm to the
public interest.
Senator CANNON. What was the Commission's regulation with
respect to the sports and then what happened on appeal?
Mr. WILEY. We could basically divide that into two sports events.
First of all specific events, World Series, Super Bowl, something
that happens only once. We held if that had been on conventional
PAGENO="0096"
92
television in the last 5 years it would not be available to pay
television. To protect the public interest associated with that ser-
vice they have been providing.
In the area of a nonspecific event, let's say a season of 162 games
of a baseball team, we have a somewhat complicated formula
which would provide that a certain amount of those programs
would be available to cable, certain would not be available, based
primarily on what the broadcaster has brought in the past over the
last 5 years.
Those rules were designed-I want to make this very clear, to
protect the public interest associated with receiving a product to
which it has become accustomed. I don't think the Commission was
trying to protect network profits or trying to protect broadcaster
profits; that isn't our job. We are concerned about what people
have to pay, particularly people who don't have the money to pay
for those products in ghetto areas and rural areas where they may
not have the service available to them.
The court overruled us. We are going to appeal the sports end of
those rules leaving open the question of whether or not if we had
the power to have such rules, we would reformulate them with
additional experience in the marketplace.
Senator CANNON. Did the court consider both of those matters at
one time?
Mr. WILEY. Yes.
Senator CANNON. You're just going to appeal that portion?
Mr. WILEY. Just the sports rules, that's right.
Senator CANNON. Do any of you have anything further to add?
[No response.]
Senator CANNON. Thank you very much. It's been very, very
helpful to the committee. I think you made a very fine record.
Mr. WILEY. Thank you very much, Senator Cannon, we appreci-
ate it as always.
Senator CANNON. We will have some questions to submit to you
and you can supply answers for the record. Senator Williams
wanted to be here, but he hasn't arrived yet, so we won't hold you
up, but he wanted to ask some specific questions about the New
Jersey coverage. We have already addressed that to a degree and
he may submit some questions.
Mr. WILEY. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you
submit. Thank you very much,
Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, all of you.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD E. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present this overview of broadcasting from the
perspective of the Federal Communications Commission. I would like to begin today
with a brief outline of what the Commission's regulatory responsibilities are and
how it operates, and then move on to discuss in more detail our regulatory program
for broadcasting.
Congress created the Federal Communications Commission in 1934 for the pur-
pose of "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and
radio so as to make available, as for as possible, to all the people of the United
States a rapid, efficient, nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communica-
tions service Thus, the Commission regulates not only all broadcast stations
PAGENO="0097"
93
in this country, but also all interstate and foreign telephone, telegraph, communica-
tions by satellite as well as public safety, industrial, transportation, amateur and
citizen services. The Commission also regulates certain aspects of cable television
(CATV) although the franchising or licensing of such systems is a matter for
determination by state and local government.
At present, more than 9,150 radio and television broadcast stations are on the air,
and several hundred more have been authorized. Most of these are licensed for
commercial operation, and are supported by advertising revenue. However, there
are approximately 860 noncommercial FM stations, 25 noncommercial educational
Standard (AM) stations, and about 255 noncommercial television stations operating.
With regard to these broadcast services, the Commission's major activities involve
consideration of applications for construction permits and licenses; assignment of
frequencies, power and call signs; modification and renewal of licenses; inspection of
transmitting equipment and regulation of its use; control of technical interference;
and the licensing of individual radio operators.
The Commission has a staff of approximately 2,100 employees. About one-sixth of
them work in our Broadcast Bureau which has the primary responsibility for the
day-to-day operations of our broadcast regulatory program.
ALLOCATION OF BROADCAST CHANNELS
One of the basic responsibilities of the Commission is the allocation of portions of
the radio frequency spectrum to civilian uses n various locations. On the interna-
tional level, we participated in the 1977 World Administrative Radio Conference
(WARC) concerning satellite broadcasting and are deep into preparations for the
1979 WARC which will set the international pattern of frequency use for the
balance of this century. Domestically, the Commission continues to follow a general
plan in which television and commercial FM channels are allocated to communities
through a rulemaking process and AM frequencies are allocated on the basis of
applications for the use of specific frequency space. In recent months, we have
considered several issues concerning the allocation of channels within the broadcast
service.
VHF drop-ins
Several parties, including the United Church of Christ and the Office of Telecom-
munications Policy, petitioned the Commission to make a general reduction of the
number of miles required between VHF stations operating on the same or adjacent
channels. It was argued that the increased levels of interference should be tolerated
so that as many as 96 additional VHF stations could be added in the top 100
markets. After conducting an inquiry and performing additional studies, the Com-
mission decided that it would not serve the public interest to make a general
reduction in the separation standards.
We did find that, in four markets (Charleston, W. Va.; Johnstown-Altoona, Pa.;
Knoxville, Tenn.; and Salt Lake City, Utah), the potential benefits of new television
service for a large number of people appeared to outweigh the harm caused by
adding a "short-spaced" or "drop-in" station. Early in 1977, we issued a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making proposing that one additional VHF channel be allocated to
each of those cities.
In a separate proceeding, the Commission considered and rejected the possibility
of a VHF drop-in for New Jersey. Such a station had been one of the proposals
presented by groups concerned about the difficulties of getting local news, public
affairs and political coverage in New Jersey when all of the commercial VHF
stations serving that area are licensed to the adjoining cities of Philadelphia and
New York. The Commission found that a preferable means of dealing with the
problem could be found without changing the existing channel allocations structure.
The Commission has placed a special New Jersey service obligation on the television
stations in the area and has already received from the larger mass-audience stations
statements of commitment of equipment and personnel to New Jersey coverage.
UHF television
It is apparent from our study of VHF drop-ins that any substantial further
growth in the number of television stations must come in the UHF frequencies. The
problem here has not generally been one of channel availability, but more one of
technical difficulties and competitive disadvantage. The Commission is working
toward a master plan for the full development of UHF television. Elements of that
plan include efforts to improve the accuracy of UHF tuners, to reduce the front end
noise level in UHF receivers, to foster development of improved antennas, and to
encourage better public understanding of how to receive a good UHF signal. At the
same time, we have studies underway which may make it possible to increase the
20-122 0 - 78 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
number of UHF channels available for television use in those market where current
allocations are occupied.
Subscription television (STV)
This Spring, the first two stations authorized under the Commission's 1962 STV
decision, WBTB-TV, channel 68, Newark, New Jersey, and KBSC-TV, Channel 52,
Corona, California, began broadcasting programming to customers who pay a single,
monthly per-channel charge. The programming on these stations consists primarily
of first-run movies and sports programs. Additional STV operations have been
authorized-but have not yet commenced-on stations in Boston, Milwaukee, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco. Applications for STV authorizations in 15 other com-
munities are presently pending before the Commission.
Noncommercial FM service
The rapid growth in use of FM channels over the last several years has led to new
questions being raised about channel availability. We have outstanding at the
moment a set of proposals (several of which were suggested to us by the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting) affecting the FM channels reserved for noncommercial
educational use. Among the possibilities under consideration are a change from a
demand system of allocation to a table of allocations, the establishment of an
additional FM channel and the possibility of treating very low power stations on a
secondary basis.
AM broadcasting and clear channels
The AM broadcast band is intensively used in most parts of the country. There is
a special characteristic of the AM frequencies which makes channel allocation
problems quite different from the ones raised in the other frequencies we have
discussed. At nighttime, the AM signal is reflected from the ionosphere and returns
to earth at a great distance from the originating station. Many AM stations are
authorized to operate only during daytime hours when this nighttime or "skywave"
phenomenon does not occur. If a large number of those stations were permitted to
operate at night, the interference situation could be chaotic. While we have at-
tempted to get as much AM service to individual communities as is consistent with
good engineering practices, there are severe limits which must be recognized.
By international agreement, certain AM channels are set aside for exclusive
nighttime use in the United States. Until 1961, 25 so-called "clear channels" existed
on which no more than one station was permitted to operate at night. In a proceed-
ing concluded at that time, 12 of those channels were changed so that an additional
station on each channel could be operated with a directional antenna at night.
Currently under way is a study aimed at seeing whether it would be in the public
interest to continue the present pattern of clear channel stations, increase the
power available for use by some or all of those stations, or permit additional
stations to use those channels at night.
LICENSING
Basic to the Commission's responsibilities is the licensing function. It assigns
stations in each of the radio services with a specific location, frequency and power.
While the chief consideration in this process is to avoid interference with other
channels, many of the Commission's policies are promoted through the licensing
function. For example, the Commission promotes diversification and avoidance of
undue concentration of control in the broadcast media through its rules prohibiting
the licensing of more than one AM, FM or TV station in one community to the
same person of group, and through its limit on the total number of stations in the
same service than can be commonly owned.
Initial licensing
Broadcast stations are licensed to serve the public interest. Since they are trust-
ees of a scarce national resource, the limited radio spectrum, the Communications
Act requires applicants to be legally, technically, and financially qualified, and to
show that their proposed operation will be in the public interest. Licenses are
normally granted for a three year period.
License renewal
The commission periodically reviews the overall performance of stations, usually
when they apply for renewal, to see if they have lived up to their obligations to the
public. Since the basic requirement in serving the public interest is the duty to
program in a manner responsive to the "problems, needs, and interests" of the
licensee's community, the Commission requires that the broadcaster "ascertain"
those problems and needs. In the past, the ascertainment procedures required by
PAGENO="0099"
95
the Commission were quite formal. Specific guidelines for such things as interviews
with leaders of community groups that reflected the composition of the community
and for a survey of opinion of the general public were set forth by the Commission.
As part of its "reregulatory" program, the Commission undertook a comprehen-
sive study of the ascertainment procedures for renewal applicants. That study
revealed that much of the formality and paperwork associated with the ascertain-
ment procedures was unnecessary. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted new,
simplified, and more flexible procedures for renewal applcamts.
Most important is a new provision which requires that each broadcaster continu-
ously keep informed of community problems throughout the license period instead
of conducting a single survey every three years. These new procedures also provide
for an exemption from all record keeping and filing requirements for broadcast
facilities located in communities of less than 10,000 persons and not within a
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Contested renewal applications
Continuous citizen input into the operations of broadcast stations, and our renew-
al process, is one of the most important factors in insuring that licensees fulfill
their public trusteeships. The Commission's policies are designed to promote resolu-
tion of citizen complaints through dialogue with the broadcaster. However, where
these efforts fail, our rules allow the filing of a petition to deny.
Because contested renewal applications require considerably more review by the
Commission than do uncontested ones, a considerable backlog developed in the past.
For example, as of January 1, 1975, the Commission had on file 216 unresolved
petitions to deny. Additionally, 83 new petitions to deny have been subsequently
filed.
Clearing this backlog was of considerable concern to me and to the Commission,
and a number of steps such as reallocation of personnel and development of stream-
lined renewal procedures have been taken since January, 1975. I am pleased to
report to you that his problem has essentially been solved and that, to date, there
are only approximately 20 petitions unresolved. I am also pleased to say that there
appears to be a decreasing number of petitions to deny being filed against broadcast
license renewals today. This may well be a result of the actions we have taken to
encourage and promote citizen-broadcaster dialogue.
There is one other point I would like to make with regard to these contested
renewal applications. I am aware that some people have contended that our reregu-
latory efforts in this area have resulted in the Commission simply "rubber stamp-
ing" renewal applications. I must disagree with this contention. The facts show that
the Commission carefully reviews each renewal application, engages in considerable
correspondence with the stations involved and, ultimately arrives at an informed
determination as to whether the license should be renewed. In this connection, we
have issued more short-term renewals, have attached conditions to more applica-
tions requiring remedial efforts, and have refused to renew more licenses in the past
two years than during any other time in the Commission's history.
Equal employment opportunity
A station's equal employment opportunity program receives detailed scrutiny
from both citizens and the Commission when a renewal application is filed. In fact,
the Commission may spend more time on this portion of the renewal application
than on any other.
The FCC was the first-and to this date, the only-federal regulatory agency to
adopt EEO regulations for its licensees. As far back as 1968, the Commission
expressed the view that discrimination in employment by broadcasters was incom-
patible with operation in the public interest. Since then, the Commission has
adopted a number of rules designed not only to prohibit discrimination but also to
require that licensees develop affirmative EEO programs.
The Commission has taken other significant steps to eliminate racial and sex
discrimination from the broadcast industry. For example, in 1973, we established an
Industry Equal Employment Opportunity Unit to review the effectiveness of our
rules and policies in this area. In addition, the agency established an EEO unit in
the Renewal and Transfer Division of the Broadcast Bureau to insure that broadcast
licensees understand and comply with the Commission's rules.
In all, our efforts have resulted in definite improvement in the overall equal
employment profile of the broadcast industry. Based on the data available to the
FCC, job opportunities for minorities and women are continually increasing-and
actual employment figures reflect the fact that many broadcasters are making an
affirmative effort to open the doors of opportunity to those for whom they previous-
ly may have been closed.
PAGENO="0100"
96
Unfortunately, not all licensees comply with our requirements as fully as they
should. In such cases, the Commission has taken strong, positive action to effect
compliance. In fact, since January of 1973, we estimate that more than 1200 stations
have come under concentrated examination at the FCC, and more than half of these
have received letters from the Commission asking for information and explanation
about their employment practices. At the same time, we have developed an adjudi-
catory standard (the so-called "zone of reasonableness") for measuring EEO compli-
ance by stations-a standard which has been judicially approved. Last year, in an
effort to strengthen and clarify our policies and requirements, the Commission
issued a model EEO program which, for the first time, shows broadcasters what is
expected of them. Finally, and most recently, the Commission adopted new process-
ing guidelines which ensure closer scrutiny of stations with relatively low percent-
ages of minorities and women.
Since 1972, the Commission has conditioned the renewals of 260 stations on the
requirement that the broadcaster involved (1) submit a list of community sources for
job referrals of minorities and women; and (2) report periodically-more frequently
and/or in greater detail than required by annual employment reports-on the
results of recruitment efforts, specifically identifying minorities and women hired or
promoted thereby. It is worth noting that 189 of these "conditional" renewals were
ordered on our own motion, rather than as a result of a petition to deny. In this
same period and as a result of EEO deficiencies, we also have (a) refused to grant
(i.e., continued on deferred status) applications until we had received and analyzed
detailed information on job candidate flow and utilization of protected-group em-
ployees; (b) renewed applicants for less than the full balance of their terms; and (c)
designated licenses for evidentiary hearing.
Newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership
For many years, the Commission encouraged newspaper-broadcast cross-owner-
ship because of the important contribution it believed such owners would make to
the development of radio and, later, television broadcasting. The Commission re-
peatedly found that licensing broadcast stations to newspaper owners in the same
community was in the public interest and otherwise consistent with agency policy.
However, a broad examination was initiated in 1970 to determine whether the
Commission should continue to sanction such ownership. After a review of all
comments submitted and facts of record, we concluded that changed circumstances
now warranted a different policy with respect to newspaper ownership of new
broadcast facilities, but found no specific abuses by existing owners which would
warrant an across-the-board divestiture of existing newspaper-broadcast combina-
tions.
At the time of this action, there were approximately 79 newspaper-broadcast
combinations, most of which the Commission permitted to continue. However, we
did order divestitures in 16 "egregious" situations where communities were served
by only one media voice.
Several parties sought appellate review of these amendments to the Commission's
rules. On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the
Commission's prospective ban on the formation or transfer of new newspaper-
broadcast combinations. The court, however, held that the Commission must break
up all co-located newspaper-broadcast combinations, even in the absence of specific
abuses by present owners. The Commission has sought and been granted a stay of
the court's order pending review in the Supreme Court.
Five year license term
I think it is clear, even from this brief discussion, that the licensing process is one
of the Commission's most important functions, and that many of the Commission's
resources must be devoted to it. This is particularly true in the renewal area. For
this reason. the Commission has supported legislative proposals which would extend
the license term from three years to five years.
An increase in the license term from three to five years would reduce the number
of renewal applications annually processed by the Commission from approximately
3,000 to 1,800. This 40% reduction in the number of applications per year would
permit a more thorough review of each application and allow the Commission to
give closer and more expeditious consideration to those applications which raise
serious questions concerning the licensee's overall qualifications.
We believe that such an increase in the license term would not diminish a
licensee's responsiveness to the public interest. However, should any serious defi-
ciency or question arise during the five-year term, various administrative remedies
are available to the Commission, including revocation proceedings and calling for an
early renewal of license.
PAGENO="0101"
97
Comparative renewal hearings
One final and particularly difficult regulatory problem is presented when the
renewal application of an existing station is opposed by an applicant who proposes
to replace the existing station with its own new station. The Commission then must
choose which applicant would better serve the public interest, based upon a com-
parison of the best available indicators of probable future performance. In Novem-
ber 1976, we recommended to Congress the elimination of comparative renewal
hearings. It is our view that the renewal process will serve the public interest more
effectively if renewal applicants are evaluated on their past broadcast records,
including compliance with all applicable Commission Rules, Regulations and poli-
cies. We feel that the comparative renewal process has failed because the essential
element in determining whether renewal is in the public interest-the broadcaster's
record of service-is not comparative in nature. No competing applicant will have
developed a record to compare to the incumbent's. It is therefore totally unrealistic
to compare the broadcaster's actual record to a challenger's mere paper promise.
Moreover, the traditional comparative criteria, which have been developed in com-
parative hearings for new facilities, are inappropriate in a renewal proceeding.
Pending congressional amendment of the Communications Act, however, these com-
parative renewal cases will continue to be resolved through the traditional lengthy
and expensive hearings. However, we have attempted to simplify this process
through a recent clarification of these policies.
PROGRAMMING
Once it was established that it was necessary for the government to limit entry
into the field of broadcasting through a system of licensing, a question arose which
has confounded and perplexed serious thinkers ever since: how deeply should the
regulatory agency engage in supervising and overseeing the program service of
licensees? Congress decided that broadcast licenses were not intended for the opera-
tor's private interests but, instead, for the interests of the public. Basic to this
Congressional determination was, and still is today, the so-called "scarcity factor"-
that there are more people who want to broadcast than stations and air time
available to cover them. Accordingly, those privileged to receive a license to operate
must do so as "public trustees" for the entire community-a standard which has
been upheld by the Supreme Court.
At the same time, it has been recognized that the First Amendment does protect
broadcast speech, that the government's regulations must be carefully limited, and
that the broadcaster-not the FCC-has primary responsibility for the assurance of
fairness, balance and objectivity.
This balancing of the interests of the listening public against those of the broad-
caster is, as you might imagine, a matter of considerable complexity and difficulty.
It is obvious that perfect fairness or equality is neither possible nor desirable. No
broadcaster can be expected to present all shades of opinion on all matters of public
concern and controversy, and it would be unrealistic for the Commission to attempt
to force such a result. Indeed, it has been said that, in applying the public interest
standard to programming, the Commission walks a tightrope between saying too
much and saying too little. In most cases it has resolved this dilemma by imposing
only general affirmative duties * * ~ The licensee has broad discretion in giving
specific content to these duties.
[Banzhaf v. FCC, 405 F. 2d 1082, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1968)]. Over the years, the
Commission's involvement in programming matters has been carefully limited, but
it has touched on important matters ranging from the assurance of fairness in the
discussion of public issues to the enforcement of a Congressional ban on obscene
programming.
The fairness doctrine
One of the most important aspects of program regulation concerns the matter of
fairness in the presentation of controversial issues of public importance. The Com-
mission's "fairness doctrine" imposes a twofold obligation on broadcast licensees: (1)
they must devote a reasonable amount of time to the discussion of controversial
issues, and (2) they must be fair in the sense that they provide a reasonable
opportunity for the presentation of contrasting points of view. In giving effect to
this doctrine, the Commission is mindful of the fact that it is the broadcaster-and
not the government-who has the primary responsibility for the selection and
presentation of programming material. For this reason, the broadcaster has wide
discretion in choosing appropriate spokesmen for various points of view and in
deciding upon an appropriate format and method of presentation. Licensee judg-
ments will be upheld by the Commission unless they are found to be unreasonable.
PAGENO="0102"
98
Recently, however, the Commission found that a West Virginia licensee's failure
to devote any coverage to the issue of strip mining, which had tremendous impact
within its service area, violated the fairness doctrine. In another major case, the
Commission found that advertisements by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
supported one side of a controversial issue (the construction and use of nuclear
power plants) and that a number of California radio stations which broadcast the
announcements had failed to comply with the fairness doctrine by not affording a
reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting views.
Political broadcasting
In addition to general policies concerning the fairness doctrine, the Commission is
responsible for enforcing the Congressional mandate that stations afford "equal
time" for all legally qualified candidates for public office. During the last presiden-
tial election, the agency issued several important orders interpreting the equal time
requirement, which is set out in § 315 of the Communications Act. Before addressing
these rulings, it might be useful if I briefly outlined some earlier opinions which
strictly construed the equal time principle.
In the 1959 "Lar Daly" case (Columbia Broadcasting System), the Commission
interpreted the statute to mean that the equal time rule applied even to the
appearance of a candidate on a regularly scheduled newscast. Daly, a perennial
candidate, had complained to the Commission that several stations presented news-
clips showing the major candidates in the two primaries, but refused to afford him
equal time. The Commission ruled that the presentation of these film clips were
"uses" within the meaning of § 315 and that, consequently, Daly was entitled to
equal time. The Commission's position on this matter created a national furor. The
practical effect of this implementation of the law was the opposite of Congress'
intent; it discouraged broadcasters from providing news coverage of any candidate.
In order to achieve its original objectives, Congress in 1959 adopted amendments to
the Communications Act. These amendments provided that an appearance by a
candidate on any one of four types of news coverage (a bona fide newscast; news
interview; news documentary and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event).
should not be deemed to be a "use" of the station by that candidate.
In 1962, two important Commission rulings concerning § 315, National Broadcast-
ing Company, Inc. (Wyckoff), and The Goodwill Station, Inc., narrowly interpreted
the "on-the-spot coverage of a bonn fide news event" exemption. In The Goodwill
Stations, Inc., the Commission ruled that a debate staged between political candi-
dates was not a "bona fide news event" within the meaning of § 315. The Commis-
sion reached a similar conclusion with respect to a debate in California between
Governor Brown and his Republican opponent, Richard Nixon, at an annual conven-
tion of the United Press International in San Francisco. NBC (Wyckoff). The Com-
mission reasoned that it was not sufficient for purposes of defining on-the-spot news
coverage that a broadcast licensee in good faith concluded that an otherwise non-
exempt debate program constituted a bona fide news event which it wished to cover.
Instead, the Commission said that formalized debates could not be exempt from the
equal opportunities requirement because the appearance of the candidates was the
event itself and not merely "incidental to" some other news event.
In April 1975, the Aspen Institute filed a petition attacking the Commission's
opinion in NBC and Goodwill as "a narrow, niggardly construction" of the statute.
In September 1975, the Commission overruled these decisions holding that the
broadcast of debates and news conferences, under certain circumstances, constituted
"on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events" within the meaning of the Act. This
decision, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, permitted the broadcast of
the League of Women Voters sponsored Carter-Ford debates. Through Aspen, the
Commission thus sought to effectuate Congress' objective of promoting the right of
the public to be informed through the broadcast of political events.
Just this past week the Commission voted to recommend to Congress that it revise
§ 315 by exempting coverage of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from
those provisions. The Commission will also recommend that Congress consider an
exemption that would apply the law only to candidates who have demonstrated
substantial support among the electorate, either through voting percentages in the
past election or signatures on petitions.
Children ~s television
Another area of concern and interest to the Commission, the Congress, and the
general public is the matter of children's television programming and advertising.
Our 1974 Children's Television Report and Policy Statement provides general guide-
lines which, among other things, state that stations must devote a reasonable
PAGENO="0103"
99
amount of time to programming for children and that a significant portion of this
programming should be educational or informative in nature.
The Report also provides guidelines for children's television advertising practices,
and cautions stations to take particular care to avoid overcommercialization on
programs designed for children. Questions have been added to the renewal form
requiring that licensees report past and proposed commercial practices in children's
television programs. The Report also indicates disapproval of such questionable
commercial practices as host-selling and tie-ins, and encourages broadcasters to
assist children in distinguishing program content from advertising content.
Primary responsibility for the regulation of advertising rests not with this Com-
mission but with the FTC. In this area, the two agencies work closely together. For
example, the Commission and the FTC, in an attempt to gather information on an
issue of interest to both agencies, jointly sponsored panel discussions last May to
examine televised over-the-counter drug advertising. After a thorough exploration of
the issues, we declined to adopt a requested ban on over-the-counter drug advertis-
ing in the early evening hours.
Family viewing
In response to the serious concerns expressed by the scientific community and the
American people, Congress, in 1974, directed the Commission to report on specific
actions taken or planned by the Commission to protect children from excessive
programming of violence and obscenity. In our Report on the Broadcast of Violent,
Indecent and Obscene Material to the Congress, released on February 19, 1975, the
Commission concluded that industry self-regulation was preferable to the adoption
of governmental standards. This conclusion was based upon the agency's belief that
adoption of such rules would involve government too deeply in program content,
raising serious First Amendment questions. In addition, it was felt that judgments
regarding the suitability of particular programs were so highly subjective that to
develop government rules would be difficult if not impossible.
I believed at that time, as I do today, that it was possible for the Commission to
play a constructive role through focusing increased industry attention on the vio-
lence issue and encouraging the consideration of self-regulatory reforms. With these
considerations in mind, I met with the presidents of the three major networks and
other industry leaders to examine and discuss this difficult and important subject.
Following these meetings, the Family Viewing Policy was suggested by CBS in a
December 31, 1974 letter to the Chairman of the National Association of Broadcast-
ers' Code Review Board. The policy ultimately incorporated into the NAB Code
called for the airing during the early evening of programs suitable for viewing by
all members of the family.
Following the implementation of Family Viewing by the three networks, litigation
arose in a U.S. District Court challenging the initiation and development of the
family viewing concept. The Writers Guild, among others, alleged that my discus-
sions with network officials regarding various course of action to reduce violence
and sex in television programming amounted to threats of governmental action and
were a prohibited interference with program decisionmaking. District Court Judge
Ferguson, in a November 4, 1976 opinion, held the family viewing principle invalid
and unenforceable by the Commission, declaring that its actions had gone beyond
mere suggestions and constituted an attempt to alter the content of entertainment
programming in the early evening hours. Suffice it to say that Judge Ferguson's
characterization of the origin and adoption of the Family Viewing concept differs
from ours at the Commission and we, together with the networks and the National
Association of Broadcasters, have appealed the decision.
While the two-hour Family Viewing period clearly is not a perfect device for
protecting children from objectionable programming, I am convinced that the stan-
dards outlined in the NAB Code strike a reasonable balance between two'conflicting
objectives. On the one hand, they act to protect children, or at least to aid concerned
parents in providing that protection. On the other hand, they permit television to
continue to present, in a tasteful manner, sensitive and controversial themes which
are appropriate, and of interest, to an adult audience. All in all, I believe that this
reform, if implemented in a responsible manner, can represent a major accomplish-
ment in industry self-regulation.
Obscenity and indecency
In recent years, the Commission has become increasingly involved in the enforce-
ment of the Congressional ban on "obscene" and "indecent" programming, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1464. In this regard, we have taken action to prevent the broadcast of obscene
language and have been sustained in the courts. We have encountered more difficul-
PAGENO="0104"
100
ty, however, in our efforts to interpret what Congress intended when it legislated a
ban on "indecent" programming.
Responding to a complaint that an educational station in New York City had
broadcast offensive material, the Commission, in February 1975, issued a Declara-
tory Order interpreting this statutory provision. The Commission, recognizing that
the statute had never been authoritatively construed, issued a declaratory order
rather than a forfeiture or some other sanction. We held that certain types of
"gutter" language, even though not actually obscene, had no place on the nation's
airwaves, at least during time periods when large numbers of children are in the
audience.
The Commission's order was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia in March 1977. In the opinion of the Court, the Commission's declaratory
order was "vague and overbroad" and in violation of § 326, the no-censorship provi-
sion of the Communications Act. However, the three-judge panel was sharply divid-
ed and issued three separate opinions. Judge Tamm, writing for the Court left open
the possibility that "obscene and indecent" have distinct meanings in the broadcast
medium. Chief Judge Baselon, on the other hand, argued that indecent does not
have a separate meaning from obscene. Finally, Judge Leventhal, in his dissent,
supported the Commission's finding that the two terms do have distinct meanings,
at least in the broadcast medium, and that some special measures should be taken
to protect children.
The Court's opinion, as it now stands, poses a dilemma for the Commission. While
it suggests that the prohibition of indecency in the criminal code may have a
meaning independent of the prohibition against the broadcast of obscenity, it fails to
provide any indication of the meaning of that Congressional prohibition. The Com-
mission therefore has sought rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals. I want
to make clear that the Commission, in seeking rehearing before the full Court,
hopes to obtain some clear understanding of what the present state of the law is
with regard to the broadcast medium. We believe that such judicial clarification will
be helpful to the Commission in implementing the will of Congress.
Payola-plugola
In late 1976, the Commission resumed its inquiry into "payola," "plugola" and
other related practices. Under §~ 317 and 508 of the Communications Act, the
taking of money by a station employee for playing a certain record or plugging a
specific concern, over and above that received by the station itself, is strictly
prohibited. Our recent inquiry was specifically directed to situations where employ-
ees were using station facilities to further their own private enterprises or to plug
activities for others. The Commission is hopeful that the publicity associated with
these public hearings will encourage citizens having information about these prac-
tices to step forward. I have been advised by the Commission's staff that, to date,
our hopes have been partially realized. We are beginning to receive information on
the nature and scope of these problems, which appear to be very widespread. The
goal of this inquiry is not merely to make a case against a few station owners and
disc jockeys, but rather to educate ourselves and, in turn, the broadcast industry,
about the problems and pitfalls of payola and plugola. These practices, as a general
rule, do not benefit the broadcaster directly. However, it is the broadcaster-not the
Commission or the Department of Justice-who is in the best position to bring these
practices to a halt. We intend to help and, if necessary, to prompt the broadcaster to
take a more active role in ending these illegal activities.
NETWORKS
Under the Communications Act, we have always held that it is the individual
broadcast licensee which has the right and responsibility to make programming
judgments. The rise of the networks to a prominent place in the development and
distribution of programs has brought with it a concern that, in some cases, individ-
ual licensees may have delegated their programming discretion to the networks
with which they are affiliated.
Network inquiry
In January, the Commission instituted a wide-ranging inquiry into the alleged
"network dominance" of the television inquiry. The inquiry, which is the first
overall FCC study of the networks in some twenty years, will examine the relation-
ship of networks with their affiliated stations and with the program suppliers.
Under the Communications Act, it is the individual licensee which has the right
and responsibility to make independent programming judgments, and we will ana-
lyze whether any practices of the networks are improperly restricting licensee
PAGENO="0105"
101
discretion. Such discretion can be effectively exercised, of course, only if the entire
television market is in a healthy and competitive state, one which is in a position to
offer alternative sources of programming. For this reason, our inquiry will encom-
pass the question of whether the networks have engaged in anticompetitive policies
which restrict the development of these other program outlets.
As to the network-affiliate relationship, the inquiry includes a review of station
clearances of network programs, expansion of network schedules, preveiwing of
network programs by the affiliates and, finally, the relationship between station
compensation plans and the independent judgment of the affiliated licensee. Con-
cerning the issue of network-supplier relationships, we will analyze such diverse
subjects as the following: network interests in syndicated programming produced by
independent suppliers; network in-house program production; the allegation of tying
arrangements concerning the use of production facilities; exclusive network exhibi-
tion rights for program pilots; and finally, the relationships between network owned
and operated stations and program suppliers.
Initial comments, which are due June 1, will be analyzed by our Task Force
which, thereafter, may investigate on its own areas which need independent explo-
ration. On the basis of the record compiled, the staff will then submit its report to
the Commission. It is anticipated that this process will be completed within a year
from the time that comments are filed, or by mid-1978.
Prime time access rule
Another network issue which has received a great deal of attention in recent
years is our "prime time access rule". That rule provides that network-owned and
affiliated stations in the fifty largest metropolitan markets may devote no more
than three hours of the four hours of prime time each night-7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Eastern Time-to network programs or so-called "off-network" programs (those
formerly shown by the network). PTAR had as one of its primary objectives the
reduction in network control over station time, giving station licensees a substantial
amount of prime time in which to present those programs which, in their indepen-
dent judgment, best meet the needs and interests of viewers. The rule's other basic
objective was to promote alternative sources of new non-network programming by
making available valuable prime time for such programming.
Additionally, it was expected that the rule would lead to an increase in local
programming activities and it was hoped, in the long-term, that the rule would
increase diversity of programming. In practice, stations have generally designated
the first hour of prime time, e.g., 7 to 8 E.T., as "access time," during which they air
non-network material or syndicated programs which have not been on a network.
The prime time access rule has been the subject of considerable controversy
during its short life, and was the subject of a rulemaking proceeding from 1972 to
1975 to consider its modification or repeal. It was determined at that time to retain
the rule but in a relaxed form with various modifications. The most significant of
these was to permit broader opportunities for the presentation of programming
designed for children, and public affairs and documentary programs. This rule has
undergone a number of significant changes in recent years and the Commission
believes that it is appropriate to let the rule operate for a fair period in order to
ascertain its true impact on television programming.
TECHNICAL REGULATION
As part of its regulatory activities, the Commission requires that its broadcast
licensees adhere to certain technical standards. These standards encompass both
equipment type-acceptance and operational requirements in order to maintain a
quality broadcast signal and prevent serious electrical interference with other sta-
tions. Through its Field Operations Bureau offices in various parts of the country,
the Commission monitors broadcast licensees in order to detect technical rule viola-
tions such as, for example, operation at an unauthorized power level or on a
frequency other than the one assigned. The Commission is also engaged in the
development and testing of new equipment and broadcasting techniques.
Automatic transmission systems
In December 1976, the Commission adopted rules which permit the use of auto-
matic transmission systems for the operation of FM and non-directional AM broad-
cast stations. This action is the most significant revision of broadcast transmitter
operating requirements since the use of remote control was first authorized 25 years
ago.
With an automatic transmission system incorporating advanded electronics tech-
nology, all routine operating functions are monitored, controlled, and completed
PAGENO="0106"
102
automatically without assistance of a skilled duty technician. The automatic trans-
mission system also includes an alarm to alert licensees of malfunctions that would
require attention by a maintenance operator. Serious uncorrected malfunctions
which would result in harmful interference to other stations will cause transmission
to automatically terminate, or to switch to an alternate transmitter. Use of this
system also eliminates the need to keep certain operating logs and records, and to
conduct frequent inspections of the transmitter facilities.
Studies are currently underway regarding similar procedures for automatic oper-
ation of television stations and AM stations equipped with directional antennas.
This performance-related approach should result in substantially reduced govern-
mental involvement with licensees' day-to-day activities while at the same time
improving the quality of broadcast service. Indeed, the time, money and employee
resources made available to broadcasters under this technique could and should be
put to better use in overall service to the American people.
AM stereophonic broadcasting
Tn 1976, the Electronics Industries Association (ETA) formed the National AM
Stereophonic Radio Committee to test the feasibility of various AM stereo systems.
This association has two petitions currently pending before the Commission request-
ing establishment of new rules and standards to permit AM stereophonic broadcast-
ing. The Commission plans to institute a formal proceeding within the next two
months to explore the publiic benefits and technical considerations of AM stereo-
phonic broadcasting. This proceeding will be scheduled to insure that the results of
existing on-going technical studies by the National AM Stereophonic Committee, as
well as other interested parties can be submitted and considered before the Corn-
misssion acts in this area.
Quadraphonic FM broadcasting
The ETA, in 1972 also sponsored the National Quadraphonic Radio Committee
("NQRC"), whose purpose was to report to the Commission its conclusions regarding
four-channel FM broadcasting standards. NQRC submitted its conclusions to the
Commission in November 1975 and, since that time, we have been conducting
additional FM quadraphonic tests at our Laboratory Division.
The Commission has before it at this time three petitions requesting amendment
of its rules to permit quadraphonic FM broadcasting. These petitions involve several
different broadcasting techniques that would permit four channel FM signals to be
transmitted and received. It is clear, both from the NQRC submissions and from our
own tests, that the issues raised in this matter are complex and will require
extensive comment by all interested parties before a decision can be reached. In this
light, the Commission plans to institute formal proceedings early this summer to
consider this new broadcasting technique.
Captioning for the deaf
Tn December 1976, the Commission voted to amend its rules to permit "closed
captioning" of television programs for the benefit of the hearing impaired. Closed
captioning is a technique by which coded data signals are transmitted along with
the regular video signal, enabling decoder-equipped TV receivers to display visually
the information contained in the aural segment of TV programs. The Commission
noted that Public Broadcasting's captioning proposal could, with the widespread use
of special decoders, significantly enhance TV viewing for hearing-impaired persons
without interfering with unimpaired viewers' picture or audio.
The Commission also indicated that uses other than traditional captioning, such
as weather information or news releases, might be permitted in the future. Expan-
sion of the scope of available visual information during non-captioning periods
presents both a rapid and economically feasible method of expanding service to the
hearing-impaired. Given the growing informational and entertainment dominance
of television in our society, development of these and other captioning services
would enable the hearing-impaired to lead a fuller and more enriched life.
BROADCAST REREGULATION
Tn April 1972, the Commission established a broadcast Reregulation Task Force to
determine if its regulatory authority is being exercised in a meaningful and prag-
matic manner consistent with the public interest. To this end, each of our broadcast
rules is being analyzed to determine its current validity and whether it should be
continued, modified or deleted. In addition, this task force has proposed from time-
to-time new rules which more accurately reflect the present state of the broadcast
art.
PAGENO="0107"
103
In the past five years, we have succeeded thus far in modifying or eliminating
some 500 rules in the broadcast area. Morover, the development of revised and more
readily understandable rules has been extended into almost every facet of our
jurisdiction, including the emerging cable television industry. Some of the more
significant deregulatory actions which have been taken by the Commission have
been discussed under other topical areas: the automatic transmission systems, our
new ascertainment rules, UHF development, and clear channel allocations. Howev-
er, there have been additional developments which I would like to briefly outline for
the Subcommittee.
Network radio
In 1941, when our original network radio rules were established, the networks
played a tremendous role in broadcasting. Networks in radio today are for the most
part engaged in providing rather brief news programs, commentary, and other
features. Despite these changed circumstances in radio and the emergence of televi-
sion, our rules have remained the same. The Commission recently completed, how-
ever, a general deregulation of its rules regarding radio networks and their affili-
ated stations. In this proceeding, the Commission concluded that the existing net-
work radio rules have had a restrictive effect on possible new developments in this
field and should be substantially modified or repealed.
New radio renewal form
The Commission has also undertaken a complete examination of its radio renewal
application, and adopted a new two-page "short form" radio application. This form
eliminated many questions from the prior application, and revises several others so
as to require more extensive information regarding a licensee's programming per-
formance. The revised form also eliminates the need for submitting documentation
of a licensee's ascertainment effort at renewal time, and, instead, permits a licensee
to certify that such documentation has been placed in the station's public file.
The Commission views this new radio renewal application as a significant step
towards eliminating extraneous information from the renewal process, while at the
same time focusing our review on areas of special concern such as ascertainment,
past and proposed programming and equal employment opportunities.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Let me turn now to the matter of public participation in agency decision-making.
At the outset, it is important to understand that in order to have effective public
participation, it is necessary to have an informed and aware public. Accordingly, I
believe that regulatory commissions have an affirmative obligation to inform citi-
zens of their rights and how they may be exercised, and to notify them of pertinent
matters and controversies pending before the agency. These obligations require
programs which permit public access to information and to Commission personnel
(including the Commissioners themselves) for guidance on specific issues. The FCC
has recently developed an extensive program designed to stimulate such public
contact and interaction with our agency.
In the area of information, and prior to the advent of the notices required under
the Sunshine Law, quarterly FCC meeting calendars were publicly released
throughout my tenure as Chairman. They have provided a means by which citizens
can be made aware of upcoming agency activities. Additionally, we have initiated a
weekly "Actions Alert" publication setting forth summaries of Commission decisions
of interest to the general public. These Alerts are sent without charge to many
public interest groups to enable them to keep abreast of Commission activities. The
Comission has also published a "Special Feedback Edition" of Actions Alert as a
further effort to increase public participation in the Commission's rulemaking pro-
cedures. The release of a Feedback Edition has the advantage of calling for public
comments on major rulemaking proposals by highlighting specific questions in-
volved and suggesting ways in which the proposed rules might affect the public. The
Commission has also published a "Procedural Manual" which attempts to explain,
in layman's language, the Commission's processes and policies.
FCC regional meetings
The Regional Meetings program was created to take the FCC out of Washington
and to the people throughout the nation. These meetings were designed to foster a
better understanding between the general public, broadcasters, and the Commission
and to improve the public's awareness of its rights under the Communications Act.
At each of the nine meetings held to date, my colleagues on the Commission and
myself, along with key Broadcast Bureau staff, have met face-to-face with the public
and with broadcast licensees.
PAGENO="0108"
104
The Regional meetings are supplemented by monthly "en bane" meetings of the
full Commission. At these meetings, public interest groups and industry organiza-
tions have appeared and aired their views on FCC activities and policy.
Consumer assistance office
Perhaps our most important action towards involving the public has been the
formation, a little over one year ago, of a Consumer Assistance Office. The primary
purpose of this office is to establish a point of contact within the Commission for the
average citizen who may phone or visit us-a means by which the public can cut
through the bureaucratic maze to secure the right information from the right
person within the FCC. In addition, it provides procedural assistance to facilitate
greater public participation in our processes. Finally, the Office helps to educate the
public about our policies and procedures by producing simple, easy to read and
unbureaucratic informative material.
Assistance for participation in Commission proceedings
In November 1976, the Commission adopted, on an experimental basis, an assis-
tance program designed to facilitate the participation of citizens in Commission
proceedings. Under this rule, motions to proceed in forma pauperis will be consid-
ered by the Commission if the participant is an intervenor in a hearing case with
testimony of probable decisional significance or a respondent in a revocation or
renewal proceeding who could not carry on his livelihood without the license at
stake. One important objective of this experiment is to facilitate participation after
designation for hearing by an intervenor who is in a position to make an important
contribution but who cannot be expected, in light of his purely noneconomic inter-
est, to bear the full cost of effective participation. While this program does not
encompass the reimbursement of attorneys fees (something on which we would need
specific funding), the Commission is hopeful that this measure will encourage other-
wise reticent individuals or groups to contribute to the Commission's regulatory
process.
TTY phone
The Commission recently installed a TTY phone for the deaf and hearing im-
paired in its Consumer Affairs Office to further enhance the availability of govern-
ment processes to the hearing impaired. This teletype phone enables persons other-
wise unable to use the telephone to communicate directly via regular telephone
lines with the Commission and its staff concerning both specific matters which are
of great importance to the hearing impaired and general inquiries regarding Com-
mission forms, procedures, or regulations.
Commission conferences
The Commission frequently holds conferences with members of the broadcast
industry, interest groups and the public to discuss various topics of mutual interest
and concern in the broadcast area. A recent example is the Minority Ownership
Conference held at the Commission this past month to explore possible methods of
improving the extent of minority participation in ownership of broadcast stations.
The Conference included various speakers and panels on financing, access to and
use of professional help, operational problems of station ownership and public policy
issues.
A Commission task force is now preparing a conference work statement based
upon the materials developed during the two-day conference and written proposals
submitted by the conferees. This work statement will form the basis for a Commis-
sion-funded study on minority ownership which will include a discussion of the
barriers to such ownership and how they might be removed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to
respond to your questions.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record:]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 26, 1977.
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: This is written as a response to six questions posed by
Senator Harrison A. Williams concerning, primarily, the Commission's New Jersey
television service proceeding (in Docket 20350). These inquiries also relate to a
current Commission renewal proceeding involving station WNET, Newark, New
PAGENO="0109"
105
Jersey, and the recent newspaper-television cross-ownership decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The first three questions are stated as follows:
L The Communications Act of 1934 requires that the Federal Communications
Commission distribute broadcast licenses "among the several states and communi-
ties" so as "to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution to each of the
same." Yet, not one commercial VHF television station is located in New Jersey,
the eighth most populous state in the nation. How can you reconcile this fact with
the Commission's statutory mandate to allocate stations equitably?
2. In 1974, the New Jersey Coalition for Fair Broadcasting petitioned the Commis-
sion to order better service for New Jersey. In March, 1975, the Commission deter-
mined that additional locally oriented television program service was required,
including a local "presence" in New Jersey. Why did the Commission oppose the
reallocation of an existing VHF station to New Jersey? Why did the Commission
oppose the licensing of an existing station to two communities, both its present
community and a city in New Jersey? Why didn't the Commission at least require
that New York and Philadelphia stations establish studios in New Jersey?
3. In July, 1976, the Commission asked New York and Philadelphia stations to
submit plans for covering New Jersey. In December, the Commission ratified these
plans, many of which propose little more than what the stations are already doing.
Why didn `t the Commission set minimum standards for New Jersey coverage? How
does the Commission plan to ensure that the stations carry out the minimal commit-
ments they did make to increase New Jersey coverage? [Emphasis in original.]
These matters were all carefully considered by the Commission in the three
decisions in the New Jersey television service proceeding, Docket 20350, and the
complete answers to your questions can be found in these documents.1 In essence, it
was the Commission's conclusion that Section 307(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, to which you refer in question 1, does not require the assignment
of a commercial VHF station to each state. Rather, the UHF and VHF bands are
considered as constituting a single television service and the Commission endeavors
to utilize these channels to provide effective service to all people residing in a
particular area or region. Parenthetically, it should be noted that New Jersey
receives as many as 37 "Grade B" 2 or better television signals and that New Jersey
residents in most areas are capable of receiving 15 or more television stations off-
the-air. Residents in most other parts of the nation generally receive far fewer
stations over-the-air.
As described fully in the above-referenced Docket 20350 decisions the Commission
found, on economic and related technical grounds, that a VHF station reallocated to
New Jersey would not in all probability be viable. It concluded also that the
transfer of one VHF station to New Jersey would not significantly increase New
Jersey's television program service. The Commission's concern in this proceeding
was the assurance of adequate television program service for the residents of New
Jersey-a goal which the Commission believes could best be met by the service
efforts of not just one or a few stations but by all the television stations in the area,
UHF and VHF, in-state and out-of-state. In rejecting the proposals made for "dual-
licensing" and "hyphenation" the Commission found that those schemes were not
necessary for assuring adequate New Jersey television service, that a hyphenated
joint ID would be only cosmetic, and that dual-licensing would create inflexible
service obligations. The Commission did acknowledge, however, that out-of-state
licensees could use a non-official promotional ID highlighting the stations' New
Jersey service obligations and activities. It was the Commission's judgment that a
New Jersey studio requirement, placed on out-of-state licensees, would be ineffi-
cient, is unnecessary to the realization of adequate television service for New
Jersey, and might constitute an unwarranted intrusion into licensee business oper-
ation. It is the Commission's view that mobility and flexibility are the keynotes to
coverage of such a diverse and densely populated area such as New Jersey. Rather
than require the construction of static studio facilities, the Commission has taken
the position that more responsive and efficient New Jersey coverage can be
achieved through the area licensees' New Jersey service commitments (in terms of
personnel and equipment) and their adherence to special New Jersey service obliga-
tions.
The Commission did not establish fixed New Jersey service requirements for
particular classes of stations in recognition that licensees must have the flexibility
1 First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 76-262, 58
FCC 2d 790 (1976); Second Report and Order, FCC 76-634, 59 FCC 2d 1386 (1976); Third Report
and Order, FCC 76-1024, 39 RB. 2d 137 (1976).
2 A signal intensity measurement.
PAGENO="0110"
106
to assign both resources and personnel and produce programming in a manner
consistent with their business and journalistic discretion. We plan to review careful-
ly, in the license renewal process, the area stations' implementation of their New
Jersey service commitments. As the Commission set forth in its Third Report and
Order, and as I and other Commissioners have stated publicly, if these licensees do
not live up to their commitments the Commission should take appropriate remedial
action in the renewal process and, if necessary, may be required to reopen the
broader proceeding.
Question 4 deals with Station WNET, Newark, New Jersey, and states the follow-
ing:
4. Channel 13 is licensed to Newark, but in 1961 it was allowed to move its main
facilities to New York City. It now has no physical plant facilities in New Jersey,
and only broadcasts one-half hour a week of New Jersey-oriented programming.
Why hasn't the Commission required the one VHF licensee allocated to New Jersey to
serve its community of license? [Emphasis in original.]
Insofar as Station WNET's service responsibilities are concerned, I can only
inform you that these matters are being examined separately in an ongoing renewal
proceeding. While I cannot speculate as to the Commission's ultimate ruling in this
proceeding, it appears that a decision will be reached in the very near future. I
might add that Station WNET does maintain office facilities in New Jersey and
utilizes Essex College (Newark, New Jersey) facilities for program production. It
also appears that, in the fall, Station WNET will be producing, in conjunction with
your own New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority, a half-hour nightly New
Jersey newscast.
Question 5 reads as follows:
5. A recent decision by a United States Court of Appeals held that ownership of a
newspaper and broadcast station in the same market is illegal. If this decision is
upheld, certain stations in New York and Pennsylvania may have to be divested. If
this occurred, or in the event that a station is voluntarily divested, what criteria
would the Commission apply for awarding the licenses of these stations? Given the
special needs of New Jersey, don't you thank that New Jersey should receive prefer-
ence in awarding these stations? [Emphasis in original.]
The Court of Appeals' decision to which you refer did not hold that newspaper-
broadcast cross-ownership in the same market is per se illegal. Rather, the Court
stated its opinion that divestiture should be required except in those cases where
the evidence clearly discloses that cross-ownership is in the public interest. As you
may know, the Commission has sought certiorari in the Supreme Court in this
matter and assuming certiorari is granted, oral arguments hopefully would be
scheduled later this year. Because no final judicial decision likely will be reached
for several months, it would be premature and spectulative to give any extended
discussion concerning required divestitute in these cross-ownership cases. In any
case, the Commission has recognized New Jersey's service needs and has established
a mechanism designed, it believes, to assure adequate service-a mechanism which,
at present, does not appear to require a change in either allocations or station
licensees. If it becomes evident that this mechanism does not provide adequate
service for New Jersey, the Commission may consider reallocation or licensee trans-
fer regardless of any judicially-mandated cross-ownership divestiture.
Final question 6 asks the following:
6. Do you think that legislation will be necessary to insure that New Jersey receives
adequate television service?
This question must be answered in the negative. The Commission believes that it
has devised a mechanism which will assure that New Jersey receives adequate
television service. Should this approach fail to achieve adequate New Jersey service
the Commission is fully prepared and fully empowered by statute to take appropri-
ate additional steps. In the event such further action is required, the Commission
will be able to choose from among a variety of alternative courses. No supplemental
legislation would be necessary.
I trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiries. I will be happy to
reply to any follow-up questions you may have or further discuss any of these
matters with you or your staff.
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD E. Wii~y,
Chairman.
Senator CANNON. Our next witness will be Vincent Wasilewski,
president, National Association of Broadcasters.
PAGENO="0111"
107
STATEMENT OF VINCENT T. WASILEWSKI, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CANNON. All right, sir, you may proceed.
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. Mr. Chairman, my name is Vincent Wasi-
lewski, president of the National Association of Broadcasters. We
appreciate the invitation to appear before the committee at these
hearings.
As you know, our association represents a wide range of broad-
casters from the networks to the smallest commercial radio station.
For this reason, we are vitally interested in virtually every phase
of broadcasting, and are structured to provide service to our mem-
bers in areas such as engineering, labor-management practices,
financial practices, research, and other areas.
We also have developed a code of good practices for broadcasters,
which we believe to be a preferable alternative to Federal regula-
tion. In addition, our government relations and legal departments
work with the Congress, the FCC, the FTC, and other Federal
agencies to make known industry positions on the rules and regula-
tions and legislation that affects broadcasters. Over the years, we
have had an excellent relationship with this subcommittee, which
we believe has been beneficial to all concerned.
As you know, all commercial broadcasters are licensed by the
FCC for periods of up to 3 years. In order to obtain a license, one
must meet a number of legal, technical, and financial obligations
and must agree to operate in the public interest.
Licenses are granted for a particular frequency and a particular
community, and the broadcaster is expected to serve that commu-
nity and the surrounding area. The licensee is responsible for
everything programed on his station. This responsibility cannot be
delegated, nor can it be contracted away through negotiation.
Broadcasters ascertain the needs and interests of their communi-
ties by maintaining regular contact with members of the general
public and leaders of the community including public officials,
businessmen, educators, community groups, and minority groups.
At one time or another, virtually all structured groups in most
communities have some involvement with the local broadcaster,
ranging from the retailer, who wishes to advertise his product, to
the citizens association, which may want to complain about some
part of the programing.
Broadcasters are businessmen, and are in business to make a
profit. The sole means of doing so is through advertising sold
throughout the program day. Charges for advertising vary as to the
audience that a broadcaster can attract, and the greater the audi-
ence, the greater the revenues.
For this reason, in most areas, our members are quite competi-
tive with each other and try to program to meet the needs and
interests of the many audiences that make up the public. Some
broadcasters make substantial profits. Others have substantial
losses-according to the most recent FCC financial data, 2,268 or
41.8 percent of the commercial radio stations filing 1975 annual
financial reports (FCC Form 342) operated at a loss for that year;
48.2 percent of the UHF and 13.9 percent of the VHF stations also
PAGENO="0112"
108
reported financial losses for 1975. None of them, we are pleased, to
say, is subsidized by the taxpayer.
All things considered, we believe our broadcasting system is the
finest in the world and provides full and varied service at a very
low cost. While we do have our shortcomings, we believe that the
Congress made a wise decision many years ago to allow broadcast-
ers to operate within the free enterprise system rather than pro-
vide for greater government involvement.
I have divided the remainder of my testimony into three parts:
short-range concerns; long-range concerns; and, the NAB code.
As to our short-range concerns, let me begin with an item which
is also in the long-range category-overregulation. As with most
industries, broadcasting is concerned about coping with increasing
amounts of Federal regulation and its effect on the broadcaster's
ability to carry out essential programing duties.
Let me make it clear that we are not here to point fingers, but
just to emphasize that in our evermore complex world, the broad-
caster is entwined in the paperwork tangle that seems to make life
so unpleasant and each task a little more difficult and frustrating.
I think I should, at this point, give recognition to the FCC for its
interest in deregulating wherever possible, and express my hope
that the Commission will continue in the future to explore areas
where less regulation is feasible. We fully understand that some
regulation of our industry is necessary and in the public interest
and, of course, we accept that. But most broadcasters are small
businessmen who find that time spent filling out forms is time
better spent working to provide better service to the public.
Discussion of overregulation leads us naturally into license re-
newal and the need for legislation in this area. Perhaps the one
piece of legislation that could do more to alleviate paperwork, both
for the broadcaster and the FCC, than any other is a license
renewal bill.
As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, you helped with the renewal
bill in 1974 as did Senator Hollings. But that failed to be enacted
into law when no conference was held to resolve the differences
between the House and Senate bills. We were pleased to see that
renewal legislation is on your committee agenda for this summer,
and we would urge that a bill similar to the one passed before be
considered. An increased term of license is needed and would help
to reduce the paperwork burden while still allowing for a periodic
review.
We believe that such a bill should also provide for a renewal
procedure that would grant some preference to the broadcaster
who has been doing a good job of programing to meet the needs
and interests of the community.
A third item that has both short and long range implications is
the problem of "siphoning" and the recent court decision which
overturned FCC pay-cable regulations. Broadcasters are most con-
cerned over this development, not because we are opposed to pay
cable, we are not, but because we see the real possibility that the
public may lose some prime programing to pay television as a
result of the court ruling.
Our deepest concern is that some sports events that have been
appearing on commercial television may no longer be available. Let
PAGENO="0113"
109
me make it clear that in the immediate future, we are not talking
about the world series or the super bowl, but the local sporting
events that are contracted for on a yearly basis by local broadcast-
ers.
If the local professional basketball team or baseball team finds
that it can derive more revenue from selling its game to pay-cable
interests than to local broadcasters, the result will be a gradual
loss of local sports events from commercial television. We do not
believe this would be in the public interest since many Americans
will not have pay-cable available or, if it is available, will not be
able to afford it.
Since this will most likely happen at first on a piecemeal basis
rather than via a sudden withdrawal from a network's offerings, it
will be difficult to perceive and only be readily visible after it has
reached a critical stage. At that point, it might be difficult, if not
impossible, to reverse the trend. We are urging the committee to
look at this situation with a view toward legislative action in the
immediate future.
Senator CANNON. Do you have any specific suggestions as to
what type of legislative action you think the committee might take
that would be upheld by the courts?
Mr. WA5ILEwsKI. Yes, sir, we don't have it in draft language, but
there was a bill introduced by Senator Beall some time ago that
was 5. 2283 in the 93d Congress.
But, basically, I think that legislation should include an express
grant of power to the FCC to regulate pay-cable television, since
the FCC has always felt that some legislative authority was desir-
able, and I think this would be the opportunity to provide it.
I think that it should contain a positive statement identifying
pay-cable as a supplement to commercial television with the poten-
tial to supply new and unique programing for the specialties of
varied audiences that choose to pay for that programing. Senator
Beau's bill essentially provided that.
Senator CANNON. This would be one area where you would
depart from your original testimony when you say you want less
regulation. Here you want more regulation in this particular area.
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. Yes; I think there is a great distinction here
because the regulation applied to broadcasting is there, not for the
benefit of broadcasting or its disadvantage, but for the benefit of
the public. I think I am talking, here, about regulation that is for
the benefit of the public because I don't think you are dealing with
the normal competitive situation, Senator.
I think there is a distinction here between this situation and the
airlines, for example, and I think that there is a basic distinction
here because pay-cable has not developed in an independent, free,
and open competitive situation. It's developed based upon utilizing
the product of over-the-air advertiser supported broadcasting to
make its economic base.
Now, it's going ahead and using investment, that the television-
set owner has placed in his television set, using that investment
which the television-set owner bought principally and primarily
and solely initially for the purpose of getting over-the-air free
advertiser supported television. Now, they want to change that and
use that same investment both on the part of the broadcaster and
20-122 0 - 78 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
110
on the part of the viewing public and change that to a pay-cable
and change the free view to pay view.
So, there is a distinction in my judgment. Then I think that
legislation ought to contain a statement of policy or guidelines
giving to the FCC clear direction as to future regulation in the pay-
cable area. It must be made clear that Congress has decided it
would not be in the public interest to allow pay-cable to have
exclusive rights to programing presently appearing on commercial
television, when the public would only view that programing by
paying a per program or per channel charge.
Another short range concern is forfeiture legislation. Last year,
the Senate passed a bill recommended by FCC that would put cable
operators on a par with broadcasters as to monetary fines for
violations of the FCC rules and regulations.
Under present procedures, the Commission is limited mainly to
the institution of long and cumbersome cease and desist proceed-
ings to enforce its cable TV rules. We believe the Commission
should have the same power to fine cable operators who violate the
rules as it does to fine broadcasters, and we urge the Senate to
again consider this legislation.
We would also urge the committee to consider radio all-channel
ligislation. Such legislation would accomplish in radio what the
Congress did in television receivers to have both VHF and UHF
reception capability.
We feel that all radio sets should be capable of receiving both
AM and FM signals. Again, in this case, the Senate passed all-
channel legislation in 1974, but the bill never made it out of the
House Rules Committee.
We were encouraged to see that the agenda for this committee
includes all-channel hearings and we urge its early passage.
Now another short range item, that is the "rewrite" of the
Communications Act that is now proceeding in the House. Certain-
ly we are most interested in the outcome of any rewrite since it
could drastically change our entire communications system. While
we believe there are some areas where change is needed and desir-
able, we also believe that the basic Communications Act is a sound
one, and has served this Nation well, and would hope that the
Congress would proceed with caution in amending this law.
Now, as for long range concerns, we have several. As I men-
tioned earlier, the possible "siphoning" of popular television pro-
graming to pay-cable is one major concern for the future. As pay-
cable continues to grow-it's estimated that the subscribers will
double for the second consecutive year-it will become more finan-
cially secure and be increasingly able to bid against broadcasters
for sports and entertainment programing that they now carry.
In the sports area, particularly where many teams are now in
financial trouble and athletes' salaries continue to soar, the dollars
offered by pay-cable will become increasingly attractive and irresis-
tible.
As a result, the prime events on first a local and then a national
basis will begin to slip away from free television. The broadcaster,
if faced with what's left, may decide that the sports leftovers are
not attractive enough to continue to broadcast. And the cycle will
repeat itself again and again.
PAGENO="0115"
111
We are fully aware that cable interests state that they are not
interested in the broadcasters' product but, if that's the case, one
must wonder why the cable industry has spent such vast sums of
money to fight antisiphoning restrictions.
We would hope we are wrong about cable's intentions. But if we
are not, then the viewers who do not have cable television 10 years
from now will find many of their favorite programs missing from
broadcast television. That would not seem to us to be in the public
interest.
On another front, we continue to be puzzled at the explanations
of the first amendment that somehow always end with the proposi-
tion that the print media has full rights but the broadcast media
does not. The Constitution still reads that "Congress shall make no
low * * * abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press * *
There is no footnote saying "unless the speech is broadcast" or
"unless the press is the electronic media."
We do not argue that we should not be regulated, but we recog-
nize this as a necessity in the orderly use of the spectrum. Nor do
we disagree that the Federal Government has the right to make
certain that our use of the spectrum is for the public good. But we
continue to object to laws that tell us what we can advertise-no
cigarettes-how we can treat controversial issues-fairness doc-
trine-and what we may charge for selling some of our time-
lowest unit rate.
I would like to end my testimony today with some comments on
the NAB code, and how it fits into this overall discussion of broad-
casting. Actually, there are separate codes for radio and television,
but they are both administered by the code authority so, if I may, I
will simply refer to the code.
I believe the NAB code is unique. We are not aware of any other
medium whose members-in any significant number-have volun-
tarily subscribed to standards and guidelines which apply to both
commercials and programs.
The concept of a code of good practices is certainly not new; the
first radio code was adopted 40 years ago, in 1937. Today, 2,699
radio stations and four radio networks subscribe to the code.
The television code came into being in 1952 and, as of this
morning, 457 television stations and the three television networks
are code subscribers.
The code, since its inception, has been subjected to criticism.
Some say it is too restrictive, just as others say it is not restrictive
enough. In any case, it is an honest attempt on the part of the
broadcasting industry to discipline itself in the marketplace, and to
reflect the constantly changing tastes and standards of our society.
The work of the code authority is monitored and supervised by
two separate boards, one for radio and one for television, whose
members are appointed by the president of the National Associ-
ation of Broadcasters. Their work, in turn, is monitored, super-
vised, and either ratified or vetoed by the respective radio and
television boards of directors, whose members are elected by the
general membership of the NAB.
We have endeavored to build certain mechanisms into what we
believe is an orderly, democratic system of checks and balances.
Part of this system is a process which enables advertisers as well
PAGENO="0116"
112
as spokespersons for defineable segments of the public to appear
before either-or both-of the code boards to make their views
known.
In this way, the two code boards and the code authority are able
to monitor and react to the demands of the marketplace and reflect
the constantly changing standards of society.
The code and the apparatus which make it run may not be
perfect for the simple reason that it is made up of imperfect
human beings. But we happen to believe that it does represent a
conscientious effort, on the part of the broadcasters who subscribe
and adhere to it, to best operate in the public interest, convenience,
and necessity.
In short, the code is the conscience of our industry and, as such,
is infinitely preferable to any other system of which we are aware.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CANNON. Thank you for a very fine statement. Mr. Wasi-
lewski.
Recently your broadcast section referred to the code board a
recommendation that the code be revised to improve its approach
to violence. Why did the code board reject that recommendation?
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. Well, the Television Code review Board initiat-
ed discussions, pursuant to that request from our board, with inter-
ested parties late last year and in an effort I think to be responsive
to the-what I would call the television board's direction, the code
board met with-representatives met with writers and producers in
the Hollywood community. And after doing so-I am reflecting
their viewpoint to you, because I am not a member of that code
review board-as I understand their position, they felt they were
encouraging developments that were occurring on a voluntary
basis by programers in Hollywood.
They felt the networks were taking positive steps to reduce the
amount of violence on programs and the amount-the number of
programs of the adventure, violent type. And then I think over and
above that, they felt that it was just impossible to draw specifically
difinitive guidelines to outline what is or what is not violent,
because they felt that an attempt to reach an objective determina-
tion of guidelines, which are so subject to subjective interpreta-
tions, that they were just dealing in a never-never land, and felt
that what they had at the present time was as good as they could
come up with.
And I think that-as you know at the present time-there is
within the industry disagreement relative to the conclusion taken
by the Television Code Review Board and this will be ironed out, I
think, between our Television Board of Directors and our Televi-
sion Code Review Board come June of this year at the Television
Board meeting.
Senator CANNON. Do you think the members are taking adequate
steps on their own now to meet this particular problem?
Mr. WASILEWSKI. Well, I think again that would be a subjective
determination as to what is and what is not an adequate step.
Senator CANNON. That is what I am asking you, what you think.
Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes; I do believe that they are. They are taking
honest-making honest attempts to reach the issue of violence, to
deal with it. And I was heartened, I know, yesterday to hear
PAGENO="0117"
113
network representatives talking about reduction in violence as they
would see it coming in the fall season.
Senator CANNON. I must say, I was pleased with the presentation
of the networks. I thought that was a very marked improvement.
Mr. WAsILEw5KI. I think there is a greater awareness of the
issue, the problem-however you want to refer to it-in what I
would call the writing and producing community.
Senator CANNON. Do you have any nonbroadcaster members of
the code group?
Mr. WA5ILEwsKI. No, sir; we do not.
Senator CANNON. Any private citizens or church groups, or this
sort of thing?
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. No; but we do have such groups that come in
and make appearances and presentations to the respective code
boards. I think last year we had some 47 different entities making
an appearance.
Senator CANNON. So you give them an opportunity to appear and
present their views even though they are not members of the
board?
Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, sir.
Senator CANNON. I already asked you somewhat about the over-
regulation; but you were complaining about increasing regulations,
and at the same time Mr. Wiley said that the board is drastically
cutting back on its regulatory burdens.
Do you agree with his assessment?
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. I would say this: That the FCC has made an
honest attempt to cut back on its regulation. My comments, I
think, went to the overall-my comments were specifically directed
not so much to the FCC but in the overall context of Government
itself. Not only are we subject to FCC regulations but we are
subject to other types of regulation businesses deal with, namely
the FTC, and many others.
Mr. Wiley said that they cut back to a two-page radio application
blank; but oddly enough, after cutting back to the two-pages, there
are 30 pages of directions as to how to fill it out. And so on the one
hand, I know one of our broadcasters reduced that two-page appli-
cation blank to one page by reducing it by Xerox and then we had
a one-page application blank. But it's not just the size, it's how
much added information you have to supply.
I think they have been trying to cut back, though. I really do.
Senator CANNON. You made the recommendation for all-channel
legislation and pointed out that the Senate acted on that last year.
If I remember correctly, I think I voted against it because of the
cost involved. But I would like to have your cost estimate as to the
requirement that all cars be equipped with AM/FM.
What is the best estimate as to the cost, the added cost to the
purchaser?
Mr. WA5ILEw5KI. Sir, I don't have that answer readily available.
I can respond this way, however. We have just budgeted an amount
of money to work with the public radio entity and to do a survey of
the costs involved in the manufacture of automobile radios, to see
exactly what would be the answer to your question; namely, to find
out what is the actual cost of putting together AM and FM in an
automobile.
PAGENO="0118"
114
There have been various estimates, which I can't pull out of my
memory right now, but we are engaging in a research study to
come up with that answer.
Senator CANNON. When do you expect to have the results of that
study?
Mr. WAsu~wsKI. May I turn to one of my colleagues and see if
anybody has that answer?
Probably about 2 months, sir.
Senator CANNON. Will you supply the Committee with the re-
sults of that study when you get it?
Mr. WAsIr~wsIa. Yes. I know this is a study done in concert with
another organization, but I don't think they would have any hesi-
tancy. It's a jointly financed operation.
Senator CANNON. Recently the NAACP, NOW, and the Latino
coalition petitioned the FCC to investigate the hiring practices of
295 television and radio stations. That is a major complaint, and
we understand several of the stations involved have no women or
minority employees.
Do you have any comments on that point?
Mr. WAsiu~wsKI. Well, I think that if they have no women or
minority employees, that under the present situation-unless there
are unique circumstances exempting them from that require-
ment-that they are not operating very wisely. That would be my
first comment.
I think, on the other hand, in distinction to that, I think the
broadcasting industry has perhaps one of the best records of any
industry in the pursuit of equal opportunity for women and minor-
ities. I think that the statistics that have been filed with the FCC
by these various groups would so indicate. But on the other hand,
that doesn't make us perfect, and that is their point.
Senator CANNON. Could you furnish us with the figures as to
what percentage of station management employees are minority
and what percentage are women? If you don't know that off hand, I
am talking about your association.
Mr. WAsIu~wsKI. I don't believe we have that in our files, but the
FCC may. We could work with them and get it.
Senator CANNON. See if you can get that information and supply
us for the record, if you would.
Mr. WASILEWSKI. All right. The percentage of--
Senator CANNON. Percentage of station management employees
that are minority and the percentage that are women.
Mr. WASILEWSKI. All right, sir.
Senator CANNON. We are talking about station management.
Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, sir.
Senator CANNON. Thank you very much for a very fine state-
ment. We appreciate you being here.
Mr. WASILEWSKI. Thank you, Senator.
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record:]
The percentages of women and minorities who held positions as managers or
officials in commercial television in the United States during 1977 were as follows:
women, 19.6 percent; total minorities, 8 percent; Negroes, 4 percent; Orientals, 0.8
percent; American Indians, 0.4 percent; Spanish Americans, 2.9 percent. Source:
Federal Communications Commission, Equal Opportunity Trend Report, February
11, 1978.
PAGENO="0119"
115
Senator CANNON. Our next witness, Mr. Herman W. Land, presi-
dent, Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc.
STATEMENT OF HERMAN W. LAND, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., ACCOMPA-
NIED BY LEAVITT J. POPE, PRESIDENT, WPIX, NEW YORK,
N.Y.
Mr. LAND. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I'm fortunate to have our chairman with us this
morning, Mr. Pope, president of WPIX, New York, who can answer
some of the questions I may not be able to field.
Senator CANNON. Good.
Mr. LAND. I'm Herman W. Land, I'm president of the Association
of Independent Television Stations, Inc., or INTV, which is located
in New York City.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here and tell you something
about the independent segment of the television industry.
We have three functions: One: To voice the independent station
interests and concerns in the legislative-regulatory area. Two: To
present the independent station point of view within the industry.
Three: To represent the independent stations to advertisers and
advertising agencies.
We have 48 station members in large and small markets-26
UHF and 22 VHF stations.
May I ask the Chairman to accept the material in the back for
the record?
Senator CANNON. It will be made a part of the record.
Mr. LAND. My main purpose in these remarks is to heighten this
committee's awareness of the independent television station, in the
hope that when you consider national communications policy,
among the many questions you ask, you will ask one more: How
will this affect the independent television stations and the public
they serve?
Within the television system, the independent station represents
the network alternative, the added choice and diversity. Its contrib-
tion to American society grows daily in quality and significance.
Any serious consideration of the future of our communications
system must, I submit, take into account the role and potential of
the independent segment of the telelvision industry.
As you know, an independent station is one that does not have
what is called a "primary" affiliation with one of the three net-
works, ABC, CBS, NBC. It may carry an occasional network pro-
gram when the primary affiliate of the network in the market fails
to clear and the network and its advertisers seek another local
outlet as a consequence. But, for the most part, the independent
station operator, unlike his affiliate counterpart, is directly respon-
sible for his total program schedule, sign-on to sign-off. This is a
fateful distinction which conditions competitive life in the market-
place.
Despite the obvious disparity of resources between independent
station and network, the independent segment has been advancing
steadily. The Nielsen Co. tells us that the independent stations
reach an average of 34,168,000 different, that is, unduplicated,
television households per week. That's as of last November. That
PAGENO="0120"
116
represents a 10 percent increase over 1975. To that we must add
millions more who view the independent stations by means of
cable's distant signal importation. In short, independent television
broadcasting is a very substantial undertaking and is making a
major contribution to American society.
There is still a tendency in many places to think almost exclu-
sively in network terms when discussing audiences and programs.
Yet, the fact is that more people are watching the independents
than ever before and that in the major markets, in particular, the
independent station share of the audience can equal or even sur-
pass that of the networks in certain day parts.
For example, in New York City there are three network owned-
and-operated and three independent stations. Between the hours of
5 and 8 p.m., this past February, the three independents together
enjoyed a 42 percent share of viewing, according to the Arbitron
rating service. New York, it may be noted, is the home of the
network flagship stations.
In Los Angeles, where four independents compete with each
other and three network owned-and-operated stations, aggregate
viewing of the independent stations totaled 58 percent. In other
words, during this 3-hour period, substantially more than half the
viewing audience of Los Angeles was watching the independent
stations.
Equally significant is the rapid progress of the Chicago indepen-
dents, where three of them compete with three network owned-
and-operated stations. Two of the independents are UHF stations,
only one a VHF. Yet, the three together managed to achieve a 46
percent share of viewing during the same period. Again, almost
half of the total available audience!
The big challenge, of course, remains prime time, where we meet
the network schedules head on. But here, too, progress is being
made. This very week we are seeing the most ambitious program
project ever undertaken by the independents come to fruition-
Taylor Caldwell's "Testimony of Two Men." This is a six-part mini-
series dramatizing a best-selling novel. Within the industry, the
project is known as "Operation Prime Time." Its significance stems
from the fact that this expensive series is being directly financed
by the stations, both independent and network affiliate. Indeed,
there are many more affiliated stations than independents in the
92-station lineup.
Senator CANNON. Who produces that particular product?
Mr. LAND. MCA, the largest television production company in
the country.
Senator CANNON. You buy directly from them for the indepen-
dents or just ones who want it, or what?
Mr. LAND. This series is financed up front with production
money coming from a group of 92 stations which are financing the
project on a cooperative basis. There is a steering committee made
up of five managers of independent stations. They are the spear-
head of the project; the program is available to the total industry.
More affiliates are involved than independents because there are
more affiliates. But the program itself is produced by MCA.
PAGENO="0121"
117
Senator CANNON. Basically, you have about the same kind of a
structure then as the networks, they produce their show and make
it available to their affiliates.
Mr. POPE. The difference, sir, is that in this instance, the stations
bought the programing by collectively agreeing to pay MCA what
it cost to produce it. Then each station sold the programing inde-
pendently in its own market. There were a couple of exceptions in
which we offered national advertisers the opportunity to buy adver-
tising on all the stations, but in general it was sold locally in each
market by the member stations.
Senator CANNON. But there are some instances where the adver-
tising is sold nationally and that advertising goes to the indepen-
dent, as a part of the product; is that right?
Mr. POPE. That's correct, yes.
Senator CANNON. In case the advertising isn't sold nationally,
then the independent must provide his own advertising revenue for
that product?
Mr. LAND. Correct.
Mr. POPE. We actually decided we did not want to sell very much
of it on a network basis but reserve it largely for local sale and did
so, deliberately selling only .2 minutes on a network basis and the
remaining time for local sale.
Senator CANNON. All right.
Mr. LAND. As I said, the series is produced by MCA, the largest
television production company in the country, which thus joins the
Norman Lear organization in making a serious effort to develop a
fourth market, distinct from the network market.
Paramount recently announced that it was setting up a division
to develop fourth market programing on a major league scale.
Other important Hollywood organizations are similarly exploring
the possibilities of creating fresh programing for this burgeoning
fourth market.
It's interesting to ask what accounts for this new producer inter-
est in working with the independent stations. The producers tell us
that we offer them the only serious remaining opportunity within
the system to go beyond three national customers, to expand their
own marketing opportunities.
A second pressure working toward the development of the fourth
market stems from growing network constraints that advertisers
say are making life more difficult for them. They too, in many
instances, would like to find new programing and scheduling oppor-
tunities for their advertising.
The third pressure arises from the independent station itself. In
the past decade we have witnessed a growing professionalism in all
areas of station operation. In the past few years, in particular, the
independents have realized that if they were to make serious pro-
gress in building audiences in prime time, they would have to
venture far beyond their customary program areas and offer first-
run programing challenges to the networks. We are just at the
beginning of that process.
What is important to understand is that any fourth market
development must rest on the independent stations as the corner-
stones.
PAGENO="0122"
118
Just as our stations are learning to work together to create new
entertainment programing, so they have proved capable of cooper-
ating in the development of an independent news service. The
major obstacle to the development of full-service news operations
among the independent stations has been a virtual impossibility of
obtaining national and international coverage in any way compara-
ble to that enjoyed by the networks. TVN, a bold noble effort at
setting up such a service to stations failed, largely because of long
lines cost.
A year and a half ago, the independent stations created by
ITNA, the Independent Television News Association. It provides a
full national and international news service to its members. Each
member station serves as a regional news bureau feeding the
system. A small national staff is maintained in Washington. Inter-
national news is obtained through Visnews, the British company.
What makes the news system possible is the satellite, which allows
for economical news distribution.
Three of our members now own earth stations. Other members
are making use of the existing earth stations in major markets.
What we foresee is a growing use of satellites as earth stations
proliferate in the broadcast industry. Not only are they important
for the distribution of news, but for sports and other special events.
There is an enormous cost advantage over long lines. Moreover, as
you are undoubtedly aware, earth stations' costs are coming down.
A national earth station grid will make possible the economical
formation of ad hoc networks on a national and regional basis. This
progress is by no means inevitable. Much depends on maintaining
a legislative and regulatory environment hospitable towards this
kind of forward movement. That is why I should like to add my
voice to those who are opposing the Bell bill, the Consumer Com-
munications Reform Act. Creating a telephone company monopoly
over new technology is tantamount to removing the competitive
pressures that have made it possible for independent stations to
find new ways to receive and transmit their programs. Not only
satellite, but microwave transmission is involved. We have learned
the hard way how important it is to have competitive signal car-
riage services available.
We have had a continuing battle with A.T. & T. over long lines
costs. Our problem stems from our unique position in the Bell
System. The networks, and their affiliates through them, can enjoy
cost savings as contract users. We are classified as occasional users.
The occasional rate is always disproportionately high when com-
pared to the contract rate. This gives the network and its affiliates
important built-in cost advantages over the independents.
It is our hope that the committee will take a dim view of the Bell
bill and act accordingly.
There is another potential obstacle to our full development that
I'd like to call to this committee's attention. As you know, a very
important part of the independent stations' service to the public is
the broadcasting of sports. If you examine exhibit B, you will see
some very substantial independent station sports schedules, cover-
ing baseball, hockey, basketball, tennis, local high school football,
et cetera. With the recent court decision vacating the pay cable
rules, we face the prospect of potential loss of some or most-
PAGENO="0123"
119
certainly the most popular-of the sports programs we carry.
Given a box office condition it's easy to see how only a limited
number of paying customers is necessary to make it financially
attractive for a sports club operator to shift from over-the-air to
pay cable.
I don't think there can be much argument over the statement
that the American sports fan takes his sports very seriously.
Indeed, the American public has a running love affair with sports.
Individual Members of the Congress have stated that, in their
opinion, Congress would not permit the public to lose major sport-
ing events to pay cable. Usually, you hear references to the world
series and the super bowl in this connection. I should like to
emphasize very strongly to this committeee that the sports fan does
not distinguish between national and local where sports are con-
cerned. He views both with the same passion.
Whether it will take a congressional resolution or legislation to
express the congressional will and intent on the sports question, I
don't know. Whatever form that expression takes, I would urge, on
behalf of the sports public and the local stations that it be all-
embracing, that it emphasize local sports.
The pay cable issue is part of a larger question: Whether a
communications system which makes appropriate use of technologi-
cal innovation is best achieved through an orderly process charac-
terized by constraints geared to the public interest, or through a
market place free-for-all. We come down on the side of an orderly
process which respects the social values involved. In this discus-
sion, the independent stations enjoy a rather curious distinction:
Ours are the signals which are imported by cable systems. Thus,
we are cast in two roles: As instruments of diversity in distant
markets, and as local broadcast institutions in our own markets.
When we examine the broadcast-cable complex that is develop-
ing, we find ourselves, in the main, concluding that whatever the
presumed value of distant coverage may be, a station's first obliga-
tion is to its own community. Our starting point, then, is that
regardless of how the communications system is to advance, the
social priority must go to preserving the local station as a viable
institution.
The threat of unrestricted signal importation is most serious in
the case of the UHF independent station, particularly in the small-
er market, with its smaller economic base. Furthermore, it is gen-
erally agreed by students of the subject that television's future
expansion will largely take the form of independent UHF stations.
This expansion will be limited if cable and pay cable go their
unrestricted ways. Such an outcome would represent a significant
social loss to the communities concerned.
The cable argument will go on for a long time, I'm sure. At this
point, I merely wish to suggest that the vision of an unfettered
cable system ushering in a comunications millenium contains
within it the potential of much media mischief and social damage.
Clearly, we think there is much potential left in the UHF alloca-
tion of the spectrum, and we therefore frown on efforts to wrest
portions of it away for other uses where social values have yet to
be proved anywhere near the equal of broadcast television's.
PAGENO="0124"
120
The local broadcast institution has achieved a remarkable pres-
ence in American life through its news, public affairs, and enter-
tainment service. This service continually advances in depth and
quality.
I suggest that as you look to the future, you take into account
the expanding role of the independent station; that, as I said earli-
er, when you are considering national communications policy, you
ask one more question along with the others you will be asking-
how will this affect the independent television station and the
public it serves?
Thank you.
Senator CANNON. Thank you for a very fine statement.
What about the question of license renewal? Do you believe that
the current FCC licensing and renewal procedures are too burden-
some and do you think license renewal legislation is a compelling
issue, more so than cable TV?
Mr. LAND. I have to give you a purely personal opinion since that
question is a broad industry question rather than a specialized
independent television question, I am sure you can see that.
I think that Mr. Wasilewski's statement pretty well sums up the
way I feel about it. We need some stability in the system, whether
it is 5 years, 6 years or whatever it may be. I think at some point a
decision will have to be made to give some stability to the system.
Whether it is as burning an issue as pay cable-I don't think it is
from the standpoint of our specialized interest at this point.
Senator CANNON. Yesterday the question was raised in our dis-
cussions about the networks policy of providing programs in ad-
vance of airing for review. Do the broadcasters you represent gen-
erally object to the short leadtimes they have for prescreening?
Mr. LAND. Our stations are independent. As a rule they don't get
many programs from the networks. There is a occasional secondary
clearance, as it is called, when a network affiliate in the market
does not provide the primary clearance for the program. So most of
our programing has nothing to do with the network.
The bulk of independent station programing consists of off-net-
work reruns, feature pictures, original programs, talk shows, and
sports. So the problem as a practical matter doesn't arise.
Senator CANNON. Take the program you said started last night,
your MCA program. Did the stations have the opportunity to re-
screen on that?
Mr. LAND. Oh, yes. We can get the testimony of one man here,
Mr. Pope, on that.
Mr. POPE. That program of course came to the station and each
station saw it and decided what it wanted to do with it before it
put it on the air.
Senator CANNON. How far in advance?
Mr. POPE. Well, we got the first episodes of that about 2 weeks
before its play date.
As a matter of fact, we showed it widely to writers in the papers
and so on and tried to get advance publicity about it before it ran.
Senator CANNON. What percentage of the persons employed by
your members are minorities and women?
Mr. LAND. I don't have that information.
PAGENO="0125"
121
Senator CANNON. Do you have it available or you just don't have
it here?
Mr. LAND. I don't have it at all.
Senator CANNON. What proportion of the programing by your
members is directed at children and what kinds of programs and
what times of day?
Mr. POPE. We don't have any specific figures for the 48 members
of the association, sir.
Senator CANNON. That would be up to each individual member,
he would have his own particular result on that question; is that
it?
Mr. POPE. Yes, the one general thing is that the independent
stations in general tend to program a higher percentage of pro-
grams directly to children than do most other network affiliated
stations.
Mr. LAND. But each has a different schedule. There is no overall
schedule, therefore we can't give you--
Senator CANNON. Do the broadcasters you represent feel the
networks unreasonably dominate prime time programing?
Mr. POPE. I think the answer is yes, sir.
Senator CANNON. Well, are there sources readily available for
alternative programs to what the networks provide?
Mr. LAND. Not really and that is the big problem. There are
sources, there are first the networks themselves, which provide
what we call the off network reruns. That is, a program series will
run 4 or 5 years, build up a backlog of 100 programs or more and
then go into what is known as syndication, being sold to the sta-
tions. That becomes perhaps the major source of programing for
independent stations, which must fill up a total schedule from sign-
on to sign-off. You can see them right here in Washington.
Then you have motion picture film libraries which are also a
very important source, but there has been a decreasing supply of
suitable films in recent years.
Then you have sports which become especially important in mar-
kets where there is more than one independent station. Where you
get two and three you begin to get a more specialized type of
emphasis.
Then you have talk shows, original programs like the "Merv
Griffin Show" for example, which are created for the purpose of
syndication, or Mike Douglas. These will play also on affiliated
stations which may be able to carry them.
But the big challenge which arises from the economics of the
system is to create programing of a very exciting kind, with high
quality and also with sufficient volume-to compete directly with
network system.
It is very difficult. There is actually not a sufficient supply of
first-rate programs available. It is a tremendous scramble, especial-
ly in the multiindependent station markets. Anything you could
add to that?
Mr. POPE. No.
Senator CANNON. You talked about the Consumer Communica-
tions Reform Act, and you advocate competition.
PAGENO="0126"
122
You are opposed to the so-called Bell bill. Yet when you talk
about cable you worry about damaging the existing excellent
system. Isn't that kind of an inconsistent position?
Mr. LAND. It may be, I don't know. But I don't think so.
Senator CANNON. It sounds like it to me. I would just like to
have your reaction.
Mr. LAND. I don't think so. We are talking in one case, in the
telephone company's case, as I understand it, about creating a
monopoly. Complete monopoly, which would put the telephone
company in the position of controlling all new communications
developments.
Being the only source, that seems to me quite different from the
pay cable situation.
Independent stations are not against pay cable or against compe-
tition with pay cable on a straight-forward basis. If pay cable can
come up with its own programing and sell it, fine. But what you
have here is an unequal economic battle in the long run where
only a handful of homes that have the means to pay and the
interest in paying can enjoy a semimonopoly, let's say, on sporting
events.
And thus the rest of the public, the majority of the public, lose
those programs.
Something is amiss there. That is not to say that the rules
created by the Commission to handle this problem are ideal or that
we subscribe to them completely. But is seems to us that there was
at least some reasonable attempt made to come to grips with a
difficult question and with conflicting values and conflicting inter-
ests and rights here.
The overriding right has to be the right of the public to view, we
think-maybe because we have a self-interest in it, and that is
obvious-but we think there is a public interest here in maintain-
ing that service to which the public feels entitled and for which
there is no direct charge.
I think there is a real difference, but as I said earlier, I am not
actually certain.
Senator CANNON. In exhibit A, at the bottom of the page, you
show interim members. What is an interim member?
Mr. LAND. That is probably a member who is not yet on the air,
but waiting to go on the air. We have just a nominal fee for them
and we try to help them.
Senator CANNON. I see. So they are really not broadcasting yet.
Mr. LAND. Or else they have just started and they are so poor,
you know, and will be for a long time, that we will carry them for
a while.
Senator CANNON. Thank you very much for your fine testimony.
We appreciate it. Thank you.
[The attachments referred to follow:]
EXHIBIT A
INTV ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
KBHK-San Francisco, KBMA-Kansas City, KCOP-Los Angeles, KDNL-St.
Louis, KHJ-Los Angeles, KHTV-Houston, KMPH-Fresno, KPHO-Phoenix,
KPLR-St. Louis, KPTV-Portland, KSTW-Seattle-Tacoma, KTLA-Los Angeles,
KTTV-Los Angeles, KTVT-Fort Worth-Dallas, KTVU-San Francisco-Oakland,
PAGENO="0127"
123
KTXL-Sacramento, KVVU-Las Vegas, KWGN-Denver, KXTX-Dallas, KZAZ-
Tucson, WCIX-Miami, WDCA-Washington, D.C., WDRB-Louisville, WFLD-Chi-
cago, WGN-Chicago, WGNO-New Orleans, WHAE-Atlanta, WKBD-Detroit,
WKBS-Philadelphia, WLVI-Boston, WNEW-New York, WOR-New York,
WPGH-Pittsburgh, WPHL-Philadelphia, WPIX-New York, WRET-Charlotte,
WTAF-Philadelphia, WTCG-Atlanta, WTCN-Minneapolis, WTOG-St. Peters-
burg-Tampa, WTTG-Washington, D.C.,WTTV-Indianapolis, WUAB-Cleveland,
WUTV-Buffalo, WVTV-Milwaukee, WXJX-Cincinnati, WYAH-Norfolk-Ports-
mouth, and XETV-San Diego.
Interim Members: KWIC Communications Corporation, Salt Lake City, Quadrus
Communications Corporation, Rockford, Illinois.
TYPICAL SPORTS CARRIAGE OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS, 1977
40-45
20
21
30
10
25
1~
1J
13
12
22
120
25
32
28
25
25
13
104
76
14
20
80
1~
Number
Station Sport Team of events
24
10
5
20
20
2-6
16
KBMA-Kansas City Baseball Rnv~is
do Kings
Football Chiefs.
do College bowls
KDNL-St Louis Hockey Blues
do NHL
Basketball Pizza Hut tournament.
KTLA-Los Angeles Baseball Angels
Football UCLA
Basketball UCLA
do Pizza Hut tournament.
Various.
KflV-Los Angeles Baseball Dodgers
Tennis World TV championships
Football High School All Stars.
do Bowls
KTVT-Ft. Worth-Dallas Various Hughes Network Feeds.
KTVU-San Francisco-Oakland Baseball Giants
do Golden State Warriors
Football College bowls
Soccer
Tennis World Team Tennis
KWGN-Denver Basketball Nuggets
Hockey NHL
Football College bowls
Hockey Colorado Rockies
Basketball Colorado State High School-(boys)
do do
Horse racing
K)(TX-Dallas-Ft. Worth Hockey NHL
do Stanley Cup playoffs
Football College bowls
WGN-Chicago Baseball Cubs
do Bulls
do Illinois High School
Gymnastics do
Basketball Pizza Hut tournament.
Football College bowls
WKBS-Philadelphia Basketball Philadelphia 76'ers
WOR-New York Baseball New York Mets
do do
do New York Knicks
Hockey New York Rangers
do
NHL
playoffs
do New York Islanders
do Monday night game of week
Horse racing Various local tracks
Wrestling Syndicated.
WPHL-Philadelphia Baseball Philiies
Tennis Tournament of Champions
Basketball College
do NIT
Football College bowls.
WPIX-New York Baseball New York Yankees
Tennis New York Apples
Football New York Giants
Soccer New York Cosmos
PAGENO="0128"
cD
C)
C)
C)
`-4
C)
i~
D
PAGENO="0129"
125
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS ON AIR AND AT CP STATUS AS OF JULY 15, 1916
Call letter and
channel nember VHF UHF Market Specialty
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION
STATIONS ON AIR
KBHK-TV-44 x San Franciscn, Calif
KBSC-TV--52 124 x Corona-Los Angeles, Calif Daytime: kids program-
ing; prime time:
meltipie ethnic.
KBMA-TV--41 x Kansas City, Mn
KCOP-13 x Lns Angeles, Calif
KDNL-TV--30 x St. Louis, Mn
KDOO-TV-26 x Hnestnn, Tex
KDTV-60 1 x San Franciscn, Calif Spanish
KEMO-TV-201 x dn Dn.
KFTV-21 1 x Hanfnrd-Fresnn, Calif Dn.
KOSC-TV-36 x San Jnse, Calif
KHJ-TV-9 x Los Angeles, Calif
KHOF-TV-30 1 x San Bernardine, Cafif Religions.
KHTV-39 x Hnestnn, Tex
KIKU-13 123 x Hnnnlulu, Hamaii Japanese
KLOC-TV-19 >< Mndestn, Calif Spanish.
KLXA-TV--40 X Fnntana, Calif Religinus.
KMEX-TV--34 x Lns Angeles, Calif Spanish.
KMPH-26 x Fresnn-Tulare, Calif
KMUV-TV-31 125 x Sacramentn-Stncktnn, Calif Spanish/Religious.
KMXN-TV--23 1 x Albeqeerque, N. Mex Spanish.
KPAZ-TV-21 1 x Phnenix, Ariz Religinos.
KPHO-TV-5 dn
KPLR-TV-11 x St. Lnois, Mn
KPTV-12 Portland, Oreg
KSTW-11 x Tacoma-Seattle, Wash
KTLA-5 x Los Angeles, Calif
KTI1/-11 X do
KTVT-11 x Fort Worth-Dallas, Teo
KTVU-2 x Oakland-San Francisco, Calif
KVOF-TV-38 12 x San Francisco, Calif Religinos.
KTXL-40 x Sacramento-Stockton, Calif
KVVU-5 x Las Vegas-Henderson, Nev
KWEX-TV-41 x San Antonio, Ten Spanish.
KWON-TV-2 x Denver, Coin
KWHY-TV-22 1 x Los Angeles, Calif Financial/mnltiple ethnic.
KXTX-TV-39 1 x Dallas, Ten Religions.
KLAZ-11 x Tncsnn-Nngales, Ariz
WANC-TV-21 1 x Asheville, N.C Religions.
WBFF-45 x Baltimnre, Md
WBTB-TV--68 x Nem York-Newark, N.J Financial/mnltiple ethnic.
WCFC-38 x Chicago, Ill Religions.
WCIU-TV-26 1 x dn Spanish.
WCIX-TV-6 >< Miami, Fla
WDCA-TV-21 x Washington, D.C
WDRB-TV--41 x Lnnisville, Ky
WECB-TV-45 12 X Hollywood-Miami, Fla Religions.
WFLD-TV-32 x Chicago, Ill
WOOS-TV----16 1 x Oreenville, S.C Religions.
WON-TV-9 >< Chicago, III
WONO-TV-26 x New Orleans, La
WOPR-TV-62 x Detroit, Mich
WHAE-TV-46 x Atlanta, Oa Religions
WHCT-TV-18 1 x Hartfnrd, Cnnn Do.
WHKY-TV-14 1 x Hicknry, N.C Dn.
WHMB-TV-40 1 x Indianapolis, nd Do.
WJAN-17 x Cantnn, Ohio
WKAQ-TV----2 23 x San Jean, Peertn Rico Spanish
WKBD-TV-5g x Detroit, Mich
WKBS-TV-49 x Philadelphia, Pa
WKID-51 1 >2: Fort Lauderdale, Fla Financial/Spanish.
WKBM-TV-11 123 x Caguas-San Juan, P.R Spanish.
WLTV-23 1 x Miami, Fla On.
WLVI-TV--S6 x Bnstun, Mass
WNEW-TV-5 x New York. N.Y
20-u22 o - ne - 9
PAGENO="0130"
126
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS ON AIR AND AT CP STATUS AS OF JULY 15, 1976-Continued
Call letter and
channel number VHF
UHF
Market Specialty
WNJU-TV-47 1
WOLE-TV-12 123 x
WOR-TV-9 x
WORA-TV-5 123 x
WPOH-TV-53
WPHL-TV-53
WPIX-11 x
WRET-TV-36
WRIK-TV-7 123 x
WRIP-TV-61
WSBK-TV-38
WSMW-TV-27
WSNS-TV-44
WSUR-TV-9 123 x
WSWB-TV-35
WTAF-TV-29
WTCO-17
WTCN-TV-11 x
WTOO-44
WHO-S x
WTTV-4 x
WUAB-43
WUTV-29
WVEO-44 123
WVTV-1g
WXIX-TV-19
WXON-20
WXTV-41 1
WYAH-TV-27 1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
New York-Newark/Linden, NJ Spanish.
Aguadilla-Mayaguez, P.R On.
New York, N.Y
Mayaguez, P.R Sparish.
Pittsburg, Pa
Philadelphia, Pa
New York, N.Y
Charlntte, N.C
Pence, P.R Spanish.
Chattanooga, Tenn
Boston, Mass
Worcester, Mass
Chicago, III
Pence, P.R Spanish.
Orlando, Fla
Philadelphia, Pa
Atlanta, Oa
Minneapnlis-St. Paul, Mien
St. Petersburg-Tampa, Fla
Washington, D.C
Indianapolis, led
Cleveland, Ohio
Buttale, N.Y
Aguadilla, P.R Spanish.
Milwaukee, Wis
Ciecineali, Ohio
Detroit, Mich
New York-Paterson, N.J Spanish.
Portsmouth, Va Religious.
ħ
INOEPENDENT TELEVISION
STATIONS WHICH WENT ON
AIR SINCE JULY 15, 1976
WATL-TV-36
WCPT-TV-55
WZTV-TV-17
x
x
x
Atlanta, Oa
Crossville, Teen
Nashville, Teen
1 Specieity ntaiiee, no deheed by the FCC.
200t iecieded in npeciaiiy ntetieeo iinted ee peee 5 ot FCC Ouport Ne. 12000, daied Jeiv 2, 1970-0 (07273), eeiitied "eeceeoideratioe ot Cabie Fit
5pecieity Staiiee euie eeeied (Decket 20553)".
3Oawaiiae (1 0) eed Puerfe nicee (0 v's. 101 niaiiees iecieded niece theee ntatioee were part of the FCC Teievieiee Liniiee dated October 14, t075,
which wan the basic decemeet frem which stemmed the iNTV reeearch aeaiveie.
4KBSC Cereea-Len Aeeeien curreefiy carrion Ride preeremiee deriee daytime aed meitipie etheic (Japareee/Kereae) proeramieg in prime. The transfer of
eweership ie peediee FCC approeai; heweeer, the iecemiee maeagemeet has iedicaied future piece for a peyTv operation fur this station.
5KMOV sacramento chareed format from corventionai proeramire in 1075 to Spanish/Reiieisss prseramirg effective June 1, 1070. Saie of station in in
transition, but the new manaeement indicates that the came speciaity programme wiii be continued.
6015W0 Oriards, whose sale to new ownership in in frarsiiisn, in currertiy operating an a csnventionai csmmerciai independent. Future programing format
in not known at thin time.
7Sateilife 5-2 Station to wZTv-Tv Nashviile, Tern.
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS AT OR NEAR CP STATUS
Call letter and channel number
UHF
Market
KAIL-53 1 2
x
x
x
Fresne, Calit.
San Bernardino, Calit.
Salt Lake City, Utah
KSCI-18 1 3
KWIC-20
Quadres Cemmenications Corp., division et Lloyd Hearing Aid Corp., Rockterd, Ill. Management has applied ter UHF Channel 39.
They advise that, at this point, they are the tirst applicant en the rent cubit list tor determination late summer or early tall br FCC
approval et license and ceestructioe permit. The station uvill carry conventional programing.
2 Management advises that plans to acquire programing and begin en-air operation are still tairly indetinite. Since they are working
trem an estremely low economic base, and in an ettert to get on the air sooner, they will most likely go with Spanish and/er religious
programing.
The management describes this station as an "edocationally edeeted commercial independent." There are en plans to carry any
syndicated or conventional-type programing. They want all et their programs to be "positive and upbeat" no matter it it is a cooking
show, news or science presentation, or general entertainment (drama/comedy/variety). As a result, they are producing all et their
programing themselves. They eopect to go en the air within the neot sio months.
Management indicates that this statioe will carry conventional programing.
PAGENO="0131"
127
SUMMARY OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS
VHF UHF Total
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS ON AIR
Conventional independents 21 137 58
Specialty stations:
(a) Within continental United States 30 30
(b) Hawaiian (1 V) and Puerto Rican (6 V's/i U) stations 7 1 8
Total 28 68 96
INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS AT OR NEAR CP STATUS
Conventional independents 2 2
Specialty stations 2 2
Total 4 4
Projected totals: 1976-77 28 72 100
`Includes 36 full-service stations and 1 satellite S-2 station.
Senator CANNON. Mr. Richard C. Block, chairman, counsel for
UHF Broadcasting.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. BLOCK, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL FOR
UHF BROADCASTING
Mr. BLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CANNON. Mr. Blake?
Mr. BLAKE. Yes.
Mr. BLOCK. Good morning, Senator, we are very pleased to be
invited to testify. My name is Richard C. Block, and I am chairman
of the Council for UHF Broadcasting.
I would like to depart from the written text and highlight the
points I think would be most pertinent in our discussion. First, I
would like to say the Council for UHF Broadcasting which is a
unique coalition of public and commercial broadcasters, came about
3 years ago when Hartford Gunn, their president, now vice chair-
man of Public Broadcasting Service, and I decided that UHF
needed an advocate in Washington to deal with the FCC and that
it had somewhat taken a position-it lost its prominence because of
the more attractive, new technologies that were coming along such
as satellites and cable.
However, I think both of us realized, and I think our advocacy is
that growth is dependent on UHF, but we need help from the
Congress and FCC to accomplish the aims that were established in
1962, almost a generation ago or even prior to that, 1962 was the
all-channel bill. We need a reaffirmation for mandate for the full
development of UHF.
First, I have been in UHF for 23 years. The first station I worked
with was in Stockton, Calif., that was an independent. At that time
there was not the all-channel bill. The station was financially a
disaster area and went off the air after about 2 years. Subsequently
I was with a large industrial company and I was the impetus for it
going into seven television markets with UHF, all major markets,
the stations, six of which are still on the air, and I believe thriving.
Also, I think it is necessary too, for one to understand that there
is no such thing as a UHF station, although quite often we hear
PAGENO="0132"
128
that, at least in what service it provides, because in Hartford, New
Haven, a UHF station is the National Broadcasting Co. I watched
it last Saturday night. In Sioux City, it's CBS. In Louisville, it is
the ABC network; in Philadelphia, it's an independent. In Los
Angeles, it's a public television station; in Detroit, it's a black-
owned independent television station. In San Antonio and other
markets, it's a station primarily broadcasting to the Latino commu-
nity. So UHF has many personas.
Growth in the UHF, I was somewhat shocked to see the other
day that one of the FCC Commissioners mentioned at the NCTA
convention that he felt that the time had come for the Commission
not to be as protective as it has over UHF, because UHF has had
really flat growth over the last few years. In 1965, there were
about 129 stations, at the last look we had, there are 359. Addition-
ally there are 43 construction permits awaiting to go on the air
which would give us about a 212 percent increase in the 12 years
since 1965.
When you go into individual categories, 142 stations are network
affiliates. In fact, the ABC television network, I believe, in many
ways, its ascension was dependent on UHF. It was something they
didn't talk a great deal about because quite often there is a lot of
anxiety and prejudice about UHF, unfair prejudice in many re-
spects, but UHF was a very important part of their growth.
Twenty-nine percent of all commercial stations are UHF and about
61 percent of public television stations are UHF.
Once again, I would like to reiterate that growth is going to come
from UHF. Some say, particularly some of my friends in public
television feel that financially UHF doesn't offer much of a prom-
ise. I think we might consider Metromedia, Taft, Scripps Howard,
Kaiser, Capital Cities Broadcasting, Store, Combined Communica-
tions is all, are all publicly held companies, and that UHF, both
from the independent standpoint and network affiliates, was profit-
able in the last year reported by the FCC, that it is a fairly healthy
medium.
We have attached to our statement an action plan which in 1975
was submitted to the FCC. We tried in this action plan or white
paper to state in clear prose what the problems of UHF were and
how they could be solved. For the most part, we have focused on
technological problems. Quite simply, we have said, Chairman
Wiley-who has been a great help to us-spoke about how anten-
nas are now going to be attached to the set.
There is another problem we focused on, the noise figure, it
sounds like some kind of engineering gobbledygook, but in simple
terms the noise figure is the sensitivity of the television set. Being
able to turn your set and getting a clear picture from channel 20 or
26 with an optimum amount of power from those stations. We have
proposed to the Commission that the noise figures be reduced in an
orderly way from, the figure now is 18 decibels to 14 in 6 months,
from 14 to 12 in 18 months and from 12 to 10.
Senator CANNON. What is required to reduce those noise levels?
Mr. BLOCK. To reduce the first-we dealt very closely with the
industry-was merely to tighten up on quality control standards.
Many sets are coming out with a better noise figure than those
established in 1962.
PAGENO="0133"
129
Senator CANNON. That means if you lower the noise figure, you
would be able to get the station easier when you do your fiddling
around with the dial?
Mr. BLOCK. Yes, sir, in a dramatic way, for every three points the
noise figure comes down the station is doubling its power.
Senator CANNON. Why can't you just switch a number to a
specific channel and get a click instead of having to adjust for it?
Mr. BLOCK. The FCC did in 1974, at least it became effective
then, phased into a situation where-you're referring to the con-
tinuous or radio like tuner, where all television sets now manufac-
tured must now have comparable tuning. Comparable tuning in the
main is a click tuner. So that any new set you buy now, in fact, for
the last year, will have a click tuner.
We think the technology is going to go far beyond that. There
are new sets coming out now where one has a hand calculator and
each channel comes up independently with no difference.
Senator CANNON. I have one of the little push button things and
that automatically goes through the whole thing. It will go first
from VHF, then to the UHF spectrum, but you have to press it
each time and that does automatically click. But I have one of the
older sets which you have to do that fine dial tuning to get the
UHF station.
Mr. BLOCK. It is a definite problem and it was not addressed at
the time the all-channel bill was enacted, but we think the compa-
rability factor which the Commission used as its rationale for
mandating that, the industry go to the click or detent tuner, effec-
tive 1974, does carry through to other things for which we are
asking and also for the noise figure.
Let me tell you that there is, and I will close with this point, we
are concerned that while-and my statement says this-most of
the Commissioners, if not all, support growth of UHF, there is
some belief or holding at the staff level that the-bringing the
noise level down, increasing the sensitivity, has an effect of fore-
closing changes in FCC rules which-which station is closer togeth-
er at some time in the future. In other words, it affects the spec-
trum.
We have really tried to keep our focus on the technology. We
have had to get into this other consideration because we felt, for
example, 2 years ago we came in with our action plan. We felt
there has been some delay at the Commission because of a-cer-
tainly not any ulterior motives, but a-at the staff level, in particu-
lar, that trying to-wonders whether the mandate of Congress or
ignoring it at times is for the full development of UHF and being
more concerned about allocating the spectrum to other services
and kind of foreclosing the growth of UHF.
For example, in this week's Broadcasting, there is a story about
the FCC economists saying that some channels in Des Moines,
Iowa, should be taken away because he doesn't think there will
ever be a viable television station there. I think that is a very
wrong kind of thinking, it is-and a very narrow kind and that the
growth of this medium is proved over and over again. Some people
at the Commission don't see it.
We do feel very strongly and request consideration that the
Congress reaffirm its mandate for the full development of UHF for
PAGENO="0134"
130
the Commission, as a priority and that it is necessary for the full
development of the telecommunications system in the United
States, both public television and commerical television and the
fourth network to which Herman Land alluded, all of those things
are going to be dependent on UHF. To say that it won't work or
that a station in Des Moines, Iowa, will never work, I think is, that
has been the kind of thinking broadcasting has had for years.
I certainly, at one time all channels below, above six were
thought to be worthless, yet if-the ARB figures just came out
happily at the time of the ABC convention in Hollywood and every
ABC station, channel 7, in the top 10 market is No. 1.
There was also a time in radio it was thought that the higher
part of the band was down in the mud, listen to WTOP or other
stations in Washington. It was down in the mud-that just isn't
true. Over and over again FM was thought to be nothing more
than classical music that would never have a national scope to it. I
see now many markets are having more FM listeners than AM.
I think basing the growth of UHF on data from the past is
something that is quite dangerous and, I think, risks a precious
resource being allocated away from the public. I believe those are
the key points. I appreciate being able to divert from my state-
ment.
I do want to say one thing. We have been very pleased with the
support we have had from public television, including PBS and
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, from the-as well as the Na-
tional Association of Educational Broadcasters and Joint Council
for Educational Telecommunications, from the National Associ-
ation of Broadcasters and from the Association of Maximum Ser-
vice Telecasters which played a great role in our being able to be
effective over the past 3 years.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT BY RICHARD C. BLOCK, CHAIRMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR
UHF BROADCASTING
My name is Richard C. Block. I am Chairman of the Council for UHF Broadcast-
ing.
CUB, as we are called, has worked closely with the following organizations and
many, many stations in its efforts to promote the development of UHF television:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Public Broadcasting Service, Association of
Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc., National Association of Broadcasters, Joint
Council on Educational Telecommunications, National Association of Educational
Broadcasters, and the Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc.
We welcome this opportunity to fill you in on UHF television-its importance, its
progress to date and its agenda for further progress, and the obstacles it has
encountered in seeking to realize its full potential. UHF is, as you know, Channels
14 through 83. It has suffered severe handicaps in the past in contrast to VHF,
Channels 2 through 13. The legacy of those handicaps remains. But you are interest-
ed in the present and the future, and so are we.
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF UHF
The development of UHF television is mandated by the public interest. Congress
determined when it passed the All-Channel Receiver Act in 1962 that national
communications policy must be committed to developing UHF comparability with
VHF. Since then Congress, the courts, and the FCC have repeatedly reaffirmed that
basic policy decision.
The reason for this policy determination is simple and remains compelling. The
VHF channels alone cannot accommodate enough stations to meet the public's need
PAGENO="0135"
131
for more program diversity, more opportunities for minority and female ownership,
more networking possibilities, and additional educational stations. These goals
cannot be met by pay cable, the wired nation, satellite-to-home broadcasting, optic
fibers, or short-spaced VHF drop-ins. They can be met only by a strong UHF.
UHF already plays a vital role in this nation's television service.
Nearly two-thirds of the public stations in this country are UHF.
Over one-fourth of the commercial stations are UHF.
There are some 1200 UHF translators now on the air bringing television service
to smaller communities and rural areas that they would not otherwise receive.
92% of American homes are equipped to watch UHF television.
UHF's growth particularly in the recent past has demonstrated convincingly that
it can be a viable service and that it can meet the policy goals set for it by Congress
and the Commission.
II. WAYS OF PROMOTING UHF DEVELOPMENT
There is much that can and should be done to abet UHF's further development in
the public interest. Our group developed an Action Plan for UHF improvement
which set forth a blueprint of the specific steps that should be undertaken toward
this end. We submitted the Action Plan to the Commission in July 1975. There is no
single solution, no legislative or agency wave of a magic wand that would create
UHF comparability overnight. Progress depends on FCC action and on action by
UHF operators and entrepreneurs, receiving and transmitting equipment manufac-
turers, the service industry, and others.
The FCC can and should enact certain rule changes to further UHF development.
But it must take other less formal steps too, such as coordinating technological
developments, urging communities to require master antenna systems that serve
apartment dwellers and others to carry UHF signals and providing visibility for the
enormous strides UHF has achieved. In short, the FCC must assume the leadership
role specified for it in Section 1 of the Communications Act.
Let me mention the single most important FCC proceeding for UHF-concerning
our proposal to reduce the maximum permissible UHF noise figure in receivers sold
in the United States; The maximum UHF noise figure now allowed by FCC regula-
tions is 18 dB, while the average VHF noise figure is less than 7 dB. One doesn't
have to know what a dB is to appreciate the significance of this difference, once it is
realized that a 3 dB improvement is equivalent to a doubling of power.
Of course, most UHF sets already achieve much lower noise figures than the
maximum permitted in Commission Rules. The average is 12.7 dB. In Europe the
average UHF noise figure is 9 dB. A 4 dB. improvement down to 14 dB is possible in
this country immediately, at little or no cost, simply by greater quality control.
Subsequent improvements in two steps of 2 dB each can be achieved practically and
in the near future.
The proposal is ripe for Commission action after nearly two years of filings and
comments. It should be adopted promptly.
III. THE OBSTACLE TO UHF PROGRESS
The biggest obstacle we face in connection with the noise figure proposal and our
other endeavors, however, is a two-fold tendency on the part of some to ignore
UHF's solid real-world achievements in favor of blue-sky speculations about the
potential of other technologies and the demands of other spectrum users for fre-
quencies now allocated for UHF.
With respect to the former I am convinced that most of the Commissioners, if not
all, genuinely want to see UHF grow. But UHF is not as glamorous as other issues;
it has not competed so successfully for the Commission's attention. Although Chair-
man Wiley has recently taken an active role, the Commission as a whole has had to
rely to a large degree on its staff, and there are some elements in the Commission's
staff and elsewhere-most notably the Council on Wage and Price Stability that
opposed the noise figure proposal-who are not committed to UHF, who frankly do
not accept Congress' commitment of national policy to UHF development. The
subcommittee can help overcome this problem by making clear that Congress is not
backing away from the national commitment to UHF.
The other part of the obstacle that UHF faces is the demand by other users for
frequencies currently allocated to UHF television. The testimony of the Association
of Maximum Service Telecasters (MST) with whom we have worked closely address-
es this issue in more depth. But let me point out that although our group began by
confining its efforts to technological and other improvements to be made in UHf, we
soon found that they were impaired by considerations of allocations policy. Thus,
PAGENO="0136"
132
the noise figure proceeding has been delayed because FCC staff members feel that
UHF improvements may make it more difficult to give UHF spectrum away to
other users. And a very large receiver improvement contract let by the FCC to
Texas Instruments seems to be focused more on facilitating reallocation than on
better UHF reception.
The goal of promoting UHF development is of course meaningless if there is no
UHF spectrum to develop. A commitment to fuller utilization of the UHF band
would be seriously undercut by steps looking toward reallocation of part of that
band. Here, too, this subcommittee can assist our efforts by reasserting that nation-
al policy in favor of UHF must not be thwarted by efforts to give UHF spectrum
away to other users on either an exclusive or shared basis.
I have tried today to highlight the most important aspects of the UHF situation
and I have purposely avoided listing the myriad proceedings and projects in which
we've been engaged. But we will be happy to provide you with more detailed
information about any specific topics in which you may be particularly interested.
We are also attaching to this testimony the original UHF Action Plan and the cover
letter which we submitted to all Commissioners back in July 1975 plus an update
which we sent to the Commission on November 23, 1976.
The vigorous support of this subcommittee would greatly assist UHF efforts to
realize the public interest goals set for it by Congress back in 1962.
ACTION PLAN FOR FURTHER UHF DEVELOPMENT
SPONSORED BY COUNCIL FOR UHF BROADCASTING, CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING,
PUBLIC BROADCASTNG SERVICE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, ASSOCIATION OF
MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, JULY 21, 1975
Since the enactment of all-channel receiver legislation in 1962, UHF has become
an essential factor in American broadcasting. Today more than one-third of the
television stations on the air in the United States are UHF station, including nearly
200 commercial UHF stations and over 60% of the nation's public TV stations. More
than 86% of the households using television in the United States have sets equipped
to receive UHF, and each week over 30 million viewers in the United States tune to
UHF. As audiences have turned to UHF stations, advertising revenues and viewer
contributions have increased. In 1973, commercial UHF stations had broadcast
revenues of more than $200 million, and individual viewer contributions to public
UHF stations (in the form of subscriptions, gifts, and auction receipts) topped $10
million in 1974.
Yet despite the advances made by UHF, much remains to be done. UHF still
suffers from technical disadvantages as compared to VHF- disadvantages with
respect to both home receiving equipment and station transmitting equipment.
Fortunately, many of the remaining disadvantages can be cured by means within
our grasp-some already in widespread use in other nations.
This Action Plan sets forth a realistic program to sharply lessen the technical
disadvantages and make UHF as comparable to VHF as possible. It calls for action
by Congress, the FCC and other agencies of government, broadcasters, manufactur-
ers, and organizations interested in the development of UHF. The Action Plan is the
cooperative product of five organizations, each firmly committed to the further
development of UHF-the Council for UHF Broadcasting, the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting Service, the National Association of
Broadcasters and the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters.
The specific actions we propose will result in improved receivers and receiving
antennas by:
(A) Reducing UHF receiver noise;
(B) Facilitating UHF tuning;
(C) Improving UHF indoor antennas; and
(D) Improving outdoor antennas and lead-in wire.
We also propose actions to improve transmitters and transmitting antennas by:
(A) Increasing efficiency of UHF transmitters; and
(B) Improving transmitter and antenna installations.
The direct results of the actions we urge here will be improved reception and
more efficient transmission, which will inevitably lead to:
Larger audience for UHF,
Improved programming as a result of increased viewer contributions to public
stations and increased profitability for commercial stations,
Greater diversity in broadcasting through the utilization of vacant UHF assign-
ments and the upgrading of existing UHF stations,
More public stations,
PAGENO="0137"
133
More opportunities for station ownership by minorities and women.
The benefits to the public from this plan are great. The means are realistic. The
time for action is now.
1. Action Plan for Improved Receivers and Receiving Antennas
A. Reduce UHF receiver noise. The UHF noise figure of TV sets sold in the
United States today is unnecessarily high-much poorer than the VHF noise figure.
Noise figure determines a receiver's ability to extract a usable signal when the
signal is weak; the higher the noise figure, the more snow that will mask the
picture. A recent study by Hazeltine Research, Inc., indicated an average VHF noise
figure of 6.9 db for receivers sold in the United States, but an average UHF noise
figure of more than 12.7 db. This difference of nearly 6 db has a tremendous impact
on picture quality. Every 3 db improvement in noise figure is equivalent to doubling
the transmitter power. Thus, if UHF were to have the same average noise figure as
VHF in American receivers, it would cause an improvement in picture quality
equivalent to approximately quadrupling the power of every UHF transmitter in
the United States.
There is no valid reason why UHF noise figures in American receivers should be
so high. Hazeltine found that the average tuner noise of European UHF tuners was
only 9 db, and fewer than 7% of the measurements were as high as 11 db.
Within the next three weeks we shall submit to the FCC a petition for an
immediate reduction in the UHF noise figure from 18 db, as presently required by
FCC rules, to 14 db, which can be achieved at minimal cost through improved
quality control. The petition will also call for phased further reductions in UHF
noise figure; these phased reductions will be timed to take advantage of technology
now well into the development stage that will make possible substantial improve-
ment in UHF noise figure at low cost.
To reduce UHF receiver noise, we urge the following actions:
In response to our petition for rulemaking, the FCC should revise its rules to
require an immediate reduction in UHF noise figure to 14 db and further phased
reductions in noise figure by specified dates.
The FCC should seek the lowest practicable UHF noise figure in the "receiver of
tomorrow" which we understand will be developed under an FCC research and
development contract.
B. Facilitate UHF tuning. Although the FCC's requirement of 70-position UHF
detent tuners helps close the gap in convenience between the UHF and VHF
tuning, UHF detent tuners are still less convenient than VHF tuners in three
important respects. First, the UHF tuner requires the viewer to turn through 70
channels rather than the 12 channels on the VHF tuner. Second, it is impossible to
turn directly from Channel 83 to Channel 14 or vice versa, whereas VHF tuners
have no such impediment. Third, in order to tune to a UHF station, the viewer
must set no only the UHF dial, but the VHF dial as well (to U).
The optimum solution is to develop a low-cost integrated UHF/VHF tuner. Some
manufacturers have already introduced models with a single tuner; at least one
model provides digital random access tuning using a keyboard like that on a hand
calculator. Development should now proceed so that integrated tuners can be used
on popular-priced models.
In the meantime, a public education campaign is necessary to explain the proper
use of UHF tuners-continuous and detent-now in service.
To facilitate UHF tuning, we urge the following actions:
Tuner and receiver manufacturers should undertake programs to develop low-cost
integrated tuners that are equally convenient for UHF and VHF.
The FCC should include an integrated UHF/VHF tuner in its "receiver of tomor-
row."
Broadcasters and interested organizations should launch a public education cam-
paign explaining how to use UHF tuners now in service.
When inexpensive integrated tuners are developed, the FCC should revise its
rules to require their use in new receivers.
C. Improve UHF indoor antennas. In virtually every receiver sold in America
with which a VHF indoor antenna is furnished, the antenna is permanently affixed
to the set, retractable and conveniently located. The UHF indoor antenna is nearly
always a very poor relation to the VHF antenna. The UHF antenna is not perma-
nently affixed. Usually it requires a screwdriver to install, and often it becomes
detached after very little handling. The UHF antenna frequently cannot be folded
out of the way, and in most cases it is inconveniently located at the back of the set.
Fortunately, the mechanical disadvantages of American UHF antennas can be
remedied immediately in new sets. European sets already feature permanently
affixed UHF antennas, as conveniently located on the set as VHF antennas. If a
PAGENO="0138"
134
receiver has a permanently affixed VHF antenna, it should also have an effective,
permanently affixed UHF antenna. We shall submit a petition for rulemaking to
the FCC within three weeks requesting such a requirement.
Despite the salutary effect of mechanically comparable UHF and VHF antennas,
we should not be distracted from the task of developing a UHF indoor antenna that
is technically comparable to VHF indoor antennas.
Because many sets already in service have UHF antennas that are not being
properly used, a public education campaign should explain the right way to use
UHF indoor antennas. Advertisers and commercial artists should be careful to show
an attached UHF antenna whenever a television set is depicted with a VHF anten-
na.
To improve UFH indoor antennas, we urge the following actions:
In response to our petition for rulemaking, the FCC should require all new sets
with a permanently affixed VHF antenna to have an effective, permanently affixed
UHF antenna.
Receiver manufacturers should undertake to develp UHF indoor antennas that
are technically comparable to VHF indoor antennas.
A mechanically and technically improved UHF indoor antenna should be devel-
oped for the FCC's "receiver of tomorrow."
Broadcasters and interested organizations should undertake a public education
campaign on the proper use of existing UHF indoor antennas. Advertisers and
commercial artists should be careful to show an attached UHF antenna whenever a
television set is depicted with a VHF antenna.
The FCC should prepare a circular and other materials on proper UHF antenna
use for public distribution by UHF broadcasters and interested organizations. The
FCC through its field engineering offices should mail copies of the circular to all
persons who complain to it about UHF reception difficulties.
D. Improve outdoor antennas and lead-in wire. Many so-called all-channel outdoor
antennas perform very poorly on UHF, sometimes worse than using no antenna at
all. Advertising and carton claims often state that an antenna is all-channel when
in fact it provides poor reception or no reception of UHF channels; claims about the
ability of antennas to receive distant signals are also frequently exaggerated. The
FTC should protect consumers against false advertising claims about antennas,
publish findings comparing performance of antennas, and require disclosure of
performance capabilities of outdoor antennas on the package in a form easily
understandable to consumers. Consumer organizations should evaluate the perfor-
mance of various outdoor antennas and publish the results. Antenna manufacturers
should seek to improve the design of low-cost all-channel and UHF outdoor anten-
nas.
One of the most important causes of UHF signal loss is use of the wrong type of
lead-in wire. The most common lead-in is unshielded flat twin-lead. When clean and
dry, flat twin-lead wire loses about 2 db per 100 feet for VHF and 3 db per 100 feet
for midband UHF. When clean and wet, losses per 100 feet climb to 7.5 db for VHF
and 24 db for UHF! When dirty or weathered and wet, losses rise to 15 db for VHF
and an incredible 50 db for UHF! In almost every situation the only sensible type of
lead-in is 300 ohm shielded lead-in. Although slightly more expensive than unshield-
ed lead-in, shielded wire when properly installed is not subject to dirt and water,
and looses only 2 db per 100 feet for VHF and 6 db per 100 feet for midband UHF.
Because it is shielded this type of lead-in can be affixed directly to pipes and other
metal objects. A campaign should be initiated immediately to educate television
servicepeople about the proper type of lead.in.
Improvement is also necessary in many master antenna systems. A large number
of viewers rely on these systems, which are used by apartment houses and other
multiple dwellings, hotels, hospitals, and the like. Far too often these systems
receive UHF badly or not at all. Television viewers have a right to comparable
reception of UHF and VHF over master antenna systems.
To improve outdoor antennas and lead-in wire, we urge the following actions:
The FTC should take action against false advertising claims about outdoor anten-
nas, publish findings comparing performance of antennas, and require manufactur-
ers to disclose performance capabilities of antennas on their packages in a form
easily understandable to consumers.
Consumer organizations should evaluate the performance of outdoor antennas
and publish the results.
Antenna manufacturers should seek to improve the design of low-cost all-channel
and UHF outdoor antennas. The FCC should encourage action by antenna manufac-
tucturers to improve UHF reception.
Broadcasters and interested organizations should initiate a campaign to educate
television servicepeople about the importance of using shielded lead-in wire.
PAGENO="0139"
135
The FCC should provide information for the public on outdoor antennas and lead-
in wire and should publicly and effectively support action to provide adequate and
truthful information about antenna performance capabilities.
Manufacturers of master antenna systems and those who install and use such
systems should provide UHF reception comparable to VHF. The FCC should public-
ly support the right of all Americans served by master antennas to comparable
reception of UHF and VHF.
II. Action Plan for Improved Transmitters and Transmitting Antennas
A. Increase efficiency of UHF transmitters. Because of the higher frequencies in
the UHF band, the UHF broadcaster must utilize a higher power transmitter than
a VHF broadcaster to provide equivalent service. The higher power transmitter
requires greater electric power consumption, a disadvantage which is compounded
because UHF transmitters are less efficient in their use of energy than VHF
transmitters. The result is that a UHF transmitter consumes ten to twenty times
more electric power than a VHF transmitter to provide equal service. The rising
cost of energy has therefore had an especially severe impact on UHF stations.
The clear answer is to develop UHF transmitters that are more efficient in their
use of electric power. Two areas of improvement seem especially promising. First, it
should be possible to develop klystron amplifier tubes with efficiencies of 50% to
60% at sync power, compared to present efficiencies of 35%. Such tubes could result
in electric power savings of 15% to 25%. Second, the development of pulse modula-
tion would result in more efficient use of power since peak power would be used
only during sync pulses. Pulse modulation could bring about additional power
savings of 15% to 25%.
The FCC, HEW and interested organizations should encourage and support re-
search and development by tube and transmitter manufacturers of these improve-
ments and of other means to increase UHF transmitter efficiency.
To improve UHF transmitter efficiency, we urge the following actions:
Tube and transmitter manufacturers should give high priority to the development
of more efficient klystron tubes and pulse modulation and should place these
improvements in production at the earliest possible date.
Tube and transmitter manufacturers should undertake research into other means
of increasing transmitter efficiency.
The FCC, HEW and interested organizations should encourage and support re-
search and development of high efficiency transmitters.
B. Improve transmitter and antenna installations. Despite substantial upgrading
of UHF facilities in recent years, many stations still operate with transmitters and
antennas that are poorly designed, badly located or inadequate in power or height.
Not surprisingly, the primary reason that this situation exists is lack of funds.
Some of the necessary funds can be generated by revenues of the stations, especially
in light of the additional advertising revenues and viewer contributions that can be
expected to result from the other actions urged in this Action Plan. For public
stations, however, the Educational Broadcasting Facilities Program will remain the
most important source of funds for upgrading facilities. Congress should increase
the funding of the Educational Broadcasting Facilities Program, and HEW should
assure that improved transmitters, antennas and antenna location are accorded
high priority in the use of such funds. HEW, the FCC, interested organizations and
broadcasters should be active in their support of increased funding for this purpose.
A second and less obvious reason why many UHF stations have not sufficiently
upgraded or relocated their transmitters and antennas is failure to appreciate the
value of these improvements. All broadcasters know of the benefits of increased
power and antenna height, but many are not aware that better designed equipment
or a new antenna location would benefit them. For example, the beam tilt of some
antennas results in pciorer radiation over the city of license than over outlying
areas. The FCC, HEW, and interested, organizations should publicize the benefits of
better designed transmitters and antennas and improved antenna location. In addi-
tion, specific areas in which improvement is possible should be identified and called
to the attention of the station.
A large number of broadcasters do recognize that increased power or height or
relocation of their antennas would provide benefits, but they have no means to
quantify those benefits to determine whether they justify the costs involved. It
would be helpful to have a low-cost analytic tool that could provide information to
any interested station on the area and population that would be added to a station's
coverage or whose reception would be upgraded as a result of various improvements
in the station's facilities.
To improve the design and location of transmitters and antennas and to bring
about the upgrading of UHF facilities, we urge the following actions:
PAGENO="0140"
136
Congress should increase the funding of the Educational Broadcasting Facilities
Program to upgrade UHF transmission facilities of public stations. HEW, the FCC,
interested organizations and broadcasters should actively support increased funding.
HEW should assure that improved transmitters, antennas and antenna location
have high priority in the use of facilities grants.
The FCC, HEW and interested organizations should publicize to broadcasters the
benefits to be derived from better designed equipment and improved antenna loca-
tion.
The FCC, HEW and interested organizations should identify specific areas where
existing transmitter or antenna design or antenna location could be improved and
call these to the attention of the affected stations.
The FCC, HEW, transmitter and antenna manufacturers, or interested organiza-
tions should develop the means to provide information to broadcasters on the area
and population that would be added to a station's; coverage or whose reception
would be upgraded as a result of various improvements in the station's facilities.
Some of the actions we urge in this Action Plan-such as public information
campaigns, improved quality control with respect to receiver noise, and protection
against false advertising claims-can be achieved immediately. Other actions-such
as relocating transmitting antennas, substituting shielded lead-in wire for unshield-
ed twin-lead, and improving master antenna systems-can be begun immediately
and be accomplished within one to two years. Some actions proposed in this Action
Plan rely upon technological improvements, many of which are now in advanced
stages of development. It is reasonable to expect that the technological improve-
ments we propose can be introduced into new receivers and transmitters within two
or three years, and that very significant market penetration will be achieved with
two to three years after the introduction of improved receivers and transmitters.
Accordingly, we believe this Action Plan can result in enormous progress in the
further development of UHF within five years.
Our ultimate goal is a system of television broadcasting in the United States in
which distinctions between UHF and VHF concern only engineers; for the viewer,
the broadcaster, the advertiser and the educator, there will be a single 82-channel
system.
To make rapid progress toward that goal, we must all begin now. We note in this
connection that recently the FCC initiated an inquiry into the so-called UHF taboos.
We support steps to reduce or eliminate UHF taboos, so long as this can be achieved
at reasonable cost and without degrading service. But we wish to emphasize that
this Action Plan is directed to matters quite distinct from those involved in the
taboo inquiry.
The actions we urge in this Action Plan are addressed to reducing the current
technical imbalance between VHF and UHF, to provide reception and transmission
for UHF that are as nearly comparable with VHF as practicable. Only with respect
to UHF noise figure do our recommendations have any relation to technical matters
involved in the taboo inquiry, and the actions we suggest to reduce receiver noise
are wholly consistent with the goal of eliminating taboos. There is accordingly no
reason for the FCC to delay acting on our recommendations while the taboo inquiry
is proceeding.
Although this Action Plan is limited to reducing the technical gap between VHF
and UHF, we recognize that if UHF is to achieve its full potential, it is necessary to
look beyond technical improvements. UHF broadcasters must intensify their efforts
to offer programming that is both audience-appealing and responsive to the needs
and interests of the communities they serve. Viewers, schools, universities, founda-
tions, and local, state and federal governments must continue their support of
public television. The FCC must remain firm in its commitment to UHF and must
resist efforts by certain industries and the Federal Government to seize or "share"
UHF channels. Requests by equipment manufacturers for waivers of FCC rules
concerning UHF must not be granted except on a compelling showing and only
after public notice and full opportunity for comment.
For years UHF has been widely regarded as a stepchild to VHF. Now UHF has
grown to near maturity and stands on the brink of achieving its promise. Everyone
with a stake in UHF, indeed everyone concerned with the future of broadcasting in
the United States, should give enthusiastic support to this Action Plan.
PAGENO="0141"
137
COUNCIL FOR UHF BROADCASTING, CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING, PUBLIC
BROADCASTING SERVICE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, AND ASSOCI-
ATION OF MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS
July 21, 1975.
The Hon. RICHARD E. WILEY,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN WILEY: Largely as a result of the Commission's longstanding
commitment to UHF, UHF has become an essential factor in American broadcast-
ing. We are five organizations that share the Commission's commitment to UHF:
the Council for UHF Broadcasting, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the
Public Broadcasting Service, the National Association of Broadcasters and the Asso-
ciation of Maximum Service Telecasters. It is our firm conviction that everyone
concerned with the future of television broadcasting in the United States has an
interest in the further development of UHF.
In order to promote that further development, we are today submitting to the
Commission and releasing to the public the Action Plan for Further UHF Develop-
ment which is enclosed. The Action Plan notes areas in which UHF suffers from
technical disadvantages and sets forth a realistic program to sharply lessen those
technical disadvantages and to make UHF as comparable to VHF as possible.
The Plan calls for action by Congress, the Commission and other agencies of
government, broadcasters, manufacturers and organizations interested in the fur-
ther development of UHF. However, the role of the Commission in the future
development of UHF is critical. We propose that the Commission take the following
specific actions:
(1) To reduce UHF receiver noise, we urge that the Commission respond to our
forthcoming petition for rulemaking by revising its rules to require an immediate
reduction in UHF receiver noise to 14 db and further phased reductions in receiver
noise by specified dates. We also urge the Commission to seek the lowest practicable
UHF noise figure in the "receiver of tomorrow" which we understand will be
developed under a Commission research and development contract.
(2) To facilitate UHF tuning, we urge the Commission to include an integrated
UHF/VHF tuner in its receiver of tomorrow. When inexpensive integrated tuners
are developed, we urge the Commission to revise its rules to require their use in
new receivers.
(3) To improve UHF indoor antennas, we urge that the Commission respond to
our forthcoming petition for rulemaking by requiring all new sets with a perma-
nently affixed VHF antenna to have an effective, permanently affixed UHF anten-
na. We also urge that a mechanically and technically improved UHF indoor anten-
na be developed for the Commission's receiver of tomorrow. Additionally, we urge
that the Commission prepare a circular and other materials on proper UHF anten-
na use for distribution by UHF broadcasters and interested organizations. The
Commission through its field engineering offices should mail copies of the circular
to all persons who complain to the Commission about UHF reception difficulties.
(4) To improve outdoor antennas and lead-in wire, we urge that the Commission
provide information for the public on outdoor antennas and lead-in wire and public-
ly and effectively support action to provide adequate and truthful information about
antenna performance capabilities. We also urge the Commission to encourage the
design of improved all-channel and UHF outdoor antennas. Additionally, the Com-
mission should publicly support the right of all Americans served by master anten-
na systems to UHF reception comparable to VHF.
(5) To increase efficiency of transmitters, we urge the Commission to encourage
and support research and development of high efficiency transmitters.
(6) To improve transmitter and antenna installations, we urge the Commission
actively to support increased funding of the Educational Broadcasting Facilities
Program to upgrade UHF transmission facilities of public stations. We also urge the
Commission to publicize to broadcasters the benefits to be derived from better
designed equipment and improved antenna location. We recommend that the Com-
mission identify specific areas where existing transmitter or antenna design or
antenna location could be improved and call these to the attention of the affected
stations. Additionally, we propose that the Commission take the lead in developing
a means to provide information to broadcasters on the area and population that
would be added to a station's coverage or whose reception would be upgraded as a
result of various improvements in the station's facilities.
Our goal in the Action Plan can be simply stated: to provide reception and
transmission for UHF that are as nearly comparable with VHF as practicable. We
PAGENO="0142"
138
recognize, however, that if UHF is to achieve its full potential, it is necessary to
look beyond technical improvements. We call on UHF broadcasters to intensify
their efforts to offer programming that is both audience-appealing and responsive to
the needs and interests of the communities they serve. We call on viewers, schools,
universities, foundations, and local, state and Federal governments to continue their
support of public television.
We urge that the Commission remain firm in its commitment to UHF and resist
efforts by certain industries and the Federal Government to seize or "share" UHF
channels. We also respectfully submit that requests by equipment manufacturers
for waivers of Commission rules concerning UHF should not be granted except on a
compelling showing and only after public notice and full opportunity for comment.
Our Action Plan for Further UHF Development also cites actions that should be
taken by Congress, other agencies of government, broadcasters, manufacturers and
organizations interested in the further development of UHF. The Commission's
public support and encouragement of these proposed actions by others would hasten
the day when UHF achieves its full potential. Accordingly, we urge the Commission
to issue a policy statement affirming its commitment to UHF, supporting our goal of
UHF comparability with VHF, and encouraging all concerned to take the steps we
propose for the further development of UHF.
In order to review and advance the progress of the Commission and others in
achieving UHF comparability with VHF, we propose that the Commission establish
a committee comprised of representatives of the Broadcast Bureau, the Office of
Chief Engineer and the Field Operations Bureau, including one or more persons
with responsibility in the area of public broadcasting. This committee could coordi-
nate actions within the Commission relating to the further development of UHF.
The committee could also stay abreast of activities relating to UHF in the private
sector and in other agencies of Government, encouraging actions to achieve UHF
comparability with VHF and serving as a clearinghouse for information. Periodic
meetings with broadcasters, manufacturers and interested organizations could be
sponsored by the committee to assist in these functions. The committee should keep
the Commission apprised of progress toward the goal of comparability and should
issue an annual report to the commission describing the progress that has been
made and the steps that remain to be taken.
The actions we have urged in this letter and in our Action Plan will go far toward
the shared goal of Congress and the Commission: "that UHF be put on a competi-
tive footing with VHF in all respects."
Respectfully submitted,
COUNCIL FOR UHF BROADCASTING.
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.
PUBUC BROADCASTING SERVICE.
NATIONAL AssocIATION OF BROADCASTERS.
ASSOCIATION OF MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS.
Enclosure.
COUNCIL FOR UHF BROADCASTING,
November 23, 1g76.
Mr. ROBERT A. LUFF,
Office of the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 11119 M Street NW,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR BOB: This is to follow up on the Chairman's suggestion that, in lieu of a
Commission task force, we work with you and him to assist UHF development in
ways that are in addition to the formal Commission actions requested in our
rulemaking and other pleadings of record.
PUBUC STATEMENT
The Commission should issue a strong public statement that UHF development
will be actively encouraged, that the UHF band will be maintained intact for
television service, and that UHF and VHF will be made comparable. Such a state-
ment would both encourage potential licensees to implement UHF facilities and
erase the myth of "inherent UHF inferiority" which now tarnishes the image of
UHF broadcasting. A factor in the "UHF handicap" has been uncertainty in the
private sector about the FCC's commitment to UHF. This affects the decisions of
lenders, investors, advertisers, agencies, entrepreneurs, talent, management, and
the public generally. The Commission should dispel this uncertainty by publicly
emphasizing its long-term, unswerving, congressionally mandated commitment to
PAGENO="0143"
139
UHF. It should point out to industry that it is in its interest to play a part in UHF
development.
The following are examples of other measures to be taken by the Commission to
improve the public image of UHF.
(a) Release of information on Commission measurements of UHF receiving anten-
na performance.
(b) Release of information on Commission measurements of UHF tuner noise
figure.
(c) A Commission policy statement that MATV systems in public accommodations
(hotels, motels, etc.) should carry all local UHF channels as well as VHF. Television
receivers for use in hotels and motels are currently supplied with the UHF tuners
deleted. Moreover, the MATV systems to which these receivers are connected often
do not even convert area UHF stations to VHF so that they are blacked out
altogether. This is clearly at variance with the spirit, if not with the letter, of the
All-Channel Act. As a consequence, for example, visitors to the District of Columbia
are not even aware of the existence of some of the finest UHF facilities in the
United States, because they are not able to receive these stations on their hotel
room receivers.
(d) Commission assistance to groups or individuals with an interest in activating
television facilities-possibly in the form of a "how to" handbook, explaining the
legal, financial, and technical requirements in layman's language, and giving refer-
ences to further information and sources of technical and other assistance.
RECEIVER OF TOMORROW PROJECT
The contract entered into with Texas Instruments offers a unique, unprecedented
opportunity to demonstrate that improvements in UHF reception capability are
technically and economically feasible. UHF improvement should be a paramount
goal of this project, and to that end CUB offers the definition of what improvements
are required, and how they should best be implemented. It has long been recognized
that the contemporary television receiver constitutes the weak link in the UHF
broadcasting chain, and that development of UHF tuners has been virtually stag-
nant since the Commission's adoption in 1962 of the lax performance standards
which are still in effect, unchanged, today. The intent of Congress as stated in the
Senate Committee Report associated with the All-Channel Receiver Act, was that
television viewers, "in fact get comparable reception from UHF and VHF stations."
Nearly 15 years later, because of regulatory and industry inactivity, the goal of
UHF/VHF performance comparability is still unmet. A significant beginning
toward attainment of the goal should be made in the "Receiver of Tomorrow"
project by directing the contractor to concentrate its research and development
efforts in the following areas:
(a) Developing a UHF tuner which achieves the lowest noise figure consistent
with adequate cross modulation characteristics.
(b) Integrating the UHF and VHF portions of the television tuner both electroni-
cally and mechanically so that UHF and VHF channels are selected on a common
tuning mechanism, and with comparable ease. The distinction between UHF and
VHF should be erased in the mind of the television viewer. He should be no more
aware that he is making the transition from VHF to UHF when he tunes from
Channel 13 to Channel 14, than he is now aware that he is transitioning from low
band VHF to high band VHF when he changes from Channel 6 to Channel 7.
(c) Developing a practical built-in UHF antenna with an effectiveness comparable
to, or better than, the \THF built-in antennas conventionally supplied with televi-
sion receivers.
In any event, the "receiver of tomorrow" project should concentrate on developing
prompt and practical improvements in UHF reception, rather than on broad theo-
retical questions or long-term, blue-sky technical proposals. To assist in working
toward this goal we suggest that engineers from our group consult periodically with
appropriate persons in the Chief Engineer's Office with responsibility for this pro-
ject. We believe that this could be done consistent with your Texas Instrument
contract, while still assuring the input of engineers who have studied UHF prob-
lems in depth and have extensive experience with the practical problems of UHF
operations.
PBS BOOKLET ON UHF RECEPTION
Dissemination of accurate information on the characteristics of UHF, and the
techniques are hardware necessary for adequate UHF reception, to the viewing
public and the service industry is vital if the existing lack of information and
PAGENO="0144"
140
misinformation on UHF is to be countered. PBS has prepared a booklet on UHF
reception, written that the Commission Field Engineering offices be provided with
copies of these booklets, and that they be supplied to all interested parties, particu-
larly those who contact the Commission's field offices with complaints regarding
inadequate UHF reception. The Commission should fund the printing of the booklet
to the extent it uses the booklet for these purposes.
COMMISSION AS CLEARINGHOUSE
The Commission is the logical depository and disseminator of information relating
to UHF broadcasting, and the goal of UHF improvement will be significantly
advanced by the Commission's serving as a clearinghouse for UHF information
developed by others. The Commission's New York UHF studies and the more recent
laboratory work on UHF taboos stand as examples of the contribution which the
Commission can and should make toward advancing the state of the art in UHF.
But the Commission's research efforts have been too few and too infrequent. As
trustee of the electromagnetic spectrum, the Commission should adopt a position of
leadership in research on UHF matters by developing the requisite information on
UHf performance in an objective and impartial manner through "in house" re-
search efforts. While there is a substantial dearth of information on almost all
matters relating to UHF, the following areas particularly deserve immediate atten-
tion from the Commission:
(a) UHF receiving antennas-Accurate information on the gain, bandwidth, and
directivity characteristics of UHF receiving antennas is sorely needed. Examination
of advertising material on UHF antennas indicates the existence of grossly inflated
performance claims extending well beyond the limits of traditionally acceptable
advertising "puffery"-e.g., the $10.00 antenna that "pulls in stations up to 80 miles
away". A technically unsophisticated consumer presently has no means of assessing
such overstated claims, and when the antenna fails to meet its promise, the consum-
er is all too ready to conclude that the fault lies with the station or with UHF
generally. A Commission study which defines a uniform method for the measure-
ment of UHF antenna characteristics, and which reports on the performance of
currently available antennas would be of inestimable value to the public and to
other government agencies charged with the responsibility for regulating deceptive
or misleading advertising.
(b) Continuing evaluation of tuner performance-In addition to conducting an
ongoing measurements program on receivers, the Commission is urged to perform
the "clearinghouse" role by assembling data on all developments in device technol-
ogy which offer the promise of improved UHF tuner performance. In particular,
attention should be given to developments in Europe, where the experience with
successful use of UHF has been far more favorable than in the United States, due in
large part to the availability of receivers of advanced design, especially in the area
of tuner sensitivity.
(c) Transmitters-Developments in transmitter design are underway which pres-
age the availability of more efficient UHF transmitters. In response to its obliga-
tions imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the Commission
should actively encourage the development of more efficient-and hence energy-
saving-transmitters, possibly to the extent of requiring a showing of optimum
energy utilization as part of its type-acceptance procedure.
The "receiver of tomorrow" project stands as an example of how active involve-
ment by the Commission in the advancement of technology may yield large public
interest dividends. When the Commission assembles information on UHF through
its own research efforts, and through active solicitation of information developed by
others-as recommended above-it will then be in a position to determine when it
would be appropriate to let developmental contracts which will direct the private
sector in their choice of appropriate technology to implement UHF improvements.
Adoption of such a tecimological leadership posture will put the Commission in full
management control of the spectrum. As things now stand, with the Commission
basing allocation policy on the characteristics of existing receivers, the de facto
control of the spectrum lies with the receiver manufacturing industry whose under-
standably profit-oriented policies are almost exactly contrary to the achievement of
efficient spectrum utilization.
The work of CUB, other organizations, and the Commission can and should
culminate in improved UHF reception and transmission capability. As a conse-
quence the UHF band will attract large numbers of licensees who, until now, have
been deterred from activation of UHF stations by past unfavorable experience with
UHF, primarily stemming from deficiencies in the receiving system. It would be a
gross breach of faith for the Commission to respond to the efforts of the proponents
PAGENO="0145"
141
of UHF improvement by giving the band over to other services once improvements
have been realized. Moreover, even if improvements in receiver performance pro-
vided additional UHF channels, they should not be made available to other users.
The Commission is urged to continue its commitment to the integrity of the UHF
band for broadcast purposes and not to use hard won improvements in receiver
performance as an excuse for intrusions into the UHF broadcast band by other
services. Today, in major cities, and even in some relatively unpopulated areas,
there are not sufficient channels to accommodate the immediately foreseeable
growth in UHF television broadcasting.
Candidly, UHF proponents are concerned that the recent resurgence of interest at
the Commission in improvements in UHF reception capability may be motivated by
a desire to give the UHF spectrum to other users who today are not making full and
efficient use of the frequencies which they are currently assigned. As the Commis-
sion noted in the Sixth Report, the growth of television service in the United States
is "indissolubly tied to UHF."
We welcome any suggestions regarding these recommendations, or other sugges-
tions, from you, Commissioners, or staff members in the Chief Engineer's office, the
Broadcast Bureau, Plans and Policies or elsewhere. We are ready and anxious to
engage in discussion with any interested Commission personnel.
In sum, we see an opportunity for Commission leadership which, far from imping-
ing on private initiative, would stimulate and channel that initiative most effective-
ly. The beneficiaries would be the American public.
Sincerely,
RICHARD C. BLOCK, Chairman.
Senator CANNON. All right, Mr. Blake.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BLAKE, COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION OF
MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, INC.
Mr. BLAKE. I am Jonathan Blake, attorney with the firm of
Covington & Burling. We represent the Association of Maximum
Service Telecasters. I am appearing to present the statement of its
president, Mr. Lester Lindow, who personally regrets his inability
to be here today.
We are here for two purposes. One, to support Dick Block's plea
as to the importance and need for UHF development. As usual, he
has needed no support at all in that. Second, to express the defense
for the current allocation to UHF television of the frequencies it
has.
As Dick has indicated, these two issues are integrally related, for
two reasons. One, you cannot develop UHF if there are no frequen-
cies on which to operate, and two, time and again we have found
that UHF improvement efforts have been thwarted by those who
feel that these improvements would make it difficult to give spec-
trum away to other users.
I would like to summarize and hit the high points of Mr. Lin-
dow's written statement. Let me say that MST is made up of 185
nonnetwork-owned stations; some are UHF, some are VHF; some
are public stations, some of them are commercial stations. They
serve the largest cities, medium-sized cities, smaller areas. Some
are affiliated and some are independent stations.
MST believes in UHF. It believes that UHF is the dynamic
element in broadcasting, both now and for the future. It is the
single greatest hope for providing more opportunities for minority
ownership and ownership and management by women. It is the
single greatest hope for the development of public television. It is
the single greatest hope for more networking possibilities and for
greater diversity and competition in television.
20-122 0 - 78 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
142
Congress, we believe, understood this future for UHF when it
passed the All-Channel Act in 1962. And it committed national
communications policy at that time to the development of UHF.
We fear that commitment is being undermined by the threat to
UHF television spectrum today. The basic problem, of course, is
that you cannot use the same frequencies for different purposes in
the same area without causing destructive interference to both
uses, which cancel them out so that there is no service at all. So,
you have to make choices as between various uses.
Ten years ago UHF television had channels 14 through 83 on an
exclusive basis. Over the years that allocation of the UHF spec-
trum has been chipped away. Today it faces perhaps its most
serious threat from the preparations for the 1979 world adminstra-
tive radio conference, or WARC, as it is called, in which allocations
are being reconsidered for purposes of an international treaty.
The basic premise of thse who would take UHF spectrum away
from UHF television is that there are many UHF assignments that
are not being used. These other users, which basically are private
land-mobile users and Government users, would use the frequen-
cies for delivery services, pickup services, businesses and that sort
of thing, convenience users, for the most part.
Their basic argument is that they have a need for these frequen-
cies; that their frequencies are congested; that their frequencies are
filled up. They, therefore, argue that since the UHF assignments
are vacant, they should be able to have those assignments.
This is a phony argument. Channels of these other users, even on
their own claims, are only crowded in the largest cities of the
United States; and in these large cities of the United States, the
UHF television assignments are used up.
In other words, the only way the demands of these other users
could be met is by taking away UHF service from the American
public to make those channels available for pickup, delivery, and
convenience services. Not only is UHF important now and not only
is existing UHF television service threatened by allocation propos-
als, but UHF is the hope for growth in the future, as I have
indicated. This hope, which is a realistic hope set by Congress 15
years ago, is being realized. This hope would be crushed if the
frequencies are given away to other users.
On the other side of the coin is the use these other users make of
the frequencies they have at the present time. The Federal Govern-
ment has asked for the equivalent of 17 UHF television channels
across the country. That need has been totally unsubstantiated,
and this past week the Commission advised the Federal Govern-
ment that that demand would not be met.
Senator CANNON. What was the purpose of that request?
Mr. BLAKE. It is very hard to tell what they would use it for. It
has not been documented. The purpose is to take the equivalent of
17 UHF television channels and give them for use by the Federal
Government for various purposes. And clearly there are some very,
very important Federal Government uses of the spectrum, for na-
tional defense and other purposes. But there is also a whole range
of just convenience uses. This demand by the Federal Government
has been shrouded in secrecy and nobody-nobody at least in the
private sector or the public-knows what the Federal Government
PAGENO="0147"
143
uses its frequencies for today. And, in a supplementary letter to
the writtren statement I submitted, I reported to you on this devel-
opment-the FCC telling the Federal Government it had not docu-
mented its need for additional frequencies.
The same situation applies with respect to the private land-
mobile services, diaper services, taxicabs, other delivery services.
There the land-mobile users have made a showing based on the
number of units outstanding, but they have refused to have on-the-
air monitoring of what their use of these frequencies is.
The last study showed that in Detroit the average land-mobile
channel was being used only 2.5 percent of the time. Yet these are
the same people who want to take UHF frequencies away. The
land-mobile people have resisted having any on-the-air monitoring
tests conducted since those that were conducted about 6 or 7 years
ago.
We think that their demands should be turned down. Prepara-
tion in this country for the world administrative radio conference
of 1979 focuses on these issues. There are some that argue that the
United States should urge a change in the allocations table so that
UHF would no longer have exclusive allocation for the UHF chan-
nels it presently has, and that this allocation should, now, be on a
shared basis.
But the FCC already has the power to do that domestically in
any event, so there is no need for that change. What we are really
talking about is the establishment of priorities for national commu-
nications policy. We think that the Commission should reflect the
decision made by the Congress that UHF television should be the
priority use in these bands. And it can do that by maintaining the
present frequency allocation provided for by international treaty.
In summary the message that we want to get across as clearly
and loudly as we can is that UHF can meet the national communi-
cations goals that Congress set for it; that it has made enormous
strides in this direction-they are always underestimated; that it
can do a great deal more in the future.
If somebody tried to predict what FM would be like today 15
years ago, they would have made the same kind of dire predictions
one hears about UHF, and they would have been wrong. We can
clear away the clouds of doubt with respect to UHF by making it
clear that the UHF spectrum is going to continue to be allocated
for the American public's television service.
UHF would be free to grow if we could turn our back on some of
these speculative alternatives which cannot serve all the people. In
short, just as Dick Block has asked that the Congress reaffirm its
commitment to fuller UHF development in the area of achieving
technical camparability with VHF, we would ask in the allocations
area that the same thing be done.
Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for very fine
statements.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF LESTER W. LIND0w, PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
MAXIMUM SERVICE TELECASTERS, INC.
My name is Lester W. Lindow, President of the Association of Maximum Service
Telecasters, Inc. (MST).
PAGENO="0148"
144
MST is an association of more than 185 non-network owned television stations
serving metropolitan centers, smaller communities and rural areas. Its members are
UHF and VHF, public and commercial, network-affiliated and independent stations.
For 21 years MST has been dedicated to maintaining and promoting the develop-
ment of television in accordance with the basic allocations policies established by
Congress and engineering standards adopted by the Commission and affirmed by
Congress. It played a major role in the adoption of the All-Channel Receiver Act in
1962, and, as Dick Block mentioned, has participated vigorously in CUB's efforts
over the past two years.
We, too, appreciate the opportunity to appear today. We are vitally interested in a
number of topics which are or could be covered by these hearings. We are deeply
concerned by the potential erosion of local television service available to all Ameri-
cans by the inroads of CATV which can serve only the well-to-do in urban and some
of the suburban areas of the country. We are alarmed by various developments-
such as inadequately regulated citizens band radio and the possibility of new FM
services--which threaten and do cause serious interference to the television service
enjoyed by the American public. We feel, too, that even a few short-spaced VHF
drop-ins would cause interference to television reception and would injure the public
interest in UHF development. The answer to demands for more service is not to
destroy the present system but to build up UHF television.
We believe that the allocations and engineering policies which Congress has
endorsed serve the public interest well. Degrading the technical quality of the
public's service or depriving any segment of the public of the service it currently
enjoys would raise a popular outcry-much louder than the clamor for new CB
channels-that would be clearly heard here in Congress. Nor is the existing system
static and fixed. Through the all-Channel Receiver Act Congress wisely made provi-
sion for our dynamic society to be reflected in the development of new television
services, greater diversity, more opportunities for minorities, females, and public
stations. It is UHF television's future prospects which are especially menaced by
short-spaced VHF drop-ins and a rudderless CATV policy.
So there are many topics we could address but today we confine ourselves to the
threat that spectrum currently allocated for UHF television will be handed over to
other users. There is probably no more important issue in the communications field
than this one. Yet it receives comparatively little attention.
I
As Dick Block has stated, only UHF can deliver the additional television services
which the American public deserves; UHF's growth to date has demonstrated that it
can realize its potential for providing these services; and the biggest threat to
continued progress in this direction is the demand for UHF spectrum space by other
users-private and governmental. This demand has generated an unremitting pres-
sure that delays and frustrates efforts to accelerate UHF development.
This pressure has been accompanied by advocacy of other forms of program
distribution-satellite-to-home, the wired nation, and fiber optics-and other expe-
dients like short-spaced VHF drop-ins. These other distribution systems would not
provide local and area service to anywhere near the broad range of people to whom
UHF can provide service. They would not serve the public interest. Claims on their
behalf are speculative and unrealizable.
Nevertheless, the always present threat that UHF spectrum will be given away to
other users and the continual downgrading of UHF's viability and potential for
additional growth have placed a dark cloud over UHF's past progress and future
development. UHF has grown nonetheless. Perhaps more important than any single
step in advancing UHF development is removing this cloud that overhangs it.
II
The central fact cited by both those who denigrate the existing communications
policies that Congress helped formulate and those who seek UHF frequencies for
their own use is that many UHF assignments are vacant. This is, of course, true.
But it also seriously distorts the issue. The demands of other users-business users
and the Federal Government-are principally confined to the largest metropolitan
areas in the United States. There is no shortage of business radio frequencies in
other areas because there are many fewer users in these other areas. The demand is
less, so the existing supply of spectrum is sufficient.
But it is in the very same largest cities of the United States where the demands of
other users are greatest that UHF assignments are entirely used up or almost so. In
the top 10 markets for example there are only two vacant assignments. And in
PAGENO="0149"
145
smaller markets where one or two channels may still remain vacant UHF's past
and accelerating growth makes clear that any vacant UHF channels will be needed
in the near future. It is also in these largest communities where there is the
greatest need for additional television services-for minority and female ownership,
for public stations and for specialized and more diverse formats. There is, therefore,
very little UHF television spectrum that could be given away in areas where land
mobile and other users claim to need additional frequencies without tremendous
loss of service to the public.
In short, the claim that UHF spectrum lies fallow is a misleading oversimplifica-
tion. Just as there is less demand for business radio services in Dubuque than there
is in New York, there is also less demand for television stations in Dubuque than
there is in New York. But the existence of vacant UHF television assignments in
Dubuque does not justify giving away occupied UHF assignments in New York City.
Yet that in essence is what these other users are arguing for.
III
The other side of the equation, of course, is the claim of need by other users that
covet UHF spectrum space. Their claims have never been substantiated.
The on-the-air monitoring of land mobile operations has shown remarkably sparse
usage even in periods of peak usage. Probably because these monitoring studies
have always yielded such negative results, these other users have adamently refused
to undertake similar studies in the last few years. The Commission should have
refused even to consider their demands without monitoring data. But infortunately,
it has not done so.
Similarly, the federal government is a large and greedy user of spectrum space.
Yet it also has frustrated every effort to determine the basis for its claimed need for
additional frequencies. We think this is wrong. The federal government's demands
for additional spectrum should be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as the
claims of other users and should be substantiated by similar over-the-air monitoring
data. Congress is in a particularly strong position to require substantiation of the
federal government. Failing such documentation, the federal government's claims
should not be considered.
The failure on the Commission's part to insist on over-the-air monitoring data by
other claimants for UHF spectrum has not only subjected UHF to crippling uncer-
tainty, it has also discouraged land mobile and other users from implementing
available techniques for vastly increasing the efficiency of their usage of existing
frequencies. For example, experts have estimated that the efficiency of land mobile's
use of its spectrum could be increased by up to 50 times. Since land mobile spectrum
was quadrupled several years ago, the combined effect could be to increase the
effective amount of its spectrum by up to 200 times.
Iv
The spectrum allocations issue is particularly important now, not only because it
thwarts UHF development but also because this country is preparing for the 1979
World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) at which international spectrum
allocations will be determined for the next 20 years. The Commission's recommen-
dations will importantly affect both the development of UHF and the efficiency of
nonbroadcast spectrum usage.
In WARC `79 the federal government seeks at least 17 UHF television channels
and land mobile users (and more significantly the manufacturers of land mobile
equipment) seek an additional 46 television channels. In support of their claims,
they make the usual arguments that I have tried to dispose of above. In addition,
however, they argue that the United States should seek to amend the present
worldwide allocations scheme to provide for joint land mobile and UHF television
allocation of the UHF band, so that the Commission can have flexibility to adjust
allocations in this band in the future.
This is a superficially appealing proposal. But even without joint allocation inter-
nationally, the Commission has the flexibility domestically to reallocate UHF televi-
sion frequencies to other users on an exclusive or shared basis provided it doesn't
run afoul of broadcasting operations and allocations in Canada and Mexico. In
short, the FCC already has this flexibility and has used it in the past at the behest
of many of the same people who argue that it is necessary now to confer such
flexibility internationally.
The purpose of WARC, however, is to establish priority uses for the future, in
order to provide a framework for international coordination of spectrum use. Ac-
cordingly, the Commission's decision whether to recommend joint allocation for
PAGENO="0150"
146
UHF television and other users or to maintain the present UHF allocation is
critically important. A Commission decision to maintain existing allocations would
free UHF television to continue its growth without the cloud of imminent spectrum
reallocation hanging over it, although we realize that the clamor of other users
won't simply disappear. Such a decision would also spur more efficient use of
spectrum allocated to these other users. It would say loud and clear that UHF is
here, to stay and to grow, and that land mobile and other users must put their
houses in order.
On the other hand, a recommendation for joint allocation to UHF and other users
would be a statement that the future of UHF is problematical and that other users
need not use their spectrum resources with maximum efficiency but may simply
demand more UHF spectrum space at the expense of the American public's stake in
UHF.
The Senate must consider whatever treaty emerges from WRAC `79. But then it
can only accept or reject the positions that the treaty embodies. We believe that the
Congress which passed the All-Channel Receiver Act in 1962 and is a prime archi-
tect of existing communications policy should act now to assure that that policy is
not flouted in the preparations for WARC `79. It should reconfirm the commitment
of national communications policy to the development of UHF television and it
should make clear that this commitment means no departure from UHF allocations
policy at WARC `79.
C0vINGT0N & BURLING,
Washington, D.C., May 10, 1977.
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Communications, US. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: On Tuesday, May 3, the Association of Maximum Ser-
vice Telecasters, Inc. ("MST"), submitted a written statement for its appearance
before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications scheduled for May 10. Subse-
quently the Federal Communications Commission has taken an important step
which pertains to MST's written statement and which should be made part of the
written record in these hearings.
Our written statement observed that both private land mobile users and the
Federal Government covet additional frequencies now assigned for UHF television
use, without having provided reliable support for their demands. It is gratifying to
report that on Wednesday of this past week the Commission announced that it
would not entertain Federal Government demands for additional spectrum space, in
part because of its failure to provide any evidence of need.
We commend the Commission for taking this position. We recognize that in the
further preparations for the 1979 World Administrative Radio Conference (in which
these allocations issues will be resolved internationally), efforts will be made to
change this determination and that in any event it is not binding as to what the
ultimate United States position will be. The Commission's action, nevertheless, is
eminently correct and unquestionably serves the public interest.
The Commission should promptly take the same position with respect to the
spectrum demands of land mobile users. Their demands are based on criteria which
the Commission has determined to be unreliable. Land mobile users have refused to
undertake the over-the-air monitoring that would provide reliable evidence of exist-
ing land mobile spectrum use, perhaps because in the past it has shown such usage
to be sparse indeed.
Accordingly, MST requests that this letter be associated with its written state-
ment to the Subcommittee.
Respectfully submitted,
JONATHAN D. BLAKE,
Attorney for Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.
Senator CANNON. The next witness, Mr. Henry Harris, president,
Cox Cable, representing the National Cable Television Association.
STATEMENT OF HENRY HARRIS, PRESIDENT, COX CABLE, REP-
RESENTING THE NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCI-
ATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT SCHMIDT, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION
Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On my right is Robert Schmidt, president of the National Cable
Television Association.
PAGENO="0151"
147
My name is Henry Harris. I appear before you today on behalf of
the National Cable Television Association. I am president of Cox
Cable, a division of Cox Communications of Atlanta. Cox Communi-
cations is both a broadcaster, cable system operator, and publisher
We operate television stations in five markets as well as 39 cable
systems, including the Nation's largest in San Diego
You might suspect that involvement in both cable and broadcast-
ing would be contradictory, particularly in light of broadcaster
claims of cable's potential to cause the demise of commercial TV
stations. Let me assure you that our cable and broadcasting oper-
ations are quite compatible. We are communicators. Whether we
communicate on cable or via over-the-air television, our intent is to
offer our public the best in television service.
We view broadcasting and cable television as complementary
rather than exclusive offerings. Many other broadcasters apparent-
ly feel the same way since over one-third of all cable television
systems are owned by broadcasters.
A brief look at the structure of these two industries will support
my argument that cable television and broadcasting are comple-
mentary services which can and do exist profitably.
Advertising expenditures are justified by the number of homes
delivered. Consequently, it has an obligation to program for and to
the masses.
Approximately 65 percent of all programing on affiliated stations
is network programing which is simply the most economically fea-
sible way to deliver programing at the least cost with the best
diversity.
Cable, on the other hand, has virtually unlimited channel capac-
ity. It offers more choices and can deliver more channels to the
home. For that it gets a monthly fee directly from the subscriber.
Its economic well-being is not dependent upon advertising.
We give a subscriber a choice. We really don't care whether he
uses the choice or not. We are not in the ratings game.
Cable historically grew up in the small markets of this country.
To use the FCC definition, these are, by and large, markets outside
the top 100 metropolitan areas. For the most part, cable is a
mature industry in the smaller markets. Because the lack of over-
the-air television in most of the markets-probably two stations
are less-cable has done very well in these markets and is very
profitable.
Certain broadcast interests think small market broadcasters are
the ones that might be hurt by cable. I find this somewhat humor-
ous since these are the markets where cable and broadcasters have
coexisted comfortably for the last 25 years.
FCC financial data shows that small market TV stations have
experienced a revenue growth of 31 percent during the period 1972
to 1975 should be higher, although these figures are not yet avail-
able.
My point is that cable grew up in the small markets. By and
large, these markets have been built. Broadcasters and cable coex-
ist profitably.
While academically, people would like to protect the small guy, it
is the small guys that have gotten along well for many years.
These are obviously the best cable markets financially. But because
PAGENO="0152"
148
very few are left to build, cable in the midsixties moved into the
larger markets where there is continuing development today~
However, most of these markets have at least two-and more
often than not, three or four-air local signals, which makes the
selling of a cable service a more difficult product to market.
Cox Cable operates cable television systems in several urban
areas of our country. Our system in San Diego is the largest in the
United States, and it is a prime example of cable and broadcasting
being compatible and coexisting successfully and profitably togeth-
er.
For a monthly charge of $7.50, the 147,000 households served by
Mission Cable TV in San Diego receive 24 channels including the 4
local San Diego stations, 2 Mexican stations, 1 in English, 1 in
Spanish, 9 stations from Los Angeles, 1 of which is another Span-
ish station. One is a specially programed station with business
data.
We do our own local-originated program including community
events, San Diego State University football games, forums with city
and local officials, and local sports activities. We do approximately
83 hours a week of this type local programing.
There is a local educational channel which is jointly programed
by the 32 school districts in San Diego. This provides about 21
hours of educational programing a week.
There is a municipal information channel operated by the city,
and access channel operated by a community video center that also
produces programs of local interest about 27 hours a week.
We have five automated channels that include weather, the stock
market, AP news, a sports wire, a community message channel,
and a consumer information channel.
Last but not least, yes, we offer movies on a pay cable channel.
We offer all of this, and still the local broadcast outlets are show-
ing ever increasing profits and growth.
In the period 1967 to 1974, the percentage increase in broadcast
revenues in San Diego exceeded by almost 2½ times that experi-
enced by all U.S. television stations. Local broadcast income grew
at a rate 3 ~/2 times faster than the national industry average.
That chart is an example of the San Diego broadcast income
revenue growth against the national growth in broadcast revenue.
The San Diego market has enjoyed tremendous success.
The threat of injury to broadcasters due to cable television has
certainly not materialized in this market. Our subscribers have
grown during the same period from roughly 25,000 to our present-
day 147,000 homes served.
By the way, we enjoy a very good relationship with the local
broadcasters, which was not always the case.
Another example of a market where cable and television coexist
compatibly is San Francisco. Cox Broadcasting owns the indepen-
dent television station, KTVU, in San Francisco. The San Francis-
co market is well served by cable, with just about a third of all
households subscribing. Many of the cable subscribers in the
market also subscribe to pay cable service. Even with this heavy
cable activity in the market, our independent station continues to
show record financial success.
PAGENO="0153"
149
My point here is that successful broadcast and cable operations
can exist side by side. Recognizing the real addition to the quality
and quantity of television programing which can be made by cable,
I am even more frustrated with the regulatory restraints which
limit cable television's ability to serve consumers.
With every new programing product developed by cable opera-
tors comes the broadcaster's claim of imminent financial ruin.
Regulatory philosophy to date has focused on immediate protection
of broadcast interests, without consideration of either the sub-
stance of their claims or of the impact of such protection on the
public's right to choose.
Pay cable television is an example of my point. A great deal of
commotion has recently surrounded this premium service. For an
extra monthly fee, pay cable subscribers receive a separate channel
of high quality programing not available on commercial TV. This
includes current movies, sports events, drama, cultural and chil-
dren's programs and entertainment specials, all presented without
commercial interruptions. As I have mentioned, it is precisely this
type of diverse specialized programing from which consumers have
a right to choose and which is so important to major market cable
television development.
Those who want to thwart cable television have changed their
tune insofar as pay cable is concerned. Instead of damaging profit-
ability and viability of local broadcast outlets, those who oppose
pay cable charge it will siphon away programs from commercial
television.
They argue the public would be greatly harmed through the
commercial TV's loss of movies and sporting events. We agree.
FCC without any quantitative evidence to support these claims,
imposed strict regulations limiting the quantity and types of pro-
gramming that pay cable operators could provide consumers. The
rules were opposed by the U.S. Department of Justice, public inter~
est groups, program suppliers, and cable television operators.
On March, 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously over-
turned the pay cable rules, rejecting all assertations of siphoning,
injury to the public, and broadcast industry collapse. In short, the
court found absolutely no basis for restriction of pay cable develop-
ment and censured the FCC for acting when no such action was
warranted.
The Court commented:
The Commission's lack of a clear picture-of the pay cable industry and its
relationship to broadcasting-is directly attributable to its own choice to regulate
rather than allow a period of unregulated experimentation in which data could be
generated that could form a predicate for informed agency action.
The court went on to reject the FCC's basic philosophy of regu-
lating cable television as a stepchild of the broadcasting industry,
observing:
the Commission has in no way justified its position that cable television must
be a supplement to, rather than an equal of, broadcast television. Such an artificial
narrowing of the scope of the regulatory problem is itself arbitrary and capricious
and is ground for reversal.
The court went to great lengths to point out that no evidence
had been submitted showing existing or potential siphoning of
PAGENO="0154"
150
movies or sports events by cable, yet we continue to hear that
siphoning is imminent.
I can tell you that the cable industry has no desire to restrict the
availability of sporting events. Our intent is just the opposite. We
want to offer more games, games which for various reasons are not
covered by broadcast television.
This continued demand for protection from some unseen and
hard-to-imagine happening is precisely what the court argued
against. The judges overturned pay cable rules on the grounds that
regulation of and restrictions on pay cable should not be enacted
prior to a demonstration that such action is necessary to protect
the public interest.
Cable's growth in the major markets is further stymied by FCC
restrictions which limit the number of distant signals cable sys-
tems can offer and restrict cable retransmission of specific pro-
grams on those signals. Like the pay cable rules, the Commission's
signal carriage and syndicated exclusivity rules were enacted to
protect broadcasters. And, similarly, this protection was granted
absent any factual evidence that such protection was necessary.
The signal carriage rules are simple. They generally limit major
market systems to two distant signals certainly not enough to
provide the additional programs desired by consumers. On top of
his limitation, the syndicated exclusivity rules require newer cable
systems to delete a significant number of individual programs on
these distant channels. The exclusivity rules require systems to
eliminate an average of 30 percent of the programing of those
already limited distant signals.
These rules deprive the consumer of valuable programing, se-
verely inhibit cable viability in major markets and inhibit the
development of new markets. Worst of all, they are based complete-
ly on unsupported claims of potential injury to broadcasters, and
ruin.
I offer the pay cable, signal carriage, and exclusivity rules as
prime examples of the completely unreasonable anticonsumer regu-
latory structure in which cable operators attempt to survive. The
charges cannot be contained nor can they be pinned down. While
we believe it is far too premature to enact any legislation dealing
with siphoning, we have a genuine desire to put this emotional
issue to bed.
Toward the end, the NCTA today-and I would like it entered
into the record, if I could-wrote NAB President Wasilewski, pro-
posing that both associations work together to support legislation
establishing a public interest standard whereby regulation of cable
and broadcast competition is triggered by identifiable public harm.
Such a standard would preclude the type siphoning about which
the NAB seems concerned. Likewise, such a standard would re-
quire that before the FCC could limit the number of TV signals or
programing that we could offer our consumers, there must be
shown to be an identifiable public harm absent such regulation.
Cable can do many things. These restrictions are not necessary.
We hope our friends in broadcasting did recognize that we can
coexist, be profitable, and live happily together while both serving
the public.
PAGENO="0155"
151
We ask you help in elimination of regulatory restraints which
restrict cable's ability to provide greater diversity. We are anxious
to work with the broadcast industry and the Congress so that we
may all better serve the public. Thank you.
Senator CANNON. Well, thank you Mr. Harris for a fine state-
ment. When did you write Mr. Wasilewski on that particular
point?
Mr HARRIS It was today
Senator CANNON. Do you have a copy for the record?
Mr. HARRIS. We have a copy and would like to put it in the
record.
Senator CANNON. This might be something worth considering
because it sounds like you may be interested in trying to prohibit
the type of occurrence that most people feel, that is, the siphoning-
off problem which is, I would say, probably the No. -1 problem.
Mr. HARRIS. Our industry has no intention of siphoning, nobody
seems to believe us, but we certainly would like to work in the
context of this overall regulation toward working this problem out.
Senator CANNON. Absent some agreement or absent some type of
legislation it would seem that the opportunity for mischief is there.
Mr. HARRIS. It perhaps is there.
Senator CANNON. If it is then, that is something, obviously, that
we have to be thinking about.
Mr. HARRIS. We hope to be able to talk in terms of any demon-
strated public harm, for instance, to use an example, back to my
San Diego system, the Padre away games are on a local television
station out there. If our pay-cable operation were to buy those
Padre games we only have 13,000 pay-cable subscribers, so we
would deny them to another 500,000 homes. I think that is clearly
public harm and should be prohibited. We are in favor of that. We
do not want to siphon.
Senator CANNON. Seantor Hollings?
Mr. SCHMIDT. If I may elaborate just a second, Mr. Chairman,
what the current rules do in effect, instead of adding to the public's
viewability of sports programing, under the FCC's pay-cable rules
on sports day, they further restrict the programing because you are
subject to a lot of high watermarks on games that are available
today on network television.
A good example is the national Hockey League, for a variety of
reasons I am sure that the networks didn't get the ratings or
something along those lines, the National Hockey League games
went off broadcast television a few years ago.
But because the rules specifically state that any event that has
been on within 5 years cannot be exhibited on pay-cable, so here is
an example where the public, through our subscribers, has an
interest in sports programing but because of the rules we cannot
put that programing on even after it's been voluntarily taken off
by the networks.
Another example is home box office which is in the programing
business, had to go through a waiver procedure in order to televise
the Wimbleton tennis tournament, because today the semifinals
and finals are televised on network television.
We wanted to provide the American viewing public the sports
programing on all of that competition up to the semifinals and
PAGENO="0156"
152
finals. But because of the rules we had to go through an elaborate
procedure at the FCC in order to obtain them.
Senator CANNON. Senator Hollings.
Senator HOLLINGS (presiding). I am indebted to Senator Cannon
and I apologize to him and the witnesses for my not being here
earlier. But our Budget Committee resolution, as you know, under
law has to come up on May 15. We got to one impasse that holds
the entire House and Senate conferees up and that is category 50-
defense.
I chair that particular task force within the Budget Committee,
held all the hearings, had all the files and everything else. My
Senate colleagues and the Senate, incidentally, Senator Cannon, is
in step with the Senate Armed Services Committee of which you
are the ranking member, with the Senate Appropriations Commit-
tee, and with the House Armed Services and Appropriations Com-
mittee.
The only one out is that Budget Committee with an extremely
low figure. So, we have gotten to an impasse. I just couldn't get
away sooner and I apologize now.
Trying to catch up not having heard all the witnesses, do you
feel, Mr. Harris, Mr. Schmidt, et cetera, that cable or pay-cable TV
is totally private as to be not regulated at all?
Mr. HARRIS. No; I think, No. 1, we have got to be regulated by
the cities in terms of the rights-of-ways we use and the grant made.
Senator HOLLINGS. If you use rights-of-ways some public entity
ought to carry, the airwaves are granted in particular channels to
the regular broadcasters. Since you use that public permit in order
to enter into the market, then you owe some public responsibility,
you think it is only to the cities and not to the FCC?
Mr. HARRIS. Oh, no. I think there is some regulation that is
clearly due from the FCC. I think our problem is they have over-
done it.
Senator HOLLINGS. If you were a Senator, what regulation would
you impose, I understand the inequities and discombobulatión of
FCC rules, I have to agree. We read them several times and no one
can make sense out of them. It is worse than OSHA.
Now, suppose you were the Senator, trying to come back and
write sensible rules or some forfeiture provisions, or some restric-
tions, what do you propose?
Mr. HARRIS. Well, I am not good enough to write rules, but let
me try to get at the heart of the problem if I can and that is really
what we are talking about and what I tried to address in my few
minutes here. But the whole reason that cable is limited in the
product it can offer, be it more channels or whatever, more choice,
is because of an assumed potential negative impact on broadcast-
ing. There has been no factual evidence that cable, in any way, has
had any kind of demonstrable economic impact on broadcasting.
I cited several markets where cable and broadcasters have never
had better years than they did last year. So, it seems to me if I
were looking at the question I would try to look at the facts. And I
would try to see if there had been any damage, and if not, I would
want to know why one person was held back and not another.
Now, if damage occurred, and damage I define as loss of service
to the public, certainly that is where regulation should come in.
PAGENO="0157"
153
Senator HOLLINGS. Taking the testimony we heard yesterday
with respect to the public interest requirements of a regular broad-
caster whereby there are certain requirements that have developed
over the years by~ way of NAB guidelines, FCC rules and regula-
tions, court decisions and otherwise, a certain amount of children's
programing, trying to inhibit the volume of violence and sex pro-
grams and otherwise, the fairness doctrine, public access so that
the public would have some kind of access, should cable TV or pay-
cable respond to the same requirements? In other words, broadcast-
ers say they are required to do all of these things and cable is not.
Would you say, oh, no, we don't mind playing by the same rules,
is that what you are testifying to?
Mr. SCHMIDT. If I could I would like to respond to that.
Senator H0LLING5. Yes.
Mr. SCHMIDT. I think that in order to be candid in that situation
you were describing, I think you have to go back and look at how
cable comes into being.
In the case of broadcasting there is a preemption on the part of
the FCC, there is no other Government entity basically involved in
broadcasting but the FCC rules and regulations.
Now, there are operational problems, I am sure they have,
OSHA, et cetera. I am talking about policy related to the existence
of their business. Contrary, the cable system comes into being
through a franchise granted in a local community whether it is a
municipality, city, county government, et cetera. These also regu-
late rates, so that you are clearly looking at what you can charge
for that service.
Again, we maintain that the marketplace is the proper place for
many of these facts to be disseminated because I think that our
public, our viewers, our subscribers tell us very quickly whether
they are dissatisfied with what they are seeing. They disconnect us.
So, we come into being through a franchise arrangement, then in
some 13, 15 other States we have State regulation piled on top of
that. Then we come to the national level where we have a Federal
procedure we go through, certificates of compliance, and other
checks and balances on our performance.
Senator HOLLINGS. There are a lot of checks and balances at the
Federal level, do you accede to proper ones? Which at the Federal
level do you think proper?
Mr. SCHMIDT. Maintain-that is the justification principally for
the FCC having jurisdiction over cable. We are out there inside a
wire--
Senator HOLLINGS. You use the public highways. You couldn't
get the cable there if there wasn't a public link. If you and I
organized a cable company and tried to run it from here to Rich-
mond, we wouldn't get two blocks down the street were it not for
the right of eminent domain, is that right?
Mr. SCHMIDT. Correct, Senator, but I am saying the local govern-
ment is there to protect the interest in the case of the use of those
right-of-ways.
Senator HOLLINGS. Do you think the local government from spot-
to-spot, area-to-area, can really control? The local station affiliates
maintain their programs come from the networks and they have no
PAGENO="0158"
154
real control over content. The cable operator is in a similar situa-
tion-importing other people's product.
Mr. SCHMIDT. We haven't seen any demonstrable evidence that
they can't effect policy to protect their citizens. I think that what
has happened is because of the potential competition that is in-
volved in cable to the current format of television, this is where I
trigger so many comments of what I think tends to be emotional by
broadcasters.
I think that we are after a different market, we are in the mass-
media business. We don't have to deal with advertising-supported
television. We feel that what the public wants is freedom of choice
in this case.
I don't think that they are getting that because of a variety of
reasons, some of which we touched on.
Senator HOLLINGS. Well, I mean if you brought a boxing bout
from Madison Square Garden down to Washington, D.C., heavens
above, you wouldn't want to go through all the city councils that
that cable would run through, would you?
Mr. SCHMIDT. No, but again, I think what we tended to jump to is
that there is today in existence a closed-circuit system available
that is riot cable. You have through various promotional efforts the
very thing that you are describing in existence that has nothing to
do with cable television.
Senator HOLLING5. You are talking about running off satellites
and otherwise?
Mr. SCHMIDT. I mean, when a Capital Center in Washington. D.C.
is used as a huge theater and they bring via satellite the Ali fight
from the Philippines, there is an example. No, that is not coming
via cable. The Federal Government or city and State is not in-
volved in the presentation of that exhibition. It is the marketplace.
Senator HOLLINGS. Of course, that satellite is again a public
media, and it is being employed. Let's assume then rather than the
city council, it comes by satellite, then you get to the ultimate, the
contention of the other side; namely, that if you come in that way
to those who can pay, then eventually it will erode the services and
the programing to the fellow who can't pay or can't receive the
cable, who is generally being served now.
Everybody agrees, you agree, Mr. Harris agrees, I agree, we have
a pretty good system working. I am worried whether you are being
discriminated against; I am worried whether or not free market
forces cannot operate. I am trying to test in my mind. I am not
smart enough to make a decision on it yet. But as I test it and see
these obligations, expressions you used yesterday, coming on their
back, they built up the studios and all, pay cable doesn't have big
studios, staff, news gathering things, these have all happened,
frankly, without this Congress doing too much.
I rather like it the way it is happening, but I don't want to see
you folks continue to be penalized. I don't want to come around
and by regulation knock it out and find 5 or 10 years from now,
that in the big cities the people have the big shows and they are
getting all that so-called freedom of choice and free market impact,
that is in New York and Washington, D.C.
But, in Orangeburg, S.C., there is no freedom of choice* because
the growth of cable has put local broadcasters out of business. I
PAGENO="0159"
155
compare what I can get in 1977 and in 1987 and where I used to
get certain news and programing and sports, competition has cut
that back because you have come into the market and then Oran-
geburg has a second, third-rate proposition.
That is the kind of thing that the fellow who runs for reelection
has to go back down to Orangeburg and explain. He says:
I put in a bill, I listened to that fellow Schmidt and that fellow named Harris and
we put in a bill to give cable a free market, and now we in South Carolina have got
so much we have got nothing.
When you turn on your TV, you have got junk and you don't get Wide World of
Sports and you don't get all these other programs.
Now, what do you say about that?
Mr. SCHMIDT. Senator, I think that the processes of Government
that we exist under, I think, will protect the public. I don't think
that the public's interest is being served by a denial of the choice.
If, in fact, commercial television as we know it today is going to
change, and the content of that programing is going to diminish,
diminish in the sense that the public in some way is ill-served by
that change, I think that the U.S. Congress is very capable of
stepping in as the representatives of the people and asserting what-
ever authority is necessary to correct that problem.
But, I don't think that we can get there by talking about it as an
imaginable horror; I don't think we can get there by talking about
this in a projected disassembling of what television is today.
I will give you an example in the case of supports. Less than 25
percent of the games today in professional sports leagues of the
National Football League, the National Hockey League, the NBA,
and major league baseball are on network television. We think that
the public would like to have more sports, but because of rules, we
are unable to bring in the other 75 percent of those games, if the
public was in a position to choose.
So I think that as evidenced probably by the sports blackout
rules, which the Congress acted on in a very timely way, I think
that the Congress is in an excellent position to protect the public
interest, when in fact, the public interest is harmed. I don't think
that there is any identifiable harm as evidenced today. And I think
that in the case of Orangeburg, S.C., or any other community
which is so dependent upon television as a means of communica-
tions, they don't have the luxuries of the urban centers that they
can go and exercise choice in a different way, I think that those
are real tests that cable ought to be prepared to deal with and have
evidence of their good intentions, this is a local product in many
instances, we have an obligation under the rules to provide local
programing in markets where we have 3,500 subscribers or more.
So we are doing things in that local market. Unfortunately, I
think most of the information local people have is not coming view
televisions because what they are seeing is the national news as
disseminated by the networks. So I don't think that there is a great
deal of local information passing into the hands of the public today.
I think that there are other means of getting it there.
Senator HOLLINGS. Well, I appreciate it and that is why I am
trying to press you. I would like to get you to write the bill. I would
like for Mr. Wasilewski to write the bill and see what the bills
would look like.
PAGENO="0160"
156
Mr. HARRIS. They would be a little bit different.
Senator HOLLINGS. But you say you are corresponding and you
often get together.
Mr. HARRIS. We wrote Vince Wasilewski today and have request-
ed that the letter and information related there be submitted in
the record, and we are very interested in a show of good faith to
try to find ways to deal with the facts and find a test that we can
all live with and be compatible.
Senator HOLLINGS. I think you are in good shape really. You
have a new committee that is trying to do the right thing.
Thank you, Senator Cannon, a lot. Again, I am sorry I am late. I
appreciate it.
Senator CANNON. Thank you, sir. That concludes the hearings
for today. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
[The statements and letters referred to follow:]
STATEMENT OF HENRY HARRIS, Cox CABLE
My name is Henry Harris. I am president of Cox Cable, a division of Cox
Communications of Atlanta. Cox Communications is both a broadcaster, cable
system operator and publisher. We operate televisions stations in five markets as
well as thirty-eight cable systems, including the nation's largest in San Diego. You
might suspect that involvement in both cable and broadcasting would be contradic-
tory, particularly in light of broadcaster claims of cable's potential to cause the
demise of commercial TV stations. Let me assure you that our cable and broadcast-
ing operations are quite compatible. We are communicators. Whether we communi-
cate on cable or via over-the-air television, our intent is to offer our public the best
in television service. We view broadcasting and cable television as complementary
rather than exclusive offerings. Many other broadcasters apparently feel the same
way since over one third of all cable television systems are owned by broadcasters.
A brief look at the structure of these two industries will support my argument
that cable television and broadcasting are complementary services which can co-
exist . . . profitably.
As you know, broadcast television uses specific frequencies to transmit its pro-
graming over-the-air. These frequencies are sharply defined and limited, with a
specific number of TV channels allocated to each market. Since the number of
television stations is limited, each station is economically compelled to offer pro-
graming which will appeal to the largest mass of people. As a result, there is little
room for diversity or specialization in broadcast television programing.
This "television for the masses" philosophy of broadcasting is reinforced by the
fact that the great majority of all television stations are network affiliates and thus
fill a majority of their broadcast day with national network programing. Approxi-
mately 65% of all programing on affiliated stations is distributed by the parent
network. Programing developed for national distribution must certainly be struc-
tured to appeal to the broadest possible audience in order to meet the needs of the
advertisers who measure success by the number of viewers reached.
Please understand that I am not trying to downplay the importance of over-the-
air broadcasting and the quality of its programing. Broadcasters provide a signifi-
cant portion of the population with high caliber programs, movies and sporting
events. But I do ask you to recognize the additional services cable television systems
can provide: services complementary to basic broadcast fare.
Cable television has moved through several stages of development, all the while
demonstrating an ability to provide additional programing without damage to the
public's access to commercial television. Cable started out simply retransmitting
broadcast signals in rural areas where the over-the-air reception was virtually
impossible. Over the years cable systems moved into less remote areas. In these
markets they not only carried local television stations but also added an additional
service of importing television signals from distant cities. By so doing, cable pro-
vided these smaller communities with increased television diversity and the high
level of television service previously available only in the largest cities.
The acceptance and importance of cable television in these smaller markets is
born out by the numbers: of the 120 smaller TV markets, approximately 70 have
television cable going into at least 30% of the homes. Cable systems have operated
PAGENO="0161"
157
in these smaller markets for many years, offering a wealth of TV signals, as well as
local programing and access channels for use by the community.
Despite this widespread cable penetration, smaller market television stations
remain financially healthy. FCC broadcast financial data shows that small market
TV stations have experienced a revenue growth of 31% during the period 1972-1975,
1975 data being the latest available. This growth compares favorably to the 29%
growth experienced by the total broadcast industry. Recently at the annual conven-
tion of the National Association of Broadcasters, it was forecast that the small
television markets would have a greater profit growth in 1977-78 than broadcasters
in the larger markets.
Today cable operators are attempting to offer service to consumers in metropoli-
tan areas. Initially we believed that these markets could be built with the same
types of services offered in smaller markets. We quickly discovered that the demand
for a retransmission service in a major market with an abundance of local TV
stations was almost nonexistent. The importation of distant signals from other cities
showed promise and has proven to be a saleable commodity in some markets.
However, FCC rules which limit the television signals cable may import and what
programs it may show on those signals have severely limited their value to the
consumer. This is a subject we will address in great detail in your upcoming cable
hearings.
Cable entrepreneurs soon realized that in order to build viable cable systems in
major markets already well-served by local broadcast outlets they would have to
offer new services. In short, cable operators needed a product. Operators reacted to
this need in many ways. I would like to tell you what my company has done.
Cox Cable operates cable television systems in several urban areas. Our system in
San Diego, the largest in the country, is a prime example of the point I've been
trying to make-cable and broadcasting are compatible services and can co-exist
successfully. Broadcast stations provide a basic and important foundation of ser-
vices, with cable systems providing specialized programing of broad diversity.
For a monthly charge of $7.50 the 147,000 households served by Mission Cable TV
receive:1
1. The four local San Diego TV stations.
2. Two Mexican stations, one English language, one Spanish.
3. Nine stations from Los Angeles including a Spanish language station and a
specially programmed business data channel.
4. Locally originated programming including: Local community events, San Diego
State University football, open forum with city and local officials, Local sports
activities, such as horse shows, etc.
5. Local educational channel programmed jointly by the 32 school districts in the
San Diego service area.
6. Public access channel, programmed through the Community Video Center, with
locally produced activities.
7. Municipal information channel, programmed by the city government and pro-
viding up-to-date information on city projects, programs and services.
8. Five automated channels, including a weather channel, stock market channel,
AP news and sports wire, community message channel and a consumer information
channel. The consumer information channel provides comparative price data for the
major supermarkets and drug stores in the San Diego area, giving shoppers easy
access to the information needed to take advantage of the best buys.
We offer all of this and still the local broadcast outlets are showing ever increas-
ing profits and growth. In the period 1967-74 the percentage increase in broadcast
revenues in San Diego exceeded by almost 2½ times that experienced by all U.S.
television stations. Local broadcast income grew at a rate over 3½ times the
national industry growth rate. The San Diego broadcast television market has
enjoyed tremendous audience increases-the sixth fastest growing market in the
nation. Broadcast revenues have followed this growth, increasing 55% between
1972-75, a period during which cable households increased 75%. The San Diego
market television audience was ranked 48 in the nation in 1972, and by 1976 it had
grown to 42nd place. The threat of injury to broadcasters due to cable television has
certainly not materialized in this market.2
Another example of a market where cable and television co-exist compatibly is
San Francisco. Cox Broadcasting owns the independent television station, KTVU, in
San Francisco. The San Francisco market is well served by cable, with just about a
1 See Exhibits D, E, F & G for local newspaper accounts of Mission Cable Services.
2 See Exhibit A, B, & C for data on the growth of broadcast and cable in the market.
20-122 0 - 78 - 11
PAGENO="0162"
158
third of all households subscribing. Many of the cable subscribers in the market also
subscribe to pay cable service. Even with this heavy cable activity in the market,
our independent station continues to show record financial success. KTVU ranks
5th in the nation in its audience level during the important 8-11 pm time period. It
is Cox Broadcasting's leading television station.
My point here is that successful broadcast and cable operations can exist side by
side. Recognizing the real addition to the quality and quantity of television pro-
graming which can be made by cable, I am even more frustrated with the regula-
tory restraints which limit cable television's ability to serve consumers. With every
new programming product developed by cable operators comes the broadcaster's
claim of imminent financial ruin. Regulatory philosophy to date has focused on
immediate protection of broadcast interests, without consideration of either the
substance of their claims or of the impact of such protection on the public's right to
choose.
Pay cable television is an example of my point. A great deal of commotion has
recently surrounded this premium service. For an extra monthly fee, pay cable
subscribers receive a separate channel of high quality programming not available
on commercial TV. This programming includes current movies, sports events,
drama, cultural and children's programs and entertainment specials without com-
mercial interruptions. As I have mentioned, it is precisely this type of diverse
specialized programming from which consumers have a right to choose and which is
so important to major market cable television development.
As I have demonstrated, there is no merit in the argument that cable television
will harm the public interest by limiting the availability of broadcast television.
Those who want to thwart cable television have changed their tune insofar as pay
cable is concerned. Instead of damaging profitability and the viability of local
broadcast outlets those who oppose pay cable charge it will "siphon" away programs
from commercial television. They argued that the public would be greatly harmed
through commercial TV's loss of movies and sporting events, with the collapse of
the broadcast industry looming on the horizon.
The FCC, without any quantitative evidence to support these claims, imposed
strict regulations limiting the quantity and types of programming that pay cable
operators could provide consumers. The rules were opposed by the U.S. Department
of Justice, public interest groups, program suppliers and cable television operators.
On March 25th the U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the pay cable
rules, rejecting all assertations of siphoning, injury to the public and broadcast
industry collapse. In short, the Court found absolutely no basis for restriction of pay
cable development and censured the FCC for acting when no such action was
warranted.
The Court commented: "The Commission's lack of a clear picture (of the pay cable
indurstry and its relationship to broadcasting) is directly attibutable to its own
choice to regulate rather than allow a period of unregulated experimentation in
which data could be generated that could form a predicate for informed agency
action." (Emphasis added.)
Emphasizing its findings, the Court said: "We cannot fathom how the Commission
reached the conclusion that the balance here should be struck in favor of regulation
the only discussion purporting to be an explanation is obviously flawed and is
completely irrelevant to most of the anti-trust issues raised." (footnote omitted)
The Court went on to reject the FCC's basic philosophy of regulating cable
television as a stepchild of the broadcasting industry, observing:
the Commission has in no way justified its position that cable television
must be a supplement to, rather than an equal of, broadcast television. Such an
artificial narrowing of the scope of the regulatory problem is itself arbitrary and
capricious and is ground for reversal." (cit omitted)
Reaction by the anti-cable forces to the court decision was not unexpected: they
just increased the noise level on the assertions the court had already rejected. The
court went to great lengths to point out that no evidence had been submitted
showing existing or potential siphoning of movies or sports events by cable, yet we
continue to hear that siphoning is imminent. The claims continue to be made that
in the not so distant future pay cable will even siphon away such all-American
events as the World Series and the Super Bowl.
These claims are so ridiculous that we are at a loss to refute them. I can tell you
that the cable industry has no desire to restrict the availability of sporting events.
Our intent is just the opposite! We want to offer more games, games which for
various reasons are not covered by broadcast television. I can tell you that a vast
range of witnesses have appeared before various Congressional Committees testify-
ing to the sheer folly of the broadcaster claims that World Series-type events would
be siphoned. Bowie Kuhn has promised the Congress that the World Series would
PAGENO="0163"
159
remain in the domain of commercial television; representatives of the hockey and
basketball leagues have likewise assured the commercial availability of their respec-
tive play-offs and championships.
When you get right down to it, cable television cannot sneak up and "siphon" a
major sporting event off of commercial television. Contracts for the Super Bowl, for
instance, are signed three years in advance. If cable were suddenly going to steal
events like this the public and the Congress would have three years advance notice.
I remember well how it only took both Houses of Congress a couple of weeks to pass
a sports blackout law. I have no doubt such a steamroller would also flatten any
attempt by the cable industry to "siphon" major sports events.
This continued demand by broadcasters for protection from some unseen and hard
to imagine danger is precisely what the court cautioned against. The judges over-
turned the pay cable rules on the grounds that regulation of and restrictions on pay
cable should not be enacted prior to a demonstration that such action is necessary
to protect the public interest. As the court found, such evidence has not yet been
offered.
Cable's growth in the major markets is further stymied by FCC restrictions which
limit the number of distant signals cable systems can offer and restrict cable
retransmission of specific programs on those signals. Like the pay cable rules, the
Commission's signal carriage and syndicated exclusivity rules were enacted to pro-
tect broadcasters. And, similarly, this protection was granted absent any factual
evidence that such protection was necessary.
The signal carriage rules are simple, they generally limit major market systems
to two distant signals, certainly not enough to provide the additional programs
desired by consumers. On top of this limitation, the syndicated exclusivity rules
require newer cable systems in major markets to delete a significant number of
individual programs on these distant channels. The exclusivity rules require sys-
tems to eliminate an average of about 30% of the programming of those already
limited distant signals. As we will explain in great detail during this Subcommit-
tee's cable hearings next month, the programming blacked out due to exclusivity is
quite~ often programming which is not available locally or is available only in a
radically different time period than it would appear on the distant station.
These rules deprive the consumer of valuable programming, severely inhibit cable
viability in major markets and inhibit the development of new markets. Worst of
all, they are based completely on unsupported claims of potential injury and ruin.
I offer the pay cable, signal carriage and exclusivity rules as prime examples of
the completely unreasonable anti-consumer regulatory structure in which cable
operators attempt to survive. I reiterate, cable is a service complementary to broad-
casting. We offer services and programs which local broadcast outlets are simply
unable to provide. The growth and good health of cable and pay cable television
does not signal the end of the profitability of over-the-air broadcasting.
Look again at San Diego. Our system offers San Diego State University football
games. These games have never been televised on broadcast TV because their
appeal is too limited and would not generate the revenues the broadcaster would
receive from other more mass appeal programming. Yet these games are of great
interest to many San Diego residents. If this is siphoning, so be it. Our San Diego
cable system also televises the Independence Day parade, city council meetings and
local beauty pageants. Broadcast TV simply can't or won't do these. And we bring in
three Spanish language channels, a valuable commodity to the 18% Spanish sur-
named population in the market.
Cable can do many things. However, we are greatly frustrated by a regulatory
scheme which stifles our growth at every turn. These restrictions on our ability to
offer the services desired by the American consumer are not necessary. Let is stand
back for a moment and take a long look at cable television and its relationship with
broadcast television. Let us examine the services provided by both industries and
particularly those services within cable's potential but currently prohibited by FCC
regulation. And let us examine the financial state of the broadcast industry and
explore the validity of its claims of adverse cable impact. I believe we will see that
cable and broadcasting can operate side by side and in good health. And I believe
that the public will greatly benefit from the additional services the cable industry
can provide.
We hope our friends in broadcasting will recognize that we can live happily
together while we both serve the public. We ask your help in the elimination of the
regulatory restraints which restrict cable's ability to provide greater television
diversity. We are anxious to work with the broadcast industry and the Congress so
that we all may better serve the public.
PAGENO="0164"
160
TELEVISION STATION, NET TOTAL REVENUE, 1967-74
National San Diego
Percent annual Percent annual
Revenue increase increase Revenue
1967 $1,322,122,000 $7,130,000
1968 1,504,484,000 13.8 21.9 8,688,000
1969 1,652,150,000 9.8 4.3 9,065,000
1970 1,863,616,000 12.8 7.3 9,729,000
1971 1,656,215,000 11.1 3.9 10,113,000
1972 1,908,129,000 15.2 28.8 13,027,000
1973 2,059,934,000 8.0 25.2 16,314,000
1974 2,230,297,000 8.3 15.0 18,764,000
Total 68.7 163.2
Note: Increase in net total revenues by San Diego stations have exceeded all stations (nationally) by 138 percent.
Source: FCC TV Broadcast Financial Data.
TELEVISION STATION, NET INCOME, 1967-74
National San Diego -
Percent annual Percent annual
Net income increase increase Net income
1967 $358,800,000 $1,529,000
1968 438,400,000 22.2 13.2 1,731,000
1969 460,900,000 5.1 36.6 1,097,000
1970 403,700,000 12.4 27.3 1,396,000
1971 333,500,000 17.4 2.5 1,361,000
1972 441,300,000 32.3 52.8 2,080,000
1973 468,200,000 6.1 70.5 3,547,000
1974 512,000,000 9.4 12.5 3,992,000
Total 42.7 161.1
Note: Increase in net income by San Diego stations have exceeded all stations (nationally) by 28 percent.
Source: FCC TV broadcast financial data.
PAGENO="0165"
REVENUES
Source:
FCC TV Broadcast Financial Data
110
100
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-National
-----San Diego
-20
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
H
1973 1974 1975
PAGENO="0166"
140
NET INCOME
130
Source:
120 Fcc TV Broadcast Financial Data
110
100 /
90 /
80 /
70 1
60
IN)
20
10
-10
-20
50
40
30
I
/
-30
/
\
/
National
-~San Diego
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974
1975
PAGENO="0167"
120% ~ .
MISSION CABLE IV, EC. ~ 92,226
110 METROPOLITAN SAN DIEGO
COMPARED TO NATIONAL
100 C2\TV SUBSCRIBER /
GROWTH
90
70,842
80
70
60
55,732
50 51,180
40 46612
~- --.. 3000,0
30 ~- ~ - _~~4,5 00, 000 ~ 000
20 21,000 39135 -5~~OO,OOO V~ ~ 8,700,000
---4-6,000,000
10
35,079
0% 32,300
1957 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
N
N
H
B
H
PAGENO="0168"
164
[N0TE.-Exhibits D through G were not reproducible.]
NATIONAL CABLE TELEvIsIoN ASSOCIATION,
May 10, 1977.
The Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, U.S. Senate, 233 Russell Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the course of your hearings on broadcasting there
have been many claims by broadcast witnesses about the impact on the public of
pay cable television. These arguments are essentially the same arguments the U.S.
Court of Appeals rejected in its HBO v. FCC decision which overturned the FCC's
pay cable rules.
Nevertheless, so that your committee may have a fully documented hearing
record, we submit the following:
1. Correspondence from NCTA to NAB proposing a legislative standard of identifi-
able public harm as the basis for all regulation of cable-broadcast television compe-
tition. Such a standard would remove the "siphoning" threat broadcasters allege
while at the same time insuring that all cable regulation is not designed merely to
protect the profits of broadcasters.
2. A white paper, "The Facts About Pay Cable Television's Impact on Current TV
Programming," which addresses the issues raised in broadcaster testimony.
3. NCTA's new information booklet, "Pay Cable Television . . . The Right to
Compete," which discusses the facts behind pay cable and how it will offer consum-
ers more, not less, in television programming.1
4. A copy of the U.S. Appeals Court's decision in HBO v. FCC, striking down the
FCC's pay cable rules.1
We hope this information is helpful to you and the subcommittee.
Sincerely,
ROBERT L. SCHMIDT,
President.
Enclosures.
NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION,
May 10, 1977.
Mr. VINCENT WASILEWSKI,
National Association of Broadcasters,
1771 N Street NW, Washington, D.C.
DEAR VINCE: Recently, your organization has accelerated its claims that pay cable
television will deprive the public of programming now seen on commercial televi-
sion, notably sports events. These spectres of "siphoning" are unfounded and unwar-
ranted. The National Cable Television Association (NCTA) has repeatedly testified
before Congress and the Federal Communications Commission that pay cable televi-
sion's goal is to expand, not restrict, viewer choice in television programming,
including sports events.
Now, however, the National Association of Broadcasters is calling on the Congress
to pass legislation to permit restrictions on pay cable television on the grounds that
the public's interest in receiving commercially televised sports and other program-
ming must be protected. While we strongly disagree that pay cable television poses
potential harm to the public interest, we, nonetheless, propose a legislative standard
that would eliminate the situation about which you are concerned. This standard
would form the foundation for all regulation of cable-broadcast television competi-
tion. It is simple and straightforward: Let public interest be the determining factor.
Under such a standard, a demonstration of harm to the public as a result of the
involuntary removal of existing programming from commercial television could
prohibit any of the kinds of "siphoning" that you allege may take place.
This identifiable public harm standard would also prohibit any regulatory restric-
tions on the television signals or programming cable consumers may or may not see
unless it is demonstrated that this added diversity results in harm to the public.
In short, we are proposing a uniform public interest standard governing all
aspects of cable-broadcast television competition. This standard would not only solve
your concerns about pay cable siphoning, but also would insure that consumers
have the full benefit of the greatest diversity in television programming.
NCTA is ready to support legislation establishing identifiable harm to the public
interest as the foundation for regulation of all cable-broadcast competition. We hope
1 publications are in the subcommittee files.
PAGENO="0169"
165
that NAB will do likewise. Together, we both can support fair and equitable legisla-
tion that places the public interest above all proprietary interests.
Sincerely,
ROBERT L. SCHMIDT.
THE FACTS ABOUT PAY CABLE TELEVISION'S IMPACT ON CURRENT NATIONAL
PROGRAMMING
The National Association of Broadcasters has asked the Congress to take legisla-
tive action to prevent pay cable television from "siphoning" local sports from
commercial television. In Senate testimony, Vincent Wasilewski, NAB President,
said that he was concerned that the public "may lose some prine programming to
pay cable television". The cable television industry shares his concerns, but finds his
fears unfounded.
There are two key terms that must be defined in order to understand what is at
issue in this debate and whether or not pay cable television poses a threat to the
public's access to programming on commercial television.
The first term is pay cable television. Pay cable television is an additional service
offered by cable operators to cable subscribers who, for an extra monthly fee,
receive first run motion pictures, variety entertainment, and sports events not seen
on commercial television. All programming on pay cable is presented unedited and
without commercial interruptions. Today, slightly more than a million Americans in
45 states have chosen to subscribe to pay cable television services.
In short, pay cable television is a form of viewer supported television that can
open the doors to greater diversity in TV home entertainment and broaden the
range of programming choices available to American families. Contrary to what the
broadcasters contend, pay cable will supplement commercial TV, not supplant it.
The second term is siphoning. Siphoning is a word used by the broadcasters as a
scare tactic to suggest that pay cable television will divert the best programming
from commercial television and deprive the public of entertainment it now receives
on so-called "free television". Siphoning is a myth that the broadcasters have
conjured up in order to restrict the growth and development of pay cable television
and, thereby, foreclose competition in providing televised home entertainment to
the public.
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals overturned FCC restric-
tions on pay cable television of feature films over three years old and certain
categories of sports events. The FCC had stated as its primary justification for the
pay cable rules, the need to prevent pay cable siphoning of movies and sports
programming away from commercial television.
In striking down the FCC rules, the Court addressed particularly the so-called
siphoning rationale. The Court, in a unanimous 105 page opinion, stated that the
FCC had presented no evidence whatsoever that siphoning poses a threat to the
public interest. The Court declared, "The Commission has not put itself into a
position to know whether the alleged siphoning phenomenon is real or merely a
fanciful threat to those not served by cable. Instead, the Commission had indulged
in speculation and innuendo."
The cable television industry submits that this is exactly what the broadcasters
have engaged in-speculation and innuendo. The Congress should not take any
legislative action based on the self-serving assertions of an involved industry. Con-
gress should legislate on the facts, and in the public's interest.
What are the facts concerning this siphoning controversy?
Fact No. 1: The so-called siphoning charge was found to be totally without merit
by the U.S. Court of Appeals in its March 25 decision.
Fact No. 2: The siphoning argument has been thoroughly examined by a number
of impartial government agencies that concluded, as the Court did, that siphoning
poses no threat whatsoever to the public interest. For instance, the Justice Depart-
ment said in testimony before the FCC during pay cable rulemaking, "To begin
with, present consideration of any potential harm from pay cable must necessarily
be carried out in a void for the factual record before the Commission is barren of
any credible evidence that siphoning has happened, or more importantly, is going to
happen."
The House Communications Subcommittee staff report, "Cable Television, Prom-
ise vs. Regulatory Performance," also addressed itself to the siphoning accusation.
The report concluded, "We believe that pay cable can potentially contribute greatly
to the public interest by offering a viable alternative to the advertiser supported
system of over-the-air broadcasting."
The NAB states that it's deepest concern is that some sports events may be taken
off of commercial television and shown exclusively on pay cable television. Increased
availability and diversity of sports programming is of major concern to the cable
television industry; however, as noted in testimony before the Congress, the pay
PAGENO="0170"
166
cable industry has no intention whatsoever in purchasing the World Series, Super
Bowl, or any sport's championship events of this caliber for exclusive exhibition on
pay cable. We recognize that these attractions belong in the public domain and we
will not attempt to alter that fact. Indeed, even if an attempt were made by the pay
cable industry to purchase these events, they must be contracted for years in
advance and, the Congress or the FCC would have ample authority and time to
block such a transaction.
On the question of local sports siphoning, it is important that we again separate
fact from speculation. Mr. Wasilewski has argued that the pay cable operator will
someday be able to outbid the broadcaster for professional sports.
Again, what are the facts?
Fact No. 1: The vast majority of cities with professional baseball, football, basket-
ball, or hockey franchises are not cabled to any significant degree. Most sport
franchises are located in urban cities that today, are not viable cable markets.
Fact No. 2: It is sheer speculation to suggest that pay cable operators will be able
to outbid local broadcasters for the television rights to professional sports, or indeed,
any programming. The Court of Appeals specifically addressed this question in its
decision, stating, "~ * * the Commission did not consider whether conventional
television broadcasters could pay more for feature film and sports material than at
present without pushing their profits below a competitive return on investments
and consequently, it could not properly conclude that siphoning would occur because
it would not know whether or how much broadcasters, faced with competition,
would increase their expenditures by reducing alleged monopoly profits."
The Court went on the refute the broadcasters' contention that consumers who
lived in areas that were not cabled or who could not afford pay cable television
would suffer a loss of programming. The Court said, "We have similar difficulties
with the second cardinal assumption that siphoning would lead to loss of films and
sports programming for audiences not served by cable systems or too poor to
subscribe to pay cable."
"To reach such a conclusion", the decision said "the Commission must assume
that cable firms once having purchased exhibition rights to a program will not
respond to market demands to sell the rights for viewing in those areas that cable
firms do not reach. We find no discussion in the record supporting such an assump-
tion. Indeed, a contrary assumption would be more consistent with economic theory
since it would prima facie be to the advantage of cable operators to sell broadcaster
rights to conventional television stations in regions of the country where no cable
service existed."
This issue was also examined by the House Communications Subcommittee staff
report. The report clearly pointed out that the marketing sequence would dictate
that sports and movies remain available to both pay cable and commercial televi-
sion. "The common staples of pay and conventional television are films and sports",
the report stated. "The film producers assert that they have no intentions of
withholding their product from conventional television; rather they see an orderly
progression of sales to motion picture theaters, to pay television, and finally to
conventional television, the latter because it supplies vitally needed further rev-
enues. Sports entreprenuers similarly state that they will not withdraw program-
ming from conventional television-that they seek an additional box office dividend.
There is everything to gain and nothing to lose by testing there assurances."
The sports entreprenuers have gone on record before the Congress that they will
not remove their games from conventional television for exclusive exhibition on pay
cable. In testimony before the House Communications Subcommittee in June of
1976, Baseball Commissioner Kuhn said, "Baseball believes that pay cable will offer
an opportunity to supplement the games already offered to the public on conven-
tional television not to substitute for our current television." He added, "Baseball
believes that the continuity of over-the-air sports will in no way be jeopardized by
making our regular season games available to pay cable."
NAB charges that the rising costs of sports franchises will force them into
exclusive pay cable arrangements. In reality, the opposite is true without "siphon-
ing" any games, pay cable can provide the additional revenues that the sports
industry needs to meet its rising costs. The new box office provided by pay cable will
increase sports programming, not curtail it. Were it not for pay cable, for example,
many hockey games would not be seen by the public since the networks for econom-
ic reasons refuse to carry any NHL regular season games.
There are two major questions in this controversy. Will the public suffer a loss of
programming as a result of the growth and development of pay cable television?
And, is there a need for prior restraint legislation on pay cable when there is
currently only speculation and innuendo to support such an unprecedented action?
The answer to both questions is no. In the words of Senator Ernest Hollings,
PAGENO="0171"
167
Chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, "when it come down to the situa-
tion in pay cable TV, I don't see for the life of me why we in this country do not
allow this particular advancement to run free for awhile and see what happens."
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the hearings were adjourned, to re-
convene Wednesday, May 11, 1977.]
PAGENO="0172"
PAGENO="0173"
TELEVISION BROADCAST POLICIES
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1977
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE
AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee was reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at
9 a.m. in room 235 of the Rayburn Senate Office Building, Hon.
Bob Packwood presiding.
Senator PACKWOOD. The hearing will come to order, please.
The first witness this morning is Bill Bradbury, who is the news
director at KCBY in Coos Bay, Oreg.
Bill, you are on.
STATEMENT OF BILL BRADBURY, NEWS DIRECTOR, KCBY-TV
Mr. BRADBURY. Thank you, Senator Packwood. It is a pleasure to
be here.
I am not here as a representative of myself or my station, but
rather a representative of a group of people in Oregon who attend-
ed a series of TV townhall meetings in our coverage area. We are
on the south coast of Oregon and we held nine townhall meetings
in the month of March to discuss with people in our coverage area
their thoughts about television, both national television and local
television.
What I would like to do is show you a 15-minute videotape that
is a summary of the comments that people at these townhall
meetings made in March to get a feel for what the television
consumer has to say about television.
Senator PACKWOOD. All right.
Mr. BRADBURY. The first thing you will see is a 30-second promo
we used on the air to advertise the townhall meetings, then the
townhall meeting comments will begin.
[Film.]
VOICE. Television is a major part of our lives. The average American family
spends 6 hours every day watching TV, but we rarely get a chance to talk back or
with those who make TV what it is. I will be holding a series of TV townhall
meetings to hear how you feel about telvision and how you would like to see it
changed. The TV town hall meetings will be held throughout KCBY's coverage area
on the coast. Watch your TV town hall meeting in your area.
VOICE. I think TV is here to stay. We are not going to get rid of that and because
of that I think family life has been changed greatly over the past few years and in
many cases probably we don't really have a communication and doing of things
together as a family as in years gone by before the TV came on.
For this reason, I would like to see the TV programing so that families can be
together during those hours when the children are out of school and they are
(169)
PAGENO="0174"
170
together as a family, because obviously that is where they are going to be, is
watching, TV.
VOICE. It has broadened our younger generation a great deal. They are more
knowledgeable in every field and about the world and everything in the world than
my generation was, or anyone before TV.
But I do think the younger people now, they are not reading. They are not
learning how to read; they are not learning how to communicate. They sit around
and watch that TV 4 hours a night, and they are losing the art of communication.
VOICE. Another thing that bothers me is the commercials. They make us feel like,
well, they think we are idiots, that we believe them; and I also think they tend to
teach our children to lie, because some of them are just lies. And I wish there was a
way that we could just get them to make sure that their advertising is true.
VOICE. They thought that sex and violence is their new play toy so everything has
to have so much sex and so much violence in it, and pretty soon they are going to
get tired of it. I don't know what they are going to find next, but they are going to
get tired of it. By that time we are the ones taking the punishment. It is not a thing
to play around with.
VOICE. I can remember when I was a boy and "Gone With the Wind" came out
and they said the word "damn." Everybody in the theater gasped. And over the
years TV and movies have gradually pushed more and more sex and violence.
Young people growing up now think it is an every day go. It is not in my book. It
really turns me off.
VoICE. Also I don't believe that sex is a spectator sport. I don't think my kids need
to see that. I also object to violence very, very much.
VOICE. For a while there, there were getting to be too many police and doctor
stories. It was getting so you could turn your TV on at 8 o'clock, watch a guy get
shot and at 9 o'clock, watch him get the bullet taken out.
VOICE. There is violence in the world and I don't think that we should shut it out,
because there is violence, but there isn't enough positive things to counteract all of
this negativism.
VOICE. I grew up in Gene Autry, Tom Mix days and it used to be the good guys
won out, but it seems to me like the new shows, they make the villain the hero
nowadays and I don't think that is good for kids to watch.
VOICE. If you are going to teach a lesson, teach a good one.
VOICE. My biggest complaint is like most people, I get awful tired of the monotony
of police stories and crime dramas.
VOICE. Police stories-makes me feel like somewhere in this country there is a
police state, but it sure isn't here and that isn't real to me.
VOICE. I am opposed to violence. I am tired of police shows. I don't want to seem
them any more. I have seen enough of them already. As far as allowing my child to
watch TV, I would much rather see my child watch two people making love on TV
as somebody blowing some guy's brains out, which is legal to show the guys blowing
the brains out and not legal to show two people making love on TV.
VOICE. Well, those police programs are sort of violent for kids' taste.
VOICE. The police shows that are all the same, or medical shows that are all the
same, or children's shows are so boring.
VOICE. I like them.
VOICE. I know. You have no taste. It's a waste of time, most of it.
VOICE. And you know what I do on a weekend morning.
VOICE. Do you watch Saturday morning cartoons?
VOICE. Yes.
VOICE. What do you do?
VOICE. First I get up.
VOICE. That's a good start.
VOICE. Naturally. I start my day. Then I watch cartoons. Then I have breakfast
and then I watch cartoons until they are over with. Then I go play, and then when
the Saturday programs come on, like the night programs, for instance, I always
watch them with my mother.
VOICE. But I do get upset about everybody saying we have to have family hour; we
have to have this; we have to have that so the kids might not see it. Heaven forbid
they see something. It is up to me to decide what she watches and I would rather
not have to watch 90 million hours of Walt Disney just on the chance that she
might see something that might upset her.
VOICE. I did not permit my children at any time to watch stuff that was objection-
able as far as I was concerned or that was too suggestive or anything else. I feel
that many parents who have things against television and the violence and the bad
influence on their children are simply being neglectful of their responsibilities as
far as the children are concerned.
PAGENO="0175"
171
VOICE. I don't like them to come home. If nothing else, it is just to preserve them
from the habit of being addicted to that television, so we-have now they go out and
play or they play games or they-we read or something like that, then in the
evening if we want to relax and watch television, that's fine.
VOICE. As far as what I see as being the basic problem in our community, it's lack
of communication amongst home and family, and certainly a TV set does play a role
in that. It does break down, neighbors-you don't sit on your porch and eat water-
melon or whatever they did before they had a television set. Now they sit inside and
eat that new candy that blows up in your mouth.
VoICE. You don't act in watching it. You react. You become a follower. And of
course, it is possible to create material that can cause you to think. It is also
possible to create material that can mold the mind.
VOICE. I think that watching them and never letting anything change your mind,
never letting anything come across your mind, nothing wasn't getting in front of me
from that screen, is-I hope I don't offend anybody-is making a bunch of television
idiots.
VOICE. I can remember when TV first started and it was voices just like talking
pictures, you know. It was great, right there in your home you could see people, but
that novelty to me is-people have got away from so much the novelty. I think it is
the greatest education tool that we have got in your home.
VOICE. A lot of people allow their children to watch as much television as they
want instead of steering them in the direction of an educational experience. Frank-
ly, most of television is not an educational experience.
VoICE. It is a helpless feeling, because there is just nothing that is decent for
children and there is hardly anything decent for adults, in my opinion, but particu-
larly preschoolers in this community need educational television programs. They
need them.
VOICE. Teachers are now having to compete with so many other types of media.
They are beginning to be almost like an actor to get somebody's attention in a
classroom. So there is an effect, I think, that probably has had one of the greatest
impacts. If you are a teacher, if you don't teach me in the classroom and keep my
interest up, my enthusiasm up, I can always turn you off and turn the TV on. That
kind of attitude has come out from the students.
VOICE. TV could be one of the finest educational instruments in the world and it
is not being used at all in the full sense. The thing that disturbs me mostly about
TV, the people who are running it in New York are unmindful of the fact that the
airwaves belong to the people and the people are apathetic and they don't pay too
much attention. But the TV owners who make the programs forget they have a
responsibility to the listeners and they certainly have a responsibility to put out
better material and programs than they are putting out today.
VOICE. They are showing TV shorts about 5 seconds each.
VOICE. You should always remember TV is a private enterprise. They are there to
make money. If they couldn't make money, they wouldn't be there. They are not
there particularly to entertain you and I.
VOICE. We buy those things that attract the viewer. Our entire broadcast today is
based on the number of viewers we can get versus someone else. The program is
designed to garner a major share of the audience in order to merchandise some-
body's product and the end result is if that program doesn't sell products, it isn't
going to survive.
VOICE. And I hear the big percentage of people say, hey, they cancelled this show.
I really liked it. How come they cancelled it? Somebody says, well, the Nielson
ratings say it's down the tube. Where's these Nielson ratings coming from? Certain-
ly not from the same group we are circulating with. Maybe there should be four or
five Nielson families in this area.
VOICE. I think it is something that is fed to us by the same bunch of people who
make the TV shows, who make the advertisements, would have to keep us in what
they consider a place of fear and second best.
VOICE. Well, I would prefer that instead of these things coming from New York or
Timbuktu or wherever they come from, that the station here do some-do more
local production.
VOICE. How does it come about that so much of the input into the TV, I mean, 72
percent comes from New York and 20-some-odd percent also comes from Hollywood
and New York, I mean why isn't it that you don't have more time to just devote to
what is happening around here?
VOICE. I come from the big city, OK, where all the programs are originated, up
until 5 years ago. There was no cable TV, but there was no local TV. We never saw
a high school football game or high school basketball game or anything else and,
PAGENO="0176"
172
therefore, I think that if you guys really don't get on the ball, you are missing the
boat on a good thing for an awful lot of people in this area.
VOICE. So my advice or encouragement, what I would like to see in the local
programing is that we be aware that the television is a very unique and wonderful
instrument if it is used properly and out of Eugene where we have 25 percent out of
the locally and where we have 3½ percent, that we would really be sensitive to
building the character of the people of our communities rather than tearing it
down.
VOICE. I honestly think, all of us, and let's face it, all of us are guilty of allowing
television to pay to-to have too much of an impact on our everyday life. We sit
here and we gripe and we moan and groan about television, what it does to us, what
it does to our children, and yet that box comes on every morning and stays on all
day long and we watch it.
VoICE. Now, I am not saying all of us, but the majority of us do. I think we
should, all of us, be more critical. We should care more and we should say once in a
while, or maybe more than once in a while, that is not for me. Off.
Mr. BRADBURY. TV is over.
It is obvious people have a lot to say about television. It is
certainly something that concerns them.
As a local TV station, we held these obviously to find out more
about our viewing area and we were specifically concerned about
what we could do to make television better.
Obviously we can't do much, as probably the fifth smallest televi-
sion station in America, to change NBC, CBS, or ABC, but there
were some results that were intangible from the townhalls, but you
could perceive them.
The viewers in our coverage area seem to have an altered per-
ception of our TV station now. They view the station more as their
own, as a community resource that they can tap. They don't just
view it as something coming into their homes separate from them-
selves.
And those of us involved in producing local television have been
changed very much by it.
To know that there is an actively involved and concerned audi-
ence improves the quality of the programs we produce, knowing
the audience wants more local programing, increases our efforts,
and to know the programs are part of the community increases the
integrity of those programs.
But there is another issue here. That is, how can the TV town-
halls be used by television stations in other markets.
They may, in fact, be an exportable concept that could be used
under the Federal Communications Commission's requirements for
community ascertainment.
Perhaps this is a more public form of community probing that
could be useful in the license renewal process.
Since television licenses are a publicly sanctioned monopoly, we
must walk a fine line between constitutional freedoms and the
public obligation of that license.
TV townhall meetings may be one way to increase public respon-
siveness as required by a TV license without increasing Govern-
ment intervention or regulation in programing decisions.
Senator PACKWOOD. I am curious about your selection of the
people you put on. With one or two exceptions, they were all
negative comments about television, critical, critical of programing,
and yet, obviously, they all continually watch television.
Was this a good random cross section? Was almost everybody
that you interviewed critical?
PAGENO="0177"
173
Mr. BRADBURY. I think generally speaking they certainly started
out critical, particularly about network entertainment. At this
point they were fairly critical. I think partly because people have
heard so much about sex and violence, they almost felt that was
what they were expected to say about sex and violence.
When it came to areas like the news, and this included local
news and national news, they were very generally supportive and
wanted that continued as an important service that they needed.
I think the negativity comes from the fact that people have
never had the opportunity to consider what they do want on televi-
sion.
Senator PACKWOOD. What I am curious about now, they are
negative and yet they are very typical of the audience that watches
the shows that they are criticizing.
Do they consciously, when they watch them, think, "I don't like
this show, but I will watch it anyway"?
Mr. BRADBURY. Well, I can't speak for all of them. From the ones
that mentioned this, they say, yes, they found themselves watching
television, though they knew they didn't want to watch the show.
You know, it is this habit that has developed to watch television
and it has been pointed out, for example, ratings tell the network
what people don't like, but they don't necessarily tell a network
what people want. And that is, I think, a symptom of that.
In other words, it is easy to criticize, but it took people near the
end of every meeting to get to the point where they could even
consider what they want on television because they have never
been asked that before.
Senator PACKWOOD. What they want-you mentioned more local
programing. Did they say what they wanted in the way of program-
ing?
Mr. BRADBURY. Of course, I was a newsman, so we were talking
from that perspective. But they wanted anything that had to do
with their area, instead of Los Angeles, New York, or "Streets of
San Francisco."
I think this would be true anywhere in the country, anything
that had to do with their town, the life they are used to, the
loggers, fishermen, and so on.
Senator PACKWOOD. Can you afford to do that?
Mr. BRADBURY. Only to a limited extent.
You know, we try to do the local news, we try to do half-hour
specials.
Now, one of the things that has grown out of this, we are
starting to work with the community college and community
groups much more because there is clearly a desire for more local
programing, we now feel more at ease to go to these groups and
work with them to produce programing that may not be real slick,
but it will be local and it will be interesting to local audiences.
Senator PACKWOOD. What do you generally perceive after having
gone through this; if you were not the fifth smallest station in the
United States but were in New York producing for NBC, what
would you change based on what you are learning from this town-
hail experience?
Mr. BRADBURY. I would change the way the networks produce
programs. I don't mean content. Right now, essentially all the
20-122 0 - 78 - 12
PAGENO="0178"
174
programing that Americans watch, or 70 percent of it, comes
through a system that is very centralized. It comes through New
York and Los Angeles. I mean that is basically where it comes
from.
There is a small number of production companies and there is a
group of people in New York that make the decisions as to which
programs to buy.
I would like to see a more regionalized production system. I
would like to see the best local programing seen on a regional basis
and the best regional programing seen on a national basis along
with national production, not in substitution for it.
I think we need to get more programing that comes from, in a
sense, the grassroots.
We need to get programing produced for a particular audience
and then the best of that could be seen; the best of Coos Bay should
be seen by the rest of Oregon, the best of Oregon should be seen by
the Northwest, and the best of the Northwest should be seen by the
country.
Senator PACKWOOD. This is an argument cable TV makes, that
they can produce local shows for local areas.
Mr. BRADBURY. There is a cable system that has Coos Bay pretty
well saturated. They use the community college as their access.
Community college runs an access channel. I don't think you can
say it has a large viewership.
Senator PACKWOOD. Are they doing a lot of local programing?
Mr. BRADBURY. No. I think they are probably doing 4 or 5 hours
a week.
Senator PACKWOOD. I don't have any other questions.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Good luck with this.
[The attachment referred to follows:]
TV TOWN HALL MEETINGS,
uN KCBY-TV, Spring 1977.
Television is a major part of our lives, with the average American family watch-
ing an average of over six hours of television every day. But people rarely get an
opportunity to talk back or with those who make TV what it is.
KCBY-TV provided just such an opportunity at a series of "TV Town Hall
meetings" or Oregon's South Coast in March of 1977.
KCBY-TV News Director Bill Bradbury conducted nine meetings in local commu-
nities throughout KCBY's coverage area. Each Town Hall session focused on televi-
sion, with participants being asked to share their ideas on America's most pervasive
medium. From the meetings, KCBY is attempting to develop local television pro-
gramming that is more responsive to the community it serves.
A videotape condensing an entire 19 hour broadcast day into just under ten
minutes was shown at the start of each meeting to spark discussion. KCBY-TV staff
members demonstrated the portable mini-cam equipment, and how it can be used
for local programming. Then the floor was opened to a Town Hall style discussion of
television. The sessions were videotaped for broadcast on the local news, and eventu-
al inclusion in a KCBY-TV public affairs special report. In addition, each partici-
pant was asked to fill out a questionnaire on their programming preferences.
Comments and criticisms generated at the TV Town Hall meetings will be for-
warded to the Federal Communications Commission as part of KCBY-TV's public
file.
The fifteen minute videotape prepared for the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Communications is an edited summary of comments made at all nine TV Town Hall
meetings. Concerns expressed about television include too much sex and violence,
misleading advertizing, impact on family and community life, lack of educational
value for children, and a desire for more local programming.
PAGENO="0179"
175
IMPACT
The results of the TV Town Hall meetings are intangible yet perceivable.
Viewers in KCBY's coverage area seem to have an altered perception of the
station. They now view the station more as theirs, more as a community resource
they can tap.
Those of us involved in producing local television have also been changed. To
know there is an actively involved and concerned audience improves the quality. To
know the audience wants more local programming increases the effort. To know the
programs are part of the community increases the integrity.
MODEL
TV Town Hall meetings may be an exportable concept to other television mar-
kets. The Federal Communications Commission requires community ascertainment
for license renewal. Perhaps this more public form of community probing could be
useful in the renewal process.
Since television licenses are a publicly sanctioned monopoly of the airwaves,
television stations and the government must walk a fine line between constitutional
freedoms and public obligation. TV Town Hall meetings may be one way to increase
public responsiveness as required by a TV license without increasing government
intervention or regulation in programming decisions.
APPENDIX-TV TOWN HALL MEETING DATES AND LOCATIONS
Date Location Population
Mar. 7 Coos Bay 14,000
Mar. 8 Myrtle Point 2,500
Mar. 10 Bandon 2,000
Mar. 14 Charleston (1)
Mar. 16 Reedsport 4,000
Mar. 17 Coquille 4,500
Mar. 21 Gold Beach 1,500
Mar. 22 Powers 800
Mar. 23 North Bend 9,000
°tinincorporated.
Note -KCBY TV Coos Bay is an affiliate of [uiene Television Inc KVAL TV Channel 13 Eugene Oreg KPIC TV Channel 4 Boseburg Oreg
KBCI-TV Channel 2, Boise, Idaho.
Senator PACKWOOD. Dr. Rothenberg.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG, PROFESSOR
OF PSYCHIATRY AND PEDIATRICS, DIRECTOR, CHILD PSY-
CHIATRY-PEDIATRICS LIAISON SERVICES, UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND CHILDREN'S OR-
THOPEDIC HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, SEATTLE,
WASH.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. Senator Packwood, my name is Dr. Michael B.
Rothenberg. I am professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the
University of Washington School of Medicine and the Children's
Orthopedic Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle, Wash.
I appreciate this opportunity to present to you my concerns
about some of the deleterious effects of current commercial televi-
sion programing practices on television viewers, particularly chil-
dren and adolescents. I speak to you as a father of three children
and as a pediatrician and child psychiatrist who has worked with
literally hundreds of children and adolescents from every kind of
background and in every type of physical and emotional health and
illness situation for nearly 25 years.
I also appreciate the opportunity to place into your records, as
appendices to this statement, the formal resolutions of concern
PAGENO="0180"
176
about the effects of television on children and youth which have
been generated during the past year from over 245,000 health care
professionals, representing the American Medical Association, the
American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American
Orthopsychiatric Association.
During my career I have spent 5 years in formal research activ-
ity, in the natural and behavioral sciences. I come to you today not
as a researcher, but as a parent, pediatrician, and child psychia-
trist who has spent the past 2½ years studying and critically
evaluating the research of many of my colleagues on the effects of
television on children and youth. This effort has left me deeply
concerned, and I should like to share with you the reasons for my
concern.
Walt Whitman wrote:
There was a child went forth every day, and the first object he look'd upon, that
object he became, and that object became part of him for the day or a certain part
of the day or for many years or stretching cycles of years.
There is universal agreement among those who work with chil-
dren in any professional capacity that physical activity is one of
the major hallmarks of childhood; and that, for normal emotional
and social growth and development to occur, children must identi-
fy-for better or worse-with meaningful adults with whom they
come in contact. Specifically, they must imitate the behavior of
such adults if they are to learn the basic patterns of social and
emotional interaction needed for everyday living-indeed, for ev-
eryday survival. Young children, particularly, achieve mastery of
every conceivable kind of normal life task by actively involving
themselves in play and fantasies, in which they can repeat pat-
terns over and over again until they feel secure with them.
Concerning the violence issue, over the past 9 years two national
commissions and several congressional hearings have addressed
themselves to the issue of violence in American generally and
violence on television specifically. Whatever anyone and eveyone's
best intentions may have been, we find ourselves today confronted
with the fact that the latest television violence profile from Dr.
George Gerbner and his colleagues at the Ann~nberg School of
Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, covering the
fall 1976 offerings, has revealed yet another increase in the aver-
age number of violent episodes per hour of commercial television
broadcasting. Violence increased sharply in all categories, includ-
ing family viewing and children's program time, on all three net-
works. Indeed, the overall average rate of 9.5 violent episodes per
hour is the highest recorded by Dr. Gerbner's group since they
began their study in 1967. While Dr. Gerbner's work has sometimes
been criticized by the commercial television industry and some-
times used by the industry to defend itself from its critics, the fact
remains that Dr. Gerbner is generally recognized by his colleagues
in the behavioral sciences as one of the outstanding communica-
tions researchers in the world. The work of Dr. Gerbner and his
associates, in my view, fulfills all the major criteria for reliable
design, methodology, and outcome evaluation in behavioral science
research.
PAGENO="0181"
177
In an article of mine which was published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association on December 8, 1975, I pointed out
that 146 articles in behavioral science journals, representing 50
studies involving 10,000 normal children and adolescents from
every conceivable background, all show that violence viewing pro-
duces increased agressive behavior in the young and that immedi-
ate remedial action in terms of television programing is warranted.
My article covered four major issues: effects on learning, emo-
tional effects, the question of catharsis, and effects on aggressive
behavior. I summarized the research findings regarding each of
these issues, and also summarized the controversial 1972 Surgeon
General's report "Television and Social Behavior." Briefly, I point-
ed out that, as a result of my review of the research material, I had
to agree with the conclusions that children are indeed likely to
learn and remember new forms of aggressive behavior by watching
the kind of violence presented in the mass media; that repetition of
violence in the mass media results in a decreased emotional sensi-
tivity to media violence and an increased probability for decreased
emotional sensitivity to actual aggressive behavior in real life situ-
ations; that watching the kind of aggression shown in the media
does not result in "aggression catharsis," a "draining off of aggres-
sive energy," but in the opposite; and that aggression can be inhib-
ited by reminders that the aggression was morally wrong in terms
of the viewer's own ethical principles and by an awareness of the
bloody, painful aftermath of aggression.
I must emphasize that the material which I summarized in my
short paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association
was only a representative sample of an enormous body of material
that has been generated around this issue by behavioral scientists
during the past 25 years.
I concluded that the time was long past due for a major, orga-
nized cry of protest from the medical profession in relation to
what, in political terms, I considered a national scandal.
The formal resolutions from five major national medical organi-
zations to which I have already referred indicate the response that
has developed to my call for an organized expression of concern
from the profession.
On April 8, 1976, a special article by Dr. Anne R. Somers ap-
peared in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Violence,
Television, and the Health of Amerian Youth." Dr. Somers pointed
out that in 1973 18,000 young Americans age 15 to 24 died in motor
vehicle accidents, over 5,000 were murdered, and over 4,000 com-
mitted suicide. She called the reader's attention to the fact that the
death rate for this age group was 19 percent higher in 1973-74
than it had been in 1960-61, owing entirely to deaths by violence.
She went on to comment that the largest rise in deaths from
homicide during the preceding two decades was at the ages of 1 to
4. She concluded that for a considerable proportion of American
children and youth the "culture of violence" is now both a major
health threat and a way of life. Finally, she called the reader's
attention to the fact that one contributing factor to this situation is
television's massive daily diet of symbolic crime and violence in
"entertainment" programs.
Dr. Somers wrote:
PAGENO="0182"
178
It is this almost total immersion in the home setting, combined with the audiovi-
sual impact that sets television apart from other entertainment media and necessi-
tates special consideration as a risk factor influencing the health of American
youth.
Television not only offers-it imposes-vicarious experience and psychologic con-
ditioning on our children.
In the words of the movie critic Joseph Morgenstern, "It is not enough to say that
Shakespeare and Marlowe were violent and civilization still survived. Technology
has brought a new amplification effect into play. Never before has so much violence
been shown so graphically to so many."
Joe DiLeonardi, commander of the Chicago Police Department's
Homicide Division, has reported three murders, three extortions,
and four rapes investigated by his division during the past year,
which he has concluded are a direct result of television violence
programing. He has pointed out that these cases represent only a
small percentage of the number in which he could document a
correlation between the observation of an act on television and the
commission of the act in real life, if he had the resources to go
through his files.
Representative John Murphy of New York has documented 43
cases of children receiving permanent and major crippling injuries
from attempts to imitate, on their bicycles, stunts performed by
Evel Knievel or the toy model of Evel Knievel on television. Again,
there are many more such incidents about which Representative
Murphy has heard, but which have not yet been fully documented.
There have been sufficient incidents, so this has been given a
medical name, and it was published a year ago and is called the
Evel Knievel syndrome.
Senator PACKWOOD. I will come back to you. It is a matter of
Senatorial courtesy.
I would like to put on the two Senators that have arrived, then
we will come back to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WISCONSIN
Senator PROXMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity
to appear, and I appreciate especially your interrupting the previ-
ous witness, and I apologize for your having to do that.
I commend you for holding these oversight hearings on the
broadcast industry. As you know, I introduced in 1974-and again
this year-a bill to give full meaning to our first amendment's
guarantee of freedom of the press by abolishing the so-called fair-
ness doctrine, equal time rule, and other restrictions on broadcast-
ers. Today's oversight hearing is not an appropriate forum for a
discussion of that bill, which is known as 5. 22, the First Amend-
ment Clarification Act of 1977. I hope to appear before you at some
later date to make a presentation of that kind.
But I would like to take this opportunity to touch briefly on some
of the major considerations that have convinced me that broadcast-
ers should be on an equal footing with publishers regarding first
amendment rights.
The first amendment, as you know, forbids the Congress from
passing any law that might diminish our right to have a free press.
But, unfortunately, Congress has passed a law that does just that.
And the executive and judicial branches have supported that law. I
PAGENO="0183"
179
refer, of course, to the Communications Act, which has abridged
the rights of a part of the free press. But broadcasting-radio and
television-is the preferred source of news for 76 percent of the
American people.
Yet, because of the fairness doctrine, equal time rule, and other
governmental controls, broadcasters are second class citizens when
it comes to first amendment rights.
In practical terms, this means that our first amendment is only
about 24 percent effective when it comes to freedom of the press.
Obviously, we can and must do better.
Denying broadcasters their first amendment rights is wrong for
many reasons. I wish I had time to discuss them all. But in the
minutes that remain, I want to concentrate on three of the most
important of these reasons.
First of all, this denial is unnecessary. Second, it is self-defeating.
And third, it is dangerous. I shall consider each of these, in turn, in
the remarks that follow.
Unnecessary denial: If newspapers, why not broadcasters? More
and better professionalism has been demonstrated in recent years
in broadcast journalism. Professionalism means that there is less
bias in news coverage, that contrasting opinions are aired when it
comes to editorializing, and that opinion and news are clearly
separated. But isn't that what the fairness doctrine seeks? Unfortu-
nately, it has not worked that way. Rather, the fairness doctrine
has stifled professionalism.
About 30 years ago I completed my doctorate at Harvard, except
for writing a dissertation, which was on evaluating the political
content of the American newspapers. I found there was almost no
work done in that area, but in order to develop the basis for my
thesis-which I never completed, incidentally-I made a content
analysis of papers going back many years.
I was deeply impressed by the tremendous improvement in
recent years in the newspapers, without any Government interfer-
ence, without any Government dictation, operating on their own; I
found a tremendous improvement.
I think that broadcasters deserve that same opportunity to be
free. And if they get it, I think broadcasters will demonstrate, as
newspapers have done, that it is not necessary to "deny freedom"
in order to "gain fairness."
Let me show how newspapers have improved down through the
years. These front page headlines from editions of the San Francis-
co Examiner in 1898 remind us all of yellow journalism at its
worst. "The Spirit of War Pervades the Breasts of All Americans."
"M'Kinley Pursues His Laggard Policy and Still Fears to Deal
With Spain."
Obviously, a grossly opinionated view expressed as news. You
won't find that in any newspaper in the country today.
I grew up in Chicago, I grew up with the Chicago Tribune. It was
typically biased. You couldn't read it without reading bias in their
news articles. It was notorious. That has changed. It is no longer
the case. They confine now their editorials to the editorial page,
and they have another page that expresses the opinion of liberals
that disagree with their editorials. They insist on news balance in
their news columns.
PAGENO="0184"
180
I think we all know the Wall Street Journal is as strong a
conservative paper as you can find. I picked up the Wall Street
Journal the day I started preparing this, and I found a three-
column headline entitled, "Business Doesn't Need a Tax Break," an
article by Lester Thurow. He is a superb economist, a very good
economist, and he directly contradicts everything the Wall Street
Journal stands for. They devote a large part of their paper, their
editorial page, to showing that business doesn't need a tax break.
Now, clearly, newspapers have come a long way. Today, many
newspapers carry op-ed pages. Today, most newspaper editors try
to make their news columns unbiased and informative. And when
an error is made, it is usually corrected. In fact, more and more
newspapers are clearly labeling corrections-and they are doing it
voluntarily.
In what other ways have newspapers become more fair and
unbiased? Here's how: For one thing, by expanding their coverage.
There was a time-not too long ago-when we could not read
stories about environmental and health hazards, such as those
caused by insecticides, food additive, and other previously arcane
chemicals. There was a time, too, when we did not see stories about
social concerns, such as crime-ridden neighborhoods, venereal dis-
ease, old age, population growth, race relations, and school curricu-
la.
Women's rights, it is true, have been reported on since long
before the "Bloomer Girls." But now we get searching reports on
what women's rights really mean.
The list is endless. But fair coverage means that problems, ad-
vances, and experimentation in areas of life affecting all of us are
covered in all their aspects.
Nearly all newspapers police their advertising, watching for mis-
leading ads and refusing to run them, even though it means lost
revenue.
What about big advertisers trying to influence an editor, threat-
ening to pull their ad unless some news is left uncovered? That
abuse is almost unheard of these days. I suspect the reason is that
enough fearless editors and publishers have stood up to such adver-
tisers to discourage attempts of this kind.
Errors and excesses can still be found on the pages of today's
newspapers. I concede that. But the fact remains that the press,
overall, acts responsibly. The press of this country has acccom-
plished what it has because it has not been controlled by the
Government. There are no licenses. There are few restraints, other
than those dealing with libel and obscenity, and the press wants to
live with those. Responsible, professional newspaper journalism has
risen out of necessity: to satisfy demanding readers. And, of course,
it has also come about through the need to compete with the
nearly instantaneous delivery of news by radio and television.
What would happen if we had something like an FCC for news-
papers? The first amendment committee of the National Associ-
ation of Broadcasters has recently speculated on this possibility by
producing a newspaper-dated 1984-with the ominous headline,
"Congress Creates Newspaper Commission."
This was done on the assumption of a future shortage of news-
print, like we have a shortage of frequencies for media. And of
PAGENO="0185"
181
course, the nightmare-I am sure we would resist, but it's a con-
ceivable possibility-would create an FCC which would regulate
newspapers, and I think we would all recognize what a frightful
interference with freedom in our country that would represent.
Yet, television and radio broadcasters have the FCC and its
fairness doctrine to contend with. By law, they must be fair. News-
papers are fair without Government control. And I maintain that
radio and television would also be fair without Government con-
trol.
Simply put, again, it is not necessary to "deny freedom" in order
to "gain fairness." Denying broadcasters their first amendment
rights is also wrong because it is self-defeating.
Under the fairness doctrine, for example, broadcasters are re-
quired to, No. 1, devote a reasonable amount of time to the discus-
sion of controversial issues and, two, afford reasonable opportuni-
ties for opposing viewpoints. This sounds fine. But, in actual oper-
ation, the fairness doctrine has not stimulated the free expression
of diverse ideas. Rather, it has had the opposite effect. It has
promoted the "sameness" of ideas. Stations avoid the airing of
controversial issues because they fear a challenge to their license
renewal or expensive litigation resulting from a fairness complaint.
NBC's problems in airing two television documentaries help to
illustrate the point. In 1972, NBC broadcast a documentary enti-
tled, "Pensions: The Broken Promise," which dealt with corporate
pension plans and how they often do not keep faith with the
workers they are intended to benefit.
The airing of the program led to the filing of a fairness doctrine
complaint with the FCC. NBC claimed in defending itself that the
subject of private pension plans was not controversial because as
far as it knew the subject has not been dealt with previously on
network television.
Accuracy in Media, Inc., complained that contrasting viewpoints
were not aired on the program. The FCC rejected AIM's allegation
of distortion but did decide that NBC had violated the fairness
doctrine. It then ordered the network to broadcast balancing mate-
rial. NBC said that it had done a fair job and had no intention of
giving the subject more air time.
Before moving on to what happened in the courts, I should point
out a "Catch 22" aspect of this situation. I do so because it is but
one example of the nightmare of complexities that accompanies the
attempt to administer the fairness doctrine. Had NBC devoted
more time to the subject, giving additional viewpoints, there would
have been no issue before the FCC. So in order to prove its point, to
test the matter in the courts, NBC could air no more shows on the
subject without making its case moot.
Now back to the courts. A three-judge panel of the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NBC, saying that this
country needs investigative reporting. Subsequent court actions left
this ruling intact.
What is the lesson of the "Pensions" case? It is this. The fairness
doctrine can interfere with journalistic discretion, particularly in
investigative reporting.
Just think of the implications if the court had decided the other
way. Such a ruling would have meant that Government could, in
PAGENO="0186"
182
the words of fairness doctrine analyst, Fred Friendly, "substitute
its judgment for that of the network as to what issue was involved
in a broadcast documentary and order that more air time be given
to elements that the journalist never thought central to the story."
The end result would be to restrict broadcast efforts at investiga-
tive reporting because of the difficulty in airing any program that
took a point of view or was controversial.
But wait a minute, you might say. There's no problem here. NBC
won its case. It was home free and clear. There is no lingering
"after-effect." True? Not necessarily. Let's look at how NBC report-
edly agonized over its 1975 television documentary on handguns
entitled, "A Shooting Gallery Called America?"
According to New York Times writer John J. O'Connor, com-
plaints from the public even before the program was shown caused
a rewriting of the script to avoid fairness doctrine complaints to
the FCC after the fact.
And, O'Connor further reports, this documentary on a controver-
sial issue of public importance-gun control-drew little response
from a national television audience of about 10 million (381 com-
plaints out of the 441 letters received in the 2 weeks after the
show) because it failed to take a stand.
If O'Connor is right, then this is a good example of the chilling
effect on journalism caused by governmental control of broadcast-
ing.
I believe NBC executives should not have felt the hot breath of
the FCC and its fairness doctrine on the backs of their necks. For if
O'Connor is correct, the existence of the fairness doctrine indirectly
restrained the producers of "Shooting Gallery."
And if O'Connor is right, if NBC news executives ordered a new
script for the "Shooting Gallery" because of the fairness doctrine, I
wonder if it was because of the time and expense NBC went
through before the FCC and the courts in the wake of its 1972
documentary on "Pensions: The Broken Promise?" I do not know
the answer to that question. But it is more than rhetorical.
I firmly believe that broadcast journalists would not be chilled
into blandness and sameness if it were not for governmental con-
trols as exercised through the FCC's fairness doctrine.
I believe that without the fairness doctrine there would be more,
not less, programing of controversial issues.
Restrictions like the fairness doctrine are, in my view, self-de-
feating. Their proponents want diversity of ideas and the presenta-
tion of controversial and contrasting points of view. What they
promote, instead, is sameness, blandness, timidity, and conformity.
The American people are the losers.
Denying broadcasters their first amendment rights is wrong for a
final reason. It is dangerous.
Letting Government be the final arbiter of fairness, for example,
confers immense power. This is especially true when that same
Government decides on the granting of broadcast licenses.
Three examples from the recent past remind us how the power of
Government-although often exercised in the name of fairness-can
amount to the tyranny of Government.
PAGENO="0187"
183
These examples all involve past Presidents of the United States.
The President, of course, is the head of Government, the same
Government that controls broadcasters through the FCC.
Now, in recalling the stories that follow, it is important to re-
member, too, that the President himself appoints the members of
the FCC and designates who shall be chairman.
My first example comes from the Nixon administration. Relevant
episodes from that period are still fresh in our minds. I need only
cite some of them briefly here.
FCC Chairman Dean Burch called CBS President Frank Stanton
in November of 1969 to request a transcript of that network's news
analysis after a Nixon address the night before.
Vice President Agnew made his famous Des Moines speech 9
days later blasting the network's news coverage and reminding
them that they held licenses at the pleasure of the FCC.
CBS President Stanton reported that there were a `number of
White House phone calls over the succeeding 3 years conveying
displeasure with news broadcasts.
There was a memo of September 1970 from Charles Colson to H.
R. Haldeman proposing that the White House get a ruling from the
FCC on the role of the President, when he uses TV. This, Colson
argued, would have an inhibiting impact on the networks.
There was, too, the December 1972 Indianapolis speech by Clay
T. Whitehead, director of the White House's Office of Telecom-
munications Policy, condemning the ideological plugola, as he put
it, and elitist gossip of network news.
And there was, finally, President Nixon on tape telling Halde-
man that, "The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable,
damnable problems out of this one. They have a television sta-
tion-and they're going to have to get it renewed."
But this is not a partisan matter. Fred Friendly has reported
that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, with financial
backing from the Democratic National Committee, used the fair-
ness doctrine to subdue right-wing radio commentators who were
critical of administration goals.
These clandestine campaigns, which reportedly began in 1963,
were also meant to inhibit stations from carrying commentary
supporting Senator Barry Goldwater, who was then a prospective
presidential candidate.
Friendly reported that both the Kennedy and Johnson adminis-
trations maintained professionally staffed organizations that moni-
tored stations carrying right-wing commentary and then demanded
time for reply under the fairness doctrine.
Such demands for air time, which the stations would have to
provide at no cost, were regarded by many broadcasters harass-
ments that they chose to avoid. As a result, they either dropped the
commentaries or diluted them. This, according to Friendly, was
exactly what the White House had in mind.
What do these three examples of the abuse of Government power
tell us?
It is wrong to deny broadcasters their first amendment rights
because a free press-and that should include free broadcasters-is
needed to protect us all from the tyranny of Government power.
PAGENO="0188"
184
What I have been saying today can be reduced to this simple
thought-why not take a chance on freedom?
If it's power we're concerned about, and we should be, the power
of the electronic media is as pygmy compared to the power of the
Government.
Recently, U.S. News and World Report surveyed the leading
citizens of this country in business, labor, the universities, the
newspapers, and the Government as to who were the people who
ran America.
Where did the electronic media rate?
The only person from the media who was rated in the 10 most
influential Americans was Walter Cronkite, and he was distant
ninth. In fact, Cronkite was the only electronic media person in the
30 most influential Americans.
Who are the most influential? The answer is emphatic. It's Gov-
ernment. Eight of the top 10 persons who run America were Gov-
ernment officials.
By denying the electronic media their full first amendment
rights, we give the big guy-Government-more power, and from
the less influential-the media-we take it away.
To those who would claim that it is safer to take a chance on
Government that a chance on freedom and a free press, there are
two clear rebuttals.
First, governments traditionally have gathered more and more
power unto themselves without regard to the liberties of their
citizens. Europe and South America and Asia are replete with such
examples. And we in this country can cite some near-misses, the
most recent being, of course, what we have come to know by the
shorthand term of Watergate.
And second, it is easy for a government, with its power to give
jobs and favors, to present a solid front in controlling information
about itself. But it is impossible, with members of a free press
competing among themselves, to conspire to suppress information
about government or anything else. As Jefferson once said, "whoev-
er heard of a newspaper suppressing a government?"
Freedom of the press can be abused by individual reports, papers,
magazines, broadcasters, or broadcasting stations. But, with compe-
tition-the drive to be best, to be first with the news, to make
money-there is little or no danger of all elements of the press
forming a clique or cabal to take over the Government, or-and
most important-to deceive the citizens, their customers.
As long as the Government is kept from the neck of the press by
the first amendment, the public should be informed. And that is
why the first amendment was written the way it was-as a direct
prohibition against governmental interference with five basic free-
doms: of religion, of speech, of press, of assembly, of redress.
Let us not brush away the wisdom of the men who wrote the
Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
But it is easy to do that. Look at what the Government has done
already through abridging the freedom of the press by imposing
controls over the content of radio and television broadcasts.
If there is any risk in the belief that, in Jefferson's words,
* * the people * * * may safely be trusted to hear everything
true and false, and to form a correct judgment"-and there is-
PAGENO="0189"
185
then it is the risk inherent in any free society. But a free society is
not the safest way of life. It is only the best.
Two more very quick points, Mr. Chairman.
One, I want to make sure there is no confusion between what I
am proposing here and controlling violence and sex on television.
They are entirely different.
What I am talking about is expressing political opinion. And of
course, the obscenity laws that apply to newspapers should also
apply and can-they can apply very vigorously to television.
I am just as shocked and concerned with some of the things on
TV.
And of course, the courts have made rulings there that have
permitted a degree of freedom in the area of sex expression and
violence, whereas the Congress has limited the power of expression,
political expression, through the fairness doctrine. And I think that
is plain wrong.
The final point is, frankly, I was the one who proposed the
fairness doctrine back in 1958. I have reversed that position. I
think I have done so for a number of reasons.
One conspicuous and clear reason is because since then, we have
had a revolution in technology. We no longer have the limited
degree of access to the air waves we h~td at that time. We have AM
and FM in radio. FM has made it-is far more available than
before.
We have a far greater number of TV and radio stations than
before. We also have cable television coming on. We have in virtu-
ally every major city far more TV and radio than we have newspa-
pers. In Milwaukee, there is one newspaper ownership. There are
six television stations. There are about 25 radio stations. And yet
the newspaper is free, although they have virtually a monopoly,
and the TV and radio are controlled.
I think it is a matter of our not catching up with the changes in
technology and the changes in economic facts of life. Thank you
very much.
Senator PACKWOOD. I am curious, in your analogy to violence, as
to where you draw the line. I don't quite follow it. Give broadcast-
ers first amendment liberties; they are then free to print anything
that is violent or as obscene as the newspapers, if they want,
within the limits of the Constitution.
And apparently anything that they program today-and Dr.
Rothenberg, who was before you, will come back on when Senator
Thurmond is done. Anything they program today is inside the
constitutional bounds of obscenity.
Would you allow television stations, so long as they were within
the Constitution, to program anything they want-no matter how
violent or obscene-so long as it was constitutional?
Senator PROXMIRE. It depends on what you mean by constitution-
al. I think we have a very serious problem with the courts. I am
not sure what we can do as a Congress, no matter how determined
we are, to restrict the opportunity for the television and radio to
have sexual references and to have enormous degrees of violence. I
am not sure how far we can proceed.
The only distinction I make here, my sole point is, that should be
aside and apart from requiring what we do with the fairness doc-
PAGENO="0190"
186
trine. If they report one side through their TV or radio, then they
have to report the other. I think that is a distinct different prob-
lem. I don't think it is the same problem.
Senator PACKWOOD. I think the fairness doctrine is a different
problem. But if they have the first amendment liberties that the
printing press has, is it your position they would then be free to
program anything they wanted, short of something that was so
obscene or so violent that even a court would uphold a statute
prohibiting it?
Senator PROXMIRE. No; I don't think the repeal of the fairness
doctrine would have any effect whatsoever on their right to have
scenes that depict violence or sex. I think that is an entirely
different, separate, distinct problem.
Senator PACKWOOD. Are you saying that that kind of program-
ing-you would leave that kind of control in the FCC or some other
Government body to limit what they can program in that area?
Senator PROXMIRE. I haven't addressed myself to that, frankly,
Mr. Chairman. I just am not sure about that. I would like to study
the testimony of these hearings and see what is proposed.
I am very conerned about our interfering, in any degree, either
with the TV or radio or newspapers. I think you have to be ex-
tremely careful and cautious about it. At the same time, I think
you have some very able people here testifying and some constitu-
tional authorities, who can perhaps tell us how we might be able to
achieve that end. But I don't have a position at the present time on
that.
Senator PACKWOOD. Do I accurately summarize your statement
then; certainly, first amendment liberties would extend to opinion,
to editorials, to comment?
Senator PROxMIRE. Right.
Senator PACKWOOD. And you simply reserve your judgment on
programing, as to violence, as to whether that should be included
in any kind of freedom they have?
Senator PROXMIRE. That's correct.
Senator ZORINSKY. Senator, would you extend your philosophy
concerning the fairness doctrine in the area of inequities concern-
ing the ability to sell advertising, as newspapers and billboards do,
on the airways?
In other words, there are some items that can be accepted as
advertising-I think cigarettes, say, for instance--
Senator PROXMIRE. Cigarettes and hard liquor.
Senator ZORINSKY. Right. Would you extend the fairness, or the
elimination of the fairness doctrine to give the television media the
same ability to attract the same type of advertising?
Senator PROXMIRE. I think, again, you can separate these two. I
think you might agree you could. But it is perfectly proper to
question my philosophy and how consistent I am being here. I am
inclined to feel that I would not distinguish.
In other words, that I would permit radio and television to carry
advertising without restraint with respect to tobacco. And I would
hope and pray they wouldn't. I don't smoke. I think tobacco is a
killer. I am very much against it. But I am even more concerned
with any interference with the right of our press-and it is our
PAGENO="0191"
187
press-our main means of communication, to be inhibited by Gov-
ernment and by Government opinions.
Senator ZORINSKY. Thank you.
Senator PACKWOOD. I have no other questions.
Thank you very much, Bill.
Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL ROTHENBERG-Resumed
Senator PACKWOOD. Dr. Rothenberg, go ahead and finish your
statement. I have some questions. I won't interrupt you now until
you finish.
We will finish the questions before we take Senator Thurmond.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zorinsky, I stopped my
statement just as I was coming to talk a little bit about child
development issues.
I have already pointed out that physical activity is one of the
major hallmarks of childhood. Clearly, when a child is seated in
front of a television set, the very act of watching television itself
places him in a passive position. When one adds to this generally
negative factor in normal child development, the large number of
violent and otherwise negatively depicted adults who are exposed
to the child as role models, one has a second major negative factor
in normal child development in the area of identification and imi-
tation, which is also so critical.
In the formal statement of concern from the American Academy
of Child Psychiatry, the Academy comments, "our * * * concern is
that television is being used more and more as a babysitting device
substituting for the necessary interaction of child with parents. We
believe that such deprivation of parents' interaction and attention
to children takes its toll in the development of a child's capacity
for human warmth, understanding and~ empathy, which occurs in
the process of the normal development of child/parent relation-
ships."
With unhappily few exceptions, the most notable being "Mr.
Rogers' Neighborhood", which appears on public television, there is
essentially no relationship of child development issues to the con-
tent of current television programs. The deleterious effect of racial,
sexual, child, and adult stereotypes portrayed on television on the
development of child and adolescent viewers is documented by a
growing body of data, some of which was presented as recently as
last month during the annual meeting of the American Orthopsy-
chiatric Association in New York City.
Finally, the effect of television violence on the development of
children who already are suffering from emotional disturbance or
who themselves have been the victims of child abuse has been
demonstrated to be particularly devastating.
A few words, if I may, about the effect of television commercials.
While the Code of Hammurabi, in 2250 B.C., made selling some-
thing to a child or buying something from a child without power of
attorney a crime punishable by death, in 1977 A.D., the average
American child will have been exposed to somewhere between
300,000 and 350,000 television commercials by the time he reaches
age 18, of these commercials 55 percent are for edibles, and 65
percent of all the food advertised is sugared. The American Dental
PAGENO="0192"
188
Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have made
the deleterious effects of too much sugar in children's diets clear.
Not only are teeth damaged, but the balanced intake of vital
protein is seriously compromised by excessive intake of sugar and
other forms of carbohydrates.
The effect of television commercials in promoting materialistic
and consumerism values in child and adolescent watchers has now
been documented by behavioral scientists using careful research
methodology. Some of this was demonstrated in testimony before
the FTC last fall.
It has been demonstrated that the inability of children to distin-
guish between program content and commercial messages may lead
them to believe that toys, for example, which promote still more
passivity or antisocial behavior are being urged upon them by
television characters whom they wish to emulate and imitate.
Because it summarizes the television commercial issue so suc-
cinctly, I have included as appendix VI to my statement, the
winter 1977 issue of Action For Children's Television News.
Some suggestions for change: It's important to remind ourselves
that prosocial behaviors, as the behavioral scientists call them, can
also be produced and encouraged by television. I refer here particu-
larly to the presentation of a variety of nondestructive and essen-
tiálly altruistic ways of resolving interpersonal conflicts. The best
known example of this is "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood". Each of the
major networks and several local outlets around the country cur-
rently provide a few such programs for preschool, school age, or
teenage children. During an all-day children's television fair spon-
sored by the Committee on Children's Television and several medi-
cal organizations in San Francisco in May 1975, a great variety of
highly entertaining programs which also were developmentally
sound and modeled prosocial behaviors were demonstrated by a
number of producers, directors, and writers who have made pilot
shows in which the major networks have shown little or no inter-
est. What impressed me when I viewed this material was how
exciting, entertaining, creative, and instructive it was, while offer-
ing no gratuitous violence or other destructive ways of resolving
human conflict.
Having studied the evidence at hand, as a behavioral scientist I
can only recommend that all advertising be eliminated from televi-
sion programing directed primarily at children and adolescents.
I would also specifically ask you to find a way for the networks
and local groups of stations to take turns offering developmentally
appropriate fare for the three major age groups-preschool, school
age, and adolescent-at different times of the day and days of the
week, just as they rotated their offering of the Watergate hearings
so that their financial status would not be impaired.
In closing: When parents bring their child to me because their
child hurts, I am, in essence, being asked to do everything in my
power to provide a remedy for that hurt. I am, if you will, bringing
all of America's television-viewing children and youth as the
"child" to you, because the child is "hurting" and needs your
participation in finding a remedy.
I recognize my responsibility as a parent to control and supervise
my own children's television watching. While we are all aware that
PAGENO="0193"
189
parents must assume some share of responsibility for supervising
the quantity and quality of their children's television viewing, we
cannot forget that, depending on whose estimates one draws from,
there are somewhere between 5 million and 25 million so-called
"latchkey children" in the United States-and we should remem-
ber that one of every two black families is a single parent family
and one of every five white families is a single parent family-
these are children who let themselves into their apartment or
house after school, because their parents-often their single
parent-are working as a matter of economic survival of the family
unit. Thus, in the absence of suitable after-school play programs
for such children, there is no alternative but for them to be home
alone, their television watching, as well as their other activities,
unsupervised.
I also recognize my responsibility as a pediatrician and child
psychiatrist to bring to the attention of as many parents and as
many of my colleagues as possible, this public health hazard. That
is why I have come nearly 3,000 miles to submit this statement to
you and try to answer your questions.
Further, I recognize that the commercial television industry has
made some constructive changes, both in programing and in the
handling of commercial messages. But I am deeply troubled that it
has taken far too long to do far too little. So I need to ask you to do
whatever is in your power to help our hurting child.
I am not a lawyer or a legislator. I have a documented, lifetime
record of deep concern and respect for the protection of every
citizen's and respect for the protection of every citizen's constitu-
tional rights, especially first amendment rights. But again, as a
parent, pediatrician, and child psychiatrist, I know that children
need special protection at times. For example, while we can't have
someone at every street corner at which even a single child may
cross at some time, we can and do consider it possible and, in fact,
imperative, to provide supervision on street corners where large
numbers of children are known to be crossing at regular intervals.
Millions of American children are crossing at the television "street
corner" at regular intervals. It has been demonstrated unequivocal-
ly that this is a dangerous corner and that, indeed, some of our
children have already been "injured" while "crossing."
I leave you with the words of my colleague, Dr. Anne Somers:
In the latter part of the 19th century, in the midst of an epidemic of infant
mortality, infanticide, and child abuse far worse than the present one, it gradually
dawned on physicians and public officials alike that a high infant death rate was
not an act of God but evidence of human weakness, ignorance, and cupidity, and
could be corrected. There was also the growing recognition that, in the words of the
poet Wordsworth, "The child is father of the man."
The dramatic decline in the infant and early childhood death rates and the
general improvement in the condition of children after the turn of the century are
tributes to a combination of medical science, technologic progress, enlightened
public policy, and human courage. The same combination is now needed for an
attack on this new risk factor, pollution of the mind, which has contributed to an
epidemic of youthful violence, an epidemic that seriously threatens the health of
American youth.
Thank you.
Senator PACKWOOD. Doctor, I am curious. When you boil it right
down to the nub, are you saying the Government should monitor or
20-122 0 - 78 - 13
PAGENO="0194"
190
tell television companies what they can produce and put on for
children's fare?
Dr. ROTHENBERG. No; I am not.
Senator PACKWOOD. How do we achieve what you want to
achieve and still leave the discretion of programing to the various
costs?
Dr. ROTHENBERG. Senator Packwood, I really don't know the
answer to that. I wasn't being facetious when I said in my prepared
remarks that I am not a lawyer or a legislator, and I don't know
how to do this. I am a doctor, and I see sick children and I see
children being made sick, in the broadest sense of that word, by
what I quite seriously and technically consider a public health
hazard.
I am aware there are some very, very difficult and complex
constitutional issues that could become involved in this, and I have
to turn to you and ask you to help me to determine how we can
remedy this public health hazard without trampling on somebody's
first amendment rights.
It is easy to say somebody can't get up in a crowded movie
theater and yell "fire" when there is no fire. We all agree that is a
public health hazard. I don't know to what degree that kind of
situation would apply to this kind of situation. I really don't.
Frankly, as I said in my prepared remarks, I have been dismayed
that for many years the commercial broadcast industry refused to
accept the scientific evidence that there was even a correlation
between violence viewing and increased aggressive behavior.
I am probably naive because I am not a businessman. It seems as
if-I may be absolutely wrong-it seems as if the commercial in-
dustry is assuming that if they change the quality of their pro-
graming, that if, for example, they made developmentally correct
and sound television shows for children, that they would lose
money. I don't understand that at all.
I-as I have said to you-had an experience with seeing a great
deal of alternative programing during that San Francisco episode I
talked about, which was enormously exciting-which, by the way,
was viewed by children. This wasn't just a bunch of adults sitting
around and deciding what is good for kids.
Senator PACKWOOD. Let me suggest this, because I am a lawyer
and legislator.
Under the present law, we probably have the constitutional
power to prohibit broadcast of certain kinds of programs or jerk
licensing. I think we probably have that power. The question is,
should we. Because no matter how you cut it and slice it, it comes
down to the Federal Government and the FCC as an arm of the
executive branch, or somebody in Government saying to the televi-
sion networks, "You cannot, one, advertise on children's programs,
period." I think we can do that.
"Two, you shall only program the following kinds of programs."
And when I get to that stage, I am very queasy about my knowl-
edge, because now we are not into constitutionality. We are into
changing professional opinions of what is good and what isn't good,
and those change from year to year, change from decade to decade.
But isn't that our alternative? Either the Government is going to
do it, we are going to say "These are what you can do, these are
PAGENO="0195"
191
what you can't," or we are going to leave it to their judgment and
discretion, and many cases, their discretion is not what you and I
would like, but we leave it to them.
Do we have any other alternatives?
Dr. ROTHENBERG. I am afraid I have to ask you a question, sir.
That is, is it that black and white? Is there nothing in between?
After the Evel Knievel Co.-as it was called, or whatever-did a
whole series of stunts on one of the major networks, an incredible
display of human carnage that went on, there was a real cry of
protest from many viewers. Indeed, I am aware that Representa-
tive Murphy wrote a blistering letter to that network, giving specif-
ic detail about what resulted from children trying to imitate what
Evel Knievel and his cohorts did-actually, he wasn't even on the
show because he was injured and in the hospital, which they kept
reminding everybody every few minutes in a very heroic fashion-
as pediatricians over the country documented, they had literally
hundreds of children in the hospitals trying to imitate that, and
nothing was done. Evel Knievel toys continue to be demonstrated
on television.
And I guess I have some sense of outrage because I need you
people, because you are the experts, to be as concerned about the
public health hazard to our children as you are about the first
amendment issues.
I don't know here else to turn.
Senator PACKWOOD. I want to come back to my question. I want
to make sure I understand what our alternatives are in your mind.
I think we probably have the power to tell a network, you cannot
televise Evel Knievel's jump across the Snake River; period. You
just can't do that. That might be tested in court, but my hunch is
we would win. We could say you can't televise hockey games be-
cause they are too violent. They are violent. We have that power.
Should we exercise that power? You are saying, yes, we should
prevent the televising of hockey games--
Dr. R0THENBERG. I didn't say that. You did.
Senator PACKWOOD. No; I mentioned we exercise that power
where we, the committee, if we think something is too violent, we
should say no, you can't broadcast.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. The criterion I would try to hold to would be
whether or not the proposed program constitutes a health hazard
for the entire audience for which it is being produced. I am aware
that can also be a tricky matter at times, but we do have a Public
Health Service in this country which constantly has to make judg-
ments about what constitutes a public health hazard and restrict
the--
Senator PACKWOOD. Within the last analysis, it comes down to
this-this is my last question-if CBS has a program, and say we
don't think this is a public health hazard, and this committee views
it or the FCC decides it is, we are the ones that make the decision.
We have to be the ones to make the decision, or if we leave it in
each case to the network, then they may transgress way beyond
the bounds of what you and I would think is decent, but they say
we don't think it is. We just deny that evidence. We don't think it
is a public health hazard.
PAGENO="0196"
192
Senator HOLLINGS. I apologize. I have been tied up in the Budget
Committee conference and will have to go right back to it.
I came in, Doctor, in the middle of your testimony. I think as we
try to approach this task in communications that it is obvious to
me that it is difficult to legislate in many, many areas, freedom of
speech being importantly involved.
With respect to children, yes, we can act. There is no doubt we
do it for the clothing they wear, with flammable fabrics; the toys
they play with, with respect to product safety liablility; the hours
they work under child labor laws, to cite a few examples. So the
Congress has recognized and I recognize the responsibility. Speak-
ing as a doctor, you recommended that all advertising be eliminat-
ed from television programs directly affecting children, and then
later on the next page you spoke about the street corners. These
street corners are dangerous.
Are you going to eliminate all the street corners and all the
advertising? Is that your solution?
Dr. ROTHENBERG. I would like to respond to those separately, if I
may, sir.
Yes. I spent 2½ years immersed in studies on the effect of
television on children and youth, trying to evaluate. Incidentally,
they have not all been studies which have come to the same
conclusion. I want to make that clear. However, they have over-
whelmingly come to the conclusion in relation to your first ques-
tion that young children, particularly children under the age of 7
or 8, are unable, the vast majority of the time, to distinguish
between program content and commerical message. Even today,
when some more stringent rules have been used by the televison
industry itself to try to further separate program content from
commercial message.
Experimental data leaves us absolutely without question that the
children simply can't distinguish between program content and
commerical messages and on that basis, I feel as a behavorial
scientist I have to recommend that commercials be removed from
programing aimed primarily at children. I am not. saying from
every program that might be viewed by children.
As far as the second consequence is concerned, where I use the
analogy--
Senator HOLLINGS. Let's take that advertising before we get to
the second question. You don't want to end up just seeing nothing
but stomach disorders and false teeth aids. That seems to be all
they have on at the other hours. It looks like they must sell a lot of
false teeth in this country.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. At least kids can't badger their folks to go out
and buy them a set.
Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Packwood was asking whether that is
even desirable. I admit the effect. My young boy was Robin and
Batman. He kept jumping off the garage and out the second story
window and he finally learned he couldn't fly. Evel Knievel, he
started trying to jump across and race across things, too.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. I have seen too many children paralyzed for
life from the neck down. I have seen it with my own eyes. It is all
very cute to talk about being Robin and Batman until you see a kid
that will never walk again. There are literally hundreds of them in
PAGENO="0197"
193
this country that will never walk again for that specific reason.
That has been documented.
I submit to you, sir, that something needs to be done about it.
And again, I am not a lawyer; I am not a legislator. I can't tell you
what to do. I wouldn't want you to tell me how to run my business.
I only come to you as a citizen with some special responsibilities
and knowledge, really, pleading for you help. That is why I am
here. I'm not running for anything, believe me. At the moment I
haven't even found out where I am going to be reimbursed from, to
pay for the trip. And that's the truth.
Senator HOLLINGS. Then you get down to how careful you can be
for your own children. You go right to the firecracker cases; many
States have outlawed it. I have had firecrackers blow up in my
hands. I guess you can tell me that there are many people that
don't have any hands.
Can we, as a national policy, say there will be no firecrackers? I
am trying to get to the general practice and reaction in real life.
This society has changed materially from what it was 30 years ago,
or 130 years ago. I doubt if I could exist myself, in the wilds like
Daniel Boone did, but to protect a child and expect it to grow and
mature into a careful adult; there are certain dangers they are
going to have to be faced with and there are going to be tragedies
coming up and down the line.
So let's move to the second question, then, with respect to those
street corners. Now, you have a situation where there are a great
many street corners. We provide supervision on street corners
where large numbers of children are known to be crossing. That is
every street corner in television. That is every television set. Be-
cause they are just all there. I don't know how many hours. The
most recent testimony is 6½ hours. They said one survey in Janu-
ary showed that the average set was on in America 7½ hours, and
children watch at least 4 hours a day, far more than they spend
time in classrooms and studies. So they've got to begin at the
beginning where you don't have enough police for every street
corner, because there are too many street corners.
What do you do about it? Eliminate the street corners? I mean
one way to get them out of the house on Saturday morning is to
put on chamber music all over America. That will get rid of them.
But is that going to be the national policy? Is that what you
recommend?
Dr. ROTHENBERG. I have nothing against chamber music. I expect
some of our finest chamber music musicians are that because they
heard a lot of it in their homes. I am not sure it would drive them
outdoors, sir. It might at first, but they might get used to it.
No, I don't recommend that. What I have tried to say in the body
of my formal presentation is, it has been proven that you can have
entertaining, creative and fun shows for kids which are not filled
with gratuitous violence. There is six times more violence per hour
of children's television than there is for adult television.
I am simply trying to draw everybody's attention to that fact.
Until recently there was twice as much advertising on children's
television per hour than on adult television. The industry has
boasted it has cut it down for children. It just cut it down to what
it was already limited to for adult programing. I am asking for
PAGENO="0198"
194
some kind of reasonable response to what, in my way of thinking,
is a clear and present danger in terms of a public health hazard.
Senator HOLLINGS. If you are trying to bring it to our attention,
we agree with you because we have tried to get the FCC more into
this particular field. In fact, even the Federal Trade Commission,
we are putting in additional moneys there and we have discussed
it.
We agree there is a problem. I am trying from your experience
standpoint, like you say, having taken a long trip, to tell us as a
Senator what you would legislate. It seems like No. 1, you would
band, no more advertising. And about those street corners, we
just-we have got some differences.
I believe perhaps a child ought to be able to fire a firecracker
even though some will blow their hands off and you happen to like
chamber music and I don't. That gets into the fundamental Sena-
tor Packwood was asking. Are those really things to be legislated,
your desires and likes, or my desires and dislikes?
Dr. R0THENBERG. Senator Hollings, my feeling is there is no way
to avoid all of our children being exposed to many, many dangers
just in their everyday growing up.
What I guess I am trying to point out, too, is that there is added
to the normal, unavoidable, and I agree with you, they shouldn't be
avoided, dangers of everyday growing up, there is being added to
that an excess by the television industry that I think could be
eliminated.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you.
Senator Z0RIN5KY. Dr. Rothenberg, you made a point of the fact
that there is a degree of responsibility residing in the parent of a
child. You also brought to mind the facts of the latch-key type
children who are unsupervised.
You know, we always approach something tantamount to censor-
ship through the television media as it should be this or not be
this, and obviously it is in the eyes of the beholder. I can't even get
10 people to agree after a movie whether the rating should have
been PG or R or whatever. This is determined by the norm of
society.
When I was a youngster had I had two working parents, and I
was unsupervised, I had the radio and I could have used my own
imagination and it wasn't all spelled out for me. Would you think
that a viable alternative in today's world or at least a step in the
right direction would be, we are talking about what goes on TV,
giving the parent more control?
I am going back to the premise that you bring out concerning
unsupervised children, responsibility of parents to their children,
because obviously Government has not conceived the children. The
parents have.
As to that, we have the authority to implement safety features in
automobiles, the seatbelts and a multitude of things. Is a fail-safe
lock-key system for a television set where a parent can control the
television time of the children possible? Right now every television
set is easily turned on with an on-off switch or plugged in and on it
goes; any child can do this.
But then if a mechanical device such as this was added to an
electronic television set where the parent could in his or her ab-
PAGENO="0199"
195
sence, control the viewing time of the child, this would make the
parent the ultimate determinor of viewing time for the child that
is unsupervised in the home. I would like to get your opinion on
something like that.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. I think it is an intriguing idea, Senator. I
think, though, that we have to keep in mind the realities of it. For
many parents, especially single parents, with latch-key children,
television has become an economical babysitter, or even worse,
companion for this child whom they are forced to leave alone.
So, my concern would be that while that is a nifty idea in a lot of
ways, I wonder how many parents would be able to get themselves
to use it.
Senator Z0RIN5KY. But again, going back to your statement
saying there is a responsibility residing in the parent, and the
parent would have the option of making that choice of the volun-
teer disclosure of the child to the television set, or waiting until the
parent gets home and being able to see if that is suitable in their
mind and again, I say what one parent will allow a child to see,
another parent will not allow a child to see.
Of course, there is a different range of mental instability in our
society that does not conform with the norm of society.
Dr. ROTHENBERG. My concern, Senator Zorinsky, would be if this
were the only thing that was done about this issue, because quite
frankly, I don't think it would begin to be enough. I think it would
neglect the harsh reality of what is going on with millions and
millions of American homes today in terms of the role television is
playing. Particularly-it always seems to come down to this, at
least from the point of view of a doctor who has spent his whole
career working in so-called ghetto medicine-it is always the poor
folks and minority folks who get more of that harsh reality.
Senator ZORINSKY. You are recommending a reduction of the
violence availability in television time and you are saying there
should be a responsibility of the parent as to the viewing time of
the child. S
Dr. ROTHENBERG. Absolutely. We cannot neglect parental respon-
sibility.
Senator PACKWOOD. Doctor, thank you very much for your com-
pelling testimony.
[The attachments referred to follow:]
APPENDIX I-REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AMA
Since the publication of a special communication in JAMA on December 8, 1975
by Michael B. Rothenberg, M. D., on "Effect of Television Violence on Children and
Youth," there has been considerable discussion concerning medicine's appropriate
role in this problem area.
Television violence is a complex problem. It requires the concerted attention and
effort of a variety of individuals and groups, including the medical and other
professions, parents and parent surrogates, all segments of the broadcasting indus-
try and the Federal Government.
These forces, working together and understanding each other's roles, can make
progress in identifying and curtailing the use of more harmful types of TV violence,
in discouraging the viewing of violence especially by those most susceptible, and in
promoting the development of wholesome and positive programming for children.
In his article Dr. Rothenberg declared that the content of TV programming for
children is far more violent than it is for adults, and he called upon organized
medicine to sound a cry of protest and to make specific recommendations "for new
kinds of television programming for children and youth."
PAGENO="0200"
196
Subsequently a group of consultants, after reviewing the Rothenberg article and
other pertinent material, concluded that there are legitimate reasons for medicine
to express concern and take affirmative action, even though they found a wide
divergence of opinion among investigators on the significance of the effects of
violence portrayals.
Based on this report, the Board of Trustees at its meeting May 11-15, 1976,
authorized:
(1) Appointment of an ad hoc committee to evaluate new research in this field and
to recommend ways in which the medical profession and others can appropriately
respond to findings which appear to be valid.
(2) Publication of a booklet, to be made available to physicians for distribution to
patients, that would emphasize parental responsibility for children's viewing and
indicate what parents should look for in terms of suitable children's programming.
(3) Exploration with the National Association of Broadcasters of the possibility of
convening periodic joint AMA-NAB conferences on the impact of TV on children.
Such conferences would assess the current status of children's programming, identi-
fy problem areas and arrive at mutally acceptable recommendations for improve-
ment.
The Board also recommends that the AMA:
(1) Support full funding of research by the National Institute of Mental Health on
the influence of television. Funding should include the training of manpower in all
appropriate disciplines to perform high quality investigations. Priority should be
given to objective and applicable measurements of television violence and its effects,
and to the elucidation of how and to what extent various types and degrees of
television violence affect children adversely.
(2) Encourage physicians to emphasize to parents their responsibility in taking an
interest in their children's viewing habits and in helping them be selective. Such
admonition may be given by physicians in their direct contact with patients; in
public appearances, including those on radio and TV shows; and in dealings with
community organizations, including school boards. Appropriate channels for convey-
ing this type of information to prospective parents are courses in parenting which
are being incorporated in some high school curricula.
(3) Urge television networks and independent stations, in deciding on program
content and scheduling, to utilize indices of violence as they are developed. The
Federal Communications Commission also should be requested to use such indices,
or their methodology, to identify trends in portrayal of violence, as well as to
measure the violence content of individual programs. Such indices are now being
developed by George Gerbner, dean of the Innenberg School of Communication at
the University of Pennsylvania, and by the Social Science Research Council. Both
are receiving support from the National Institute of Mental Health. Until indices
are perfected, television networks and stations should be urged to use a designation
such as "parental guidance suggested" on all programs which contain episodes of
violence that may have an adverse effect on some children.
In communicating these suggestions to the television industry, the AMA should
acknowledge the sincere efforts which have been made by several segments of the
industry to reduce violence and improve programming for children.
Fiscal note: $1,500-ad hoc committee; $10,000-joint conference; $12,000-publi-
cation of booklet. (These funds are expected to be recouped through the sale of the
booklet.)
APPENDIX Il-APA JOINS AMA IN PROTEST OF TV VIOLENCE
The Executive Committee of APA's Board of Trustees voted, at its September
meeting, to add APA's support to a resolution passed recently by AMA's house of
delegates decrying the picturing of violence on television.
The resolution is as follows: "Whereas, there is ample evidence to document an
increase in the death rate of young Americans due to violence; and
"Whereas, an important contributing factor to the `culture of violence' is televi-
sion's massive daily diet of symbolic crime and violence in `entertainment' pro-
grams; and
"Whereas, this is an enormously complex problem for which there is no simplistic
solution; therefore be it resolved that the house of delegates of the American
Medical Association:
"1. Declare its recognition of the fact that TV violence is a risk factor threatening
the health and welfare of young Americans, indeed our future society.
"2. Commit itself to remedial action in concert with industry, government, and
other interested parties.
PAGENO="0201"
197
"3. Encourage all physicians, their families, and their patients actively to oppose
TV programs containing violence, as well as products and/or services sponsoring
such programs."
The catalyst behind much of medicine's recent activity in the area of television
violence is an article that appeared in the December 8, 1975, issue of JAMA by
Michael B. Rothenberg, M.D., entitled "Effect of Television Violence on Children
and Youth." In a report to AMA's house of delegates, the AMA board of trustees
pointed out that Rothenberg "declared that the content of TV programming for
children is far more violent than it is for adults, and he called upon organized
medicine to sound a cry of protest and to make specific recommendations `for new
kinds of television programming for children and youth.'"
The board further noted that a group of consultants, after reviewing the Rothen-
berg article and other material, felt that medicine had "legitimate reasons to
express concern and take afffirmative action."
Based on this report, the AMA board made several recommendations, which were
later approved by the house of delegates. Included were the following:
An ad hoc committee will be appointed to evaluate new research and recommend
ways for the medical profession to respond appropriately to findings that appear to
be valid.
A booklet will be published and made available to physicians for distribution to
patients in which parental responsibility for children's viewing will be emphasized,
with recommendations on what parents should look for in terms of suitable chil-
dren's programming.
AMA will explore with the National Association of Broadcasters the possibility of
convening periodic AMA-NAB conferences on the impact of TV on children.
AMA will support funding of research by NIMH on the influence of TV, noting
that priority should be given to "objective and applicable measurements of televi-
sion violence and its effects and to the elucidation of how and to what extent
various types and degrees of television violence affect children adversely."
AMA will "encourage physicians to emphasize to parents their responsibility in
taking an interest in their children's viewing habits and in helping them be selec-
tive. Such admonition may be given by physicians in their direct contact with
patients; in public appearances, including those on radio and TV shows; and in
dealings with community organizations, including school boards."
The organization will urge networks and independent stations to use indices of
violence as they are developed in choosing program content and scheduling. "The
Federal Communications Commission also should be requested to use such indices,
or their methodology, to identify trends in portrayal of violence," said AMA, "as
well as to measure the violence content of individual programs. . . . Until indices are
perfected, television networks and stations should be urged to use a designation
such as `parental guidance suggested' on all programs which contain episodes of
violence that may have an adverse effect on some children."
In communicating these recommendations to the television industry, AMA plans
to "acknowledge the sincere efforts which have been made by several segments of
the industry to reduce violence and improve programming for children."
In a letter to APA Medical Director Melvin Sabshin requesting APA's endorse-
ment of a measure similar to AMA's, Rothenberg, author of the JAMA article,
noted the interest in TV violence of Senator Warren Magnuson and his Subcommit-
tee on Communications, chaired by Senator John Pastore. Rothenberg said he has
been working closely with Senator Magnuson's office for several months and has
"been told repeatedly by the staff members . . . that input from physicians and
medical societies is extremely important to them in terms of their ability to develop
congressional response."
APPENDIX 111-STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
CHILD PSYCHIATRY ON TV VIOLENCE AND ITS EFFECT ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT
The American Academy of Child Psychiatry supports and endorses the position of
the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association on TV
violence. Like the American Medical Association's House of Delegates and the
American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees, the Academy of Child Psychi-
atry is extremely concerned with the amount of violence that is depicted on televi-
sion. The alarming increase in the death rate of young Americans due to violence
indicated from statistics recently released by the Justice Department and suicide
rates released by the Office of Biometry of NIMH is of major concern to us. Violent
crime along the young has more than doubled in the last decade. The Academy of
Child Psychiatry therefore heartily endorses the recommendations of the American
Medical Association's House of Delegates.
PAGENO="0202"
198
The American Academy of Child Psychiatry has an overriding professional con-
cern with the developmental problems of all children. The Academy of Child Psychi-
atry is very much concerned about the effect of television violence on child develop-
ment. Our concerns are twofold. First, we are concerned that television violence
tends to foster violent behavior in those children predisposed to violence because
they have been severely abused. There is increasing clinical evidence that children
who are neglected or abused and are, therefore, feeling both angry at and fright-
ened of adults may find in the constant stream of television violence the sanction
for acting on their own hostile and angry feelings. Television violence appears to
provide an accepted mode of expression in action of angry feelings. This tacit
permission to act on violent feelings may most powerfully affect those children who
are the victims of hostility and violence by parents; parents who have themselves
been treated with violence during their childhood. Such experiences have often
seriously affected the normal development of these children in their capacities to
acquire feelings of pleasure in successful learning and in their capacities for normal
friendly warm social relations with other children and adults. Their exposure to
violence on television may provide a continuously reinforcing societal sanction for
their subsequent antisocial and violent behavior.
Our second concern is that television is being used more and more as a babysit-
ting device substituting for the necessary interaction of child with parents. We
believe that such deprivation of parents' interaction and attention to children takes
its toll in the development of the child's capacity for human warmth, understanding
and empathy, which occurs in the process of the normal development of child!
parent relationships. The education of parents to avoid television as passive imper-
sonal child caring method must occur through many organizations. However, our
concern is that the lack of human interaction which is reinforced through excessive
passive exposure to television has further deleterious effects when children are
exposed to violence as a norm for adult behavior. The depersonalized and violent
adult behavior tends to serve as important human models for the behavior of
children who have few other adult models to influence them.
As child psychiatrists, we endorse the need for more research. As clinicians who
work with these children, we are increasingly alarmed by the violent, dehumanized
behavior of more and more children. For the vulnerable child, television violence
may be a major influence in legitimizing the expression of violent and angry
feelings through violent behavior.
APPENDIX IV-AAP RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF TELEVISION
VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
(Prepared by the Committee on Communications and Public Information;
Reviewed and Approved by the Council on Child Health)
Whereas, based on Nielsen Index figures, the average American child will have
viewed some 15,000 hours of television by the time he has graduated from high
school; and
Whereas, several studies involving children and adolescents from various back-
grounds have shown that viewing violence on television produces increased aggres-
sive behavior in the young; and
Whereas, children are likely to learn and remember new forms of aggressive
behavior by watching the kind of violence presented in the mass media; and
Whereas, it appears reasonably certain that the causal relationship between
televised violence and anti-social behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and
immediate action, therefore, be it resolved that the American Academy of Pediatrics
is re-asserting its leadership in matters affecting the growth and development of
children: (1) Calls for a reduction in the amount of violence shown on television, and
the elimination of violence in programming aimed at young audiences; (2) Re-
affirms its long standing cooperation with Action for Children's Television to im-
prove the quality fo television programming for children; (3) Joins with other
national organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Psychi-
atric Association, American Academy of Child Psychiatry, the National Congress of
Parents and and Teachers, government and industry to reduce television violence;
(4) Encourages pediatricians to cooperate with community groups in urging local
stations to improve the quality of programming available; and (5) Urges pediatri-
cians to actively oppose television programs emphasizing high degrees of violence
and anti-social behavior which detrimentally affect the attitudes and social behavior
of children.
PAGENO="0203"
199
APPENDIX V-EFFECT OF TELEvIsION VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH
(By Michael B. Rothenberg, MD)
One hundred forty-six articles in behavioral science journals, representing 50
studies involving 10,000 children and adolescents from every conceivable back-
ground, all showed that violence viewing produces increased aggressive behavior in
the young and that immediate remedial action in terms of television programming
is warranted.
Four major issues are covered: effects on learning, emotional effects, the question
of catharsis, and effects on aggressive behavior. The research findings regarding
each of these issues are summarized, as well as the controversial 1972 Surgeon
General's report, Television and Social Behavior.
The time is long past due for a major, organized cry of protest from the medical
profession in relation to what, in political terms, I consider a national scandal.
(JAMA 234:1043-1046, 1975).
As a people, we Americans are not unaccustomed to violence. Its thread is woven
into the entire fabric of our history, from frontier lawlessness through Chicago
gangsterism to presidential assassination. Consider the following statistics, printed
on the editorial page of the Oct. 12, 1974, issue of the San Francisco Chronicle.
There are an estimated 200,000,000 guns in the United States, which averages out
to one for almost every man, woman and child in the country. A new hand gun is
sold every 13 seconds and used ones are traded at the rate of one every 30 seconds.
Five million new ones come off assembly lines every year for civilian purchase.
Every four minutes someone is killed or wounded by gunfire. Every three minutes
someone is robbed at gunpoint.
On the basis of Nielsen Index figures, the average American child will have
viewed some 15,000 hours of television by the time he has been graduated from high
school, as compared with his having been exposed to some 11,000 hours of formal
classroom instruction. He will have witnessed some 18,000 murders and countless
highly detailed incidents of robbery, arson, bombing, forgery, smuggling, beating,
and torture-averaging approximately one per minute in the standard television
cartoon for children under the age of ten. There is an average of six times more
violence during one hour of children's television than there is in one hour of adult
television.
Twenty-five percent of the television industry's profit comes from the 7% of its
programming directed at children. While the Code of Hammurabi in 2250 BC made
selling something to a child or buying something from a child without power of
attorney a crime punishable by death, in 1975 AD our children are exposed to some
350,000 television commercials by the time they reach age 18, promising super-
power, sugar-power, toy-power, and kid-power.
Finally, against this backdrop, consider these words of Walt Whitman: "There
was a child went forth every day, and the first object he look'd upon, that object he
became, and that object became part of him for the day or a certain part of the day
or for many years or stretching cycles of years." 1
THE ISSUES
The literature describing research on the effects of television violence on children
has been growing steadily in quantity and quality for the past 25 years. Almost all
of it has appeared in social and behavioral science publications, with remarkably
little representation in medical journals. Because so much of the research done in
this area uses Bandura's2 social learning theory as at least part of its conceptual
framework, we should remind ourselves that this theory states that role models act
as stimuli to produce similar behavior in the observer of the role model. This
behavior is learned by being imitated, rewarded, and reinforced in a variety of ways.
Responses produced often enough and over a long enough period of time maintain
the behavior. Bandura outlines three steps necessary for this process: exposure to
the simululs, acquisition of the "message" being transmitted by the role model, and
acceptance of that "message."
For practical purposes, I have listed in the references to this article only nine
recent reviews of the literature on this subject.~ Because it outlines so succinctly
what the vast majority of these well-designed and statistically significant studies
conclude, I would like to concentrate on Richard Goranson's "A Review of Recent
Literature on Psyc~oiogica1 Effects of Media Portrayals of Violence." 12 Goranson
identifies four major issues:
PAGENO="0204"
200
1. Effects on Learning-Are children likely to learn and remember new forms of
aggressive behavior by watching the kind of violence presented in the mass media?
What are the conditions, if any, that encourage the actual performance of aggres-
sive acts learned through the media?
2. Emotional Effects-Does the repetition of violence in the mass media result in
a decreased emotional sensitivity to media violence? Is a decreased emotional sensi-
tivity likely to have any implications for the probability of actual aggressive behav-
ior in real-life situations?
3. The Question of Catharsis-Does watching the kind of aggression shown in the
media result in "aggression catharsis"-a "draining off of aggressive energy"? Does
the observation of pain, horror, and suffering result in catharsis?
4. Effects on Aggressive Behavior-Are there any conditions of observed violence
that can serve either to inhibit or to facilitate aggression?
Here is a summary of the research findings regarding each of these issues:
One: Novel, aggressive behavior sequences are learned by children through expo-
sure to aggressive actions shown on television or in films. A large proportion of the
aggressive behaviors learned by observation are retained over long periods of time if
the responses have been practiced at least once. The following conditions encourage
the actual performance of aggression: a similarity between the observed setting and
the viewer's real setting; when the observed aggression "worked"; when it wasn't
punished; and when it was the favored and most frequent method used to attain
goals.
Two: There is a decreased emotional sensitivity to media violence, as a result of
the repetition of violence in the mass media. Classical desensitization takes place, as
practiced in modern behavior therapy. There is a decreased aggression anxiety and
an increased ability to be violent with others.
Three: The original studies of Feshbach,13 which purported to demonstrate "ag-
gression catharsis," have never been replicated and have been disproved by a
number of other studies. These other studies have shown the opposite of catharsis,
i.e., an increase in the viewer's subsequent aggressiveness. There has been no evi-
dence that the observation of pain, horror, and suffering results in catharsis. Goran-
son speculates that the persistence of a belief in the aggression catharsis notion may
stem from a misapplication of Aristotle's original concept of catharsis, which ap-
plied only to the "tragic" feelings of grief and fear that could be discharged through
active expression by the audience during the performance.
Four: Aggression can be inhibited by (1) reminders that the aggression was
morally wrong in terms of the viewer's own ethical principles and (2) an awareness
of the bloody, painful aftermath of aggression.
Aggression can be facilitated by (1) the cue properties of available targets, i.e.,
stimuli in the postobservation period that have some association with previously
observed violence-an association between the victim of the observed violence and
the target of the viewer's aggression-and (2) the general state of arousal of the
aggressor, e.g., when, in experimental settings, the subject is verbally attacked and
then exposed to film violence, he later is more aggressive than one who wasn t
attacked before being exposed to film violence.
SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT
Television and Social Behavior-A Technical Report to the Surgeon General's
Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior was published in
1972. This five-volume report, summarizing the results of 23 separate research
projects, comes to the same conclusions as Goranson did in 1969-and as researchers
did as far back as 1950. Why, then, does so much controvesy persist about this
Surgeon General's Report?
The controversy arises from the sixth volume of this report, a summary volume
written by the Scientific Advisory Committee. It is important to note that when this
12-person committee was being formed, a list of 40 social and behavioral scientists
who had been recommended to the Surgeon General's office by the academic com-
munity for membership on this committee was presented to representatives of the
television industry. The television industry representatives "blackballed' the seven
of the 40 listed scientists who had the most outstanding reputations and work in the
field of violence research. These seven were replaced by five television network
executives. In addition, there was enormous political pressure on the Scientific
Advisory Committee to produce a unanimously signed document. As a result, the
summary, while it concludes that a causal relationship between violence viewing
and aggression by the young was found, is worded so as to lead to misunderstand-
ing. And the summary of the summary is flatly misleading, repeatedly using words
such as "preliminary," "tentative," and "however" as qualifiers for statements
concerning this causal relationship.
PAGENO="0205"
201
Liebert et al,7 who did some of the research for the Surgeon General's Report,
published a book in 1973 in which they offer a painstaking and brilliant review of
this entire subject and of the Surgeon General's Report itself. They point out that
146 published papers representing 50 studies-laboratory studies, correlational field
studies, and naturalistic experiments-involving 10,000 children and adolescents
from every conceivable background all show that violence viewing produces in-
creased aggressive behavior in the young and that immediate remedial action in
terms of television programming is warranted.
OTHER ISSUES
There are a number of other issues involved that are not central to our concern
here with the effects of television violence on children and youth. They deserve at
least to be listed: the relationship of child development issues to the content of
current television programs (in a word, none); the racial, sexual, child, and adult
stereotypes portrayed on television; and the effect of television commercials on
children's eating habits (an average of 23 commercials an hour, some 60% of which
advertise sugar-coated cereals, cookies, snacks, and candy).
THE FCC AND THE NAB
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has a television code that states
in part:
"Television is seen and heard in every type of American home. These homes
include children and adults of all ages, embrace all races and all varieties of
religious faith, and reach those of every educational background. It is the responsi-
bility of television to bear constantly in mind that the audience is primarily a home
audience, and consequently that television's relationship to the viewers is that
between guest and host. . . . By law the television broadcaster is responsible for the
programming of his station. He, however, is obligated to bring his positive responsi-
bility for excellence and good taste in programming to bear upon all who have a
hand in the production of programs, including networks, sponsors, producers of film
and of live programs, advertising agencies, and talent agencies. .
"Television and all who participate in it are jointly accountable to the American
public for respect for the special needs of children, for community responsibility, for
the advancement of education and culture, for the acceptability of the program
materials chosen, for decency and decorum in production, and for propriety in
advertising. This responsibility cannot be discharged by any given group of pro-
grams, but can be discharged only through the highest standares of respect for the
American home, applied to every moment of every program presented by television.
"In order that television programming may best serve the public interest, viewers
should be encouraged to make their criticisms and positive suggestions known to the
television broadcasters. Parents in particular should be urged to see to it that out of
the richness of television fare, the best programs are brought to the attention of
their children. .
"The presentation of techniques of crime in such detail as to invite imitation shall
be avoided. . . . Violence and illicit sex shall not be presented in an attractive
manner, nor to an extent such as will lead a child to believe that they play a
greater part in life than they do.
"Racial or nationality types shall not be shown on television in such a manner as
to ridicule the race or nationality.
"Television broadcasters should exercise the utmost care and discrimination with
regard to advertising material, including content, placement and presentation, near
or adjacent to programs designed for children. No considerations of expediency
should be permitted to impinge upon the vital responsibility towards children and
adolescents, which is inherent in television and which must be recognized and
accepted by all advertisers employing television."
On the basis of the evidence presented, one can only conclude, as did Liebert and
colleagues, that the NAB code "appears to be just a public relations document never
intended to guide actual practices." Indeed, on at least one documented occasion in
1963, when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempted to control
excessive commercialism in television by suggesting that the NAB's own code be
used to set the guidelines, the NAB opposed the plan of using its own code and
actually organized committees in each state to lobby against it!
In 1968 a consumer organization, Action for Children's Television (46 Austin St,
Newtonville, MA 02160), was formed. It was largely through the efforts of this
organization and other consumer groups that the FCC developed some new guide-
lines for children's television in November 1974. All broadcasters are supposed to be
PAGENO="0206"
202
in full compliance with these new guidelines by Jan. 1, 1976, but there is no
evidence from current programming or from announcements of fall 1975 program-
ming that any substantive move toward such compliance has been made.
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
It is important to remind ourselves that prosocial behaviors can also be produced
and encouraged by television. The best known example of this is "Misterogers'
Neighborhood." There are a number of others, such as "Call It Macaroni," produced
by Westinghouse in New York, which takes a group of children to a different part of
the country from the one in which they live and teaches them something they have
never known or done before; "Big Blue Marble"; "Rainbow Over Seven"; and "Fat
Albert and the Cosby Kids."
It would seem to me that the time is long past due for a major, organized cry of
protest from the medical profession in relation to what, in political terms, is a
national scandal. Such an outcry can and should be accompanied by specific recom-
mendations, based on sound child development principles and the hard data already
available to us from 25 years of investigation of the relationship of television
violence and aggressive behavior in children, for new kinds of television program-
ming for children and youth.
San Francisco's Committee on Children's Television, Inc. (1511 Masonic Aye, San
Francisco, CA 94117), a nonprofit organization established by a racially diverse
group of parents and professionals dedicated to improving children's television
programs through research and an affirmative, active plan for community participa-
tion in broadcasting, has developed a set of General Guidelines for Selecting Televi-
sion Programming for Children. These guidelines should be available in every doc-
tor's office, hospital clinic, and child health station. They are as follows:
1. Does the program appeal to the audience for whom intended? (A program for
12-year-olds should be different from a program for 6-year-olds.)
2. Does the program present racial groups positively and does it show them in
situations that enhance the Third World child's self-image? (Who has the lead roles?
Who is the professional or leader and who is the villain?)
3. Does the program present gender roles and adult roles positively? (Are the men
either super-heroes or incompetents? Are the women flighty and disposed to chica-
nery? Are teenagers portrayed with adult characteristics?)
4. Does the program present social issues that are appropriate for the child viewer
and perhaps are something a child can act on at a child's level? (Litter versus
atomic fallout, or pet care versus saving wolves.)
5. Does the program encourage worthwhile ideals, values and beliefs?
6. Does the program present conflict that a child can understand and does it
demonstrate positive techniques for resolvivng the conflict?
7. Does the program stimulate constructive activities and does it enhance the
quality of a child's play?
8. Does the program separate fact from fantasy? Does it separate advertisements
from program content?
9. Does the program present humor at a child's level? (Or is it adult sarcasm,
ridicule or an adult remembering what he thought was funny from his childhood?)
10. Does the program have a pace that allows the child to absorb and contemplate
the material presented?
11. Does the program have artistic qualities?
12. Has your child seen an appropriate amount of television for the day? (Or is it
time to turn off the set?)
Children have neither money nor the vote. We, as parents and as professionals,
must be their advocates or they shall have none, for they are certainly no politi-
cians's constituency.
As Williams and Crane'~ have said, "To be silent is to acquiesce, and it is clear
that, if we truly care about our children, we cannot be silent."
`Whitman W: Leaves of Grass. Sculley B, Blodgett WIT (eds), New York, WW Norton & Co Inc
Publishers, 1973, pp 364-366.
`Bandura A: Behavior theory and the models of man. Am Psychol 29:859-869, 1974.
`Bryan J, Schwartz T: Effects of ifim material upon children's behavior. Psychol Bull
75:50-59, 1971.
4Goranson RE: Media violence and aggressive behavior. A review of experimental research, in
Berkowitz L (ed): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, Academic Press mc,
1970, vol 5, pp 1-31.
`Leifer AD, Gordon NJ, Graves SB: Children's television: More than mere entertainment,
Harvard Educ Rev 44:213-245, 1974.
`Liebert RM: Television and social learning: Some relationships between viewing violence and
behaving aggressively (overview), in Murray JP, Rubinstein EA, Comstock GA (eds): Television
PAGENO="0207"
203
and Social Behavior: Vol 2. Television and Social Learning. US Government Printing Office,
1972, pp 1-34.
~Liebert RM, Neale JM, Davidson ES: The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children
and Youth. Elmsford, NY, Pergamon Press, 1973.
8 Meyer TP: Media violence research: Interpreting the findings. J Broadcasting 17:447-458,
1973.
~Siegel AE: Violence in the mass media, in Daniels DM, Gilula MF, Ochberg FM (eds):
Violence and the Struggle for Existence. Boston, Little Brown & Co, 1970, pp 193-239.
10 Stein AH: Mass media and young children's development. Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education: Part 271:181-202, 1972.
11 Stevenson HW: Television and the behavior of preschool children, in Murray JP, Rubinstein
EA, Comstock GA (eds): Television and Social Behavior: Vol 2. Television and Social Learning.
US Government Printing Office, 1972, pp 346-371.
l2Goranson RE: A review of recent literature on psychological effects of media portrayals of
violence, in Baker RK (ed): Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence: IX. Mass Media and Violence. US Government Printing Office, 1969.
13 Feshbach S: The stimulating versus cathartic effects of a vicarious aggressive activity. J.
Abnorm Soc Psychol 63:381-385, 1961.
14 Williams 5, Crane V: Television violence and your child-A survey of recent research and
literature regarding the effects of violent television program content on the behavior of chil-
dren, Read R (ed). Read as a part of a lecture series offered by College of Mann and the Mann
Association for Mental Health, Kentfield, Calif, Oct 15, 1974. (Copies available through Commit-
tee on Children's Television mc, 1511 Masonic Aye, San Francisco CA 94117.)
Senator PACKWOOD. Senator Thurmond, I am sorry we kept YOU
waiting so long.
STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, and members of the commit-
tee, before beginning on my statement, I would just like to take
this opportunity to commend Dr. Rothenberg for his magnificent
statement. He is an expert on children. He is a pediatrician. He is
an expert on reactions, he is a psychiatrist, and I think his opinion
is most worthy of your careful attention. Mr. Chairman, I appreci-
ate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee.
I am here today to speak on a matter which I believe may
ultimately affect the attitudes, behavior and moral fiber of the
citizens of this great Nation.
With the advent of the television, all Americans-old and young,
rich and poor-were given the opportunity to become a more mean-
ingful part of our society. This medium was a giant step in modern
technology and mass communications. Broad vistas of opportunities
and challenges were opened to all who viewed these images-on-
screen. People could travel to the four corners of the Earth without
leaving their livingroom. The confines of a classroom or library
were removed, giving way to a vehicle through which all Ameri-
cans could become better educated and improve their status in life.
The impact of this invention is immeasurable, yet this great gift to
mankind has become a two-edged sword.
Recently, many Americans have become concerned about the
effects that the television has had on young people during their
maturation process. Educators like Dr. Benjamin Bloom, of the
University of Chicago, maintain that by the time a child reaches 5
years of age, he has undergone as much intellectual growth as will
occur over the next 13 years.
According to the noted television pollster, A. C. Nielsen, children
under the age of 5 watch an average of 23.5 hours of television a
PAGENO="0208"
204
week. On the other hand, adults have a far greater appetite for
television, consuming an alarming 44 hours per week; however, the
effects on young people can be enormous and possibly dangerous.
It has been estimated that by the time of his or her high school
graduation, today's typical teenager will have logged approximate-
ly 15,000 hours before a television screen. These are perhaps the
most important years of an individual's life. They are growing
years, the learning years.
It next might be noted that 96 percent of all American homes
contain at least one TV set and that it has been fairly well docu-
mented that children become purposeful TV viewers by the age of
3, meaning that they have established patterns of favorite pro-
grams and viewing times. Children spend more time in front of a
TV set than in front of a teacher during a year's time, suggesting
its pervasiveness as a socializing and teaching agent. In the pre-
school years alone the average child spends more time watching
TV than he would in the classroom during 4 years of college. By
the age of 14 the average child has witnessed more than 11,000
murders on TV.
The United States is now the most violent of all the major
advanced literate societies in the world today. Our rate of homicide
is 4 times greater than that of Scotland or Australia, and 10 times
greater than the Scandinavian countries.
Why is U.S. society so much more violent than our neighbors to
the north and south, or, say, England? Or the other Western Euro-
pean countries?
Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the major social-cultural differ-
ences between the United States with its high rate of homicides
and violence and those other countries with low violence rates is
the amount of violence screened on public television.
Consider the following: Much of the research which has led to
the conclusion that TV and movie violence could cause aggressive
behavior in some children has stemmed from the work in the area
of imitative learning or modeling, which reduced to its simplest
expression might be termed "monkey see, monkey do."
There have been numerous documented instances of children and
adults directly imitating behavior and activities witnessed on the
TV or movie screen. Many children have been injured and at least
one killed trying to fly like Superman.
A 14-year-old Canadian boy, after watching rock star Alice
Cooper engage in a mock hanging on TV, attempted to reproduce
the stunt and killed himself in the process.
In 1975, NBC-TV presented in early evening prime time a made-
for-TV film, "Born Innocent," which showed in explicit fashion the
sexual violation of a young girl with a broom handle wielded by
other inmates of a juvenile detention home. Later a California
mother sued NBC and San Francisco TV station KRON for $11
million charging that this show had inspired two girls and a boy to
commit an almost identical attack on her 9-year-old daughter and
an 8-year-old girl friend 3 days after those other children had
witnessed this program on TV.
Criminals are too frequently shown in movies and TV as daring
heroes. In the eyes of many young viewers, these criminals possess
all that is worth having in life-fast cars, beautiful admiring
PAGENO="0209"
205
women, super-potent guns, modish clothes, and so forth. In the end
they die like heroes, almost as martyrs, but then only to appease
the old folks who insist on a "crime does not pay" ending.
Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the "catharsis theory" in
vogue a few years ago, which suggested that seeing violence was
good for children because it allowed them to vicariously discharge
their hostile feelings, has been convincingly discarded. Just the
opposite has been found to be true. Seeing violence stimulates
children aggressively. Much of it also shows, and in a sense teaches
them explicitly, how to commit aggressive acts.
There is now a great deal of scientific evidence that suggests that
for children from relatively average home environments, continued
exposure to violence is related to the acceptance of aggression as a
mode of behavior. The results now also show clearly demonstrated
links between the viewing of television violence and aggressive
behavior~
During the last decade, two national violence commissions and
an overwhelming number of scientific studies have continually
come to one conclusion: Televised and filmed violence can power-
fully teach, suggest-even legitimize-extreme antisocial behavior,
and can in some viewers trigger aggressive or violent behavior.
The research of many behavioral scientists ~has shown that a
definite cause-effect relationship exists between violence on TV and
violent behavior in real life. In addition, witnessing pornography
can create long-lasting fantasies in some individuals which can be
converted into deviant sexual inclinations and ultimate deviant
behavior.
The media-television, commercial motion pictures, printed
matter, and even advertisements in magazines and on TV-can fill
our minds with fantasies and images that can powerfully affect our
beliefs, feelings, values, and ultimately our behavior, and it can be
for good or evil.
Mr. Chairman, I appear today not as a foe or archenemy of the
field of television and its related industries, but rather as both a
concerned parent of four children 6 years of age or younger, and as
an advocate of responsible television programing.
The question I pose today is whether there exists a duty to
require responsible regulation of an industry which profoundly
affects the attitudes and behavior of Americans.
Each of us recognizes that television broadcasting is unique be-
cause it is directed indiscriminately towards the public. In a differ-
ent way from other media mass communication, it is both perva-
sive and intrusive. The passive act of watching television is differ-
ent, practically, socially, and physically from obtaining literature
or gaining admission to a movie theater. To gain access to risque
literature or motion pictures, a consumer must enter a store or
theater and make a purchase. Bookstore and theater proprietors
can easily exclude persons who are underage and thus reduce the
likelihood that young children will be exposed to matters that are
deemed unacceptable for their consumption. Furthermore, the use
of magazines, books, and movies are matters which parents find it
both simple, and natural, to regulate. Parents can monitor both the
movies their children see and the books they read. But television
broadcasts are much more difficult for parents to supervise. Such
20-122 0 - 78 - 14
PAGENO="0210"
206
broadcasts are easily accessible to young persons even in the priva-
cy of the home, without the need for comparable affirmative acts.
The offensive matter may be received and consumed with no one
the wiser.
Thus, unlike a bookstore owner or theater operator, a broadcast
licensee has no comparably effective means of sorting out and
excluding youthful customers. Moreover, as is widely known and
widely deplored in our society, television viewing for young chil-
dron is an experience largely devoid of direct parental supervision.
Although most parents monitor their children's viewing and listen-
ing habits some of the time-particularly during later evening
hours when parents themselves place heavy reliance on broadcast
media to satisfy their entertainment needs-it is unrealistic to
expect such close oversight all the time.
It is at those times, Mr. Chairman, when unsupervised children
are most likely in the audience that I express particular concern.
The House Subcommittee on Communications of the House Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held hearings July
14-17, 1975, concerning broadcast advertising and children. During
the hearings, testimony was given by John Schneider, president of
CBS broadcast group. Mr. Schneider mentioned that the number of
young viewers is at its peak during the interval known as family
viewing time. He stated that:
From 8 to 8:30 p.m., there are 14.7 million children between the ages of 2 and 11
in the television audience. From 8:30 to 9 p.m., the number falls slightly to 14.1
million.
He went on to say:
If we look at the number of viewers in that same age bracket-between 2 and
11-for the rest of the night, we find decreasing but still sizable audiences. From 9
to 9:30 p.m., there are 11.1 million children still watching. From 9:30 to 10 p.m., the
number is 9.7 million. From 10 to 10:30 p.m., there are 6.8 million children in the
audience. From 11 to 11:30 p.m., the number drops to 2.9 million. From 11:30 to
midnight, the number is a little smaller-2.1 million. From midnight to 12:30 a.m.,
the child audience is 1.4 million. From 12:30 a.m. to 1 a.m., there are still 1.1 million
children watching television.
The number doesn't fall below 1 million until 1 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., when only
743,000 children between the ages of 2 and 11 are watching television. The low point
is 1:30 a.m. to 2 a.m.: 435,000 children. Looked at another way, between midnight
and 2 a.m., almost 1 million children between the ages of 2 and 11 are watching the
average minute of television.
It is at this time that I believe broadcasters must use the public
interest standard, and program accordingly. A broadcaster should
not force parents to accept the risk that their children will be
exposed to portrayals of nudity, obscenity, and gross physical vio-
lence while in the privacy of their own home.
I believe that a licensee television network or station should
conduct itself as a moral fiduciary, with obligations to present
those views and voices which are representative of the community
which it serves. Also, the courts have long recognized the existence
of a special societal interest in protecting young children from
sexually explicit material. This interest is warranted not only by
the State's interest in the moral and emotional adjustment of
children, but also a recognition of parents' rights to rear their
children according to their own best judgment.
Therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate for Congress,
through legislation, to assist the FCC in determining and defining
PAGENO="0211"
207
the standard by which the public interest is judged. It seems to me
that an elementary standard of the public interest would be to take
into account the concern that millions of Americans share about
the level of sexual material, violence, and carnage entering their
homes.
Mr. Chairman, on March 30, I, along with Senator Eastland,
introduced in the Senate a bill, 5. 1178, which would empower the
FCC to prohibit television stations from broadcasting portrayals of
nudity, obscenity, explicit sexual activity, gross physical violence,
or morbid torture, any of which is offensive to the public taste and
morals.
Specifically, the Communications Act of 1934 would be amended
by requiring the FCC to prescribe regulations prohibiting television
broadcasts of violence and obscenity. This requirement would com-
port with section 301 of the act, which states the law's purpose as
the maintenance of Federal control over all the channels of inter-
state and foreign radio transmission.
It is my firm hope that this subcommittee will give my proposal
its most careful, and favorable, consideration. A near crisis situa-
tion of major proportions confronts the American people, and the
quickest response possible is absolutely necessary.
Thank you very much, and I'm willing to answer any questions
which you may have at this time.
Senator PACKWOOD. Senator, the bill you and Senator Eastland
introduced, does that bill use the standard of violence and obscen-
ity; that is, what the FCC is directed to prohibit?
Senator THURMOND. It is a very short bill. It will take a half-
minute. I will read it.
Section 332(a), the Congress finds the purpose of this act as
stated in section 301 to maintain the control over transmissions.
(a) Television broadcasting stations should in the public interest be prohibited
from broadcasting programs portraying nudity, obscenity, explicit sexual activity,
gross physical violence, or morbid torture, any of which are offensive to the public
taste and morals. (b) The Commission shall as soon as practicable prescribe regula-
tions prohibiting such broadcasting stations from broadcasting such portrayals of
nudity, obscenity, explicit sexual matters or torture.
The Senate would hold hearings on this bill when we pass it and
then we would be in a position then to hear all sides of the
question and in a position then to take action.
Senator PACKWOOD. But in the last analysis the FCC can bar a
show which in its judgment it thought was obscene.
Senator THURMOND. It would prohibit the showing of films por-
traying nudity, obscenity, explicit sexual activity, gross physical
violence, or morbid torture and actions could be brought I think
not only by the FCC; I think they could be brought by citizens if
the companies violated the law.
Senator PACKWOOD. Again trying to get to this balance as to
where the final judgment is, finally the FCC says to NBC or ABC
or CBS, "No, you cannot show that program." That is it. And the
FCC says "Because we think it is obscene" and the network says,
"Well, it is not obscene." And the FCC says, "I am sorry, we think
it is obscene."
Is that the end of it? You can't show it?
PAGENO="0212"
208
Senator THURMOND. It might have to end up with a jury, wheth-
er it is obscene.
Senator PACKWOOD. What you would end up with--
Senator THURMOND. In many States now the local people deter-
mine those matters by juries.
Senator PACKWOOD. What you have with the FCC is not a jury
case. The FCC has a hearing, makes a decision, and the court of
appeals will only overturn it, if they find there was no evidence at
all, or almost no evidence at all for the FCC to base its judgment
on.
So they really aren't going to review it in the sense of the FCC
looking at it.
What you are doing-I want to make sure I understand-is
placing in the hands of the Government the power to determine
whether or not certain shows are going to be shown, and all that
Commission has to do is have a sufficient scintilla of evidence to
justify their decision and their word is it.
Senator THURMOND. I think somebody in the Government has got
to make that decision and it seems the FCC would probably be the
appropriate body and decide that and, if they are dissatisfied, they
can appeal to the courts.
Senator PACKWOOD. No other questions.
Senator FORD. I am sorry I don't know the answer to this ques-
tin. But do you have a legal background? Are you a lawyer by
profession?
Senator THURMOND. I was admitted to the bar in 1930. I have
been a lawyer ever since. I was a circuit judge before I became
Governor.
Senator FORD. Then you are qualified, I guess, with your back-
ground, to help me a little bit.
I am trying to follow your line of thinking here.
NAB developed a code that said to the viewers that we must
have a portion of the evening program as-I think they called it
the family hour or family time, and indicating that they were
trying to accomplish some of the things that you and I both, and a
lot of the public, are concerned about.
But I understand the courts have ruled-particularly-I am not
sure-I believe it is a court in California-has ruled that this code
is not legal, they can't have this code, they can't say to their
broadcasting people that they can't show certain things during
certain hours.
I am sure this probably will be appealed. But I am wonder-
ing--
Senator THURMOND. It is on appeal now. The case is now on
appeal.
Senator FORD. Anyhow, they have gone to court and said this
code cannot apply, so we are running into some legal entangle-
ments.
In your bill you set out certain things, portrayals of nudity,
obscenity, sexual activity, gross physical violence, torture, and so
forth.
Is there a legal definition of these various things?
PAGENO="0213"
209
Senator THURMOND. Well, there are legal definitions. The courts
have defined these matters, and I think those definitions would
prevail, unless Congress gave some other definition.
Senator FORD. Is it true the Supreme Court has said it is the
community's decision-and we have had a case down in Cincinnati
of pornography, so-called, and maybe another case in Memphis, in
letting the community set the standard-is that a good approach?
Senator THURMOND. Well, that is an approach.
Rather than just allowing the situation to run rampant, as has
been the case in other cases in the past, in selling of pornography
and other things.
Out in California a jury convicted nearly all of them that were
brought there, and I think that is an improvement over the situa-
tion that has existed.
Senator FORD. Do you believe the scheduling for the next season
by the networks-and where there is more comedy and that sort of
thing in these given hours-do you think they are trying to accom-
modate the viewing public where they seem to be-where they
have a code, and the court throws that code out, that says-that
calls for a family hour-do you believe that the networks are
trying to adjust to maybe some of the criticism of the public?
Senator THURMOND. They may be trying to adjust some to it, but
I don't think they have adjusted to it sufficiently, Senator.
Senator FORD. I know there is some sentiment-I am not a
lawyer, so I am asking some questions that maybe may seem a
little farfetched-where we in the Congress will have control over
the courts, except the Supreme Court-and that we do make the
laws, subject to the Supreme Court review, I guess.
Will this legislation that you have proposed, do you think, hold
up?
Senator THURMOND. I don't know. But I think it is worth enact-
ing and trying. If it doesn't hold up, I will even favor amending the
Constitution of necessary.
We have to protect the public, Senator.
I think it is absolutely outrageous when you can show physical
sexual acts on television, show nudity that goes into the home on
television, absolutely obscene acts on television, gross physical vio-
lence that little children see, morbid torture that they see. Because
they are impressed, as this expert witness here a few moments ago,
Dr. Rothenberg, just testified.
He is a child specialist. He is a psychiatrist, too. And he knows
reactions. I think his testimony-I believe you heard it-was most
impressive to anybody I think who is interested in children and the
future of this country.
Senator FORD. Senator, I have a concern. One of the programs
that is going to be on prime time next season is Daniel Boone.
Now, there is some objection to the violence in Daniel Boone's
coming out of the Carolinas through the Cumberland Gap into the
dark and bloody ground now called Kentucky. And there is an
objection by some of these that Daniel Boone's portrayal of history
on TV is going to be violent.
However, we were informed in our hearings the day before yes-
terday there would be no scalping; there would be some fighting.
PAGENO="0214"
210
I am getting some laughs in the background, but I am as serious
as I can be, that if Daniel Boone is one that is going to be a violent
movie, then maybe we ought to look at what our children are
reading.
That is history, you know. `~
Senator THURMOND. I think where it is true history, there prob-
ably wouldn't be too much violence in it. There may be a little bit,
but that is not the kind of thing I am referring to here.
Where you have true history and there is a reasonable amount of
violence, if it is true according to history, that is one thing. But
just to show violence as an entertainment or a shoot-em-up as an
entertainment, then I think that is very detrimental and bad.
Senator FORD. I think you understand what I am trying to get to.
Senator THURMOND. Yes, I do.
Senator FORD. There is an area where we are drawing some lines
that has some very definite and strong feelings, some that may not
like what they see on TV but will fight to give them the right to
show it. Freedom of speech, being able to express one-self is one of
our rights.
Senator THURMOND. I don't think freedom of speech ought to go
to the point of insulting other people, insulting the public, and
insulting homes in this Nation.
Senator FORD. There is an old adage that your freedom of speech
lasts as long as my arm can reach to your nose, sometimes, too.
Senator THURMOND. I understand what freedom of speech means,
and I am for freedom of speech to the fullest. But I am not for
what people call freedom of speech which would show on the
televisions of this Nation the things I mentioned here.
Nudity, that is not freedom of speech; obscenity, that is not
freedom of speech; explicit sexual activity is not freedom of speech;
gross physical violence is not freedom of speech. Nor morbid tor-
ture. In my judgment. If it is against the best interests of the
public.
Senator FORD. I have no further questions.
Senator PACKWOOD. Senator, I want to make sure I understand
how this bill works.
Let's take the gross physical violence part. There is a screening
of the movie "Shane" which has a particularly violent ending,
where Shane in a shootout dispatches, as I recall, in about 30 or 40
seconds, four or five men, all being watched by a child, in a movie.
If the FCC says that is too violent, we are not going to allow that
ending to be shown, which would, in the movie "Shane's" case,
ruin the entire movie, that is it. I mean that movie could not be
shown with that ending under your bill, is that right? If the FCC
says no?
Senator THURMOND. The FCC would have the right to prohibit
from broadcasting programs these things I just mentioned. And if
there is any question about any particular program, or any particu-
lar movie that they want to show, why, then, it could be taken to
court.
Cases will be taken to court, I am sure.
Senator PACKWOOD. The only court to take it to would be the
court of appeals. In that situation they would say was there any
evidence to justify the FCC's conclusion that this is gross physical
PAGENO="0215"
211
violence, shooting somebody is. reasonably gross physical violence,
and the court would say, yes, there was sufficient evidence for the
FCC to reach that decision and that is it?
Is that the way it works?
Senator THURMOND. No. I think you have to exercise some
common sense.
I think in this matter the FCC would have to exercise reason-
ableness and common sense
I think the courts would have to do the same thing
The idea is to protect the public. There must be some way we can
protect the children and the public of this Nation. And, if we can't
do it under the present laws, let's make some laws that can do it
If we can't do it under the Constitution as it exists today, let's
amend the Constitution
I do think the public ought to be protected.
Senator PACKWOOD As I understand your bill, it is protected, as
the FCC interprets your words, is that correct7
Senator THURMOND The bill speaks for itself The bill says televi
sion broadcasting stations should in the public interest be prohibit-
ed from broadcasting programs portraying those things that I out
lined, that I just mentioned
Senator PACKWOOD. I have no further questions. Thank you very
much.
Senator THURMOND Thank you very much
Senator PACKWOOD. Next we have a program practices panel: Mr.
Sauter, Mr Knowlton, Mr Choate, Loring Mandel, and Ted Car
penter.
I understand Mr. Sauter will go first.
STATEMENTS OF VAN GORDON SAUTER, VICE PRESIDENT,
PROGRAM PRACTICES, CBS, NEW YORK, N.Y.; ARCHA 0.
KNOWLTON, DIRECTOR, MEDIA SERVICES, GENERAL FOODS,
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.; ROBERT CHOATE, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL
ON CHILDREN, MEDIA AND MERCHANDISING, WASHINGTON,
D.C.; LORING MANDEL, PRESIDENT, WRITER'S GUILD-EAST,
HUNTINGTON, N.Y.; AND TED CARPENTER, EXECUTIVE DIREC-
TOR, NATIONAL CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. SAUTER. My name is Van Gordon Sauter, and I am vice
president for program practices of the CBS Television Network. I
beg your indulgence this morning. I am going to be showing some
videotape which does contain some violence and profanity. I will
probably in the course of this also tell some stories which you
might consider to be risque, if not outright vulgar.
I will begin my presentation today by reading a quote that
recently caught my attention:
The tendency of children to imitate the daring deeds seen upon the screen has
been illustrated in nearly every court in the land. Train wrecks, robberies, murders,
thefts, runaways-and other forms of juvenile delinquency have been traced to some
particular program. The imitation is not confined to young boys and girls, but
extends even through adolescence and to adults.
It sounds like another attack on television. Not quite. In the
original version, the word program was not used. It was movies.
And it was published in 1919 by a magazine editor who saw motion
PAGENO="0216"
212
pictures-the new form of mass entertainment-undermining the
morality-of the Nation.
There will always be concerns that mass entertainment, in one
form or another, is directly responsible for many of the social ills of
our society. And inherent to this is the assumption that the
people-basically individuals like you and me-cannot be trusted
ultimately to determine on their own what kind of entertainment
they select and enjoy.
Television daily brings into our homes the laughter of comedy
and the tears of drama. It daily illustrates the courage and the
cowardice of our times. It is an experience that we, as a Nation of
such diverse people, share daily.
And as a medium bringing entertainment, news, and information
into living rooms across the nation, we know that we can only
succeed if we provide a program service that will be acceptable to
this broad and diverse audience. And by acceptable I do not only
mean entertaining, but tasteful as well. At CBS, it is the--responsi-
bility of the program practices department to insure that the enter-
tainment programs we broadcast on the network reflect standards
of taste appropriate to the-audience we serve. -
It is probably one of the more subjective functions of the net-
work. - -
There is no village in the Midwest, nor any block in the urban
sprawl, which provides an accurate sample of what America consid-
ers good taste or bad taste, violence in context or gratuitous vio-
lence, an accurate portrayal of our values or a distorted portrayal
of those values.
In program practices we fundamentally have three areas of re-
sponsibility: Entertainment programs created for television; motion
pictures originally shown in theaters and offered for television; and
commercial announcements submitted for airing on our network.
We are not involved with news and public affairs.
It is important to point out that program practices reports direct-
ly to the president of the CBS Television Network. We are in no
way responsible to, or influenced by, the program department or
the sales department. Program practices has offices in New York
and Los Angeles, each headed by a vice-president who reports to
me, and a staff of 84. We are adding three more this fall. That may
sound like a large - number, but it is not when you consider the
responsibility and volume of work involved, as I will explain.
A program practices editor is assigned to each program created
for our network. His or her involvement begins with the submis-
sion of a writer's outline and continues through the first script
draft and subsequent revisions. The editor is frequently present at
the filming or taping.
A few statistics. Last year, CBS program practices editors read
and screened more than 1,500 scripts for series episodes, pilots, and
special programs for prime time. We read scripts and attended
tapings or screenings of more than 1,000 soap opera episodes. We
reviewed more than 200 motion pictures. We carefully screened the
content of our Saturday morning schedule and other programs
designed for children. The editors bring to their work backgrounds
and expertise in different areas of broadcasting, education, journal-
ism, law. For instance, the man responsible for program practices
PAGENO="0217"
213
for our children's programs has a Ph. D. in psychology from Har-
vard.
While we must be responsive to the sensitivities of our audience,
at the same time we must not inhibit the creative process. The
most difficult job I know of is to sit behind a typewriter and create
material that will entertain people. Program practice editors are
charged with the responsibility of assuring that our standards are
met while trying not to diminish the legitimate creative spirit and
no doubt diminishing the quality of entertainment available for
our audience.
At this moment, our two greatest concerns are the portrayal of
violence and the representation of moral standards.
While a few organizations have thrust the question of violence
into the news, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority
of viewers have no basic difficulty with that issue, but are far more
concerned about how television portrays personal relationships.
Senator PACKWOOD. Let me interrupt. Will you tell me what you
mean by the last paragraph?
Mr. SAUTER. On the basis of the mail we receive as a network, on
the basis of the conversations with our affiliates who are in daily
contact with their viewers, it is my assumption that the viewers do
not fundamentally have an objection to the portrayal of violence on
television, both in terms of the quantity that is on television today,
and also in terms of the way it is portrayed. I think the fundamen-
tal concern that most viewers have about television, if you would
list their concerns in the sense of priorities, they are very con-
cerned about how we portray sexual relationships, particularly
sexual relationships that reflect the changing morality of our soci-
ety.
Senator PACKWOOD. You do not mean they are concerned with
violence? They are just more concerned with sex?
Mr. SAUTER. Far more so.
Senator FORD. Let me ask a question at this point, too. We heard
testimony the day before yesterday that these groups are going to
advertisers, not necessarily to the network, and that you are going
to feel the crunch of their approach to the advertisers because you
are losing advertisers.
Would you say the same group you get the mail from at the
network is also going toward the advertiser and getting more re-
sults there than maybe with the networks?
Mr. SAUTER. I would not say that, sir. We indeed have had
advertisers come to us. I think we have had about 30 at this stage
who have submitted to my office rather detailed descriptions of the
kind of material they would not like to see in programs in which
their commercials are going to appear. Many of those relate not
only to violence but to the portrayal of sex.
Of course, there is no sex in any way, or nudity, shown on
commercial television, at least not on CBS.
There are, indeed, allusions to sexual relations or sexual conduct,
but that is not portrayed.
Senator FORD. Go ahead.
Mr. SAUTER. There is far less violence on television today than
there was 3 or 4 years ago. In the 1975-76 season there were 36
percent fewer acts of prime time violence on CBS than there were
PAGENO="0218"
214
the year before. In the current season, that same low level has
been maintained.
Senator PACKWOOD. I do not understand the various statistics.
Dr. Rothenberg had the study from Dr. Gerbner on the fall 1976
season which he says the average number of violent episodes for
commercial television increased in all categories. The overall aver-
age was 9.5 violent episodes per hour, the highest since 1967.
Where is the distinction between what you just said and what
Dr. Rothenberg quotes Dr. Gerbner as saying?
Mr. SAUTER. This is a highly complex area. I will try to simplify
it.
Dr. Gerbner and CBS has its own definition of what constitutes
an act of violence. There are two very important discrepancies
between ourselves and Dr. Gerbner. Dr. Gerbner will count a come-
dic act, a pie in the face, as an act of violence; also, an act of God,
tornado, or flood. We do not see it that way.
More important, however, Dr. Gerbner bases his survey of televi-
sion on the basis of 1 week of programing. Now, I want to assure
you gentlemen there is no such thing in today's market as 1
representative week of television in this country. He does 1 week.
CBS, however, does 13 weeks over the course of a broadcast
season. And our figures differ greatly from his.
I think you should know, for instance, that in our survey of 13
weeks, the most violent week in our 13 weeks was three times as
violent as our least violent week. The discrepancy was quite signifi-
cant.
Senator PACKWOOD. He picked a bad week?
Mr. SAUTER. He is not even willing to tell us what week he
picked, so we are unable to do a precise comparison. He does 1
week; he counts strange things that we do not.
Let me add one more point. Dr. Gerbner's report, final report,
the one he makes public, is not really a count of violence on
television. It is what he calls a violence index. He takes his count,
and then gives the various incidents which he has perceived vary-
ing weights, so he frequently ends up with figures which we think
are totally unrepresentative of the reality of what people see on
television.
You mentioned family hour. We were most offended and bewil-
dered when Dr. Gerbner said CBS has lifted the lid on violence in
the family hour. I think that is preposterous. By Dr. Gerbner's own
count this past year, in which he said we took the lid off, we had 11
acts of violence by his count in that sample week. The previous
year, by his count, we had 20 incidents of violence.
In effect, the number of acts of violence that he saw went down
by nine. But by introducing this convoluted index of his, he
reached the conclusion that the number of acts of violence had
actually gone up.
Senator PACKWOOD. Did the AMA study of the entire season
corroborate Dr. Gerbner?
Mr. SAUTER. I am unaware of an AMA study of the entire
season.
Senator PACKWOOD. Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr. SAUTER. If I may digress here, again I want to underscore
that CBS has a firm commitment in our programing to the family
PAGENO="0219"
215
hour. And if I may, I would like to show you a cassette of three
incidents in our family hour last year which we presume that Dr.
Gerbner called acts of violence.
Can we see the cassette, please.
[Tape shown.]
Mr. SAUTER. Those would be three acts of violence by Dr.
Gerbner's count again, let me say that this past year there was no
increase in the violence on the CBS Television Network. In the
coming season, departing from my text here, we have reduced by
two the number of police action-adventure programs in our sched-
ule and we have introduced in that new schedule no action-adven-
ture programs.
Responding to the scripts submitted for broadcasts we air, pro-
gram practices editors provide detailed guidance calling for the
elimination of excessive and gratuitous violence.
And those requests for change are submitted to the producers
and directors of the show. I pulled out before I came down some of
the directions we gave recently for a broadcast of ours called
"Switch." This was done in 1977, January.
Let me give you three scripts as they, or three notations for
changes in the scripts. As scripted:
Cindy should oniy raise the wrench to his head and we should not show a
downswing. Since this constitutes an act of violence we would like to find a nonvio-
lent way to neutralize Mitchell, such as locking him in his room.
People totally unfamiliar with the creative process may find this
amusing, but it is a very important part of the give and take
between us and the creative people.
Since the action of Malcom's throwing the van's door open and throwing the
heavy to the ground seems gratuitous, we should ask while Pete engages the heavy
in a situation, Malcolm, gun in hand, sneaks on the other side of the truck.
Confronted, the heavy surrenders. No violence involved.
He should simply grab his arm and swing him into the pool. In no case should a
punch, chop to the arm, or violence be used.
With your permission, I would like to submit a representative
sample of these notes, such as we have submitted to the producers
of our various programs.
Senator PACKWOOD. They will be put in the record.1
Mr. SAUTER. Fine. Because of that kind of effort, 23 percent of
the violence called for in first draft scripts last year was eliminated
and never seen on the screen.
Sometimes, when viewing a rough edited version of a program,
we find other ways of eliminating violence. Let me show you a
brief sequence from the pilot of a science fiction series, Logan's
Run.
In this particular series which will be aired next year on our
network, Logan is fleeing a dictatorial city going out in the vast
unknown.
I think it is set in the 22d century. He is being pursued by people
from the domed city that want to bring him back.
I will show it now.
[Film shown.]
iSee p. 219.
PAGENO="0220"
216
Mr. SATJTER. That, gentlemen, was a gratuitous act of violence.
There is no need for that particular act in the script. I met last
week with the producer and we are going to shoot it.
I am going to meet with them tomorrow in Los Angeles. We will
find another way of doing it. The most simple way, the defector,
the one that wants to go back to the city, just walks back to the
city and the other three continue in their pursuit of Logan. That is
the type of thing with which we deal and why we watch this from
the beginning of the creative process to the end in trying to find
ways to eliminate violence.
I should note that many Hollywood producers share our concerns
about unnecessary violence, and are highly cooperative. They also
share our concerns that the crusade against television violence
could turn into a video witch hunt, resulting in creative censorship.
We are also concerned about the imitative material-the kind of
program content that could be imitated by the young, or the unsta-
ble, or the criminal, to bring harm to others.
While we don't believe the material we broadcast, or have broad-
cast, is detrimental to the viewers or the way they perceive society,
we have as responsive and responsible broadcasters reduced the
violent material in our programing, since there has been a call for
that reduction. In fact, the schedule we announced last week elimi-
nates 2 hours of police action adventure programing.
Commercial motion pictures that have played in theaters across
the country and are then sold to television represent for us a
unique problem.
When a motion picture company submits a package of films for
sale to television, we screen the individual films and eliminate
from consideration those that are inappropriate for television or
those that would be ruined if they were edited to meet the require-
ments of television.
Increasingly, Hollywood producers and motion picture companies
are responding to the fact that a television audience is different
from a theatrical audience. More and more they produce two ver-
sions of their films: One for theatrical release and a "clean" ver-
sion, so-called, for television.
Film director John Frankenheimer, for instance, did an excellent
television version of "French Connection Two." In a different ap-
proach, producer Robert Evans, actor Jack Nicholson and Para-
mount spent a considerable amount of time assisting us in adapt-
ing "Chinatown" for a television audience. But even films that
carry PG, parental guidance suggested, ratings frequently need, in
our opinion, changes.
Take, for instance, the film CBS is offering tonight-a western-
starring John Wayne called "The Cowboys."
I want to show you some scenes we have deleted from that film.
[Film shown.]
Mr. SAUTER. That is a profanity in Spanish. We also edit for
foreign language. I should again add, and I am not being critical of
the motion picture people, that film bore a PG rating.
We, however, found those scenes unsuitable for a television audi-
ence. They will not be seen on the CBS network when that airs
tonight.
PAGENO="0221"
217
I pulled that because it is current on our schedule. We sent a
cassette of the finished version to the director of the film as we
frequently do because one of our sincere concerns is not to dimin-
ish the creative quality of a film.
He came back to us and said he was most satisfied, he thought
the integrity of his film had been maintained. We were quite
pleased with that.
And generally we have that kind of response from directors
whose films we make some changes in. That clip to some degree
also points up the whole problems of rating systems per se. That
was rated PG.
The most difficult area with which we deal is the portrayal of
morality in our society. A network should not carry the banner of
social change. But our broadcasts, comedic or dramatic, must be
rooted in the reality of our society.
Finding the right and correct tone for individual broadcasts-for
an overall broadcast schedule-is a challenge, given the incredible
diversity of the Nation we serve-given the different levels of
education achievement, social perception, religious conviction, eco-
nomic status.
We could, I presume, edit our broadcasts for the most fundamen-
tal level of acceptability. We have, however, tried to edit for taste-
good taste.
Given the volume of material we handle, it is certainly feasible
to find occasions where we have erred-to find material that
should not have been broadcast-or for that matter, to find materi-
al that should have aired but didn't.
But again, we think our record is a good one. Sometimes, produc-
ers and writers and performers do our work for us, in the sense
that they take great pride in their work or the characters they
create.
Let me deviate to tell you a story about "All In The Family,"
which is one of my favorite broadcasts.
It is for us a difficult broadcast but producer Norman Lear has
been cooperative and we have been able to resolve our differences
in an effective manner.
He recently had a script where Archie, to his astonishment
learns that the girl to whom he lost his virginity in high school is
coming to dinner with her husband and Archie is predictably con-
fused and finds the whole thing unbearable and the dinner is the
usual succession of very funny events and finally Edith begins to
perceive what this is all about.
Finally, at the end of the meal Edith is in the kitchen with this
girl and the script called for Edith to say, "Well, why didn't you
tell me that years ago you and Archie had this thing," and the
woman was supposed to answer, "But Edith it was just a day out of
my life. It was 30 seconds out of my life."
And Edith was supposed to say, "That long?"
We would have had problems with that, quite frankly. Jean
Stapleton who played Edith had greater problems with it and
conveyed those, I think, to the writer. But whatever, that particu-
lar sequence disappeared entirely from the broadcast and it was
not a problem for us but it is an indication of how the performers
PAGENO="0222"
218
are frequently very beneficial in this and have as much concern as
we do in the areas of taste.
Finally, program practices deals with commercial announce-
ments.
Last year, we received more than 35,000 commercials for consid-
eration, generally in the form of storyboards and scripts. You may
feel you saw all of them. You didn't, we did.
In fact, we rejected about 35 percent of those commercials at one
stage or another, because they failed to meet our network stan-
dards, or the requirements of the National Association of Broad-
casters.
CBS is not a mini FTC, but we feel a distinct obligation to insure,
as much as feasible, the validity of the claims made in the commer-
cials we air on our network.
It can be a highly complex and technical task. We have on our
staff, for instance, a registered pharmacist who handles commer-
cials relating to that area. An automotive engineer on our staff
handles car commercials, or those that have claims relating to
mechanical pro~1ciency.
And again, we review for taste.
In this area when you get into taste you find discrepancies
between your judgment and the judgment of competitors. We re-
cently turned down a commercial and to our surprise it appeared
on the other two networks. The producer of the commercial, the
man who runs the company, came in and told us his disappoint-
ment with what we read into his commercial.
He said, "I told the advertising agency if the network's speed
limit was 80 miles an hour I wanted my commercial to go 79.5
miles an hour."
And we said, "Well, elsewhere in broadcasting the speedometer
may have registered 79.5, but it went by our building going 86
miles an hour" and the man said, "I don't understand this."
He said, "All I am trying to say in that commercial, is that if you
use my product, you get laid." I said, "Sir, you have said t~hat and
it is not going to go on our air."
Obviously other people did not perceive that the same way, but
we did not accept that commercial.
There are from network to network, different standards of taste
brought to bear. I am not saying ours is higher or better, but
different.
I would like to show you one of the best commercials I have ever
seen. There is in one sense an element of whether it is in good
taste or bad taste, but you might--
Senator PACKWOOD. Never come to you, you mean CBS has never
had access to it?
Mr. SAUTER. It has never been broadcast in this country. You
will soon see why. It is for a product sold abroad not here.
[Film shown.]
Mr. SAUTER. That has not been submitted for broadcasting. I
would be derelict if I left a discussion area of television commer-
cials without saying, gentlemen, the advertising agencies with
which we deal are staffed by highly trained and competent profes-
sionals.
PAGENO="0223"
219
I think they can take a great deal of pride not only in their
motivation, their skills, indeed. This has been a quick overview of
the function of program practices, some of the issues with which
we deal, and an indication as to how CBS has populated that
department with a mixture of specialists and generalists, who
share a common desire to insure that our network broadcasting
reflects the values and the standards and the best interests of our
audience we serve.
Thank you.
Senator PACKWOOD. Thank you.
We will take the entire panel before we ask any questions.
[The following information was referred to on p. 215:]
PAGENO="0224"
220
CBS TELEVISION NETWORK PROGRAM PRACTICES EDITING NOTES-APPENDIX TO THE
STATEMENT BY VAN GORDON SAUTER
CBS TELEVISION NETWORK
Program Practkes, Hollywood
DATE:..._D.e~jthj~i~2~,. ~
TO .._-.-._Quthn_ila.r.lin rr,r1ur~t j pnc ATTN: _lirJl.LLLp.itzomr._.._
RE BAUP.BY-5L0-NES `The_KLlIer_onCarnpus _(Fi r~t C rafr)
RECEIVED_._Deejmbe~..27,
Tb. sbss. s~~ip? is ~ spp~s~.d ~ ths CBS T~l',si~~ ~ th~ ~
Page 2, Scene 7 Footage of the action showing Jeff as hr. "bricgs our a
plastic credit card, with which he deftly `slips" t~t
lock of the apartment door should a~'oid beiflg nszructi~i~ai.
Page Li-, Scene 12 Kemper's "dangling feet and lower, legs' shouid be
and later motionless.
Page k, Scene 1k Kemper's hanging body should be shown only in
and later
Page 1+0, Scene 86 In Carson's second speech please chance "erotic intCr~ude3'
to "romantic interludes."
In the interest of reducing violence, please rework the follo'iiing action:
Page 1+7, Scene 96 Roger jams a gun muzzle hard against Carson's ribs.
Page 52, Scene 107 Karen pushes Doris into the pool
Page 53, Scene 115 Roger shoves Carson.
Profanity should not exceed usages indicatecin script:
Page 11, Scene 26 "go to hell" Karen
Page 33, Scene 68 "damned' Roger
Page 1+0, Scene 86 "l'Ihat the hell" Carson
Throughout this production please avoid commercial identification, as n:
Page 13, Scene 33 Tape equipment
Page 17, Scenes 1+3, 1+4 Exterior and interior of campus bar
All character and business names should be fictitious, as in:
Page Li-k, Scene 93 Angela Bryant, Thomas Ericscn described as o7~r3tir~ C
and later "bomb factory" in Trenton.
~ ~
Fissi .spptossl is bss,d sos,pI.wd II,,.
cc: Messrs. Martin, Thompson, Sherman, Brockway, Ahern,,-Director, lie. LCmds, fir. Kirechner
/ /
B __~L~,~_~_
Carol !scacs
CI:lds
4,th,,,g ~ h,s .ps,t SI'S11 ,`f,,t CBS Tsk~~s .ss's 1 l.~. .1 ~ ~-, `,`~,, ~- , ,
h.,, ~ sm's s' ~s's.,, `s bs ~ `,m"'' :h,~ ~.,.s, -
hitd ps~s,.s ""c st ,I,s b'ssd,ssssg s, ss,,~, ,,~s ,.
PAGENO="0225"
221
CBS TELEVIS~N NETWORK
Program Pract~ces, Hollywood
August 25~ 1976
C1:lds
Quinn Martin Productions Mr. Fhilip Saltzr~an
TO
BARNABY JONES "The Killer on Campus"
RE
August 16, 1976
RECEIVED _________________________________________________________
The .bo~e eye epsie i heteetith eppteeed, teith the felloetieg c~eteets:
Page 8 Filming of the action which shows "Roger executing Jeff with o
judo-chop" should avoid being instructional or unduly vicious.
Page 11 Please avoid having Karen tortute Doris while the lotter is
in the pool.
Thank you for your cooperation.
cc: Messrs. Quinn Martin
Russell Stoneham
Robert Sherman
Richard Brockway
Fred Ahern
Director
Ms. Shirley Leeds
Mr. Dick Klrschner
We re settee the tight to tettiete oct oppto,oI
of the boste stotylitte hosed opec its
d I p~ h f I p B ______________________
Carol lsaecs
Nothittg coetoiced itt his t.pott shell offept CBS Teleoi.iotos tt~hts if coop, Ogoittot the *ptodc~oo, the
.pottsors, its or th.ot odo.ttisittg ogettoy or geeooi.s to be rdet~tttif~ed egoest ho ooicts, deooooods or
of eot,oro of third pert... orisiorg ocr of the broodpostitrg ot other ose of rooteti~! referred to heteitt
20-122 0-78-15
PAGENO="0226"
222
CBS TELEVISION NETWORK
Program Practices, Hollywood
DATE: ~
actions ATTN C~]ris )krgan
RTh~ Peck np" ~v "The Nighec i.ro cold and Th~ Good Die !oung"-
let Draft dated 8/Z3/76
RECEIVED Q~tcer21, 2.976
R.'is.d p.g.~ f. A. ~ ~ipt h.~..'ith .pp~.d k~ p~t~ti~ ,h, CBS T,I.:si~ ~ *:th th. f~II.~-
is noted in our report of 8ept~er 21, 1976, violence sitbin this script
was considered excessive. At that tine, we requested that the six incidents
of violence within this pooperty be reduced by half.
The Revised Pages, dated 10/20/76, de not reflect any reduction in violence.
This property therefore sast still be considered excessively violent and as
currently eritten nust be considered unacceptable for broadcast.
lou say refer to our earlier notes for a list of the violent incidents and
our suggested changes or deletions.
Tar additional oonaiderati~:
Page 4, Scene 8 ~- As santioned earlier, the driver' c ~ of a ~ ~
be changed or deleted.
Page 4, The violence associated with the asibuab of )IITCKELL's
Scenes 9 & 10 cab is excessive and sast be reduced in intensity.
We weuld ask for a short fire fight. Bodily reactions
to being bit and the potentially grizzly aspects of the
e.wbush should be sinisised.
We seriously question the necessity to have three people
in th. back seat of the cab. We should 1x)t see the
lxpset of the bullets into the cab's rear window (which
kills the three people in the rear seat).
Dodies should not be shocking, or unnecessarily
featured. Please avoid open staring eyes or eontevted
facial features. Bloody sake-op should ~t be excessive.
(co~rn~)
PI.,s.s,btit t.~'is.d p~g*S f~t ,ppt.~.I.
Fittol .pptot'oI is b.s.d cotttpI.t.d f:I,t.
N~thittg ~~t,i*d his ~ .h.II ,ff.~, CBS T.I..i.i~s t,ghts, if .ty .g.:tst A. p d,t.t th.
its th.it .d~.ttisitg.g'tt~y .g.t~i.s. t. b. i,d. if:.d ~g~:tst th. .I,,tt., d.tt,ttd.
.1 th~~d p.tti .s ~i.it~ .1 tb. b..d~..tig .th.~ 1.,f*tt,t.t:,I .f.tt.d
PAGENO="0227"
223
CBS TELEVISION NETWORK
Program Practices, Hollywood
~-Up' or `The 1~ights .fre Cold end The Good Die Young"
Re'tis.d pagn. fat tha abana an tips h't,ntnith appta.'td fat pt..'tntatian an thn CBS T'tInni.san Nnttnatk, mith th't follam.
in g.oc'tptianS: 2.
Page 33, Scene 58 Please ba-ye ~JhN's eyes closed an be is seen an the
eatopsy table.
Please continue to refer to our earlier report regarding JAXE's body; the
character of the MALE LIBRARIAN; QUAN's autopsy; the art sork for the Leltey
Clinic; HUNT1~'s action of pushing people ~i the Clinic's stairs; and nee
of the phone nnuber 146-3212.
The use of `thelja't ~ ~ is still considered excessive end their usage
enat be th~astica1],y reduced. We ~te the folloving:
Page 2, Scene 3 ~ ?ITCPiELL `We're pretty da~i...'
Page 8, &~ 16 ef~' MAITLAND: `t...sure as hell...'
B*~ .nlvays a danu abase...'
Page 11, Scene ~) ~ MAITLAND: `...I'a dnisied glad..
Page 12B, Scene 20E c~ ~cEh~
> w~ 3~ 2 ~
at o~f-.S: 5~~n
w 0
0
C-c
C-I
a) 2
c m0~cr$CW(fl5
113
cci
o
cci
o
cci 0
a_)
o II*
PAGENO="0265"
261
Mr. CHOATE. Here follows a list of programs watched by large
numbers of children, which during January 1977 did show OTC
drug advertisements. I think these are 1977 BAR statistics.
The whole issue bears on the 800-1,000 OTC drug ads seen by a
moderate TV-watching child each year. It may be a burgeoning
issue, since we note a growing number of junior versions of adult-
type OTC drug products now being advertised at times when large
numbers of children are in the audience. There are junior versions
of Bayer Aspirin products, Contac, and Congespirin. There may be
others.
The attitudes of the Nation's drug sponsors and advertising agen-
cies are relevant here. We quote from a letter to Robert Pitofsky of
the Bureau of Consumer Protection from S. Land and A. Krulwich
of the law firm of Arnold and Porter on behalf of Hoffman-La-
Roche, Inc.-Sauter Laboratories on the subject of advertising drugs
to children. In this case the "drug" was vitamins.
The reason why advertisers promote vitamin and mineral supplements to children
is to make their consumption more palatable and more acceptable to them * * * In
addition to making vitamin supplements in more palatable and attractive forms,
Sauter believes that it is important to advertise them to children to insure that they
are not regarded as medicines to be avoided. In the company's view, it would not be
sufficient to advertise to parents to insure their acceptance by children.
To summarize, the Code Authority boasts of the protection that
it offers to children while in fact the Code Authority has phrased
its definition to insure that drug advertisers during late afternoon
and early evening programs watched by massive numbers of chil-
dren are not impeded in their selling effort.
The NAB knows better. They have had advice from the FDA.
The NAB Code Authority is also rather hard to follow because it
seems to keep changing its phraseology generally in the direction
of less protection for children.
I show what it was saying in September 1973, and again what it
was saying in April 1974. Then when there was pressure on adver-
tising of vitamin pills for children, they came forth with another
statement saying:
The Board also formalized existing code policy which disallows the advertising of
certain nonprescription medications in children's programs and approved the expan-
sion of the policy to include all such medications regardless of how taken or
administered.
Nonprescription medication and supplemental vitamin products,
regardless of how taken or administered, shall not be advertised in
or adjacent to programs initially designed primarily for children
under 12 years of age.
Notice by the phraseology "initially designed for children" that
all re-runs on late afternoon programs are exempted from this
provision.
"Gilligan's Island," "Hogan's Heroes," "Bewitched," all of those
programs are not covered by the child protection provisions of the
code.
The code also uses a euphemism called "overt reference."
Overt reference means reference to something in the advertise-
ment that indicates you ought to go read the label, look at the
dosages, look at the warnings and indications for use.
PAGENO="0266"
262
There is very carefully drawn language in the NAB Code about
thes& overt references. I am going to show you in a minute 4
minutes of commercials which violate these overt reference stan-
dards.
The NAB Code says in reference to overt reference: If the disclo-
sure appears in the video, it must be first, on the screen long
enough-3-4 seconds-to be read easily, second, large enough to be
read easily, and third, must be in overall video context that does
not distract from the disclosure.You will note in what I am going
to show you, in many cases the overt reference can't be seen. It is
white on white in video, but not in audio, or the other way around,
thereby missing the blind or deaf group or those that cannot read
quickly and well.
In some cases the action on the screen is seemingly designed to
distract the viewer away from the overt reference. The code also
says that there shall be no indications of immediate relief such as
might not be obtained directly from the medication.
I will show you one in which apparent instant relief is gained.
As we go through the ads, please note in drug advertising for
children there is no requirement that any child-related warning be
repeated. Note that children are not advised to stay away from
OTC drugs. Note that the Code Authority has adopted no symbol or
graphic, such as the Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Mr. Yuk" program, to
warn children from self-administering these products, and note
that parents are not alerted to children's drug reactions.
In recent testimony before the FTC during an OTC advertising
hearing, we showed a number of kinescopes of recent OTC drug
messages. I have taken this film and edited it slightly. There are
one or two ads that aren't particularly relevant to this hearing, but
I think you will see 4 minutes of OTC ads that should have been
covered by the NAB Code and were not.
You have the storyboards as an appendix to this testimony.
In showing the films I will point out various defects in the
advertisements which seem to violate the aforementioned codes.
I believe the drug ads as aired provide misinformation and in-
complete information and are deceptive to the previously described
vulnerable audiences. I will show you one of these kinescopes as
though you were part of a blind audience, and one as though you
were deaf.
I ask you to weigh whether these advertisements which appeared
on television in the last 2 years, supposedly conforming to the NAB
Code, measure up to the protections suggested by the foregoing
statements from the NAB as it assured the public, the FCC, and
this Congress that there was no need for further action at the
Federal level.
I ask you to exercise the powers of this committee to clean up
the deceptions practiced by the NAB-with apparent FCC collu-
sion-as drugs and other hazardous products are advertised before
large child audiences, as well as other vulnerable groups.
I will try to speak into this microphone as we see the drug
commercials.
[Film shown.] [Film breaks.]
Mr. CHOATE. Now, Mr. Chairman, if you are running out of time,
as I suspect you are, this would take another 2 minutes to fix.
PAGENO="0267"
263
Senator HOLLINGS. You made a good point. We are going to have
to hear from you and the NAB at the same time to see what can be
done.
Mr. CHOATE. I would point out-and I apologize for breaking the
film-I would point out that of these, I think, nine commercials,
there are warnings about how one should go to the the label to
look for dosage with white on white in one of them; and 2 seconds
of exposures out of 29 seconds in another one.
In several instances, the action in the advertisement is in an-
other portion of the screen than where the warning is, and thus
one's eyes are not directed to the warning.
We point to these things with full knowledge that a number of
advertisers in the recent FTC drug hearing have acknowledged
that they do not believe the public reads this "take only as direct-
ed" message, nor understands what it means.
In short, over-the-counter drug advertising is taking place in
front of large numbers of children with such minor warnings or
such minor advisories placed in such minor positions as to be
relatively ineffective in warning either the adult public or the child
public about the possible hazards of these products.
We do believe a Co~le Authority should exist outside of the Feder-
al Government. We want to see it operating so it does cover these
issues, and we want to see the public participating in this and not
have it be the monopoly of just the broadcasters.
Thank you.
Senator H0LLING5. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. CHOATE, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON CHILDREN, MEDIA AND
MERCHANDISING
Mr. Chairman, the panel you assemble here this morning represents diverse
viewpoints on the problems of electronic commuication in the United States. I will
confine my remarks to an analysis of some of the protections offered by the public
and private sector to segments of the total population who might be described as
particularly vulnerable.
If one thinks of vulnerability in regard to programming, certainly children would
come first to mind. There are 41 million children under 12 years of age in the
United States; a moderate TV watching child views television over 23½ hours j5er
week. Because of their naivete and lack of experience, a child's "vulnerability"
consists primarily of accumulation of a type of information that many parents
might challenge as being detrimental to their child's orderly development. You are
hearing other witnesses explore this clash between the program senders and the
receivers; I will not dwell further on it.
There is another form of vulnerability-commercial vulnerability-that comes
from television and radio broadcasting; here the affected groups number consider-
ably more than 41 million. It is true that a moderate TV watching child is potential-
ly exposed to 21,320 commercials per year from television and an additional several
thousand from radio.' Beyond children, commercial communication may pose spe-
cial problems to the functionally illiterate of our society, those for whom English is
a second language, the deaf and the blind. Interestingly, the deaf and the blind do
pay attention to television. There are 1.4 million blind persons who apparently
listen to the sound track of television communication, and are influenced by its
commericals. They also place heavy reliance on radio communication. There are 14
million hearing-impaired persons in the United States, the vast majority of whom
watch television to receive its messages with impaired reception of the audio portion
of the commercials. The problems of the deaf and blind are self-evident.2
Functional illiteracy, whether it stems from unfamiliarity with the English lan-
guage or not, is harder to define. There are two recent studies, one by the Office of
Education and one by the Food and Drug Administration, which suggest that
PAGENO="0268"
264
functional illiteracy, in terms of receiving communications from normal commercial
solicitations including package labels, may handicap 20 million people.
Thus, when one is talking about vulnerability to commercial solicitation by the
electronic media, one is talking about one-third of the U.S. population. Certainly
such a constituency warrants the attention of this Committee, and of the agency
over which you have oversight responsibility-the Federal Communications Com-
mission.
In eight years' work, before the FDA, the FTC and the FCC, I find relatively little
attention being given by the public sector to the marketplace problems of these
groups. I urge you to ask the FCC for a report on its special attentions over the last
three years to children, functional illiterates, those with English as a second lan-
guage, the deaf and the blind. I ask you to find out from the FCC who are the in-
house experts with special communications or psychological or behavioral develop-
ment training to analyze and meet the needs of these groups. I think you will find
the FCC has no such experts, nor has it commissioned such work from consultants
except, perhaps, in the matter of captioning. Chairman Wiley is on record in the
1974 appropriation hearings as saying,~
"Again, the Commission is not made up of people who can judge the effects of
violence on children. We do not have the social scientists. We do not have that kind
of expertise. We are an engineering, legal, and processing agency. I hope we can
expand our scope so we can consider some of the sociological aspects of television.
"McDade: "If that is your hope, how much money have you requested for that in
this budget?"
"[Wiley]: I have to say again to you that I think the Commission has done some
studies of children's television."
The actual answer was "none."
Partly as a result of this self-perpetuated igorance, partly due to fears such
research could lead to First Amendment concerns, and certainly from complete
deference to the National Association of Broadcasters, the FCC has left most of the
standard setting for the material carried on the airwaves to a private lobbying
group-the N.A.B. Unfortunately, it too has resisted research in behalf of children,
the functionally illiterate, the deaf and the blind.
Lest one think the Federal Trade Commission should be the protector here, we
hasten to point out that its record is equally elusive. Ex-Chairman Engman repeat-
edly spoke out in favor of protecting children but his agency's actions followed at a
snail's pace.
One of the reasons is lack of research. In the past "unfair business" communica-
tion has been judged on the basis of reasonably prudent persons. With children, by
definition, the receiver is reasonably imprudent. With the functionally illiterate, the
deaf and the blind only partial communication takes place; the "prudence" must
belong to the sender.
The FTC has little research on which to base judgements in behalf of these
groups. It does not know if children understand "items sold separately" or if the
functionally illiterate understand "dosage." It has no studies of the impact of "take
only as directed" on OTC drug commericals; recent testimony at the FTC OTC drug
advertising hearings indicates this phrase probably is misunderstood or ignored by
the majority of the public.
The National Science Foundation has been of some small assistance, thanks to
NSF Director Richard Atkinson and House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairmen
Boland and Slack, but the FTC basically is only familiar with conventional business
transactions between conventional people.
We are pleased to hear the new chairman, Michael Pertschuk, is prepared to
move to remedy this oversight and ignorance.
Now let us turn to the private sector. Does it offer any special protections to these
vulnerable groups?
The Council of Better Business Bureaus has a set of guidelines and codes on the
subject of advertising which are irregularly managed across the United States. In a
recent proceeding of the FTC, the President of the American Association of Adver-
tising Agencies acknowledged that his group just now was beginning to work on the
special problems of the deaf. He apparently knew of no protective codes or stan-
dards for the blind.~ With the exception of a Children's Advertising Unit within the
National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus and the
occasionally-involved jury-like procedures of the National Advertising Review
Board, we could find no definitive protection offered these vulnerable groups.
The other major private entity is the National Association of Broadcasters and its
Code Authority. I wish to devote the rest of my testimony to this lobbying and trade
organization, for its relationship with the FCC deserves this Committee's scrutiny.
PAGENO="0269"
265
The National Association of Broadcasters and its Code have been described as
follows:
"[T]he Code has been permitted to become a progressively more and more static,
phlegmatic entity * * * there has been a 100 percent increase in commercialization
over the number of 60 sec. units that were so widely used a few years ago * * * J
feel the current level is excessive and an imposition on the public * * * I don't
believe this should ever have ~
And with regard to the "Family Hour" but applicable to commercial transmis-
sions as well:
"Broadcasters can no longer expect to ward off viewer complaints by insisting
that they are obeying the NAB Code, which they may be doing in form but not in
spirit * * ~. It goes without saying that the industry will never be able to please
everyone * * * that it will be in the industry's longterm interest to put consider-
ations of public sensitivities ahead of short-term commerical gain.
"[A]part from the manipulation of the code as an instrument of government is the
question of whether the code has served its other professed purposes of defusing
criticism of television * * ~ The record suggests otherwise * * ~* Obviously there is
a need for self-restraint among television broadcasters who have access to just about
every person in the nation. But no code can replace an individual editor's decision
* * ~
From these and other descriptions of the NAB, one can see that it is hardly the
public protector it claims to be. In our opinion it is one of the most closed, manipu-
lative and politically astute lobbying organizations operating in Washington. It is a
trade organization to protect broadcasters. In an Alice in Wonderland process,
however, it runs an industry protection code which sells itself to the public as the
public's protector.
It is the ultimate in "self-protection" or "self-regulation," for, over the years, the
NAB has denied participation in the Code's administration to representatives of
sponsors, ad agencies, consumers, parents, state, county or city officials.
As an example of how the NAB protects the broadcasting industry, we suggest:
It adopts time standards for all stations concerning the number of commercial
presentations per hour at various times of the day, thus providing no impetus to
any station to compete to diminish commercials for special audiences;
It interprets Federal agency actions for all stations, thus maximizing the broad-
caster's voice in Washington;
It has fought repeatedly against a meaningful nutrition-related code for food
advertising;
It has argued against comparative descriptions among competitors, thus giving
consumers less information about similar products;
It has fought against paid or public service messages to counter challengeable
commercial claims;
It holds closed-door Code Board meetings with only broadcasters in attendance
when final decisions are made, thus ensuring that no sponsor or consumers witness
the discussions;
It establishes weak policies regarding children and commercials which then seem
to become a standard for all broadcaster performance. Thus regular viewer/consum-
er outcries for better child protections are deflected;
It finances research to prove the public's trust in television and then runs adver-
tisements to show the approbation of its work, thus sedating the public as to its real
purpose-sales;
It permits the standards-setters for the three major networks to operate in
tandem rather than in competition under the rubric of "participating in the Code,"
thus negating any possible desire of any one network to try to be the toughest judge
of advertiser claims.
We suggest that as a result of the cosy situation enjoyed by the major broadcast-
ers enrolled in this Code "club" few of them have tried, as Group W's Donald
McGannon has tried, to reform broadcasting to children.7 Such reforms as the Code
has permitted in the last six years have, in almost every instance, resulted from
repeated outspoken criticism of both the FCC and the NAB by such groups as
Action for Children's Television, National Citizen's Committee for Broadcasting, San
Francisco's Committee on Children's Television, and the Council on Children, Media
and Merchandising.
We are not saying that these broadcaster protective clauses do not affect the
public. The Code Authority does have some influence on radio and television adver-
tising. We do suggest, however, that the gap between the Code's apparent promise
and its performance constitutes deception of the American public. First, few Ameri-
cans know when the child code is operative. Second, few can interpret the Code
Authority's own guidelines to know what is forbidden and what is condoned.
PAGENO="0270"
266
We will cite one narrow example of the Code's pretense and actual performance
here this morning and beseech this Committee to look into the much broader areas
of how the broadcaster code actually serves vulnerable groups.
But before we get to the example with exhibits, I wish to point out the curious
role of private standard-setting or code setting organizations in general in the
United States. Over the years, such codes and standards often have been found by
the government to be cover-ups for restraints of trade and anti-trustable actions.
This situation has concerned the Department of Justice over the years. We culled
the following statements from a speech made by Mr. Barry Grossman before the
51st Annual Meeting of the American National Standards Institute on this subject:
"ANTI-TRUST IMPLICATIoNS OF PRIVATE STANDARD-MAKING ACTIVITY
"The likelihood that joint establishment of a private standard may result in anti-
trust litigation is also decreased if procedures are adopted which permit proposed
standards to be subjected to the scrutiny of a wide cross-section of interested
parties * *
"Providing for broad participation in the formulation of private standards does
not, in itself, assure that the standard will not have a significant anti-competitive
effect. However we think that such procedures serve several useful purposes. First
the solicitation of divergent views lessens the likelihood of the adoption of a stan-
dard which would significantly disadvantage competitors or deprive consumers of
desired options. Second, the expression of divergent views on a proposed standard
may point up the fact that any proposed standard would involve serious conflicts of
interests, the resolution of which would be best left to a public body * *
"Where there exists a significant conflict of * * * interests with respect to the
level at which standards should be set, we think the chances of obtaining optimal
results from private standards are less than if the task were assigned to a public
body * * ~. {W]here safety is clearly at issue the need for mandatory standards
dictates that the standards should be established by a public body * *
"[I]t can be stated that the prospects for private solution, in a manner satisfactory
to the public, of the problems which give rise to the need for standards are directly
dependent upon the extent of conflicts of interests among the groups affected. The
greater the conflicts of interests, the more likely it is that private group action will
prove comparatively unsatisfactory as a means of protecting consumers * * * the
more likely it is that private group action will either harm the kind of competitive
and consumer interests which the antitrust laws are designed to protect, or simply
prove inadequate for establishing the kind of standards required in the public
interest." (Emphasis added)
We contend that the National Association of Broadcasters' Code Authority, as
currently constituted, violates these anti-trust guidelines. While we respect private
self-regulation, we strongly urge that the NAB Code Authority be split off from the
NAB and opened up to public participation, particularly if it is to be the Congres-
sionally condoned private substitute for a government agency charged with protec-
tion of the public from unfair business and broadcast practices.
DRUG ADVERTISING AND CHILDREN: AN EXAMPLE OF PROTECTION OR DECEPTION?
The NAB Code Authority appears confused on where it stands vis a vis over-the-
counter drug advertising and children. Members of the Code Authority are well
aware that the FCC believes that between 85 and 90 percent of children's television
watching occurs in the late afternoon and early evening.8 Most broadcasters are
familiar with the A.C. Nielson Company report in 1975 on child audiences which led
to the following statistics:~
"THE MosT POPULAR PROGRAMS
"Of the fifteen television programs exceeding five minutes in length which are
most watched by children under 12, the following patterns appear:
PAGENO="0271"
"Analysis: Thus the six most popular programs with children were all aired
during the evening before 9 p.m.; and, 8 of the top 10 programs occurred during the
evening; 2 were on weekend mornings; and, 12 of the top 15 programs occurred
during the evening; 3 were on weekend mornings; and, 25 of the top 40 programs
occurred during the evening; 15 were on weekend mornings. Only 3 out of the top 40
programs occurred after 9 p.m. EST; they may have been aired earlier in the
Central and Mountain Time Zones.
"Children are not in the majority during the evenings."
Armed with these statistics, we now ask you to consider the enunciated policies of
the NAB Code vis a vis children:
"* * * [B]roadcasters believe that advertising of products or services normally
used by children can serve to inform children not only of the attributes of products!
services but also of many aspects of the society and world in which they live.
Everyone involved in the creation, production and presentation of such advertising
to children has a responsibility to assure that such material avoids being exploita-
tive of or inappropriate to a child's still developing cognitive abilities and sense of
value * * ~
"Except where hereinafter stated, these guidelines apply to advertising of prod-
ucts designed primarily for children, or to advertising designed primarily for chil-
dren or to advertising which is telecast during programs designed primarily for
children or within station breaks between such consecutive programs, designed
primarily for children * * *~" 10
One then goes to the NAB Code Authority to find out what is its definition of
"programs directed primarily to children." The NAB's answer is:
"Programs directed primarily to children are those shows scheduled at times
during which children are generally watching television alone or with other chil-
dren. The program may be one specifically designed for children or may be a re-run
of a family show which, because of the time at which it is scheduled and the
audience it attracts, may be said to be one which is directed primarily at children.
"Generally speaking, programs specifically designed for children are primarily
telecast during Saturday and Sunday morning/early afternoon hours * *
"Programs classified as `family shows' when originally telecast during prime-time
hours would be deemed to be "programs directed primarily to children' if telecast
during Saturday or Sunday morning/early afternoon hours.
"Afternoon specials designed to entertain or inform children primarily would
probably be deemed to be `programs directed primarily to children.' The status of
other afternoon programs as either adult, family or children is determined on a
case-by-case basis.
"Programs in prime time which may attract children as part of the total audience
are not classified as `programs directed primarily to children."
The NAB Code Authority goes on to define "advertising designed primarily for
children" as:
"Advertising designed primarily for children is that which the advertiser or
agency, by their media buying patterns or merchandizing goals, places in children's
programs in order to reach an audience composed primarily of children. [Children
are considered to be those individuals 12 years of age or younger; `primarily chil-
dren' means children are a majority of the audience.]" 12
267
Rank Program name
1 Six Million Dollar Man
2 Happy Days
3 Emergency
4 Wonderful World of Disney
5 Welcome Back Kotter
6 Little House on the Prairie
7 Shazam/Isis Hour
8 Swiss Family Robinson
9 Good Times
10 Scooby Duo, Where Are You?
11 The Waltons
12 Land of the Lost
13 Sanford and Son
14 Rhoda
15 When Things Were Rotten
Child audience
(in millions) Day and time Network
9.10 Sunday, 8 p.m A
8.94 Tuesday, 8 p.m A
8.31 Saturday, 8 p.m N
7.80 Sunday, 7 p.m N
7.07 Tuesday, 8:30 p.m A
7.06 Wednesday, 8 p.m N
6.98 Saturday, 10 a.m C
6.86 Sunday, 7 p.m A
6.46 Tuesday, 8 p.m C
6.44 Saturday, 9:30 a.m C
6.26 Thursday, 8 p.m C
6.08 Saturday, 10 a.m N
6.06 Friday, 8 p.m N
5.99 Monday, 8 p.m C
5.95 Wednesday, 8 p.m_ A
PAGENO="0272"
268
When one compares the A.C. Neilson statistics with the very carefully phrased
definition of the NAB children's code, one arrives at the conviction that the chil-
dren's code is not applicable to 85 or 90% of the television watched by children. But
it pretends to be. We refer you to a reprint of the NAB Code News, dated March
1974, page 3. On that page the Code News ran a copy of a print advertisement
which it had displayed in the Washington Star News, Wall Street Journal, Christian
Science Monitor, New Republic, National Observer, and the New Yorker, amongst
others, entitled "Some things your kids can see on TV in the next two months. And
some things they can't." The lead paragraphs include these statements:
~ * * medical remedies can't be sold in or near children's programs * *
"The Code is one way broadcasters meet their responsibilities to young-
sters * *
Here follows a list of programs, watched by large numbers of children which
during January 1977 did show OTC drug advertisements: 13
Geritol-Captain & Tenille, Good Times, The Jacksons; Dristan-Captain & Ten-
ille, Sanford & Son, Chico and the Man, Emergency; Arthritis Pain Formula-Little
House on the Prairie; Listerine-Bionic Woman, 6 Million Dollar Man; Hold Cough
Suppressant-Bionic Woman; Neo-Synephrine-Good Times, The Jacksons;
Anacin-Welcome Back Kotter; Contac-The Waltons; Flintstone Vitamins-Emer-
gency.
This whole issue bears on the 800-1000 OTC drug ads seen by a moderate TV
watching child each year. It may be a burgeoning issue, since we note a growing
number of "junior" versions of adult-type OTC drug products now being advertised
at times when large numbers of children are in the audience. There are junior
versions of Bayer Aspirin products, Contac, and Congespirin, to our knowledge;
others may be in the wings.
The attitudes of the nation's drug sponsors and advertising agencies are relevant
here. We quote from a letter to Robert Pitofsky of the Bureau of Consumer Protec-
tion from S. Land and A. Krulwich of the law firm of Arnold and Porter on behalf
of Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc.-Sauter Laboratories on the subject of advertising drugs to
children. (In this case the "drug" was vitamins.) 14
"The reason why advertisers promote vitamin and mineral supplements to chil-
dren is to make their consumption more palatable and more acceptable to
them * * * In addition to making vitamin supplements in more palatable and
attractive forms, Sauter believes that it is important to advertise them to children
to insure that they are not regarded as medicines to be avoided. In the company's
view, it would not be sufficient to advertise to parents to insure their acceptance by
children."
To summarize, the Code Authority boasts of the protection that it offers to
children while in fact the Code Authority has phrased its definition to ensure that
drug advertisers during late afternoon and early evening programs watched by
massive numbers of children are not impeded in their selling effort.
The NAB knows better. As early as May 1967, the NAB Code News had run an
article by FDA's Henry Verhulst, which pointed out amongst other things 15
"Along with parents, advertisers should take cognizance of the role that their
commercials may play in [regard to the potential dangers of certain drugs and
household products] * * *
"For his part, the child is learning. Exploring his world is a healthy part of his
development. Our responsibility is to make this world as safe as possible. This is
where, in my judgment, the commmunications media have a great responsibility.
"When commercials point to the palatability of a medicine to the child, the
groundwork is being laid for child experimentation. As we have noted earlier,
medicines are implicated in over half the reported cases of accidental inges-
tions* * *
"In addition, the commercials can point to the necessity of keeping the product
out of the child's sight and reach; or replacing the cap and removing the product
from the child's presence when the telephone or doorbell rings; of not showing
medications being taken in front of children.
"Yougsters are notorious for imitating adults-whether it be pounding a nail,
putting on lipstick, or taking medicine. The very medication which will cure a
child's illness in proper dosage can have the reverse effect in an overdose."
We acknowledge that ascertaining what the Code Authority actually stands for is
difficult. In September 1973, the Code Authority, in its non-prescription medications
advertising guidelines stated:
"The use of children shall not be permitted in presentations on behalf of non-
prescription medications intended for adults. In advertisements for medications
specifically formulated for children, the appearance of youth or children shall be
present only in situations involving responsible adult supervision. Any such presen-
PAGENO="0273"
269
tations shall avoid audio/visual approaches tending to capture the attention of
children rather than adults."
However, in an April 1974 Code News, the Code Authority said:
"Children should not be shown using or demonstrating such products as propri-
etary medical remedies, household paints, disinfectants, insecticides and certain
cleaning agents. Products of this nature usually carry warnings such as `Keep out of
the reach of children,' and/or `poison.' Depending on the situation involved in
commercials for these products, children should either not be used or appear under
strict adult supervision."
Perhaps this can be explained by the pressures that were building in 1974 to
eliminate vitamin pill-like candies from being advertised on Saturday and Sunday
mornings. As frequently happens when public pressure builds, the Code Authority
changed its phraseology and in Volume 7, No. 6 (Jume 1974), the Code Authority
stated in regard to vitamin/non-prescription medications:
"In another important action, the Board voted to prohibit the advertising of any
supplemental vitamin product on children's programs.
"The Board also formalized existing Code policy which disallows the advertising of
certain non-prescription medications in children's programs and approved the ex-
pansion of the policy to include all such medications regardless of how taken or
administered.
"The new language which will be added to the Children's TV Advertisement
Statement of Principles reads: "Non-prescription medications and supplemental vi-
tamin products, regardless of how taken or administered, shall not be advertised in
or adjacent to programs initially designed primarily for children under 12 years of
age. (This prohibition does not apply to products which have been vitamin enriched
or fortified in accordance with accepted nutritional principles.)'"
We believe we have now shown that the Code is at best evasive in its policy vis-a-
vis drug advertising and children. Having also shown that there is a disposition
amongst drug companies to promote drug products for children, we now turn to an
analysis of other parts of the Code on how this might most ethically be done.
In an NAB interpretation, dated 1973, referring to the language on an OTC drug
label which advises the potential consumer as to the indications for use, dosages,
and warnings, the Code Authority said references to such verbiage should be con-
ducted as follows:
"An `overt reference' may be presented in either the audio or video of the
commercial * * *
"If the disclosure appears in the video, it must be (1) on the screen long enough
(3-4 seconds) to be read easily, (2) large enough to be read easily, and (3) must be in
an over-all video context that does not distract from the disclosure. These require-
ments apply to all affected commercials, regardless of length. If the disclosure is
made in the audio, a statement unequivocally comprising an `overt reference' must
be used * *
"Portrayals of before-and-after product use situations shall adaquately reflect the
time generally required to achieve relief of symptoms/conditions covered on label-
ing' * * * [is a] statement * * * to emphasize the requirement that advertising for
non-prescription medications should clearly indicate the time generally required to
achieve relief of symptoms/conditions covered on labeling. The time required to
achieve such relief may be established in either the audio or video of the commer-
cial * * *
"Q. May a chid appear in a commercial designed to promote the sale of a non-
prescription medication in two strengths-one for children, the other for adults?
"A. No * * * `The use of children shall not be permitted in presentations on behalf
of non-prescription medications intended for adults.' This requirement holds prece-
dence, even though a segment of the commercial is devoted to the promotion of a
medication specifically formulated for children.
"Q. Does a commercial for a child's non-prescription medication which employs a
parental voice-over and visuals of children at play meet the requirement * * * that
`the appearance of youth or children shall be present only in situations involving
responsible adult supervision'?
"A. No, it does not. In children's non-prescription medications advertisements,
relationship between the youth/child and parent must be established if youth/
children are used. The parent should be presented as the responsible supervisor of
the situation."
Note that in drug advertising before children, there is no requirement that any
child-related warning be repeated. Note that children are not advised to stay away
from OTC drugs. Note that the Code Authority had adopted no symbol or graphic
such as "Mr. Yuk" to warn children from self-administering these products. Note
that parents are not alerted to children's drug reactions.
20-122 0 - 78 - 18
PAGENO="0274"
270
In recent testimony before the Federal Trade Commission during an OTC adver-
tising hearing, we showed a number of kinescopes of recent OTC drug messages.
They show how drug advertisers and the National Association of Broadcasters police
their private standards. I would like to show you these films now. You have the
storyboards as an appendix to this testimony. In showing the films, I will point out
various defects in these advertisements which seem to violate the aforementioned
Code. I believe the drug ads as aired provide misinformation and incomplete infor-
mation and are deceptive to the previously described vulnerable audiences. I will
show one of these kinescopes as though you were part of a blind audience, and one
as though you were deaf.
I ask. you to weigh whether these advertisements which appeared on television in
the last two years, supposedly conforming to the NAB Code, measure up to the
protections suggested by the foregoing statements from the NAB as it assured the
public, the FCC and this Congress that there was no need for further action at the
Federal level.
I ask you to exercise the powers of this Committee to clean up the deceptions
practiced by the NAB-with apparent FCC collusion-as drugs and other hazardous
products are advertised before large child audiences, as well as other vulnerable
groups.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify on this subject.
LIST OF STORYBOARDS AND EXHIBITS"
A. Duration Nasal Spray, February 13, 1977.
B. Bayer Medicines, October 20, 1976.
C. Congespirin Cold Tablets for Children, November 21, 1975.
D. Congespirin Cold Tablets for Children, September 22, 1976.
E. Dristan Nasal Mist, November 16, 1976.
F. Contac, May 2, 1974.
G. Excedrin, November 1, 1976.
H. Momentum Muscular Backache Formula, November 11, 1975.
I. Primatene Mist and Tablets * * * Clyne Dusenberry, Inc.
J. Datril 500, January 10, 1977.
K. Dristan Tablets, April 28, 1976.
REFERENCES
`Council on Children, Media and Merchandising, To the Federal Trade Commission in the
Matter of a Trade Regulation Rule on Food/Nutrition Advertising, October 1976.
2 Council on Children, Media and Merchandising, To the Federal Trade Commission in the
Matter of a Trade Regulation Rule on Over-The-Counter Drug Advertising, February 26, 1977.
U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Hearings on the Federal Communi-
cations Commission, March 12, 1974.
~ on Over-The-Counter Trade Regulation Rule, February and March 1977.
` H. McGannon, President and Chairman of the Board, Westinghouse Broadcasting
Co., Inc., Letter of Resignation from NAB television Code, January 31, 1969, taken from
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st Session, July 1975.
6 Broadcasting Magazine, Editorial, December 6, 1976, page 90.
`Hearings before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st Session, July 1975.
`Children's Television Programs-Report and Policy Statement, Federal Communications
Commission, Fed. Reg. Vol. 39, No. 215, November 6, 1974.
9 from A. C. Nielson Company to Senator Frank Moss.
`°National Association of Broadcasters Code Authority, "Advertising Guidelines", January 1,
1976.
"National Association of Broadcasters Code Authority, "Interpretation: Children's Advertis-
ing Principles: Questions-and-Answers," 1975.
22J}jj~
"From Broadcast Advertiser Report, week ending February 6, 1977.
`4Letter dated March 10, 1972.
15 L. Verhulst, "How Advertising Can Help to Prevent Accidental Poisoning of Children
at Home," NAB Code News, reprinted February 1968.
16 exhibits were not reproducible.
Senator HOLLINGS. On the panel next we have Mr. Loring
Mandel, who is the president of Writer's Guild-East.
Mr. MANDEL. Mr. Chairman, Senators, it would be difficult to
address myself to the societal and behavioral effects of television
without establishing a context and without specifying the premises
upon which I build that context. I am speaking for myself, as a
PAGENO="0275"
271
member of a community of the television industry's creative crafts
and as a member of a television-saturated society.
I do not pretend expertise as a psychologist, sociologist, or ana-
lyst of business and governmental systems. My profession as a
writer of television drama trains me to be subjective, not objective,
and this statement is, for me, an attempt to swim upstream.
The deepest convictions I hold about television are of its im-
mense power and its broad pervasiveness. We are, after all, partly
formed by our insights about the world and the nature of human
relationships, and those insights come from the information gath-
ered out of personal experience, interaction with the world and
other persons, and from information fed to us by all other sources
of communication, which include schools, books, plays, films, songs,
periodicals, radio, and, most of all, television.
The access to our minds achieved by television is enormous, its
power to influence us equally so. In addition, it is a one-way
system, more rigid than most, if not all other source systems, in
that it allows no interaction with the viewer; the viewer is a
passive receptor. A child, alone on a beach with pail and shovel,
can examine his environment, play with it, experience its feel,
alter it by what he does if he does no more than dig a hole. A child
in front of a television set can simply receive images and sounds of
environment selected for showing. He can't feel it, test it, shape it
in any way. It is monocular learning and does not teach inquiry,
only passivity. That is my first premise.
A corollary premise is of equal importance: That television, just
as does any other source of information, whether by intent or not,
does educate. The belief I have heard expressed many times by
network programers-that television can somehow remove content
from programs and leave a residue of pure entertainment-in the
way that precious metals can be extracted from ore, salt from
seawater-is nonsense.
I understand why such a belief is promulgated. It is a moral
imperative; it eliminates the need for those contributing to enter-
tainment programing, which is the predominant prime time high-
est rating programing, to consider the societal or behavioral impli-
cations of their work. No, everything teaches; everything provides
information, models of behavior, even the most violent police
drama, the most childish and incredible comedy, even if all specific
morals or messages are assiduously edited out.
It is all part of our source material and it does not matter that
we might be mature enough to keep a running evaluation of its
validity as it bombards us. We see real people on the screen, people
in situations that demand our attention and emotion, all existing
in an environment that is present with detailed realism, people
and events and environment interacting in ways which we are not
permitted to challenge; indeed questioning the veracity of what we
see denies us the possibility of being entertained.
Those who create these entertainments cannot permit us to ques-
tion, and they are very talented craftsmen. It's all source material,
and everything we see becomes a reference for what follows, all a
part of the continuing process by which we are educated to adapt
to life. The message of a program can neither be injected by specif-
ic language nor removed by deleting specific language, it resides in
PAGENO="0276"
272
the whole work. To the extent that it educates us truthfully, I
applaud it. To the extent that it distorts life, human motives and
responses, I consider it a pollutant. And given the goals of commer-
cial broadcasting-and, to some extent, public broadcasting as
well-I believe the vast substance of what is offered on television is
toxic.
Our primary television system is commercial, made up of a great
many stations, mostly, I would think, privately owned, and a few
networks and producing organizations, mostly publicly owned. The
first priority of this system is, therefore, the statement of profit
and loss.
I believe that the leaders of this system are intelligent and good
people, but it can't be added that their fundamental interest in
profitability coincides with the best interests of the viewing public.
Profitability is largely a function of audience numbers, particularly
a targeted part of the mass audience that is young, white, middle-
class, and free with money.
The system must hold the attention of this group, and it's de-
signed to do so. And competition within this system has demon-
strated that there is a Gresham's law of television programing:
Perilous is the path of the executive who overlooks it or fails to
respect it.
The target audience must be attracted and held, and there is no
secret to the art of doing so. The tools are well known. They
include intense emotion, broad physical action, urgency, sexual
attraction, appeals to fear, anger, patriotism, enchantment, love
and illusion. None of these appeals is negative, in my judgment, so
long as it is developed fully enough to exist truthfully, with its
truthful concommitants, alternatives and consequences~
But in the competition for ratings, the index of success in reach-
ing the target audience, and in the interest of fitting each program
into a form easily packaged, syndicated, structured for preset time
periods and designed for continual interruption, we are given the
maximum amount of intense emotion, the maximum number of
appeals in each program, leaving little or no time for the kind of
exploration of story and character which truthfulness demands.
The subject of television violence is an instructive example. The
debate about permissible amounts of violence in television pro-
graming is, I believe misdirected. In my view, the destructive effect
of violence on television is due to the isolation of the physical act of
violence from all of its context and consequences. If we see violence
without pain, without grief, without opportunity to care for its
victims-or without tragic consequences for victims who are char-
acters we are supposed to care for-then we are being taught that
the physicality of violence exists with no unpleasant aftereffects
and it will not upset your stomach. You may indulge without fear.
This is the kind of distortion of reality in television programing
that is poisonous, and as long as we must depend on a primarily
commercial system for our programing we will be taught lies about
ourselves, others, about life, about the world. It can't be otherwise.
I do not overlook the occasional program of genuinely high qual-
ity in drama, in the documentary forms, and the significant
amounts of news, coverage of events, cultural retrospectives, and
great old films.
PAGENO="0277"
273
There are also brief periods set aside on corner shelves for the
programing needs of minority audiences, for limited experimenta-
tion and a few brief, sometimes gem-like, moments at the disposal
of various religious organizations. I'm grateful for all of that. But
much of it achieves airing in spite of the bias of the system toward
ratings; it is an aspect of programing that depends heavily on the
legal requirements for public-service programs and upon the persis-
tence of many gifted people who devote themselves to the industry
because they dare to hope good things can be done.
The aperture the networks hold open for this kind of programing
is not large, the structures of the networks are antithetical to the
writing and production of such programs, and the decisionmakers
who have reached their high offices because of their abilities in
securing high ratings may have no reliable standards of quality to
apply to such programs. In short, the present system is an infertile
environment for a broad variety of better programs.
I have described the system I believe we have. And by the time a
young person has graduated high school, he or she has been ex-
posed to an estimated 12,000 hours of classroom instruction against
some 21,000 hours of what television teaches. I don't think the
members of this subcommittee would want to see America's schools
owned and operated by advertisers and "give them what they
want" programers, and I suggest that the reasons why they would
not are the same reasons why television is too important and
powerful a communicant to be left as it is. I have no practical
suggestions for a reformation of commercial television. I am not
certain that limitations such as ratingless days, profit-limitation as
for public utilities, television receiver license fee funding or other
proposals are either possible or desirable.
What I believe is desirable is an imaginative and strong-willed
effort on your part to encourage alternatives to commercial televi-
sion that can coexist with the current system. Public broadcasting
is not enough, it has some of the same structural biases that
commercial television maintains, and other troubles of its own. I'm
not asking for the establishment of new governing bodies. I am
talking about various uses of cable television, of satellite systems,
of home video libraries, of innovations in funding and delivery of
programs, of encouraging a wide variety of systems that can feed
into the home television set, systems that respond to a different
drummer than the advertiser, the ratings chaser, the station
owner.
I'm talking about television with the primary goals of informing
and educating and entertaining the viewer without distorting the
real world and its humanity. The greatest entertainment, whether
play or fairy tale or ancient myth or adventure, has always been
rooted in real experience. Laughter can be real, it does not have to
be prerecorded.
The questions raised in the development of such alternative sys-
tems are difficult and perhaps unpredictable. The goal of my state-
ment to you is to urge to confront those questions and answer them
in the interests of those who must grow up and coexist with televi-
sion and yet survive.
Thank you.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much, sir.
PAGENO="0278"
274
Finally, Mr. Carpenter, executive director, National Citizens
Committee for Broadcasting.
Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. I want to thank you for the invitation to testify on
behalf of the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting con-
cerning program practices of broadcasters.
One of the reasons I appear before you, I assume, is because of
the role NCCB is playing in the growing controversy over television
violence. No single issue has caused the American public to think
more critically and thoughtfully about the impact of television in
their lives than the issue of television violence.
The role of NCCB has been a clear one. We felt the viewing
public had a right to know how much violence was on television
and who supported it. Using a definition of violence widely support-
ed by independent research, and employing a commercial firm that
specializes in monitoring television content, NCCB simply recorded
all acts of violence in prime time and ranked the programs, and
the advertisers who support them, from the least to the most
violent.
This is the AMA study. The first study, we conducted on our
own, and the second was funded by the AMA.
The public has been free to act on this information. Some have
written the networks; some have boycotted products; some have
written the advertisers; some have simply turned off the TV. This
is simply a marketplace notion of how to confront the violence
issue. People are interacting within the marketplace of television
without calling for Government regulation or censorship.
NCCB has never advocated on its own that any violent program
be taken off the air, or that all violence should be taken off the air.
We state firmly that violence is often necessary to a dramatic
statement and it is essential to an understanding of the day's news
events. Our actions have been based solely on the assumption that
the widespread public concern over TV violence should have appro-
priate impact on the television industry.
Our rankings have certainly had an impact. Of the 12 most
violent advertisers named in our study, 10 have made strong public
statements or policy changes to reduce their support of violence.
The two most violent networks, NBC and ABC, have announced
major reductions in violence in the new season. The new fall sched-
ules of all three networks show a clear and dramatic turn away
from violent action shows. The world is suddenly full of brainy
detectives and laughter instead of gunshots or mayhem.
While the above changes appear to be heartening, we will wait
until we actually measure the new schedule in our fall study to see
how serious the networks are. Also, even if violence is reduced, it is
disturbing that it took such a broad orchestration from the public,
from groups like the American Medical Association-which funded
our fall violence study-the PTA with its public hearings, and
many other activities, including threatened economic muscle, to get
action from the networks.
It is disturbing, too, that the network reaction appears to be: (1)
That they were going to change all along and the actions of public
groups had nothing to do with the new fall schedule; (2) That the
public has been hypocritical, because the ratings show they watch
PAGENO="0279"
275
violence anyway, and that the networks use of ratings is the best
judge of public taste, and; (3) That the groups that have been
taking action about TV violence are the new McCarthys-violence
vigilantes and elitists bent on censoring the public TV diet.
Well, the criticism of the broadcasters really implies that televi-
sion operates on the model of a free marketplace of ideas, in which
the creative producers and writers provide programing to a selec-
tive audience without restraint. The broadcaster in this model is
simply acting as a public trustee-as the 1934 Communications Act
intended-sampling the public taste by ratings, and delivering the
programing to the home.
Rather than simply dwell on the violence issue, I think it might
be useful to examine what the problem of violence on television
teaches us about actual programing practices.
One of the most instructive results of our program rankings was
to put the TV rating system in proper perspective. We conducted
our fall study during the same period that the rating services were
conducting theirs. We could compare our program rankings with
their program ratings.
We were shocked to discover that the ratings did not show vio-
lent shows to be that popular at all, in spite of what broadcasters
had said. During our 12-week study period, of the 12 most violent
shows on TV, only 2 were in the top 20 most popular shows. Even
those two were "Six Million Dollar Man" and "Charlie's Angels,"
both of which have attractions that go beyond violence.
This finding leads us to ask: If violence isn't that popular, why is
it on the air? Here we begin to discover other standards that enter
into the choice of programing. One such standard is cost-per-thou-
sand. The significance of this was brought out by a recent Wall
Street Journal article which was musing upon the reason why
broadcasters had not responded to the violence issue when it had
been based solely on critical opinion or scientific evidence. The
reporter states:
In order to understand why this is so, one must keep an essential fact in mind:
the primary business of television is not to provide enlightenment or information or
even entertainment to its audience, but to attract and deliver the maximum
number of viewers to advertisers, who represent the industry's sole source of rev-
enue. Thus the reason that violence has been so prevalent for so many years is
simply that it is the least expensive, most surefire technique available to producers
for attracting viewers. It is far easier to enliven a program by inserting a reckless
car chase or adding some fast gunplay-as we saw earlier-than to come up with a
truly original and compelling story, especially with series in which new episodes
must be turned out week after week, season afer season.
So, cost-per-thousand often represents a cheaper, easier way to
make programing so that audiences can be sold to advertisers at a
lower cost. The selling of audiences to advertisers is, in fact, the
real marketplace of television. As we begin to understand the
workings of these marketplace forces on programing practices, we
also begin to move away from the free marketplace of ideas and
closer to the supermarket.
Who goes to the supermarket, in fact, is an important question
asked by yet a third standard applied to program practices-that of
demographics. Demographics are that part of ratings that tell you
what kind of viewer is in the audience, their age, sex, income, et
cetera. More precisely, demographics tell you what kind of poten-
PAGENO="0280"
276
tial buyer an advertiser can reach. For instance, if an advertiser
sells a home product, he will want to find a program that attracts
18- to 49-year-old women who do most of the buying in supermar-
kets and department stores.
The force of this principle was recently brought out when the
Ford Motor Co. wrote back to people who had written them for
being one of the most violent sponsors in our summer study. They
stated: "On many occasions we have refrained from placing our
commercials in such-violent-programs even though they have
been among the most efficient for reaching our best new car and
truck prospects-young males who are naturally attracted to
action programs on television." I love that-"naturally attracted."
What demographics mean, therefore, is that programs for televi-
sion don't have to be widely popular or get high ratings if they still
attract certain kinds of buyers for certain kinds of advertisers. This
use of buying power by advertisers and networks to determine
programing is really a clear form of restriction that affects pro-
gram design, distribution, content, and scheduling. Such practices
really amount, in the extreme, to supermarket censorship-using
the indirect product buying behavior of viewers instead of the
direct viewing behavior of the audience to influence programing
decisions.
The widespread use of such practices as cost-per-thousand and
demographics in program practices should lead the broadcasters to
stop and consider the handful of economic interests represented by
major TV advertisers that are allowed to impact on programing
decisions before characterizing the widespread outcry of public
opinion on violence as some kind of censorship or McCarthyism.
And the fact that the public is focusing on advertisers as well as
broadcasters should lead the industry to compliment the public on
its understanding of actual industry practices, rather than criticize
the public for raising the specter of advertiser influence over pro-
graming.
To avoid a possible misunderstanding, let me point out that this
is not another simple diatribe against commercials on television. I
am, in fact, quite prepared to argue that television advertising is a
brilliant marketing strategy, and that commercial television has
proven itself to be far more inventive in its approach to program-
ing than government supported TV, and far more reliable as a
source of news.
I am about to suggest, in fact, that although it is proper for the
public to hold the advertiser accountable for abusive programing
practices that are vehicles for presenting their products, it may
also be fair to point out that the advertiser may get too much of a
bum rap and that the broadcasters may be abusing both the adver-
tiser interest and the public interest in the simplistic formulas and
program practices that lead to things like excessive violence.
After all, although a few advertisers would like the Jack Benny
"Jello Hour" back again, most advertisers are content to stay out
of the creative process of producing and scheduling programing. All
they really ask is that the networks provide them with a good
environment for their commercials, and they stand by their paid
for right to be sure it is a good environment. And it is curious, in
PAGENO="0281"
277
this respect that the advertisers seem for more open to the real
interests and concern of the viewers than the networks are.
After all, let's not forget that public opinion and scientific re-
search criticizing violence fell on the deaf ears of broadcasters for
years-and I mean years. It was a long time. It was only when the
public turned to the advertiser that prompt action resulted. In fact,
advertisers are now expressing a certain frustration with the in-
ability of networks to provide more alternatives.
In the words, again, of the Ford Motor Co.: "While we-Ford-
will continue to avoid those action/adventure programs that are
most objectionable whenever we can, we may not be able to avoid
all such programs until reasonably acceptable alternatives are
available."
Furthermore, the advertisers appear to be far more open to
discovering actual viewer preferences. Archa Knowlton of General
Foods once argued that everything he learned about the American
consumer told him their tastes were changing, becoming more
selective and sophisticated. Yet the networks kept presenting him
with program demographics geared to the same old lowest common
denominator. Mr. Knowlton has also expressed a wish for guidance
and value judgments from television viewers-and he has ex-
pressed them today-as opposed to networks, about real audience
preferences.
Mr. Knowlton is not the only advertiser to indicate that they
would just as soon place their ads in programing that the audience
felt was in its best interest, and that the problem was moving the
networks away from reliance on programing practices that reduce
both audiences and advertisers to the lowest common denominator.
In letters to people who have written in response to our violence
rankings, advertisers have had some interesting things to say.
Robert Lund of Chevrolet, the most violent sponsor in our fall
study, recently stated:
The time is at hand when society is beginning to demand higher standards from
many of its institutions. We've got to go beyond ratings, beyond market share,
beyond pragmatism. Advertising today has the power to help shape the quality of
life. Our strategies of communications must put a tremendous emphasis on both
integrity and innovation. The creation of powerful advertising is not an end in
itself.
The Murray Advertising Agency, speaking for Anacin, also
states:
While we hope to keep our products in high-rated programs, we are simultaneous-
ly continuing to try to improve the programming that is on the air. We are hopeful
that the season of 1977-78 will bring about the necessary changes. When it happens
it will be the result of the efforts of concerned people like you. We appreciate the
fact that you took the time to write.
Procter & Gamble also echoes Archa Knowlton in emphasizing
the role of the viewer. They state:
We do not, and should not, control the content of televsion programs. Public taste
and reaction should be the determining factor in the quality and content of TV
programs, not the opinion of advertisers.
My point is: Perhaps we should take the statements of General
Foods, Procter & Gamble, and other advertisers more seriously.
Perhaps they are more willing to raise programing standards and
respond to the public than the broadcasters are. Perhaps they are
PAGENO="0282"
278
reflecting a more sensitive approach to the marketplace of viewers
than broadcasters who hide behind the first amendment to sell
audiences to advertisers and then call public opinion censorship.
Perhaps we should join with the advertisers and develop the
demographics for reflecting audience viewing power as well as
their purchasing power. Advertisers seem to be saying that it is in
their business interest to support programing that has the most
public interest. And who should determine the public interest? Not
advertisers, not networks, not the AMA or the PTA or NCCB; but
the public, of course.
Perhaps we should conduct a survey of viewer demographics
which asks viewers how much of television really interests them.
I noticed comments earlier-some of the people on the tapes kept
talking about television as if they didn't like it, but they were
watching it. It is a curious contradiction.
To the networks credit, I would say that much of the programing
will do well. However, I suspect that a significant portion may not
measure up to the audience's real interests. We could ask simple
questions like, "You have just watched a TV program. Was it a
good way to spend your time?"
You could also ask, "Did you watch this program because you
were really interested in it, because it happened to be on, or
because it was better than nothing?" This is an important question
because it gets to the bottom of whether the networks are just
trafficking in the lowest common denominator of viewer habits:
Knowing that people will tend to watch television even if they
don't particularly like the program choices. Networks will schedule
weak shows following popular shows knowing that a large part of
the audience will not bother to turn the channels. That is simple
trafficking with little regard for the viewer and only lip service to
the advertiser.
You could ask the audience if they think programs are unneces-
sarily violent, and you could ask if viewers are satisfied that money
that they spend on products is used to pay for the program they
just watched.
Such questions will give us the demographics of the mind-a
more sensitive picture of just how accurately television programing
practices capture real viewer interest. It also gives the advertiser a
more sensitive picture of the consumer environment his spots are
being presented in.
To the criticism that such questions are subjective and no guar-
antee of fmal viewer standards or preferences, we reply that that is
true. We only offer it as a slightly more detailed roadmap of viewer
behavior. We also point out that standard demographics of viewer
buying power are not entirely reliable either. Telling an advertiser
he has been exposed to 30 percent of the 18- to 49-year-old women
viewers does not tell they will buy his product. Both sets of data,
however, point out the more promising programing environment.
The point of this new look at demographics is that programing
practices pegged to the lowest viewer standards may work to the
convenience of the networks, but the viewers got the least from our
country's most influential communications resource and the adver-
tiser runs the risk of exposing his products in an unsatisfying
environment or, as in violence, a clearly offensive environment.
PAGENO="0283"
279
Programing practices pegged to the best interest of the viewing
audience work to the advantage of both the viewer and the adver-
tiser.
Such efforts may make the broadcaster's job a little harder and a
little more expensive. Recent reports of network profits suggest
there is ample room for improvement. I also suggest that such an
effort would be a better use of both the advertiser's dollar and the
public trust that are joined in the broadcasting industry.
We are talking about drawing the simple formulas of supermar-
ket censorship into a more sensitive marketing medium, where
broadcasters are being asked to shop more selectively for the view-
ers they provide to advertisers. We are asking for a process that
even the advertiser would admit gives the viewing public a more
appropriate role in the communications marketplace.
Thank you.
[The attachments referred to follow:]
SCREENING VIOLENCE: STUNG BY CRITICISM, SOME FIRMS PULL ADS OFF ROUGH
TV SHOWS
(By Ellen Graham, Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
CITIZEN'S GROUP'S STUDY SPURS MOVE; AD AGENCY TERMS ISSUE A GENUINE THREAT
Is it a lever to cut ad costs?
These days, TV cops like Kojak and Starsky and Hutch have more to worry about
than the menacing assortment of dope dealers, murderers and con men that they
bring to justice week in and week out.
The corporations that pay for network TV commercials-up to $140,000 per
prime-time minute-are fed up with the nightly fare of flesh-ripping dramatics
being dished up by the networks. Stung by rising public criticism of their sponsor-
ship of violence, some of the nations's biggest advertisers have pulled their commer-
icials from the most violent movies and drama series. "A blood-and-guts environ-
ment is a terrible place to put a commercial for Jell-O," says Archa Knowlton,
director of media services for General Foods Corp.
These defections haven't threatened television-industry profits; demand for prime
time is running so high that when one advertiser gives up his place in line, others
fight to get it. But they have created a multitude of problems, not only for the
networks but also for the advertisers themselves.
Advertisers who have publicly vowed not to sponsor violence are on the spot.
Some recognize that many of their potential customers enjoy TV violence, but they
fear offending others who deplore it. They admit that their new policies sometimes
clash with the economic realities of the tight TV market and the uncertainties of
network schedules. They complain of being boxed in with few choices: "Not every-
one can buy `The Mary Tyler Moore Show," one corporate advertising director says
with a sigh.
Johnny-Come.Latelies
By and large, advertisers are Johhny-come-latelies to the long-simmering debate
over televised violence-or "action," as the networks prefer to call it. Since the
early 1950's, researchers have suggested a connection between crime on the streets
and crime on the tube. Yet violence became an ever-more-popular staple of night-
time viewing, and if advertisers objected, they kept quiet.
Then, last summer, the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, a Washing-
ton-based media-reform group, released a study ranking TV series in terms of
violent content. The report, based on a six-week computer survey of prime-time
shows, also named sponsors most often associated with violent programs. A similar,
12-week survey came out in December, and more are planned.
Though the studies were criticized widely for using too broad a definition of
violence (Bugs Bunny bopping Daffy Duck with a carrot, counted right along with
dramatized gunfights),they had their desired effect. Embarrassed advertisers
cranked out releases, stating they would seek more wholesome showcases for their
products.
PAGENO="0284"
280
A Genuine Threat
Many saw sound business reasons for doing so. "Not a minor bit of noise from a
few crusading reformers, this issue should be recognized as a genuine threat,"
warns a recent survey that J. Walter Thompson Co. sent to its clients. The big
advertising agency found that 10% of households with annual incomes of $20,000 or
more have considered boycotting products advertised on programs that they consid-
ered excessively violent. Such consumers, the study noted, are "the most important
market targets for many of the goods and services we advetise or sell."
Few adverisers have gone so far as to withdraw commercials from entire series,
even those rated most violent by the citizens' committee. (ABC's "Starsky and
Hutch" and "Baretta,", CBS's "Hawaii Five-O" and "Kojak" and NBC's "Baa Baa
Black Sheep" and "Police Story" all ranked among the 10 most violent.) Instead,
they say they avoid particularly "objectionable" episodes.
"Excessive" or "gratuitous" violence is cited by most advertisers as taboo, yet
violence, it would seem, is in the eyes of the beholder. "It's like the old line about
pornography," says Norman Axelrad, vice president of public affairs for McDonald's
Corp. "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it." Eugene Richmond, director of
advertising for American Motors Corp., says: "If a policeman in pursuit of his job
shoots, that's real life. If he handcuffs and pistol-whips someone, that's excessive
and unnecessary to the plot." The citizens' committee's strictures go much further-
too far, in the view of many advertisers and their agencies. "If you accept the
committee's definition of violence, you wouldn't be able to read the Bible, attend
Shakespeare or read Snow White," says Richard Low, a senior vice president of
Young & Rubicam Inc., the advertising agency.
Screening Problems
The ever-changing network schedules further complicate efforts to enforce vio-
lence guidelines. Networks have juggled more programs and have added more
specials this season than ever before. Advertisers who buy time sight unseen on a
variety of shows months in advance often don't see programs on which their ads
will appear until a day or so before the broadcast-if then. Like many concerns,
Procter & Gamble Co. tries to have its advertising agencies monitor episodes that it
sponsors before they are shown. If they prove too violent or in questionable taste,
P&G bows out. It says it pulled ads from 15 individual series episodes last year.
For big advertisers, with hundreds of commercials being shown in a given season,
prescreening can be burdensome. "We could be on 30 or more shows in any given
month-from news to comedy to action," says Gail Smith, General Motors Corp.'s
general manager of advertising and merchandising. In several cases in recent
months, he says, GM has withdrawn from a violent series episode, though he
declines to say which ones. "I don't think there's a series on television that we
would say we never wanted our commercials to be associated with," he says. "We
look at them episode by episode."
If an advertiser drops out at the last minute, replacement sponsors can usually be
found. But Young & Rubicam's Mr. Low says that because of the uproar over violent
programs, such shows "aren't as easy to sell as they were some months ago." One
network official concedes: "You usually fill up the time, but it may be at distress
prices."
Anthony Hoffman, an analyst with Shields Model Roland Inc., suggets that some
advertisers are using their stated concern over violence as a lever to try to drive
down sky-high prices for TV time. "It's a way to depreciate the value of the
network's product," he says, noting that some advertisers who come out against
violent shows aren't averse to sponsoring them-provided the price goes low enough.
"Some advertisers are talking out of both sides of their mouth," he adds.
Movies, by all accounts, give advertisers the biggest headaches. Mr. Knowlton
says General Foods has a standing policy not to advertise on certain action series,
including "Starsky & Hutch," "Baretta," "Hawaii Five-O" and "Kojak." The difficul-
ty, he says, "is the movies. You buy a certain amount of commercial time in certain
movie packages, only to find out two weeks before air date that you're on `Death
Wish' or `Helter-Skelter.' Needless to say, we pulled out." Similarly, McDonald's
says it withdrew from the movies "Rollerball' and "Klute," as well as from individ-
ual series episodes.
Companies like General Foods and McDonald's, whose marketing is targeted at
women or the entire family, want more TV programs aired that deliver these kinds
of audiences. Noting that at the beginning of the 1976-77 season about half the
prime-time programming was "action stuff," McDonald's Mr. Axelrad says, "Be-
tween the cops and the robbers, we were being squeezed out of the attractive time
slots." General Foods also felt the pinch, Mr. Knowlton says, though he notes that
PAGENO="0285"
281
this season, as the networks have dropped some of the police series in favor of
comedy and variety, "we have more room to move around."
Companies that make products aimed mainly at men-razor blades, say, or
trucks-find themselves in a more delicate position. Action shows deliver just the
kind of audience they're interested in: young males. In February, Jos. Schlitz
Brewing Co. announced its intention to avoid advertising on excessively violent TV
episodes or those "glorifying violence or other antisocial practices." Though Schlitz
has pulled commercials from this kind of show, a spokesman says: "We don't see
this as an absolute cut-and-dried thing. We still want to be in action and adventure
programming because we perceive that our target audience enjoys it."
Critics of TV violence say advertisers share the blame for the lack of diversity in
television programming. Ted Carpenter, executive director of the National Citizens
Committee, contends that although most police action shows don't get top ratings,
they have been a popular formula because they deliver youthful audiences with the
money to spend on a sponsor's products. "Violence is on the air because it gives
advertisers good demographics," he says.
It's clear that by flexing their economic muscle, opponents of TV violence have
forced changes in the content of programs watched, and presumably enjoyed, by
vast numbers of people. This feat-termed "unprecedented" by one network offi-
cial-has far-reaching implications, not only for the networks but for advertisers
and viewers as well.
"My concern is that this could evolve into economic censorship," says Van Gordon
Sauter, vice president for program practices of CBS-TV. "We're reaching a point
where advertisers are so intimidated by self-righteous, elitist groups that they
refuse to be associated with TV programs in spite of their dramatic value."
The networks concede that violent programs don't pull the ratings that they did
even a year ago. "The action format has peaked, much like the TV Western did a
few years back," says Alfred R. Schneider, an ABC vice president. Indeed, according
to the latest Nielsen ratings, only 5 action shows appeared in the top 20 shows. A
number of action shows were among those dropped by the networks at midseason,
including NBC's "Quest" (which ranked first on the citizens' committee's violence
rating) and "Serpico." Other poorly performing police shows seem headed for obliv-
ion when next fall's schedules are announced later this month.
Network executives, while not eager to give away plans for next season's lineup,
all say they are moving away from police-action series. ABC's Mr. Schneider sees a
trend toward "caper" adventure shows rather than hard action. Robert T. Howard,
president of NBC-TV, told a recent congressional hearing on TV violence that
nearly half the pilot shows NBC is considering for next fall are comedy or variety.
NBC, he said, is consciously moving away "from the hard-action form." CBS says it
is looking at a broad mix of spy, sleuth, science-fiction and fantasy stories.
The Network "Censors"
Each of the networks has top-level executives who head "standards and practices"
departments. These "censors" work with writers and producers to help keep a lid on
violence and sex. CBS's Mr. Sauter says, for example, that the original scripts for
the current season's "Hawaii Five-O" series called for 89 acts of violence in 24
episodes. His department took out 25 of these incidents prior to air time, he says.
Similarly, ABC's Mr. Schneider says that the scene in "Roots" when Kunta Kinte's
foot was chopped off was edited to keep the especially brutal sequence off camera.
"You saw the ax raised, and the next scene showed him bandaged up," he says.
Network officials stress that bloody scenes are edited out routinely, a practice that
has brought them criticism for "sanitizing" violence and thus making it unrealisti-
cally palatable to viewers.
The networks are firm about one thing. They may tone down violence, but they
won't eliminate it. They point out that violence and conflict have always been an
integral part of literature and drama, and they say they will resist pressure to make
all shows "tapioca pudding," as one puts it. They will remove violence when it
serves only to shock, when it glorifies the criminal or when it shows viewers how to
commit crimes, the networks add. CBS's Mr. Sauter says: "We're no longer in a
period when violence is inserted in a broadcast to bail out a bad script."
PAGENO="0286"
Advertiser Ranking
LEAST VIOLENT SPONSORS
Rank Sponsor Rating
1 Peter Paul Candy 3
2 Hallmark 8
3 Texaco 10
4 Whirlpool Appliances 13
5 Prudential Insurance 17
6 Jean Nate 18
7 Schaper Toys 20
8 Green Giant
Vegetables 30
8 Keebler Cookies 30
10 Carnation Dog Foods 32
11 Efferdent 34
11 Quasar Television 34
MOST VIOLENT SPONSORS
Rank Sponsor Rating
1 Chevrolet Cars 751
2 Whitehall Labs-Anacin 596
3 American Motors Cars 498
4 Sears, Roebuck & Company 417
5 Eastman Kodak Products 363
6 Schlitz Beer 356
7 Procter & Gamble Soaps 353
8 General Foods
Food Products Division 341
9 Burger King Corporation 315
10 Frito Lay Incorporated 303
11 Mr. Coffee Coffee Maker
11 Campbells Soup Company 300
Movie Rankings
LEA
ST TO MO
ST VIOLENT
Rank
Network
Movie
Rating
Rank
Network
Movie .
Rating
1
CBS
Wednesday Movie
38
5
NBC
Sunday Movie
71
2
NBC
Wednesday Movie
48
6
CBS
Friday Movie
92
3
NBC
Monday Movie
64
7
NBC
Saturday Movie
101
4
ABC
Friday Movie
67
8
ABC
Sunday Movie
128
Notes
*
The ratings were computed as follows: The combination of the number of oiolenf incidents and the length of time of those incidents was
enpressed as a percentage of the total number of violent incidents and the total length of the incidents in all prime hme. These figures were then
computed on a basis of an average week for the total study period and that hnal figure is the rating figure given above.
Definition of Violence. The Gerbner def:nitioo of a violent action as osed in our study is: an overt eopression of physical force (with or without weapon)
against ones sell or other, a compelling action against one's will on pain of being hart or killed, and/or an actual honing or killing. An action to be
considered violent must be plausible and credible and must include human or human-like characters II may be an intentional or accidental action,
humorous or serious or a combination of both as long as the previous conditions are satisfied
Despitethecarefulresearchthutwentinlothedecelopmentoflhisdehn:fionofviolence. induslrycriticssuggestedthaflhisde/nitiOnwatefsebrOad
Therefore, lorourlall ratings. NtX~B conducledtwo parallelstudies. one based onthe Gerbner definition, and oneonthe industrysuggested definition
The resullsshossed nosignificantdivergencein ralingslhusconfirmingfhaf lheoseollheGerbnerdelinifionissouncl, accurateand lairwhen measured
against olher standards.
282
NATIONAL CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING
The rankings shown be)owtiotthose advertisers who, during the study period, sponsored the (eastamount of viotence
in prime time and those who sponsored the most amount of viotence in prime time,
PAGENO="0287"
283
Program Ranking
The following is a complete ranking of all prime time network programming from the least to the most violent shows
during the monitoring period.
Network Rating Network Rating
CPO Sharkey NBC 0 Laverne & Shirley ABC 11
McLean Stevenson NBC 0 Once an Eagle NBC 11
Doc CBS 0 The Captain & Tenille ABC 12
Sirotas Court NBC 0 Rich Man, Poor Man ABC 13
Mr T & Tina ABC 0 Sonny & Cher CBS 16
Ball Four CBS 0 Carol Burnett Show CBS 17
Phyllis CBS 0 Emergency NBC 17
Mary Tyler Moore CBS 0 Wonder Woman ABC 18
Bob Newhart Show CBS 0 Blue Knight CBS 18
Chico & the Man NBC 0 Holmes & Yoho ABC 20
All's Fair CBS 0 Captain & the Kings NBC 21
Alice CBS 1 Gemini Man NBC 25
Rhoda CBS 1 Dick Van Dyke NBC 26
The Tony Randall Show ABC 1 Wonderful World ot Disney NBC 28
Barney Miller ABC 1 Spencers Pilots CBS 29
Welcome Back Kotter ABC 1 Switch CBS 30
What's Happening ABC 1 McCld/Colum/Quincy/McMil NBC 31
Maude CBS 2 Bionic Woman ABC 33
The Practice NBC 2 Streets of San Francisco ABC 38
Sanford & Son NBC 3 Barnaby Jones CBS 38
The Jeffersons CBS 3 Rockford Files NBC 45
One Day At a Time CBS 3 Police Woman NBC 47
All in the Family CBS 3 Charlie's Angels ABC 48
The Nancy Walker Show ABC 4 Most Wanted ABC 48
Gibbsville NBC 4 Serpico NBC 51
The Waltons CBS 5 Delvecchio CBS 52
Good Times CBS 5 Police Story NBC 52
Mash CBS 7 Kojak CBS 52
Executive Suite CBS 7 Six Million Dollar Man ABC 54
Happy Days ABC 7 Hawaii Five-O CBS 60
Tony Orlando & Dawn CBS 7 Baa Baa Black Sheep NBC 65
Little House on the Prairie NBC 8 Baretta ABC 65
Donny & Marie ABC 9 Starsky & Hutch ABC 69
Family ABC 10 Quest NBC 86
Network Rankings
The networks were ranked according to thetotal violence contained in their primetime programming during the study
period. CBS is the least violent network with ABC second and NBC the most violent.
Network Rating Network Rating Network Rating
CBS 967 ABC 1111 NBC 1419
PAGENO="0288"
284
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Carpenter.
I think, for my own part, this is one of the most impressive and
educational panels I have ever listened to. Our trouble always, in
these committees, is that we set the time aside and then other
witnesses have come along earlier, so we started at 9 o'clock, and
that still didn't take care of the time situation as far as I'm
concerned.
We could spend the rest of the day arguing and debating with
this panel. We will probably spend more time with each of you.
Let me ask this: I'm encouraged, Mr. Sauter, because I have
talked with every broadcaster, It's the nicest group in the United
States. Nobody in the energy field ever invited me to eat anything.
Working on the energy problem and a shortage problem, we
weren't getting anywhere.
Now that I'm in an abundance problem we have to eat every 5
minutes.
Mr. SAUTER. I have a waistline, sir, that substantiates that obser-
vation.
Senator HOLLINGS. It's almost a no-no, one of the heads of one of
the broadcasting companies testified yesterday or the day before,
he wouldn't even use the word "violence." What would he call it?
Senator SCHMITT. Hard action.
Senator HOLLINGS. Hard action.
It was almost an unwritten credo, within the broadcast business
you don't even mention that in Washington to a congressional
group. You have not only mentioned it, Mr. Sauter, but telling us
it's too much and telling us what, for example, your company is
doing-CBS, is doing, and that's encouraging to me, because your
statement started off like another attack on television. I thought
the rest of the statement wouldn't be worth reading, and I found
out it was one of the best I have ever read.
Are you typical in CBS? Do you work this hard or are you some
fellow they have found that could stand the committee's hearings?
Mr. SAUTER. My statements were obviously read by the people I
report to before I came here, and I think I reflect their statements
accurately and their sentiments accurately.
Senator HOLLINGS. The other witness attested to the fact that the
other two broadcasters were more violent than yours. Evidently,
you speak with some credibility. This is the kind of approach, when
a group has this kind of panel that can solve this problem without
us running around and passing legislation, but if legislation is to be
passed, we can do it on children's programing.
NOW, one of the witnesses just said cut off all advertising, Mr.
Choate, you seem to be very realistic, and you give the NAB the
very dickens. What is the mechanics of the NAB to study programs
and find out, do they practice what they preach, namely, let's get
drugs, and get to the children, and I think you can get a majority
vote in the next hour in both the House and Senate to legislate on
this particular subject. It deals with children, so we have legislated
in many other areas of child protection, like flammable fabrics and
drug problems, and we have hearings on those.
My appropriations subcommittee gets into the drug abuse admin-
istration, and we are losing the fight. Yet we are coming in with
legitimate drugs, but just volume itself and the practices and the
PAGENO="0289"
285
habits, one fellow said it was toxic, and then a little later poison-
ous. I think he's right.
If you get a child in the habit of taking any and every drug, then
they will take any and every drug. What are the mechanics of the
National Association of Broadcasters as you view it, to do their job?
Mr. CHOATE. Senator Hollings, there are very few public reports
on the private actions of the code authority on their deliberations
prior to their final decisions, so I would speak primarily from
ignorance.
We have appeared-I have appeared back in the early seventies
before the Broadcasters Code Authority asking for a nutrition stan-
dard in advertising, particularly of food for children. We were
turned down. They have been petitioned more recently by another
group to adopt some sort of a code on nutrition and that grOup has
been turned down. We really don't know what are the patterns of
deliberation within the NAB code authority, as these various issues
come up. We do suspect from the reports that we hear, that they
are primarily answered in a manner which will protect broadcast-
ers and not really protect the vulnerable audience.
We do think that a privately administered code, administered by
a broad segment of the public, as pointed out by the Department of
Justice, could be advantageous and could do a lot to relieve the
excesses in commercialism, particularly that viewed by particularly
vulnerable groups, and I think I would prefer this to having the
FTC or FCC prescreen all ads or set the standards for the entire
industry.
Senator HOLLINGS. You did present the matters relative to drugs,
their own codes, their agreement about advertising to children,
drugs to children, but they are not adhering to it, evidently, from
what you have shown.
Have you had an opportunity to show them what you have
shown us?
Mr. CHOATE. I have given this testimony in part before the FTC
on over-the-counter drug advertising and was questioned by indus-
try lawyers on this testimony. This testimony and its content is
well known to the major pharmaceutical houses and to the adver-
tising agencies, and the NAB. The NAB had a lawyer in the room
most of those proceedings. We still don't see any response from the
NAB as to clarifying their code vis-a-vis children.
I would ask that you ask the NAB those questions.
Senator H0LLING5. Let's ask Mr. Sauter. He's there now; what
would be Mr. Sauter's response as the witness for CBS relative to
Mr. Choate's testimony on drugs? We have the words and the
violence and everything else. You have seen what he has shown on
drugs. Do you look at those things, too, in advertising?
Mr. SAUTER. Mr. Chairman, I'm a member of the NAB Television
Code Review Board to which Mr. Choate refers. I have sat in all
their meetings held virtually over the past year. It is a committee
made up of professional broadcasters, because it is indeed an indus-
try self-regulation group which we think is highly appropriate and
beneficial to our viewers.
The NAB Code Review staff is made up Qf experts in the field of
television commercials and we have available to us a very impres-
sive medical review board, where we have questions as to the
20-122 0 - 78 - 19
PAGENO="0290"
286
acceptability of commercials we bring in, for doctors or professional
opinions. Beside the code board looking at commercials and deter-
mining their acceptability, those commercials are also viewed by
the three networks for their acceptability and by the local stations.
I must say, a year ago, the FTC, FCC, National Institute of
Mental Health, and Poison Control Center set up panels to discuss
whether or not the OTC medical products being advertised on
television were in any way contributing to the drug culture in this
country, or to the ingesting by children of those products. Their
contribution was that no action was warranted and in fact, in
terms of ingestion, the kind of product most frequently ingested in
plants, natural products which one can find in the fields which are
not advertised on television.
In all respect to Mr. Choate, I think it's fair to note he has taken
his case before the FCC, FTC, NAB and various legislative hear-
ings. As he noted, he is not getting a positive response.
I think it's time for Mr. Choate to consider whether it is not true,
in fact, that people are not finding validity in his fundamental
assumptions. Thank you.
Senator HOLLINGS. Well, Mr. Sauter, with relation to this super-
duper study, has the NAB ever found there was too much violence
onTV?
Mr. SAUTER. Indeed. Yes.
Senator HOLLINGS. When? What finding of the NAB was to that
effect?
Mr. SAUTER. You must keep in mind in terms of prime time
television, 84 percent of the viewing audience in the United States
is reached by members of the NAB. And I must tell you, sir, not
only have these members of the NAB brought to us their concerns,
they come to us with rather specific objections to specific incidents
within broadcasts and we have been very highly responsive to their
concerns.
Senator HOLLINGS. Are you talking about the individual? I was
trying to get to this very well-thought-out comprehensive study
that reported.
Do you have any study reported by the NAB, that says there is
too much violence on TV?
Mr. SAUTER. No, sir. They have not done such a thing.
Senator HOLLINGS. They never have. I have talked with all of
them. They don't want to use the word. You are the first ones I
have found. They are my friends. I see them regularly. They look
at me like I'm goofy when I mention the word violence.
Mr. SAUTER. I would like to invite you to a meeting. We talk
about violence with candor, because it is a problem in our society
today. We cannot use sanitized words.
Let me yield to Senator Schmitt.
Senator SCHMITT. I apologize, gentlemen, and to the chairman,
for not being here for the full activity, but S. Res. 4, which has
numerous subcommittee meetings, is still biting every Senator in
the Congress.
I have numerous questions I could ask, but let me ask just two. I
would like comments from whoever would like to comment.
I will preface the question by saying I, for a number of years,
referred to something, as the "you know" syndrome, among young
PAGENO="0291"
287
people. The image transfer syndrome may be another one. Basical-
ly I get the impression as I travel around the country talking with
young people, now as a Senator, previously as an astronaut, that
the expression "you know" is an attempt to get you to articulate
an image that they cannot articulate. I may be wrong and I may be
right. I don't know that.
I would like to have your comments, and I'm wondering, and I
must admit my prejudices, that's a consequence of the television
generation, that what we used to get with radio, and were reading,
is being lost. That is the verbal articulation of images.
Now, the image is presented. There is no need to articulate it, to
describe it, either in the imagination or in the spoken word. I think
that maybe might be at the heart of the kind of problems that we
are discussing here, and that have been discussed in these hearings
up until now, is that we are transferring images. Not imagination
or learning or words, verbalization of images.
Do you gentlemen agree with that? Have any comment on that
particular problem, and more importantly, what can we do about
it? What can the industry do?
If there is anybody in the Senate that's against Government
regulation and control where it's not absolutely necessary, it's me,
but I frankly, I'm with Mr. Mandel, I've got all the problems
outlined, but I don't have a solution.
I would like to hear some more discussion.
Mr. MANDEL. Well, I will make a stab at it.
I think, first of all, television is an extraordinarily literal means
of communication and it provides virtually no opportunity for the
person sitting in front of the set to add his own experience or his
own imagination to what he's receiving. It's exactly the reverse in
radio.
I don't know if any studies were made to support this. It's my
observation that people raised with radio are very good audiences
in the theatre because they know how to add their own participa-
tion to what's going on on the stage. It's an imaginative process,
and it's very effective, much more effective than the passive pro-
cess of television.
People raised on television drama don't make such good audi-
ences in the theatre because they don't know how to use them-
selves in the experience.
I'm also against Government regulation when it becomes onerous
and I'm against censorship. I'm against things such as Senator
Thurmond's bill which he was speaking for earlier, and I believe
the answer is to provide a very substantial injection of effort and
money to establishing alternate forms of alternate television pro-
grams for the home. It's a technology that's really just beginning to
emerge.
Senator SCHMITT. Who is going to do that?
Mr. MANDEL. There are private interests doing it, the cable com-
panies. I believe the satellite is going up very shortly within the
next year that will vastly improve the access of cables to the
American viewing public.
Senator SCHMITT. That's not without its own problems. We have
had those described to us, too. The profit motive is still in cable
industry. That has been one of the things you pointed out so well,
PAGENO="0292"
288
that all ramifications of that is what is partially creating the
problem we have today. One of the problems we heard with the
cable television business is once they get a market of about 15 or
maybe even less, but say 15 million people who are paying into it,
they can dominate the whole media, television media, just because
of the money.
Mr. MANDEL. We are talking now about technology that might
provide as many as 40 or 80 channels for each home set and we are
talking about a direct delivery system, and also an indirect deliv-
ery system, the home video machine, which plays what you buy in
the store, just the same way as the record industry provides re-
cords that you then can take home and play on the home phono-
graph.
I think that if there is an answer that avoids Government regu-
lation, it is an answer that leads toward trying to encourage and
perhaps even to fund, through something like a national endow-
ment, a great many alternative systems that can dilute the rather
one-sided effect of commercial interest broadcasting. It's the only
answer I have.
Senator SCHMITT. Anybody else wish to make a stab at it?
Mr. CARPENTER. One of the things that often worries me, when
you talk about television, well, it is just images, it catches people
when they are playful and, therefore, it is not all that serious. I
think as Mr. Mandel pointed out, images are among the most
powerful educators of all times, from the earliest pieces of Greek
literature to the festivals of the Middle Ages. Festivals and myths
are what educate us, particularly when they catch us when we are
playful. They have a tremendous impact on the way we socialize
and what we do.
It is because television fills that void so incredibly, I think the
problem is the motive. I think what Mr. Mandel is talking about, is
the change needed is the competition among audiences for program
content that they want, not them being kind of passive and indi-
rect recipients of programing that carries a commercial message
and the purpose of that program is to get the commercial message
to them.
I think that is the distinction. That is the hope of new technol-
ogy. It may turn out to be another vehicle for delivering commer-
cial messages but the hope is it would be more like the record
industry, in their communication system where they get the kind
of record they want, they look for the content on the record and
they don't get necessarily a commercial message with it.
And why can't television serve us that way? Can cable deliver to
you the kind of program you want, not the kind of program that
seems to serve well by the rating standard? It is a motive that is
the problem.
Senator SCHMITT. Let me say, although I do not personally own a
television set, never have, it has nothing to do with my feeling that
within the television technology there is not a great opportunity
for good within our society and within commercial television as the
primary vehicle. I think what we are searching for is an answer to
how, within that vehicle, we can backtrack some and cover on
some of the problems we may have created for ourselves up to the
present time.
PAGENO="0293"
289
In response to your comment, I think there is a difference. I
think the television image is more complete than the radio or
theater or festival image of our past. It creates a passive viewer,
mentally passive viewer, now, that is purely me as an old geologist
and now Senator talking, that I and others are passive when they
view television.
I firmly believe that, and I think there is good evidence coming
more and more to the fore now that proves it is a passive viewer. I
have talked to many teachers of first- and second-year students
who have been teachers for many, many years, who say it is an
entirely different student in terms of their receptivity to learning,
and in particular, their ability to work within a group environ-
ment, rather than having an individual teacher which they have
had for the first 5 or 6 years of their life, namely, the television.
Mr. CHOATE. Senator Schmitt, I would point out the FCC, FTC,
FDA, and NLH have devoted relatively little money over the last
decade to the impact of television upon the minds of the young
people, and there does need to be some interest from this commit-
tee toward the National Science Foundation, toward the NIG,
NIMH, to stimulate additional funds to answer some of the ques-
tions that you have raised.
Senator SCHMITT. May I ask, as my final question, why do you
think the networks are not interested in these hearings?
Mr. CH0ATE. I think they are fascinated by these hearings.
Senator SCHMITT. Where are they, Mr. Chairman?
Senator. HOLLINGS. We had them as witnesses all day Monday.
Senator SCHMITT. I mean coverage of the hearings. Television
coverage.
Senator. HOLLINGS. It will get covered.
Senator SCHMITT. Maybe the chairman and I should have a fight,
get some hard action here.
Senator. HOLLINGS. Does anyone want to tell me, we heard testi-
mony to the effect that advertising reduces the price of the prod-
uct, and really it doesn't cost to get on TV because every fellow,
when he sells an automobile or piece of soap, if he gets his adver-
tising on TV it reduces the overall cost of the product and, there-
fore, we can't in looking at the entire subject factor in, when they
talk about free TV, actually we are paying for it in an increased
cost of product but we are not paying for it in an increased cost of
product, actually advertising reduces the costs.
Do you understand that? I don't understand it, but I am asking
you the question.
Mr. CARPENTER. As a conjecture I can say probably because it
results in such a massive distribution of the product and with the
lower costs of mass distribution that may well be true.
I am not sure that is the point of my remarks. I think we are
worried about the impact on the product that reaches the home.
That is the program, I think there is a cost to that. There is a
social cost to that. We have had all kinds of conjecturers about the
degree to which image and programs-what about the image of
violence? You talk about passive viewer, and you mentioned your
own son is out there imitating Batman and Spiderman and things
of that sort.
PAGENO="0294"
290
That doesn't sound passive to me. That sounds like television is
translating very actively into our lives. I think that is the real cost
of television, that we haven't really figured out.
Sure, we do pay for it when we go to the supermarket. I think
the point I was making in my remarks, the relationship between
the programing-what is the product? Is it the one in the super-
market or the one on the air?
Senator. HOLLINGS. Again, as a member of the NAB, Mr. Sauter,
do the other two networks, NBC and ABC, have similar endeavors
as you have ascribed to CBS?
Mr. SAUTER. They have similar operations. I know very little
about their internal operations. I would like to add, the point made
here on Monday by one of the network presidents: There was a
survey which indicated that advertising through a mass medium
created a large enough demand for the product that the cost was
reduced.
There are people that wonder why we have to have advertising
on television. I would like to note that none of us could afford to
buy a general circulation magazine if the newsstand price of that
magazine was based entirely on the cost of producing it, that it is
only through the advertising within those publications that the
magazine is affordable, and I think advertsing is interlocked with
our communications system, and I think that we have generated a
system beneficial to the public.
Senator. HOLLINGS. And a postal subsidy, too.
Thank you very much. We appreciate this panel. We will ask the
other panel to step forward promptly.
[Recess.]
[The following information was subsequently received for the
record.]
CBS TELEVISION NETWORK,
New York, N.Y. May 18, 1977.
Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Russell State Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: At my appearance before your Subcommittee on
Wednesday, May 11 I did not have time to include some remarks and material
about the testimony of Dr. Michael B. Rothenberg. I would like to submit, for the
record, the attached excerpts from the April 12, 1976 Journal of the American
Medical Association. These are letters critical of an article written by Dr. Rothen-
berg and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of Decem-
ber, 1975. Also attached for submission is an unpublished letter from John A.
Schneider, President CBS/Broadcast Group, responding to and criticizing the inac-
curacies in that article.
I appreciated the opportunity to appear before your Committee to offer my views
and experiences about program practices.
Sincerely,
VAN G. SAUTER.
Enclosure.
NEW YORK, N.Y., May 7, 1976.
The EDITOR,
Journal of the American Medical Association,
North Dearborn St., Chicago, Ill.
To THE EDITOR: In the December 1975 Journal of the American Medical Associ-
ation, Dr. Michael B. Rothenberg has presented a misleading report on the effects of
television violence on children and youth. His article is filled with so many factual
errors and serious oversimplification-and misstatement-of scientific conclusions
that we initially ignored his article. However, since a few doctors seem to be willing
PAGENO="0295"
291
to accept Dr. Rothenberg's thesis as fact, it might be worth examining his asser-
tions.
Dr. Rothenberg claims that, on the average, there is an act of violence every
minute in children's cartoons. Nowhere, however, does Dr. Rothenberg cite his
source for this claim. CBS is unaware of the existence of any study that would
support such a conclusion. The studies of Dean George Gerbner of the Annenberg
School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, for example, which
count certain comic behavior as violence, indicate only about one-third as much
animation violence as claimed by Dr. Rothenberg.
Dr. Rothenberg presents, in several places, as established fact what are in reality
only tentaive conclusions reached by Richard Goranson, a biomedical engineer, in
his article, "A Review of Recent Literature on Psychological Effects of Media
Portrayal of Violence," issued two years before the conclusion of the Surgeon
General's study and report on the subject. For example, in an unfortunate display of
fact-twisting, Dr. Rothenberg claims that Mr. Goranson found, in Dr. Rothenberg's
words, that "There is a decreased emotional sensitivity to media violence, as a
result of the repetition of violence in the mass media . . ." bringing on "decreased
aggression anxiety and an increased ability to be violent with others." In fact Mr.
Goranson found no such thing. What he wrote was that "Frequent exposure pro-
duces an emotional habituation to media violence. There is suggestive evidence that
this results in an increased likelihood of actually engaging in aggession. . . . The
possibility that emotional habituation may make people less reluctant to actually
commit violence needs further investigation. " [Emphasis added.]
There are other instances of selective editing and elimination of caveats. For
example, in quoting Mr. Goranson, Dr. Rothenberg says: "Novel, agressive behavior
sequences are learned by children through exposure to aggressive actions shown on
television or in films. A large proportion of the aggressive behaviors learned by
observation are retained over long periods of time if the responses have been
practiced at least once."
However, Mr. Goranson goes on to say-and Dr. Rothenberg chooses to ignore:
"The permanency of media violence effects is a central issue. When novel, aggres-
sive behaviors and techniques are learned by observation, are they quickly forgotten
or is this learning more permanent? Does the permanency of this learning depend
on the `practice' of aggressive responses immediately after they are observed? When
media violence arouses aggressive impulses, are these impulses very short-lived or
not?"
Dr. Rothenberg states erroneously that when selections were being made for the
12-person Scientific Advisory Committee for the Surgeon General's Report, ".. tele-
vision industry representatives `blackballed'. . . seven of the 40 listed scientists"
and had them replaced with five television network executives. In point of fact, the
three broadcasting companies and the National Assocation of Broadcasters were
asked by the Surgeion Genereal to indicate from a list of 40 persons "which
individuals, if any, you believe would not be appropriate for an impartial scientific
investigation of this nature." The five persons to whom Dr. Rothenberg referred
were on the original list of 40. Of the five, only two were industry executives. The
others included a university dean who had years ago been an industry executive
and two university professors who acted as grantees or consultants for various
segments of the industry and the government.
Dr. Rothenberg claims that "Twenty-five percent of the television industry's profit
comes from the seven percent of its programming directed at children." This is
nonsense. While such profit statistics are not publicly released, Dr. Rothenberg's 25
percent figure is considerably higher than the actual profit.
Dr. Rothenberg implies that network violence is increasing. He is wrong. Accord-
ing to Dr. Gerbner, there have been only minor changes in overall network violence
over a nine-year period. However, a recently completed study of prime time televi-
sion by the CBS Office of Social Reserach found that incidents of non-comic violence
on the three television networks, particulary on CBS, have substantially decreased.
Based on 13 weeks of the 1975-76 season, the study found that non-comic violence
declined by 24 percent on all three networks combined, and by 36 percent on the
CBS Television Network alone, as compared with the previous year. It should be
noted that most studies of violence in television only cover one sample week. Since
there is literally no such thing as a "typical" week in broadcasting, CBS opted for
the 13-week study to provide more accurate data.
The study also found that, concurrent with the introduction of the family viewing
concept, there was a marked decrease from last year in the number of violent
incidents in the period before 9 PM, as well as a decline in the amount of violence
depicted after 9 PM. Indeed, the level of violence on CBS is at its lowest .point since
CBS started intensive monitoring in 1972-73.
PAGENO="0296"
292
The general implication of Dr. Rothenberg's article that there is a direct causal
relationship between television violence and aggressive behavior is a matter of
scientific dispute. There are advocates on both sides of the argument, but there is no
conclusive evidence that television violence causes violent behavior. A far more
balanced view of the present state of scientific knowledge on this issue has been
taken by George Comstock, formerly Senior Research Coordinator of the Surgeon
General's Scientific Advisory Committee staff and now at the Rand Corporation. In
a paper presented at an April 1975 conference, he said: "In regard to the substan-
tive issue, the most scientifically justifiable conclusion, given the avilable evidence,
is that violent television entertainment increases the probability of subsequent ag-
gressive behavior on the part of children and youth. However, the case cannot be
said to be closed, and the social impact implied by that conclusion may be negligible
or large." (Emphasis added.)
Further, it should be noted that two recent books by reputable British social
scientists are highly critical of the research findings on the issue of television
violence and aggression. The first, Mass Media Violence and Society, concludes by
asserting that "fictionalized violence in the mass media has no effect on violence in
real life." The second, Children in Front of the Small Screen, suggests that, for some
children, television violence may help "to drain off aggressive impulses and keep
them from real-life expression." The case, as Dr. Comstock says, cannot be said to be
closed.
The lack of conclusive evidence is by no means echoed by a lack of concern at
CBS. The 1972 Surgeon General's Report on television and social behavior re-
emphasized to us the possible effects of televised violence upon antisocial behavior.
We at CBS have been fully aware of the tentative links that were established by
this Report. Like all thoughtful Americans, we have been seriously concerned about
this issue. It was a recognition of this responsibility that led CBS to propose, and
the rest of the television industry to adopt, the family viewing provisions of the
Television Code of the NAB.
This sort of approach received encouragememt from Dr. Anne R. Somers, Assis-
tant Professor of Medicine at the Rutgers University Medical School, who supports
many of Dr. Rothenberg's positions. In the April 8, 1976 issue of The New England
Journal of Medicine, she writes that "~ * * it is essential that the American Medi-
cal Association and other organizational spokesmen for the profession * * ~." seek
* a reduction of violence in general entertaining programing and support for
the concept of the Family Viewing Hour." CBS has demonstrated its support for
these goals through its key role in the development of the family viewing concept
and its sizeable reduction of acts of violence in its television programming. CBS has
also successfully pioneered in the use of television for teaching children positive
social values and American history through a number of nationally respected pro-
grams, such as "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids," the "U.S. of Archie," "The Harlem
Globetrotters Popcorn Machine," "The Shazam!/Isis Hour." To help in its selection
of appropriate material for childrens' programming, CBS relies upon an advisory
group of distingusihed scholars and educators.
As parents, citizens, and responsible business and civic leaders, we at CBS are
also worried about the rise of violent behavior in the nation. But Dr. Rothenberg's
inaccurate and emotional interpretation does a disservice to the serious, scientific
pursuit of the root causes of violence. As Dr. Somers has written in an article that
can hardly be considered protelevision: "The problem of youthful violence is obvi-
ously highly complex * * ~." and "~ * * the search for the causes and cures of
violence merits the same degree of moral and intellectual commitment on the part
of the health profession as we are currently devoting to the war on cancer * *
Finally, several doctors have suggested that some form of government censorship
of television should be introduced. This is a most serious and dangerous remedy.
Once there is a violation of American's freedom of speech and civil liberties in one
area there is nothing to guarantee that this violation cannot be used to justify the
taking away of freedoms in other areas. The late Harvard Law Professor Zechariah
Chafee, a noted constitutional law authority, once wrote: "Whenever anybody is
inclined to look to the government for help in making the mass media do what we
desire of them, he had better ask himself one antiseptic question: `Am I envisaging
myself as the official who is going to administer the policy which seems to me so
good?' Justice Holmes remarked that, when socialism came, he hoped he would be
`on the committee.' You and I are not going to be on the committee which is
charged with making newspapers or radio scripts better written and more accurate
and impartial. It is very easy to assume that splendid fellows in our crowd will be
exercising the large powers over the flow of facts and opinions which seem to us
essential to save society, but that is an irridescent dream."
PAGENO="0297"
293
We doubt that most Americans would be happy with a government censorship
board. There has always been a wide range of opinions about programming on
television and a censorship board would certainly not change that. As one small
example of how there can be an honest difference of opinion, there were those who
objected-in advance-to CBS presenting the motion picture "Helter Skelter,"
which dealt with the police investigation and trial of the Manson Family. Yet most
critics who screened the broadcast in advance felt that it was, in the words of the
Christian Science Monitor, "a serious, responsible, dramatization. . . ." In fact,
representatives of the National Council of Churches screened "Helter Skelter" and
said that they saw no cause to voice objections or criticism of the film's handling of
the subject. The program was also commended by Dr. Gerbner. On a recent televi-
sion program, NINE IN THE MORNING, on WTOP in Washington, D.C., he stated
that in his opinion the elimination of violence from television was undesirable and
that it should be treated, as it was in "Helter Skelter," as an obnoxious course of
behavior.
We at CBS will continue to exercise care and discretion and to seek new direc-
tions in attacking the crucial problem of violence in our society. We hope that our
efforts will continue to merit the support of concerned members of the medical
profession.
Cordially,
JOHN H. SCHNEIDER,
President.
LETrERS-WOLENCE ON TELEVISION
To the EDITOR: The article on the effect of television violence by Dr. Michael
Rothenberg (234:1043, 1975) contains significant distortions that we would like to
correct.
First, Dr. Rothenberg's statement that all research studies reviewed demonstrate
increased aggressiveness as a result of exposure to TV violence seriously overstates
the consistency and conclusiveness of these studies. Moreover, Dr. Rothenberg ig-
nores other important research that did not show any casual effects; for example,
Stanley Milgram found no effect in a natural field experiment that used a more
realistic and serious measure of aggression than do laboratory studies.1 Dr. Rothen-
berg's conclusions are based mostly on laboratory research.
Second, although Dr. Rothenberg draws heavily on summaries of the literature by
Goranson and by Liebert, he does not report their conclusions accurately. For
example, in his book, Liebert reminds the reader that many of the studies were not
even designed to test causality.
The misinterpretation of Goranson's review, which is the basis for much of Dr.
Rothenberg's article, is even clearer. Goranson warns against uncritical generaliza-
tions from laboratory experiments, describes evidence as "indirect," and points out
that his conclusions are "tentative." None of these qualifications are mentioned by
Rothenberg.
Other knowledgeable and independent scholars also have stated that the~ evidence
does not conclusively prove that TV violence causes aggression. George Comstock,
the government's research coordinator and science advisor on the Surgeon General's
project that investigated this subject, concluded that the issue "cannot be taken as
fully 2 A recent book by Howitt and Cumberbatch, reviewing all the
research literature in the field, also concluded that the causal connection has not
been proved.~
Likewise, a new report by one of the Surgeon General's research teams, reanalyz-
ing their own earlier data, states that "We are forced, then, to conclude that the TV
violence predictors, both objective and perceived, do not matter significantly in
explaining violent 4
Further, Dr. Rothenberg is misleading when he suggests that studies of TV
content show that TV is saturated with harmful violence. First, such studies often
1 Milgram S. Shotland RL: Television and Antisocial Behavior: Field Experiments. New York,
Academic Press, 1973, p. 68.
2 Comstock G: Television Violence: Where the Surgeon General's Study Leads. Santa Monica,
Calif., The Rand Corporation, May 1972, p. 3.
Howitt D. Cumberbatch G: Mass Media Violence and Society. New York, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., 1975, p. vii.
Hartnagel TF, Teevan JJ, McIntyre JJ: Television violence and violent behavior. Social
Forces 54(2):341-351, 1975.
PAGENO="0298"
294
include acts not commonly regarded as violent. Second, such research does not not
attempt to separate out acts that may be harmful from those that are not. For
example, the best known studies of this kind include accidents and acts of nature in
"counting" acts of violence.
The National Broadcasting Company recognizes that television violence may
prompt aggressive behavior in some children. We accept the responsibility which
that places on us, and NBC has a department of specialists who critically examine
and edit program content of all kinds, especially violence, and we welcome public
discussion of this issue. However, distortions and sweeping generalizations such as
those of Dr. Rothenberg do not contribute to dealing with the very complex issue of
human behavior where "aggressive" conduct is related to so many variable environ-
mental, historical, and biological factors.
WILLIAM RUBEN5,
National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
To the EDITOR: Recently, the article entitled "Effect of Television Violence on
Children and Youth," by Michael B. Rothenberg was called to my attention. On
reading the article, I noted several inaccuracies and found the conclusions to be
quite misleading. The major fault with the article is that Rothenberg takes a
complex issue and presents it as a simple one. Since the topic he discusses has
serious political implications, it is important to consider the issues in their true
complexity.
Contrary to Rothenberg's impressions, not all studies show that the effects of
television are detrimental. Sophisticated investigators are no longer asking the
simple question "Does TV violence cause aggression?" Instead, they are trying to
delineate the conditions associated with the instigation to aggress. Studies typically
show that TV will activate aggressive behaviors if the subjects are intentionally
angered or frustrated immediately before they are exposed to televised violence.
When subjects are not provoked prior to viewing, experiments tend to show that TV
has little or no effect upon aggressive behaviors. In the real world, however, we
rarely provoke children immediately before they watch TV, and there is some
evidence that, when angry, children prefer other behaviors to watching TV.
To date, most experimenters have measured aggression by recording whether a
child will attack a large Bobo doll or by noting that intensity or duration of shocks
one college student will administer to a peer in the context of a learning experi-
ment. The correlation between these measures and real-life aggression (pushing,
hitting, etc.) has been observed to be weak. In fact, experiments employing more
naturalistic measures of aggression are much less likely to show that TV has an
effect on aggression.
Although Rothenberg cited several comprehensive literature reviews, he neglected
to mention several others that suggested different conclusions.2 In a recent critical
review, Singer and P argue that the instigating effects of TV may be considerably
weaker than was previously believed. Clearly, the major causes of violence do not
include TV.
In his conclusion, Rothenberg called for "a major, organized cry of protest from
the medical profession." Before any such protest is launched, however, medical
professionals must learn considerably more about the relevant research. Censoring
TV is a serious issue that involves overriding the First Amendment, i.e., the right to
freedom of expression.
ROBERT M. KAPLAN, Ph. D.,
University of California.
To the EDITOR: Dr. Rothenberg's article on TV violence does an important service
in bringing this issue to the attention of your readers. His call for action is to be
applauded. However, as someone who was intimately involved in the operation of
the Surgeon General's program of research, I must take issue with his interpreta-
tion of the "controversy" over the final report of the Scientific Advisory Committee.
It is true that the networks identified seven scientists who, they believed, should not
serve on the committee. However, it is a slur on the reputations of the 12 members
who did serve to suggest that these seven were, by contrast, individuals "who had
1 Kaplan RM, Singer RD: Psychological effects of televised violence. J Social Issues, to be
published.
2 Feshbach S. Singer RD: Television and Aggression. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publish-
ers, 1971.
Singer ,JL: The influence of violence portrayed in television or motion pictures upon overt
aggressive behavior, in Singer JL (ed): The Control of Aggression and Violence: Cognitive and
Physiological Factors. New York, Academic Press, 1971, pp. 19-60.
PAGENO="0299"
295
the most outstanding reputations and work in the field." Furthermore, the seven
were not "replaced by five television network executives." Two of the committee
members were full-time employees of the networks, but they are scientists, fully
credentialed in this field of research. Three other committee members had been
paid consultants of the networks but were full-time members of the academic
community. And, finally, there was no "enormous political pressure on the Scientif-
ic Advisory Committee to produce a unanimously signed document." That pressure
came from within the program in the recognition that a report in this controversial
field would benefit greatly from being arrived at unanimously.
Dr. Rothenberg neglects to point out that the conclusion of a "causal-relation-
ship," although qualified in the report, is the first time such causality was stated in
any major scientific investigation in this field. Had a New York Times headline not
misinterpretated the report in a front-page story on Jan. 11, 1972, the Committee
report would have been publicly recognized for what it is-a cautiously worded
warning that there is a danger that aggressive behavior may be evoked from the
viewing of televised violence. That~ warning was reinforced in the public hearings
held on the report by Senator Pastore in March 1972.
Indeed, that cautious warning still stands as an appropriate evaluation of the
evidence, avoiding the extreme of making television a scapegoat for all aggressive
behavior, but certainly serving as an important scientific judgment for Dr. Rothen-
berg's timely call to action.
ELI A. RUBINSTEIN, Ph. D.,
State University of New York.
To the EDITOR: "The Effect of Television Violence on Children and Youth" by
Michael B. Rothenberg, MD, omits two fundamental realities that need facing when
one grapples with the television-violence issue.
First is the reality that an overwhelming majority of citizens of all age, racial,
ethnic, religious, eductional, and economic levels watch television. These citizens
determine the success or failure of any program. The more watching, the more
advertisers are willing to sponsor a program. Either with enthusiasm or with
passionate rejection, the violence objected to by Dr. Rothenberg is viewed by an
overwhelming percentage of people. They want to see violence. The Nielsen Index
proves it, and all the Ph.Ds in the television networks know it. Perhaps we all,
before we criticize television, should do our own tabulating of what our home sets
are turned on to. We protest, but we typically leave the set on.
The second reality is that of the tendency to externalize the sources of our
problems. For example, when our children or youth act up, we blame someone or
something else-everything and anything possible, including television. In truth, we
should be looking in the mirror. What goes on between people in the home has been
and will continue to be much more important than what is shown on television sets.
The main problem, as I see it, is that television offers scant help to those of us who
(we hope) do not create violence in the home.
That children will imitate violence and that the viewing of violence produces an
increased aggressive behavior surely point to the need for remedial action, but that
action must be realistic and cognizant of the aforementioned realities. Remedial
action cannot interfere with what the public demands to be shown, especially when
the commercial television stations know it and their existence demands it. In fact,
television violence (and sexuality) will continue even more so as the population
increases in age, as the importance of children diminishes, and as traditional family
people shrink in numbers to irrelevancy in both commercial and political clout.
Realistic remedial action ought to include the following:
1. Cooperation with the television industry in a way livable for all. For example,
instead of the "family hour" I would prefer "family minutes"-about 60 of them
randomly inserted in the appropriate programs. The messages would be about
television itself, family values, reality, and active involvement in other things. A
ten-second sampler: "If you imitate a lot of these TV characters, your family life
will be lousy."
2. Pamphleteering is insufficient. "Guidelines available in every doctor's office,
hospital clinic, and child health station," also need more positive action from
medical personnel. As a repertoire of "stop smoking" approaches have been sponta-
neously developed for use by physicians, a comparable series of verbal and interac-
tional statements deemphasizing television for patients of all ages needs vigorous
promulgation. In other words, "speak up" to your patients.
3. One can embrace energy-conservation efforts with enthusiasm by turning off
television sets, if not at the source than at least in his own home, and by developing
a repertoire of activities that create action rather than passivity.
PAGENO="0300"
296
Recently, I found myself turning off the set with the proclamation: "If we keep
watching this crap, our brains will rot." Then we all had some family togetherness,
and I found myself hoping that television never gets any better. In fact, we might
leave the programing alone-if it becomes so good that we cannot turn it off, then
our society will really be in trouble.
SAMUEL A. NIGR0, M.D.,
Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
CHILDREN'S ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,
Seattle, Wash., June 24, 1977.
Hon~ ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, US. Senate, Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: I very much appreciate your giving me the opportunity
to respond, for the record, to the material sent to you by Mr. Van Gordon Sauter,
Vice-President, Program Practices, CBS Television Network. I think it's noteworthy
that Mr. Schneider's letter is the same one which he sent to the Editor of the
Journal of the American Medical Association over a year ago. I am enclosing, copies
of the correspondence between my office and the Editor of JAMA which I believe
are self-explanatory in explaining what happened when Mr. Schneider was invited
to submit his comments in a form suitable for publication, and a form to which I
would be able to respond.
I find it even more noteworthy, and quite disturbing, that Mr. Schneider's letter
was distributed to staff members and/or Committee members of your Subcommittee
on Communications prior to your Oversight Hearings of May 9. through 11, 1977.
And now the same letter has appeared once again, this time accompanied by copies
of letters to the Editor of JAMA from April 12, 1976. I find myself regretfully forced
to the conclusion that this can only represent an attempt on the part of Mr.
Schneider and Mr. Sauter to discredit me as a witness. It seems to me that this sort
of approach does nothing to expedite the "serious, scientific pursuit of the root
causes of violence" for which Mr. Schneider calls in his letter. By carbon copy of
this letter to you, and a covering letter, I am attempting to initiate direct communi-
cation with Mr. Schneider, in the hope that we can become involved in a truly
cooperative endeavor to enhance the quality of television programing and thereby
the quality of life of America's children.
Let me address myself first to the letters to the Editor from the April 12, 1976
JAMA which Mr. Sauter sent to you. First, I should point out that from December
8, 1975 through March 31, 1977, I received 652 letters in response to my December 8,
1975 article in JAMA. Three hundred and ninety-seven of these letters were from
physicians, and 255 were from colleagues in the teaching profession and from lay
people. A total of 2,105 reprints of my article were requested by these individuals.
Of the total of 652 letters, there was only one which was critical of my article. This
was a letter which was barely legible and barely comprehensible, and appeared to
be written by a psychotic individual who castigated me for failing to attack sex on
television and who felt that violence should be maintained in order to "wipe out the
sex."
There are four letters to the Editor contained in the enclosures sent to you by Mr.
Sauter. The first is from a representative of the National Broadcasting Company,
Incorporated. The second, from Dr. Robert Kaplan at San Diego State University,
refers only to some of the experimental techniques used to study the question of the
effects of violence viewing, and fails completely to take into account correlational
field studies and naturalistic experiments. In addition, Dr. Kaplan, as does Mr.
Schneider, implies that I have suggested that TV is a major cause of violence, a
statement which I have never made or written, nor implied. Dr. Kaplan also brings
up the question of censorship, about which I have taken a firm and unequivocal
stand throughout my involvement with this issue. The third letter is from Dr. Eli
Rubinstein, and I think his letter is put into proper perspective by the letter from
Dr. Richard Magraw, which I am enclosing in connection with my response to Mr.
Schneider's letter. The fourth letter, from Dr. Samuel Nigro, seems self-explanatory
to me. I would only point out that his statement, "They want to see violence. The
Nielson Index proves it is an arguable one, to say the least, since it leaves out
the entire matter of what is in fact offered to people, and the issue of habituation to
television viewing, regardless of the content of programs.
Mr. Schneider's letter is something else again. I find it most unfortunate that the
overall tone of Mr. Schneider's letter is evasive and somewhat threatening, as it
resorts repeatedly to ad hominem arguments. Again, it is my hope that this sort of
PAGENO="0301"
297
adversary behavior can be replaced by a joint advocacy effort on all of our parts
concerning the needs of children in this area. In his first paragraph, Mr. Schneider
says, ". . . since a few doctors seem to be willing to accept Dr. Rothenberg's thesis
as fact, it might be worth examining his assertions." I think it should be noted that
Mr. Schneider's letter was written on the eve of the American Medical Association's
Annual Meeting at which its 203,000 members voted a resolution of concern over
the effects of television violence on children.
Mr. Schneider's second contention is that his network is unaware of the existence
of any study that'would support my statement that on the average there is an act of
violence every minute in children's cartoons. Because of publisher's constraints, I
cited only 14 references in my article. I also referred to 146 articles in behavioral
science jounals, representing 50 different studies, involving 10,000 normal children
and adolescents from every conceivable background. In addition, there are the 23
separate research projects which were funded by the Surgeon General's office. All of
these sources are replete with data which substantiate my statement. It should be
mentioned here that Dr. Garbner's definition of violence is a limited one and omits,
for example, natural acts such as volcanic eruptions and boulders falling off cliffs.
I point out in my paper that I concentrate on Dr. Richard Goranson's "A Review
of Recent Literature on Psychological Effects of Media Portrayals of Violence"
because it provides a succinct outline and identifies four major issues involved. Mr.
Schneider's noting that Dr. Goranson is "a biomedical engineer," and his reference
to Dr. Goranson as "Mr. Goranson" a few lines later appear to me to be subtle
attempts to discredit Dr. Goranson. Mr. Schneider accuses me of "selective editing
and elimination of caveats," and I can only say that there was no such purpose on
my part at all. Rather, with the editorial constraints placed upon me in terms of
total length of the article which I was writing, I presented a summary and took
some pains to point out that that was precisely what I was doing.
Mr. Schneider addresses himself next to the issue of the selection of the 12-person
Scientific Advisory Committee for the Surgeon General's Report. Several books and
articles have been written about this subject, and I would refer you particularly to
Liebert, Neale and Davidson's book, "The Early Window: Effects of Television on
Children and Youth," to which I referred in my original JAMA article, and to Cater
and Strickland's excellent book, "Television Violence and the Child: The Evolution
and Fate of the Surgeon General's Report." (Russell Sage Foundation, 1975). I am
also enclosing a copy of a letter which I received from Dr. Richard Magraw,
currently President of the Eastern Virginia Medical Authority, shortly after the
publication of my JAMA article. Dr. Magraw is a nationally recognized leader in
the areas of medical education and the delivery of health care `services. On a
personal level, he is truly a model of Quaker integrity and self-restraint. His letter
speaks for itself, and as I have already noted, is pertinent to an understanding of
Dr. Rubinstein's letter to the Editor as published in the April 12, 1976 issue of
JAMA, as well as to Mr. Schneider's comments.
Mr. Schneider next calls my statement about the television industry's profit
"nonsense." Network profit statistics have been competently interpreted in at least
three books: William Melody's "The Economics of Exploitation" (1973), Les Brown's
"The Business Behind the Box" (1971) and Alan Pearce's "The Economics of Chil-
dren's TV Programing" (1972). Mr. Pearce is the former FCC economist who is
currently on the staff of the House Communications Subcommittee. The consumer
organizations concerned with children's television have always taken the position
that local stations' profits not be made public except on a market basis, and it was
suggested to Senator Magnuson that the profits of public operated business should
be available because stations always state they can't afford to do programing. You
will recall that Senator Pastore warned the networks, after the million dollar a year
salary of Barbara Walters was announced, that they could no longer "cry crocodile
tears" about not being able to afford children's programs. It seems to me that Mr.
Schneider's statement in his letter is essentially nob contendere.
Mr. Schneider begins his next criticism of my article by stating, "Dr. Rothenberg
implies that network violence is increasing." I can find no statement in my article
that implies that network violence is increasing. Indeed, in connection with the
formal resolution from one of the national medical organizations concerning the
effect of television violence on children, I took strong exception to the inclusion of a
statement that network violence was increasing and the statement was subsequent-
ly rewritten. All of this, of course, occurred prior to the publication of Dr. George
Gerbner's violence profile for the Fall, 1976 network offerings, which revealed that
the overall average rate of 9.5 violent episodes per hour was the highest recorded by
Dr. Gernbner's group since they began their study in 1967.
Next, Mr. Schneider quotes Dr. George Comstock. I see nothing in what I have
written that indicates that I feel that "the case. . . is closed." We all seem to be in
PAGENO="0302"
298
agreement, as Dr. Comstock puts it, ". . . that violent television entertainment
increases the probability of subsequent aggressive behavior on the part of children
and youth." My concern and that of many other health care professionals and
teachers as well as lay consumer groups, is about what we see as a still inadequate
response on the part of the networks.
In regard to Mr. Schneider's reference to "two recent books by reputable British
social scientists," I can only point out that Mr. Schneider has done precisely what
he claims I have done, and to which he so strongly objects. That is, he summarizes
two complete volumes in two sentences. In the case of Dr. Noble's book, "Children
in Front of the Small Screen," for example, one could quote (page 237) Dr. Noble's
advice to parents: "I would try to prevent my young child from watching news
violence and violence seen in the neo-realistic police and detective programs. These
latter types of violence, I feel, do show that violence is normal and accepted in
everyday life and possibly define the targets at whom aggression can be directed."
Dr. Noble also applauded the fact that the BBC changed its policy with regard to
the portrayal of violence in children's programming from "one where the conse-
quences of violence were never shown, to one which allows children, even if they
become anxious, to see the realistic consequences of aggression."
I referred to Dr. Anne Somers' article in my formal testimony before your
Subcommittee, and would be happy to provide you with a full copy of her article,
from which you can reach your own conclusions.
Unhappily, Mr. Schneider chooses to devote the last page and a quarter of his
five-page letter to the subject of censorship of television. He starts his comments on
this subject with the sentence, "Finally, several doctors have su~gested that some
form of government censorship of television should be introduced.' I can only repeat
that I have not been one of those "several doctors," and you are aware, as is Mr.
Sauter, who was present during my testimony, that my position on that issue is
absolutely clear-cut. You may recall, and certainly Mr. Sauter will recall, that even
under close and repeated questioning by Senator Packwood, I maintained my firm
commitment to the protection of the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters.
Mr. Schneider's devotion of a page and a quarter of a five-page letter to the subject
of censorship, given my position, leaves me with the distinct feeling that he is trying
to involve me in guilt by association.
Let me thank you again for the opportunity to respond to Mr. Sauter's and Mr.
Schneider's communications to you. I do hope that we can all move forward to more
constructive activities in this terribly important area of children's television pro-
gramming. When I received your letter, I was already in the process of preparing a
letter to be sent out to the networks, to major independent television producers and
to the major researchers around the country in this area. I shall be proposing that,
with the underwriting of one or more medical organizations, we put out a periodic
newsletter, for which I shall volunteer my services as editor, to provide an informal
forum through which the broadcasters and researchers can keep each other in-
formed of their most recent activities, plans and findings. The purpose of the
newsletter would be to bring us all into an advocacy position concerning children's
needs, and to attempt to put an end to the draining and destructive effects of the
adversary position into which circumstances have forced us at times in the past.
I appreciated the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee, and hope that
you'll feel free to call on me for any further information that may be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG.
Enclosures.
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, Ill., May 18, 1976'.
MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG, M.D.,
Children's Orthopedic Hospital and Medical Center,
Seattle, Wash.
DEAR ROTHENBERG: Enclosed is a copy of a letter we have received from CBS
commenting on your article "Effect of Television Violence on Children and Youth"
(JAMA December 8, 1975, pp. 1043-1046).
May I please have your reaction to this communication? I will appreciate any
comments you care to make.
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM R. BARCLAY, M.D.
PAGENO="0303"
299
MAY 21, 1976.
WILLIAM R. BARCLAY, M.D.,
Editor, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR DR. BARCLAY: Dr. Rothenberg wanted me to let you know that he is
preparing a point-by-point response to the May 7th letter you received from John A.
Schneider, President, CBS Broadcast Group.
Dr. Rothenberg is currently working some 60 to 70 hours a week and would
appreciate your forbearance in understanding that there may be some delay in his
taking the time to prepare an appropriately deliberate and factual response to Mr.
Schneider's letter.
Sincerely,
RosE M. EVANS, Administrative Secretary.
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, Ill., May 25, 1976.
JOHN A. SCHNEIDER,
CBS Inc.,
New York, NY.
DEAR MR. SCHNEIDER: Dr. William Barclay, the Chief Editor, has referred your
letter of May 7 to me as editor of the Letters section of The Journal. It is our
assumption that the letter was intended for publication.
We make an effort to provide an opportunity to individuals or organizations to
offer debate when there is substantial disagreement with material that appears in
The Journal. We will be pleased to extend this privilege to you. As currently
constructed, however, your communication is far longer than necessary or than we
can publish. Of particular note, a great deal of the substance of your letter has
already been covered in JAMA 235:1550-1552, April 12, 1976. I am enclosing photo-
copies of these pages containing letters by Mr. Rubens, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Rubenstein,
and Dr. Nigro.
You might want to summarize and refer briefly to such of this material as
supports your thesis and concentrate your presentation on additional points. In that
manner, we believe you should be able to add the weight of your message to those
already expressed within about 400 words, and we would be pleased to consider such
a submission for publication. Dr. Rothenberg, of course, might want to offer some-
thing in reply.
If you submit a revised and condensed letter to the editor as suggested, please
have it double- (or triple-) spaced. Our copy editors and printers are unable to work
from single-spaced copy.
The enclosed material may give a partial suggestion to the JAMA style for citing
references in letters to the editor. In summary:
For reference to JAMA publications, abbreviated references within parentheses
are given in the text and include volume number, first page, and year of publica-
tion.
References to articles in other scientific journals are made numerically and listed
after the text. A listing should include the name of the periodical, the first page,
and the full date (use of parentheses is often the most convenient method).
Personal communications, if any, should be designated as such within parentheses
in the text, with notation as to whether written or oral and the year.
I hope these guidelines will prove helpful. If you would care to submit a 400-word
letter to the editor, we shall give it very serious consideration for publication.
Sincerely,
JOHN D. ARCHER, M.D.
JULY 9, 1976.
JOHN D. ARCHER, M.D.,
Senior Editor, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Chicago, Ill.
DEAR DR. ARCHER: Dr. Rothenberg has asked me to write to you in his behalf to
inquire as to whether or not you have received a reply to your letter of May 25th to
Mr. John A. Schneider, President, CBS, Inc. Dr. Rothenberg will be out of his office
from August 5th through September 15th and he cannot prepare a reply for JAMA
until he sees the 400-word version of Mr. Schneider's letter.
Thank you for your kind attention and reply.
Sincerely,
RosE M. EVANS, Administrative Secretary.
PAGENO="0304"
300
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, Ill., July 16, 1976.
ROSE M. EVANS,
Administrative Secretaiy to Michael B. Rothenberg, M.D., Children `~s Orthopedic
Hospital and Medical Center, Seattle, Wash. 98105
DEAR Ms. Ev~s: This will acknowledge your letter of July 9. We have heard
nothing further from Mr. Schneider, and in view of the time that has passed, I
rather doubt that we will.
Sincerely,
JOHN D ARCHER M D
EASTERN VIRGINA MEDICAL AUTHORITY,
Norfolk, Va., December 10, 1975.
Dr. MICHAEL B. ROTHENBERG,
Children ~ Orthopedic Hospital and Medical Center,
Seattle, Wash.
DEAR DR. ROTHENBERG: I have just read your paper in the current JAMA, entitled
"Effect of Television Violence on Children and Youth". In the section in which you
described the development of the Surgeon General's report you pointed out that the
Scientific Advisory Committee was set up in circumstances of considerable political
pressure. Since I was involved in that, I write to reinforce your opinion.
At the time in question, I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of HEW. (No
Assistant Secretary had been named as the nomination of Dr. John Knowles had
not been consummated.) The Surgeon General, Dr. William Stuart, asked me to
assist in the formation of this Advisory Committee. We went about this in the usual
way of collecting from a large variety of sources, a list of names representing the
best informed persons we could identify.
Early on, we were informed that the White House was sending an advisor to
assist in and monitor this project. The advisor turned out to be, I believe his name
was, Mr. Richard Moore from California. Mr. Moore was a tall, erect, imposing, gray
haired man, of dignified, and urbane manner, who proved however, to have strong
and lasting ties with the television industry, and who effectively deflected the
scientific and professional character of the study to be undetaken, by meddling with,
and distorting the selection process. He "salted" the Scientific Advisory Committee
with persons associated with the television industry.
You may remember that this same Mr. Richard Moore, stood out prominently in
the Watergate Hearings, as an avuncular figure, and presence in John Dean's story.
I hope you get the full story as I think it merits the telling.
To set this in perspective, I should add that part of the "sabotage" of the effort
related to the personal ambitions of a staff member (psychologist) of the National
Institute of Mental Health who wanted to direct the staff of the Committee badly
enough to erode the effectiveness of the bureaucracy in withstanding the political
assault.
Sincerely,
RICHARD M. MAGRAW, M.D., President.
Senator Hou~INGs. We wish to welcome the panel.
We will first hear from Ms. Kathleen Bonk, the national media
task force coordinator, National Organization of Women, in Wash-
ington.
PAGENO="0305"
301
STATEMENTS OF KATHLEEN BONK, NATIONAL MEDIA TASK
FORCE COORDINATOR, NOW; PLURIA MARSHALL, CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL BLACK MEDIA COALITION; AND ULYSESS W.
BOYKIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER,
WGPR-TV, DETROIT, MICH.
Ms. BONK. I would like to thank you for the opportunity and the
invitation to come here today. I have a statement which I will
submit for the record.
What I will do, if you don't mind, is informally tell you a little
history of NOW and explain what we have been doing over the last
few years You can get an idea of what this "media movement" is
all about.
NOW was founded in 1966 by responsible women. Basically they
were women who came to `Washington for a meeting of State
Commissions on the Status of Women, appointed by the Governors
in every State. The women who founded the organization were very
concerned with noncompliance of title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act-both for race and for sex.
One of the founder was then on the EEOC, Aileen Hernandez,
and she subsequently served as president of our organization.
The media task force was founded in 1971 for much of the same
reasons
They were women who were in the industry as well as concerned
mothers who knew that the FCC regulations were not being en
forced. They were mothers who heard their daughters saying
things like, "I can't be a doctor because I only see nurses on TV. I
can't do certain things because girls don't do that on TV."
They were mothers whose children were of the televison genera-
tion and who were concerned about their children learning from.
television.
So we (NOW) did a variety of activities, many of which were
described here today in the previous panel
We have met before the NAB code authority, which is basically a
group of broadcasters who earn very high salaries. They are basi-
cally the top executives of the different ownership groups within
the industry.
We gave a long presentation before them on our concerns for the
accurate portrayal of women in the media, particularly in televi-
sion commercials.
Our concern was that women do not scrub floors' in `long white
gowns as is very often they are portrayed on television; that in fact
we were concerned that rather than pointing to a woman to feel
guilty about ring around the collar, maybe ads could tell the man
to wash his neck rather than, you know, always pointing to the
woman as she is the person in the house who is not doing her job
as a homemaker.
We had a nice meeting with the group. They turned to us at the
end and said: "Let me make sure we've got this straight. You want
women to be portrayed as people, is that what you want; is that
your goal?"
I think they were at consciousness level one in terms of where
they wanted the industry to go.
Let me add that the national advertising review board has done
a study on women in the advertising industry. They came up with
20-122 0 - `78 - 20
PAGENO="0306"
302
various conclusions, one of which said, "You don't sell to people by
insulting them." They made various recommendations to show
women in a more positive role and a positive portrayal on televi-
sion.
In addition, we have participated in numerous rulemakings at
the FCC.
I am sure you know the history of the EEO compliance at the
FCC. It started in 1968. NOW got involved in 1971 when women
were not a part of the EEO rules.
We asked that the rules be amended to include women, which
the Commission subsequently did about 1972-73. We have been a
part of the long 8-year process to get compliance with FCC rules
concerning employment.
We have met with the creative community out in the west coast
and on the east coast.
We have met with top network officials from all the networks
and all the major ad agencies.
We have appeared before this committee as well as the House
Committee for the last 3 or 4 years, at least.
And I think a few things need to be said.
There has been some progress.
What this panel is all about today is access. A good rule of
thumb is access is fairness. Access has been a code word for the
citizen's media movement-for the National Citizen's Committee
for Broadcasting, for action for children's television, for NOW, for
all the other groups. Access means access to jobs, access to pro-
graming, access to officials at the station, station managers, news
directors.
Access is fairness. We ask this committee to insure that the
access is available, that we have an availability to jobs, program-
ing, and ownership jobs.
Access to jobs can be divided into two categories. One type is
those jobs behind the scenes. The technical jobs, for example, are
changing from film to video.
Your bigger markets are beginning to make such a shift right
now.
What this means is that stations are training new people to take
these jobs.
The technical and the engineering jobs are a way stations can
start training women and minority males. This adds an option for
women when they come out of high school.
It takes about as much time to learn the skills of running a
camera as to learn to type and take shorthand.
This is an area where different Federal agencies can start en-
couraging young girls and minority males to get technical training
to get those jobs.
In addition, many of the current engineers in television stations
started in the early days of television. They started in the forties
and fifties. They are now retiring. Although the overall number of
jobs is decreasing. Stations will have new jobs available due to
attrition.
The other concern I have in the behind-the-scenes jobs is in
policymaking positions. This includes station managers, program
PAGENO="0307"
303
managers, news directors, engineering chiefs, and other decision-
makers at the station.
What we have found in informal surveys is the only stations
with women in policy jobs are the stations we have filed petitions
to deny against.
We filed a major petition in New York. The New York market
has a woman station manager at NBC. They have various promo-
tion managers. And as well as program managers.
Here in the Washington market we have the same. We have a
woman program manager at channel 7 and channel 4. We have
women in responsible positions in this market. In the rest of the
country this is not true.
There are very few women in policy positions at the stations.
Again, this is an area we need to look at, not station-by-station, but
in broad, general terms.
In terms of on-air jobs, which are reflected in programing, and
the image of women in the media. We need to monitor the produc-
tion studios on their hiring policies of women.
As you know-the General Services Administration (GSA) has
compliance responsibilities for the communications industry that
have Federal contracts. In addition, the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance of the Department of Labor has enforcement responsi-
bilities.
One thing that needs to be done is an investigation as to whether
or not GSA has in fact done any enforcement of OFCC regulations
in the communications industry.
Another concern I have is televised violence and the NCCB
rating list. When you look at this little program chart, the 10 most
violent programs don't have lead female characters.
It is not until you get to 12 or 13 and 17, where you see "Char-
lie's Angels," "Police Woman," and the "Bionic Woman," one needs
to look at the credits also. They aren't women writing about
women but men who are writing about the men but just substitut-
ing women for those programs.
When you look at the least violent program, the column on the
left, that is where you see "Phyllis," "Mary Tyler Moore,"
"Rhoda," "Alice," and "All in the Family."
One solution to violence on television is to have more women
writing about their experiences. Women are generally victims of
violence with a sensitivity to nurturing and caring for life.
I think if we encourage the television studios to hire more
women as writers and producers, we will see a decrease in violence
on television.
Mary Tyler Moore is an excellent example of what one woman
has been able to do in her programs and in some of the spinoffs
that have developed.
Let me wrap this up with a few positive suggestions and steps
this committee could take.
One would be oversight of the FCC for both external employ-
ment, within the television stations as well as internally at the
FCC.
Right now there are no women as bureau chiefs at the agency;
The highest ranked woman is a GS-16 and she is a token. The
rest of the women are basically, a few GS-13's and 14's. Women are
PAGENO="0308"
304
ghettoized into secretarial jobs at the Commission in the GS-4 and
GS-5 level positions.
Internal employment is something that needs to be carefully
examined.
Possibly in the FCC's annual report, the agency could include
information of internal EEO.
As you may know, we lost a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals.
However, the Court noted Commissioner Hook's comments about
programing. The Court said that it is evident that NOW's griev-
ance, meaning sexism on television, transcend this particular sta-
tion and the faults are regarded as endemic of television institu-
tionally.
Considering the apparent universality, it seems wasteful to
thrash out the broader and more widely applicable programing
issue in the contents of a single renewal case so Mr. Hooks con-
cludes that rather than a multiple ad hoc proceeding, Mr. Hooks
would prefer to see an overall inquiry on the subject of sex-role
stereotyping on television, and whether or not girls seeing limited
roles of themselves on television really causes sex discrimination in
our society.
The court recommended-this is a quote-"A industrywide prob-
lem may be appropriately aired as a industrywide remedy formu-
lated in a general inquiry such as a rulemaking procedure."
So we would hope that this committee could encourage the FCC
to be a catalyst for beginning that process throughout the broad-
casting industry.
A few other problems.
All the different Federal agencies with compliance responsibil-
ities for commercial stations as well as noncommercial or public
broadcasting need to get together to discuss enforcement.
I think the FCC, the EEO, the Department of Justice, the De-
partment of Labor, HEW, all need to get together with consider-
able public input.
Having members of the public participate is a key to this entire
access question.
This was just recently suggested in a report by the House Com-
munications Subcommittee-what all the different agencies need to
do is to get together and decide what should be done and how the
best ways are to proceed cleaning up employment discrimination,
especially in commercial and noncommercial broadcast facilities.
Still another problem is access to ownership. One of the big
concerns I have is that women cannot go to the Small Business
Administration to obtain loans to purchase radio and television
stations.
I think this was discussed in the earlier hearings. We would
strongly support an inquiry or review into the guidelines that
limit, due to first amendment rights, women and minority males or
anyone's opportunity to borrow money.
Another area, and this is the last area I have a concern about, is
the rating system.
Let me say I was contacted by a radio rating company. I think
they got my name from the phone book. It was addressed to Mr. K.
Bonk.
I got a call from a very nice woman who said:
PAGENO="0309"
305
You have been selected to be a part of our listener audience survey and we want
to make sure that you are going to be home. We will call you during the week and
we will ask you what radio stations you listen to.
Automatically this special attention makes "me" feel like some-
one special. The listenership may be skewed by making that extra
outreach to people.
I indicated to the woman that I would be-traveling during that
week.
She said to me, "Maybe we should take you off the survey
altogether." Which means if people are out there who say, "I am
not going to be listening," they are taken off the rating system.
Then, a few days later in the mail I received a dollar and a letter
stating: "Thank you very much for participating in this survey."
Which, again, it makes "me" feel special and I am going to listen
to the radio that week because I know someone is going to be
calling "me" every night saying "Did you listen to the radio and
what stations did you listen to?"
I can't sit back on my little personal experience with this and
say the rating systems aren't operating accurately. However, I
would endorse Mr. Carpenter's suggestion that we need to find out
whether or not people really are listening to television and radio,
whether or not they like it, we need a two-way communication, so
it is not merely how many television or radio sets are on during a
particular time.
I thank you very much for listening and, if I can be of any help
to either you or your staff, I would be more than happy to give you
additional materials. I have six file cabinets full of information I
have been collecting over the last few years. We would be more
than willing to help the committee in whatever way we can to
eliminate some of the problems I have talked about today.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF KATHY BONK, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I would like to thank you for the
invitation to testify here today. As many of you may know, NOW is a national civil
rights organization composed of women and men working to bring women, both
minority and non-minority, into full participation in the American economic and
political system.
NOW has approximately 800 chapters in all fifty states. We have participated in
numerous proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission, including
rulemakings on children's television, the Fairness Doctrine, the Prime Time Access
Rule, Ascertainment, Citizen Group Agreements and employment practices. NOW
has testified before both the House and Senate Communications subcommittees with
regard to the broadcast license renewal bills, operations of the F.C.C., violence on
television, F.C.C. appointments, and the Fairness Doctrine. In addition, we have
taken part in various court appeals of F.C.C. decisions including a petition for
review of the Commission's EEO rules.
A few years ago, the media reform movement coined the phrase "access is fair-
ness." The monthly publication of the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting
is called access; "free speech messages" or editorial responses on television parallel
the letters to the editor and op-ed pages in newspapers; and, jobs which once were
found only through the "old boy network" are (at least) being posted in television
and radio stations around the country.
I strongly support the notion that access is fairness. I hope this committee will
assure that access to the airwaves be fully utilized to bring the best possible
television and radio to the public. By access, I mean an availability to jobs, includ-
ing policy-making positions, to programming, to news, and to ownership of broadcast
facilities.
PAGENO="0310"
306
Let me begin with access to jobs.
The Federal Communications Commission reports the broadcasting industry as
having nearly 120,000 full-time jobs in 1976.1 Women, both minority and non-
minority, hold 33,768 (or 28 percent) positions in the broadcasting industry. Of these
females employed, 56 percent (or 18,912) are in clerical positions.
Over 81,000 white males are employed in broadcasting. Of these, 79,000 hold jobs
in the upper four job categories. A simple chart of the broadcasting industry is as
follows:
Managers
Professionals
Nonminority
males
80.0
76.3
78.0
89.0
8.0
Minority
males
2.3
5.1
3.0
6.4
2.0
Nonminority
females
16.6
16.2
18.0
4.0
78.5
Minority
females
1.2
2.2
1.0
.6
11.5
Sales
Technical
Clerical
The above statistics, however, are misleading and do not present a correct distri-
bution of the types of jobs held by women and minority males.
For example, as the United Church of Christ points out: "The number of overall
clerical positions dropped by 509 between 1971 and 1975, while the overall number
of managerial positions increased by 1,302." U.C.C. adds, "It seems improbable that
this greatly increased corps of management personnel can function with reduced
clerical support." 2
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also points out that the form 395 allows for
`upgrading' of clerical and office assistants to the officials and managers category,
thereby presenting an inaccurate and distorted employment survey:
"Some licensees designate such positions as Traffic Manager, PBX Supervisor, and
Office Manager under the Officials and Managers category; others designate them
as Office and Clerical. Those licensees which use the former category are able to
boast of larger numbers of women who serve in managerial positions at their
stations. . . . [Data] from our study reveals that very few women reported as Offi-
cials and Managers actually hold positions which allow them to ". . . set broad
policies, exercise overall reponsibility for the execution of these policies and direct
individual departments We have uncovered the use of such titles as "Supervi-
sor of Word Processing," "Supervisor of Sales Traffic," and "Administrator of
Motion Picture Scheduling," among others filled by women, all classified under
officials and managers. Likewise, minority men have been reported to hold such
official and managers job titles as "Supervisor of News Graphics," "Administrator of
Commercial Films," and, "Manager of Building Services."
Aside from the question of employment discrimination being illegal is the aspect
of lost energy and talent which might be fully utilized. Intelligence and creativity
are not sex-linked, and by not using one-half of the possible talent pool, the broad-
cast industry is denied the benefit of one-half of its brightest people.
In terms of television programing, we have seen some improvements. One could
look to Barbara Walters as the first female anchor, or to Charlie's Angels as the
"perfect mix of sex and violence". However, in numbers, women are still excluded in
broadcast programing from the wide range of roles assigned to men.
The United Methodist Church monitored 1975-76 prime-time programs and found
women were under-represented in the world of television. Of the 1,095 characters,
32 percent were female and 68 percent males. In television commercials, women are
still only 17 percent of the voice-overs. This is an improvement from 13 percent in
1971.
iFrom "Employment Trends in the Broadcasting Industry by Job Category-1976" released by
the Federal Communications Commission.
2Office of Communications, United Church of Christ, "Television Station Employment Prac-
tices, 1975."
~Comments, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (CCR), 35, J.A.
PAGENO="0311"
307
Numerous academic studies show women and girls are stereotyped into "tradi-
tional female occupations having low occupational authority. Women are super-
vised; men were more likely to be supervisors."
In a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, the court cited F.C.C. Commissioner Hooks concerning responsive pro-
graming: "it is evident that [NOW's] grievances transcend this particular station
and that the faults are regarded as endemic of television institutionally. Considering
the apparent universality, it seems wasteful to thrash out the broader and more
widely applicable programing issues in the context of a single renewal case." Hooks
concluding, "Rather than a multiple, ad hoc, proceedings, I really prefer an overall
inquiry . . . on this subject."
The court indicates that an "industry-wide problem may be more appropriately
aired and an industry-wide remedy formulated in a general inquiry, such as a rule-
making."
I would hope this committee would find it appropriate to recommend that the
F.C.C. begin such proceedings investigating the extent to which sex-role stereotyping
exists on television.
Still, access to other areas of the broadcasting industry needs to be explored.
Access to local programs can be accomplished by expanding the ascertainment
process beyond filling out F.C.C. forms and pushing papers. We find community
leaders spend time meeting with community affairs directors, but not with produc-
ers and people planning programs. NOW has had hundreds of meetings with broad-
casters in their studios to discuss women's issues and to suggest programs to
illuminate those problems.
Access to ownership can only be accomplished if women as small business owners
have the same opportunity to borrow money and secure investments as men enjoy.
Current satistics show women as having very little economic control in our society.
Women need access to jobs not only in the industry, but also in the Federal
Communications Commission. Currently, the F.C.C. has no female Bureau Chiefs
and very few women in policy positions above a GS-14 level.
In conclusion, I encourage this committee to consider the following recommenda-
tions:
1. a complete oversight of the Federal Communications Commission equal employ-
ment opportunity enforcement procedures-both for the broadcasting industry and
internally throughout the Commission.
2. the F.C.C. should immediately begin rulemaking proceedings on the sex-role
stereotyping and sex-discrimination in the broadcasting industry.
3. the F.C.C., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of
Justice and the Department of Labor should immediately coordinate monitoring of
EEO enforcement of the broadcasting industry.
4. the Small Business Administration should review its guidelines on grants for
applications for broadcast licenses.
5. a Congressional oversight should be conducted on the Government Services
Administration as to the extent to which that agency has monitored Federal con-
tractors in the communications industries.
6. the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should immediately release its report on
the status of women and minorities in the broadcasting industry.
Senator HOLLINGS. Senator Griffin is coming along.
We will next hear from Pluria Marshall, the chairman of the
National Black Media coalition.
Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Senator.
I would like to talk about us having to testify in the ghetto hour.
I imagine you are hungry and I am hungry and everybody is gone.
We have been here 4 or 5 years doing this, and we have mentioned
three or four times about why we have to come at times like these.
I would like to request personally that we be treated a little
better than we have been treated today.
First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today and express some concerns we have about
~United Methodist Women's Television Monitoring Project, Sex Role Stereotyping in Prime
Time Television, 47 Riverside Drive, N.Y., 1976.
`NOW v. F.C.C. No. 74-1853, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C., Decided, 4/11/77.
PAGENO="0312"
308
communications. I would like to mention a few facts about the
National Black Media Coalition, because I think it is important
that you and your staff know for sure who we are because we have
participated in approximately 40 FTC rulemaking proceedings. We
have been to those hearings constantly for 3 years under this name
and previously under the other bill before.
We are here today because we are persistently pursuing being
here. We were not originally included to testify here. I want to
make sure that the committee understands how serious we are
about our efforts in communications.
I think this time it is kind of in essence at this moment that we
zero in on the major points. I would like to have my remarks entered
into the record, if that is OK.
Senator HOLLINGS. They will be included, yes, sir.
Mr. MARSHALL. There are a couple of changes that I made in
may prepared statement that I wish included in the record.
The major complaint we have with the FCC particularly, Sena-
tor, is that the smallest amount of money it spends is on equal
employment. It has the newest employees doing that than almost
anything else I know of. Our attorneys filed a petition recently
that identified 295 stations with 5 percent or greater minority
populations with more than 10 or more employees, and--
Senator HOLLINGS. What does Mr. Hooks say about that? Benja-
min Hooks is a Commissioner now and he is going over as the head
of the NAACP. What does he say? I am sure you have talked to
him about it.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Hooks has done all one vote can do.
Senator HOLLINGS. He is understaffed. He doesn't have enough
money or he only has one vote. The other four would vote him
down?
Mr. MARSHALL. The other six. Commissioner Hooks has done a
yeoman's job to really keep this issue before the public and keep
the commissioners moving in the right direction.
We try to get basic civil rights laws enforced in broadcasting.
this is our problem. We don't even have the basic protection of the
law in broadcasting. We identified 295 stations with no blacks and
clearly those cities have 5 percent or more black population and
the Commission is doing absolutely nothing about it.
We will furnish you with that report so that you can see exactly
what we are talking about.
The area that delt with the SBA, in terms of what it can do if it
wants to, is just a legal interpretation. You know how the lawyers
are sometimes. They say, well, that is the way it ought to be and
upon further investigation when it goes up a little higher, they find
out that is just that lawyer's opinion and it really could be inter-
preted to mean something else.
A lot of money goes into broadcast programing through HEW,
yet as SBA says, it can't provide loans for people to buy cable or
broadcast stations. We think it is just a convenient kind of don't
make me make a decision sort of a thing. This is an area that we
support fully.
The whole notion of violence and more qualitative children's
programing is something else we support very clearly, because I
PAGENO="0313"
309
don't think that the people who control broadcasting really care
that much about what the kids watch. I think it is indicated by the
moneys and resources that they put into it.
This is an area that I think all of us who are parents are very,
very concerned about. The Public Broadcasting System is some-
thing that we have been very actively involved in at CPB and BBS
for the last 3 years and we can see very little improvement, al-
though they will have surveys and studies geared to make them
look a little bit better.
We visited one of the top executives of the Public Broadcasting
family. We have been to his station and he talks about helping us
to get the others straight. He had one of the worse looking houses
in the industry. I mean the black people that work there were just
afraid, you know, that they would just slip and talk to you. Some of
the top level management wouldn't even speak to the black em-
ployees at that station.
So I think when you get to Public Broadcasting, and I think they
need to be held accountable for what they are not doing for minor-
ities and women, because it is very clearly benign neglect in terms
of what is going on there.
I want to make sure that the difference between where we stand
on cable and broadcasting Wheard clear and I am glad to hear that
the cable oversight hearing is going to be very soon, because they
are 10 times worse than the broadcasters in terms of equal employ-
ment and in terms of ownership.
Going to the ownership side of it for a few minutes, it is virtually
impossible for blacks to get significantly involved in owning any
more broadcast properties at this time, and I heard you earlier
mention that you didn't think a lot of legislation was always
needed or something to that effect, but I think unless we have
some legislation, we can just accept as black people in America
that we are not supposed to own broadcasting stations. It is just
that critical.
The brokers, banks, waiting services, advertising agencies, and
the advertises, and I hate to see them left out because they have a
large bit of leverage on what kinds of programs they are going to
pay for, so if the networks are not presenting them with the kinds
of programs they think they want to buy into, they do have that
leverage, but they try to say they don't.
So I think all of these folks need to be held accountable to both
something legislative and innovative in a money market so blacks,
in fact, can own broadcast properties when they qualify.
We looked at an application where a black applied and a white
applied and the black was equally as qualified, but the owner
refused to sell to the black group, just almost based on race. When
they looked at it, they said fine, this is just a few dollars more. We
will take that off and let's investigate it.
When they looked into it and found out it was a black group,
they just didn't even talk to them any more. So I think that when
licenses are transferred that there needs to be some kind of
legislative mandate that minorities have a chance to first refusal
offer or something like that if you seriously intend for us to be
involved.
PAGENO="0314"
310
We had mentioned in some earlier testimony about the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and Order by President where it showed
that of 1,321 members on the Advisory Committee to the Federal
Communications Commission, only 8 were black.
Mr. Chairman, what can we expect to be done about this very
disgraceful record? 1,321 members on the Advisory Committee,
only 8 are black at the FCC.
And we asked, I guess a year ago, about having the Oversight
Committee encourage the FCC to change this. Can you look into
that and give us something directional on it in terms of trying to
find out why, or if something different can happen on those Adviso-
ry Committees at the FCC? And the record with women and other
minorities is equally dismal.
The other real serious matter is there are cases on record where
preference has been indicated where minoirty applicants or minor-
ity audiences are concerned and yet very little is actually done
when a case comes before the Commission. Recently we had three
victories where the district court remanded a case back to the FCC
for its negligence in equal employment opportunity matters, and I
think this is the kind of thing that we are actually more interested
in than anything else.
The whole system of whether or not the Commission is set up to
regulate the industry or to protect it. At this point, it does very
little other than just to protect and I think that if that is the way
it is to be, we would like to have those of you who have the
oversight responsibility to simply tell us that that is the way it is,
fellow, and nothing new is going to happen, because right now we
can spend 4 months getting a petition together on a radio license
and we are treated as if we spent 4 hours on it. It us just summari-
ly dismissed.
The good thing about the case being-about the case being re-
manded back to the Comn~ission for discovery, at least allows us to
find out what the actual figures were. They have to furnish infor-
mation. But right now the Commission treats us as if it is just
something that you people are bothering us with.
Now, as American citizens, we are just wondering if there are
some-if there can be some hope that we can get out of the field of
broadcasting the same thing that other Americans are getting in
this country. It is just that simple. And we have folks in 65 cities
that work as volunteers, who are not paid, who try to improve
access to the media for black people and it has been a long, hard
fight for 10 or 12 years and we are at a point now where we do
need to have some hard questions answered.
We would also like to find out whether or not your committee
has access to the hearings where they brought HEW, FTC, EEOC,
CTS, all of the regulatory people together to find out who has the
responsibility. We are finding on the public broadcasting side now
about their long-range funding. They say although you are going to
give them $64 or $80 million, they don't have the responsibility to
make sure the civil rights laws are enforced.
Well, if they are getting that much money from you and a much
greater amount from other public entities, then who has the re-
sponsibility? We would like to know from those hearings where
PAGENO="0315"
311
they ask the people to come in testify from the various agencies,
what was found out?
You know, everybody keeps passing the buck. So I would like to
have some information, Senator, if it is possible to get, of what
came out of all of that time that was spent with those various
agencies who are supposed to both monitor and enforce violations
of civil rights laws. if we could get that.
Let me see if I can close. I see Senator Griffin is here.
I want to keep on the points that we intended to raise. One other
point is the question of reimbursement of citizens groups and the
legal entities that represent them. On May 8, 1976, NBMC, along
with Action for Children's Television, National Organization for
Women and National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, peti-
tioned the Commission to commence rulemaking proceedings de-
signed to establish procedures for the reimbursement of both the
direct and indirect costs of public interest participants in FCC
proceedings.
It was finally, to cut it short, it was finally decided that that was
possible, but as the FTC just followed its budget for the coming
year, they have not asked for any money for any reimbursement.
And I think a lot of us out here who work very hard with the
public interest law firms who represent us, to adequately represent
other interests, and we would just like to see if there is something
that the Oversight Committee could do about making sure that
there is that reasonable reimbursement.
There are a lot of other concerns that we have. The Congression-
al Black Caucus filed a pleading asking that minorities get some
preferential treatment when licensees are in trouble and on the
verge of getting a license revoked, and I don't think anything has
come from that, but I do think that this is one of the areas that
needs a long, hard look.
And, Senator, I would just like to thank you for providing us
with the opportunity to come before you today and we would like
to make sure that in further hearings that we receive equal treat-
ment, prime time consideration instead of always being put in the
ghetto hour.
Senator Hollings, thank you very much.
Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF PLURIA MARSHALL ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BLACK MEDIA
COALITION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning and express some concerns I have about the Federal
Communications Commission and its regulatory program for broadcasting.
At the outset, I would like to mention a few facts about the Coalition. NBMC is a
national organization that has participated in numerous matters relating to broad-
cast operation in this country, both before the Federal Communications Commission
and before Courts of Appeals in practically every Circuit of this country.
With regard to administrative matters, NBMC has participated in over 40 FCC
rulemaking proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission. In so
doing, NBMC has made numerous filings in the area of equal employment opportu-
nity (as well as mammoth research documents) in an effort to insure that broadcast
licensees adhere to the national policy of nondiscrimination in employment; NBMC
has filed in rulemaking documents addressing the concept of programming on
broadcast facilities, and argued for balanced programming for all segments of the
broadcasting audience; NBMC has also insisted upon significant increases in equity
PAGENO="0316"
312
participation by Blacks in the broadcasting industry and, in general, the adoption of
policies by the FCC which promote the priniciple of maximum diversification of
ideas from the widest possible sources-which, incidentally, happens to be a touch-
stone principle of the Communications Act of 1934.
In a formal sense, we have participated in numerous filings which ultimately
have been addressed by Courts throughout the country, including the Supreme
Court of the United States. More often than not, we have been successful in our
arguments. And in view of our record, we obviously think we have sound ideas for
achieving basic principles of the Communications Act and, at the same time, insur-
ing that all segments of the society have an equal opportunity to participate in the
effective utilization and control of broadcast facilities.
For purposes of clarity, I have delineated this presentation under the following
categories: Discrimination against Blacks in Federal Advisory Committee Appoint-
ments at the FCC, Minority Ownership of Broadcast Media, Equal Employment
Opportunity, Citizen participation and assistance of participation in Commission
proceedings.
Discrimination against blacks in Federal Advisory Committee appointments
In January of 1975, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Order of the President, wrote
a memo to heads of executive departments and agencies. In pertinent parts, it states
as follows:
The interests of minorities and women should be fully considered when you select
members for new and existing advisory committees. The Act requires the member-
ship of an advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of points of view
represented and the functions to be performed. "Balanced membership" implies a
wide range of membership possibilities and constraints depending upon the purpose
and functions of each committee. Implicit in this requirement is the concern that
advisory committee membership be determined with appropriate attention to fac-
tors of sex, race, creed, national origin, and religion.
In closing the correspondence, the Director of 0MB urged all department and
agency heads to promote awareness of this aspect of committee management.
The obvious question, of course, focuses on the Commission's activities in response
to this federal directive. In a word, dreadful.
Under the 1975 report, and as entered into the Congressional Record on Septem-
ber 17, 1976, the Federal Communications Commission has some 2[ advisory com-
mittees, of which there are some 1,321 members. Out of the total number of 1,321
advisory committee members, eight (8) were Black. The numbers and percentages
for women and Latinos are just as bad, if not worse; but that simply proves that the
Commission can be consistent-consistently bad.
NBMC's concern, as you might well understand, is to urge this committee to take
swift and corrective action to remedy the absence of Blacks on FCC Advisory
Committees that, in many instances, determine regulatory policy.
As a collateral note, we would ask this Committee to evaluate the Commission's
internal policies and procedures as they relate to Black employees to determine
deficiencies in its own area of utilization. It is conceivable that the oversights in the
area of advisory committee appointments could well be the signal of a much deeper
internal problem.
Minority Ownership of Broadcast Media
The Courts have spoken out consistently on the need for a significant increase in
minority ownership in the broadcast industry. In Citizens Communications Center v.
FCC, the Court there stated that minority groups have largely been frozen out of
ownership of broadcast statiofls and, as a result, have had age old acts of discrimina-
tion visited upon present day generations.
For years, during one of the high periods of race discrimination in this country,
broadcast property/licenses were generally available for the asking. Needless to say,
Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans were not in a position (both economically and
sociologically) to buy. The end result, of course, is that practically all frequencies in
the top 100 markets have been granted, on an overwhelmingly exclusionary basis.
In further analyzing this significant denial of economic opportunity, the Court
then stated that this "dismaying situation" was a disservice to the public interest.
The Commission, on the other hand, has adopted a stance of curious neutrality,
which in practice often conflicts with the concept of minority ownership. For exam-
ple, in TV-Il, Inc. v. FCC, the Commission refused to acknowledge that some positive
consideration should be accorded a potential licensee in a comparative hearing
situation for having minority equity/management participation. But the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with this curiously neutral
PAGENO="0317"
313
stance, and noted that such a policy ran afoul of the cardinal principle of maximum
diversification of information from all possible sources.
As the Court noted:
There is a great difference-indeed, a difference in kind rather than degree-
between the ascertainment of minority needs by the usual corporate owners and
minority ownership to meet the interests and problems of the minorities.
The Commission also applied this neutral posture in Garrett v. FCC, wherein the
Court ultimately suggested that the FCC adopt an affirmative action policy vis-a-vis
the allocation of frequencies on the AM band.
As of this writing, a significant majority of the major markets have no available
frequencies. This means, in effect, that a would-be licensee is left with the choice of
either a transfer (which in most instances is prohibitively expensive) or a compara-
tive hearing (which in most instances means that the Commission accords favorable
consideration to the existing licensee), notwithstanding the fact that the compara-
tive applicant might be equally suited to become a public trustee of the frequency-
and in some instances might have a greater percentage of minority participation.
From our collective vantage point, these conditions signal an almost total exclu-
sion of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans from equity participation in. the
broadcast industry. And the prospect of viable participation grows even dimmer as
we review at least one recent action by the FCC wherein there existed the possibil-
ity of setting in motion an affirmative action plan for equity participation on the
airwaves.
In the Matter of Amendment of Part 78 of the Commission's Rules Regarding AM
Station Standards, Docket 20265, a matter that NBMC filed in, the Commission was
faced with the question of whether it would provide a means for permitting more
voices (i.e., signals) or whether it would simply make provisions for louder voices
(stronger signals at certain times).
In spite of TV-9 and Garrett, the Commission adopted a policy favoring the
increase of power and nighttime service demands for existing broadcasters over the
option of permitting only applications for new stations-with a preference on the
new stations for Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.
In a ringing dissent to this action, Commissioner Hooks made clear that the
Commission was shutting the door on an opportunity to fashion a policy which
encouraged, facilitated and welcomed minority ownership and service. As additional
comments, Commissioner Hooks noted that the Commission was:
Simply perpetuat[ing] a system of allocation which is partly responsible for the
racial ownership imbalance decried in Citizens Communications Center. . . .~ To
borrow some phrases from the law of equal employment opportunity, our allocation
scheme here is no more than `neutral on its face' and certainly cannot be considered
an `affirmative action plan' to bring the numerical profile of minority broadcast
ownership into a `zone of 2 We would not countenance such an
imbalance in minority/majority employment ratios from our licensees: thus, we
should not accept a far lower ratio with respect to minority ownership and service
in the overall station lineup.
These negative points aside, the Commission yet has an opportunity to redeem
itself and take definite (and immediate) steps to correct this "dismaying situation."
This Commission should ask the Commission to re-evaluate its internal rules and
policies relating to ownership. In so doing, special attention should be accorded
TV-9, Garret and Communications Act of 1934, as well as other relevant matters.
After completion of the policy review (which in my view does not require years-
nor for that matter months) the Commission should set in motion its affirmative
action policy; and should start with two matters currently outstanding on the
Commission s docket. In re: Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Television Table of
Assignments to Add New VHF Stations in the Top 100 Markets and to Insure that
the New Stations Maximize Diversity of Ownership, Control and Programming,
RM-2346; and In re: Clear Channel Broadcasting in the Standard Broadcast Band,
Docket 20642.
As a follow-up to this matter, the Commission might also consider the Petition for
Rulemaking filed by the Congressional Black Caucus, and supported by NBMC
regarding depressed sales to minorities when a station is designated for hearing on
the grounds of misconduct. (A copy of the Petition is appended hereto.)
As an additional step, the Commission, in view of the recent Court of Appeals
decision in National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCC (Docket 18110,
newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership) should fashion out a rule which (1) requires
good faith bargaining with a minority group, or one with significant minority
`Cite omitted.
2 Footnote omitted.
PAGENO="0318"
314
participation, regarding purchase of the property-and such good faith negotiations
should take place prior to entering into any discussions/negotiations on the possibil-
ity of a "swap"; and (2) a rule which assists in the development of tax incentive
guidelines for sale of property; and (3) swaps are to be approved on a case-by-case
basis only after number (1), above, has been satisfied.
Finally, this Committee ought to ask the Commission to set in motion the develop-
ment of a minority impact statement for any and all property transferred, or
otherwise disposed of, and, as well, develop rules and regulations to promote this
meager attempt to approach the concept of maximum diversification.
There is one additional point that should be made in this discussion of minority
ownership of broadcast media.
This Committee should take a serious look at the present tendencies of the
advertising industry in this country to discriminate against Black broadcast licens-
ees. For example, how can a broadcast facility go from number two in its market-
place in billings to next to last over a six-month period, when the program and the
staff remain unchanged-and the only change is one of ownership, from white to
Black. There is, of course, but one explanation for such an incident: pure and
simple, the process smacks of rank discrimination.
This issue was addressed by a number of present and hopeful Black broadcasters
during the recent Minority Ownership Conference sponsored by the Federal Com-
munications Commission during the inclusive dates of April 25-April 26, 1977.
Recognizing all of the easy excuses, the simple problem remains that Black
broadcast licensees are hurting when it comes to traditional revenue sources, and I
would strongly urge this Committee to become innovative with its resources, as was
done in the All-Channels Receivers Act (and require the same of the FCC) and
determine if there are external forces that threaten to undermine the spirit and
letter of the Communications Act.
Equal employment opportunity
Since the Civil Rights Act of 1866, normally referred to as 42 U.S.C. 1981, this
country has recognized that discrimination is inconsistent with the touchstone
principle of equality. Recognition, however, does not normally suggest immediate
resolution of the problem. For in 1954, and a decade later, 1964, this country was
yet grappling with the issue of equal opportunity, both for education and general
employment.
Though Chairman Wiley appeared before this Committee, yesterday, and com-
mended himself and the FCC for daring to take the first step (as far as regulatory
agencies are concerned) in addressing the critical area of discrimination in employ-
ment, the record is nonetheless clear that the FCC's commitment falls far short of
the need.
In a nutshell, NBMC does not agree with the Commission's position that its
efforts have proved effective in combatting discrimination in the broadcasting indus-
try; nor does NBMC agree with the Commission that a majority of short-term
renewals (conditioned on infractions of Commission's rules) in the area of EEO have
resulted from sua sponte use of power of the FCC as opposed to direct urging from
NBMC and other similarly situated groups.
For example, Chairman Wiley noted that recently the FCC had strengthened and
clarified its policies and requirements in the area of EEO and, at the same time,
addressed its so-called "zone of resonableness" which serves as a guide for measur-
ing EEO compliance by stations. Moreover, according to the FCC, these new guide-
lines will provide closer scrutiny of stations with relatively low percentages of
minorities and women.
NBMC's first response to this statement is "How?". These stations are `exempted
from filing any promise which could be scrutinized under a promise versus perfor-
mance standards. How then can there be an improved monitoring process when
over half of the industry has been exempted from filing requirements.
Moreover, even if we were to assume that the new rules required all broadcast
licensees to file EEO statements, there is yet the problem of internal enforcement
and monitoring. This problem was recently addressed by the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia in the matter of Black Broadcasting Coalition of Richmond v.
FCC and, after having reviewed the Commission's enforcement policies, the Court
returned the case to the Commission with specific instructions to live up to the
tenor and spirit of the Act.
The simple fact is, of course, that there has been little enforcement of the EEO
guidelines by the Commission, notwithstanding its representations to the contrary.
This fact was recently recognized by the House Subcommittee on Communications
in its recent report in the area of public broadcasting. Additionally, it has also been
recognized by a number of national organizations, who recently participated in
PAGENO="0319"
315
filing a nation-wide petition to inquire into the employment practices of 295 licens-
ees and 16 broadcast headquarters located throughout the United States. According
to the Commission's own records, these broadcast licensees are clearly beyond the
"zone of reasonableness." But, of course, 9 years after the Commission adopted the
EEO rules, it has not acted to remedy such blatant and wide-scale violation of its
rules.
To NBMC, this is merely typical of the FCC's enforcement of its EEO rules.
Additionally, the problem is compounded by the fact that there is little or no
analytical review of data, even where it has been filed by the 35 percent of licensees
who are required to file. Moreover, the Commission has adopted the policy that EEO
violations, for some strange reason, are intrinsically different from other viola-
tions-even when the Courts have recognized the importance of EEO policies and its
nexus between fair employment practices and station programing.
The question of reimbursement
On May 8, 1976, NBMC, along with Action for Children's Television, National
Organization for Women and National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, peti-
tioned the Commission to commence rulemaking proceedings designed to establish
procedures for the reimbursement of both the direct and indirect costs of public
interest participants in FCC proceedings.
On August 24, 1976, we forwarded to the Commission, through our counsel, a copy
of a letter of inquiry from the Congressional Balck Caucus to the General Account-
ing Office. In a nutshell, the Caucus letter posed 5 questions to GAO on (1) FCC
authority to make payments to persons representing issues that contribute or can
reasonably be expected to contribute substantially to a fair determination of an FCC
proceeding, (2) FCC authority to make payments to persons who are not formally
parties to a proceeding, but who nonetheless submit written documents and/or data,
(3) FCC authority* to reimburse all expenses attendant to such participation de-
scribed above, including reasonable attorney's fees, (4) the standards available for
making determinations as to the fairness or reasonableness of expenses, and (5) FCC
authority to make disbursements prior to commencement or and/or during proceed-
ing.
On September 22, 1976, the Comptroller General of the United States replied to
the letter from the Black Caucus. On September 28, 1976, we forwarded, by letter, a
copy of the correspondence from the Comptroller General to the Commission which
stated, in sum, that the FCC has the authority to appropriate funds to reimburse
public interest participants in FCC proceedings. Up until that point, the Commis-
sion had insisted that it did not have the authority to provide such funds. Now,
however, its argument is simply that it does not have the funds.
For the Committee's information, the FCC recently submitted its budget for the
fiscal year of 1978, and it did not include a request for funding to insure that public
interest groups had ample opportunity to effectively participate in agency proceed-
ings through the use of competent counsel. The obvious question, of course, is why
didn't the Commission make such a request? NBMC does not have the answer and,
frankly, is hopeful that this Committee will make such a specific request of the
Commission.
As an adjunctive note, other agencies have moved forcefully in this area in an
effort to insure effective participation by the general public in its agency proceed-
ings. Why not the FCC, especially in view of its statutorily mandated public interest
standard.
Thank you.
CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS INC.,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-ANNEX,
Washington, D.C. December 23,1976.
Mr. VINCENT J. MULLINS,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MULLINS: On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, the attached
petition is submitted for consideration by the Federal Communications Commission
in the form of a rule making.
Sincerely,
BARBARA J. WILLIAMS,
Executive Director.
PAGENO="0320"
316
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF INQUIRY TO FORMULATE A NEW POLICY TO
PROMOTE MINORITY OWNERSHIP IN CERTAIN RENEWAL OR REVOCATION CASES
1. Petitioners herewith urge the Commission to issue a Notice of Inquiry to
formulate a new policy to promote minority ownership in situations where an
application for renewal of a broadcast license has been designed for hearing on
disqualifying grounds' (or where there is a revocation proceeding). The grounds for
this petition follow.
2. Where a renewal application has been designated for hearing on disqualifying
issues, the Commission will not "permit escape of a suspected wrongdoer by assign-
ment of the license without hearing [because to do so] would make more difficult
the Commission's statutory duty of regulating broadcast activities."2 The Commis-
sion has allowed exceptions to this policy in "exceptional circumstances" (WLTH,
supra, at par. 17), but the cases cited in Commissioner Hooks' dissent in WLTH
established that such exceptions to the policy are not "rare," as claimed by the
Commission (par. 17, WLTH), and not always fully consistent with cases where the
policy is adhered to.
3. Our purpose, however, is not to quarrel with these past exceptions or denials
that have focused largely on factors such as bankruptcy (innocent creditors), major
illness Of the wrongdoer, etc., but rather to urge strongly the formulation of a new
policy that turns on the sale to minority groups. The Commission simply has not
appreciated the benefits to be obtained from permitting assignments to minority
groups. It has woodenly recited that it is "not unaware of nor unsympathetic to the
public interest benefits that might flow from . . . effecting minority ownership
promptly" (WLTH, par. 13). But what is called for is not awareness or sympathy but
action. Minority groups have largely been frozen out of ownership of broadcast
stations.3 This situation stems from the discrimination these groups have suffered
for so long; when broadcast licenses where available in the period from the thirties
through the fifties, minority groups were still subject to discrimination of a nature
that insured there could be no significant economic opportunity for them to partici-
pate in the licensing process. Now the licenses are gone in the large markets with
minority populations.
This "dismaying situation," the Courts have noted, disserves the public interest.4
There is a great difference-indeed, a difference in kind rather than degree-
between the ascertainment of minority needs by the usual corporate owner and
minority ownership to meet the interests and problems of the minorities (TV 9, Inc.
v. FCC, supra).' it is one thing for the Commission to decline to restructure the
industry at this time to make up for past societal inequity. It is another for the
Commission not to seize the few opportunties that do arise. We urge, therefore, the
adoption of a policy that permits, in any renewal or revocation case, the assignment
of a license, at a substantially lower sales price, to a group constituted of at least 50
percent racial minorities (e.g., blacks, Hispanics).
4. We urge this policy because it is right-because it redresses a wrong and
markedly serves the public interest in the larger and more effective use of radio-
the statutory standard in Section 303(g) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
iThe proposed policy would be inapplicable to cases where there is also a competing applicant.
`In Re Application of Northwestern Indiana Broadcasting Corp. (WLTH), FCC 76-674, par. 14
(here called WLTH); see also Jefferson Radio Company, Inc. v. FCC, 340 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Walton Broadcasting Co., 28 FCC 2d 111 (1971).
3J~ Citizens Communications Center v. FCC, 447 F.2d 1201, n. 36 (D.C. Cir. 1971), the Court
noted that ". . . no more than a dozen of 7,500 broadcast licenses are owned by racial minor-
ities." The figures have risen in the last five years but still are very low-45 stations out of
roughly 9,000, or 0.5 percent. Blacks, for example, represent 11.5 percent of the population-yet
they own only two television stations out of 961 (0.2 percent).
4 Citizens Communications Commission v. FCC, supra; TV .9, Inc. v. FCC, 495 F.2d 929,
937-38 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied 419 U.S. 986; Garrett v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1056 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
`The Court there stated (495 F.2d at 938): We hold only that when minority ownership is
likely to increase diversity of content, especially in opinion and viewpoint, merit should be
awarded [footnote omitted]. The fact that other applicants propose to present the views of such
minority groups in their programming, although relevant, does not offset the fact that it is upon
ownership that public policy places primary reliance with respect to diversification of content,
and that historically has proven to be significantly influential with respect to editorial comment
and the presentation of news [citation omitted].
PAGENO="0321"
317
303(g). We note, incidentally, that it also has other substantial benefits in contrast
to the usual long drawn-out renewal hearing that can run two to five years (until
the last FCC opinion):6 Our proposal speedily eliminates from the broadcast field a
possible wrongdoer who lacks the requisite character to a be a public trustee. And
by avoiding such a hearing-and the equally long and quite stultifying comparative
`that would follow a denial of renewal (or a revocation)-scarce Commission
resources would also be conserved.
5. The only possible disadvantage is the claimed loss of control over licensees. But
we are not advocating a policy of business as usual-that the licensee can sell to
whomever it wants, in any fashion it desires. It must be a distress sale to a minority
group. There may be no such group, and in any event the licensee is clearly going to
be hurt financially when it deals in such distress circumstances. No rational busi-
nessmen will therefore exult that under the policy here proposed, he can violate the
Act or Commission policies with impunity. He will have to sell his going business at
a distress price,8 and leave forever the broadcast field. We submit that there will be
no increase whatever in scofflaws under this proposed policy.
6. We do not believe that there is really much or any doubt as to the foregoing
conclusion. But we point out that in any event the Commission can readily take
remedial action if it is required. Thus, if contrary to all common sense, it finds that
there is increased wrongdoing under the new policy (and any such pattern will be
readily apparent), it can simply end the new policy after two years, three years, or
indeed at any time, and return to its present policy. In short, by trying the new
policy, the Commission has much to gain (increased minority ownership, with the
other benefits noted in par. 4), and nothing to lose (since it can promptly end the
policy and thus restore the deterrence of the present rule in the unlikely event this
becomes necessary).~
CONCLUSION
In Garrett v. FCC, supra, at n. 52, the Court made clear that promotion of
minority ownership is a principle generally required in the public interest.b0 We
strongly urge, therefore, that the Commission issue promptly the requested Notice,
and expedite the proceeding itself-specifying shortened filing periods and adhering
to them. For theoretical reasons of dubious practicality," the Commission has failed
to do what is readily within its discreation: to redress a grievous and long-standing
wrong-the preclusion of black and other minority ownership of broadcast facilities.
The Commission should make clear in its Notice that any policy adopted will be
6 Thus, the Star Stations of Indiana case (FCC 75-127) began with a designation order released
December 15, 1970 (FCC 70-1256), and concluded with an FCC decision released February 7,
1975.
`See speech of Chairman Wiley to NAB, March 23, 1976; Star Television, Inc. v. FCC, 416 F.2d
1086, 1093-94 (Judge Leventhal dissenting) (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 (1969); W.
K. Jones, Licensing of Major Broadcasting Facilities by the Federal Communications Commis-
sion, 198-99 (1962).
6 believe that the Commission can safely leave to the bargaining process the exact nature
of the distress sale, since the minority group has the incentive, and considerable leverage, to
purchase the stations at the lowest possible price.
9 Commission can and should explore other safeguards. For example, a petitioning group
should not be the purchaser, and indeed, a showing should be required that the purchasing
group is acting independently. In any event, no responsible broadcaster need fear this new
policy. In a speech delivered to the NAB on March 23, 1976, the late Chairman MacDonald
pointed out:
The broadcasting industry has an excellent record of stability in the existing renewal process.
In 1972, the FCC granted 99.32 percent of all renewals filed. In 1973, the figure was 99.19
percent, and in 1974 it was even higher-99.69 percent. And I'd like to continue with the
statistics if you'll bear with me for a moment. In 1972, while there were 3,254 license renewal
applications filed, there were only 68 petitions to deny filed. And of these, only one was set for
hearing. In 1973, there were-and none-I repeat none-set for hearing. In 1974-3,487 applica-
tions were filed. There were 37 petitions to deny, and only one was set for hearing. In three
years combined, the Commission on its own only set 43 license [sic] for hearing.
`°The Court observed that while TV 9 dealt with a comparative hearing and Garrett with
"allocation of the AM band," the "ultimate concern in each instance is the public interest
[citations omitted], and the question in both instances is the degree to which it may be promoted
by Black ownership and participation in a broadcasting operation.~'
"Cf. Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 332 (1945) ("Legal therory is one thing. But
the practicalities are different.")
20-122 0 - 78 - 21
PAGENO="0322"
318
applicable to pending proceedings,12 and indeed, that upon an appropriate petition
by the renewal applicant, such proceedings will be stayed pending the outcome of
this Inquiry.
Respectfully submitted,
PARREN J. MITCHELL,
Chairman,
Congressional Black Caucus.
Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Boykin?
Go ahead, Senator.
Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr. Mar-
shall for his testimony. Although I did not get to hear it all, I
assure him I will read it all.
While the FCC has had a black Commissioner in the person of
Commissioner Hooks, I think it ought to be noted that some of the
other regulatory agencies have not had any black membership at
all. I believe that the ICC, for example, has no black members.
Mr. MARSHALL. None of them do, Senator.
Senator GRIFFIN. The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over
all these regulatory agencies. It has always been a mystery to me
why there has not been-and this is a criticism of the administra-
tion of my own party-black membership on the ICC. I say this
since I am familiar with some cases-it is not just in broadcasting,
it is in other areas as well-where black entrepreneurs, business
people, have tried to get into businesses controlled by the ICC, and
they seem to have very little luck.
All right, I want to welcome my good friend Uly Boykin. We are
particularly proud that we do have a black-owned television station
in Detroit. As he has indicated to me, there are some real prob-
lems, not only in connection with getting it started, but keeping it
going. I suggested to Mr. Boykin that it might be well, not only to
tell the story to me, which he has done, but to put it on the record
as far as this committee is concerned, so that all the members of
this committee and the Members of the Senate can be aware of
some of the details and background of channel 62 and that enter-
prise, for both radio and television.
So, Mr. Boykin, we welcome you, and would like to have you
proceed in any manner you see fit.
Mr. BOYKIN. Thank you, Senator.
I want to say for the record that Senator Robert Griffin of
Michigan has been interested in our problems even when the first
black television station was just a dream, and in the course of
getting our things together to come to Washington, we did come to
Washington on a number of occasions, problems arose, and he was
always cooperative. So we are indebted to you as well as to the
members of the Senate Communications Subcommittee for giving
me the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the problems
facing the broadcasting industry in the United States as they
relate to blacks and minorities.
As vice-president of WGPR-FM radio and WGPR-TV, channel
62, Detroit, I believe I am qualified to discuss the problems of black
12 There should be one exception-the renewal applicant that attempts to sell after a final
Commission decision denying his renewal (or revoking his license). At this point there is no long
any longer delay before a new operator takes over (and that new operator can contribute to
minority interests on an interim basis (see Lamar Life Broadcasting Co., 26 FCC 2d 100, 108-109
[1970]), and the principle of no transfer in such circumstances should be maintained. While a
lengthy comparative hearing to choose the new applicant is unfortunate, minorities would
receive important preferences in that hearing (and in any interim operation). See TV .~ Inc. v.
FCC, supra; Lamar Life Broadcasting Co., supra.
PAGENO="0323"
319
radio and television owners in our Nation With 20 years as a
newspaper editor and publisher, 12 years as an minority consul-
tant, and 12 years of involvement as a broadcasting executive, I
can say that there appears to have been a conspiracy in the United
States that has kept the black minority out of a meaningful partici-
pation in radio and television ownership, has prevented those
black-owned stations from getting a fair share of the business, as
well as any financing.
Those coconspirators include the FCC, the rating agencies, the
banking and lending institutions, and the advertising agencies.
As evidence, I can say that of the 8,500 radio and television
stations in the United States, blacks own 56 radio stations and 1
television station.
Howard University, here in Washington, has a TV license, but
due to inability to secure necessary finances it has been unable to
put the TV station on the air. There are two TV stations in the
Virgin Islands with only one on the air. The other is off the air
because the owners are unable to find proper financing. In plain,
everyday statistics, this means blacks own one-tenth of 1 percent of
all radio and TV stations in the United States of America.
To supplement the black radio market there are 200 white-owned
radio stations that are programed black. The FCC this year held its
first conference and hearing in 43 years dealing with discrimina-
tion and black ownership. That is the first time.
As proof of the injustice experienced by minorities, I can tell you
the story of WGPR-TV, channel 62 as an example of the problems,
as a member of the team put together by WGPR president Dr.
William V. Banks, who heads a fraternal organization of 355,000
black Americans known as the International Masons and Eastern
Star.
The Masons purchased radio station WGPR for less than $20,000
over 12 years ago. That is, the radio station. Today this radio
station grosses $85,000 a month
Four years ago Dr. Banks said something had to be done to
change the stereotype of the role of blacks in television. The con-
clusion was to purchase our own television station and produce
black-related shows. The only one available was WXON, channel
62, at Walled Lake, Mich. I say that was an act of God that that
happened. That is why we are a Michigan Station.
The owners were willing to sell this station for $1 million. We
asked the Ford Foundation to loan us the money, but were turned
down because of a change in policy This is no reflection on the
Ford Foundation because they loaned $500,000 to Dr. Haley Bell,
whose family owned WCHB in Detroit, to buy station KWK in St.
Louis, Mo. But what happened there was that when we came along
to ask for a similar loan-those loans were interest free-they had
changed policy regarding making loans for media.
So then we went to four Detroit banks and asked them to loan us
the money. They also turned us down. Then we tried to contact the
owners of TV channel 20, who had a construction permit but had
not been able to get on the air. An inquiry was made to the FCC,
who told the owners that they had to proceed to put the station on
the air or surrender the construction license.
It so happened that the owners of channel 20 and 62 got togeth-
er. Aben Johnson of channel 62 told me he and Richard Eaton had
PAGENO="0324"
320
agreed to join forces and put channel 20 on the air, and he would
abandon channel 62. WGPR then filed an application to be award-
ed channel 62. We promised if we were granted the license we
would provide on-the-job training for minorities, produce and pro-
gram shows related to the problems of the minorities, and provide
shows for syndication to the other TV stations about black people.
WGPR, Inc., was awarded a construction license on May 31, 1973.
We went on the air September 29, 1975.
In order to receive a license, a station must have sufficient funds
to be able to operate for 1 year without any income. Additional
efforts to get loans were unsuccessful. Dr. Banks asked the Su-
preme Board of Directors of his fraternal organization for the
funds. The Supreme Grand Lodge loaned approximately $385,000 to
WGPR, Inc., leaving $125,000 to be raised. We again asked two
Detroit banks to loan WGPR, Inc., only $55,000. We were told by
the Detroit Bank & Trust that they would give us a letter of credit
in the amount of $55,000 to be used when all of the other money
we had raised was spent. We were told by FCC Commissioner
Benjamin Hooks that this would not be acceptable.
Dr. Banks and I came to Washington and discussed the problem
with Commissioner Hooks. He suggested we go to the four auto-
mobile manufacturers and ask them to give us advertisement com-
mitment letters pledging to spend $25,000 each during the first
year of the station's operation and $125,000 was committed. The
advertisers included Sears Roebuck, General Motors, Chrysler
Motors, Ford Motors, K-Mart, American Motors, and Stroh's Brew-
ery.
International Masons purchased the building at 3140-46 E. Jef-
ferson, Detroit, and an adjoining building and lot, for a total of
$380,000, and leased them to WGPR. A 125-foot microwave tower
was built on the adjoining lot. We leased a 1,000-foot tower in
Royal Oak Township, Mich., on 8½ Mile Road, and leased
$1,250,000 worth of RCA equipment through H.R.B. Leasing Co. in
Philadelphia. We paid $22,500 for our FCC TV license and then
tried to get the money returned to help us in our operational
expenses, but we were turned down.
WGPR-TV is presently the only television station in the coun-
try with primary emphasis on black-oriented programing. More-
over, it is the only black-owned and operated television station in
the country. In the 19 months WGPR-TV 62 has been on the air,
our income has not exceeded our expenses. Even though our view-
ers have doubled since we have been on the air, we have not
received the support we have expected from the metropolitan busi-
ness community in Michigan.
We are now planning to ask 100 of the leading firms to commit
themselves to spend $50,000 each in advertising for the next 12
months. This would help us keep our pledge to produce salable
shows and provide trained, experienced minority workers for the
broadcast industry. This is not charity. We have the viewers, and
they will receive the benefits.
The question has been asked why the business community has
refused to support the Nation's first black-owned and operated
television station in a seven-station market. Ad agencies demand
that television stations meet certain standards. For example, if
PAGENO="0325"
321
they are spending $175 for an ad, the station is expected to provide
10,000 viewers.
The ARB and A. C. Nielsen survey agences are used by the ad
agencies to measure the market the television and radio stations
reach.
Black station owners claim the surveys are unfair to them be-
cause only whites are hired to do the work. We believe they are not
doing a fair job because blacks relate better to blacks. And they
should hire blacks to ask the questions. Also, less than 25 percent
of blacks have been reached in a market of 950,000 because there
are over 1 million blacks in the tricounty area within a circumfer-
ence of 60 miles, including Pontiac, Port Huron, Windsor, Ontario,
Ann Arbor, Toledo, and Detroit. There are only about 2,300 diaries
used in the Detroit market to get the scientific questions that they
claim that represent, proportionally represent that market.
Senator GRIFFIN. May I interrupt, Mr. Boykin? We are wonder-
ing how are those surveys conducted? Are they conducted on a
door-to-door basis?
Mr. BOYKIN. What they do, they will take the figure 100, and
then they will contact those persons and ask them, "What station
do you listen to?" And then the viewer will say, "I listen to
WWJ-TV," and then they will give WWJ-TV a vote for the poll.
In all the 52 years I have lived in Detroit, I have only received
one diary. That is, they send out a sort of booklet that you have to
fill out the stations that you listen to and the times and all of the
programs and then the form is turned in, they base it on some
percentage out of 100 or 1,000 people contacted. That is how the
rating is done.
I have talked to, in fact, thousands of people, and have asked
them have they ever been surveyed, and they usally say no. They
come up with the figures that this or that station has so many
listeners in the tricounty market serving metro-Detroit.
Now, as to the questions that they ask, they are different in
certain economic communities. They will ask in certain areas, they
usually ask in the higher-income neighborhoods, where people are
at a certain economic level.
Senator GRIFFIN. You think the survey really does not cover
those areas in the same way that they cover other areas?
Mr. BOYKIN. That is true. And as a result, they do not reach the
total market.
Senator GRIFFIN. I think that is a very serious matter, which this
committee and the FCC ought to be concerned about.
Mr. BOYKIN. That is true. That is one of the things I am going to
recommend, that you investigate how the rating services operate.
Mr. MARSHALL. Senator, on that same point, ARB has been sued
two or three times by minority broadcasting and companies that
work for them about this very point because they do not measure
audiences, and they have admitted this, so I think it is an excellent
area to investigate.
Mr. BOYKIN. Another reason WGPR has not reached its potential
is because our competition is well-established and spends massive
funds on programs to attract new viewers, and spends large bud-
gets with newspapers for advertising and sales promotion. Also, we
must be able to hire more trained and experienced salespersons
PAGENO="0326"
322
Channel 50, a UHF station, is the fifth-ranking station in our
market. Ours is seventh-ranking according to the pollesters. Chan-
nel 50 is billing $2-3 million a year. It took channel 50 4 years to
win its place in the market. Channels 2, 4, and 7 are billing in the
$10 million-a-year range. They are VHF stations.
Our only chance to make a penetration in this market is to have
our salespeople go directly to the client instead of depending on the
ad agency to buy the time, because they are the ones that read this
"bible," they call it, the "book" that the Nielsen and ARB people
release that gives us an unfair position in the market.
The rating agencies have been the main factor in preventing the
use of black-owned and programed radio and television stations.
What can the Congress do to help black-owned television and
radio stations is to create an agency similar to public radio and
television to help secure venture capital to help funding of minor-
ity-owned stations to provide production money in order to attract
more viewers; also, allocate money to be used to produce shows to
enhance the image of minorities in this country, because we feel in
a country where everyone has an opportunity we feel to make it in
this country, if they saw examples and stories of contributions that
can help save our country from some type of revolution, if these
people know that this is the type of society that has produced the
wealth, the businesses, and the successes, and the successes in this
great country, this will have a great impact on minorities; to work
for an increase in minority ownership of broadcasting facilities,
including cable television, by offering incentives to investors.
I think cable is the answer to reaching the people down in the
grassroots of this country, because we realize that we have gotten
into the picture later in history, but there is a chance in cable
television. We must then work for an increase in minority owner-
ship in these broadcasting facilities.
The past is now history. The present administration that sets
policy that influences the Federal Communications Commission is
in a position to help right an injustice to minorities in broadcast-
ing. Congress through its enaction of legislation can help right a
wrong that has been done to American minorities. We do not want
to keep talking about the past. The question is: What can we do
now to change the picture, and bring a fuller understanding of our
society. The power is in your hands to enable all of us to partici-
pate.
Two FCC Commissioners who have shown interest in the pro-
gress of WGPR-TV 62 are Benjamin Hooks and James Quello. Mr.
Quello was recommended by the acting chairman, Senator Griffin.
The assistance given WGPR-TV 62 by Commissioner Benjamin
Hooks has been most helpful. His advice and words of encourage-
ment have helped us overcome many problems. And I just wish
they had a Ben Hooks on all these other regulatory agencies. I
would like to inject in here that he was appointed under the
administration of President Nixon. His advice and words of encour-
agement have helped us overcome many problems.
Commissioner James Quello joined Commissioner Hooks in his
dissent when we requested on June 22, 1973, that the Commission
waive the grant fee established by section 1-1111 of its rules, 47
CFR 1-1111, for the construction permit, and so forth, awarded
PAGENO="0327"
323
WGPR, Inc., for WGPR-TV, channel 62, Detroit, Mich. The basis
for our request was that waiver of the fee of $22,500 would be of
substantial assistance in assuring the success of a minority-owned
and operated television station during the first few difficult years
of operation.
He stated, and I am quoting Mr Quello, that
The majority decision, while correct in a strict legal and policy sense, fails to
grasp the real significance of this issue. Here we have the first black-owned and
black-operated television venture in the Nation. This enterprise is being inaugurat-
ed in a well-developed television market where competition is established. The new
venture will be facing that competition with a new UHF facility. The odds against
success appear to be overwhelming, given the obvious problems of programing,
staffing, capitalization, and so forth. Network affiliations, the most popular syndi-
cated features, and the most appealing movies are already under contract.
"It is obvious that this Commission cannot and should not undertake to guarantee
the success of WGPR-TV or any other television station. Nor, in my opinion, should
we condone the failure of this unique venture by applying the same standard that
we would apply to a venture with a virtual guarantee of success. There are signifi-
cant and special public interest and social considerations here. The Commission
should extend every reasonable effort to encourage the viability of the Nation's first
black-owned television station. The Commission might well consider applying the
accepted principle of "affirmative action" to encourage owership opportunities for
black, minority, or feminine pioneer ventures in special, deserving cases.
The courts have ruled that minority ownership of broadcast properties must,
under certain circumstances, be considered a positive factor in this Commission's
deliberations, and I believe that this is one of those instances where special consid-
eration is warranted and that mitigation or outright waiver of the fee is justified
In the narrowest sense the majority has taken an evenhanded approach in
determining that equal fees shall be paid by all comparable licensees. However, in
the broader sense, it seems to me that in circumstances which force this venture to
begin on far less than equal footing-without network service, without the greater
service area and acceptability of VHF, and without cash flow generated by success-
ful broadcast properties in other markets-we are being evenhanded to a fault
Therefore I dissent
That is what Commissioner Quello said at that time, but they did
not return the money as far as the solution of these problems in
helping minorities in television
I call the committee's attention to some comments by Commis
sioner Hooks when we requested that we be designated a specialty
station. Specialty station means that we would have been able to
have, through cable TV, been able to reach black stations through-
out the United States, with that designation They did turn us
down
But I would say that Commissioner Hooks said this: that the
percentage of broadcasting stations owned by minorities is very
low. For example, as of June 30, 1975, of the 4435 AM and 2670 FM
commercial stations, licensed minorities were the-actually the
smallest in ownership.
Let's see now, the minorities were the licensees of 22 stations,
that is, as I mentioned that percentage earlier. This percentage is
not likely to be rapidly improved upon in television, wherein cap-
ital requirements are even much greater. While this situation per-
sists, WGPR's value to the black population is substantial.
As Commissioner Hooks emphasized, proportionate minority
ownership is a distant goal, and in the meantime there must be a
more immediate focus on programing. At this early stage in the
evolution of minority ownership and the development of minority
programing, WGPR-TV can provide not only important programs
but a tangible encouragement to potential minority licensees.
PAGENO="0328"
324
As a black-owned station and in its commitment to programing
primarily for a black audience, WGPR-TV is unique and should be
available for nationwide carriage on cable television.
I have all the confidence in the world that the Members of this
Congress will do something about righting this wrong that has
been done, and I appreciate the opportunity to tell you WGPR's
story, that we have tried to practice in our operation of the station
fairness.
We have blacks, whites, women, and in all phases of the work,
from before camera, behind camera, in every operation.
Now, we have whites because, No. 1, they have the knowhOw,
and there are blacks who have never had an opportunity to train.
That is why we said that we would provide on-the-job training;
when they come out of school, we would give them a job and pay
them, so that we can help the Federal Communications Commis-
sion actually realize what they have done. They have promised, or
rather directed the broadcast industry, to put blacks and minorities
in jobs, before camera, behind camera, in every phase of operation,
but the white station owners tell us they cannot find blacks quali-
fied for these jobs because they do not have experience.
We, ourselves, have five whites in our TV department, sales,
selling our market. The reason we had to hire them is that it is
required that they be experienced, and having no blacks having an
opportunity to work, where are they going to get the experience?
So what we are going to do is, we are going to train them, and then
help the other industry get in tune with the times. Thank you very
much.
Senator GRw~'JN. Thank you, Mr. Boykin. I just want to add for
the record, although I don't have to say it to Mr. Boykin, that I
have known Dr. Banks for a good many years. He was the presi-
dent of the organization owning channel 62. Of coUrse, I have
known Mr. Boykin and others associated with channel 62 and they
are very able people, very responsible people
The radio station has been a real success and there isn't any
question about the programing, or the leadership-the experience,
the kind of background that should be adequate to produce a
successful television station. In my mind, as well as in Commission-
er Quello's mind, as has been noted here, it would be a tragedy if
channel 62 in Detroit did not succeed.
I share the view that the Government shouldn't necessarily
make it succeed by outright subsidies.
But to the extent that some of these practices are impeding the
opportunity of a station like channel 62 to succeed, it seems to me
this committee and the Congress have a real responsibility to ex-
amine how these surveys are conducted-whether they are con-
ducted fairly as far as the minority groups are concerned, and if
they are not, we certainly ought to see that something is done
about it.
I know we have the problem of the chicken and the egg. You
have to have the programing to get the audience and it is difficult
to get the programing if you don't have some of the financial
wherewithal. But with the kind of leadership that Dr. Banks and
his team is able to provide and with the number of blacks in the
Detroit metropolitan area-and, of course, I'm not suggesting that
PAGENO="0329"
325
blacks should just watch black television-it is inconceivable that
you couldn't build a large audience for a black-owned, black-operat-
ed television station. I think it will be an indictment, really of the
business community and of our system, at least as I see it now, if
channel 62 doesn't succeed.
I just want to say on the record, Mr. Boykin, as I have said to
you, that I want to do everything I can to be helpful both in my
official capacity as a Senator and as a citizen of Michigan. To the
extent I can provide any legitimate assistance, I want to do so.
Mr. BOYKIN. Thank you.
Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you very much-all three of you-for
coming.
Mr. BOYKIN. If I can end on a positive note, 4 or 5 years ago,
when we began approaching broadcasters about access, in terms of
programing and jobs and ownership, I think many of the leaders in
the industry thought we were a part of that lunatic fringe out
there, that in fact those people are going to go away eventually, if
we sort of maybe give them a lump of sugar or a crumb here and
there, that they will sort of fade into the woodwork, and that didn't
happen.
I think it is important to know the trends of this media reform
movement whether it be in black ownership or violence on televi-
sion, that 5 years ago, we and the Black Media Coalition joined
together to go in a picket line demonstration in front of the NAB
conference because we weren't included and this last year Mr.
Marshall and I appeared, were invited to be on a panel, and at the
NAB and it was at the ghetto time, 8 a.m., but the room was
crowded and Chairman Wiley did come and it is important to note
that not only were Mr. Marshall and I there, but two responsible,
well-respected broadcasters were there.
Jim Linna at WTOP and a broadcaster from Mr. Marshall's
hometown, Lewiston, was there and basically what they were
saying is, we need to listen to what these people have to say, that
in fact integrating women and minorities into jobs means good
business, and that these people aren't going to go away and we
don't want them to go away, because they have been a catalyst for
creating responsible programing; they have been valuable resource
for finding good women and minority males to put into certain
jobs. So I think that really, it is a question of communications, of
sitting down and talking to each other and that we are finding it is
not as much of a differentiation today, but a matter of simple
justice. It is right to have more women in jobs, to have minority-
owned stations.
Mr. MARSHALL. Just a couple of points, Senator Griffin. There is
an entity called Children's Workshop, it is responsible for the
"Electric Company," "Sesame Street," good quality programs; there
is not enough of that, but we have never had a minority training
workshop and I think WPGR represents the kind of entity where
this ought to occur, where that kind of production for this country,
about positive black programing can, in fact, occur under that type
of leadership and management they have exhibited.
I would like to see some redistribution of some of the moneys
that go to broadcast entities for programing. You know, some con-
sideration for a minority training workshop that could possibly be
PAGENO="0330"
326
housed, because I think this would be the best shot in the arm, for
WPGR's operation, that they could receive, because they wouldn't
have to worry so much about where the money is going to come
from, if the same concept is used that is used with CTW and also
with impact, where they produce the public affairs programing
under a separate umbrella.
I think with the kind of neglect and positive imagery on commer-
cial television, we need to have somebody who is dedicated to
providing quality programing about blacks, that isn't negative, and
the other things, I know you will get to see the President; I won't,
but if you will remind him that Richard Nixon appointed the only
black regulatory Commissioner and he didn't necessarily have the
support of the black community, didn't have as much reason to,
but our President now who carried, I think 93 percent of the black
vote, it seems like he ought to be willing to put a black on the
other regulatory agencies, because I know he wants to outdo Rich-
ard Nixon.
Mr. BOYKIN. Senator, I just wanted to read a letter, it is one of
my responsibilities, since this is the only and first black station,
most of the youngsters visit sometimes, I guess there are classes
that come through, at least four times a week. They send letters
back. Now, this one came, dated April 27th.
DEAR MR. Bo~cIN. I would like to thank you for the wonderful tour you gave our
class 7-8. Now, I know what a radio and television station looks like. I just wanted
you to know how I appreciate you for inviting our class 7-8 to your station. I would
also like to thank you for the rest.
Sincerely,
LoulE JACKSON.
That is just one of the many that come through. That is the first
time they ever got to see a television station, one that was black-
owned.
Senator GRIFFIN. It occurs to me a businessman in the city of
Detroit that is trying to sell his products or services whether he be
black or white, if he is trying to reach a large segment of the
market, in the Detroit metropolitan area, which is black, it only
makes good business sense to advertise on channel 62; at least with
some of his advertising. If this situation isn't developing along
those lines, with Dr. Banks heading it, there is something wrong. I
think that it is-that this committee ought to take a good look at
it.
It just makes commonsense, business horsesense, that a channel
like 62 ought to be able to become a success.
Mr. BOYKIN. If we can overcome that rating system, we would
have it made.
Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the hearings were adjourned, subject to
the call of the Chair.]
PAGENO="0331"
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.,
Washington, D.C., June 28, 1977.
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In Peter Kenney's absence, I am pleased to forward the
attached report regarding Presidential appearances on the NBC Television Network
during the administrations of President Nixon, Ford and Carter, and replies by
members of the opposition party. The data encompasses the period from January 20,
1969, through June 10, 1977, and is submitted pursuant to the request made by you
and Senator Griffin during the May hearings on broadcast policies before the
Senate Communications Subcommittee.
As noted on the cover sheet, the report includes critical replies by members of the
President's own party, as well as comments by members of the opposition party. As
you will see, certain types of Presidential appearances are not included, such as
appearances during strictly ceremonial occasions. Total appearance times for each
category included in the report are listed on the summary sheet.
I hope these materials will be helpful to you and the Subcommittee.
Very truly yours,
HOWARD MONDERER.
Enclosures
MAJOR APPEARANCES BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE NBC TELEVISION NETWORK AND
TIME UTILIZED BY OPPOSITION PARTY AND OTHERS FOR COMMENTS AND REPLIES
January 20, 1969-June 10, 1977
This report encompasses the administrations of President Nixon, President Ford
and President Carter and includes data for the period January 20, 1969, through
June 10, 1977.
The report includes all major addresses, statements and news conferences by each
President. It does not include appearances by the President during ceremonial
occasions-e.g., the White House Christmas Tree lighting; appearances during Presi-
dential trips, such as those to China and Russia (except when the President made
official statements during those trips); convention coverage; paid political broad-
casts;1 or the Presidential debates of 1976. In addition, appearances during regularly
scheduled newscasts are not included.
Included is a summary sheet which shows the total times for Presidential appear-
ances during this period; appearances and replies for spokesmen for the opposition
parties; critical replies by members of the President's own party; and statements of
other opposing views.
In detailed listings, appearances are noted by Republicans who made statements
in support of Presidents Nixon and Ford. These were people who appeared together
with a member of the opposition party who was replying to the President. In such
cases, only the appropriate portion of the total time for such joint appearances is
included in the summary sheet.
1 A paid political statement by President Nixon on law and order and a reply by Senator
Muskie are included in the attached figures. The statements were made prior to the 1970
Congressional elections.
(327)
PAGENO="0332"
MAJOR APPEARANCES BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE NBC TELEVISION NETHORK AND TIME
UTILIZED BY OPPOSITION PARTY AND OTHERS FOR COMMENTS AND REPLIES
January 20, 1969 - June 10, 1977
PRESIDENTIAL PARTY:
YEAR PRESIDENT TOTAL TIME OPPOSITION PARTY: CRITICAL APPEARANCE5/ OTHER OPPOSING
PRESIDENT APPEARANCES/REPLIES (D) REPLIES (R) VIEWS
Hrs:Mins Hrs:Mins Hrs:Mins Hrs:Mins
1969 Richard Nixon CR) 10:33 :26 :19
1970 Richard Nixon CR) 8:26 4:13 :16 :30
1971 Richard Nixon CR) 6:44 4:49 ---- :39 L~~)
k)
1972 Richard Nixon CR) 3:41 3:25 :43
1973 Richard Nixon CR) 9:06 1:04 :06
1974 Richard Nixon CR) 7:32 3:02 :05
Gerald Ford CR) 9:lo 1:21
1975 Gerald Ford CR) 8:59 5:53
1976 Gerald Ford CR) 3:13 1:11
1977 Ger~x1 Ford CR) :53 ---- ----
Jin~~arter CD) 6 58 234(R) 2 01
75:15 27:58 :46 3:53
PAGENO="0333"
Jan. 20, 1969
12:17-12: 39pm
Jan. 27, 1969
11:00-11:3Oaifl
----Feb. 6, 1969
11:00-11: 34am.
Mar. 4, 1969
9: 00-10:OOpm
Mar. 14, 1969
12N-12: 55pm
-(12N-12:33pm)
Apr. 18, 1969, :37
11: 3Oam-12 :Olpm
May 14, 1969 1:00
10:00-11 :OOpm
TODAY TODAY
Jackson(D-Wfl) :07 Javits(R-NY) :07
Agrees with Opposed RMN
I~MN on ABM on ABM
Date/Tune
APPEARANcES
.M4.~ flAnr~rintion
:22 RMN INAUGURAL SPEECH
:30 RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
:34
1:00
:33
OTHERS
REPLYING
`C
JANUARY 20, 1969 - DECEMBER 31, 1969 - -
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
Date/Tune (D)APPEABANCES (R)APPEARANCES
& REPLIES a REPLIES
Mar. 17, 1969
7:43-7:57a1n
May 15, 1969 TODAY :06 TODAY :06
8:39- £:51a!s F. Church Tower(R-TX)
(D-Id) opposes supports RMN
BEN
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
RZ4N NEWS CONFERENCE
RMN VIETNAM SPEECH
May 21, 1969 :08 RMN APPOINTS BURGER
7:O0-7:OBpm CHIEF JUSTICE
PAGENO="0334"
1969 (cont'd)
~T~tJAI~Y 2Q, 1969 DEcE4BER 31~ 1969
June 3, 1969 :30
4: 30-5: OOpm
June 4, 1969 1:00
11: 3Oam-12: 3Opm
June 19, 1969 :33
7:00-7 :33pxn
Aug. 8, 1969 1:00
10:00-11: OOpm
RMN LAW & ORDER
SPEECH
RMN SPEECH ON
MILITARY
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
RHE-WI~FARE T~~jJ~555
RMN-US FOREIGN
POLICY ADDRESS
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
TODAY :07
Javits CR-NY)
opposed 5MM plan
TODAY :05
Percy CR-Ill)
opposes RMN
TODAY :09 Dominick :05
Mansfield (D-Mt) CR-Cob)
opposes RMN supports BMN
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Description
OTHERS
REPLYING
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
Date/Time CD) APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES
& REPLIES & REPLIES
June 20, 1969 TODAY :04. TODAY :04
8:1l-8:l9am C. Pe).l(D-RI) Rep.Anderson(R-Ill)
opçsed RMN supports RMN
Aug. 11, 1969
8:12-8:l9am
Sept. 18, 1969 :39
11: 2lam-12N
Sept. 26, 1969 :32
12N-12: 32pm
Nov. 3, 1969 :43
9:30-1O:l3pm
5MM-VIETNAM ADDRESS
Nov. 4, 1969
* 7:42-7:52am
8:13-8:24am
PAGENO="0335"
1969 ~cont'd)
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Descrip~ion
JAN(JARY 20, 1969 - DECEMBER 31, 1969 ___------~---------
-.
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
Date/Time (D)APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES OTHERS
a REPLIES & REPLIES REPLYING
Dec. 8, 1969
9:00-9:381)15
Dec. 15, 1969
6:00-6: l4pm
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
HEN-VIETNAM ADDRESS
:38
:14
10:33
Totals
1969
:26
:19
Le~
PAGENO="0336"
* JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 3lq 1970
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D) APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/~Pjme Nrs:Mjns ~ Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES REPLYING
Jan. 22, 1970 :55 RMN STATE OF THE Jan. 23, 1970 TODAY :06 TODAY :06
12:30-1:25pm UNION * 7:41-7:53am Muskie(D-Me) Griffin(R-Mich)
opposes RMN agrees w/RMH
Feb. 8, 1970 Democratic 1:00
2:30-3:3Opm Party
- Response to
State of Union
Jan. 26, 1970 :12 RMN VETOES HEW Jan. 27, 1970 TODAY :05 TODAY :05
9:00-9:l2pm BILL 7:14-7:24ain C.Albert(D-Okla)' Anderson(R-I11)
opposes RMN supports RMN
&
7:42-7: S6axn TODAY :07 TODAY :07
Cranston (D-Ca) Saxbe(R-Ohio)
opposes RMN supports RMN
Jan. 28, 1970 TODAY :14
7:42-7 :56am Humphrey (D-Minn)
(Dem. Nat'l Policy
Comm. opposes RMN)
* Jan. 30, 1970 :30 RNN NEWS CONFERENCE
6:30-7:OOpm
PAGENO="0337"
-5-
1970 (cont'd) JANUARY 1 - DECEHEER 31, 1970
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
0 PRESIDENTIAL APPEARA~
(D) APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES OTHE
p~ime Hrs:Mins Descript~2P Date/Time REPLIES &REPLIE~_ REPLYING
Mar. 23, 1970 :17 RNN - POSTAL Mar. 23, 1970 TODAY :07
2:13-2:3Opm WORKERS' STRIKE 7:5O-7:57am Gustav Johnson
Pres.N.Y.
& Letter Carrier
anti-Admin.
8:11-8:24am ~E1iot :13
Janeway
economist
anti-RMN
Mar. 24, 1970 TODAY :07
7:'~1-7:48am Dulski(D-N.Y.)
anti-RMN
Apr. 20, 1970 :24 RMN-VIETMAN Apr. ~O, 1970 Net Feed :04
9:00-9: 24pm ADDRESS 11 :26-11:3Opm Senators
comment
Apr. 30, 1970 :42 RMN - ADDRESS ON Apr. 30, 1970 Net Feed :01 Ndt Feed :01
9:OO-9:42pm CAMBODIA U :14-11 :l6pm ~hurch(D-Idai~o) Javits (R-N.Y.)
opposes ANN opposes RMN
Dominick (R-Colo)
agrees w/RMN
May 1, 1970 TODAY :06 TODAY :06
7:41-7: 53am Church (D-Idaho) Tower (R-Tex)
opposes RMN agrees w/RMN
PAGENO="0338"
1970 (cont'd)
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Description ________ _____________
May 12, 1970 "To End The :30
7:30-8:OOpin War'
Paid for by
Amer.~!inent to
End War Comm.
McGovern CD-SD)
Hughes CD-Iowa)
Church CD-Idaho)
& (R)Goodell
& Hatfield
May 8, 1970
10:00-10: 39pm
June 3, 1970 7:3O-8:OOpm
9:OO-9:22:]Opm Melvin Laird
Sec. of Def.
supports RNN
W~RX 1 DECEMBEY~ 31~ 1970 -6-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES
Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES
May 3, 1970 "McGee
6:OO-6:3Opm Special: The
War in
Indochina"
McGovern (n-SD)
opposes RMN
:02 "McGee
Special: The
War in
Indochina"
Cooke (R-Ky)
supports RMN
OTHERS
REPLYING
:02 "McGee :03
Special:
The War In
Indochina"
Hilsman, Far
East Expert
opposes RMN
V.P. Agnew :10 Prof. T. :03
supports RMN Frank-NYC
supports RMN
:39 RNN NEWS CONFERENCE
:22 RMM ADDRESS ON
CAMBODIA
June 4, 1970 MEET THE PRESS
7:3O-8:3Opm
:15 Wheeler :15
Chief of Staff
supports REM
8:O0-8:3Opm :15 8:OO-8:3Opm :15
Church CD-Idaho) Goodell (R-M.Y.)
opposes RMN opposes REM
PAGENO="0339"
June 17, 1970 :32 RMN ADDRESS ON
12N-12:32pm ECONOMY
June 21, 1970 :21 . REM NEWS CONFERENCE
12:13-12:34prn w/CHILDREN
July 1, 1970
10:00-11: OOpm
1:00 CONVERSATION WITH
5MB
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES
Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES
June 24, 1970
12:3O-12:53pm
July 9, 1970 NEWS SPECIAL
7:3O-8:3Opm CAMBODIA
Eagleton CD-Mo) :15
N.Nvcihes(D-Ia) :15
oppose RNN on
Cambodia
Reply to the
President
Fuibright :15
(D-Ark)
McGovern(D-SD) :15
:15 Taylor USA :15
Rtd supports
5MM on
Cambodia
1970 (cont'd)
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1970
PRESIDENTIAL APPEABAN
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Descriptipi~
OTHERS
REPLYING
NEWS SPECIAL :23
Mansfield (D-Mt)
replies to RMN
July 30, 1970 :33 5MM NEWS CONFERENCE Aug. 31, 1970
11 00-il 33pm 7 308 OOpm
Sept 16 1970 33 5MM ADDRESS ON CAMPUS
l:07-l:4Opm DISORDERS
Oct. 7, 1970 :13 RNN ADDRESS ON VIETNAM Oct. 8, 1970
9:OO-9:l3pm 7:42-7:52am
-7-
Dominick (R-Colo)
supports RMN on
Cambodia
Griffin (R-Mich) :05
supports RMN
Oct. 23, 1970
3:56-4:l9pm
:23
5MM ADDRESS U.N.
GEN. ASSEMBLY
TODAY :05
Church CD-Id)
opposes 5MM)
PAGENO="0340"
1970 (cont'd)
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Description
Nov. 2, 1970 :15 PAID POLITICAL
7:30-7:45pm RMN-LAW & ORDER
SPEECH
Dec. 10, 1970 :35 RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
7:OO-7:35pm
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1970
-8-
Date/Time
Nov. 2, 1970
7:45-8: OOpm
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES
& REPLIES REPLIES
PAID POLITICAL
Muskie(D-Me) :15
replies to 8MW
OTHERS
REPLYING
~Iota1s
1970 8:26
4:13 :16
:30
PAGENO="0341"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31q 1971
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time Hrs :Mins Description Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES REPLYING
Jan. 4, 1971 1:00 CONVERSATION WITH
9:OO-1O:OOpm REM
Jan. 22, 1971 :34 iNN STATE OF THE Jan. 24, 1971 MEET THE PRESS :30
9:O3-9:37pm UNION ADDRESS 1:OO-l:3Opm Albert(D-Okla)
replies to RMN
Jan. 24, 1971 New Faces In :25 New Faces In :30
1:3O-2:3Opm Senate Senate
~Jtevenson CD-Ill) Taft (R-Oh)
Tunriey(D-Calif) BuckleyCR-N.Y.)
Huinphrey(D-Minn) BrockCR-Tenn)
Bentsen (D-Tex) Beau CR-Md)
Chiles (D-Fla) Roth CR-Del)
WeickerCR-Conn)
- Jan. 26, 1971 TODAY :11
7:43-7:54am Boggs CD-La
Congress vie~7 of
REM pgms.
Jan. 26, 1971 State of Union 1:00
1O:OO-l1:OOpm Democratic Views
Mansfield CD-Nt)
replies to REM
Mar. 4, 1971 :29 REM NEWS CONFERENCE
9:00-9: 29pm
Mar. 15, 1971 :39 TODAY
v.s. segments -EXCLUSIVE INTER-
7:OO-9:OOam VIEW WALTERS W/RMN
PAGENO="0342"
1971 (cont'd) JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1971 -10-.
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time Hrs : Mins Description Date/Time & REPLIES a REPLIES REPLYING
Apr. 7, 1971 :22 RMN ADDRESS Apr. 8, 1971 TODAY :05
9:OO-9:22pm VIETNAM TROOP 7:47-7:57mm Gibbons(D-Fla) Gubser(R-Fla) :05
WITHDRAWALS opposes RMN supports RMN
Apr. 29, 1971 :33 RMN NEWS CONE. Apr. 30, 1971 Loyal 1:00
9:00-9: 33pm 10: O0-11:OOpm Opposition
Humphrey (D-Mn)
McGovern CD-SD)
Mus]de (D-Me)
I3ayh(D-Ind)
Hughes (D-Ia)
Jackson (D-Wn)
May 20, 1971 :03 REN STATEMENT
12N-12 : O3pm SALT TALKS
00
June 1, 1971 :30 RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
8: 31-9: Olpm
July 15, 1971 :19 RMN ANNOUNCES CHINA July 16, 1971 TODAY :13
9:OO-9:l9pm VISIT 7:42-7:55pm Mansfield(D-Mt)
comments RMN
* proposed China
visit
* Aug. 15, 1971 :19 RMN-ECONOMY WAGE! Aug. 17~ 1971 TODAY :11
9:00-9:l9pm PRICE FREEZE 8:39-8:50mm Proxmire(D-Wis)
opposes RMN
Aug. 29, 1971 MEET THE :30
l:OO-l:3Opm PRESS
Leonard WoodcocJ~
Pres. U.A~W.
criticizes
RMN economic
policies
PAGENO="0343"
1971. (cont'd) JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1971
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARBECES~ . REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time Mrs :Mins Description Date/Time S REPLIES a REPLIES REPLYING
Sept. 9, 1971 :29 RMN-ADDRESSES JOINT Sept. 10, 1971 TODAY :0
l2:32-1:Olpm SESSION ON NEW 8:15-8:24ain George Meane
ECONOMICS AFL-CIO
opposes BMN
Sept. 24, 1971 :11 TODAY-RMN SPEECH Sept. 17, 1971 TODAY :09 -
8:37-8:4Bam HIGHLIGHTS BEFORE 8:15-8:24am Gilligan(D-Ohio)
DETROIT ECONOMI~ opposes RMN
CLUB economics
Oct. 21, 1971 :16 RMN ADDRESS ON Oct. 22, 1971 TODAY TODAY :05
7:30-7:46pm SUPRENE COUNT 8:14-8:24am Bayh(D-Ind) :05 Taft(R-Ohio)
NOMINEES opposes RMN . supports RMN
nominees
Nov. 21, 1971 Loyal 1:00
5:30-6: 3Opm Opposition
Democratic
Reformation
0' Hara (D-Ohio)
Burg, Dem. Nat'l
Comm.
Califano,Dem. Nat'l
Comm.
Steinam,Dem. Policy
Comm.
Chiles (D-Fla.)
Clay (D-Mo)
PAGENO="0344"
-12-
1971 (cont'd) JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1971
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES (R)APPEARÔ~ OTHERS
Date/Time Nra :Mins Descri~4~ Date/Time REPLIES REPLIES REPLYING
Dec. 21, 1971 1:00 DEC. 6, 1971
7:30-8:3Opm A DAY IN THE
PRESIDENCY
-HOUR DOCUMENTARY
OFRMN
C
Totals 6:44 4:49 :39
1971
PAGENO="0345"
JANUARY 1 DECEMBER 31, 1912
-13-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEAPANCES (R) APPEARANCES
Date/Time S REPLIES REPLIES
Jan. 21, 1972
l2N-l2 : 55pm
Jan. 25, 1972
9: 54-10: 3Opm
(10:01-10:09)
Your Voice :55
Counts
-Reply to RMN
State of Union
Eagleton (D-Mo)
Brademas (D-Ind)
Griffiths (D-Mich)
Proxmire (D-Ws)
Sullivan (D-Mo)
Church (D-Id)
Melcher (D-Mt)
Metcalfe (D-Ill)
Bentsen (D-Tx)
Albert (D-Okla)
Boggs (D-La)
NEWS SPECIAL :04
New Peace Plan Dominick :04
Fulbright(D-Ark) (D-Colo)
agrees w/RMN
Jan. 26, 1972 TODAY
7:14-7:24mm Church(D-Id) :05 Tower(R-Tx) :05
opposes RMN supports RMN
Jan. 30, 1972 Loy~. 1:00
5 :OO-6:OOpm Opposition
Bayh (D-Ind)
Anderson (D-Mn)
Dem. Comm. Members
0' Brien,Burg,Strauss,
Harris
PP.ESIDENTThL APPEARANCES
flata/Tima Hrs:Mins Description
OTHERS
REPLYING
Jan.
~
21, 1972
7:41-7:Slam
TODAY
Mondale (D-Mn) Dole (R-Ks)
RMN supports RMN
opposes
Jan. 20, 1972
12: 33-1: O3pm
Jan. 25, 1972
8: 30-8 :48pm
:30 RMN STATE OF THE
UNION ADDRESS
:18 ANN ADDRESS ON
VIETNAN
PAGENO="0346"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1972
1972 (c~ont' d) PRESIDENTIAL APEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Description Date/Time (D)APPEABANCES CR) APPEARANCES OTHERS
& REPLIES & REPLIES . REPLYING
Feb. 28, 1972 :10 RMN STATEMENT ON
9:O0-9:42pm RETURN FROM CHINA
Mar. 16, 1972 :15 RMN ON BUSING
1O:OO-1O:l5pm
Mar. 17, 1972 TODAY :06 TODAY :06
8:43-8:S5am Brock CR-Tn) Mitchell
supports RNN NAACP
on busing opposes PYN
on busing
Mar. 19, 1972 MEET THE PRESS :30
l:O0-l:3Opm George Wallace(D-Ala)
on busing
Mar. 28, 1972 Busing & the Nixon Busing & the Busing a
l0:30-11:OOpm Plan Nixon Plan The Nixon
Ribicoff(D-Cn) :05 Baker(D-Tenn) :05 Plan
opposes RMN supports RMN Edelman, :05
Harvard
Innis, :05
CORE
both opposed
to RMN plan
Apr. 26, 1972 :15 RMN - ADDRESS RESUMES Apr. 27, 1972 TODAY
lO:00-lO:l5pm BOMBING OF N. VIETNAM 7:39-7:49am T. Hoopes, :10
former
UN, Sec. AF
& &
7:5l-7:56sm Leslie :05
Gelb,'
Brookings
Inst. both
critical of
RNN Vietnam
policy
PAGENO="0347"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1972 -15-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES
Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES
May 8, 1972
9: 00-9: lBpm
:18 RMN ADDRESS MINING
HARBORS IN N.
VIETNAM
Apr, 30, 1972
12:30-1:3Opm
May -, 1972 TODAY :15
7:41-7:56am Muskie(D-Me)
opposes RMN
Jackson CD-Nfl)
supports RMN
May 19, 1972 TODAY :12
8:43-8:55am Harriman-
former Amb.
Democratic Ad-
ministrations
opposes RMN policy
May 31, 1972 TODAY
8:14-8:24am
Percy(R-Ill) :05
supports RMN
on nuclear
arms
COMMENT:
Average
citizens
re Vietnam
Attys.
Vinardi :12
S Jensen
support
5MM policy
S student
Sawyer S
steel wrJcr
Deardoff :12
oppose 5MM
policy
l972(cont'd)
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
flata/Tirnc. Hrs:Mins Description
OTHERS
REPLYING
May 28, 1972
1:30-1 :49pm
:19 RMN - RADIO-TV
ADDRESS TO RUSSIAN
PEOPLE
:05
Jackson (D-Wn)
opposes RMN on
nuclear arms
PAGENO="0348"
Totals
1972
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1972
1972 (cont'd)
Date/Time
June 1, 1972
9:43-1O:lOpm
&
10:44-10: 59pm
June 29, 1972
9:00-9: 45pm
Nov. 7, 1972
11:52-11: 57pm
12:20-12:33am
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Mrs : Mine Description
:27 RMN ADDRESS TO
JOINT SESSION ON
RETURN TO WN
:06 TAPED HIGHLIGHTS OF
ABOVE
:45 RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
:05 RMN ELECTION VICTORY
STATEMENTS
:13
-16-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD)APPEARANC~S CR) APPEARANCES
Daie/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES
June 2, 1972 TODAY :09
8:15-8:24am Mansfield(D-Mt)
agrees in general
w/RMN on arms
treaty w/USSR
OTHERS
REPLYING
3:41
3:25 ~ :43
PAGENO="0349"
flat-c.PP4ina
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Nrs:Mins Descriotion
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1973
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
-17-
CD)APPEAPANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time & REPLIES S REPLIES REPLYING
Jan. 23, 1973
1O:OO-11:OOpm
Mar. 29, 1973
9:OO-9:25pm
1:00 RHE ADDRESS PEACE
IN VIETNAM
:25 RNN ADDRESS BUDGET!
ECONOMY
Mar. 30, 1973 TODAY
7:16-7: 24am Proxmire CD-Wig)
opposes RMN on
economy
TODAY
~.O4 Percy CR-Ill)
opposes RMN on
economy
:04
Apr. 30, 1973
9:00-9:34pm
:34 BRE ADDRESS
re HALDEMAN,
EHBLIEHMAN & -
DEAN "RESIGEATIONS"
Apr. 3, 1973 FIRST TUESDAY :09
lO:48-1O:57pm Muskie replies
to RMN 3/29
speech
May 1, 1973
7:41-7:57ain
8:39-8:52am TODAY
Jackson CD-Wn)
Eagleton CD-Mo)
Cranston CD-Ca)
all oppose RMN
:13
TODAY
Percy CR-Ill) :02
critical of RMN
Dominick CR-Cob) :04
BuckleyCR-NY)
Brooke CR-Mass)
All hope RMN is
right
L~)
Jan. 20, 1973
12:O2-12:l8pm
:16 RMN INAUGURAL
ADDRESS
Jan. 20, 1973
12:37-12 :4Opm
l2:5l-l2:54pm
l2:54-l2:56pm
Inauguration
PatxnanCD-Tx) :03
Jackson CD-Wn) :03
Wallace CD-Ala) :02
comment on RMN
speech -
PAGENO="0350"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1973
-18-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
June 13, 1973
8: 30-8: 49pm
Aug. 15, 1973
9:00-9: 37pm
Aug. 22, 1973
2:30-3: 3Opm
&
10:00-ll:OOpm ~
Sept. 5, 1973
3:OO-3:42pm
Oct. 12, 1973
9:O0-9:4Opm
Oct. 26, 1973
7:00-8:OOpm
Nov. 7, 1973
7:3O8:OOpm
Nov. 17, 1973
7: 00-8: O8pm
Nov. 25, 1973
7:OO-7:lSpm
Totals
1973
:19 RMN ADDRESS ECONOMY
PHASE IV
:17 BMW ADDRESS ON
WATERGATE
1:00 RNN NEWS CONFERENCE
-Questioned extensively
on WATERGATE
1:00
:42 RNN NEWS CONFERENCE
:40 RMN NAMES
G. FORD
V.P. DESIGNATE
1:00 RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
:30 RMN ADDRESS-ENERGY CRISIS
1:08 BMW NEWS CONFERENCE Nov. 18, 1973 MEET THE PRESS
12:30-1: OOpm MansfielcL(D-Mt) :30
Democratic View
on subjects RMN
covered in News Conf.
:15 BMN ENERGY CRISIS
ADDRESS
* 1973 (cont'd)
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Nrs:Mins * Descriotion
CD) APPEARANCES
Date/Time & REPLIES
(R)APPEARANCES
~ REPLIES -
OTHERS
REPLYING
9:06
1:04 :06
PAGENO="0351"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1974
-19-
Jan. 17, 1974
3:00-3:O9pm
Jan. 30, 1974
9:00-9: S5pm
Feb. 25, 1974
7:30-8:llpm
Mar. 6, 1974
7:30-8:l3pm
4~r. 15, 1974
~:O0-3:flpm
1t;:r. 19, 1974
~:00-9:04pm
:09 RMB-STATEHENT
ON MIDDLE EAST
Jan. 31, 1974 TODAY
7:42-7:S7ain Mayors
Martin (D-Norfolk)
Young CD-Detroit)
oppose RMN
TODAY
Mayor Wilson
:05 IR-S.Diego) :05
:05 opposes REM
Feb. 1, 1974 NEWS SPECIAL
l0:00-ll:OOpm Den. Reply to
RMN
Mansfield (D-Mt) 1:00
Mar. 7, 1974
7:14-7:24am
Mar. 22, 1974
7:15-7:24am
Loyal Opposition 1:00
Democrats: Strauss,
McGovern, £r.nedy,
Jackson, Daley present
(D) party views
TODAY
:05 Godwin(R-Va) :05
supports RMN
OTHERS
REPLYING
Date/Time
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
(D)APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES
Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES
:55 RMN-STATE OF THE
UNION
:41
:43
RNN NEWS CONFERENCE
RMN NEWS CONFERENCE
:41 RMN HEWS CONFERENCE
-CHICAGO EXEC CLUB
1:04 RMN HEWS CONFERENCE
-NAT'L ASSOC. OF
BROADCASTHRS HOUSTON
TODAY
Gilligan (D-Oh)
opposes REM
TODAY
Mansfield (D-Mt)
-replies to RMN
:09
Apr. 4, 1974
lO:00-ll:OOpin
PAGENO="0352"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1974 -20-
1974 (cont' d) PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
uu~e~ j~iue rus : ~uns Description Dat Time REPLIES S REPLIES REPLYING
itpr. 29, 1974 :44 RMN ADDRESS Apr. 30, 1974 TODAY :08 TODAY :08
9:OO-9:44pm -RE SUBPOENA FOR 7:40-7:S6ain . Wa]die(D-Ca) Hogan(R-Md)
WHITE HOUSE TAPES opposes 5MB defends RMN
flay 29, 1974 :06 RMN STATEMENT
l:OO-l:OGpm -ISRAELI-SYRIAN
DISENGAGEMENT
July 2, 1974 :30 5MB ADJib~H~ TO THE
12N-12:3Opm SOVIET PEOPLE
July 3, 1974 :42 PMN ADDRESS TO NATION
7:30-8:l2pm * ON SUMMIT MEETING W/
USSR
July 25, 1974 :42 RMN ADDRESS ON July 31, 197~ Loyal :30
7:3O-8:l2pm ECONOMY 7:30-8:00~u Oppoaltion
Bentsen (N'l~x)
replis. to RMN
Aug. 8, 1974 :17 5MB RESIGNS
D:00-9:l7pin
;~ug. 9, 1974 :18 RMN FAREWELL TO
~:36-9:54pm STAFF
2otals -
~MN
1974 7:32 3:02 :05
PAGENO="0353"
:08 FORD INAUGURAL
ADDRESS
:07 FORD INTRODUCES
PRESS SEC. ter HORSY -~
:45 FORD ADDRESS JOINT Aug. 13, 1974
SESSION OF CONGRESS O:14-3:24am
:33 FORD NAMES ROCKEFELLER Aug. 21, 1974
V.P. DESIGNATE 8:38-0:56am
1974 ~cont'd)
0
Date/Time
PRESIDENTIAL Al
JANUARY 1 - E~CEMBER 31, 1974
EARANCES
Description ~
-21-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES
& REPLIES S REPLIES
OTHERS
REPLYING
Aug. 9, 1974
12: 04-12: 12pm
Aug. 9, 1974
1: OO-1:O7pm
Aup. 12, 1974
9: 30-9: 45pm
Au3. 20, 1974
10:00-10: 33pm
Aug. 28, 1974
2:3O-3:O4pm
Sept. 16, 1974
11:15-11: 3Oam
Sept. 16, 1974
R:O0-8:35pm
Sept. 18, 1974~
12~1-12 :3Rpm
Sept. 28, 1974
~2:3O-1:O3pm
TODAY
Humphrey CD-Mn)
criticizes Ford
TODAY
Rodino CD-NJ)
re Rocky con-
firmation Hrgs
:05 TODAY :05
Scott CR-Pa)
praises Ford
:08 TODAY :08
Hutchenson (R-Mich)
re Rocky con-
firmation Nrgs
:34.
:15
:35
:38
:33
FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
FORD-STATEMENT ON
AMNESTY
FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
FORD ADDRESS TO U.N.
FORD ADDRESS ECONOMIC
SUMMIT MEETING
PAGENO="0354"
1974 (cont'd) JANU~4flY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1974 -22-
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(U) APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time Date/'Pime & REPLIES B REPLIES REPLYING
Oct. 8, 1974 :50 FORD ADDRESS ON Oct. 9, 1974 TODAY :08 TODAY :08
6:23-7:l3pm ECONOMY JOINT SESSION 8:39-8:55am Proxmire(D-Wi) Percy(R-I11)
cpposes Ford supports Ford
Oct. 15, 1974 NEWS SPECIAL :30
4:00-4: 3Opm Mansfield (D-Mt)
replies to Ford
on economy
~)ct. 9, 1974 :40 FOPD NEWS CONFERENCE
:30-7:OOpm
Oct. 15, 1974 :39 FORD ADDRESS ON Oct. 22, 1974 NEWS SPECIAL :30
3:OO-8:39pm ECONOMY 7:30-S:OOpm Muskie(D-Me) C
-FUTURE FARNEr~s replies to Ford
OF AMERICA
Oct. 17, 1974 2:10 FORD APPEARANCE ?tSfORE
1O:OOain-12:lOpm CONGRESS ON RMN PARDON
Dec. 2, 1974 :43 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
7:3O-8:l3pm
1974
Ford
Jotals 9:10 1:21
PAGENO="0355"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1975 -23-
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D) APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Dcte/Time lire :Mins Description Date/Time REPLIES & REPLIES REPLYING
Jan. 13, 1975 :28 FORD SPEECH ECONOMIC Jan. 14, 1975 TODAY :13
J:OO-9:28pm PROPOSALS 7:16-7:29axn Albert(D-Okla)
opposes GRF
&
8:16-8:29am Jackson(D-Wn) :13
opposes GRF
Jan. 15, 1975 TODAY
7:18-7:29am Uda1l(D~Ariz) :11
opposes GRF
&
8:15-8:29am Ullman(D-Qr) :14
opposes GRF.
Jan. 15, 1975 1:00 FORD STATE OF UNIC~1 Jan. 16, 1973 TODAY :13
1:O0-2:OOpm ADDRESS 7:16-7:29~r Mus1~ie(D-Me)
assesses G~F
speecc
Jan. 20, 1975 NEWS SPECIAL :30
9-9:3Opm Albert(D-Okla)
replies to GRF
can. 21, 1975 :43 FORD NEWS CONFEBJMCE
~:00-2:43pm *`an. 22, 1975 TODAY :10
7:15-7: 25am Church CD-Id)
opposes Ford
Jan. 23, 1975 1:00 A CONVERSATION W/ Mar. 2, 1975 Loyal 1:00
1O:00-11:OOpm PRES. FORD 10:OO-11:OOpm Opposition
Democrats Nuskie,
Pastore, Talmadge,
Clark, Ullman,
Adams, Wright &
Zablocki present
Democratic views
PAGENO="0356"
1975 (cont'd)
JANtARY - DECEMBER 31, 1975
-24-
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Description
Mar. 6, 1975
7: 30-8:O6pm
Apr. 10, 1975
9:00-10: O6pm
nc 9, 1975 :37 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
30-8:O7pm
i~S TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES
S REPLIES S REPLIES
TODAY :10
Mansfield CD-Nt)
evaluates Ford
address
May 15, 1975 TODAY :10
Jackson (D-Wn)
critical of
Ford on Mayaguez
affair
June 10, 1975 TODAY :10
8:44-8:56am Church CD-Id)
criti~!zes Ford
on CIA
JLne 25, 1975
5:00-5: 35pm
Sept. 22, 1975
11:49-11: S4pm
Oct. 9,. 1975
8: 00-8: 3Opm
:35 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
:05 FORD STATEMENT ON
ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT
:30 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
Oct. 16, 1975 TODAY :15
8:15-8:3Oam H. Goldin(D-
NYC Controller)
opposes Ford on
& aid to NYC
8:4l-0;49am Rosenthal(D-NY) :08
opposes
Mahon (D-Tex)
agrees w/Ford on
aid to NYC
:36 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
1:06 FORD STATE OF THE WORLD Apr. 11, 1975
ADDRESS 7:46-7: 56am
~,zy 14, 1975
12:26-12:33pm
OTHERS
REt~LYING
:07 FORD STATENLNT ON
CAMBODIA/MAYAGUEZ
PAGENO="0357"
-25-
IOJAR~ 1 DECEMBER 31, 1975
1975 (cont'd)
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO_T~PBESIP~!~
(D) APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES OTHERS
1)at~fTime Hrs :Mins Descr~p~40fl Date/Time REPLIES &~REPLIES REPLYING
Oct. 19, 1975 MEET THE PRESS :30
12N-12: 3Opm Beame (D-Mayor
NYC) criticizes
Ford on aid
question to NYC
* Oct. 30, 1975 TODAY :11
7:46-7:57afl1 Beame(D-MayOr
- NYC) answers
Ford speech of
10/29
Nov. 2, 1975 MEET THE PRESS :30
12N-12:3Opm Humphrey (D-Mn)
criti~ize5 Ford
pgms.
Nov. 3, 1975 TODAY :15
8:15-B:3OaXfl Gov. Carey(D-NY)
replies to Ford on
NYC fiscal woes.
Nov. 3, 1975 * :32 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
7:31-8:O3pm
~\v. 9, 1975 1:00 MEET THE PRESS
3Csm-12: 3Cpm FORD-GUEST
PAGENO="0358"
(D) APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
& REPLIES & REPLIES REPLYING
TODAY 08
Goldin (D-NYC
Controller)
MEET THE PRESS :30
Udall (D-Ariz)
criticizes Ford
Adinin.
1 75 (cont'd) JAUUAR~' 3. !..~CEMI3ER 31 1975
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Description Date/Time
Nc,v. 26, 1975 :40 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE Nov. 21, 1975
7:30-8:lOpm 7:48-7:56am
Nov. 30, 1975
12:00-12:3Opm
-26-
~.tals 8:59
1575
L~)
5:53 ----
PAGENO="0359"
JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1976
-27-
Jan. 5, 1976
8:OO-ll:OOpin
(iO:40-].O:49pm
Jan. 19, 1976
9:03-9:52gm
:09 NBC REPORTS
-FORD APPEARS EN
EXCLUSIVE INTEF~]1~i
ON FOREIGN POLICY
:49 FORD STATE OF UNIC*N
ADDRESS
J~:i. 20, 1976 TODAY :15
7:15-7:30gm Mansfieid(D-Mt)
assesses Ford
speech as vague
Ja~i. 21, 1976 State of Union :45
9-9;45pm Address
Democratic View
Muskie (D-Me)
replies to Ford
Jan. 22, 1976 TODAY
7:44-7:56am Adams(R-Wn)
critical of
Ford budget
TODAY - :05
Fannin (R-Ariz)
supports Ford
OTHERS
REPLYING
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Mrs :Mins Descriotion
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES
Date/Time REPLIES C REPLIES
Feb. 17, 1976
8: 00-8: 37pm
July 19, 1976
1:30-2:05gm
:37 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
:35 FORD NEWS CONFE}~ENCE
:06 TODAY :06
Lynn Dir.
Office of
Budget
supports
Ford
July 22, 1976 TODAY :05
7:15-7:25am Proxmire(D-Wi)
critical of Ford
tax reform bill
PAGENO="0360"
-28--
1976 (cont'd)
JANUAR~ 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1976
- PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Descrintion
CD) APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time & REPLIES & REPLIES REPLYING
Sept. 14, 1976
8:i1-8:24axn
Oct.. 14, 1976
7: 30-8: O2pm
Nov. 3, 1976
12:13-12:3lpm
:13 TODAY -
EXCLUSIVE INTER-.
VIEW W/FORD
:32 FORD NEWS CONFERENCE
:18 FORD CONCESSION
SPEECH
(Read by Mrs. Ford)
Totals
1976
3:13
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
~ANUAIDt ~. - JANUALY 20,
~
1977
1:11
-29-
REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES
OTHERS
Date/Time
Hrs:Mins
Description
Date/Time
THE
.
& REPLIES a REPLIES
REPLYING
Jert 12,
1977
-
:53 FORD STATE OF
9:OO-9:53pm
UNION ADDRESS
.
Ui
Ford
1977
Thtals
:53
PAGENO="0361"
JAEUAI~M - J'~2 J~ 1S77 -30-
1977 (cont'd)
APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
(R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Desc~~~on Date/Time & REPLiES & REPLIES REPLYING
Mar. 24, 1977 :31 CARTER NEWS C~~E1~CE Mar. 27, 1977 Loyal 1:00
2:30-3:Olpm l:OO-2:OCpm Opposition
(R) Baker,
Packwood, Holt,
Cohen, Michel,
Vender Jagt,
du Pont IV,
Wilson, Brock,
Wright present
Repub. viewpoint.
r~)r. 14, 1977 1:00 A DAY WITH PRES.
3-9pm CARTER
-DOCUMENTARY
;~)r. 15, 1977 :37 CARTER NEWS CONFERENCE
~.O:OO-1O:37am
Apr. 17, 1977 MEET THE ,:3C
12:3O-1:OOpm PRESS
Nader
criticizes
Carter energy
program
?~r. 18, 1977 :19 CARTER TALK ON ENERGY
3 CO8:l9pm
r. 20, 1977 :33 CARTER ON ENERGY JOINT Apr. 22, 1977 TODAY :08
OO-9:33pm SESSION 8:16-8:24am Baker(R-Tn)
opposes Carter
on energy
PAGENO="0362"
JANUARY 20 - JUNE 10, 1977 - -
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE PRESIDENT
CD) APPEARANCES (R) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Uate/Time jun & REPLIES REPLYING
J~n. 20, 1977 :15 CARTER INAUGURAL
12:O4-12:l9pm ADDRESS
Feb. 2, 1977 :25 CARTER FIRESIDE Feb. 3, 1977 TODAY :10
lO:OO-1O:35pm CHAT 8:46-8:56am Brock(R-Tn)
Anderson (R-I11)
criticize Carter
"chat"
Feb. 8, 1977 :30 CARTER HEWS CONFERENCE
2:30-3:OOpm Feb. 10, 1977 TODAY :10
7:15-7:25am B. Commoner,
scientist
disagrees
w/Carter
on energy
Feb. 23, 1977 :37 CARTER HEWS CONFERENCE Feb. 24, 1977 TODAY :07
2:3O-3:O7pm 7:47-7:54am Domenici
(R-N.M.)
Laxalt
(R-Nev)
criticize
Carter economic
policies
&~r. 9, 1977 :34 CARTER NEWS CONFERENCE
lC:OO-lO:34pm
Z'~ar. 17, 1977 :30 CARTER ADDRESS AT UN
7: 30-8: OOpm
PAGENO="0363"
:37 CARTER NEWS CONFESEECE .~kpr. 24, 1977
12:30-]:3Opm
Apr. 25, 1977
/:15-7:24am
Ap~.. 29, 1977
7:17-7:3Oam
May 1, 1977
].2:30-l:OOpm
MEET THE 1:00
PRESS
Swearington,
Standard Oil
Chapin of
Amer. Motors,
Crawford of
Edison Elec.,
Bagge, Coal
Assoc.
criticize
Carter energy
proposals
TODAY :09
Percy CR-Ill)
opposes Carter
on energy
Kissinger praised
Carter
MEET THE :30
PRESS
Reagan criticizes
Carter presidency
TODAY :13
Henry~ Stanford
Research &
Commoner,
Scientists
Instit.
criticize
Carter energy
proposals
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES
Date/Time Hrs:Mins Descrip~tion
2~p::. 22, 1977
10:00-10: 37am
-32-
JANU.~RY 20 - JUNE 10, 1977
REPLIES TO ThE PRESIDENT
(D)APPEARANCES CR) APPEARANCES OTHERS
Date/Time & REPLIES S REPLIES REPLYING
PAGENO="0364"
-. ~TANUAt~ 2') - )ULiE 10, 1977
1c77 (cont'd)
* PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES REPLIES TO THE
* CD) APPEARANCES (R)APPEARANCES OTHERS
rate/Time Desc4ption &, REPLIES -~ T & REPLIES REPLYING
~yl2, 1977 :30 CARTER NEWS CONFERENCE May 17, 1977 TODAY :08
2;303:OOpm 8:16-8:24am Wilson, MIT,
B Bradshaw,
Atlantic
Richfield,
critical of
Carter energy
program
June 2, 1977 Energy: :30
8:OO-3:3Opm Another View
Danforth (fl-Mo)
Heinz III(R-Pa)
Brown (R-Ohio)
Cunningham (R-Wn)
* Reagan,Coleman
present the
* Republican view
Carter * 6:58 2:34 2:01
Totals
1/20 -
6/10/77
PAGENO="0365"
361
NETWORK
Question 1.-Over the past year how many ads were shown on your network?
How many of these ads are for food products that have a high nutritional content?
How many ads were for food products? How many of these ads were for cereal
products and candy products? How many ads were for over-the-counter drugs?
Answer 1.-During 1976, the NBC Television Network carried 73,871 commercials.
According to our records and data from and independent monitoring service (BAR),
approximately 28% were for food products, including 4% for cereals, and 2% for
candy and gum. Approximately 11% were for over-the-counter drugs.
We are unable to determine from our records how many commercials were for
food products with a "high nutritional content."
Question 2.-The statement has been made that only 2% of the 21,000 ads seen by
children in one year involve a product which has a high nutritive content. If you
disagree with this statement-what percent would you use and why?
Answer 2.-Although NBC has access to many reliable audience measurement
services, we know of no valid basis for the statement. The number of hours of
commercial television-and hence commercials-viewed by children varies signifi-
cantly, depending on factors such as their age, the city and region in which they
live, their educational level, personal preference, and of course, the decisions of
their parents.
In addition, as noted in our response to Question 1, we are unable to determine
from our records which of the food products advertised on television have "a high
nutritive content", and we do not believe that we could accurately define "high
nutritive content" in any event.
Even assuming that there were objective standards for categorizing food products
as "low" or "high" in nutritional value, we do not believe that it is proper for
broadcasters to inhibit the ability of manufacturers and distributors of lawful food
products to advertise. Our economic system encourages a free flow of information to
consumers who then are able to make their own marketplace decisions.
NBC believes that its proper role in regard to advertising is to take adequate
precautions that information conveyed to viewers is fair and accurate. With regard
to advertising directed at children, certain additional steps are taken.
As to the advertising for food (and other products) that is carried in NBC's
children's programming, NBC acts to insure that such advertising is presented in a
responsible manner and is carefully reviewed by NBC's Broadcast Standards editors
to assure that it complies with our standards and those of the National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB). Those standards take into consideration the special sensitivi-
ties of children, and, additionally, encourage advertisers meaningfully to relate
their products to a child's experiences and needs. For example, cereals are always
advertised in our children's programs only as part of a balanced breakfast. NBC's
policies toward children's advertising are more fully discussed in our response to
Question 11.
In sum, NBC believes that broadcasters should be concerned with whether adver-
tising presented is fair and accurate and should not, in general, make determina-
tions as to which products should be advertised.
Question 3.-Regarding deaf captioning, what are the ways to caption which you
are exploring? How many have you captioned? What timetable for resolving this
problem have you set for yourselves? What are your estimates of cost?
Answer 3.-NBC has devoted thought and attention to the question of improved
television service from Americans with impaired hearing. In a recent letter to
President Carter which we have enclosed, NBC outlined its efforts to date in dealing
with the problems which may be presented.
As that letter indicates, NBC has evaluated the technological feasibility of closed
captioning and has found that current technology makes it extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to use close captioning in live or film programming. In addition,
close captioning has little value in musical and comedy programs where accents,
sound effects and musical themes are used extensively. Finally, we have considered
the cost of captioning to Americans with impaired hearing, to program suppliers,
and to broadcasters, especially in light of the availability of simpler and less
expensive alternatives which may provide at least adequate television audio for
most viewers with impaired hearing.
There are additional questions yet to be fully answered, some of which are
discussed in the enclosed NBC comments in the FCC's rulemaking on this subject.
We believe this is a subject best dealt with through further consideration and
exchange of ideas. In that connection, NBC and other broadcasters will be attending
a meeting in October, 1977 called by HEW Secretary Califano to discuss closed
captioning.
PAGENO="0366"
362
MARCH 2, 1977.
THE PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to your
February 18 note asking for suggestions or how television-particularly its informa-
tion services-can be made more useful to Americans with hearing impairment, and
referring to experiments with closed captioning in this connection.
We have been trying progressively to extend the value of television to hearing-
impaired viewers, without adversely affecting its value to the total national audi-
ence we serve.
For example, our network and local news programs regularly include visual
displays of some of the material presented. Whenever practical, television news
bulletins, emergency messages and other special reports of urgent importance are
accompanied by flashcaster or other visual devices. In reporting election returns,
most of the significant information is visually displayed so that the results can
readily be followed by the deaf.
A variety of information items, such as sports results, temperature changes and
stock market prices, are shown visually. Numerical, graphic and written displays
are used in newscasts when opportunity permits. Full-face shots of newscasters are
frequently employed for the benefit of lip readers. We also use weather information
slides with generic, easily understood symbols for various weather conditions.
The overall result of these and similar efforts substantially widens television's
value for the hearing impaired, as does the extensive use of newsfilm, newstape, and
rear-screen projection, which conveys much information visually.
With regard to the matter of closed captioning, we have questions about the
effectiveness of this technique, in view of its limitations. I have been advised that it
is not practical for live or filmed programming; nor is it practical for newscasts,
because it would unduly delay the broadcast of timely news. Consequently, effective
closed captioning would not be applicable for the majority of NBC's programming,
but would pretty much be limited to pre-taped entertainment programs.
We believe that an examination of this matter must also take into account the
size of the problem-the number of hearing-impaired viewers who would require
closed captioning in order better to enjoy the limited categories of programming for
which it is applicable. An analysis based on the 1971 population indicated that
about half of the thirteen million hearing-impaired Americans had normal hearing
in one ear, and that all but 335,000 were capable of hearing television audio, if
assisted by simple amplification devices; these are currently available and offer an
inexpensive and effective solution. On this basis, it is questionable that, in fact, a
substantial market would develop for captioning attachments for home receivers,
costing the viewers $100 or more.
We have here a balance of considerations-whether the severe limitations on the
application of closed captioning to programs, the small size of the deaf population
who would require this system to enjoy the programs to which it is applicable, the
availability of other simpler and less expensive alternatives to the rest of the
hearing-impaired population-justify the establishment of closed captioning as a
system. NBC representatives will soon be meeting with staff members of the OTP to
consider these and related questions, and we intend seriously to explore all aspects
of the matter.
I have welcomed this opportunity to outline our approach to the problem referred
to in your letter.
Yours sincerely,
HERBERT S. SCHLOS5ER.
Question 4a.-How many of the network programs are prescreened by affiliates?
Answer 4a.-Over the years, NBC has prescreened increasing amounts of pro-
grams for affiliates and has provided affiliates with considerable program informa-
tion in addition to prescreening. Within the past year, NBC again significantly
increased its prescreening for affiliates and, at present, up to twenty hours of
upcoming network prime time programs are closed-circuited to affiliates each week.
Prescreening is merely the final step in NBC's overall program to insure that
programming offered to affiliates will meet necessary standards of good taste and
propriety. NBC makes extensive efforts in editing and reviewing programs and then
provides affiliates with considerable information concerning those programs in ad-
vance of the time when shows are completed and ready to be prescreened.
As a licensee of five television stations, NBC has the same broadcast responsibil-
ities as its affiliates and thus develops standards for programming which take into
account the duties and responsibilities of a broadcast licensee. NBC maintains a
PAGENO="0367"
363
Broadcast Standards Department which consists of a staff of professional program
editors. This department devotes substantial time and effort to reviewing programs
from the earliest script stages through the entire development, production and final
preparation of the program for broadcast. The Standards Department is guided by
NBC's own Broadcast Standards For Television (enclosed) as well as the code stan-
dards promulgated by the NAB. In addition, Standards editors utilize their knowl-
edge of affiliate and viewer reactions to prior presentations in evaluating whether
programs are suitable. Thus, by the time a program is ready for affiliate consider-
ation, it has received extensive scrutiny by NBC.
NBC takes additional steps to provide its affiliates with ample program informa-
tion. When programs are selected, each affiliate is given detailed information con-
cerning the general characteristics and theme of the program In many cases a
"pilot" is aired and this gives an affiliate the opportunity to learn about the
program. When possible, the first episode of every series is prescreened for affiliates
and written synopses or summaries of each series episode are given to affiliates
weeks prior to broadcast. Based on this information an affiliate can decide whether
to request a preview of any particular program episode. NBC will always grant such
a request as soon as the program has been delivered to NBC in final edited form.
As a matter of routine, certain types of programs are prescreened on a regular
basis. These include certain motion pictures, whether theatrical or made-for-televi-
sion, certain specials and series episodes that might raise certain clearance consider-
ations. The expansion in November 1976 of prescreening activity up to 20 hours a
week thus represents a natural extension of prior practices and a continued attitude
of concern by the network.
In sum, NBC and its affiliates have spent many years working together to develop
a desirable system for providing advance program information and for prescreening
when necessary or when desired by any affiliate. NBC's affiliates have recognized
this and through their Board of Delegates, have specifically commended the net-
work for its previewing policies in the following resolution:
"The Board, on behalf of all NBC Television Affiliates, commends NBC for ex-
panding its procedures for pre-screening programs to afford affiliated stations in-
creased opportunities to review network entertainment programs in advance of
broadcast. As affiliates we are appreciative of NBC's sensitivity to affiliate
responsibilities . . . We are pleased that within the limits of program production
schedules and availability of closed-circuit facilities, the new prescreening program
is to be added to network program presentations at affiliate meetings, program
descriptions circulated in advance to affiliates, conferences on individual programs
and other information exchanges with affiliates on network programming and
scheduling."
Question 4b.-How far in advance of airing do the affiliates receive the network
shows?
Answer 4b.-Under NBC's new, expanded procedures, commended by NBC's affili-
ates, programs are made available for previewing as soon as they have been re-
viewed, edited and made ready for broadcast by the network. Generally, there is
little or no lag between the date on which a program is delivered and the date on
which it is available to be prescreened to NBC's affiliates. During a sample month
earlier this year, the average first-run movie or series episode was closed-circuited
less than three days after its delivery to NBC in its final edited form.
Any practical difficulties a network has in prescreening arise primarily from the
failure of production companies to meet anticipated delivery dates. Networks them-
selves would prefer prompt and early delivery, but find it impossible to enforce a
rigid delivery requirement on producers.
The fact is that program producers are already under great pressure to meet air
dates. The program development process is intricate with frequent changes and with
pressured schedules that often run close to broadcast time. It simply is not feasible
to enforce rigid delivery deadlines on a complex production process without impair-
ing that process itself.
Further, NBC's extensive Broadcast Standards review process, discussed above,
requires flexibility in delivery schedules. Obviously, where Broadcast Standards
finds substantial acceptability problems, the anticipated production schedule may be
slowed down because changes will be required.
Sometimes changes cannot be judged necessary until a rough cut of the film is
screened, and this may require further editing. Further editing is often a creative
process itself, including consultation with the producer and reprocessing in the
laboratory-steps which are inherently time-consuming. NBC does not believe that
this careful reviewing and editing process should be sacrificed in order to enforce
delivery deadlines for the purpose of prescreening.
PAGENO="0368"
364
The fact is that stations generally do not have a time problem, after prescreening.
If they do not wish to clear a network program, stations have adequate program-
ming already on hand for broadcast from their substantial inventory of movies and
programs, any of which can substitute for a network show on extremely short
notice.
Even last minute changes in published program listings can be made in daily
newspaper listings and by short announcements on the station itself. As to schedule
changes in the primary magazine of national circulation, TV Guide is now a
computerized operation which can usually make changes relatively quickly.
Question 4c.-How often do affiliates fail to clear?
Answer 4c.-NBC's affiliates can and do freely exercise independent judgment
about the clearance of each program broadcast by NBC. NBC recognizes, of course,
that a high percentage of its program offerings is cleared by affiliates. This is
because affiliates have already made the judgment that NBC's network program-
ming is of high quality, will be of substantial interest to their viewers and is more
profitable than other types of available programs.
Nonetheless, on many occasions, many affiliates, exercising their independent
judgment based on the advance information they have received, have refused to
clear certain network programs. During a sample period, fewer than 50 of the
approximately 600 NBC primetime programs analyzed were cleared by all of NBC's
afffliates.
Many programs are not cleared by a substantial number of stations. Thus, for
example, at least 30 stations failed to clear each of the following NBC network
programs offered during the Commission's composite week for 1976: "12:55 P.M.
News" (offered Monday through Friday). "Somerset" (offered Monday through
Friday). "Tomorrow" (offered Monday through Friday). "Take My Advice" (offered
three times). "Fun Factory" (offered twice). "The Gong Show" (offered twice). "The
Campaign and the Candidates." "Grandstand." "Meet the Press." "Police Story."
"Saturday Evening News." "Sunday Evening News." "World Team Tennis."
This record shows that affiliates can and do exercise conscious choice to carry or
not to carry network programs. The following charts show the number of stations
which did not clear each NBC network program during the composite week:
Monday, June 21, 1976 -
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
7 am, "Today" 0
10 am, "Sanford and Son" (daytime) 28
10:30 am, "Celebrity Sweepstakes" 22
11 am, "Wheel of Fortune 10
11:30 am, "The Holywood Squares" 4
12 pm, "The Fun Factory 32
12:30 pm, "The Gong Show" 34
12:55 pm, "NBC Midday News" 47
1:30 pm, "Days of Our Lives" 6
2:30 pm, "The Doctors 6
3 pm, "Another World 7
4 pm, "Somerset" 41
6:30 pm, "NBC Nightly News 8
8 pm, "The Rich Little Show" 21
9 pm, "Joe Forrester" 12
10 pm, "Jigsaw John" 15
11:30 pm, "The Tonight Show" 1
1 am, "Tomorrow" 42
PAGENO="0369"
365
Tuesday, April 6, 1976
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
7 am, "Today" 0
10 am, "Celebrity Sweepstakes" 29
10:30 am, "High Rollers" 20
11 am, "Wheel of Fortune" 12
11:30 am, "The Hollywood Squares" 3
12 pm, "Magnificent Marble Machine" 29
12:30 pm, "Take My Advice" 38
12:55 pm, "NBC Midday News" 54
1:30 pm, "Days of Our Lives" 7
2:30 pm, "The Doctors" 8
3 pm, "Another World" 3
4 pm, "Somerset" 39
6:30 pm, "NBC Nightly News" 8
8 pm, "Movin' On" 12
9 pm, "Police Woman" 10
10 pm, "City of Angels" 12
11:30 pm, "NBC News Special" 3
12 am, "The Tonight Show" 2
1:30 am, "Tomorrow" 49
Wednesday, January 14, 1976
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
7 am, "Today" 0
10 am, "Celebrity Sweepstakes" 22
10:30 am, "Wheel of Fortune" 19
11:30 am, "The Hollywood Squares" 2
12 pm, "High Rollers" 23
12:30 pm, "Take My Advice" 35
12:55 pm, "NBC Midday News" 49
1:30 pm, "Days of Our Lives" 8
2:30 pm, "The Doctors 5
3 pm, "Another World" 2
4 pm, "Somerset" 43
6:30 pm, "NBC Nightly News" 16
8 pm, "Little House on Prairie" 8
9 pm, "Doctors Hospital" 19
10 pm, "Petrocelli 10
11:30 pm, "The Tonight Show" 1
1 am, "Tomorrow 49
20-122 0 - 78 - 24
PAGENO="0370"
366
Thursday, September 16, 1976
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
7 am, "Today" 0
10 am, "Sanford and Son" (daytime) 21
10:30 am, "Celebrity Sweepstakes" 21
11 am, "Wheel of Fortune 11
11:30 am, "The Hollywood Squares 4
12 pm, "The Fun Factory 40
12:30 pm, "The Gong Show" 40
12:55 pm, "NBC Midday News 49
1:30 pm, "Days of Our Lives" 6
2:30 pm, "The Doctors 8
3 pm, "Another World" 2
4 pm, "Somerset 38
6:30 pm, "NBC Nightly News 4
8 pm, "Trial by Wilderness" 20
9 pm, "NBC Thursday Night Movie" 0
11:30 pm, "The Tonight Show" 2
1 am, "Tomorrow 43
Friday, March 26, 1976
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
7 am, "Today" 0
10 am, "Celebrity Sweepstakes" 29
10:30 am, "High Rollers" 19
11 am, "Wheel of Fortune 13
11:30 am, "The Hollywood Squares" 3
12 pm, "Magnificent Marble Machine 29
12:30 pm, "Take My Advice 35
12:55 pm, "NBC Midday News" 51
1:30 pm, "Days of Our Lives" 6
2:30 pm, "The Doctors 4
3 pm, "Another World 2
4 pm, "Somerset 38
6:30 pm, "NBC Nightly News 10
8 pm, "Sanford and Son" 3
8:30 pm, "Jubilee" 2
10 pm, "Police Story 42
11:30 pm, "The Tonight Show" 1
1 am, "The Midnight Special" 19
Saturday, July 10, 1976
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
8 am, "Emergency + 4 17
8:30 am, "Josie and The Pussycats 21
9 am, "Secret Lives of Waldo Kitty" 7
9:30 am, "The Pink Panther 7
10 am, "Land of the Lost 3
10:30 am, "Run Joe Run 7
11 am, "Return to the Planet of the Apes" 5
11:30 am, "Westwind 8
12 pm, "The Jetsons 28
12:30 pm, "Go-USA" 24
2 pm, "Major League Baseball" 15
6:30 pm, "NBC Saturday Night News" 48
8 pm, "Emergency!" 1
9 pm, "NBC Saturday Night Movie" 8
11:30 pm, "World Team Tennis" 50
PAGENO="0371"
367
Sunday, October 3, 1976
Number
of stations
Time and program: not clearing
12 pm, "Meet the Press" 40
12:30 pm, "Grandstand" 30
1 pm, "National Football League Games" 0
6 pm, "Campaign and the Candidates" 68
6:30 pm, "NBC Sunday Night News" 80
7 pm, "Wonderful World of Disney" 2
8 pm, "The Big Event" 2
9:30 pm, "Sunday Myster,r Movie" 2
10 55 pm Paid Political 7
When stations refuse to clear, they do so for a variety of reasons, and program
content is not always the reason. In some cases a station may choose to program a
syndicated program or a movie because it believes it would be more profitable or
otherwise more attractive than the network program. In other instances an affiliate
may refuse to clear a network program in order to broadcast, among other things,
regional or local sports events or a special news program of interest in the local
area
In sum, although NBC's affiliates* do choose to clear a high percentage of the
programs offered by NBC, it is clear that this choice is the result of independent
judgment exercised by each station
Question 4d.- Please elaborate on the nature of the influence exerted on you by
your affiliates in the area of programming.
Answer 4d.-Affihiate influence on network programming decisions is an integral
part of the network-affiliate relationship. Stations and networks share an interest in
presenting the most popular and appropriate programs and it is the stations with
firsthand knowledge of their local markets, that have final authority over what
programs will be telecast.
Networks, of course, must make initial decisions regarding program selection, but
those decisions are based on what the network believes the national audience-the
combined audience of all affiliates-will want to watch. As noted, as soon as initial
decisions are made, and occasionally before, stations are provided with detailed
information on the programs that are to be made available. This is done both
formally and informally. Additionally, after the network schedule has been assem-
bled, previews of new programs are screened at affiliate meetings and many more
are subseqently prescreened. Stations do not hesitate to say what they think about
either programming decisions or about the way program information is communi-
cated by NBC.
Although affiliates generally agree with the network concerning the desirability
of its offerings, this is not always the case. Certain programs proposed by NBC are
greeted with negative reaction from a sufficient number of affiliates so that NBC
does not go ahead with plans to offer them or must cancel them once they have
been put into the schedule. Others go on the air with the minimum necessary
affiliate support and grow in popularity as other stations later exercise their judg-
ments to broadcast them. And even as to programs that are established parts of the
NBC schedule, as shown in our response to Question 4(c), many stations choose not
to clear.
Twice recently, NBC has dropped plans to provide programs because affiliates
indicated that they did not desire such programs. Last year, NBC considered offer-
ing affiliates an additional one-half hour of evening news each weekday but aban-
doned the plan because of a lack of affiliate support. On October 21, 1976, NBC
announced publicly that it would not expand evening news in disregard of its
affiliates' wishes:
"We do not propose to take this step (expanding evening news), which is now so
strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of our affiliates. Instead, NBC News
is looking to other ways of enhancing news leadership and further improving on its
service to the public."
"So far as the specific step of expanding `NBC Nightly News' is concerned, there
are many conflicting considerations. These may change or be resolved in time, but
we do not propose to resolve them by overriding the almost universal opposition of
the stations we serve."
The NBC-TV Affiliate Board of Delegates passed a resolution at its November
1976 meeting commending NBC for its consideration of the views of its affiliates:
PAGENO="0372"
368
"The NBC-TV Affiliate Board of Delegates commends NBC on taking the leader-
ship in deciding to drop consideration of expanding its `Nightly News'. The Board
fully appreciates the value of added news service and is aware of the constant need
for cooperative planning in the network and local news and information services
provided the public. However, we share the view of the great majority of television
affiliates that expansion of `NBC Nightly News' in a time period programmed by
affiliated stations would only have resulted in reduced local news programming, or
certainly would have so negatively affected revenue bases that some local live or
public service programming would have been impaired. The Board of Delegates
congratulates NBC on its awareness of these problems, its consideration for the
affiliate position and its prompt and decisive action on the matter."
More recently, NBC considered placing its Weekend news magazine program on a
regular basis at 6:00 P.M. on Sunday. Again, negative affiliate comments were
received, and on April 28, 1977, NBC announced that it would not offer the program
regularly in that time period.
In other situations, certain network programs are initially offered with only a
minimum number of affiliates agreeing to clear them. Some never garner additional
support; hence they never gain sufficient audience exposure to justify keeping them
in the schedule. Other programs demonstrate their attractiveness as compared to
other available programming and are later picked up by additional stations. This
has been the case particularly with innovative programming such as "Tomorrow"
and "Saturday Night" as the following data show:
Growth of station lineup for tomorrow
No. of stations
Date: clearing
October 1973 157
October 1975 160
February 1976 164
June 1976 169
November 1976 170
March 1977 172
Growth of station lineup for Saturday night
No. of stations
Date: clearing
October 1975 153
January 1976 154
May 1976 160
July 1976 172
September 1976 175
November 1976 191
March 1977 194
As to programs of this type, again the decisions of an increasing number of
affiliates to clear is significant to the program's ability to succeed.
Question 5.-Mr. Howard, you indicated that some of your sports coverage has lost
money. Did you anticipate that prior to deciding to carry the event? (If so, why are
you so generous?)
Answer 5. NBC schedules sports events as part of its overall service to the public.
Both affiliates and the public have come to expect to see certain events without
charge on television, and only the television networks have the ability to provide
such programming-without charge-even though the financial return to the net-
work may not always be favorable.
In some cases, sports programs carried by NBC do not generate sufficient adveris-
ing revenue to cover the license fees and other expenses associated with network
television coverage. License fees for certain sports events have escalated dramatical-
ly in recent years and in those cases, the network is unable to make a profit on
certain events. At the same time, of course, many other sports events are profitable.
In addition, there are occasions when the network covers an event with the hope
that initially small audience interest will increase, so that eventually large enough
audiences will be generated to permit full recoupment of network costs. For several
years, for example, NBC carried National Hockey League games with the hope that
the sport would become popular on a national basis. This expectation was not
fulfilled and hockey is now carried on a regional or local basis.
PAGENO="0373"
369
In short, NBC tries to provide a full schedule of popular sports events as part of
its overall service to the public, irrespective of the ultimate profitability of any
single event.
Question 6.-The amount of network produced programming has increased and
predominates prime time. Do you consider this to be a positive trend? Why? (8 till
11 pm-100 percent network.)
Answer 6.-The assumption on which this question is based-that the network
produced programming "has increased and predominates prime time"-simply is
wrong. The vast majority of prime time programming is produced and owned, not by
the networks, but by outside suppliers, chiefly Hollywood film studios. The net-
works, in a continuing effort to provide complete and balanced program schedules
appealing to changing public tastes throughout the country, pay the outside suppli-
ers large sums for the development and production of these programs. Although the
risk of program failure is borne by the networks, by FCC regulations the networks
cannot share in the profits of such producers, or have any financial interest in a
program's subsequent off-network use on individual stations when the network run
is completed.
For many years, only a small percentage of prime time entertainment program-
ming has been network produced and the amount has been decreasing, not increas-
ing. Thus, during the 1955-56 television season, NBC-produced programs constitut-
ed about 19 percent of the prime time entertainment programs in the NBC sched-
ule. By the 1965-66 season, the percentage had dropped to only about 4.3 percent.
At present, NBC's prime time schedule contains only one series "Little House on
the Prairie" that is network produced. Clearly, network produced programming
neither has been increasing nor has it ever come even remotely close to "predomi-
nating" prime time.
As noted above, it is primarily the major Hollywood studios that produce and own
the vast majority of prime time entertainment programs. Nonetheless, it is the
networks that are responsible for satisfying changing public tastes by offering a
complete and balanced schedule to affiliated stations. While the studios can special-
ize in one or a few types of programs, networks must be cognizant of, and respond
to, a broad spectrum of programming needs.
In order to achieve this scheduling aim, the network.s pay the Hollywood studios
and other producers large sums of money to develop many diverse ideas into
potential programs. Most projects paid for by the networks bear no fruit, and the
networks must bear the cost of these failures.
Program development is a winnowing process with the networks paying at virtu-
ally every step. In any year, thousands of program ideas will be submitted to NBC
by individuals and companies, large and small. On the average, approximately 150
ideas will be chosen for further development. For these, pilot scripts will be ordered
at network expense. Scripts generally will cost between approximately $25,000 and
$40,000, depending in part on the length of the program.
Only a small percentage of these scripts paid for by the network-generally less
than 30 percent-will show sufficient potential for further development. After eval-
uation, NBC will choose approximately 35 to 40 scripts and will order and pay for
their production as "pilots." We estimate that pilots for the 1977-78 season will
average $296,000 for a half-hour pilot, $560,000 for an hour, and over a million
dollars for a two-hour pilot. The total cost of NBC pilots is very high, exceeding $20
million per year. Although most pilots are telecast and sponsored, the cost to the
network is never recouped. NBC failed to recoup $13 million on pilots between 1973
and 1976.
Of the pilots produced, perhaps a third will make it to the network schedule as a
series, either in the fall or later as a replacement for a series that failed. And, of
course, making the schedule does not mean public acceptance. Only about one
program in five will succeed sufficiently to be returned for a second season, and
during the course of a season, programs in half of the hours scheduled by the three
networks may change.
Once a program has been included in the network schedule, the network must
continue to pay large sums for the broadcast license, whether or not the program is
successful. For the 1977-78 season we estimate that two showings of an average
half-hour program will cost NBC $172,000 per episode; an hour program $386,000;
and a made-for-television movie $892,000. The rates which the studios receive
become higher, year after year, if a program is successful on the network schedule.
Moreover, most increases in labor costs are passed on to the networks.
In short, networks finance the studios' programming endeavors, from the time a
program is little more than an idea through the end of the network run.
Once the network run is concluded, the program still provides considerable finan-
cial benefit to the producer. The studio or other producer that owns such a program
PAGENO="0374"
370
is free to take the accumulated episodes, already paid for by the networks, and to
license them again to stations all over the country based on the national audience
appeal made possible by the network telecast. This process-program "syndica-
tion"-generates enormous revenues for the outside suppliers. To cite an example, it
recently has been reported that one station alone has agreed to pay more than
$35,000 for broadcast rights to each of the many series episodes owned by the
producer of a popular show. Under FCC rules, the networks are forbidden to share
in any of the revenues from syndication.
Although program development by the networks, utilizing and paying outside
suppliers, is an extremely expensive process, NBC considers it an effective way to
provide stations with a full and balanced schedule of the highest quality programs.
No individual studio or program producer is willing or able to provide the number
and diversity of programs necessary to respond to changing public taste. Moreover,
no individual producer is willing to make the expenditures for news programs and
coverage of national events that the networks make. No individual station or group
of stations could pay as much for developing programs for local audiences as a
network pays for development of a national program schedule designed to appeal to
audiences in every locale.
What woud the result be if stations were deprived of the right to choose to
broadcast as much network prime time programming as viewers now receive? The
experience of broadcasters under the FCC's Prime Time Access Rule provides the
answer. When stations were limited in the number of hours of network programs
they could telecast, low budget game shows and nature films were the predominant
form of programming carried by many stations. This fact was recognized by the
FCC, and as a result the rule was amended to allow stations to carry certain
network news, documentary and children's programs.
In sum, network produced program thus do not dominate prime time, as the
question suggests. It is Hollywood studios that produce the network programs; the
stations that choose to carry, or not carry, network programs; and viewers all across
the country whose tastes dictate which programs and program types will be devel-
oped and offered by the networks.
VIOLENCE
Question 7.-Judging by your statements, the networks have the problem of
violence well under control. Yet recently Mr. David Rintels, President of Writers
Guild, West stated: "There is far too much violence on television. I deplore it. It is
frequently gratuitous and most people of good will can readily agree that even in
the face of incothplete evidence, it is harmful to children." "There is as much
violence on television as broadcasters want, no more, no less. They see it used on
television as a cheap and easy substitute for the meaningful forms of confrontation.
Given free choice (writers) would rather write about the human intellectual and
moral concerns we all have, rather than solve problems with kicks, guns and
punches." Please comment.; -
Answer 7.-NBC disagrees with Mr. .Rintels' analysis. NBC's Broadcast Standards
for Television make clear that the depiction of violence in NBC programs must be
narrowly circumscribed. Consistent with this policy, violence on NBC programs has
been reduced.
All programs shown on NBC must comply with NBC's published standards and, if
original productions, will have been carefully reviewed by NBC's professional staff
of Broadcast Standards editors at every step in the creative process. NBC's Broad-
cast Standards for Television is explicit regarding violence: "NBC recognizes its
responsibility to the public with respect to the depiction of violence-the intentional
infliction of physical harm by one person upon another. In all cases, such depictions
must be necessary to the development of theme, plot or characterization. They may
not be used to stimulate the audience or to invite imitation. Violence may not be
shown or offered as an acceptable solution to human problems."
This standard is strictly enforced. If a program can be revised to comply, it will be
rewritten and re-edited to whatever extent is necessary. If it cannot be revised to
meet NBC's standards, it will not be presented by NBC.
Many program suppliers have recognized, as the attached' cover story from TV
Guide indicates, that violent programming on the networks stemming from produc-
er and writer offerings has been reduced as the result of network insistence. Some
producers even express concern that the networks may have been too zealous in
accomplishing this reduction. NBC, without dispute, has reduced substantially the
number of "hard action" programs in its 1977-78 schedule.
`The article was not reproducible, see TV Guide for Aug. 27-Sept. 2, 1976.
PAGENO="0375"
371
Clearly, the problem of violence on television is of concern to NBC and we have
attempted to be responsive to the concerns that have been expressed.
Question 8.-Do you have any specific legislative proposals for dealing with the
subject of pay cable?
Answer 8.-NBC believes that there are two issues involving cable television that
should be of Congressional concern.
First, and specifically in regard to pay cable, NBC believes that there is a danger
that in coming years, sports events, now available without charge to a national
television audience, will be accessible only to those homes that are wired and are
able to pay for cable service. As pay television grows, there will be an increasing
likelihood that, event by event, broadcasters, particularly at the local level, can be
outbid. As a result, the majority of Americans in local communities will be denied
access to popular sports events which they now enjoy without fee.
Second, existing FCC rules regarding cable's importation of distant broadcast
signals serve a necessary end. Cable has the ability to appropriate programs pre-
sented in one market for retransmission to a distant market. The FCC rules limit
the number of distant signals of stations of various types that cable may import and
prevent the carriage of programming already provided by local broadcasters.
Cable has been permitted the unique advantage of being able to appropriate
programs presented in one market and then to retransmit them to a distant market
with only minimal rights payments to the owners of such programs, which are, in
most cases, independent production companies and the major film studios. Local
broadcasters, on the other hand, which must compete against these imported pro-
grams, do not enjoy similar copyright benefits and must pay much higher amounts
to copyright owners.
This inequity is most unfair given the fact that imported programs, particularly
when shown during periods when local stations carry news or public affairs pro-
grams, tend to fragment local audiences and thus diminish advertiser support for
local programs. While the FCC's rules are not perfect, they do alleviate some of the
inequity to which local broadcasters are subjected vis-a-vis cable.
In any event, the FCC is currently conducting an inquiry into the economic
impact of cable on local markets and thus will be in a position to evaluate what, if
anything, is required to protect the public interest.
CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING
Question 9.-At a recent National Symposium on Children's Television at Howard
University, David Rintels, President of Writer's Guild stated: "Writers, actors, and
directors will provide better children's programming if the networks give us the
opportunity. We can give you, because we want to give you, children's drama,
comedy, puppet shows, ballet, music, history, art programs designed positively to
entertain and educate children-not programs designed negatively * *
Would you please comment on Mr. Rintels' statement.
Answer 9.-NBC strongly disagrees with Mr. Rintels' suggestions that our chil-
dren's programs are "designed negatively". In fact, we are at a loss to understand
his criticism since, in the main, the writers, actors and directors that he alludes to
are the ones that currently provide the vast majority of the children's programs
which NBC presents.
The simple fact is that NBC constantly attempts to make its children's programs
interesting, entertaining, relevant and educational and does not ignore such pro-
gram forms as children's drama, comedy, puppet shows, ballet, music, history, and
art programs.
For example, NBC is presenting for the first time this season "Junior Hall of
Fame," a series of 90-second features which salute the positive achievements of
various young people. Also, on Saturday morning NBC is presenting "I Am the
Greatest: The Adventures of Muhammad Ali," an animated series about the boxing
champion. One of the program's themes will be that the best way to solve life's
problems is not through violence. Other programs and series will also stress pro-
social values.
NBC's children's programming is not restricted to Saturday morning. We are
continuing this season our presentation of the "Special Treat" afternoon specials
which have been honored by Action in Children's Television, The Christophers and
the Television Academy of Arts and Sciences, and recommended by the National
Education Association.
"Special Treat" is, in fact, much more than an entertainment series. Teachers in
selected communities across the country will continue to receive guides, such as the
enclosed guide for last season, and will be able to discuss the issues raised in the
programs with students and their parents.
PAGENO="0376"
372
Through the years NBC has presented such significant children's drama as:
"Robin Hood," "The Red Pony," "Alice in Wonderland," "Hans Brinker," "20,000
Leagues Under the Sea," "Heidi, "Great Expectations," "Robinson Crusoe,"
"Scrooge," "Red Badge of Courage," "A Girl Named Sooner," "Peter Pan," just to
name a few.
Examples of cultural programs designed for children include such examples as
"The Special Treat" presentation on music, "Soul and Symphony", and on ballet,
"Little Women", to name a few. We have presented programs of historical interest
such as "NBC Celebrates America" and "Go-U.S.A." and both as a regular series
and specials, the "Go" program, and instructional/educational series designed to
give children first hand experience of various events through the use of new mobile
tape television equipment.
NBC's programming thus is clearly the product of creativity and sensitivity to our
special responsibility to children. That sensitivity is reflected in NBC's Broadcast
Standards for Television which sets the following standards for all of NBC's chil-
dren's programming:
Children
NBC recognizes its special responsibility to young people. The NBC Program
Department, subject to review by the Broadcast Standards Department, requires
that producers be sensitive to their special needs. There is an obligation to present
positive and pro-social material and to avoid material that would have an adverse
effect on a child's behavior and intellectual and emotional development.
Producers of programs designed for children are directed to avoid: a. placing
children in situations that provoke excessive or prolonged anxiety; b. content that
may give children a false and derogatory image of any ethnic, social or religious
group, including their own; c. depictions of unlawful activities or acts of violence
that glamorize such acts or make them appear to be an acceptable solution to
human problems; d. depicting violence in a manner that invites imitation.
Producers of programs designed for children are encouraged to portray unlawful
and anti-social activities as undesirable.
NBC is aware that children may watch television programs that are primarily
designed for adult audiences in later time periods. Accordingly, as set forth in
Program Section, Page 13, NBC will, where appropriate, present advisories to alert
parents and other adults that they should exercise discretion in what they permit
children in their homes to view."
NBC adheres not only to its own standards, but also seeks outside guidance on
ways to improve its programming. For example, NBC has created a Saturday
Morning Social Science Advisory Panel composed of social and developmental psy-
chologists and communications experts. For the last two seasons the Panel has
reviewed NBC's procedures and policies, as well as many of NBC's programs. The
Panel also has provided advice on such subjects as children's sensitivity to televi-
sion, proper handling of violence and appropriate inclusion of pro-social messages.
Question 10.-Should there be more public service advertisements directed toward
children?
Answer 10.-NBC believes that public service announcements ("PSA's") have a
role in children's programming. Each month, on Saturday mornings, NBC allocates
more than 50 positions for PSA's. PSA's come from a variety of sources and cover
such subjects as nutrition, energy conservation, pollution, smoking, social behavior,
physical fitness, and use of money. Our nutrition PSA's, for example, urge children
to pay particular attention to good eating habits.
NBC does not believe, however, that the number of PSA's for children at any
given period is as important as a broadcaster's overall children's presentations. NBC
believes that the proper question is not whether there should be more or less public
service announcements, but what kind of material, generally, should be presented
on television for children.
The programming presented by NBC, whether PSA's or entertainment, is careful-
ly designed with our special responsibility to children in mind. For example, NBC
takes great care in insuring that all advertising for children takes into account the
special sensitivities of children. In addition, NBC encourages advertisers to mean-
ingfully relate their products to a child's experiences and needs. As our response to
Question 9 shows, NBC also had exerted great effort in providing high quality and
innovative entertainment programming for children. PSA's simply are one part of
the overall schedule of children's programs which NBC provides.
Question 11.-Substantial amounts of money are spent each year on advertising
directed at children. Clearly, children are viewed as consumers. Parents cannot
assume the entire burden of controlling this situation. What have the networks
PAGENO="0377"
373
done to create positive advertising to help the child become an enlightened consum-
er?
Answer 11.-NBC, individually and through the National Association of Broad-
casters, works to assure that advertising in children's programs will be informative
in a positive and useful way.
This approach is reflected in the preamble to the NAB's Children's Television
Advertising Guidelines.
"* * * [B]roadcasters believe that advertising or products or services normally
used by children can serve to inform children not only of the attributes of products!
services but also of many aspects of the society and world in which they live.
Everyone involved in the creation, production and presentation of such advertising
to children has a responsibility to assure that such material avoids being exploitive
of or inappropriate to a child's still developing cognitive abilities and sense of
value."
The Guidelines, copies of which are enclosed, outline fully the kind of information
which should be included in commercials as well as advertising techniques that are
considered inappropriate. For example:
"The disclosure of information on the characteristics and functional aspects of a
product!service is strongly encouraged. This includes, where applicable, relevant
ingredient and nutritional information. In order to reduce the possibility of mis-
impressions being created, all such information shall be presented in a straightfor-
ward manner devoid of language or production techniques which may exaggerate or
distOrt the characteristics or functions of the product."
On the other hand, advertising which would not be permissible includes:
"Appeals which directly or by implication content that if children have a product
they are better than their peers or lacking it will not be accepted by their peers."
"Oversimplification or minimization of price."
NBC believes that adherence to the NAB Guidelines contributes to the education
of children as consumers. Additionally, however, we believe that it is possible to
provide direct practical guidance to children, independent of sales messages. This is
done in progamming, as well as in public service announcements. Attached, for
example, are PSA scripts from the Council of Better Business Bureaus covering
such subjects as misleading advertising, counting your change, savings, and proper
use of money.
Question 12.-How many advertising minutes per hour are there during the hours
when children are the predominant audience?
Answer 12.-Under the NAB code, to which NBC subscribes, a maximum of 9½
minutes of non-program material may be included each hour on Saturday mornings.
Non-program material includes not only commercials, but also such elements as
billboards identifying advertisers, and promotional announcements for other pro-
grams. The 9½-minute children's maximum compares with the 16-minute norm for
daytime programming.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY,
1150 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., May 27, 1977.
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Senate Communications Subcommittee, 223 Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Transmitted herewith are certain materials either request-
ed or discussed during the testimony of Everett H. Erlick, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. before the Subcommit-
tee on Communications on M~ 9, 1977.
During the course of the hearing conducted that day, each of the network officials
appearing were asked to supply documentation of the television appearances of the
Presidents from January 20, 1969 to the present. It is our understanding that the
request also contemplated a listing of programming devoted to the presentation of
the views of the opposition party Congressional leadership during this same period.
Attachments 1-3 hereto provide this requested information.
During his testimony, Mr. Erlick also made reference to and agreed to supply a
paper entitled "The `Freeness' of Television" prepared for the National Association
of Broadcasters by Robert A. Nathan Associates in 1973. This paper, which NAB
submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly in
1975, is attached hereto as Attachment 4.
A further subject that received attention during the May 9 hearing concerned the
"captioning" of television programming to aid the hearing impaired. In that connec-
PAGENO="0378"
374
tion and to supplement the record, we are also forwarding, as Attachment 5, a copy
of a letter dated March 4, 1977 from Frederick S. Pierce, President of ABC Televi-
sion, to President Carter, setting forth ABC's views on this important matter.
Finally, during the hearing Mr. Erlick responded to a question by referring to a
bill, S.. 2283 of the 93rd Congress, which was introduced by Senator Beall on July 30,
1973. To complete the record we are also enclosing a copy of that bill, marked as
Attachment 6.1
Should there be any questions, please feel free to be in touch with me.
With warm regard,
Sincerely,
EUGENE S. COWEN,
Vice President.
Enclosure.
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES AND NEWS CONFERENCES-ABC TELEVISION NETWORK-
JANUARY 20, 1969-MAY 12, 1977
1. January 27, 1969 (11-11:30 a.m.) RMN-news conference. 2. February 6, 1969
(11-11:34 a.m.) RMN-news conference. 3. March 4, 1969 (9-10:00 p.m.) RMN-news
conference. 4. March 14, 1969 (12-12:32 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 5. April 18,
1969 (11:30-12:03 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 6. May 14, 1969 (9:55-10:25 p.m.)
RMN-address on Vietnam. 7. June 4, 1969 (11:42-12:30 p.m.) RMN-address at Air
Force Academy. 8. June 19, 1969 (7-7:34 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 9. August 8,
1969 (10-11:00 p.m.) RMN-speech on welfare. 10. September 18, 1969 (11:21-12
noon) RMN-address to U.N. Assembly.
11. September 26, 1969 (12-12:32 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 12. November 3,
1969 (9:30-10:30 p.m.) RMN-address on Vietnam. 13. December 15, 1969 (6-6:13
p.m.) RMN-announces troop withdrawals. 14. December 8, 1969 (9-9:32 p.m.)
RMN-news conference. 15. January 22, 1970 (12:30-2 p.m.) RMN-State of the
Union. 16. January 26, 1970 (9-9:12 p.m.) RMN-statement on HEW bill. 17. Janu-
ary 30, 1970 (6:30-7 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 18. March 23, 1970 (2:15-2:24
p.m.) RMN-statement on postal strike. 19. April 20, 1970 (9-9:17 p.m.) RMN-
address on Vietnam. 20. April 30, 1970 (9-9:36 p.m.) RMN-address on Cambodia.
21. May 8, 1970 (10-10:59 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 22. June 3, 1970 (9-9:19
p.m.) RMN-address on Indochina. 23. June 17, 1970 (12-12:31 p.m.) RMN-address
on economy. 24. July 1, 1970 (10-11 p.m.) RMN-conversation with the President.
25. July 30, 1970 (11-11:36 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 26. September 16, 1970 (1-2
p.m.) RMN-at Kansas State University. 27. October 7, 1970 (9-9:26 p.m.) RMN-
address on Vietnam. 28. October 23, 1970 (3:55-4:30 p.m.) RMN-address at UN. 29.
December 10, 1970 (7-7:37 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 30. January 4, 1971 (9-10
p.m.) RMN-conversation with the President.
31. January 22, 1971 (9-10 p.m.) RMN-State of the Union. 32. March 4, 1971
(9-9:31 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 33. March 22, 1971 (9:30-10:30 p.m.) RMN-
White House conversation. 34. April 7, 1971 (9-9:23 p.m.) RMN-speech on troop
withdrawals. 35. April 29, 1971 (9-9:34 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 36. May 20,
1971 (12-12:07 p.m.) RMN-statement on arms limitation. 37. June 1, 1971 (8:30-9:02
p.m.) RMN-news conference. 38. July 15, 1971 (10:30-10:40 p.m.) RMN-announce-
ment of China trip. 39. August 15, 1971 (9-9:42 p.m.) RMN-announcement of Phase
I. 40. September 9, 1971 (12:30-1:09 p.m.) RMN-address to Joint Session of Congress
on Economics.
41. October 7, 1971 (7:30-8 p.m.) RMN-announcement of Phase II. 42. October 21,
1971 (7:30-7:47 p.m.) RMN-announcement of Supreme Court Appointments. 43.
November 12, 1971 (4:30-4:33 p.m.) RMN-announce troop withdrawals. 44. January
20, 1972 (12:30-1:30 p.m.) RMN-State of the Union. 45. January 25, 1972 (8:30-9
p.m.) RMN-major foreign policy statement. 46. March 16, 1972 (10:00-10:18 p.m.)
RMN-statement on busing. 47. April 26, 1972 (10-10:19 p.m.) RMN-address on
foreign policy. 48. May 8, 1972 (9-9:30 p.m.) RMN-Vietnam Blockade. 49. June 1,
1972 (9:30-10:15 p.m.) RMN-address to Congress. (return from USSR). 50. June 29,
1972 (9-9:45 p.m.) RMN-news conference.
51. January 23, 1973 (10-10:12 p.m.) RMN-address on Vietnam. 52. March 29,
1973 (9-9:22 p.m.) RMN-address-the end of United States involvement in Vietnam
and the economic situation in the U.S. 53. April 17, 1973 (4:46-4:48 p.m.) RMN-
news conference re: Watergate. 54. April 30, 1973 (9-9:36 p.m.) RMN-address
regarding the Watergate affair. 55. June 13, 1973 (8:30-8:49 p.m.) RMN-address on
the economy. 56. August 15, 1973 (9-9:38 p.m.) RMN-statement on Watergate. 57.
iThe bill was not reproducible.
4
PAGENO="0379"
375
August 22, 1973 (2:30-3:30 p.m.) RMN-news conference from San Clemente. 58.
September 5, 1973 (3-3:42 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 59. October 12, 1973 (9-10
p.m.) RMN-selects a Vice-President. 60. October 26, 1973 (7-7:46 p.m.) RMN-news
conference.
61. November 7, 1973 (7:30-8 p.m.) RMN-statement on the energy crisis. 62.
November 17, 1973 (7-8:04 p.m.) RMN-press conference in Orlando, Florida, for
managing editors of AP subscriber. 63. November 25, 1973 (7-7:16 p.m.) RMN-
statement on energy crisis. 64. January 17, 1974 (3-3:08 p.m.) RMN-statement on
Mid-East Agreement. 65. January 30, 1974 (9-10 p.m.) RMN-State of the Union. 66.
February 25, 1974 (7:30-8:09 p.m.) RMN-news conference. 67. March 6, 1974
(7:30-8:10 p.m.) RMN-press conference. 68. March 15, 1974 (2-3:12 p.m.) RMN-
appearance before the executive club of Chicago. 69. March 19, 1974 (8-9:05 p.m.)
RMN-news conference at the NAB Convention in Houston. 70. April 29, 1974
(9-9:41 p.m.) RMN-address re: release of Watergate related transcripts of tapes.
71. July 2, 1974 (12 noon-12:3O p.m.) RMN-addresses the United States and
Russia on Soviet Television. 72. July 3, 1974 (7:30-8:12 p.m.) RMN-speech from
Loring Air Force Base in Maine. 73. July 25, 1974 (7:30-8:09 p.m.) RMN-Address
regarding the Economy. 74. August 8, 1974 (7:30-11 p.m.) RMN-resignation speech
and special programming. 75. August 8, 1974 (11:30 p.m.-2 a.m.) Special Program-
ming on President Nixon's resignation. 76. August 9, 1974 (9 a.m.-12:3O p.m.)
Former President Nixon's farewell speech and departure from the White House plus
Gerald Ford's swearing in ceremony as the new President. 77. August 12, 1974 (9-10
p.m.) President Ford's address to the Joint Committee session of Congress. 78.
August 19, 1974 (12:30-1:09 p.m.) President Ford addressing the V.F.W. in Chicago.
79. August 20, 1974 (10-10:30 a.m.) President Ford announces his choice of Nelson
Rockefeller as Vice President. 80. August 28, 1974 (2:30-3:01 p.m.) President Ford-
news conference.
81. September 8, 1974 (11:24-11:25 a.m.) President Ford announces full pardon for
Nixon. 82. September 16, 1974 (8-8:38 p.m.) President Ford-news conference. 83.
September 18, 1974 (12 noon-i2:39 p.m.) President Ford addresses the United Na-
tions. 84. September 27, 1974 (9:05-9:17 a.m.) President Ford addresses the economic
summit conference. 85. October 8, 1974 (4-5 p.m.) President Ford's address on the
economy. 86. October 9, 1974 (2:30-3:06 p.m.) President Ford's press conference. 87.
October 15, 1974 (8-8:40 p.m.) President Ford's address to the Future Farmers of
America. 88. December 2, 1974 (7:30-8:13 p.m.) President Ford press conference and
addresses regarding the S.A.L.T. talks and the economy. 89. January 13, 1975 (9-9:25
p.m.) President Ford's Economic Address. 90. January 15, 1975 (1-2:04 p.m.) Presi-
dent Ford's State of the Union Address.
91. January 21, 1975 (2-2:45 p.m.) President Ford news conference. 92. March 6,
1975 (7:30-8:06 p.m.) President Ford press conference. 93. April 3, 1975 (3-3:46 p.m.)
President Ford news conference. 94. April 10, 1975 (9-10:15 p.m.) President Ford's
State of the World Address before a joint session of Congress. 95. May 6, 1975
(7:30-8:09 p.m.) President Ford's news conference. 96. May 14, 1975 (12:25-12:30 a.m.)
President Ford announces that Marines have boarded the Mayaguez and have
landed on the island of Koh Tang for the purpose of rescuing the crew and the ship.
97. May 27, 1975 (8:30-8:45 p.m.) President Ford addresses the nation regarding his
energy proposals and the response of Congress to them. 98. June 9, 1975 (7:30-8:04
p.m.) President Ford news conference. 99. June 25, 1975 (5-5:31 p.m.) President Ford
news conference. 100. October 6, 1975 (8-8:20 p.m.) President Ford's speech re: the
proposed tax bill and the economy.
101. November 3, 1975 (7:30-8:07 p.m.) President Ford press conference. 102.
November 26, 1975 (7:30-8:10 p.m.) President Ford news conference. 103. November
28, 1975 (4:23-4:27 p.m.) President Ford's announcement of Supreme Court Justice
Stevens to replace retired Justice William 0. Douglas. 104. January 19, 1976
(9-10:02 p.m.) Coverage of President Ford's State of the Union Address. 105. Febru-
ary 17, 1976 (8-8:36 p.m.) Coverage of President Ford's news conference where he
announced the creation of the reorganization of the U.S. Intelligence Agency, saying
that he was appointing a new committee with George Bush, Director of the CIA, as
chairman. 106. November 3, 1976 (12:13-12:28 p.m.) Ford's concession with Betty
Ford reading telegram sent to Carter and Charles Gibson voicing over, Ford's
shaking hands with person in White House Press studio. 107. November 3, 1976
(3:28-3:34 p.m.) Carter's Speech-President-elect Carter responding to President
Ford's telegram and announcing he will have a news conference later this week.
108. November 4, 1976 (7:30-8 p.m.) Carter's press conference. 109. December 3, 1976
(2:30-3:12 p.m.) Carter's Press Conference President-elect Carter names two more
members of his cabinet. 110. December 4, 1976 (2:30-3:01 p.m.) Carter's Press Confer-
ence President-elect Carter names two more top level appointments.
PAGENO="0380"
376
111. December 14, 1976 (2:30-3:13 p.m.) Carter's Press News Conference. Presi-
dent-elect Carter names two more members of his cabinet. 112. December 20, 1976
(11:30-12 noon) Carter's Press Conference President-elect Carter names three mem-
bers of his Cabinet. 113. December 21, 1976 (2-2:37 p.m.) Carter's News Conference,
President-elect Carter names three members of his cabinet. 114. December 23, 1976
(10-10:30 a.m.) Carter's News Conference, President-elect Carter appoints remaining
members of his cabinet. 115. February 2, 1977 (10-10:26 p.m.) President Carter's
Fireside Chat. 116. February 8, 1977 (2:30-3:13 p.m.) President Carter's News Confer-
ence. 117. February 23, 1977 (2:30-3:13 p.m.) President Carter's News Conference.
118. March 9, 1977 (10-10:33 p.m.) President Carter's News Conference. 119. March
16, 1977 (11:30-1:30 a.m.) In this two hour special program President Carter attends
a Clinton, Massachusetts town meeting at which he answers questions. 120. March
17, 1977 (7:30-7:58 p.m.) President Carter's Address to the United Nations.
121. March 24, 1977 (2:30-3:15 p.m.) President Carter's News Conference. 122.
April 15, 1977 (10-10:35 a.m.) President Carter's Press Conference. President Carter
speaks on economics and relations with Russia. 123. April 18, 1977 (8-8:28 p.m.)
President Carter's Fireside Chat. President Carter speaks on the subject of the
energy crisis. 124. April 20, 1977 (9-9:35 p.m.) President Carter's address to a joint
meeting of Congress. 125. April 22, 1977 (10-10:41 a.m.) President Carter's News
Conference. 126. May 12, 1977 (2:30-3:13 p.m.) President Carter's News Conference.
SPECIAL PROGRAMS DEVOTED TO PRESENTATION OF THE VIEWS OF THE OPPOSITION
PARTY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP-ABC TELEVISION NETWORK-JANUARY 20,
1969 THROUGH MAY 12, 1977
1. February 8, 1970 (1-1:55 p.m.) Democratic Congressional Leadership on the
State of the Union. 2. May 9, 1970 (10:30-11:00 p.m.) Address by Democratic Nation-
al Committee Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien regarding Administration Vietnam
policy/Cambodia incursion. 3. June 24, 1970 (12:00-12:30 p.m.) Democratic Congres-
sional Leadership on the Economy-Senator Mansfield. 4. September 11, 1970
(7:30-8:00 p.m.) Vietnam-Another view (Senators Mathias & McGovern.) 5. Janu-
ary 27, 1971 (10-11 p.m.) Democratic Congressional Leadership on the State of the
Union. 6. April 22, 1971 (9-9:30 p.m.) Indochina: Another view-Senators Hum-
phrey, McGovern, Bayh, Jackson, Hughes, Muskie. 7. October 13, 1971 (7:30-8:00
p.m.) The Economy: A Continuing Report-Senator Humphrey, Senator Proxmire
and Dr. Arthur Okun. 8. December 6, 1971 (11-11:30 a.m.) The Economy: A Continu-
ing Report-Interview with Dr. Walter Heller, Economy Adviser to the Democratic
Party. 9. January 21, 1972 (12-1 p.m.) Democratic Congressional Leadership on the
State of the Union. 10. February 1, 1974 (10-11 p.m.) State of the Union: Another
View. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield offers the viewpoint of the Democrat-
ic Congressional majority on the topics raised in President Nixon's 1974 State of the
Union Address.
11. August 6, 1974 (7:30-8:00 p.m.) Inflation: Different Views-Alternatives to
President Nixon's view on the national economy as presented in his address to the
Nation on July 25, 1974. Included Democratic Congressional spokesmen. 12. October
15, 1974 (4-4:17 p.m.) Special Report: Senator Mike Mansfield's Democratic Congres-
sional Reply on the Economy. 13. January 21, 1975 (10-10:19 p.m.) The Economy and
Energy: Another View-Democratic Congressional Majority views on President
Ford's addresses. 14. March 8, 1975 (8-9 p.m.) Our Ailing Economy: Who Has the
Cure-Guests included: Rep. Al Ullman, Chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, Senator Dale Bumpers, Member of the Democratic Policy Committee
Task Force on Economy and Energy and Treasury Secretary William Simon. 15.
October 14, 1975 (11:30 p.m.-12 Mid.) Battle for Your Dollar-Will taxes go up or
down in 1976? An examination of the controversial features of the President's
proposal to cut both taxes and spending. Studio guests: Senator Hubert Humphrey,
Chairman of the Joint Senate Economics Committee, Rep. Al Ullman, Chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee; and James Lynn, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. 16. January 21, 1976 (9:00-9:45 p.m.) Special Report: The
State of the Union: A Democratic Congressional View-Coverage of Senator
Edmund S. Muskie's speech on the Democratic Congressional View of the State of
the Union. 17. April 20, 1977 (9:00-9:35 p.m. final segment of program). Discussion
following President Carter's speech to Congress on energy. Included Senator
Howard Baker, Senate Minority Leader and Bill Brock, Chairman, Republican
National Committee. 18. May 6, 1977 (10:30-11:00 p.m.) ABC News Special Energy:
The Republican View-Two members of former President Ford's cabinet and key
Republican members of Congress present their Party's view of the Carter energy
proposals. They are former Treasury Secretary William Simon, former Secretary of
PAGENO="0381"
377
Transportation William Coleman, Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker, House
Minority Leader John Rhodes, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Barber Conable.
ISSUES AND ANSWERS GUEST LIST-PROGRAMS FEATURING SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN
AND OTHER LEADERS OF THE OPPOSITION PARTY
1969
January 26-Senator Alan Cranston (D.-Calif.), Senator Thomas Eagleton (D.-Mo.)
and Senator Harold Hughes (D.-Iowa) interviewed by Bob Clark. (25 mm.)
February 2-Senator Mike Mansfield (D.-Mont.) interviewed by Bob Clark and
Bill Lawrence. (25 mm.)
February 23-Speaker of the House John W. McCormack (D.-Mass.) Interviewed
by Bill Lawrence. (25 mm.)
March 9-Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey interviewed by Bill Law-
rence and Keith McBee. (25 mm.)
April 27-Senator Henry Jackson (D.-Wash.) and Dr. John S. Foster interviewed
by Jules Bergman and Bob Clark. (25 mm.)
June 1-Senator Fred Harris (D.-Oklahoma), Chairman of the Democratic Nation-
al Committee, interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill Lawrence.
June 22-Senator J. William Fuibright (D.-Ark.) interviewed by Bob Clark and
John Scali.
July 6-Senator John Stennis (D.-Miss.) interviewed by Bill Downs and Sam
Donaldson.
August 3-Representatives: John Conyers, Jr., (D.-Mich.), Allard K. Lowenstein
(D.-New York) and Louis Stokes (D.-Ohio) interviewed by Bob Clark.
September 14-Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield interviewed by Bob Clark
and John Scali.
October 12-Senator Frank Church (D.-Idaho) and another guest interviewed by
John Scali and Bob Clark.
October 19-Senator Edmund Muskie (D.-Maine) interviewed by John Scali and
Bill Gill.
November 2-Senator Eugene McCarthy (D.-Minn.) interviewed by Bill Lawrence
and John Scali.
December 7-Senator John Stennis (D.-Miss.), Chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill Downs.
1970
January 25-Hubert Humphrey interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill Gill (25 mm.).
February 1-Sen. Mike Mansfield (D.-Mont.), Senate Majority Leader, interviewed
by John Scali and Bob Clark (25 mm.).
March 8-Gov. Robert E. McNair (D.-S.C.) and Gov. John Bell Williams (D.-Tenn.)
interviewed by Don Farmer and Bill Gill (25 mm.).
April 26-Sen. Edmund Muskie (D.-Maine) interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill Gill.
May 17-Sen. J. William Fulbright (D.-Ark.), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, interviewed by John Scali and Bob Clark.
June 21-Sen. Robert Byrd (D.-W.Va.) and Sen. George McGovern (D.-S.D.) and
other guests interviewed by Bob Clark and John Scali (1:00-2:00 p.m.).
July 26-Sen. John Stennis (D.-Miss.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Roger Peter-
son.
August 23-Sen. George McGovern (D.-S.D.) and another guest interviewed by
John Scali and Stephen Geer.
August 30-Democratic National Committee Chairman Lawrence O'Brien inter-
viewed by Stephen Geer and Roger Peterson.
September 13-Sen. William Proxmire (D.-Wis.) and another guest interviewed by
Jules Bergman and Roger Peterson.
September 27-Sen. J. William Fulbright (D.-Ark.) interviewed by John Scali and
Bob Clark.
November 1-Democratic National Committee Chairman Lawrence O'Brien and
another guest interviewed by Bill Lawrence and Sam Donaldson (1:00-2:00 p.m.).
November 15-Representatives-Elect Rev. Robert Drinan (D.-Mass.) and Darren
Mitchell (D.-Md.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
November 22-Sen. Mike Mansfield (D.-Mont.) and another guest interviewed by
Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
December 27-Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) and another guest interviewed by
Sam Donaldson and Virginia Sherwood.
January 3-Former House Speaker John McCormack interviewed by Bill Law-
rence.
PAGENO="0382"
378
February 7-Sen. Edmund Muskie (D.-Maine) interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill
Gill.
February 14-Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D.-N.Y.) and Rep. Ronald Dellums (D.-Calif.)
interviewed by Frank Reynolds and Edward P. Morgan.
March 21-Sen. George McGovern (D.-S.D.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Tom
Jarriel.
March 28-Sen. Henry M. Jackson (D.-Wash.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam
Donaldson.
April 4-Sen. Frank Church (D.-Idaho) and another guest interviewed by Bob
Clark and Frank Reynolds.
May 2-Sen. J. William Fulbright (D.-Ark.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, interviewed by Bob Clark and Roger Peterson.
May 9-Sen. John C. Stennis (D.-Miss.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Roger
Peterson.
May 16-Sen. Fred R. Harris (D.-Okla.), Co-chairman, Committee on Cities in the
70's; and Rep. John J. Conyers, Jr. (D.-Mich.); and another guest interviewed by
Frank Reynolds.
June 13-Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (D.-Minn.) interviewed by Bob Clark and
Stephen Geer.
August 1-Sen. Frank Church (D.-Idaho) interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Duff
Thomas.
September 26-Representative Wright Patman (D.-Texas), chairman of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Economic Commit-
tee, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Defense Production, interviewed by Bob
Clark and Sam Donaldson.
October 10-Senator George McGovern of South Dakota interviewed by Sam
Donaldson and Don Farmer.
November 7-Representative Wilbur Mills (D.-Ark.), Chairman, House Committee
on Ways and Means, interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Bob Clark.
December 26-Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D.-Mich.) Leader, Black Congressional
Caucus and another guest. Moderator: Edward P. Morgan.
January 16-Senators Walter F. Mondale (D. Minn.) and another guest inter-
viewed by Jules Bergman and Sam Donaldson.
January 23-Senator Mike Mansfield, Senate Majority Leader, interviewed by
Bob Clark and Ted Koppel.
February 6-Senator Henry M. Jackson, (D. Wash.) interviewed by Bob Clark and
Bill Lawrence.
March 5-Senator George McGovern (D. S.D.) interviewed by Edward P. Morgan
and Bill Matney.
March 26-Senator Hubert Humphrey (D. Minn.) interviewed by Sam Donaldson
and Bill Gill.
April 9-Senator J. William Fulbright (D. Ark.), Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Relations, interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Roger Peterson.
April 16-Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D. Me.) interviewed by Bob Clark and
Edward P. Morgan.
April 30-Senator Mike Gravel (D. Alaska) and another guest interviewed by
Edward P. Morgan and Bob Clark.
May 7-Senator John Stennis (D. Miss.) Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
interviewed by Bob Clark and Roger Peterson.
May 21-Senator Birch Bayh (D. md.), Chairman, Juvenile Delinquency Subcom-
mittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, interviewed by Bob Clark and Edward P.
Morgan.
June 4-(Expanded one hour) Senators Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern,
Mayor Sam Yorty, Representative Shirley Chisholm and another guest interviewed
by Bill Matney, Sam Donaldson and Frank Reynolds.
June 11-Lawrence O'Brien, Chairman, Democratic National Committee, inter-
viewed by Sam Donaldson and Frank Reynolds.
June 18-Senators Charles H. Percy and Henry M. Jackson interviewed by Ted
Koppel and Bob Clark.
June 25-Senator Edmund Muskie interviewed by Edward P. Morgan and Frank
Reynolds.
July 2-Senator George McGovern interviewed by Herbert Kaplow and Bill
Matney.
July 9-Governor Reubin Askew (D. Fla.) and Lawrence F. O'Brien, Chairman,
Democratic National Committee, interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Virginia Sher-
wood.
July 23-Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (D. Mo.) interviewed by Bill Zimmerman
and Sam Donaldson.
PAGENO="0383"
379
August 13-Senator George McGovern (D. So. Dak.) interviewed by Edward P.
Morgan and Bill Matney.
September 10-Sargent Shriver, Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate, inter-
viewed by Bill Zimmerman and Herb Kaplow.
September 17-Senators Henry M. Jackson (D. Wash.) and William Proxmire (D.
Wis.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Roger Peterson.
October 22-(Expanded one hour) Senator George McGovern (D. S.D.) Democratic
Presidential Candidate interviewed by Frank Reynolds and Tom Jarriel.
November 5-(Expanded one hour) R. Sargent Shriver, Democratic Vice Presiden-
tial Candidate, interviewed by David Schoumacher and Bill Zimmerman and other
guests interviewed by Virginia Sherwood and Sam Donaldson.
December 17-Senator Thomas Eagleton (D. Mo.) and another guest interviewed
by Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
February 4-Senators Edmund S. Muskie (D. Me.) and William Proxmire (D. Wis.)
interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
May 20-Senator Sam Ervin, Jr. (D. N.C.) interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam
Donaldson.
June 24-Senator J. William Fuibright (D. Ark.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, interviewed by Edward P. Morgan and Bob Clark.
July 8-Senator Herman E. Talmadge (D. Ga)-member of the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities and another guest interviewed by
Frank Reynolds and Sam Donaldson.
August 12-Senator Stuart Symington (D. Mo.), Chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, interviewed by Edward P. Morgan and Frank Tomlinson.
September 9-Senator Henry M. Jackson (D. Wash.), Chairman, Interior & Insu-
lar Affairs Committee, and the permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and
Member, Armed Services and Joint Committee on Atomic energy, interviewed by
Tom Jarriel and Bob Clark.
October 14-Senator Robert Byrd (D. W.Va.), Senate Majority Leader and another
guest interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Herb Kaplow.
October 21-Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D. Me.) and another guest interviewed
by Sam Donaldson and Bob Clark.
October 28-Senator Birch Bayh (D. md.) and another guest interviewed by Bob
Clark and David Schoumacher.
December 16-Senator Henry M. Jackson (D. Wash.), interviewed by Sam Donald-
son and Edward P. Morgan.
January 20-Senator George McGovern (D. So. Dak.) interviewed by Edward P.
Morgan and Bob Clark.
February 10-Rep. Peter Rodino (D. N.J.), Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, interviewed by Tom Jarriel and Sam Donaldson.
March 3-Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D. Conn.), Member, Senate Finance Commit-
tee Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and another guest interviewed by
Roger Peterson and Jules Bergman.
March 10-Robert Kastenmeier (D. Wisc.)-member, Committee on the Judiciary
and another guest interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Frank Reynolds.
April 7-Rep. Wilbur D. Mills (D. Ark.), Vice Chairman of the Congressional Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam
Donaldson.
May 12-Representatives Barbara Jordan (D. Texas), Andrew Young (D. Ga.) and
Charles Rangel (D. N.Y.) interviewed by Edward P. Morgan and Bill Matney.
May 26-Senator J. William Fulbright (D. Ark.) and Governor Dale Dumpers (D.
Ark.), interviewed by Frank Reynolds and Bob Clark.
June 23-Representative William Hungate (D. Mo.) and another guest inter-
viewed by Sam Donaldson and Stephen Geer.
June 30-Senator Stuart Symington (D. Mo.), Member, Armed Services Commit-
tee, Foreign Relations Committee and Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, inter-
viewed by Bob Clark and Edward P. Morgan.
July 21-Representatives Don Edwards (D. Cal.), Walter flowers (D. Ala.), and
other guests interviewed by Sam Donaldson.
July 28-Senator Robert Byrd (D. W.Va.), interviewed by Stephen Geer and David
Schoumacher.
August 4-Senator William Proxmire (D. Wisc.), Vice Chairman, Joint Economic
Committee, interviewed by Bob Clark and Edward P. Morgan.
1974
August 18-Representative Carl B. Albert (D. Okla.), The Speaker, House of
Representatives, interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Frank Reynolds.
PAGENO="0384"
380
September 8-Robert W. Kastenmeier (D. Wis.), Senior Democratic Member of the
House Judiciary Committee regarding President Ford's pardon of former President
Richard Nixon and other guests interviewed by Herbert Kaplow and Sam Donald-
son.
September 29-Senators Walter Mondale (D. Minn.) and Edmund Muskie (D.
Maine), interviewed by Bob Clark and Frank Reynolds.
October 13-Senator William Proxmire (D. Wis.), Vice Chairman, Joint Economic
Committee, and another guest interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
November 3-Governor Jimmie Carter (D. Ga.), Chairman, National Democratic
Campaign and other guests interviewed by Sam Donaldson and Tom Jarriel. (Ex-
panded to one hour.)
November 17-Senator Howard Cannon (D. Nev.), Chairman, Senate Rules Com-
mittee, interviewed by Bob Clark and Edward P. Morgan.
December 1-Rep. Morris K. Udall (D. Ariz.), first Democrat to officially announce
his candidacy for the 1976 Presidential election, interviewed by Sam Donaldson and
Edward P. Morgan.
December 8-Senators Birch Bayh (D. md.) and Lloyd Bentson (D. Tex.), live from
Democratic Mini-Convention in Kansas City, Mo., interviewed by Bob Clark and
Edward P. Morgan.
December 15-Representatives Phillip Burton (D. Calif.), Chairman, House Demo-
cratic Caucus, and another guest interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill Zimmerman.
December 29-Senator William Proxmire (D. Wis.), interviewed by Bob Clark and
Bill Gill.
1975
January 12-Senator Robert Byrd (D. W. Va.), Senate Majority Whip, interviewed
by Bob Clark and Edward P. Morgan.
February 9-Representative Henry S. Reuss (D. Wis.), Chairman, Committee on
Banking and Currency, interviewed by Dan Cordtz and Edward P. Morgan.
March 16-Senator Stuart Symington (D. Mo.), the only Senator who is a member
of both the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, interviewed by Bob
Clark and Steve Bell.
March 23-Representative Al Ullman (D. Oreg.), Chairman, House Committee on
Ways and Means, interviewed by Bob Clark and Edward P. Morgan.
April 13-Senator Henry M. Jackson (D. Wash.), interviewed by Bob Clark and
Sam Donaldson.
April 27-Senator Frank Church (D. Idaho) and another guest interviewed by Bob
Clark and Sam Donaldson.
May 4-Robert Strauss, Chairman, Democratic National Committee, interviewed
by Bob Clark and Edward P. Morgan.
August 17-Senator Birch Bayh (D. md.), interviewed by Bob Clark and Sam
Donaldson.
October 5-Senator Frank Church (D. Idaho), interviewed by Bob Clark and David
Schoumacher.
October 12-Senator William Proxmire and Congressman George Mahon, inter-
viewed by Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
December 14-Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D. Maine) interviewed by Bob Clark
and Sam Donaldson.
1976
January 25-Senator Hubert Humphrey (D. Minn.), interviewed by Bob Clark and
Sam Donaldson.
February 8-Representatives Yvonne Brathwaite Burke (D. Calif.), Charles
Rangel (D. N.Y.), and John Conyers (D. Mich.), interviewed by Bob Clark and Bill
Matney.
February 22-Jimmy Carter, Morris Udall, Fred Harris and Sargent Shriver,
Democratic Presidential candidates, interviewed by Bob Clark and Herbert Kaplow.
(Expanded to one hour-12:OO Noon-1:OO PM)
February 29-Henry M. Jackson and Milton J. Shapp, Democratic Presidential
candidates, interviewed by Bob Clark and Barrie Dunsmore.
March 7-Representative Morris Udall (D. Ariz.), interviewed by Bob Clark and
Charles Gibson.
March 21-Senator Frank Church (D. Idaho), Chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, interviewed by Bob Clark and Roger Peterson.
April 11-Senator Henry Jackson (D. Wash.), candidate for the Democratic Presi-
dential nomination, interviewed by Bob Clark and Barrie Dunsmore.
PAGENO="0385"
381
April 25-Jimmy Carter (D. Ga.), Frank Church (D. Idaho), Henry Jackson (D.
Wash.), Morris Udall (D. Ariz.) and George Wallace (D. Ala.), candidates for the
Democratic Presidential nomination, interviewed by Bob Clark and Herbert
Kaplow. (Expanded to one hour.)
May 9-Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D. Minn.) interviewed by Bob Clark and
Sam Donaldson.
May 16-Morris Udall (D. Ariz.) and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (D. Calif.) candidates
for the Democratic Presidential nomination, interviewed by Bob Clark and Don
Farmer.
June 6-Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. (D. Calif.), Jimmy Carter (D. Ga.), Senator
Frank Church (D. Idaho), Representative Morris Udall (D. Ariz.), Governor George
Wallace (D. Ala.) interviewed by Bob Clark, Don Farmer, Roger Peterson and Sam
Donaldson. (Expanded to one hour.)
July 11-Senator George McGovern (D. S. Dak.); representative Barbara Jordan
(D. Tex.), Keynoter, Democratic National Convention; Governor Wendell Anderson,
Chairman, Platform Committee, Democratic National Convention; interviewed by
Bob Clark and Sam Donaldson.
- 1976
August 29-Senator Dick Clark (D. Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Subcommittee on African Affairs and another guest, interviewed by Bob Clark
and John Scali.
October 24-Senator Mike Mansfield (D. Montana), Robert Strauss, Chairman,
Democratic National Committee and another guest interviewed by Bob Clark and
Steve Bell. (Expanded to one hour).
November 7-Donald Riegle (D.-Mich.) Senator-Elect; Paul Sarbanes (D.-Md.) Sen-
ator-Elect; interviewed by Frank Reynolds and Steve Bell.
November 14-Representative Andrew Young (D.-Georgia); interviewed by Bob
Clark and Don Farmer.
December 12-Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D.-Minn.) Candidate for Senate
Majority Leader; interviewed by Bob Clark and Frank Reynolds.
1977
April 17-William Brock, Chairman, Republican National Committee; interviewed
by Bob Clark and Frank Reynolds.
"THE `FREENESS' OF TELEvISION"-PREPARED BY ROBERT A. NATHAN AssocIATEs
IN 1973 FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS
Mass advertising of the kind exemplified by commercial broadcast television plays
an essential role in the mass-production-mass-distribution economy of the United
States. It is clear that the economies of mass production and the rising productivity
characteristic of the American economy depend in significant part on advertising to
channel demand toward standardized, identifiable products which lend themselves
to the economics of large scale output and distribution. The question of the "free-
ness" of commercial television to the viewer depends, in turn, on whether television
makes this process more or less efficient, considering the costs and benefits not only
of advertising but of selling and other functions of the distribution process.
Conventional broadcast television is, of course, free to the viewer at the point of
viewing, in the sense that any quantity of viewing is available at no cost other than
the cost of operating the receiver. What, then, of the transactions that support the
free viewing-the large outlays for program production and transmission and the
offsetting revenues received by broadcasters from the sale of commercial announce-
ments? Although in the aggregate, and at any point in time, advertising outlays are
part of the structure of costs that have to be met from the prices of goods and
services, they represent a very small and stable fraction of consumers' outlays; and
there is no basis for concluding that consumers' prices would be lower in the
absence of television advertising. Indeed, the opposite may be the case.
Total outlays for advertising over the 20 years since television broadcasting
became a significant factor have ranged between 3 and 3½ percent of personal
consumption expenditures (table A). The percentage is not now significantly differ-
ent from what it was in 1950 (or in 1940, before television). Thus it does not appear
that television has added appreciably to consumers' cost per dollar of personal
consumption. Indeed, since this comparison takes no account of the greater efficien-
cy of television as an advertising and selling medium, the advent of television
advertising may have lowered the total costs of distribution per dollar of sales,
including not only media advertising but other advertising, selling and distribution
costs.
20-122 0 - 78 - 25
PAGENO="0386"
382
Television advertising in the aggregate in 1971 was about one-sixth of all advertis-
ing, or about one-half of one percent of personal consumption expenditures (table
B). What appears to have happened is that the advent of television has precipitated
a marked shift among advertising media. Of the five leading media, which account-
ed for about three-fourths of all advertising expenditures in 1950 and 1971, there
has been a marked shift from newspapers, magazines, and radio to television,
because of its greater advertising efficiency.
ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES IN LEADING MEDIA, AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES
Media 1950
1971
Newspapers 1.09
Magazines .27
Radio .32
0.93
.21
.21
Total 1.68
1.35
Direct mail .42
Television .09
.44
.53
Total .51
.97
Grand total 2.19
2.32
TABLE A-PERSONAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES AND ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES, 1940-71
[In billions of dollars]
Personal
consomption Advertising
Year expenditores expenditores
Advertising
as percent of
consomption
1950 191.0 5.710
1955 254.4 9.194
1960 325.2 11.932
1961 335.2 11.845
1962 355.1 12.381
1963 375.0 13.107
1964 401.2 14.155
1965 432.8 15.255
1966 466.3 16.670
1967 492.1 16.866
1968 536.2 18.127
1969 579.6 19.482
1970 617.6 19.600
1971 667.2 20.500
1972 726.5 23.060
3.0
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.2
Soorce: Personal consumption expenditures from U.S. Department of Commerce. Advertising expenditures from trade sources cited
in `Statistical Abstract of the United States," 1972, p. 757.
Coupled with relative declines in minor advertising media (e.g., outdoor advertis-
ing), these data demonstrate that the increased use of television represents largely a
substitution of a more efficient medium for less efficient ones, which; given the fixed
ratio of advertising to consumption, is to the advantage of consumers at large.
II
To the individual viewer, the decision to watch broadcast television at any given
time is costless, except for the trifling cost of operating the receiver: his receiver is
in place, and it costs him no more to watch than not to watch. In this sense,
television-viewing is a free good.
The value of this costless choice, of course, depends on the quality of the program,
as perceived by viewers. There are, theoretically, several ways in which this value
might be measured. One way would be to find out what prices would how many
viewers pay for various programs if they were required to pay. Depending on the
program, this might be zero for some viewers, a great deal for others, and for most
somewhere in between. Another measure would be the amount by which incomes
would have to be raised in order to permit consumers to obtain the same satisfac-
tion in other ways if there were no television. A third way would be to value
PAGENO="0387"
383
programs by "shadow prices," that is, the prices of buying equivalent or comparable
entertainment or information through other media, for example motion picture
theaters.
The amount spent by advertisers may be a very crude proxy for the value of
television to viewers: the "better" the program, the more the viewers. Thus adver-
tisers weigh the added cost of program "improvement" against the value of the
added audience. A more direct measure is exemplified by a recent study, based on
experiments with subscription TV, which concluded that "the value of free, over-
the-air television to Americans is at least $20 billion-$25 per month per TV
household, or about 4 percent of after tax household income. This is about seven
times the present revenue of television."
An alternative procedure is to assign an arbitrary value to an hour of viewing
and multiply by the total of viewer-hours. For example, assuming that the value to
the viewer of each hour of viewing is worth, on the average, as little as 10 cents this
procedure yields and estimate of $24.68 billion as the total value of free, over-the-air
television.
On the other hand, "shadow pricing" of categories of programs according to type
of program and time of day, multiplied by estimated numbers of viewers, yields an
estimate of $174 billion as the value of free over-the-air television, based on prices of
comparable program content purchased from other media.2
All such measures are necessarily imprecise because it is not possible to place
precise values on services which, though very valuable, are provided free. The
imprecision is evident in the wide range of the estimates. But it is clear even from
the lowest of the estimates that the value to the viewers of free, broadcast television
far outweighs the costs-if, indeed, there are any costs beyond the costs of owning
and operating the television receiver. Consumers are reaping a huge "consumer
surplus"-the difference between what they pay (almost nothing) and what they
would pay if put to the market test. Moreover, this consumer suplus appears to be
tilted in favor of low-income families, since they are reported to spend more hours
per week in television viewing: those with incomes under $5,000 view more hours
than those with incomes between $5 and $10 thousand who, in turn, view more than
those with incomes above $10,000.'
November 6, 1973.
ABC TEixvlsloN,
AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS,
New York, NY, March 4, 1.977.
THE PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you for your February 18, 1977 letter requesting
ABC's views with respect to the "captioning" of television programming to aid the
hearing impaired.
ABC has long been in the forefront of efforts to enhance the value of television to
the hearing impaired and those with other handicaps; and we remain committed to
such a leadership role in the future. Consequently, ABC supports the prompt
development of a reliable and flexible program captioning system which can be
implemented at reasonable cost. However, there remain substantial obstacles to the
early achievement of this goal.
Since the FCC revised its rules to permit the insertion of program captioning data
in the vertical interval, ABC has devoted considerable effort to specific identifica-
tion of the problems which remain to be solved before commercial television can
provide program captioning on a broad scale. The following are representative:
(a) A way must be developed to mass-produce a decoder at a reasonable cost.
(b) More precise information must be developed with respect to the cost of includ-
ing a device in new television receivers which can decode the program captioning
data transmitted in the vertical interval.
(c) Sophisticated, independent market research is needed to determine realistical-
ly the market potential for both "built-in" and "add-on" decoders, since this will
bear directly upon cost, delivery schedules, etc.
iNoll, Roger G., Peck, Norton J., and McGowan, John J., Economic Aspects of Television
Regulation, Brookings Institution, 1973, p. 42.
`Robert R. Nathan Associates estimated for the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters,
1969, updated to 1972.
`AC. Nielson Co., cited in Noll, Peck, and McGowan, op. cit.
PAGENO="0388"
384
(d) Receiver manufacturers need to determine and advise interested parties of the
"lead-time" they need to introduce decoding equipment once its technical configura-
tion is finalized.
(e) The cost and technical feasibility of "add-on" decoding equipment for existing
receivers must be clarified.
(1) A means must be found to make program captioning compatible with film,
without having to transfer to video tape.
(g) Because program captions include fewer words than spoken dialogue, uncer-
tainty now exists as to the nature and extent of copyright problems which may
result from editing scripts for captioning. This is a particular problem since televi-
sion networks are typically only licensed to use programs; they do not own them.
An important corollary question is what level of skill and training labor unions will
insist upon for those involved in the writing and encoding of captions. This question
has substantial implications with respect to the cost of captioning. For example, if
only script writers were permitted to be involved in preparing the texts of captions,
the cost would be much greater than if lesser skilled personnel are extensively
employed to accomplish the less demanding portions of this work.
(h) Steps should be taken to assure that the encoding of captions is accomplished
in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. This will likely require the
establishment of a limited number of cooperative or joint-venture type encoding
centers. At least initially, federal encouragement and financial support may be
necessary to the establishment of these centers.
(i) There are a number of specific questions with respect to the technical feasibil-
ity of the PBS system which need to be resolved through extensive field testing.
Some of the more important of these were identified in ABC's May 10, 1976 com-
ments in FCC Docket No. 20693 and additional questions are almost certain to
emerge as research continues.
ABC is optimistic that substantial progress can be made toward the prompt,
orderly implementation of program captioning on a technically and financially
sound basis. However, we believe all concerned should approach this objective with
due regard for the significant problems that remain to be resolved. At this moment,
there is no proven, financially feasible system for commerical television broadcast-
ers to caption programs on a regular basis for transmission to the homes of the
hearing-impaired. While there is substantial reason to hope that captioning will
eventually prove feasible, the hearing impaired should not be misled into thinking
that closed captioning to the home is presently possible.
It is apparent that the problems enumerated above involve or affect a number of
different industries and interests. It is equally apparent that these diverse interests
will have to join forces to develop a technically, operationally and economically
viable approach to program captioning. Consequently, we believe the first priority
at this time is for some authority such as the federal goverment to bring the
involved and affected interests together in order to assure that the objective of
program captioning is pursued in a coordinated manner that will produce viable
solutions to the many problems involved at the earliest feasible date.
More specifically, we respectfully suggest that a senior official of the federal
government-perhaps the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, or his repre-
sentative-convene a conference of leaders from the National Association of Broad-
casters, the Electronic Industries Association, PBS, the television networks, the
television program production industry, film manufacturers and processors, manu-
facturers of television broadcast equipment and television receiver manufacturers,
labor unions representing technical and creative employees in the television and
program production industries, copyright holders and other directly affected inter-
ests. With adequate advance preparation, a very limited number of meetings of
officials from such groups could set in motion the efforts needed to resolve the
present questions and uncertainties and, if feasible, to implement program caption-
ing on a regular basis at an early date. ABC would be pleased to cooperate in the
development of such a conference. We, of course, also stand ready to participate in
the work-effort that would result therefrom.
In the meantime ABC will continue to make available the ABC Evening News
series to the Public Broadcasting Service for open captioning and telecast by the
PBS stations.
Thank you for seeking our views in this important area.
Sincerely,
FREDERICK PIERCE,
President.
PAGENO="0389"
385
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.
AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS,
New York, N Y., September 2, 1977
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Senate Communications Subcommittee, 223 Russell Senate Office Build-
ing, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1977, requesting
response to certain additional questions in connection with the Senate Subcommit-
tee on Communications May 1977 broadcast oversight hearings. Enclosed are ABC's
responses, which we are happy to furnish for the record.
Sincerely,
EVERETT H. ERLICK.
Enclosure.
Question. Over the past year how many ads were shown on your network? How
many of these ads are for food products that have a high nutritional content? How
many ads were for food products? How many of these ads for cereal products and
candy products? How many ads were for over the counter drugs?
The statement has been made that only 2 percent of the 21,000 ads seen by
children in one year involve a product which has a high nutritive content. If you
disagree with this statement-what percent would you use and why?
Substantial amounts of money are spent each year on advertising directed at
children. Clerarly, children are viewed as consumers. Parents cannot assume the
entire burden of controlling this situation. What have the networks done to create
positive advertising to help the child become an enlightened consumer?
How many advertising minutes per hour are there during the hours when chil-
dren are the predominant audience?
Answer. ABC estimates that during 1976 70,838 commercial announcements were
broadcast over the ABC Television Network. Of this number, we estimate that 3,183,
or 4.5 percent, were for cereals; 1,840, or 2.6 percent, were for candy/gum; 12,733, or
18.0 percent, were for other foods (excluding cereals, candy/gum, soft drinks, beer
and wine); and 6,780, or 9.6 percent, were for over-the-counter drugs. While the
foregoing are estimates, they are based upon ABC records and industry source data,
and we believe them to be reasonably accurate. Precise tabulation of announce-
ments was not feasible within the period for responding.
While ABC is in a position to segregate food commercials by types of product, we
are not able to define which products are of "high nutritional" or "high nutritive"
content. We believe all food products which are advertised on our network contain
some nutritional value.
With respect to advertising directed to children, ABC adheres to the following
NAB Television Code policies which bear upon the above inquiry:
Children may not be directed to purchase or ask a parent to buy a product or
service for them;
Exhortative language is prohibited; No children's program personality (host) or
cartoon character may be utilized to deliver commercial messages within or adja-
cent to programs in which they appear; nor may real-life authority figures/celebri-
ties deliver a personal testimonial or endorsement for a products;
Commercials must be clearly separated from program material;
No person who is recognized as being identified with an advertised product's
counterpart in real-life, may be used as a spokesperson or endorser;
Each commercial for a breakfast-type product must include an audio reference
and a video depiction of the role of the product within the framework of a balanced
regimen;
Commercials for products such as snacks, candies, gum and soft drinks may not
suggest or recommend indiscriminate and/or immoderate use of the product;
When premiums are utilized they are subject to stringent limitations concerning
allowable time, manner or visual presentation, number of items advertised, and
content;
Children cannot be shown risking harm;
Products must not be over-glamorized;
Medical remedies cannot be sold in or near children's programs;
Camera angles cannot show the product to be bigger or better than it is, and
irritating or strident audio or video techniques are prohibited;
If special, enriched foods are advertised as a substitute for a meal, their purpose
and nutritional value must be featured in the advertising and supported by ade-
quate documentation;
PAGENO="0390"
386
Advertisements must not include dramatizations of any product in a realistic war
atmosphere; and,
Comparatives and superlatives are not permittred nor do we accept commercials
for vitamins or over-the-counter medications in programs designed primarily for
children.
ABC has voluntarily limited the amount of commerical matter in its network
children's programs. The limit is now 9½ minutes per hour of which one minute is
local station break time.
Question. Regarding deaf captioning, what are the ways to caption which you are
exploring? How many programs have you captioned? What timetable for resolving
this problem have you set for yourselves? What are your estimates of cost?
What is being done by the networks to caption problems? By way of comparison,
some news programs have a person using sign language. What has been the cost of
that?
You [Mr. Erlick] state that deaf captioning is a government health problem-how
is that so?
Answer. At the present time, ABC is not "exploring" any ways to caption pro-
grams. The technique of open captioning (i.e., visible to all viewers) is well known.
At present, ABC makes available its Evening News series to the Public Broadcast-
ing Service for open captioning and telecast by PBS stations. Also, ABC is making
increasing use of graphics in news and sports programming, for the benefit of
viewers who have hearing impairment. ABC does not contemplate significantly
expanded open captioning, because it would be objectionable to the majority of
viewers.
The FCC has authorized a technical system of closed captioning (i.e., visible only
on sets equipped with a decoder). In response to an inquiry from President Carter,
under date of March 4, 1976 Frederick S. Pierce, President of ABC Television, wrote
to The President detailing the problems which must be resolved before closed
captioning can be implemented on a wide-scale basis (a copy of Mr. Pierce's letter
has been furnished to the Subcommittee). Because these problems involve industries
other than broadcasting (e.g., equipment manufacturers and program producers)
and entities over which ABC has no control (e.g., labor unions), Mr. Pierce pointed
out that it is beyond the capacity of ABC, or even the broadcasting industry, to
resolve them alone. He suggested that the Government could perform a vital func-
tion in facilitating the implementation of closed captioning by convening a confer-
ence of leaders from the affected industries and entities, and volunteered ABC's
cooperation in the development of such a conference.
ABC was the first to apply closed captioning to a television program. This was
done in February 1972, when the program "Mod Squad" was thus captioned and
viewed with decoding equipment located at Gallaudet College.
Pending resolution of the problems identified in Mr. Pierce's letter to President
Carter, we are not in a position to establish a timetable for implementing a system
of closed captioning on a wide-scale basis or for making meaningful cost estimates.
In this latter connection it should be noted that HEW has made a grant to Texas
Instruments to do research on the hardware problems associated with the home
receiver decoder. ABC understands that such research has not been completed.
With respect to the use of sign language on news programs, ABC has not used
this technique and we have no detailed information on its cost. The technique
shares the same disadvantages as open captioning, and is much less effective.
ABC does believe that the special availability of television to the hearing im-
paired is a public problem, and many parties, including the Government, share
responsibility for the solution of that problem. For its part, ABC has taken the lead
in such matters as making its Evening News available for open captioning on PBS,
the development of a system of closed captioning, and a willingness to work toward
the widespread implementation of closed captioning. It is not a problem which ABC,
or even the broadcast industry, can solve alone. It is a problem which Government
leadership can help to solve.
Question. How many of the network programs are prescreened by affiliates? How
far in advance of airing do the affiliates receive the network shows? How often do
affiliates fail to clear? Please elaborate on the nature of the influence exerted on
you by your affiliates in the area of programming.
Answer. Pre-screening is one of the several procedures which ABC follows to
furnish its affiliates with advance program information concerning programs to be
offered by the ABC Television Network.
At present, ABC pre-screens for its affiliates all prime time programs. In addition,
we pre-screen all ABC After School Specials, all ABC Short Story Specials, all pre-
recorded news documentaries, and the premiere episode of each daytime series.
PAGENO="0391"
387
ABC endeavors to pre-screen a reasonable period in advance of telecast date. In
the case of programs to carry a viewer advisory, pre-screening is usually accom-
plished three weeks in advance of telecast. In the case of other programs, pre-
screening is usually accomplished as soon as the completed program is available to
ABC. Since most entertainment programs are supplied by independent producers,
ABC is not able to control their availability, and frequently the programs are
received only a few days prior to telecast. Thus, there is wide variation in the
amount of time between pre-screening and telecast date.
Affiliates of the ABC Television Network elect to telecast most of the programs
which the network offers. For the past several years, the average prime time
clearance for program series provided 97% coverage of the United States. Since this
is an average, obviously some programs enjoyed wider coverage and others lesser
coverage.
In addition to non-clearance of program series, affiliates sometimes pre-empt
individual programs within an otherwise cleared series. For example, in 1976 affili-
ates pre-empted 21,932 half-hours of programs, of which only 7,191 were resche-
duled.
ABC has no statistics as to why particular programs were not cleared or were pre-
empted, although we are aware that affiliates exercise their prerogative not to clear
or to pre-empt when they consider a program unsuitable for the audience in their
particular community.
ABC has on-going dialogue with its affiliates concerning programming. We have
periodic meetings with the affiliates at which programming is discussed, and we
have continuing contact with the Board of Governors of the ABC Television Affili-
ates Association. Affiliate views are given careful consideration. For example, such
views weighed heavily in ABC's decision in the Fall of 1976 not to expand the
length of our early evening news program.
Question. The amount of network produced programming has increased and pre-
dominates prime time. Do you consider this to be a positive trend? Why? (8:00 till
11:00 pm--100% network)
Answer. It is not clear whether this question is concerned with network-produced
or network-originated programs. As far as network produced programs are con-
cerned, ABC produces very little prime time entertainment programming. For ex-
ample, in the 1976-77 season, ABC produced only 3% of its prime time entertain-
ment schedule. The great majority of prime time entertainment programs are
licensed from independent producers.
With respect to network-originated programming, in recent years there has been
relatively little change in the amount of such programming--with two exceptions.
The first exception is that ABC, the last of the three networks to become fully
competitive, has gradually expanded its schedule so that it is comparable with the
offerings of the older networks, NBC and CBS. The other exception is that, owing to
the Federal Communications Commission's Prime Time Access Rule, commencing in
the 1971-72 television season there was a substantial reduction in the amount of
network programming in prime time. Although it is true that networks offer their
affiliates programming in the 8 to 11 p.m. time period (NYT), it is also true that on
most nights between 4:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., a period of seven hours, networks
offer their affiliates programming in only three and one-half of those seven hours.
In ABC's judgment, the reason that network programming occupies a substantial
amount of the schedule of affiliated stations is that the public prefers network
programs and affiliated stations, acting responsive to that public preference, choose
to broadcast those programs. ABC considers such responsiveness to be a positive
value.
Question. Judging by your statements, the networks have the problem of violence
well under control. Yet recently Mr. David Rintels, President of Writers Guild, West
stated: "There is far too much violence on television. I deplore it. It is frequently
gratuitous and most people of goodwill can readily agree that even in the face of
incomplete evidence, it is harmful to children." "There is as much violence on
television as broadcasters want, no more, no less. They see it used on television as a
cheap and easy substitute for the meaningful forms of confrontation. Given free
choice (writers) would rather write about the human intellectual and moral con-
cerns we all have, rather than solve problems with kicks, guns and punches." Please
comment.
Answer. ABC's direct experience with Mr. Rintels is that he is both a talented
and responsible creator for the television medium. Although we respect his judg-
ments and opinions, we disagree with the quoted statement.
The facts are that programs which contain portrayals of violence comprise only a
small part of our total broadcast day and only a small portion of our prime time
offerings. It should be noted that ABC's prime time schedule for this Fall includes
PAGENO="0392"
388
only two regularly scheduled police-action programs. Moreover, not onl~~ have we
decreased on a year-to-year basis the amount of programs dealing with `violence',
we have decreased the incidents of violence portrayed within those programs, and,
of course, the manner in which these incidents are portrayed is subject to continu-
ing qualitative review procedures.
In this regard, ABC's Department of Broadcast Standards and Practices has the
responsibility of reviewing and pre-screening prior to telecast all network entertain-
ment programming material to assure compliance with the Television Code of the
National Association of Broadcasters as well as with ABC's internal policies. Attach-
ment A hereto details relevant functions of the Department.
Question. Do you have any specific legislative proposals for dealing with the
subject of pay cable?
Answer. ABC believes that unregulated development of pay television, over-the-
air STV and pay cable services, poses substantial public interest problems. It is
readily demonstrable that a small percentage of the American public (well under
half) subscribing to pay television can generate considerably more revenue for the
acquisition of the Nation's most popular entertainment and sports attractions than
can the advertiser-supported television system, now available to all of the American
people at no charge. The predictable development of pay television raises the
prospect that a small percentage of the American people, mainly the urban affluent
population, may have a premium television service at the expense of the quality and
quantity of television services now available to all of the American people.
ABC has therefore long urged Congress and the Federal Communications Com-
mission to act, in advance of these developments, to preserve the current level of
American television while encouraging the development of pay television to provide
alternative innovative services. The Commission has attempted such regulation.
However, the March 25, 1977 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Home Box Office, Inc v. FCC (Case No. 75-1280)
holds that the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to regulate
such services at least insofar as pay cable is concerned and that there are grave
Constitution questions as to the authority of the Commission to regulate pay televi-
sion under any circumstances.
While ABC disagrees with this opinion and has sought Supreme Court review, we
renew our belief, stated to the Congress many times before, that legislation is
essential to clarify the Commission's authority and responsibility in this area. ABC
has developed, with NAB and AMST, a suggested Bill; it comprises Attachment B
hereto. The Bill would make clear the Commission's regulatory authority and direct
the Commission to regulate the development of pay television so it will not be
destructive of the quantity and quality of television services now available to all
while providing competitive, diverse and innovative program choices for the Ameri-
can People.
Question. At a recent national Symposium on Children's Television at Howard
University, David Rintels, President of Writer's Guild stated: "Writers, actors, and
directors will provide better children's programming if the networks give us the
opportunity. We can give you, because we want to give you, children's drama,
comedy, puppet shows, ballet, music, history, art programs designed positively to
entertain and educate children-not programs designed negatively.. . ." Would you
please comment on Mr. Rintels statement.
Answer. The opportunities for the involvement of high quality writers such as Mr.
Rintels abound at ABC. We are continually seeking talented writers for The ABC
After School Special series, now in its seventh season on this network with bi-
monthly telecasts throughout the school year; the series is now generally recognized
as one of the finest dramatic forms for children in the world.
Writing talents are also in need for the ABC Weekend Specials series which
commence this September--high quality dramatic programs for young people every
Saturday morning at noon. Under this umbrella are the ABC Children's Novels for
Television such as, "The Winged Colt," an adaptation of a Betsy Byars' novel, for
telecast September 10, 17 and 24; the ABC Short Story Specials which include
teleplays based on O'Henry's "Ransom of Red Chief" and Robert McClosky's
"Homer Price Story: The Doughnut Machine."
Although we have indeed been fortunate to enjoy the talents of experienced
writers on each of these projects, more often than not the pool of writing talent
available to children's programming is limited to a small group of craftsmen who
are committed to these dramas rather than the higher paying, prime-time series
opportunities.
We are, however, finding a greater readiness among actors to become involved in
children's programming. Recently, such veteran actors as Keenan Wynn, Slim Pick-
ins, Jane Withers, Frank Cady, Jack Elam, Strother Martin, Barbara Rush and
PAGENO="0393"
389
Melvin Douglas have agreed to participate in ABC Weekend Specials. Sylvester
Stallone, of "Rocky" fame, is scheduled to appear in an ABC After School Special.
Academy Award winning composer, Michel Le Grande, is involved in an ABC
After School Special dealing with music appreciation to be telecast in February,
1978.
Question. Should there be more public service advertisements directed toward
children?
Answer. ABC considers that the present mix of public service announcements
which its Television Network offers, including those directed toward children, serves
the public interest.
Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a copy of the Robert Nathan
study showing that product prices are reduced by advertising.
Answer. Under date of May 27, 1977 Eugene S. Cowen, Vice President of Ameri-
can Broadcasting Company, wrote to Senator Hollings furnishing additional materi-
als which has been requested or discussed during the testimony of Mr. Erlick before
the Subcommittee on Communications on May 9, 1977. Attachment 4 to Mr.
Cowen's letter was a copy of the Robert Nathan study to which this inquiry was
apparently directed. A copy is submitted as Attachment C hereto.
September 1, 1977.
ATTACHMENT A
The Department of Broadcast Standards and Practices ("Department") operates
independent of the ABC Television Network so that there is, in effect, a system of
"checks and balances". As a result, the work of the Department is separate from the
Program Department's creative evaluations as well as the Sales Department's eco-
nomic considerations, all of which are factors considered irrelevant to the question
of acceptability for broadcast.
Each entertainment program, series and made-for-television movie is reviewed by
an editor in the Department, from the treatment and script stage through final
production and editing. Matters relating to program acceptability are carefully
discussed and reviewed in detail. Where a particular television program, or series,
or made-for-television movie is expected to include sensitive, controversial, or vio-
lent portrayals, extensive discussions are held with the producer to ascertain the
manner in which he intends to treat the material and to insure that he understands
fully the applicable policies and standards. A report is prepared for the producer
indicating the acceptability of the script or any appropriate revisions. Prior to
broadcast the program is also reviewed at the rough cut, final cut and editing
stages, and appropriate revisions are made if deemed necessary.
Feature films that have been produced by others for initial theatrical release are
screened prior to acquisition by ABC to determine whether major or minor deletions
will be required or, as is not uncommon, whether a particular film is completely
unacceptable. After acquisition the films are screened again to review prior judg-
ments and, as an additional measure, the edited versions are viewed prior to
telecast to insure compliance with broadcast standards and practices directives. We
will not telecast a film rated "R". But we will edit such films and require that they
be resubmitted to the Motion Picture Association of America for reclassification. If
theMPAA feels that our edits would have made the picture presentable theatrically
with a higher rating than "R", such as "PG", or "G", we will then accept it for
telecast.
In certain circumstances an audio and video advisory is broadcast before the start
of programs to give parents the opportunity to exercise discretion in regard to
younger viewers. We are careful, however, not to use such an advisory in a manner
to cause it to become an invitation for viewing.
Furthermore, prior to broadcast we send to all our affiliated stations, including
our owned television stations, detailed information about programs scheduled for
broadcast. Briefly, this information consists of: Advanced Program Advisory bulle-
tins detailing content of prime time entertainment programs and closed-circuit
previews of these programs. We also hold annual meetings for affiliate managers
where we discuss programming plans.
Before producing any new program series, the American Broadcasting Company's
policies and standards are reviewed with the producer of each series and his staff.
At these meetings we stress that we will not permit the portrayal of violence for the
sake of violence itself, or as a device to titillate the viewers; to shock; or to
sensationalize a story line. We will not permit authors who have written themselves
into a "corner" to extricate themselves quickly with bloodshed. We require that
when violence is portrayed, it be responsibly portrayed and its consequences depict-
PAGENO="0394"
390
ed. In addition, we preclude the use of acts of personal violence in teasers, prologues
and promotional announcements.
It is clear that gratuitous violence serves no useful purpose. Similarly, while any
act may be emulated, we avoid the portrayal of specific, detailed techniques in-
volved in the use of weapons, the commission of crimes, or avoidance of detection. In
short, every effort is made to insure that portrayals of violence for its own sake, or
unnecessary depictions of excessive force, are excluded from our presentations.
Moreover, in those programs that contain violent depictions and criminal activi-
ties glorification is avoided, so that the portrayals may have the effect of reinforcing
real-life prohibitions and thereby act as a suppressor of violence.
With respect to programming which deals with significant moral or social issues
and current topical treatments, it is a requirement that the presentation of this
material be accomplished unexploitatively, unsensationally and responsibly.
A practice begun in 1973, which has since become a regular procedure, is the
conduct of periodic in-service training workshops for editors under the suparvision
of our independent psychiatric consultant, Dr. Melvin Heller. Each three-day inten-
sive session, conducted on the West Coast, has concentrated on the area of chil-
dren's programs, violent portrayals and adult program themes. By utilizing scripts
and recently televised programs, an on-going dialogue is pursued. In this manner an
effective means is created for the continued development and refinement of guide-
lines to sharpen our practices, to help us avoid errors in subjective judgment and to
meet the established criteria.
This year's session, which coincided with our mid-year producers' meetings, initi-
ated a mid-term review of our action programming and commenced exploration and
development of a method for the examination and review of the portrayal of
violence on both a qualitative and quantitative basis. We feel that it is improper not
to make distinctions between those incidents that may cause tension, distress, or
increased aggressive behavior in audiences, and those that are unlikely to do so. We
think it error to make no distinction between a comedic aggressive act and a violent
criminal one. Thus, this system will hopefully relate an episode of violence in terms
of its seriousness; its realism; its relationship in context to humor, to fantasy, to
human consequences.
We are doing this because we believe that the primary issue is whether violent
sequences in entertainment programs affect behavior, rather than perceptions or
attitudes or taste levels.
We have made a special effort to understand the effects of televised violence on
children. We commissioned, at a cost of one million dollars, two studies which have
just been completed after five years' work.
One series of studies, conducted by Lieberman Research, Inc. under the direction
of Dr. Seymour Lieberman, Ph.D., explored the effects of televised violence and
programs with pro-social messages on 10,000 normal school children, aged 8-13. Dr.
Lieberman developed an instrument and technique which employed a new behavior-
al device (electric pounding machine) which measures and records the force of a
child's blow before and after viewing of televised materials, assessing in that
manner the degree of aggressiveness in children.
A separate five-year series of projects, supervised by child psychiatrist Dr. Heller
and the late Dr. Samuel Polsky, utilized numerous psychological and behavioral
measures for examination of the effects of televised violence on emotionally-im-
paired youngsters and institutionalized youngsters from broken homes who might
be considered most susceptible to any adverse effects of televised violence. In addi-
tion, the Heller and Polsky studies focused on the impact of television on known
violent youthful offenders.
Among a number of findings, the reports concluded that while imitative risks
existed in post-viewing aggression by certain youngsters, television did not cause
assaultive, violent anti-social behavior in children; that exposure to violent televi-
sion content did not lead to heightened aggressive behavioral violence, but did
increase aggressive tendencies in psychological test scores, fantasies and play; that
there was no demonstrable relationship between the intensity of televised violence
and the intensity of violent behavior; and that television programs with more
aggressive content produced more aggressive fantasies, and exposure to programs
with less aggressive content resulted in decreased aggressive fantasies, play and
preoccupation. It was also found that though television viewing was not a causal
factor in the development of violent behavioral tendencies among youthful offend-
ers, television sometimes provided a model for the imitation of anti~social techniques
in the commission of crimes in persons predisposed to crime.
In order to continue our research efforts we recently solicited proposals from
more than 500 colleges and universities for original pilot research projects to ascer-
tain further the social and psychological impact of television programming content
PAGENO="0395"
391
upon viewers, particularly children. Grants have been awarded for five pilot pro-
jects.
Instituted in January 1975 and recently reaffirmed, was the "family viewing
policy." In general, the family viewing policy provides that the first hour of each
night of our prime time network entertainment schedule, from 8:00PM to 9:00PM
Eastern time and the hour immediately preceding are devoted to programming
suitable for the general family audience. In addition, the policy prescribes that in
those cases where, in our judgment, programming in this period may, on occasion,
contain material which might be regarded as unsuitable for younger members of the
family, the viewing audience will be appropriately advised both by televising audio
and video announcements at the start of the program and in the print advertising
and on-air promotional material related to such programming.
In sum, what we are doing is, on the one hand, developing and encouraging a
diversified program schedule which seeks to evolve new forms, varied program fare
and broader choice for the audience, while, on the other hand, directing and intensi-
fying our efforts in the broadcast standards area toward responsible presentation of
acts of violence in action programs.
ATTACHMENT B
A BILL To amend the Communications Act to grant to the Federal Communications
Commission the power to regulate pay-cable television and to clarify the intent of
Congress regarding the regulation of pay television.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled.
That Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) is amended by
inserting at the end thereof the following:
`(gg) "Pay television" is any programming distributed to the public for which a
per program, per channel, or other direct charge is made and which is distributed
either by a cable television system or by any other means utilizing a public frequen-
cy subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
SEc. 2. Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 USC 301 et seq.) is
amended by inserting therein, immediately after section 330 thereof, the following
new section 331:
REGULATION OF PAY TELEVISION
SEC. 331. The Commission shall regulate pay television in such a manner that-
"`(a) The development and provision of pay television will be consistent with the
establishment, development, and healthy maintenance of free over-the-air television
broadcast services available to all members of the public, including persons who are
unable or unwilling to subscribe to or otherwise purchase pay television.
"(b) Pay television program originations will be innovative and supplemental to
the program services of television broadcast stations and will be regulated to en-
courage increased outlets for local community expression, political expression, pro-
gramming attuned to specialized interests, the expression of diverse viewpoints on
important public issues, and educational and instructional services and so that the
public will not have to subscribe to or otherwise purchase pay television for recep-
tion of programs that otherwise are or would be available without charge from free
over-the-air television broadcast stations.'
CBS INC.,
New York, NY, May 17, 1977.
Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Room 115, Russell State Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: During the May 9 broadcast oversight hearings, the
television network company representatives were asked about their respective Presi-
dential reply policies.
The current CBS policy dates back to June 6, 1973. A copy of that policy, taken
from the CBS News Standards manual, is attached. CBS has found this approach to
be practical and effective in presenting contrasting views "whenever the President
speaks to the nation on radio or television on matters of major policy concerning
which there is significant national disagreement."
I would like to stress that each Presidential appearance does not trigger a reply
broadcast, and that the selection of guests and the format of the reply program rests
PAGENO="0396"
392
with CBS News. I would also like to point out that this policy was discussed by CBS
representatives on March 3 with Congressman John Rhodes and William Brock,
Chairman of the Republican National Committee, at their request.
Finally, I am also enclosing the list of reply broadcasts, with the names of those
appearing, since this policy came into effect.
Cordially,
JOHN A. SCHNEIDER,
President.
Enclosures.
PRODUCTION STANDARDS
Presidential Reply Policy
Whenever the President speaks to the nation on radio or television on matters of
major policy concerning which there is significant national disagreement, CBS will
present a broadcast of other viewpoints related to those matters of major policy.
The length and format of, and the persons appearing on, such broadcast will be
determined by CND in light of the relevant facts of the Presidential appearance.
The broadcast will be scheduled as soon as practicable, but generally no later than
one week after the President speaks.
CND will provide analyses immediately following broadcast appearances of the
President and other persons of public importance when, in its news judgment, such
service seems desirable and adequate preparation is feasible.
REPLIES TO PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENTS
FROM JUNE 6, 1973
President Richard M. Nixon
June 13, 1973, 8:29-8:47 p.m., CBS News Special Report-President Nixon's Eco-
nomic Message.
June 19, 1973, 10-10:20 p.m., CBS News Special Report-the President's Economic
Message: Voices in Opposition: Leonard Woodcock (President, U.A.W.), Senator
Henry Jackson (D., Wash.), E. Douglas Kenna (President, National Association of
Manufacturers).
November 25, 1973, 7-7:18 p.m., CBS News Special Report-Presidential Address
on the Energy Crisis (speech to 7:13).
December 2, 1973, 7-7:19 p.m., CBS News Special Report-Voices in Oppostion:
Senator William Proxmire (D., Wis.) (speech to 7:14).
January 30, 1974, 9-10 p.m., CBS News Special Report-State of the Union
Message (speech to 9:49).
February 1, 1974, 10-11 p.m., CBS News Special Report-State of the Union: A
Democratic View: Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D., Mont.), (speech
10-10:30 question-and-answer period 10:30-10:50).
July 25, 1974, 7:30-8:15 p.m., CBS News Special Report-The President and the
Economy (address on the economy, before a group of businessmen) (speech to 8:08).
July 31, 1974, 7:30-8 p.m., CBS News Special Report-Democratic Response to
President Nixon's Economic Address: Senator Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. (D., Tex.)
(speech to 7:56).
President Gerald R. Ford
October 8, 1974, 4-4:53 p.m., CBS News Special Report-President Ford's Econom-
ic Message to Congress (speech to 4:47).
October 15, 1974, 4-4:30 p.m., CBS News Special Report-Senator Mike Mans-
field's Response to President Ford's Economic Address: Senate Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield (D., Mont.) (speech to 4:16).
January 13, 1975, 9-9:28 p.m., President Ford's Economic Address (speech to 9:22).
January 22, 1975, 10-10:25 p.m., CBS News Special Report-Senator Humphrey's
Response to President Ford's Economic Address: Senator Hubert Humphrey (D.,
Minn.).
April 10, 1975, 9-10:11 p.m., CBS News Special Report-The State of the World:
The President's Report (speech to 10:04).
10:11-11 p.m., CBS News Special Report-the State of the World: Other Voices,
Other Views, panel discussions: George Ball (former Under Secretary of State,
former representative to the United Nations), William Bundy (former Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs), Zbigniew Brzezinski (director,
Research Institute of International Change, Columbia University), Senator Hubert
Humphrey (D., Minn.), Representative Robert Michel (R., Ill.), Senator John Brade-
PAGENO="0397"
393
mas (D., md.), Senator John Tower (R., Tex.), Senator James Buckley (R., N.Y.),
Senator Frank Church (D., Idaho), Senator George McGovern (D., N.D.).
May 27, 1975, 8:30-9 p.m., CBS News Special Report-President Ford's Energy
Address and Opposing Viewpoints (Ford's speech to 8:44): Senator Dale Bumpers (D.,
Ark.), Representative Al Ullman (D., Ore.) (8:45-8:57).
January 19, 1976, 9-10:00 p.m. CBS News Special Report-State of the Union
Address (speech to 9:52).
January 21, 1976, 9-9:44 p.m., CBS News Special Report-State of the Union: A
Democratic View: Senator Edmund Muskie (D., Maine) (speech to 9:37).
President Jimmy Carter
April 20, 1977, 9-9:40 p.m., CBS News Special Report-Presidential Address to
Joint Session of Congress.
April 22, 1977, 8-9 p.m., CBS News Special Report-The Energy Crisis: Alterna-
tives to the Carter Proposals (panel discussions).
CBS News Correspondents: Barry Serafin, Nelson Benton, Phil Jones; Frank
Ikard (President, American Petroleum Institute); George Lawrence (President,
American Gas Assn.); Dr. Richard Lesher (President, United States Chamber of
Commerce); Ralph Nader; Carl Bagge (President, National Coal Assn.); Bill Brock
(Chairman, Republican Party); Sen. Harrison Schmitt (R-N.M.).
CBS INc., 51 WEST 52 STREET
New York, NY, September 1, 1977.
Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Communications Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Room 5202 Dirksen Bldg., Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: In the absence of John A Schneider, President of the
CBS/Broadcast Group, I am forwarding the answers to the questions in your letter
of August 10.
Cordially,
GENE P. MATER.
Enclosure.
NETWORK
Question. Over the past year how many ads were shown on your network? How
many of these ads are for food products that have a high nutritional content? How
many ads were for food products? How many of these ads were for cereal products
and candy products? How many ads were for over the counter drugs?
Answer. While the CBS Television Network does not maintain records which
readily reveal the specific information you request, we prepared the following
estimates which we believe to be reasonably accurate. During 1976, approximately
40,000 minutes were devoted to commercials on the CBS Television Network. Food
products1 comprised roughly 19 percent of this time.2 Advertising for cereal prod-
ucts comprised less than 7 percent and advertising for candy products less than 2
percent of total advertising. Advertising for health related products3 totaled 16
percent of all advertising on the CBS Television Network in 1976.
Question. The statement has been made that only 2 percent of the 21,000 ads seen
by children in one year involve a product which has a high nutritive content. If you
disagree with this statement-what percent would you use and why?
Answer. Not knowing the basis for the above statement or the criteria used in
determining the nutritional merit of a product, we are unable to take a definitive
position on this assertion. Nevertheless, while we are not experts on the subject of
nutrition, our experience is considering a rule on food advertising proposed by the
Federal Trade Commission causes us seriously to question the validity of making
any such pronouncement. For example, one of the key sections of the FTC's original
proposal established minimum nutritional standards that foods must meet before
they could be advertised as "nutritious." If one applied these requirements, such
`The category of "food products" includes items such as cooking products and seasonings,
prepared foods, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, meats, poultry, fish and baking goods.
Beverages are excluded from this total.
2While this question calls for the number of advertisements for "food products that have a
high nutritional content," we submit that, as discussed below, any such categorization is highly
subjective and open to dispute.
The category of "health related products" includes personal hygiene and health products,
miscellaneous toilet goods, hair products, and medicines and propriety remedies.
PAGENO="0398"
394
foods as milk, eggs and wheat germ-foods generally regarded to be valuable nutri-
tionally-could not be advertised as "nutritious."
Evaluating "nutritive content," we found, involves highly subjective judgments
and even experts cannot agree on many of the significant issues relating to the
nutritional properties of food products. Thus, even before the final date for receiving
comments on the food advertising rule, the FTC announced that it was rethinking
the four key provisions of the rule.
Question. Regarding deaf captioning, what are the ways to caption which you are
exploring? How many programs have you captioned? What timetable for resolving
this problem have you set for yourselves? What are your estimates of cost?
Answer. CBS has been concerned for several years with the matter of captioning
programs for the hearing-impaired. Of the systems in various stages of development,
one-the Line 21 system of closed captioning-has been the subject of much discus-
sion.
CBS has carefully considered this and other systems. Our investigation has in-
cluded an experimental captioning of a one-hour episode of THE WALTONS. Be-
cause of technical and other problems, we have concluded that the Line 21 system is
not a viable one at this time. Further, other systems in development might well
prove superior. Therefore, we do not think it proper to lock the viewers and the
industry into a system that might be soon outmoded.
CBS has not captioned any programs for actual broadcast, and has no present
plans to do so. Our position was summarized in a letter to President Carter on
March 9, 1977, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A. We also filed extensive,
detailed comments with the FCC on May 10, 1976; a copy of that filing will be made
available to this Subcommittee, if requested.
STRUCTURE AND INFLUENCE OF NETWORKS~
Question. How many of the network programs are prescreened by affiliates? How
far in advance of airing do the affiliates receive the network shows? How often do
affiliates fail to clear? Please elaborate on the nature of the influence exerted on
you by your affiliates in the area of programming.
Answer. CBS routinely previews for its affiliates eight and one-half to nine hours
of programming per week, primarily between 4:30 and 6:30 PM weekdays.' Virtual-
ly all entertainment specials are previewed, as are many "made-for-television"
motion pictures, and those episodes of series that, in the experience of CBS, include
the kind of material that affiliated stations have indicated an interest in preview-
ing. In addition, beginning this Fall, CBS will, as a general practice, preview
theatrical feature ifims at least 28 days in advance of scheduled broadcast. Beyond
these regular previewings, CBS has in the past, when feasible, provided individual
stations with the opportunity on request to preview any program not otherwise
scheduled for previewing. And we would expect to be able to continue to do so in the
future as part of CBS' long standing practice of working with our affiliates to assist
them in their efforts to serve their audiences.
How far in advance previewing can take place depends on when the programs
have been completed and received by the network. Because of the nature of the
creative process, programs are often not completed and delivered very far in ad-
vance of broadcast. For example, during February 1977, of the 38 programs in CBS'
closed circuit previewing schedule, only three were delivered more than four weeks
before scheduled broadcast and only three others were delivered more than two
weeks before broadcast. To attempt-as some have suggested-to enforce early
deadlines on program producers might, even if it were possible, impose significant
social costs such as a decline in program quality, loss of topicality, and the early
fixing of program schedules with no flexibility for program substitution.
Previewing is, of course, only one means of providing program information to
affiliates. CBS, like the other networks, provides a substantial amount of material
to its affiliated stations about the programs that it offers. For example, at the
affiliates meeting each spring, the proposed network schedule for the fall is intro-
duced and pilots or sample segments of new programs are exhibited. During the
summer before a broadcast season, the Press Information Department distributes to
CBS' answers to the questions under this heading were derived from CBS' June 1, 1977
Comments in response to the FCC's Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 21049, relating to commer-
cial television network practices. We, will, of course, provide a copy of those Comments to this
Subcommittee, if requested.
If the amount of programs requested to be previewed exceeds the time available between
4:30 and 6:30 PM weekdays, CBS will use other available time periods, including the early
morning hours following its late-night offering.
PAGENO="0399"
395
the affiliated stations several volumes of information on the season's programming,
including story lines of series and synopses of theatrical and "made-for-television"
motion pictures. During the season, the Program Practices Department prepares
and distributes (approximately one to two weeks before the scheduled broadcast)
Advance Program Information Reports, which describe in some detail the content of
specials, feature films, and each episode of series. Also, four times each week the
Press Information Department provides CBS affiliates with program content, per-
former information, feature stories and scheduling data as announced for forthcom-
ing weeks. In addition, the Press Information Department provides, three and one-
half weeks prior to air date, an Advance Program Schedule that summarizes the
content of upcoming episodes of scheduled series, specials and feature films for a
seven-day period. This material is updated daily as needed.
It is through this ongoing communication that affiliates receive the extensive
program information which they use in making their decisions on how best to serve
their communities.
In response to your question regarding the clearance of network programming,
clearance patterns vary substantially among affiliated stations, with some choosing
to clear virtually all of the network offerings and others rejecting a large number of
network programs.6 CBS believes that network programs aid the stations in serving
the public and are economically advantageous to the stations, and that station
clearances of programs reflect the desirability of those progams.
You have asked that we "elaborate on the nature of the influence" exerted by
affiliates in the area of programming. CBS maintains a continuous dialogue with its
affiliates concerning network programming. At the affiliates meeting each spring,
when the proposed network schedule for the fall is introduced, all facets of network
programming-including news and public affairs programs, sports, entertainment
series, specials and feature films-are discussed. In addition, conferences between
CBS Television Network management and affiliated stations personnel are held
periodically within each region. More importantly, the owners, station managers
and program directors of individual affiliated stations are in continual communica-
tion with CBS-through face-to-face meetings and by written and telephone contacts
on a daily basis.
Certainly networks and affiliates share the goal of high quality programming
which is acceptable to the audiences served by these stations. Thus this exchange of
ideas and information between a network and its affiliates is crucial, and the
"influence"of affiliates on network programming is a built-in and continuing facet
of the relationship.
Question. The amount of network produced programming has increased and pre-
dominates prime time. Do you consider this to be a positive trend? Why? (8:00 till
11:00 pm-100% network)
Answer. While it is perfectly true that the networks offer a full schedule of
programs between 8:00 PM and 11:00 PM, we would point out (1) that over the past
15 years there has been no significant expansion of the CBS Television Network
schedule and (2) that the amount of programming acutally produced by CBS-as
opposed to independent producers-has dramatically decreased.
Compared to 1960, there has, in fact, been a decrease in the number of hours of
regularly scheduled programs offered during the "prime time" period between 7:00
PM to 11:00 PM. In the 1960/61 broadcast season, CBS offered 50.5 half hours per
week during prime time (52.5 hours the following year). During the 1975/76 season,
the network offered 44 prime time half hours per week.
With respect to the prime time entertainment series offered by CBS, there has
been a substantial decrease in the amount of CBS-produced programming since the
early 1960s. Between 1957 and 1968, CBS-produced regularly scheduled entertain-
ment series accounted for, on the average, 18 percent of the CBS Television Net-
work prime time entertainment schedule. During the period commencing with the
1971/72 season through the 1975/76 season, regularly-scheduled entertainment
series produced by CBS accounted for less than 5 percent of the prime time enter-
tainment schedule. If CBS-produced entertainment specials, made-for-television
movies and pilots (other than those selected for series) are included, the portion of
61n connection with the FCC's inquiry into network practices, Westinghouse Broadcasting
Company, Inc. argued that circumstances compel clearance of network programming. In CBS'
Comments in that proceeding, we pointed out that Westinghouse's CBS affiliates, KDKA-TV/
Pittsburgh and KPIX-TV/San Francisco, did not clear 1106 and 990 half-hours of network
programming, respectively, in 1976.
7 of the decrease is of course attributable to the Commission's adoption of the prime time
access rule (47 C.F.R. § 73.658(k)).
PAGENO="0400"
396
the CBS Television Network entertainment schedule that is produced by CBS is still
very small.
In any event, to the extent that more programming is offered by the networks, a
greater amount of programming exists from which affiliated stations may choose; in
fact, other stations benefit from such programming since, if an affiliated station
chooses not to clear the program, it is then available to other stations in the
market.
VIOLENCE
Question. Judging by your statements, the networks have the problem of violence
well under control. Yet recently Mr. David Rintels, President of Writers Guild, West
stated: `There is far too much violence on televison. I deplore it. It is frequently
gratuitous and most people of good will can readily agree that even in the face of
incomplete evidence, it is harmful to children.' `There is as much violence on
television as broadcasters want, no more, no less. They see it used on television as a
cheap and easy substitute for the meaningful forms of confrontation. Given free
choice (writers) would rather write about the human intellectual and moral con-
cerns we all have, rather than solve problems with kicks, guns and punches.' Please
Comment.
Answer. CBS has in the past several years given serious attention to the question
of violence and has significantly decreased the amount of violence in prime time
television. Nonetheless, it is not surprising that there are those, such as Mr. Rintels,
who disagree on this issue. Issues related to television violence are disputed at all
levels-starting with the most basic question of defining the term "violence." 8 For
example, while we do not believe that television comedy contains meaningful acts of
violence, some of our critics disagree with this position-they would argue, for
instance, that Carol Burnett throwing a pie at Tim Conway is an act of violence.
A network attempts to create a schedule of broadcasts which responds to the
viewing interests of the diverse audience it serves. The fundamental elements of a
network schedule consequently include drama, comedy, variety shows, motion pic-
tures, news, public affairs, science-fiction, westerns, and action-adventure programs.
We believe the last category is a legitimate part of the spectrum of television
programs. Indeed, this form of entertainment has been with us for centuries in
literature and drama; inherent to this form is conflict and jeopardy, often drama-
tized or resolved by violence.
Implicit in Mr. Rintels' charge that there is too much violence on television is the
view that there are too many action-adventure programs on television. We question,
however, how representative Mr. Rintels' view is of the wishes and standards of the
American television viewer. Thus, some individuals and organizations have found
fault with the efforts of the networks to reduce violence in prime time programs. In
fact, other members of the Hollywood creative community, associates of Mr. Rintels,
feel that the reduction of police action-adventure programs has diminished the
value of television entertainment. Yet other individuals and groups agree with Mr.
Rintels that more reductions must be made. The simple fact is that no one is
capable of saying just what constitutes the right amount of action-adventure pro-
gramming. It is a matter of personal taste and preference-and these are frequently
subject to change. For example, in 1958 there were 30 "westerns" in prime time
television programmed by the networks; some of these series were far more violent
than anything on television today, yet there were few complaints.
We must also take issue with Mr. Rintels' assertion that the violence in contem-
porary television is "frequently gratuitous." Frank Price, president of Universal
Television, said recently that "if you study television week by week and look for
gratuitous or excessive violence. . . you'll have a hard time finding it." CBS maintains
an extensive staff to review material submitted for television and to work with the
writers and producers and directors in finding ways to eliminate what could be
considered gratuitous violence.~ Last season, approximately 23 percent of the vio-
lence called for in scripts submitted to CBS was eliminated in this process.'°
8 See, e.g., CBS, "Final Comments on the Violence Profile,"discussing the issue of televised
violence. A copy of these comments is attached as Appendix B.
~Enclosed is a copy of a videotape presentation made by Van Gordon Sauter, Vice President,
Program Practices, CBS Television Network, at the May 1977 CBS Television Network Affiliates
Convention regarding CBS' broadcast program standards.
loIn connection with a May 11, 1977 appearance before the Communications Subcommittee by
Mr. Sauter we previously provided to the Subcommittee some CBS Television Network Program
Practice editing notes which reveal efforts by CBS to insure that any physical conflict in a
program is integral to the story line and not gratuitous.
PAGENO="0401"
397
Mr. Price, whose organization produces some of the most popular series on televi-
sion, told TV Guide recently that the networks don't request that violence be added
to television shows. "I don't think it would work," he said. "I think that if the
subject matter requires an honest depiction of violence, that is what's done. If it
does not require that, it's not done."
A study of television schedules will reveal that commercial and public television
provide American viewers with a wide range of viewing choices. CBS does not
underestimate the ability of viewers to make decisions for themselves and we
endeavor to contribute by providing a wide and engaging variety of options for free
home entertainment.
Question. Do you have any specific legislative proposals for dealing with the
subject of pay cable?
Answer. While CBS remains seriously concerned about the potential detrimental
effects pay cable television may have on the free, over-the-air service now received
by the vast majority of the American viewing public, CBS at present does not have
any specific legislative proposals in connection with pay cable television.
CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING
Question. At a recent National Symposium on Children's Television at Howard
University, David Rintels, President of Writer's Guild stated: `Writers, actors, and
directors will provide better children's programming if the networks give us the
opportunity. We can give you, because we want to give you, children's drama,
comedy, puppet shows, ballet, music, history, art programs designed positively to
entertain and educate children-not programs designed negatively. . . .` Would you
please comment on Mr. Rintels' statement."
Answer. CBS' record of achievement in the area of children's programming re-
futes Mr. Rintels' assertion that our presentations in this area are not designed
positively to entertain and educate children.
Before turning to an examination of specific series and special programs which
exemplify CBS' objectives and accomplishments in children's programming, it
should be noted that programs for young viewers on the CBS Television Network
are offered every weekday morning, on Saturday and Sunday morning and at
various other times during weekends, as well as in the early evening hours.
Because so many small children are in the Saturday morning audience, the
Network has retained, as consultant, noted specialists in educational planning for
children. Among these specialists are Dr. Gordon Berry of the Graduate School of
Education, University of California at Los Angeles, and Dr. Roger Fransecky, Direc-
tor of the University Media Services Center of the University of Cincinnati. Other
educational specialists serving on an advisory panel for the network's children's
programming are Dr. Thomas La Belle, Assistant Dean and Associate Professor,
Graduate School of Education, UCLA; Dr. Norma Feshbach, Professor, Graduate
School of Education, UCLA; Dr. James Sackett, Associate Professor of Archaeology
and Anthropology, UCLA; Dr. Seymour Feshbach, Professor, Department of Psy-
chology, UCLA; Dr. Gloria J. Powell, M.D., Child Psychiatrist, Child Outpatient
Clinic, Neuro Psychiatric Institute, UCLA; and Mrs. Gloria Searls, Director, Inter-
national Childrens Center, Los Angeles.
The following exemplifies the CBS Television Network's goals and achievements
in children's programming:
Captain Kangaroo: Presented Monday through Friday mornings, this longest-
running daytime network children's program, now in its 22nd year on the network,
has excited the interests of its young viewers in the world around them, in far-away
places and people, in the wonders of nature and animal life, in music and literature,
indeed in all the arts and sciences. A citation from Ohio State University reads:
"This much praised and awarded children's program is deserving of still further
recognition for its sustained high quality of performance."
In The News: Conceived by CBS News and presented in 13 segments on Saturday
and Sunday mornings, this pioneering Peabody Award-winning series for school-age
children provides young viewers with a detailed explanation in documentary form of
words, phrases, and subjects that they may have heard discussed and not completely
understood on regular news broadcasts, at school, or over the dinner table.
Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids: A highly successful and extraordinary experiment
in educational programming by a commercial network, the series deals with specific
and very real problems which affect all children at one time or another-lying,
playing hooky, cheating, ganging up, frustrations, anger and tattling. The situations
and characters are drawn from comedian Bill Cosby's childhood in Philadelphia,
20-122 0 - 78 - 20
PAGENO="0402"
398
and are illustrated in animation with Cosby himself appearing to expound on the
themes of each episode.
The CBS Saturday Film Frestival: Selecting the best children's films from abroad,
this Peabody Award-winning series provides a brilliant panorama of customs and
attitudes from different lands, and represents one of those rare combinations of
pure entertainment and cultural values wrapped up in one pleasurable package.
What's it all About?: This CBS News series was designed to help young people
better understand the exciting, often complicated and sometimes confusing world in
which they live and the events that influence that world. During the past season,
the series dealt with such subjects as the role of women in America today, the
mystery surrounding the Loch Ness monster, Presidential elections, and the possi-
bility of life on other planets.
Razzmatazz: In a news magazine format for young people, Razzmatazz had a
successful pilot presentation last season and will be broadcast as a series of occa-
sional specials on Saturdays in the coming season. The underlying concept of the
series has been defined as "reality treated in a form that is engaging as well as
informative, reflecting an interest in people-especially young people working, play-
ing, going about their daily lives with zest."
The Winners: Scheduled to premiere this season, this monthly series of half-hour
dramatic specials will be presented in the late afternoon as after school specials and
will focus on young men and women who have overcome personal and physical
obstacles in their lives.
The CBS Festival of Lively Arts for Young People: All aspects of culture are
subjects of entertaining and informative exposition in this wide-ranging series, of
which the prestigious New York Philharmonic Young People's Concerts are now a
part. Last seasons presentations also included "Henry Winkler Meets William
Shakespeare," "You're a Poet and Don't Know It!. . . The Poetry Power Hour" and
Giacomo Puccini's "Gianni Schicchi." The new season will contain new productions
as well as selected rebroadcasts.
Marshall Efron's Illustrated, Simplified and Painless Sunday School: In telling
Bible Stories to his young viewers, Marshall Efron, in his witty and expressive way,
speaks of the goodness of the world. Each program is designed to make children
wonder about human history, human potential and the ever present reality of good
and evil.
Animated Classics: The presentation in animated form of literature's most endur-
ing and popular classics has been a highlight of network programming for young
people. In the forthcoming season, for example, these classic stories will include
"Davey Crockett on the Mississippi," based on the exploits of the legendary folk
hero; "Journey to the Center of the Earth," based on the Jules Verne tale; and
"Five Weeks in a Balloon," another Verne story of a journey across Africa.
Charlie Brown Specials: In honoring a Charlie Brown special with a Peabody
Award, the citation noted that the broadcast "was a delight for the whole family."
In this coming season, two brand new and equally enjoyable Charlie Brown specials
and four entertaining rebroadcasts will be presented.
Dr. Seuss Specials: The particular genius of Theodor (Dr. Seuss) Geisel, with its
special appeal to young people as well as to adults, has been captured in the Dr.
Seuss specials which are now a much-anticipated feature of CBS programming. In
the coming season, Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas and two other of his
distinctive specials are scheduled.
Holiday Programming: The Christmas season has traditionally been highlighted
by special programming to celebrate this family-oriented period. Among the favorite
shows that will light up the television screen this season will be Rudolph the Red-
Nose Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, and Twas the Night Before Christmas. This
Easter, Raggedy Ann and Andy will be presented.
Other Network Programming: Many programs broadcast on the CBS Television
Network have enormous educational, character-building and entertainment values
for younger members of the family, although the programs themselves are basically
intended for viewing by older segments of the audience. To cite just one example,
episodes of The Waltons often contain messages that are inspirational and instruc-
tional to young people in the context of family living. Certainly, many of the
specials broadcast on the network have historical, sociological and interpersonal
relationship lessons for children that are highly beneficial in the process of matura-
tion.'1
"Attached for the Committee's information, as Appendix C, is a booklet prepared by CBS
entitled Learning While They Laugh which provides additional information regarding children's
programming on the CBS Television Network.
PAGENO="0403"
399
In addition to carrying network children's programming, each of the five CBS
Owned television stations has demonstrated its commitment to presenting worth-
while and enjoyable programming directed to children. For example last spring the
five CBS Television Stations, in cooperation and association with The Corporation
for Entertainment and Learning, created and developed Marlo and the Magic Movie
Machine--a one-hour weekly educational and informational series for children aged
six to twelve. Dr. Roger Fransecky was retained as a consultant on the series.
Under his direction, a panel of educators (one from each CBS Television Station
city) was established to advise the producers of the interests and concerns of the
targeted audience and the needs of the schools.
Last year, the five CBS stations joined with ITC and Henson Associates to develop
The Muppet Show. This entertaining series has been a phenomenal success with
both critics and audiences, and is currently being syndicated internationally. Mr.
Henson has been cited for his work on Sesame Street and The Muppet Show and
the show itself has received the British equivalent of an Academy Award.
Finally, each CBS Ov~med station locally produces its own quality children's
specials for broadcast in prime time. Examples of such programming include:
Albert the Magnificent: Produced by WCAU-TV/Philadelphia and using the
famous Ritts puppets, this special was a fantasy tale with an underlying social
theme about individual freedom.
Hey Earthling: This broadcast was produced by WCBS-TV/New York, and was
designed to teach young viewers word comprehension.
When I Grow Up: This series of specials produced by KMOX-TV/V St. Louis
consisted of five programs exploring various career paths youngsters might
pursue--policeman, fire fighter, railroad engineer, riverboat captain and television
reporter.
The Stanley Spider Special: Produced by KNXT/Los Angeles. This program fea-
tured comedian Arte Johnson and a cast of puppets and Marionettes performing a
songbook of American music.
Blue Beast: The Travel Machine: Produced by WBBM-TV/Chicago. The special
chronicled a year-long motor trip through Europe and Russia by the station's two
sportscasters Johnnie and Jeannie Morris and their four children.'2
Question. Should there be more public service advertisements directed toward
children?
Answer. The CBS Television Network believes that public service announcements
can provide a valuable informational service to all viewers, and welcomes the
submission of such material. In this connection, we note that many public service
messages which we broadcast are as relevant to children as they are to adults. Thus,
the CBS Television Network regularly presents public service announcements on
subjects such as littering, fire prevention, and safety tips for children and adults. In
addition, CBS is particularly responsive to announcements directed primarily
toward children and such messages are aired at a time when young people consti-
tute a sizeable portion of the available audience. Thus, some spots of particular
relevance to children aired in Saturday morning programming have concerned
physical fitness, nutrition, safety, the Boy and Girl Scouts and dental hygiene. The
network always welcomes new and engaging announcements and seeks to broadcast
them in a manner beneficial to its audience.
Question. Substantial amounts of money are spent each year on advertising direct-
ed at children. Clearly, children are viewed as consumers. Parents cannot assume
the entire burden of controlling this situation. What have the networks done to
create positive advertising to help the child become an enlightened consumer?
Answer. We believe that a necessary part of the process by which children can
become enlightened consumers is through their exposure to responsible
advertising--on television and in other media as well. The key word, however, is
"responsible" and by that we mean advertising which is truthful and which avoids
exploiting the young child's still-limited intellectual abilities. Certainly, a policy of
shielding children from advertising--even if that were possible--would not help
them to develop the consumer skills they will need in later years. But neither are
they assisted in this process if the advertising they see is deceptive, misleading or
otherwise unfair. We at CBS have long been sensitive to the need to insure that
television advertising directed to young audiences is done only in the most responsi-
ble manner.
Toward that end, it has been our policy for many years that the child-directed
advertising broadcast over the CBS Television Network be in strict compliance with
the Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters. In addition CBS
12 Enclosed, as Appendix D are press releases describing other children's programming pro-
duced by CBS stations.
PAGENO="0404"
400
has formulated guidelines of its own which must be met by every child-directed
commercial we broadcast; in some instances these go beyond the requirements
imposed by the Code. This continuing commitment to the interest and well-being of
our young audiences is something of which we are extremely proud. In our judg-
ment, then, a great deal is being done at CBS to insure the kind of responsible
television advertising to children which contributes importantly to their develop-
ment as enlightened consumers.
We wish to respond also to another aspect of the question, wherein it is observed
that "parents cannot assume the entire burden of controlling this situation." We
assume that this refers to what might follow from the advertisers' "substantial"
investment in reaching young audiences.
We at CBS have for some years been sensitive to children's exposure to advertis-
ing. Through our Office of Social Research, we have devoted considerable effort to
learning what empirical evidence may exist concerning the effect of advertising on
children. Specifically:
Since the early 1970s, we have maintained a continuing surveillance of the
growing research literature addressed to various facets of the children's advertising
issue.
In 1973, CBS became a charter subscriber to the syndicated research service The
Child. That service sought, through periodic nation-wide surveys of mothers and
their children, to develop valid and reliable research data on how youngsters pre-
ceive and respond to television advertising. The Child is no longer in existence, but
the surveys it conducted during its relatively short life-span have served as a useful
source of data in this field.
Also in 1973, CBS became a member of Marketing Science Institute, a widely
respected research organization affiliated with Harvard Business School. We did do
principally because of the Institute's established commitment to research in the
area of children's advertising--a commitment which we hoped, through our partici-
pation on the MSI Board of Trustees, to encourage and extend. We believe we have
been successful in achieving that objective.
Within the past 18 months, CBS has committed substantial grant monies to
Marketing Science Institute for research into the question of how mothers respond
to their pre-teenage children's requests for products they encounter in television
advertising and elsewhere.
From all of the empirical evidence amassed to date--and there has been a great
deal of it-we have found none which conclusively demonstrates undesirable conse-
quences to children from the policies and practices followed by CBS and the other
networks~ with regard to child-directed advertising. We would add that this is
essentially the position reached by the recently completed review, sponsored by the
National Science Foundation, of the entire body of research literature pertinent to
the effect of children's advertising. We will, of course, continue our commitment to
the monitoring and support of research in this area.
Question. How many advertising minutes per hour are there during the hours
when children are the predominant audience?
Answer. In recent years, the amount of non-program time on weekend children's
programming has been reduced from 16 to 12 to 10 minutes to the current nine and
a half minutes. Of this total, eight minutes contain commercials. Non-program
material in daily weekday broadcasts of Captain Kangaroo had been reduced from
16 minutes to the present level of 12 minutes. Of this amount, 10 minutes constitute
commercial announcements.
APPENDIX A
CBS INc., NEW YORK, N.Y.
March 9, 1977.
The Honorable JIMMY CARTER,
President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Thank you for your letter of February 18 regarding televi-
sion caption service for people with hearing difficulties. This is a problem that has
concerned CBS for some time.
Our engineers have worked for many years to improve both radio and television
sound transmission and to provide assistance for those with impaired hearing. In
television, we have been able to make some modest improvements, such as putting
score and player information in visual form on the television screen during sporting
events. Obviously, this is only a beginning, in the face of so much more that needs
to be done.
PAGENO="0405"
401
There are a number of approaches in various stages of development that show
promise, although only one particular method, the Line 21 captioning proposal
advanced by the Public Broadcasting System and approved by the Federal Commu-
nications Commission, has thus far been in the national test stage. CBS made an
extensive study of this proposal, weighed all the options and even captioned a one-
hour episode of The Waltons as an experiment. After all this, we came to the
conclusion, along with other broadcasters and some engineering groups, that Line
21 captioning should be opposed; and we submitted our reasons in detail to the FCC
last May 10.
If the Line 21 system were put into operation, each family where there was a
member with a serious hearing impairment would require a decoder costing about
$150. The cost to the broadcaster for captioning a single program such as The
Waltons can be measured by the fact that our test captioning for such a program
ran to some $4,000. Captioning equipment costs for a broadcaster would cost about
$250,000. The costs would be prohibitive for most individual stations wanting to
caption local programs. And of course, as soon as a better system was developed-as
I am sure it will be-all this equipment might be worthless, including the deaf
person's $150 decoder.
Apart from costs, the time lag necessary for use of the Line 21 system on a
broadcast makes it impossible for live programming of any kind, such as news and
sports, and for programming such as 60 Minutes which is subject to change right up
to air time.
In approaching the various problems of transmitting broadcasts to those with
hearing problems, we have to recognize the fact that we are dealing with varying
degrees of impairment. Less than 10 percent of those classified by the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare as "hearing impaired" are totally unable to hear.
A great many of the hearing impaired could use an amplification device now being
employed in Germany, which provides a means of giving them the actual sound of
music and voices rather than mute "subtitles". And such an audio system would
help those hearing-impaired people who also suffer from reading or visual disability.
A "teletext"-type system is also now being tested in several European countries,
and holds the promise of being more efficient and versatile than the Line 21 system.
We are hopeful that continued work will make it possible to serve the hearing
impaired better than can be done now. To that end, let me assure you of our
continued interest in not "freezing" the state of the art at this juncture. We will
keep on with our work to improve our service.
Respectfully,
JOHN D. BACKE,
President, CBS, Inc.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, February 18, 1977.
Mr. JOHN BACKE,
President, CBS, Inc.
New York, NY.
To MR. JOHN BACKE: As you know, there are many Americans who suffer from
serious hearing impairments. At present, these people are unable to benefit from
television, one of the major sources of information available to the rest of us.
I understand that some experiments with closed captioning, partially funded by
HEW and PBS, have been successful in twelve national test sites. Ninety-four
percent of the deaf persons interviewed in a nationwide poll indicated that they
would purchase a home decoder if closed captioning were available in their areas.
Additionally, some stations have broadcast selected programs using sign language.
Your suggestions about these and other practical means of helping our deaf
citizens would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
JIMMY CARTER.
PAGENO="0406"
402
APPENDIX B
CBS INC., NEW YORK, N.Y.
July 21, 1977.
FINAL COMMENTS ON THE VIOLENCE PROFILE
We have reviewed the Gerbner' comments on our analysis of the Gerbner Vio-
lence Profile, submitted to the House Subcommittee on Communications, and we
continue to hold the views expressed in our earlier document: the Violence Index is
based on an overly broad definition of violence, it is derived by a variety of
arbitrary techniques for which no scientific justification has been established, and it
is statistically faulty. Further, the Risk Ratio analysis is little more than a hypoth-
esis whose scientific validity has never been demonstrated and for which simpler
more readily-understandable hypotheses could easily be substituted. We will com-
ment further on these issues below.
We cannot let pass, however, Gerbner's unfortunate descent to ad hominem
arguments. Instead of keeping to the issues and facts, he and his associates have
increasingly tended to denigrate our views by referring to them as reflecting a
"corporate defense mechanism" or identifying them as "self-serving claims and
public relations gestures" or implying that we chose not to discuss Gerbner's "Culti-
vation Analysis" in order to serve our "own convenience (sic), rather than the need
for objective judgment based on all available evidence." On this latter point, we did
not discuss the Cultivation Analysis because it goes beyond content analysis of
television programs which was the area we were attempting to discuss. On Dr.
Gerbner's urging, we include a review of that material below.
Gerbner's allegations demean the scientific discussion in which we have engaged.
We at CBS have basically restricted our comments to the Gerbner methodology and
results and have avoided questions of motivation. We intend to continue to do so.
We regret that Gerbner has felt it necessary to bring such questions into the debate.
We consider the level of our scholarly skills and the objectivity of our work and the
professionalism of our judgments to be at least the equal of that of the Gerbner
group. We leave to the professions involved and to intelligent layman who have
reviewed the evidence, final judgment as to the validity of our criticisms of the
Gerbner materials.
Indeed, we at CBS have long held that the Violence Profile was sadly deficient as
a scientific basis on which to measure and evaluate depictions of violence on
television. We had hoped that the Profile would be subject to the kind of searching
reviews in the professional journals that such an important construct deserves.
Unfortunately such a searching review has not taken place.2 We finally felt it
incumbent on us to voice our views.
THE VIOLENCE INDEX
The Gerbner response to our evaluation of the Violence Index touches on four
areas of our disagreement: Gerbner's overly-broad definition of violence, the arbi-
trary weighting of the components of the Gerbner Index, the definition of a violent
incident in terms of the persons involved rather than the continuity of the incident
itself, and the statistically deficient use of a single week's sample. We discuss each
of these questions in turn.
(Comic Violence
By far the most attention is paid to our view that comic and accidental violence,
and violence resulting from acts of nature, ought not to be included in any measure
of the amount of violence. We continue to believe that this is the correct position.
To support his stand, Gerbner makes four points. First, his measure is neutral-it
/ "does not presume effects useful or harmful." He justifies this view by analogizing
with the reporting of trends in the Gross National Product on the employment
index or in weather conditions. But this is nonsense. In all of these areas, what is
/ reported is, in fact, reported because the devisers of these measures, after much
discussion within their respective professions, have concluded that their measures
report on phenomena which are of consequence to society. The inclusion in weather
`We are aware that the authorship of current Violence Profiles is credited to a number of
people in addition to George Gerbner. However, for ease of reference and because Gerbner is
normally the spokesman for the group, we refer to the various materials produced by the group
as if they were prepared by Gerbner alone.
`closest to this we have found was an exchange by Thomas Coffin and Sam Tuchman of
NBC and George Gerbner and his associates in the Journal of Broadcasting, Winter 1972-3,
Volume 17, No. 1, which addressed only one aspect of this complex issue.
PAGENO="0407"
403
reports of a windchill factor or a sunburn index, or the proposals for changes in the
employment index or exclusion from the GNP measure of financial transactions, all
result from closely-reasoned efforts to measure phenomena which are of social or
physical consequence.
For Gerbner and his colleagues to say that they don't know what forms of
violence are important and, therefore, they will, by default, include anything that
anyone might conceivably include simply avoids the basic question of where the
boundary line should be drawn, and why.
Second, Gerbner refers to our work at CBS on the significant amount of transmis-
sion of social messages in selected Saturday morning children's television programs,
a research program in which we have invested much time and resources and of
which we are very proud. He attacks our exclusion of comic violence on the basis
that our research demonstrated that children can receive pro-social messages in a
comic context. He ignores the fact that these programs were designed to convey and
reinforce messages of a socially acceptable, socially reinforced nature. It is a long
and unsupported jump to the assumption that children are picking up hidden
messages of violence from comic routines.
Third, Gerb~ier suggests that we have exaggerated the irrationality of the inclu-
sion of comic violence by giving "a pie in the face" as an example of the kind of
comic act he would include but which most others, would not. Gerbner says he does
not think there has been "a pie in the face" in one of their samples of television
drama in a long time. Since Gerbner refuses to identify the weeks he has chosen as
samples, we cannot completely determine the accuracy of this comment. But, we
have found many incidents of innocuous "violence" in prime-time television during
the current and prior seasons that we know from our dealings with the Gerbner
group, would be counted as acts of violence. For example, Ted Baxter on the MARY
TYLER MOORE show did push a pie into someone's face, and this would count as
violent; when Phyllis' grandmother, in a fit of pique, kicked someone in the ankle,
this was also a violent act by Gerbner's standards and when Charlie Brown once
again missed a placekick in a dramatic fall because Lucy pulled the ball away, this
is also considered violent.
Fourth, the reply comments on our view that serious violence is that violence
which reasonable citizens consider harmful. Gerbner views this as a specious view
and argues again that this "confuses communications content with the assessment
of effects." But surely neither Gerbner nor anyone else would measure all aspects of
content. Only those aspects of content which are meaningful in some sense or other
should be measured or else the researcher is simply wasting time and money. And
someone must decide what is meaningful. In our view, comic and accidental violence
is simply not meaningful in the context in which the debate over television violence
is being conducted.
Accidents
Gerbner then turns to our view that accidents and acts of nature ought not to be
included in the definition of violence. His defense of their inclusion in the Violence
Index is that "there are no `accidents' in fiction. The author invents (or the produc-
er inserts) dramatic disaster and `acts of nature' for a purpose." But this is sheer
sophistry. It is equivalent to saying that Greek tragedy does not really portray the
inexorable inevitability of fate because the dramatist could have chosen to have
written the play differently!
In truth, the point here is not what is in the author's mind but what is in the
dramatic vehicle, and we continue to believe that, because accidents and acts of
nature do not involve interpersonal violence, their inclusion is inappropriate for any
violence count that attempts to measure dramatic incidents that might engender
violence in the real world.
The Calculation of the Index
We turn now to a discussion of our second major area of objection to the Violence
Index, namely, (a) that it is not, and does not purport to be, a simple measure of
violence, and (b) that it is in fact an arbitrarily weighted sum of arbitrarily chosen
programming characteristics; this weighted sum has some undefined relationship to
violence.
The first problem is that while the Index, as we have earlier pointed out, includes
measures other than the number of acts of violence, it is generally treated by others
as if that alone is what is being described. Gerbner states that the "Violence Index
reports all its components separately as well as in combination. That has made it
possible for any user of the Violence Index, including CBS, to observe the movement
of each component, and to weigh each as they see fit." But that is disingenuity at its
worst. For years, in Gerbner's own discussion of violence, in his testimony at
PAGENO="0408"
404
hearings, and in his reports, little reference was made to any other measure than
his Violence Index.
Thus, in his most recent Violence Profile No. 8 issued in March 1977 and covering
the 1976-77 season, Gerbner devotes only six lines of text to any discussion of data
for the components of the Violence Index and then only for the aggregate of all
programs and all networks. All the detailed commentary on individual networks
and day parts are based only on the total Violence Index itself. While the 43
appendix tables in Violence Profile No. 8 do give all the components of the Violence
Index, who is going to probe those more abstruse measures if Gerbner himself
normally does not? The answer is essentially no one. Indeed, in all the public and
professional discussion of the Violence Profile, we can think of only one or two
occasions other than our comments in which anyone has had recourse to the
components of the Index.
A current example of the confusion created by use of the Violence Index is
Gerbner's assertion, in Violence Profile No. 8, that "CBS, leader in the `family
viewing' concept, lifted its two-season lid on family viewing time violence. . ." We
had earlier pointed out that Gerbner's own figures, using his definition of violence,
showed a decline in the number of incidents of violence from 20 per week to 11 per
week between 1975 and 1976. That scarcely appears to be lifting the lid on violence.
But Gerbner now defends his statement primarily by arguing that the proportion
of programs containing violence increased, consequently raising the level of the
Violence Index. This makes sense, according to Gerbner, because "violence was
more broadly distributed in 1976 CBS family hour programming, making it more
difficult for viewers to avoid (or have their children avoid) violence during family
viewing time." But what are the family viewing-time programs that suddenly
became so violent? Aside from Sixty Minutes and variety programs (both of which
Gerbner excludes from his count), the following eight programs constituted the
family viewing programs during the fall of 1976: Rhoda, Phyllis, Good Times, Ball
Four, The Waltons, The Jeffersons, Doc, and Spencer's Pilots. Which of these
programs did parents need to have their children avoid because of violence? The
unreality of the definition of Gerbner's definition of violence and of the peculiar and
arbitrary form of the Violence Index should be apparent.
More fundamentally, the question remains as to what basis in research or logic
Gerbner has for the particular set of numbers and weights he uses for the develop-
ment of his Violence Index. Whence does he derive support for his view that the
proportion of leading characters involved in violence has any meaning in terms of
the effect of television violence on viewers? Why not minor characters as well? And
why is that proportion precisely equal, in terms of importance to the Index, and
presumably in effect on the audience, to the porportion of programs containing
violence, and only one-half as important as the rate of violent incidents per hour? Is
Gerbner sure this ratio should not be one-third? Or one-fifth?
The truth is that the components of the Violence Index have been chosen by
Gerbner without convincing scientific proof of their relevance, and the weights used
in their combination have been arbitrarily chosen by Gerbner without any scientific
support for their relative importance. So the weighted combination of these
components-the Index itself-can vary over time with no one being able to identify
~a valid meaning for such movements.
It was precisely the arbitrariness of the entire construct that was challenged by
Bruce Owen of the Office of Telecommunications Policy and it is the same arbitrari-
ness which leads us to reject the Index as a measure of anything.3 It is true that
"one must add apples and oranges if one wants to know about fruit," just as one
must add rabbits and elephants if one wants to know about animals. But does one
rabbit equal opne elephant? Whether one rabbit equals one elephant is of funda-
mental importance in determining whether the summing of rabbits and elephants
in a certain fashion to measure some characteristic of animals is valid or not.
When the Consumer Price Index, which does combine apples and oranges, is
reported to have risen, some components have gone up in price and some have gone
down. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics can validly report that the aggregate of
the various components went up because it has used a weighting process in which
the weights have been derived from experience in the real world, i.e., the distribu-
3 Social Science Research Council committee on Television and Social Behavior, in their
report on "a profile of Televised Violence" (July 1975), said that: "Initially, the aggregation of
the components should be avoided and should not be undertaken without prior research into the
technical problems involved, the understanding of the profile by its users, the conseqences for
the intended functions of the violence profile, etc." More generally, we do not consider this
report either the rigorous review of the Violence Profile or the endorsement of the Profile that
Gerbner does.
PAGENO="0409"
405
tion of the actual market basket of goods and services purchased by the families
covered by the survey.
Where does Gerbner get his weights from? What evidence does he have that his
weights are superior to some other set of weights? For example, assume that the
rate of violence per hour and rate of violence per program, two of Gerbner's Index
components, were given a weight of 90 percent, rather than the modest weight they
are actually given. Under these circumstances, Gerbner on the basis of his own data
would have had to say that CBS reduced the amount of violence in the family hour
between 1975 and 1976, instead of saying that"CBS lifted the lid on violence." And
nowhere in the many pages written by the Gerbner group on their monitoring
results is there any discussion of why one system of weighting is better than
another.
Units of Analysis
Gerbner discusses our criticism that his definition of a violent incident requires
the participation of "the same agents." Our definition is less restrictive and focuses
in practice on the unity of a dramatic incident, rather than the identification of the
agents involved.
Gerbner severely criticizes our definition as "ambiguous" and as one that permits
arbitrary and subjective manipulation of the unit of violence. He goes on to state
that, "such ambiguity not only tends to reduce the reliability of the measure but
also gives the coder employed by CBS the opportunity to stretch the rule on which
all other measures depend."
However, as Gerbner is well aware, "reliability" in content analysis is a measur-
able dimension, rather than an offhand assessment based upon one's view of wheth-
er a definition reads well. Neither Gerbner's monitors nor ours can be handed a
definition and set to work without further explanation through training and exam-
ple. That is true of our definition, and it is equally true of the Gerbner definition.
Members of our staff have consulted at length with Gerbner's staff and we know
full well that his definition, as ours, can only be put to work precisely and reliably
after much training in and experience with dealing with areas of uncertainty under
the definition.
Indeed, in the hearings on sex and violence on television before the House
Subcommittee on Communications on March 2, 1977, Gerbner was specifically asked
whether an incident in which Donny Osmond pushes Marie Osmond on the stage
would be counted by him as an incident of violence. Four pages of discussion of this
issue, between Gerbner and two congressmen, follow in the transcript, and at the
end we still do not know whether Gerbner and his associates would classify this
incident as violent.
The consistency of reliability of results is traditionally tested through measures of
the degree of correspondence among coders' judgments. The standard presumption
is that if high levels of agreement among coders is present, stability from situation
to situation in the use of the definition and procedures is also present. Gerbner uses
this presumption, as do we.
We have applied measures of reliability to the CBS monitoring and very high
levels of agreement among coders have, in fact, been established. The basic
measure--intraclass correlations--has consistently exceeded 0.90. Since reliability is
very high, the operating definitions used by CBS are clearly effective, efficient, and
unambiguous. This information has been published.
We continue to believe that the unit of count should be defined by the dramatic
incident, not by the participation of particular characters. The emphasis on chang-
ing participants in Gerbner's procedures is a result of abstract considerations,
related to his interest in power relationships (about which we have more to say
below) and not intrinsic to any evaluation of the extent of violence. One could more
validly propose that each blow or shot fired is a single act of violence than that a
change in participants denotes a new act of violence. S
Finally, Gerbner asserts that under the CBS definition it is conceivable that a
whole program might be coded as a single violent incident. This, of course, could
occur just as well under his definition, as for example, if there were a prolonged
kidnapping sequence covering essentially an entire program without any change in
participants. But, more to the point, we have tallied and published data showing the
average duration of violent episodes as calculated by our monitoring system. During
the current season, length of incidents of violence was only 1.4 minutes.
Sampling
Finally, we turn to questions of sampling error and of statistical significance. We
had earlier pointed out the increasing statistical dangers of choosing a single sample
week a year, as the television network schedules became more complex and as
PAGENO="0410"
406
programming became more irregular. We indicated that the substantial variation in
the amount of violence from week to week makes year-to-year comparisons drawn
from single-week samples highly suspect. We showed this large variation in our
monitoring data.
Gerbner says he has now tested his procedures over an additional five weeks. And
he concludes that he has found more stability than we did and that "the one-week
samples yields remarkably stable results with high cost efficiency." Indeed, he
charges that our evidence of instability stems from the "limitation, instabilities and
ambiguities" of our definition.
Several comments are in order on this view. First we have already indicated that
our results are highly reliable, measured in terms of intercoder agreement, and,
therefore, there simply is no problem with our definition--it is not ambiguous or
unstable.
Second, Gerbner may be satisfied with the statistical results of his extended
sampling but we are not. Thus, for the CBS Television Network, the variance shown
by the Gerbner extended sample is so large that, by standard statistical measure,
no year-to-year change in the number of acts of prime-time violence so fulsomely
reported by Gerbner in the years since 1967 has been statistically significant! To put
it another way, for CBS the year-to-year change in the number of incidents of
violence, as defined and measured by Gerbner, between years that Gerbner has
reported has been far smaller than the inherent variability in the underlying
Gerbner data. It has been so much smaller that, be generally accepted scientific
standards, Gerbner should have said throughout this entire period that he couldn't
identify any significant change in the number of acts of prime-time violence on CBS.
This, of course, is vastly different from what he has actually said.
But in addition, in reviewing the Gerbner statistical data we were reminded of an
aspect of the Gerbner technique which raises serious questions about the entire
relationship between the Gerbner sample and the universe of network programming
from which the sample is drawn. Gerbner indicates that, in his one-week sample,
"when and if an episode of a regularly scheduled program is preempted by some
special offering during the selected week, the next available episode of that series is
video-taped." It is perhaps understandable why Gerbner chose this approach when
he began his monitoring a decade ago. During a period when most programs
broadcast were episodes of regularly-scheduled series, preempted only occasionally
by clearly-defined specials, it might have been reasonable for Gerbner, desiring to
choose a "representative" week, to replace "specials" by the regular programs they
preempted. But television network programming has changed enormously in the
last decade. Variation in scheduling has become the standard, rather than the
unusual. During this last season, and even more during the upcoming season, it is
almost impossible to define what is a "regularly-scheduled" program and what is a
"special." Is a series of specials such as NBC's BIG EVENT a regularly-scheduled
program, What about a program such as ROOTS, which appeared with varying
episode lengths on eight consecutive nights? How do we deal with hour programs
which occasionally appear in two-hour form? Or with mini-series in episodes which
vary in length. We don't know where we would draw the line, and Gerbner never
discusses the criteria by which he makes these decisions.
The arbitrariness of this technique is surely apparent. Further, the elimination,
in whatever degree Gerbner happens to decide, of nonregular programming from
the Gerbner Index leaves out of network programming a large and increasing
fraction of actual programs broadcast. The only procedure that appropriately re-
flects television entertainment programming as it in fact appears on one's television
set is the procedure CBS follow, namely, the inclusion of all prime-time entertain-
ment programs actually broadcast during a sample week and the inclusion of
enough sample weeks to achieve statistical reliability. Whatever Gerbner is measur-
ing these days, it is not the total array of current entertainment offerings by the
television networks.
Risk Ratios
For some years Gerbner has defined the purpose for which he measures his Risk
Ratios. He has traditionally argued that television has become the tool by which
society "demonstrates an invidious (but socially functional) sense of risk and
power." In a recent televisaion broadcast, he said that "television is to the state
what the church was in the Middle Ages," and that "the role of violence in
television . . . is to demonstrate power, and the lesson of violence is to establish or
4 the six Gerbner sample weeks, the acts of violence on CBS prime-time programming,
as reported by Gerbner, numbered: 90, 91, 130, 97, 66, and 84.
PAGENO="0411"
407
maintain a social hierarchy in which some people are more afraid than others and,
therefore, can be more easily controlled."
So television is considered by Gerbner to be a primary method by which society
conveys to its underclasses that their role in life is subservient to that of the rest of
society. Among those groups defined as "underclasses" by the Gerbner Risk Ratios
are women and nonwhites. Accordingly, if one believed in this view of society and of
television, one would expect women and nonwhites to have been taught their proper
roles in society and to behave appropriately.
However, about a decade after this hypothesis was first propounded, Gerbner
himself states (in Violence Profile No. 7), that "we do not yet know whether it [the
pattern of relative victimization] . . . cultivates a corresponding hierarchy of fear
and aggression"!
Indeed, one can make a more positive statement. No one in his right mind would
seriously suggest that, after 30 years of television, women and nonwhites are
meeker and less aggressive in defending their rights than they used to be. But for
Gerbner's view of society and television to have any meaning, this is exactly what
should have happened. The truth is that this hypothesis about the effects of dramat-
ic portrayals on television has no support in fact. The Risk Ratio measure itself
probably does not measure significant characteristics of television drama in the
minds of viewers. Neither society nor television has the kind of monolithic value
system that Gerbner presupposes. And there simply is no evidence that the artificial
view of society and television that Gerbner has constructed has its counterpart in
the real world.
The Cultivation Analysis
For many years Gerbner has conducted analyses which suggest to him that heavy
viewers of television tend to be more apprehensive about their own personal safety
and less trusting of others, than light viewers. These analyss are based upon a
number of surveys conducted for Gerbner in which respondents are asked questions
about several subjects more or less related to safety, crime, law enforcement, and
mistrust of people.
Traditionally, Gerbner measured the difference between the answers given by
heavy viewers and by light viewers within several demograpghic groups (the classifi-
cations included age, sex, education and amount of newspaper reading). Heavy
viewers usually, but not always, gave answers suggesting greater fear and apprehen-
sion than light viewers. Most of these differences were statistically significant.
In Violence Profile No. 8 Gerbner applies a more sophisticated measure-partial
correlation-to the results of several of the surveys and again finds statistically
significant differences between heavy and light viewers.
From these data, Gerbner concludes that heavy television viewing causes in-
creased (and presumably unnecessary) fear and mistrust.
Gerbner and his colleagues know well that correlations between variables (and all
of his measures are forms of correlation) do not prove causation but merely associ-
ation. If A varies as B does, A can cause B or B can cause A or both can be caused
by some third variable. Choice among these alternatives must come outside the
correlation itself.
In this case, one obvious and at least equally plausible explanation for such
correlation as exists is that, instead of heavy television viewing causing fear and
mistrust of the outside world, fear and mistrust of the outside world causes heavy
television viewing! Growth of crime in the streets has been a major and growing
influence on people's behavior patterns. It is easy to identify entire social groups in
places like New York City who are constrained from going out in the evening
because of fear of crime. Surely one of the activities they engage in, while at home,
is watching television and presumably in greater quantity than those who for
reasons of location or temperament do go out during the evening
In the decade that Gerbner has been studying this question, he has never ad-
dressed the possibility that the causation between his two variables might run
counter to the assumed direction. Until someone evaluates this and other alterna-
tives, the best one can say is that it is an interesting but unproven conjecture.
But, for the moment, let us assume that the Gerbner hypothesis is valid. In
Violence Profile No. 8 Gerbner for the first time attempts to measure the impor-
tance of the relationship he has discussed so widely over the last decade. In this
effort, Gerbner derives the partial correlation coefficient between heavy television
viewing and scores on an index reflecting answers to questions about violence and
law enforcement. In two surveys dealing with adults, the coefficients for heavy
television viewing (other variables held constant) were 0.08 and 0.06. The coeffi-
cients were statistically significant. But coefficents at this level mean that the
amount of television viewing accounted for less than one percent of the variance in
PAGENO="0412"
408
responses to the Gerbner questions.~ In other words, more than 99 percent of the
variation in fear and mistrust among the respondents was accounted for by factors
other than television entertainment programming. In sum, the Gerbner model at its
very best has produced a statistically significant but trivial conclusion. A decade of
research has illumined the issue not at all.
SUMMARY
In this document, and in our preceding comments, we have examined the Gerbner
Violence Profile and its three components. We have concluded that the Violence
Index does not measure the amount of violence on prime-time television nor is there
objective support for the particular elements combined in that Index or the weights
which are used to combine them. Even the violence counts themselves are based on
overly-broad defmitions of violence and on overly-narrow samples.
Review of the other two portions of the Profile-the Risk Ratios and the Cultiva-
tion Analysis-reveals that the former are statistics related to what is really an
unverified hypothesis. The latter is at best an explanation of a minute fraction of a
real world phenomenon, and at worst a misinterpretation of the data. In either case,
the explanation has been interpreted as far more meaningful than the data proper-
ly indicate.
These days many studies are being undertaken of one aspect or another of
television program content and its effect on viewers; numerous hypotheses are being
put forward about the effect of television on society. We do not feel it incumbent on
us to comment on or respond to every such study or hypothesis. If the Violence
Profile had been simpiy one among the many studies, we would not have expended
as much effort in reviewing its validity as we have. But, in fact, the Violence Profile
has been in a unique position and played a unique role. Dr. Gerbner and his group
have been supported in their work in this area by federal government funds for the
last decade. The Profile itself has been put forward as an all-encompassing model of
the way in which depictions of violence on television affect our society. and many
people concerned with this issue have treated the Profile and its conclusions as if
they were of demonstrated scientific validity and, therefore, had major social impli-
cations.
Given this situation, we felt it incumbent on us to open up for public discussion
our view that the Violence Profile is seriously flawed and reveals little about the
social consequences of television. We have completed that task. We leave it to the
robust debate that accompanies scientific controversy to determine the final truth.
DAVID M. BLANK,
Vice President, Chief Economist.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., October ~9, 1977.
Hon. EARNEST F. HOLLING5,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, US. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This refers to your letter of August 10, 1977, requesting
responses to additional questions for inclusion in the record of the hearings conduct-
ed by the Senate Subcommittee on Communications regarding broadcast oversight.
We trust that the enclosed responses will be helpful. Should you need further
information, please let us know.
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD E. Wn~xy,
Chairman.
Enclosure.
UHF
Question. UHF stations are concerned that government policy may yield to com-
peting claims for part of their spectrum allocation. To what extent does the FCC
monitor the activities of these competing claimants to determine whether they are
efficiently using their current allocation?
Answer. For response to this question, we suggest that you refer to our answer to
your question below on land mobile. You may wish to review the Commission's
`Among two samples of children, the corresponding proportion of the variation in responses
to the Gerbner questions accounted for by amount of television viewing was only about one to
three percent!
PAGENO="0413"
409
Notice of Inquiry in Docket No. 21229, copy attached, 1 which describes an extensive
spectrum management program for determining channel utilization in the land
mobile radio services.
Question. How rapidly will your "master plan for UHF" be implemented? CUB
testified that UHF noise level reduction is the single most important step the FCC
could take to help UHF development. Where does this proceeding stand and how
long has it been pending? Regarding your receiver contract with Texas Instruments,
it has been criticized as focused more on facilitation reallocation than on better
UHF reception. What will it do for better UHF reception? When will it be complet-
ed?
Answer. While the Chairman has made a speech, copy enclosed, referring to a
"master plan," the Commission has not adopted what may be called a "Master Plan
for UHF." We have, however, been responsive to suggested actions, and in particu-
lar those suggested by CUB. The closing date for comments in proceedings in the
investigation of noise created in UHF tuners was April 29, 1977. The objective of
this proceeding is to require a reduction in noise level (resulting in improved
pictures and sound) in several steps over a period of time to allow manufacturing
adjustments. Since Texas Instruments is to deliver an operating model of a high
performance television receiver this month, it seems appropriate that the findings
of the noise proceeding should be carefully weighed against the noise level and
selectivity obtainable with the new high performance Texas Instrument receiver
design. The contract with Texas Instruments relates only to a high performance
television receiver, not receivers for other services. As the new receiver concept
came closer to reality, it was evident that similar design in other than television
receivers might be possible in which case management~ of the spectrum could be
improved. The contract set forth certain desired to undesired signal ratios and noise
level figures. These specifications may or may not have been met. This will not be
known until FCC has made its own evaluation of the receiver and its performance.
Completion time for this evaluation and ultimate conclusions is unknown, because
we are dealing with new concepts and will be faced with new testing techniques.
Licensing
Question. How much time and money do you estimate it takes an average station
to comply with your new simplified renewal procedures?
Answer. We estimate that the average radio station will devote 32 hours to the
gathering of information and filling out of the radio renewal forth (FCC Form
303-R). We also estimate that the average television station will devote 56 hours to
the completion of the television renewal form (FCC Form 303). We believe that most
of this work will be performed by management personnel particularly at small radio
stations. The proportion of the work performed by various station personnel and
their rates of pay would comprise the major portion of the cost of filling out the
form. The wide diversity possible within these variables makes it impossible to
estimate the cost of completing the form.
The estimates for both the Form 303-R and Form 303 do not include the time and
effort necessary to comply with the Commission's ascertainment requirements. Even
if we could estimate the average length of an interview, it would be impossible to
establish an average amount of time devoted to ascertainment because the number
of interviews conducted over a three-year license term varies substantially from
community to community. Also, our time estimates do not include the effort which
must be devoted to program and technical logging requirements or record keeping
to respond to our EEO reporting requirements.
Question. If the 5-year bill were to become law and the FCC had more time to do a
"better job," what should it do with that time?
Answer. The five-year renewal period would reduce the number of renewal appli-
cations processed annually by the Commission's staff by about 40%, thereby increas-
ing the time available for the processing of each application. While we believe that
the staff is currently doing an adequate job under current circumstances, the level
of scrutiny is limited by the fact that about 500 applications must be processed
every two months. A reduction of that number would permit more in-depth review,
with particular regard to a station's technical operation, programming, and equal
employment opportunity program.
The additional available staff time could also be utilized to begin a spot check of
stations whose renewal applications reveal marginally acceptable operation and of
stations randomly selected on a periodic basis. We believe that such a system,
1 attachments are in the committee files.
PAGENO="0414"
410
similar to that used by the Internal Revenue Service, would prove to be a very
beneficial innovation in our renewal review function.
Land Mobile
Question. Why has the FCC not monitored land mobile use-except in one or two
cases?
Answer. As part of a pilot program initiated in 1972 for the Chicago region, the
Commission has performed extensive monitoring of the twenty-five hundred (2,500)
frequencies available in the land mobile services. Recently, the second stage of the
program has commenced; this will include an expansion of a monitoring program to
other urban areas of spectrum congestion. Accurate monitoring of land mobile
channel utilization depends on computer operated scanning receivers that must
operate in a mobile environment. Analysis of the data collected has required the
development of statistical models of a high degree of complexity. The nature of the
job, combined with restraints of budget and personnel, have forced a slow evolution
of the program. A comprehensive description of the Commission's spectrum manage-
ment program is given in FCC Docket No. 21229.
EEO
Question. How are your EEO requirements enforced? Has the FCC ever denied or
suspended a license for EEO violations. How many licenses were renewed for less
than full-term for EEO violations?
Answer. The Commission's role in equal employment opportunity (EEO) has been
evolving for nearly a decade. Our rules require both nondiscrimination by all
licensees and permittees on account of race, religion, color, national origin, and sex
as well as affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity in every
aspect of station operation. However, the Commission has made it clear that we do
not view our function as an investigator of each and every claim of individual
employment discrimination among our nearly ten thousand broadcaster licensees.
Nor can we make an aggrieved person whole by ordering reinstatement or back pay.
Such functions lie within the jurisdiction of other federal and state agencies and the
courts. However, we do consider final adverse determinations concerning discrimi-
nation in employment to assess the impact of the behavior on a given licensee or
permittee's qualifications.
Our own analysis of a licensee's EEO performance is geared to determine whether
a broadcast has made and will continue to make reasonable, good-faith efforts to
recruit and employ minorities and women. As a first step, the Commission examines
an applicant's written EEO program to assure that it is complete in all significant
respects. Then, with respect to those stations employing more than ten full-time
employees, the Commission looks at the station's employment profile to determine
minorities and females are present on a station's full-time staff in a ratio to their
presence in the available work force of at least 50 percent overall and 25 percent in
the upper four job categories. These standards do not set quotas for employment but
rather serve as an important processing tool by which the Commission is alerted to
the need for further EEO review.2 Thus, where a licensee falls short of this criteria,
an in-depth study of its EEO program is undertaken. Employment profiles of licens-
ee's employing from five to ten full-time employees are examined for possible
exclusions of minorities and/or females and, where appropriate, inquiry is made to
explain cases of apparent exclusion.
In situations involving challenged renewal applications-where a complaint, peti-
tion to deny or other objections have been filed against the application-the Com-
mission applies similar evaluative criteria looking at a licensee's employment pro-
file and written EEO program while also considering the allegations of the com-
plainant and the licensee's responsive pleading. As in the case of the non-challenged
renewal, if the Commission finds that it needs additional information to determine
the licensee's compliance with our rules, such information will be obtained either by
written inquiry or by on-site investigation.
Once sufficient data has been accumulated, if we determine that a licensee has
not been in full compliance with our EEO rules, the Commission can impose a
sanction to achieve full licensee compliance. The most common sanction has been
renewal conditioned on the licensee's filing of periodic reports concerning its efforts
to comply with the EEO rules and the station's own written EEO program. The
condition normally requires that the licensee report the number of hires over a
2 Such a review encompasses an examination of the applicant's recruitment and referral
sources, the numbers of referrals from each source, the applicant's training program if it has
adopted such a program, the number of hires during the past year with minorities and females
specified, a summary of the applicant's promotions during the past year and any other informa-
tion which the applicant may feel is relevant to our evaluation.
PAGENO="0415"
411
specified period of time, indicating their race and sex, and the efforts made by the
licensee to attract minority and female applicants for each such position filled. A
broadcaster thus conditioned is informed of the Commission's concern with its EEO
performance, and the information gathered enables the Commission to closely moni-
tor the licensee's progress. In this regard, conditions also assure that a licensee's
efforts are systematic and continuous.
During the fiscal year 1974, 60 licensees received conditional renewals as a result
of our routine processing of renewal applications. In 1975, 50 conditional renewals
were granted in non-contested situations and ten in cases involving petitions to
deny or other renewal challenges. Finally, during the period July 1, 1975 to June 30,
1976, the Commission granted 36 conditional renewals in non-contested situations
and 37 conditional renewals in contested cases.
The Commission has also imposed short-term renewals where we did not believe
that the applications warranted designation for hearing, but where we were suffi-
ciently concerned about a licensee's implementation of our EEO rules. Often, EEO
periodic reporting conditions accompanied these short-term renewals. Basically, the
short-term renewal indicates that the Commission is deeply concerned about a
licensee's stewardship of its station and is unable to bestow upon the applicant the
degree of cpnfidence warranting a full renewal. Therefore, a grant for less than the
full three-year period is imposed so the Commission may have an early opportunity
to review a licensee's behavior. We view the short term grant as a significant
sanction since the full Commission, as opposed to the staff, must review the renewal
application after termination of the short-term grant, and the licensee is hard
pressed to dispose of the station while operating under this sanction. To date, the
Commission has imposed approximately eight short-term renewals because of fail-
ure to fully implement our EEO rules.
If, in evaluating a station's implementation of our EEO rules, the Commission
finds that a substantial and material question of fact has been raised-either on the
Commission's own motion or as a result of a petition to deny or some other
complaint-the Commission must, pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Communications
Act, designate that application for an evidentiary hearing. While the hearing pro-
cess is not specifically a sanction, since it is in the nature of an inquiry into certain
disputed facts, it has been traditionally included in a listing of possible Commission
remedies.~ To date, the Commission has specified EEO issues in approximately four
cases which have been designated for hearing. However, since we view our role in
equal employment opportunities as essentially a prospective one which seeks to lead
each licensee into full compliance with our EEO rules, renewal hearings on EEO
issues are considered only in egregious cases. But given the fact that licensees have
now had approximately nine years to comply with the Commission's EEO mandate,
we will not hesitate to designate an applicant for hearing where we find a case of
egregious non-compliance with our rules or bad faith by a licensee in implementing
those rules. Thus far the Commission has denied one application for renewal of
license for, inter alia, failure to comply with our EEO rules. (Leflore Broadcasting
Company, Inc., FCC 77-501, released July 29, 1977.)
Question. What percentage of management positions are occupied by women and
by minorities? What percentage of total positions are occupied by women and
minorities?
Answer. The annual FCC Report of 1976 employment by job categories in the
broadcasting industry shows that women held 17.7 percent of the "official and
manager" positions and minority group persons held 6.9 percent of those positions.
Of all full-time broadcast industry employees 27.4 percent were women and 12.7
percent minorities.
Question. It is our understanding that a large percent of technical station jobs will
be turning over due to retirements. What can be done to encourage the minorities
to get into the preliminary pipeline now to prepare for these jobs?
Answer. While we have no way to predict where significant turnover may occur
in particular industry jobs, we believe that our current EEO program is a signifi-
cant vehicle for the encouragement of minorities to prepare for all positions that
will lead to upward mobility. Broadcasters must increase the pool of minority
applicants for each vacancy and are usually in touch with minority referral sources
on a continuing basis. Therefore, minorities are aware that broadcasters are inter-
ested in them as employees and that any additional training they pursue will not go
unrewarded. Also, our EEO program encourages broadcasters to implement training
programs to increase the pool of minority applicants. Large broadcasters usually
have more formal programs while the smaller stations generally provide some form
3 hearing, the Commission can impose the sanctions discussed above or deny renewal of
license.
PAGENO="0416"
412
of on-the-job training or enter into consortium arrangements. All of these methods
are increasing minority participation. For the technical positions you have reference
to, some problems are encountered with various union contracts; however, the
Commission's EEO program necessitates an EEO clause in all such contracts.
Recent contracts with some stations provide that minorities and women can be
brought into training situations that will lead to union certification. As more
contracts are renegotiated we anticipate this trend to continue.
Children ~ Television
Question. What daily time periods for children's programming are covered in your
license renewal form?
Answer. The television license renewal form covers all children's programming,
whenever broadcast. Question 7 of Section IV of the form calls for "a brief descrip-
tion of programs, program segments or program series . . . designed for children
twelve years old and under," and an indication of the time and day of broadcast for
each. Given this information, the Commission can study the distribution of chil-
dren's programming between weekdays and weekends, and among different time
periods.
Violence
Question. If children's programs can be added to the renewal form, could violent
programs be handled the same way?
Answer. The Commission believes not. Our purpose in adding questions about
children's programming to the television renewal form was to gauge licensee efforts
to meet their "special obligation to serve children." See Children's Television Report
and Policy Statement, 39 Fed. Reg. 39396 (November 6, 1974). Aside from the matter
of commercial practices in children's programs, our principal concern was that
licensees present programming specifically for children, and that it not be confined
to weekend morning periods.
In contrast to the relatively straightforward determination that a particular
program was produced for children,4 any meaningful reporting of program violence
would require licensee and Commission evaluation of the amount and type of
violence in various programs. We believe that such evaluations would raise serious
problems in at least two broad areas:
First, evaluation of a multi-dimensional concept such as violence is highly subjec-
tive. Opinions vary widely as to what is violent and what, therefore, would have to
be reported. Is it limited to physical acts? Is intent to harm required? Further, given
that a particular program is to some degree violent, how can the violence be
quantified for comparison with other programs? Is comedic intent relevant? How
should the intended (or actual) audience be considered in evaluating program vio-
lence? How should different perceptions of violence be reconciled? These sorts of
problems have been illustrated in recent years by published ratings of network
television programs for violence, and the disputes over such ratings.
Second, we view the sort of program-content determinations for regulatory pur-
poses described above as raising sensitive First Amendment problems, discussed in
our February 19, 1975, Report on the Broadcast of Violent, Indecent and Obscene
Material. For this reason, the Commission has historically exercised caution in the
area of program regulation.
In short, we see the operation of violence-reporting procedures as fundamentally
different than our present questions regarding children's programming, in that
difficult qualitative rather than simple quantitative judgments would be called for.
We do not believe meaningful comparisons could be made because of different
definitions of and perspectives on violence, and fear that such Commission activity
could seriously interfere with program judgments better made by broadcasters and
their audiences.
Network Inquiry
Question. Professor Robinson stated that the FCC network inquiry focus on the
inherent power and influence of the networks, their internal structure, and econom-
ic influence, instead of their contractual relationships with affiliates and program-
mers. Would you care to comment?
Answer. As you are aware, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry on January
14, 1977, indicating that it intended to look into the matter of commercial network
practices and policies regarding the acquisition and distribution of television pro-
`The Commission defines children's programs as "programs originally produced and broadcast
primarily for a child audience twelve years old and under. This does not include programs
originally produced for a general or adult audience which may nevertheless be significantly
viewed by children."
PAGENO="0417"
413
gramming. The Inquiry was to focus on network-affiliate relations, clearance of
network programs, expansion of network schedules, previewing of network pro-
grams by affiliates, station compensation plans, network-program supplier relations,
network "in-house"production of entertainment programs, contractual tying agree-
ments relating to production facilities and program options, exclusive exhibition
rights for program pilots, exhibition rights to network reruns, and relations between
network owned and operated stations and program suppliers.
We believe this Inquiry, which was supported by all seven Commissioners, was a
well-directed and very important proceeding. As you know, on June 30, 1977, the
Commission stayed its inquiry after the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee noti-
fied it on June 16 that the request to reprogram funds for this project was disap-
proved.
Pay Cable
Question. Do you have any specific legislative proposals?
Answer. The Commission has no legislative proposals on Pay Cable for the 95th
Congress.
Prime Time
Question. What does the average affiliate station show during prime time access?
Answer. It is not easy to identify an "average" affiliate, because of differences in
use of "access time" by stations in various circumstances. One such difference is the
extensive use of "off-network" (former network) programming during this period by
stations outside of the top 50 markets and thus not subject to the prime time access
rule. Affiliated stations in the top 50 markets, where the rule applies, may not use
such material if they carry the full three hours of network prime time material
later. A study of October, 1976 programming on 35 network-affiliated stations in 11
markets just below the top 50, showed 77'/2 hours of off-network material during the
week, generally "stripped" (every week night) presentation of former half-hour
network programs such as Adam 12, Brady Bunch, etc. Another difference is that
there is more news on weeknights at the beginning of prime time in larger markets,
in particular, in the largest markets there is more use of network news during this
half-hour (7 p.m. E.T., etc.), under an exemption in the rule permitting it in addition
to the regular three hours of network programs if it is preceded by a full hour of
local news. There is also somewhat more local programming of other types during
access time in the larger markets.
As to stations in the top 50 markets and subject to the rule, the following
discussion, using the six Washington-Baltimore network stations as specific exam-
ples, will give a reasonably good picture.
(a) On Sundays, nearly all stations (all 6 in the two cities) present the program
from their networks which are of types exempted from the rule: children's, public
affairs, and documentaries. In the August, this was The Hardy Boys on ABC, 60
Minutes on CBS and World of Disney on NBC.
(b) Monday-Friday, in the first half-hour of access time, many stations present
news, either local or, particularly in the largest markets, network news under the
exemption mentioned. Five stations in the two cities do so. Other stations carry
game shows or other entertainment programs, often "stripped" and usually syndi-
cated, but occasionally, as with one Baltimore station's nightly bowling show, locally
produced.
The second half-hour Monday-Friday is a mixture of various types of material,
mostly syndicated entertainment, with game shows the largest category and also
some wildlife programs, variety shows, etc., and local programming on a small
number of stations. Of 30 weekday 7:30 half-hours on Washington and Baltimore
stations, 14 were devoted to game shows, 10 to other syndicated material (including
two wildlife shows, three variety shows, Candid Camera and a documentary), and 6
were locally originated programming: the nightly Evening Magazine program on
one station and the weekly Maryland Lottery program on another.
(c) On Saturday, the 6 Washingtom-Baltimore stations devoted 3 half-hours to
local news, 3 to syndicated game shows, 3 to other syndicated material including
The Muppets, a wildlife show, and a special program, and 3 to locally produced
public affairs or informational material (Agronsky and Company, Harrambee and
Women Unite). Another common use of this time, by network affiliated stations in
the U.S. generally, is for one of the hour-long syndicated entertainment programs of
which Lawrence Welk and Hee Haw are the most often presented.
Deaf Captioning
Question. How difficult and expensive will it be to caption programs? In the public
broadcasting experience relevant to the networks?
20-122 0 - 78 - 27
PAGENO="0418"
414
Answer. (1) In Docket 20693, In the matter of Amendment of Subpart E, Part 73,
of The Commission's Rules and Regulations, to Reserve Line 21 of the Vertical
Blanking Interval of the Television Broadcast Signal for Captioning for the Deaf,
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, released February 5, 1976, the Commission re-
ceived comments from several parties which dealt with both the question of difficul-
ty as well as the issue of expense.
Both PBS and CPB saw no real difficulty in the captioning of programming as
demonstrated by the PBS "open" captioning of the ABC news program.
The NAB and Southern Broadcasting Co. on the other hand expressed grave
concerns that broadcasters would not voluntarily undertake to caption programs
because of the cost of such captioning.
CBS set forth several difficulties which it saw to captioning:
(1) Time problems-insufficient time to caption because program suppliers are
sometimes unable to deliver programs sufficiently far in advance of air time for
captioning to be accomplished.
(2) Certain progams, such as "60 Minutes", news broadcasts, musical variety
shows, live news conferences, and sports events, do not lend themselves to caption-
ing.
(3) Once a program has been captioned, no further editing can be done to handle
such matters as a five minute political broadcast.
(4) Degrading effects of moving one generation farther from the "master" tape.
Eastman-Kodak commented that film is incompatible for captioning at the pre-
sent time. They also pointed out that 64% of prime time material is presently on
film and if you add on movies it rises to 77%. Independent stations have about 68%
of total programs presently on film.
As to cost, PBS estimated that it would require a capital investment for encoding
equipment in the range of $25,000 to $50,000. They also estimated the the cost for
captioning a one hour program (based on their experience) would be approximately
$1,000. As to cost for the decoding equipment, they estimated it would be in the
neighborhood of $100 per unit.
CBS, on the other hand, submitted a script, with captioning, for a one hour
segment of "The Waltons." They estimate the cost for the captioning of a one hour
program to be $3,800.
NBC, in its comments, contended that the capital investment cost would be
$400,000 for equipment and installation, and $120,000 for five years for mainte-
nance, space and spare parts. They estimate the cost of captioning a one hour
program to be $7,600.
JCIC Ad Hoc Committee on Television Broadcast Auxiliary Signals stated in its
comments that the $100 cost estimated for decoders given by PBS would be correct
if it were based on a minimum of 100,000 units, plus it questioned whether or not
add-on decoders would be adequate. They believed that rather it would require built-
in decoders and this would probably result in a higher price per unit.
We understand that there are no decoders available to the public at the present
time, however, PBS is reported to have a contract with Texas Instruments looking
toward the developmenmt of such equipment. They would be in a better position to
advise of the availability, and probable cost of such decoder equipment than would
we.
(2) The public broadcasting experience may be considered to be relevant insofar as
it demonstrates that captioning can, to some extent, be done.
We point ~ut, however, that the "closed" captioning was only an experimental
program, with approximately 10 TV sets involved. These sets had been specially
designed by the PBS with decoding equipment and the broadcasting of such cap-
tioned programming was done under a special temporary authorization from this
Commission.
The other experience for PBS is the "open" captioned ABC news program which
is broadcast nightly usually at 11 EDS or 11:30 EDT over approximately 125 PBS
stations. This programming started in 1975 through WGBH Educational Foundation
(Boston). These news programs require several hours (this is 6 p.m. evening news)
which is captioned and then rebroadcast with "open" captioning.
Question. Mr. Blake contends that the federal government's use of spectrum is
generally unsubstantiated, shrouded in secrecy and that FCC attempts to get infor-
mation have been thwarted. Please comment.
Answer. Information concerning spectrum usage by government agencies comes to
the FCC via the Office of Telecommunications Policy (OTP). There are indeed many
uses of the spectrum where the equipment and its purpose carrries high security
classification. Where a genuine "need to know" can be established, the Commis-
sion's staff advises they have had no difficulty in obtaining information.
PAGENO="0419"
415
ADDRESS BY RICHARD E. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., SAN FRAN-
CISCO, CALIF., JANUARY 9, 1977
It is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to, once again, address an
annual convention of INTV. You may not recall but I was with you on the occasion
of your very first convention in Dallas. That speech was made on the eve of my
appointment as Chairman of the FCC, nearly three years ago. How long I will
continue in this position, of course, remains to be seen. I do plan, however, to
complete my term as a Commissioner (which runs to next June 30).
As I said back in Dallas, and let me reiterate and underscore it here, I believe
that there are problems and concerns on which you, in the exercise of your indepen-
dence, may find some commonality and, at the same time, some differences with
your network affiliated colleagues. Accordingly, it is important that your views be
communicated to those of us charged with the responsibility to make public policy.
And so it has been on such issues as, to name only a few, prime time access,
program length commercials, Children's Television, pay cable, ascertainment, EEO,
citizen agreements and re-regulation in general. In short, as an association, you
have been involved in many, if not most of the important broadcast-cable issues
coming before the FCC in recent years. Speaking personally, I have found your
participation in our proceedings to be both meaningful and significant-and I com-
mend you for it. I also have enjoyed working with your very effective Executive
Director, Herman Land.
In the time available to me tonight, I'd like to discuss several matters of signifi-
cance to you. For purposes of my written text, however, let me deal with only one
important subject: the future of UHF television. While UHF was established nearly
a quarter-century ago, I still regard it as the "new frontier" of American broadcast-
ing. I recognize that not all of you are directly involved with this service. Neverthe-
less, if there is to be further growth in the ranks of independent commercial
television stations (and, indeed, in the non-commercial broadcasting world as well),
it must come almost entirely in the UHF frequencies. For this reason, I hope that
my remarks will be of interest to this entire audience.
It was in 1952 that the Commission recognized that the growing public demand
for television service would exceed the capabilities of a nationwide allocation plan
based on the existing twelve VHF channels. The FCC's action, however, was not
followed by immediate implementation-indeed, as I need not tell this audience,
UHF development has not been an unparalleled series of successes. Nevertheless,
the passage of the all-channel receiver legislation in 1962 made it very clear that
UHF-TV was here to stay.
Today, despite all of the problems, more than one-third of the nation's television
stations are UHF, including nearly 200 commercial stations and some 60% of our
public broadcast outlets. Over 86% of American households using television have
sets equipped to receive UHF and, each week, there are better than 30 million UHF
viewers. Moreover, commercial UHF station revenues now exceed 250 million dol-
lars annually.
Despite these advances, however, we all know that-on a national basis-UHF
remains in a secondary position to VHF in the broadcast industry and, more
importantly, in the eyes of the viewing public. Many allocations remain vacant and
many viewers are turned off, so to speak, by the inability to receive a clear UHF
signal in their set. Without doubt Congress contemplated full comparability between
VHF and UHF when, in passing the All-Channel Bill, it required such a tremendous
investment to be made in UHF television by the average American citizen. I believe
that it is time to make this contemplated dream a reality, and I also believe that it
can be accomplished consistent with good spectrum utilization and other techologi-
cal advances.
This is what a small group of dedicated people had in mind when, two years ago
under the dynamic leadership of Dick Block the Council of UHF Broadcasting was
formed. And this is what Commissioner Joe Fogarty and I contemplated when, just
three weeks ago, we put out a statement indicating that the Commission must now
proceed to develop a master plan for the long-awaited fulfillment of the UHF
potential. What is required, as I see it, is a joint effort by government and industry
to put UHF broadcasting on a par with VHF in the best interests of the American
public.
In an effort to achieve this goal, I think the following must be accomplished:
Comparability of tuning must be fully implemented;
UHF signal quality must be enhanced through improvements in both the trans-
mitter and the receiver;
PAGENO="0420"
416
The amount of required UHF spectrum must be pragmatically identified, and
then reserved both domestically and internationally;
Additionally, it is essential that the spectrum allocated to UHF be utilized at
maximum efficiency;
A vigorous educational program, primarily conducted by the industry is required
to provide better information about UHF to the viewing public;
The industry itself must make the necessary fmancial commitment to fully devel-
op the stations that are in operation; and finally
The whole question of program availability must be considered.
Let's take each of these points, one by one. First, as to tuning comparability, you
are aware that all sets manufactured must now have a comparable (or detent) tuner
for both VHF and UHF channels. As one viewer who personally has been exasperat-
ed with so-called "fine-tuning" on UHF, I believe that this requirement should
provide a big boost to effective reception. In addition, with the support of CUB and
others, the Commission adopted rules last November requiring UHF tuners to have
a maximum plus or minus 2 MHz tuning accuracy. While this is less than originally
proposed, we indicated that the more promising solution to UHF tuning problems
appears to be a digital channel selection mechanism combined with an electronic
tuner. In such a system, the tuning controls-for both VHF and UHF-would be
arranged like the keyboard of a pocket calculator or "touchtone" telephone dial.
Such systems are on the market today but only at the top-of-the-line. However, it is
reasonable to expect that, with the thrust of competition, costs will be reduced and
usage will be increased.
Steps must also be taken to facilitate better overall signal quality of UHF. At the
suggestion of CUB, the Commission last month issued a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making looking toward the phased reduction of UHF front end noise figure from
the present 18 dB to 14 dB, 12 dB and finally, 10 dB. If implemented, this step
should make a significant contribution to achieving parity in VHF-UHF picture
quality.
The receiving antenna is also a basic problem in effective UHF reception. Most
TV receivers are shipped today with VHF "rabbit ears" or a single telescoping
element permanently affixed and wired to the VHF input terminals. In most cases,
however, either no UHF antenna is included or one is distributed loose in the
carton. The purchaser often is not aware of the need for a special UHF antenna,
does not read instructions to the contrary, does not recognize the detached anten-
na's importance or is incapable of properly attaching it to his set. Accordingly,
many sets are operated with no UHF antenna at all, or one that is improperly
installed. To correct this problem, which so obviously affects the public's reaction to
UHF television, the FCC-again as a result of CUB's petition-amended the rules,
effective July 1 of next year, to require manufacturers to affix a UHF antenna to
the terminals if a VHF antenna is also provided and affixed. In addition, the
Commission made it clear that-while it was beyond the scope of the proceeding to
specify type and performance requirements for the antennas-we did expect that
such antennas would be capable of effectively receiving all UHF channels.
This, of course, is only the first necessary~ step. Now the industry must develop
new indoor UHF antennas that perform better while still meeting the mechanical
and esthetic demands of the consumer. In addition, in order to deal with the
millions of sets currently in operation, I believe that the industry should develop a
public educational campaign on the proper installation and use of indoor antenna
equipment. On this score, I congratulate the Public Broadcast System on its recent
and excellent brochure, "PBS/UHF Guide".
I might add that the problem of the outdoor antenna also requires consideration.
Many so-called all-channel rooftop antennas, and lead-in wires, perform quite poorly
on UHF. Additionally, claims concerning the ability of antennas to receive distant
signals are sometimes badly exaggerated. As I see it, the entire industry needs to
establish appropriate VHF and UHF antenna performance standards which can be
easily understood by the public. The adoption of such standards should be followed,
again in my view, by a comprehensive educational campaign in the private sector to
assist our citizens in the proper selection and installation of outdoor antennas.
In addition to receiver improvements, I believe that the industry also should focus
on enhancing the efficiency of the UHF transmitter. Everyone knows that the
higher UHF frequencies require more transmitter power than VHF in order to
provide an equivalent service. However, higher powered transmitters in the UHF
band are more expensive to purchase and have greater electric power consumption,
a severe disadvantage today. This situation, moreover, is greatly compounded by the
fact that UHF transmitters presently are considerably less efficient than their VHF
counterparts in converting electrical power into RF power. Clearly, there is a need
for the development of more effective UHF transmitters. Recent technical informa-
PAGENO="0421"
417
tion suggests that it may be possible to utilize klystron amplifier tubes that will
increase the present operating efficiency of transmitters from 35 percent to 50
percent or even 60 percent. I am informed that this development, in addition to
other state-of-the-art techniques, could result in a significant savings in electric
power. The Commission is encouraged by these potential advancements, ones which
we sincerely hope will be realized in the foreseeable future.
In addition to technical comparability, the future development of UHF television
depends-very fundamentally-on the continued availability of spectrum space.
Commission actions in recent years to reallocate spectrum to land mobile uses, as
well as proposals for the 1979 World Administrative Radio Conference, have caused
considerable concern to the UHF industry, and with good reason. Moreover, there
are more demands for valuable (and sometimes unused) UHF space on the immedi-
ate horizon. Once the spectrumis reallocated, you and I know that it is effectively
gone forever so for as television use is concerned. For this reason, I recommended
this fall that the Commission initiate a new task force to study the future needs of
UHF and to develop a plan to preserve the spectrum required to meet those needs.
During the pendency of this effort, it is my understanding that there will be no
further reallocations of UHF space.
In connection with this study, it is also important that the broadcast band-the
spectrum that is allocated to radio and television-be utilized at maximum efficien-
cy. For this reason, the Commission's Office of Chief Engineer has undertaken a
comprehensive program looking toward the reduction of the so-called UHF taboos.
The taboos, as you will recall, are geographical UHF channel assignment restric-
tions. For each UHF channel assigned, up to 18 other UHF channels are restricted
in use up to 180 miles away. In this regard, our Chief Engineer has contracted out a
$200,000 project to develop the so-called receiver of the future. Through this effort,
some of the taboo restrictions eventually may be reduced or eliminated altogether.
Moreover, this idealized receiver has the potential of not only providing the long
term advantage of reduced taboos but also such immediate benefits as UHF/VHF
tuning parity, better performance in cable applications, and direct video feed of
ancillary devices (video games, cameras, VTRs, etc.). While this single receiver
design will not provide all of the answers, it has the added advantage of providing
an impetus to manufacturers to increase their own activity in television set innova-
tions. And, indeed, it is my understanding that this already has begun to occur.
To bring these initiatives together in one overall effort to effect UHF comparabil-
ity, I want to reiterate my view that a strong public and industry educational
program will be required. Our citizens need to be informed about indoor and
outdoor antennas, the service industry needs to be better informed concerning
antenna performance and installation techniques, the television set manufacturers
need to more completely understand UHF problems, UHF transmitter manufactur-
ers need greater incentives to develop more efficient designs, and UHF broadcasters
need to develop better marketing information for their own use and for advertisers
as well. Virtually every component in the complex world of UHF broadcasting
would benefit from such a program and, in the final analysis, the real winners
would be the American public.
Such a comprehensive plan, as I have outlined tonight, may be the only way in
which UHF finally will realize its rightful place in American television broadcast-
ing. Past piecemeal actions have helped but a total program is necessary to bring
about a true equalization of UHF and VHF. As indicated, much of the effort and
involvement should and, indeed, must come from the private sector. While I intend
to see that UHF receives a high priority at the Commission, the crucial issue is
what is the extent of the industry's own commitment to UHF television. I would
submit that the future development of this important service to the American
public will largely hinge on the answer to this question.
There is one final, and perhaps all-important, piece of the puzzle which I have not
yet mentioned: programming. Independent stations, as distinguished from network
affiliates, must rely almost completely on the syndication market for the supply of
their non-local programming. It is clear, therefore, that the price, variety and
quality of syndicated programming is a matter of utmost importance to all indepen-
dent licensees (UHF and VHF)-and indeed, will largely determine their success or
failure in the marketplace.
While independent stations are not formally affiliated with the three national
networks, you cannot afford to be completely indifferent to the market position and
the business practices of these great corporations. As you know, the networks are
involved in all aspects of commericial television, from the production of program-
ming through its distribution, and their activities have a significant bearing on the
entire industry.
PAGENO="0422"
418
A consideration of these wide-ranging activities has led to increasing calls for a
study or investigation of network practices. It has been almost twenty years since
the FCC conducted such an inquiry and, many people believe, developments since
that time warrant a fresh examination. After considerable deliberation, I have come
to the same conclusion and, in fact, plan to bring a proposal for a network inquiry
before the Commission later this week.~ As I envision such a study, it would encom-
pass a wide range of network activities and specifically include the extent to which
these activities may impact on the development of a healthy and competitive
market for program syndication. I am certain that this is an issue of great interest
and concern to all of the members of your association. If the Commission chooses to
go forward with an inquiry along the lines I suggest, I am hopeful that you will
make the effort to provide us with detailed and informative comments. It is only
with such information that we will have a basis for intelligent decision-making and
for the development of future regulatory policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have enjoyed this visit with you. I hope and trust I have
provided you with some food for thought. In closing, allow me to thank you for your
many courtesies during my 6½ years at the Commission. I look forward to working
with you, as always, in the next 6 months and, in some capacity or another, to
continue our relationship in the years that lie ahead.
Thank you and good night.
Cox CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Atlanta, Ga., August 111, 11177.
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
US. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ROLLINGS: Thank you very much for the continued interest shown
by the Senate Subcommittee on Communications regarding the relationship of cable
television to over-the-air broadcasting.
I am most happy to reply to the questions you raised in your letter of August 10,
1977 and trust that the attached answers are complete and satisfactory.
Should you have any further questions for me or my company, please do not
hesitate to call upon us. Since our company has rather large investments in both
the broadcasting and cable industries, we are most interested in the outcome of your
deliberations.
Very truly yours,
HENRY W. HARRIS
President.
Attachment.
Question. What has happened to cable's blue sky promises? For example, what
amount of programming on the average is done by or for cable as opposed to
importing broadcast signals? What amount of cable programming on the average is
local in origin and content e.g., local public affairs programming?
Answer. I am not sure what cable's blue sky promises were. I know that the
industry in the late 1960's and early 1970's represented that cable would increasing-
ly offer more diversity of programming to subscribers, would originate its own
locally programming and would develop specialty services of value to individual
homeowners. Much of this has come to pass. Speaking for Cox Cable, all of our
systems with over 3,500 subscribers have origination equipment. The degree that
they use this equipment varies from several hours a week in our smallest systems to
85 hours of locally originated programming per week in San Diego, California, our
largest system. In addition to that, we have six cable systems that originate educa-
tional programming in cooperation with local school systems. In Spokane, Washing-
ton, our most active project, there are three full-time channels of educational
programming running twelve hours a day. In San Diego, California, there are
approximately 128 hours of educational programming per week.
The type and content of local origination varies considerably because of the
differing interests in the communities we serve. The most prevalent programming
has to do with either government affairs, political or otherwise, or consumer orient-
ed origination designed to better acquaint our customers with products, services, etc.
In some of our systems we run a full-time consumer channel which compares the
price of everything from steaks in grocery stores to patent medicine in drug stores.
We also have a retirement channel in some of our systems that runs specialty
programming geared to senior citizens on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
PAGENO="0423"
419
In other areas, cable has gotten deeply involved in delivering movies, sports and
other specialty programming to the home with which the Subcommittee should be
fully acquainted by now.
In one form or another, our company is involved in tests of energy conservation,
security alarms, and various "non-entertainment" uses of cable.
I think cable has gone a long way toward fulfilling its "blue sky promises" and
continues to develop further each and every year.
Question. Do you think that cable television will pay a fair share under the
Copyright Revision Act?
Answer. Yes, cable television will pay its fair share under the Copyright Revision
Act. As the Subcommittee is aware, the copyright legislation passed last year was
supported by the Motion Picture Association (the largest receiver of copyright
royalties) and the National Cable Television Association, which represents cable
systems paying the fees. If both parties supported the copyright provisions contained
in the legislation, then I must assume they are fair.
Question. If the Commission were to eliminate or relax its distant signal importa-
tion and syndicated program exclusivity rules, would you support complementary
adjustments in compulsory license fees by the Copyright Royalty Tribunal?
Answer. Yes, our company would support an adjustment in the copyright fees
based on more distant signal importation. It is my understanding that the copyright
legislation passed last year provides for the Copyright Royalty Tribunal to review
the fee schedule, if and when additional distant signals are allowed. Since our
company supported this bill last year, we certainly support the provisions for
adjustment in the fees provided for in that bill.
Question. What would be the effect if the FCC were to limit its syndicated
program exclusivity rules to apply only so as to protect independent UHF stations,
or small market stations?
Answer. None. Ninety percent of the cable systems which are in small broadcast-
ing markets were built prior to the 1972 syndicated exclusivity rules being promul-
gated. Consequently, they were grandfathered and to my knowledge, there is no
significant syndicated program exclusivity being provided in these smaller markets.
Since cable is fully mature and highly profitable in the smaller cities around our
country and the small market broadcasters continue to profit in growth, then any
change in the present rules would probably have little or no effect on either one of
them.
Question. It is argued that cable carriage of a television station outside its local
market does not help the stations financially because advertisers do not recognize
the extended reach of their messages via cable importation. Do you agree? Will a
signal export market develop in the future?
Answer. I agree that to date the additional coverage gained by an independent
television station when carried outside its local market has not attracted significant
additional advertising revenues. The reason for this has been that those who buy
advertising do so on the basis of known and measured ratings as developed by
Nielson, ARB and others. Historically, these rating services have simply discounted
or not shown in their results the carriage of a distant signal if it could not be
received off air. This has recently changed and rating services now are including all
signals which show up in their survey, whether they be distant or local. Consequent-
ly, some stations who are heavily carried outside their local markets are beginning
to see additional advertising revenues accrue to their benefit. It will be most
interesting to watch certain new experiments, such as the carriage of Channel 17
via satellite, and whether or not it will attract additional national advertising
dollars.
Question. It is agreed that if cable were permitted to import a greater number of
distant signals it would likely realize only a modest increase in additional subscrib-
ers. Do you agree?
Answer. No, I do not agree entirely. Many CATV systems throughout the United
States have saturation percentages of 80 percent to 90 percent. In these markets the
carriage of additional signals would not likely increase the number of subscribers.
However, jn the larger cities where cable has developed since 1972 and has general-
ly been limited to the importation of only two distant signals, then my opinion
would be that the level of subscribers would increase significantly if the number of
distant signals could be expanded from two to four or six. Generally speaking, most
new markets which have only two distant signals have achieved a penetration of
about 45 percent. I would estimate that if these markets were allowed two more
signals, their penetration might increase to 55 percent and if allowed an unlimited
carriage of signals, perhaps a maximum penetration of 60 percent to 65 percent.
Question. What effect does the ability of a cable operator to offer pay cable
services have on efforts to increase subscribership?
PAGENO="0424"
420
Answer. The results of introducing pay cable into a CATV market are positive.
There is some additional basic CATV subscription as a result of pay being offered.
Generally, this does not exceed an increase of 10 percent in basic subscribers. Pay
cable can help make a marginal market a better one. It cannot make an unbuilda-
ble market buildable. The general effect, however, is to enhance the value of the
overall cable service and cause more people to subscribe, just as the additional
distant signals would enhance the value and increase the saturation.
Question. Do not the profitable coexistence of broadcasters and cable operators in
San Diego have a unique situation? What lessons does the San Diego broadcast!
cable compromise teach for other areas of the country in view of the fact that no
independent commercial UHF station operated in San Diego at the time the agree-
ments with local broadcasters were reached?
Answer. The profitable coexistence of broadcasters and cable operators in San
Diego is definitely not a unique situation. San Diego is a market that has three
network stations, two of them VHF's and one UHF. It has a UHF educational and a
VHF independent located in Mexico. This is roughly the same complement of
signals that markets 40 to 100 have so that there are at least 60 other major cities
in the United States with a similar set of circumstances. The great lesson that has
been learned in San Diego is that the successful development of cable television has
no noticeable financial or public service effect on the local broadcasting stations. It
has been our company's stated position for over ten years that no matter how many
distant signals a cable company carries into any given market, these stations are
not likely to capture more than 20 percent of the viewing time. Since it takes seven
to eight years for a cable system to mature, the degree of growth by the broadcast-
ing stations during that maturing period, more than offsets any fractionalization
which occurs. The only thing that makes San Diego unique is that there is a very
large mature cable system there now and the results are known, whereas most
other cities of San Diego's size do not yet have a fully developed cable system.
I do not fully understand your question regarding the fact that there is no
independent commercial UHF station operating in San Diego. It is my judgment
that a UHF independent stands to benefit most from the development of cable since
cable gives it a VHF dial position competitive with other stations in the market.
Storer Broadcasting Company operated an independent UHF station in San Diego
up until 1973 when they received an ABC affiliation. I think they are convinced
that the development of cable has been a very positive influence on the development
of their UHF station while it was independent and now while it is network affilitat-
ed.
WILKIN ASSOCIATES,
San Juan Capistrano, Calif, April 8, 1977.
Senator ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications,
US. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: Please make this letter to Senator Proxmire dated 8
February 1977 a submission from the undersigned to the sub-committee hearing to
be held May 9-11. I do not have the funds to appear in Washington personally but
hope this statement can be made part of the record.
Thank you.
Kindest regards,
EUGENE W. WILKIN,
President.
FEBRUARY 8, 1977.
Senator WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SEN. PROXMIRE: The "Fairness Doctrine" has more than discouraged exer-
cise of the First Amendment in relation to radio and television broadcast operation.
It has eliminated any real thrust toward honest editorial opinion being expressed.
I know. After twenty years of recognized excellence in broadcast stewardship from
coast-to-coast, I was "shut off' by the fall out from four years of FCC "investigation"
into my alledged "crimes and misdemeanors" as defined by the so-called "fairness"
Doctrine.
PAGENO="0425"
421
The spread of this Inquisition based on calumny ranged from "conspiracy" to
"news manipulation". The record filed at the FCC is listed under KREM-TV (KING
Broadcasting) Spokane.
In addition I have a complete week-by-week log of every arrogant step by the FCC
Complaints and Compliance Division; a file that goes to several hundred pages.
Briefly the facts are as follows. Four representatives of unknown bona-fides from
an "environmental splinter group" came to KREM a few days prior to EXPO-'74
being placed on the ballot for bond approval. They requested "immediate" access to
telecast (live) in order to state views against the bond issue proposal. I asked for
bona-fides ("Who are you"?) They said "We represent ALL the environmental-
ists . . ." Pressed on the subject-they promised to "get back" with bona-fides.
Within 30 days the FCC sent me a copy of their "charges" against me and
KREM-TV . . . accusing me of all manner of crimes against the Fairness Doctrine.
Nearly four years later, after more than one thousand hours of my emotional and
physical sweat; at a cost in excess of forty thousand dollars in legal fees alone;
several "investigations" (including a totally distasteful and illegal exercise of the
Napoleonic Code by two members of the FCC staff, at the station) KREM-TV was
given back its held-up license to operate.
Afterwards. . . on a a trip to Washington I stopped by the FCC and asked if they
understood what they did in Spokane.
I was told "Why are you complaining? We didn't find anything did we? .
Within in a very few months of a "grace period I was asked to resign from
KREM-AM-FM-TV as general manager. It placed me squarely in the "chronological
problem" that is. current in these United States . . . and in the process I lost
everything (again). It all went. . . the home, the farm, the horses . . . everything I
had in twenty years of day-by-day faithfulness to the integrity of my career in
broadcasting.
But more important . . . I lost my voice as a champion of justice, in a town of
interlocking boards; of the terrible controls exerted by landed gentry who imposed
their wills (less than a dozen men) on the bankers, realtors and developers (against
the homeowner) over a beaten populace that sorely needed an alternative spokes-
man to the captive editorial opinion.
My own bona-fides are attached. The second page speaks to my sincerity as to the
public weal. I was a good public servant but the fairness Doctrine eliminated that.
This Doctrine continues to gag 99% of broadcast management when it comes to
controversial issues. It continues the base lie that broadcasters have no integrity in
this area of expression. It continues to muzzle those such as myself who have no
power to change such a travesty on the word "fairness".
We are all the poorer.
Kindest regards.
EUGENE W. WILKIN.
EUGENE W. WILKIN-THE WILKIN ASSOCIATES
Clients: 1974 to date
Twentieth Century-Fox (Feasibility Studies/Acquisition)
GSE Enterprises (Program Syndication-Research/Copy)
Barry-Enright Productions (TV Program Scheduling/Research)
Wrather Corporation (TV Program Research-Evaluation)
Golden Orange Broadcasting (Feasibility Studies-UHF Operation)
Foster Parents Plan (Western States Representation)
Becker Associates (Feasibility Studies/Acquisition)
Idaho Television Corporation (TV Station Programming)
Ralph Edwards Productions (Production, Creative Consultant)
Sandy Frank Film Syndication (Sales, Copywriting, Promotion)
Employers: 1952 to 1974
KING Broadcasting/Seattle (General Manager-Radio/TV Stations)
WHYN Stations/Springfield (Vice President-Development)
WGAN Stations/Portland (Vice President, General Manager)
Capital Cities Communications/Providence (Gen'l Sales Manager)
Cherry & Webb Broadcasting/Providence (Sales Manager-Radio. TV)
Employers: prior to 1952
Louttit Advertising/Providence (Copywriter, Research Director)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co./Hartford (Surety Representative)
J. C. Hall Lithographers/Pawtucket (Asst. to President)
PAGENO="0426"
422
Cocumscussoc Association (Restoration Project Manager)
Warwick Playhouse/Warwick (Theater Manager. Director, Actor)
Camp Tecumseh/Centre Harbour (Editor, Counselor, Teacher)
Harvey's Hardware/Falmouth (Retail Sales Clerk)
Ten Acre, Inc. /Falmouth (Route Salesman, Truck Driver, Cellar Clerk)
Education: (graduated from)
Dartmouth College (BA-Psych/English-1948)
University of Michigan School of Advanced Standing
Michigan State University (ASTP-AUS)
Harvard University School of Business Administration (Seminars)
Brown University (Extension)
Alexander Hamilton Institute Business Courses
The Engineer School, Ft. Belvoir, Va.
The Provost Marshall School, Ft. Custer, Mich.
The New York Military Academy
The North Attleborough Schools
Military service:
Enlisted AUS 1942-Discharged-Captain (CE)-1946
ORC/USAR-1946 to 1962. Two bronze battle stars (Pacific)
Pro bono publico commitments: 11151 to date
The American Committee on US/Soviet Relations
San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce
Vice President: Spokane (WN) Chamber of Commerce
Chairman: Citizen's Advisory Committee, Department of Social and Health Ser-
vices State of Washington (Statutory)
Board of Directors: Spokane Community Mental Health Center
Vice Chairman: United Way of Spokane County
Advisory Board: Whitworth College
Vice Chairman: Spokane Retail Trade Board
Chairman: Community Affairs Division-Expo `74
Board of Directors-Expo `74
Founder: Spokane Broadcasters Association
Regional Director: Les Amis du Via
Sustaining Fund Chairman: Spokane Symphony Orchestra
Vestry: St. Stephen's Episcopal Church
Governor's Committee on Voluntary Programs (Statutory)
President: Maine Association of Broadcasters
Governor: 1st District (NE)-American Federation of Advertising
Maine State Chairman: Radio Free Europe Fund
Board of Directors: New England Broadcast Executives
President: Providence Advertising Club
President: Northeast Hearing & Speech Center
Editorial-zing Committee: National Association of Broadcasters
Board of Directors: Portland Better Business Bureau
Chairman: Portland Chamber of Commerce Legislative Group
Liaison Committee: Assn. for Professional Broadcast Education
CBS INC.,
New York, NY, April 25, 1977.
Congressman LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN VAN DEERLIN: For some time we have been concerned about Dr.
George Gerbner's Violence Profile, its misleading aspects and its general accep-
tance. This concern was heightened by some of the pointed questioning by members
of your Committee at the March 2 hearings.
I asked for an analysis of Dr. Gerbner's material, based on his Violence Profile
No. 8, which he released to coincide with your hearings. A copy of that analysis is
attached. In it, you will find at least four basic-and fatal-flaws in the Gerbner
approach. They are:
1. The Gerbner Violence Index is not, and does not claim to be, a measure of the
amount of violence on television. Unfortunately, it is so interpreted. Actually, Dr.
Gerbner introduces a number of extraneous factors, so that violence can go down
while the Violence Index shows an increase. Indeed, that is what happened in his
PAGENO="0427"
423
latest study. His own figures show that the number of incidents of violence in the
family hour on the CBS Television Network declined from 20 to 11, but his Violence
Index claims an increase, apparently because we had the "wrong people" involved
in the action.
2. Because of these problems, the Gerbner Index cannot be used as an indicator of
whether the trend is up or down in televised violence.
3. Dr. Gerbner only measures one week of television, which can lead to statistical
errors of horrendous proportion. There is no longer any "typical" week of television.
Our own 13-week monitoring which will be made available to you shortly, shows
that the week with the highest amount of violence has from two and a half to three
times more incidents of violence than the week with the lowest amount.
4. Finally, the Gerbner definition of violence is highly questionable, including, as
it does, comedic violence and acts of nature. Indeed, you may recall that members of
your Committee pressed Dr. Gerbner on this issue, without satisfactory resolution.
Because of the importance of this matter, I am sharing this material with the
members of your Committee and I will send a copy to Dr. Gerbner. If the record of
the March 2 hearing is still open, I would also respectfully request that this letter
and the attachment be included.
Cordially,
JACK SCHNEIDER.
Enclosure.
THE GERBNER VIOLENCE PROFILE
Each year for almost a decade George Gerbner and his associates at the Anneberg
School of Communications have produced a report on depictions of violence on
network television, titled the Violence Profile. The current Violence Profile No. 8,
reporting on fall 1976 television network programming, incorporates three distinct
areas of study. The first is the well-known Violence Index; the second deals with so-
called Risk Ratios, and the third is Gerbner's Cultivation Index. In this analysis, we
deal with the first two areas of study.
With regard to the Violence Index, our review indicates that the Index itself is
not a measure of the amount of violence on network television, that it may, and in
fact often does, change over time in different directions from the changes in the
amount of television violence and that it is, in substance, an arbitrarily weighted set
of arbitrarily chosen measures of aspects of violence on television, whose meaning is
totally unclear. It cannot be used as a measure of the trend of televised violence
over the years, or as an indicator of whether that violence is increasing or decreas-
ing.
Gerbner's count of violent incidents, which is only one component of the overall
Violence Index, has numerous and fatal deficiences. It includes kinds of dramatic
incidents which should not be included-comic violence, accidents, natural disasters.
It counts as multiple acts of violence, single incidents which should be counted as
single incidents. And most importantly, it rests on a single week's sample at a time
in the television industry's history when programs are constantly changing and
when there are no longer any typical weeks.
The Risk Ratio analysis is equally defective. Instead of directly measuring relative
risks among various population segments, Gerbner devised indirect measures which
do not reflect the differences in actual risk among differing population segments
nor, in all likelihood, do they correspond at all to viewers' perceptions. Simpler and
more direct measurements of risks often show a totally different relationship among
social groups from the Gerbner measures.
The Violence Index
The Gerbner Violence Index is deficient in a number of important ways and is, in
fact, very misleading. First, the Violence index itself is not, and does not purport to
be, a measure of the amount of violence on television, although that is the way it is
generally interpreted. The Violence Index is the sum of a number of measures, only
one of which is Gerbner's count of violence. Another measure included in the Index,
for example, is the proportion of leading characters engaged in violence. Because
the Violence Index is composed of a number of factors in addition to the violence
count itself, it is quite conceivable that the Violence Index could show a rise in a
given year at the same time that Gerbner's own count of the amount of violence
goes down.
That, in fact, is exactly what happened in the family viewing hour on CBS in the
fall of 1976. Gerbner's Violence Profile No. 8 states that "CBS . . . lifted its two-
season lid on `family viewing time' violence in 1976." In fact, the number of
incidents of violence on CBS in the viewing hour actually declined in 1976, accord-
PAGENO="0428"
424
ing to the same Gerbner report. In the fall of 1975, according to Gerbner (Table 31),
family viewing hour programs on CBS contained 20 incidents of violence; CBS
family viewing hour programs in the fall of 1976, again according to Gerbner,
contained only 11 incidents of violence!' So the Violence Index is a measure, which
simply does not tell anyone whether violence on network programming is increasing
or decreasing.
Other components of the Violence Index include measures of the proportion of
programs that week containing any violence, of the rate of violence per program
and per hour, and of the proportion of all leading characters involved in killings.
These measures are combined by the use of a set of arbitrary weights. Indeed, the
index is composed of so many varied and incomparable elements which are com-
bined in such an arbitrary fashion that it is difficult to know what it means.2
Bruce Owen of the Office of Telecommunications Policy, in a staff research paper
which addressed the meaning and validity of the Gerbner Index, stated that: "This
exercise [i.e., combining and arbitrarily weighting the various components of the
Violence Index] involves adding apples and oranges. . . . One is always free to add
apples and oranges if one wishes, but it isn't at all clear what the result means, and
some people may take it seriously." (See Measuring Violence on Television: The
Gerbner Index. OTP Staff Research Paper OTS-SP-7, Bruce M. Owen, June 1972.)
Unfortunately, many people have taken Gerbner's Violence Index seriously.
When Gerbner's violence count itself is examined, a variety of deficiencies are
apparent. Violence is counted presumably to measure the number of incidents
depicted on network television which might conceivably make potentially wayward
youths wayward. On this view, Gerbner includes a number of kinds of dramatic
action which clearly ought not to be included in a count of violence. Thus, he
includes comic violence (e.g., a custard pie in the face on an "I Love Lucy"
program), and injuries caused by accidents or acts of nature (e.g., injuries occurring
in earthquakes or hurricanes). None of these, we think, are included in what
reasonable citizens would consider to be potentially harmful dramatic forms.
A second difference in definition is related to a very complex set of social hypoth-
eses which Gerbner superimposes upon his violence counts. Because Gerbner's hy-
potheses relate to the power relationships among individuals (men vs. women,
whites vs. nonwhites, etc.), he counts as new violent actions, a period of violence in
which a new person enters the action. Thus, if two men are fighting in a restaurant,
and one of them knocks down a waiter while trying to escape, Gerbner would count
this as two separate episodes of violence. Since we do not believe that the count of
violence should be distorted by extraneous social theories, we feel that the proper
count is the number of violent incidents themselves, not affected by changes in the
participants of the action.
The result of these differences between the Gerbner measure of violence, and
what we consider to be the more rational measure that we use, is that Gerbner's
count results in a much higher number than is valid and may often move in an
opposite direction than to that indicated by the count one would get on a more
reasonable basis.
A final deficiency of the Gerbner violence count is the size of the sample Gerbner
uses. Since its inception, the Gerbner effort has measured violence during one week'
a year. In the last two seasons, he has added a second week in the spring, purport-
edly to verify the results of the fall count, but he does not use this week in his year-
to-year comparisons of the magnitude of violence.
From the beginning of our monitoring we felt that there was too much change
between fall and spring network schedules to permit reliance on a single week's
results. So we always measured two weeks a year, one in the initial network season
and one in the so-called second network season. Several years ago, as the network
schedules became increasingly variable from week to week, with series being can-
celled and new series being brought on board all through the year and with mini-
series becoming a new programming category, we decided to review the statistical
1 All page and table references herein relate to Violence Profile No. 8.
`The formula for the Gerbner Violence index is:
P~ R R Nv+Nk
100-+2--+2--+100 -;
P P H N
where, P, is the number of programs containing any violence; P is the number of programs; R
is the number of violent episodes; H is the number of hours of programming; N~, the number of
leading characters involved in violence; Nk, the number of leading characters involved in killing
or death; and N, the number of leading characters.
PAGENO="0429"
425
basis of our count. As a result of this review, we concluded that one could no longer
make statistically valid comments about the level of violence on network television
without a much larger sample of weeks. Accordingly, in the fall of 1975 we began to
monitor 13 weeks a season and have continued that practice.
We have measured violence on the television networks for 13 weeks in each of
two years; on the basis of these data we have learned that estimates of current year-
to-year changes in television violence, based on single-week samples, are normally
subject to too much random error to be valid. For we have found in the 1976-77
season that the range in the weekly number of incidents of violence on individual
television networks is on the order of 2½ or 3 to 1; that is, the week with the
highest number of incidents of violence on any network was 2½ or 3 times the
number with the lowest number of incidents. Accordingly, we do not believe, for
statistical reasons, that one can accept the Gerbner violence counts even if we waive
the deficiencies of his definitions.
The Risk Ratio
Since 1969, Gerbner has made much of a statistic to which he variously refers as
the "Victimization Ratio," "the Risk Ratio," the "Violence Victim Ratio," and which
will here simply be called "RR." This statistic is obtained by noting, in reference to
specific population subgroups, the number of such characters in "principal ~
who are depicted as "violents" (aggressors), the number who are depicted as victims,
and dividing the larger number by the smaller. If victims exceed violents, the figure
is preceded by a minus sign; if violents exceed victims, by a plus sign.
Gerbner considers that these RR's "provide a calculus of life's chances for differ-
ent groups of people in the world of television drama" (p. 8). He occasionally
modifies this description in an important manner by stating that the RR's are
indices of "risks of victimization (relative to the ability to inflict violence)" (p. 8). As
the terms "Victimization Ratio" and "Risk Ratio" suggest, he is primarily interested
in the groups with minus sign RR's-i.e., those in which victims exceed violents. He
considers the RR's indexes, or at least clues, to "conceptions of social reality that
television viewing cultivates in the minds of viewers" (p. 8) regarding "the structure
of power." In "Highlights of TV Violence Profile No. 8" he notes especially the high
negative RR's of women, children, old women, unmarried women, and various other
groups. Explicitly or implicitly, Gerbner regards the RR's as either distortions of
social reality or perpetuations of existing stereotypes, regards negative RR's as
reason to believe that viewers regard such groups as relatively powerless, and
believes that viewers themselves become fearful of becoming victims of violence.
AT least two important questions arise regarding the meaning of the RR and its
presumed effects.
First, the RR is not a measure of simple risk, in reference to which the number of
"violents" is irrelevant. If, as Gerbner's tables show, 243 of 697 women (34.9 percent)
in "principal roles" across 10 sample weeks since 1969 were depicted as "victims,"
what matter whether the number depicted as "violents" is, as he indicates, 184, or
whether it is 284 or 26? The "risk" is the same. (Comparative risks are further
discussed below.)
The RR is also not a measure of "victimization (relative to the ability to inflict
violence)," since the ability to do so is not normally a theme of television drama.
The fact that 513 of the 697 women were not portrayed as inflicting violence is not
an indication of their inability to do so. What the RR actually measures is victimiza-
tion relative to the commission of violence. The implications of such an index are
somewhat difficult to conceive.
Second, it is very difficult to believe that viewers would become aware, conscious-
ly or unconsciously, of the differential RR's-i.e., the relative proportions of differ-
ent groups which are depicted as violents or victims, and the differences between
groups in this regard. It is not at all difficult to believe, however, that viewers
would become to one or another degree aware of something much simpler and more
easily statistically stated, namely, that certain groups are more often victims than
others (or more often violent than others, or more often involved in violence, one
way or another, than others).
Maintaining the emphasis on risk, the more telling statistics would seem to be the
simple number of persons in that group who are depicted as victims, or, for some-
what greater refinement, the percentage so depicted (the number of victims divided
3 p. 14 of his Violence Profile No. 8, Gerbner states that "The findings summarized in this
report include the analysis of major characters only." He defines "major characters" as those in
"principal roles essential to the story," whereas "minor characters (subjected to a less detailed
analysis) are all other speaking roles." It is therefore here assumed that the RR applies only to
"major characters."
PAGENO="0430"
426
by the total number of persons in that group who are depicted at all). These are, to
the best of our knowledge, the measures used in calculating risks of contracting
given diseases, the likelihood of being in an automobile accident, and other "risk"
statistics. When Gerbner's tables are examined in terms of these simpler statistics,
what emerges is often a very different picture from the RR. Briefly, it is frequently
found that a group with a higher RR than other groups is both numerically and
proportionately less often depicted either as involved in violence at all or as victims.
By way of example, women have a higher RR (-1.32) than do men (-1.20).
The simpler statistics (Gerbner's Table 44) reveal that Gerbner observed 2,328
male characters, of whom 1,604 (68.9 percent) were involved in violence and 1,400
(60.1 percent) depicted as victims. In comparison, 697 females were observed, of
whom 311 (44.6 percent) were involved in violence and 243 (34.9 percent) depicted as
victims. Of what is the viewer more likely to become aware: the complex fact that
female victims outnumbered female violents to a greater degree than male victims
outnumbered male violents, or the simpler facts that, both in terms of absolute
numbers and proportionately, women were less often than men involved in violence
at all, and far less often than men depicted as victims?
This same sort of situation applies to various other groups which Gerbner notes
as having high RR's. In summary, the RR is not a measure of risk as such, and the
simpler and more telling statistics often reveal that groups with higher BR's than
others are in fact less often than the others depicted as victims, both numerically
and proportionately to their depiction.
NATIONAL LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION,
Omaha Nebr., May .9, 1977.
Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, US. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENhTOR HOLLINGS: In connection with the above-named hearings, the Na-
tional Livestock Feeders Association wishes to call the attention of the Subcommit-
tee to the failure of certain standard (AM) broadcast stations to fulfill rural pro-
gramming responsibilities commensurate with the channel priority protection and
higher power accorded them by the Federal Communications Commission.
Channel priority and higher power have been given said stations on the premise
they will reach into and serve rural areas. Yet, during recent years, many of these
stations have placed service to rural audiences far down on their programming
priority lists and are now catering exclusively to urban audiences.
It is the position of the NLFA that since certain Class I (clear channel) stations,
in particular, and also, certain Class III (regional) stations no longer carrying
agricultural programming, they no longer warrant the higher power and broadcast
channel priority protection given them to reach into rural areas; and, that the
channel priority and higher power accorded these stations should be transferred to
those less-powerful stations which do have rural-oriented program services and are
willing to fill the rural-service void if given added power and broadcast channel
priority.
Attached for your information, and the information of the other members of the
Subcommittee, is a copy of the statement filed by the Association with the FCC in
connection with the Clear Channel proceedings currently under way.
As you are aware, the proceeding referred to involves the twenty-five Class I-A
Clear Channel stations only. Therefore, the NLFA statement is confined to these
stations. Your attention is called especially to the fact that, based on the question-
naire circulated to these stations, only eight of the twenty-five stations are doing a
good job of rural programming; whereas, eight-and possibly twelve, including the
one station which refused to cooperate and the three which failed to respond-are
clearly failing to fulfill their clear channel responsibilities.
The results of the survey of the twenty-five Class I-A standard (AM) broadcast
stations most certainly indicate the pressing need for a more searching inquiry into
the extent to which stations accorded channel priority protection and higher power
are in fact fulfilling rural programming and service responsibilities commensurate
with said broadcasting privileges.
It is respectfully requested that you enter this letter and the accompanying
materials in the hearing record.
Sincerely yours,
B. H. (BILL) JONES,
Executive Vice President.
Enclosure.
PAGENO="0431"
427
NATIONAL LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION,
Omaha, Nebr., April 20, 1977.
HON. RICHARD E. WILEY,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN WILEY: Attached are the Views and Comments filed on behalf of
the National Livestock Feeders Association in the above-named proceeding.
The statement sets forth the policy views of the Association with regard to the
Clear Channels, and the results of a survey designed to obtain documented informa-
tion on the extent to which Clear Channel stations are fulfilling the responsibilities
commensurate with the channel protection and level of power accorded to them by
the Federal Communications Commission.
Please note that the survey results show a pattern of certain stations consistently
doing a good job of rural programming and broadcasting; others doing a mediocre
job; and the remaining stations clearly failing to fulfill their clear channel responsi-
bilities.
Sincerely,
B. H. (BILL) JONES,
Executive Vice President.
Enclosure.
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
In the Matter of: Clear Channel Broadcasting in the Standard Broadcast Band
(Docket No. 20642).
Views and comments, submitted on behalf of: National Livestock Feeders Associ-
ation by B. H. (Bill) Jones, Executive Vice President. Dated: April 20, 1977.
ASSOCIATION POLICY ON CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING
Preservation of clear channels
The letter written to Chairman Richard E. Wiley on November 12, 1976 regarding
the preservation of Clear Channels and setting forth the resolution adopted by the
NLFA Board of Directors at its meeting on October 17 and 18, 1976 is reproduced
below:
[Exact copy]
NOVEMBER 12, 1976.
Hon. RICHARD E. WILEY,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: Docket No. 20642
DEAR CHAIRMAN WILEY: It is our understanding that the Federal Communications
Commission, in the above named proceedings, is considering the future use of Clear
Channels.
Since farm families, mobile users, and persons residing in small towns throughout
the nation are still highly dependent on Clear Channel broadcasting stations for
information which is vital to decision-making, the members of the National Live-
stock Feeders Assdciation have a very direct interest in any FCC action affecting
the use and preservation of these channels. In light of this fact, we respectfully urge
the Commission to give due consideration to the position of the Association in its
deliberations on this matter. Said position is set forth clearly in a resolution adopt-
ed by the Board of Directors of the NLFA at its recent meeting in Kansas City,
Missouri, on October 17 and 18, 1976. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas, Farmers must depend on the air waves for timely news, weather, and
market information; and
Whereas, Early morning and nighttime coverage of non-Clear Channel radio
stations is severely restricted, as is the coverage of television and FM radio stations
and the access to receiving units, despite the expansion of said services and equip-
ment during recent years; and
Whereas, Rural listeners are still highly dependent on Clear Channel AM radio
stations for information which is vital to decision-making; be it
Resolved, That the NLFA urges the Federal Communications Commission to: (1)
Refrain from breaking down or further duplicating the present Class 1-A Clear
Channels, which would cause further deterioration of radio service to rural Amer-
ica; and (2) to authorize increased power for existing Class 1-A stations, as appropri-
ate, to overcome the effect the increased use of electrical equipment, automobiles,
PAGENO="0432"
428
and other such factors have had on the effective signal strength of these broadcast-
ing stations.
For your additional information, the National Livestock Feeders Association is a
commodity trade association of persons engaged in producing and feeding livestock.
Membership exists in 20 states, with primary concentration in the North Central
Region, an area which feeds 55 percent of the fed cattle marketed, has one-third of
the beef cows, and produces nearly 80 percent of the hogs in the nation.
Sincerely,
B. H. (Bill) JONES,
Executive Vice President.
Failure of broadcast stations to fulfill clear channel responsibility
Although the Association strongly supports maintaining the Clear Channels, the
members have noted, and have voiced serious concern over, the failure of several
such broadcast stations to fulfill the rural programming responsibilities which go
hand-in-hand with the clear channel protection and level of power accorded them by
the Federal Communications Commission.
The members of the NLFA clearly voiced this concern and called for more
searching investigation of the performance of said stations in the following resolu-
tion adopted by the membership body at the recent Annual Business Meeting of the
Association on February 17 and 18, 1977:
Whereas, The more-powerful radio stations in the nation are accorded stronger
power and broadcast channel priority on the premise they will reach into and serve
rural areas; and
Whereas, Many of these clear channel and clear channel-like stations are now
almost exclusively catering to urban audiences; and
Whereas, They have placed service to Agriculture (rural audiences) far down on
their priority lists, in favor of non-agricultural programming tailored to the urban
populace; and
Whereas, Since said stations are no longer carrying agricuftural programming,
they do not warrant the higher power and broadcast channel priority privileges
given to them to reach into rural areas; and
Whereas, There exist other radio stations which do have rural-oriented program
services and would be in a better position to serve the rural (agricultural) areas if
provided the added power and broadcast channel priority; be it
Resolved, That the Association urges the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to conduct a special, thorough investigation of the programming of those radio
stations which are accorded added power and channel priority status on the premise
of serving rural areas; and be it further
Resolved, That the FCC be more searching of how well such stations fulfill their
programming requirements at time of broadcast license renewal.
In Summary
In summary, the position of the NLFA membership is that the needs of rural
America dictate preservation of the channel protection and level of power accorded
Clear Channels; however, whenever the station in question is, in fact, tailoring its
programming exclusively or almost exclusively to an urban audience, its channel
protection and allowable wattage should be limited to that necessary to cover said
area.
In turn, the channel protection and power not so utilized should be shifted to
those stations, now being denied clear channel status, which are doing a good job of
rural programming and will commit themselves to fulfilling clear channel responsi-
bilities.
RESULTS OF SURVEY ON RURAL SERVICE
In order to document the situation with regard to the fulfillment or failure to
fulfill clear channel responsibility, the National Livestock Feeders Association, with
the assistance of HDR Research, Inc., a Division of Holland Dreves Reilly, Inc.,
Omaha, Nebr., developed a questionnaire to be circulated to the twenty-five Class
1-A stations. Holland Dreves Reilly, an advertising, public and financial relations
firm, circulated the questionnaire among said stations.
Seven of the twenty-five stations were surveyed by mail, and the questionnaire
was hand carried to the remaining eighteen stations. Those surveyed by mail
included WSM (Nashville), WHAS (Louisville), WHAM (Rochester), KMOX (St.
Louis), WBZ (Boston), WJR (Detroit), and WWL (New Orleans).
A copy of the questionnaire is attached to these Views and Comments for the
information of the Commission. Also, a copy of each questionnaire form obtained
I
PAGENO="0433"
429
from individual stations is attached. No response was received from the following
stations: KMOX (St. Louis), WBZ (Boston), and WJR (Detroit).
The attention of the Commission is called to the pattern established by the survey
results, namely, that certain stations consistently show evidence of doing a good job
of rural programming and broadcasting in all categories covered; other stations give
evidence of doing only a mediocre job; and certain stations clearly evidence a failure
to fulfill the responsibilities commensurate with the channel protection and level of
power accorded to them by the Federal Communications Commission.
It is suggested to the Commission, in reviewing the data reported that the pat-
tern, just described, is more revealing and of more consequence than a comparison
of the actual broadcast minutes reported by individual stations. This would be
especially true with respect to a comparison of the absolute numbers reported by
the stations which can be classed as doing a good job. It is logical, of course, to
expect those stations which employ specialists in the form of farm directors to
consistently do a much better job of rural programming and broadcasting. The
survey results bear this out.
Summary of survey results
Based on the information obtained on the questionnaire forms, eight (8) stations
are doing a good job of rural programming; two (2) stations are doing a fairly good
job; three (3) stations are doing a borderline job; eight (8) stations are clearly failing
to fulfill their clear channel responsibilities; one (1) station refused to cooperate; and
three (3) stations did not respond. Following is the breakdown of stations on this
basis:
Good job.-WGN, Chicago; WHAM, Rochester, N.Y.; WHAS, Louisville; WHO,
Des Moines; WCCO, Minneapolis; WLW, Cincinnati; WOAI, San Antonio; and KSL,
Salt Lake City.
Fairly good job.-WBAP, Fort Worth and WSM, Nashville.
Borderline job.-KFI, Los Angeles; WSB, Atlanta; and WBBM, Chicago.
Failing to fulfill responsibility.-WABC, New York City; WCBS, New York City;
WNBC, New York City; WWWE, Cleveland; WLS, Chicago; WWL, New Orleans;
KDKA, Pittsburg; and, WCAU, Philadelphia.
Refused to cooperate.-WMAQ, Chicago.
Did not respond.-WBZ, Boston; WJR, Detroit; and KMOX, St. Louis.
Following is a review of the information received in response to the specific
questions contained in the questionnaire:
Farm directors.-Eleven (11) of the twenty-one responding stations indicated they
employ a farm director: WSM, Nashville; WHAM, Rochester; WLW, Cincinnati;
WGN, Chicago (2 full time); WCCO, Minneapolis; WHAS, Louisville; WHO, Des
Moines (3 full time); WBAP, Ft. Worth; WOAI, San Antonio; KSL, Salt Lake City;
and KFI, Los Angeles.
Note that WGN, Chicago, a station located in a major metropolitan area which is
doing a very good job of rural broadcasting, employes two (2) full-time farm direc-
tors. Also, that WHO, Des Moines, reports to have three (3) farm directors.
At seven (7) of the eleven stations having farm directors, the farm directors spend
full time on rural programming and broadcasting: WGN, Chicago; WCCO, Minne-
apolis; WHAS, Louisville; WHO, Des Moines; WBAP, Ft. Worth; WOAI, San Anto-
nio; and, KSL, Salt Lake City.
Weather-crop and livestock warnings.-Thirteen (13) of the twenty-one reporting
stations broadcast crop and livestock weather warnings: WSM, WHAM, WLW,
WCCO, WHAS, WBAP, KDKA, WHO, WSB, WWL, WOAI, KSL, and KFI.
WGN, Chicago, reported programming ten (10) minutes per day on weather of
special interest to Agriculture.
Weather-livestock safety indexes-The Livestock Safety Indexes, developed by
the National Weather Service, are not available to all stations. The Omaha office of
the Service indicated that the indexes are calculated for the Central and Southern
Regions of the Nation.
Farm news.-Ranking of stations in terms of minutes reportedly devoted to farm
news (times given may vary from station to station with respect to "purity", i.e.,
inclusion or exclusion of accompanying commercials, music, and the like, even
though the instructions were to include only actual broadcast minutes devoted to
farm news): WHO, 199; WOAI, 115; WHAM, 105; WBAP, 60; KFI, 50; WLW, 45;
WGN, 35; WHAS, 34; WCCO, 25; KSL, 24½ (includes farm markets); WSM, 20;
WSB, 20; WBBM, answer infers reports, but specific minutes not given; KDKA, 5;
WLS, 2; WWL, 0; WWWE, 0; WCBS, 0; WABC, 0; WNBC, 0; WCAU, 0; WMAQ, No
cooperation; WBZ, WJR, KMOX, no response.
Farm markets.-Ranking of stations in terms of minutes reportedly devoted to
reporting farm markets (times given may vary from station to station with respect
20-122 0 - 78 - 28
PAGENO="0434"
430
to "purity", i.e., inclusion or exclusion of accompanying commercials, news bits,
music, and the like, even through the instructions were to include only actual
broadcast minutes devoted to farm markets): WGN, 39; WHO, 32; WLW, 30; WOAI,
20; KFI, 9-12; WHAM, 9; WCCO, 9; WHAS, 9; WSM, 5; WSB, 5; KSL, markets
included in 24½ minutes of farm news. WBBM, answer infers reports, but no
specific minutes given. WWWE, 0; WBAP, 0; WCBS, 0; WABC, 0; WNBC, 0; KDKA,
0; WLS, 0; WWL, 0; WCAU, 0; WMAQ, no cooperation. WBZ, WJR, KMOX, no
response.
Personal contacts as source-The importance of personal contact by radio staff as
a source of farm news and/or special agricultural events: Regular-WHAM, WGN,
WCCO, WHAS, WHO, WOAI, KSL. Frequent-WSM, WLW. Infrequent-KDKA,
WSB, KFI, WCAU. Never-WWWE, WLS, WCAU. Others-No comments or only
on significant stories.
SERVICE TO AGRICULTURE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RADIO STATION
1. Does your radio station employ, full-time, a person (or persons) officially desig-
nated and promoted as your "Farm Service Director," or some similar designation?
--Yes --No.
What percent of time does that person (or persons) devote to the gathering,
preparation and delivery of broadcast material of an agricultural nature? --
Percent
If less than 100 percent, to what does this person (or persons) devote the balance
of time? Farm sales--%; newscasting--%; special events--%; office work--
%; DJ--%: sports--%; management--%; other (specify)--%.
2. If your radio station does not employ a full-time "Farm Service Director" does
it employ a person on a part-time basis who is designated and promoted as your
"Farm Service Director," or some similar designation? --Yes --No.
What is this person's main occupation?
3. During a typical day, how many actual broadcast minutes does your radio
station devote to the following? (Do not include time for commercials, music, etc.).
a. Weather--minutes.
Does your radio station broadcast crop and livestock weather warnings? --No
--Yes.
Does your radio station broadcast livestock safety indexes? --Yes --No.
b. Farm news: midnight to 5 am--minutes; 5 a.m. to 6 am--minutes; 6 a.m.
to 7 am--minutes; 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.--minutes; 8 a.m. to 11 am--minutes; 11
a.m. to 12 noon--minutes; 12 noon to 1 p.m.--minutes; 1 p.m. to 6 p.m.--
minutes; 6 p.m. to midnight--minutes.
c. Farm markets (commodity trading): midnight to 5 a.m.--minutes; 5 a.m. to 6
a.m.--minutes; 6 a.m. to 7 a.m.--minutes; 7 am. to 8 a.m.--minutes; 8 a.m. to
11 am--minutes; 11 n.m. to 12 noon--minutes; 12 noon to 1 p.m.--minutes; 1
p.m. to 6 p.m-minutes; 6 p.m. to midnight--minutes.
d. Money markets: (stocks, bonds)--minutes.
4. Indicate the importance of personal contact by radio station staff as a source of
farm news and/or special agricultural events. --never; --infrequent; --fre-
quent; --regular. List agricultural events covered by personal contact in the past
year:
5. Please make any further comments describing your radio station's service to
agriculture:
Date
Name (Print)
Signature
Title
Radio station
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ANNENBERG SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS,
Philadelphia, Pa., May 18, 1977.
Hon. ERNEST HOLLINGS,
US. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN HOLLINGS: You may be interested in the enclosed letter and
analysis of materials sent to the House Communications Subcommittee. According
to press reports of your recent hearings, Mr. John A. Schneider, President of CBS
Broadcast Group (and possible other network executives) have made frequent criti-
.1
PAGENO="0435"
431
Cal reference to our television Violence Index and Profile. If that is correct, it may
be appropriate for us to offer the enclosed analysis, or some similar response, for the
record.
I would appreciate your advice in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE GERBNER,
Professor of Communications, and Dean.
Enclosure.
UNIvERsITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THE ANNENBERG SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS,
Philadelphia, Pa., May 17, 1977.
Hon. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN VAN DEERLIN: We have studied the CBS materials attached to
Mr. John A. Schneider's letter of April 25, 1977, and appreciate the courtesy of a
timely response for the record. We are pleased to have this opportunity to correct
some erroneous and misleading allegations that have been widely circulated both
before and since the release of the CBS statement.
During the Subcommittee's hearings of March 2, Mr. Schneider expressed his
dislike of our methodology and claimed that CBS's own monitoring found a dramat-
ic decrease in television violence. Two months later, at the Senate Subcommittee
hearings of May 9, the CBS results showed an increase in television violence.
We have subjected the CBS materials and methodology to careful analysis. Some
highlights are attached; the detailed comparative study will be published in the
near future. Our analysis found important features of the CBS methodology unreli-
able. That may account for the widely fluctuating results.
The CBS objections to our Violence Index and Profile stem from an inadequate
conception of the task of scientific research. They reflect a corporate defense mecha-
nism rather than a broad and multi-faceted investigation into the nature and effects
of television violence. As our accompanying analysis of the CBS reports shows, that
basic misconception, coupled with questionable methods makes the CBS contentions
scientifically unacceptable.
The claims that all components of an Index must move in the same direction, that
a solid week sample cannot be representative of a season's programming, that
"comic" or "accidental" violence should be ignored, and that relative victimization
is a "meaningless statistic" represent confusion and wishful thinking. We do not
believe that Congress and the American public need revert to the era when self-
serving claims and public relations gestures were the only bases for judging network
performance. Our analysis of the CBS claims and complaints confirms the position
that only an independent and scientifically tested comprehensive set of measures,
such as the Violence Index and Profile, can do justice to the need for an objective
standard of network performance in the public domain.
Much as we empathize with the CBS attempt to reduce indicators of network
performance to the narrowest and most manageable basis, we cannot agree that
such limitations would yield a valid measure of television violence. Network execu-
tives have long complained about "mechanical counts" of violence divorced from
meaningful social and dramatic context. The Social Science Research Council and
the National Institute of Mental Health committees of experts examined our meth-
ods and commended the use of a multi-dimensional profile sensitive to a variety of
important aspects of violent representations. It is ironic that CBS now wants to go
back to a one-dimensional count of a single and highly unstable measure.
Our methodology was developed and tested over many years both before and after
the start of the current series of television violence studies in 1967. It was designed
to avoid the sorts of flaws and errors typified by the CBS methodology. For example
it uses a more precise and comprehensive definition and a multi-dimensional set of
indicators. Each component is reported separately so that any single measure (in-
cluding the one to which CBS would like us to limit the entire research) can be seen
by itself, as well as in combination with others.
It is true, of course, that some measures may show a decline while others in-
crease, whenever that is in fact the case. Violence Profile No. 8 reported a decline
in CBS family hour violent acts but an increase in the percentage of programs in
which violence occurred. In other words, violence was reduced but spread to more
programs. Thus viewers who wished to escape violence by turning to what they
assumed to be non-violent programs found that now those programs also had some
violence. This spreading of violence to more programs is a significant fact that
should be reported whether or not CBS finds the results convenient.
PAGENO="0436"
432
We agree with previous statements of CBS and other television executives, writ-
ers, and analysts that meaningful and responsible analysis of television violence is
not a simple matter. Thus, it should not be dealt with by a simplistic count.
Violence is a social relationship whose full and responsible understanding requires a
multiple analysis of perpetrators, victims, actions, and consequences.
We must emphatically disagree that the study of TV violence should be reduced
to those areas that are easily perceived by the average viewer or that have led to
criticism of network policy. Indeed the less readily detectable long-range conse-
quences may be the most important to illuminate. All significant lessons of exposure
to violence, be they good, bad, or indifferent to corporate interests, should be
scrutinized.
A comparison of the CBS methodology with that of our study shows that, in fact,
it is the limitations of the CBS method that lead to the "fatal flaws" of which Mr.
Schneider complains. Had we followed the CBS method of measuring violence, we
might indeed be subject to those "statistical errors of horrendous proportion" that
Mr. Schneider attributes to our study.
The attached analysis of the CBS materials will demonstrate that the Violence
Index is in fact a valid and reliable indicator of television violence. True, it is more
broadly based than CBS would like. But to reduce it to a single narrow measure of
questionable reliability would be a disservice to the Congress, the public, and, in the
long run, to the industry that also needs an independent and objective standard.
Instead of trying to explain away findings when they happen to be inconvenient,
CBS should take the lead in responding to our call for pooling research data in the
national television archive of the Library of Congress. Dr. Daniel Boorstin, Librar-
ian of Congress, is receptive to such a project, and your good offices, Mr. Chairman,
could expedite such collaboration in the public interest. That would be a truly
fruitful and productive way to compare methodologies and to reach an open consen-
sus on the most appropriate indicators and standards of network performance.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE GERBNER,
Professor of Communications.
LARRY GRoss,
Associate Professor of Communications.
THE GERNBER VIOLENCE PROFILE-AN ANALYSIS OF THE CBS REPORT OF APRIL 21,
1977
(By the University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School of Communications)
The CBS report deals with two of three areas of the annual Violence Profile. It
discusses the Violence Index and the Risk Ratios showing relative levels of victijn-
ization. It is unfortunate that the third area of our research, that of television's
effects, or, as we call it, Cultivation Analysis, is ignored. The answers to some issues
raised in the CBS material come from our study of television viewers rather than
from program content alone. By omitting results that would answer its questions,
CBS serves its own convenience rather than the need for objective judgment based
on all available evidence.
Organized in logical order, the CBS report focuses on four main criticisms:
1. The Violence Index is deficient because (a) it defines violence too broadly and
(b) it is composed of "an arbitrarily weighted set of arbitrarily chosen measures of
violence on television, whose meaning is totally unclear."
2. The Violence Index employs faulty units of analysis because "It counts as
multiple acts of violence, single incidents which should be counted as single inci-
dents."
3. A single week's sample is inadequate for representing an entire television
season.
4. "The Risk Ratio analysis is equally defective" because it measures relative
rather than absolute victimization which "in all likelihood" does not correspond "to
viewers' perceptions."
Each of these claims rests on erroneous-if convenient-assumptions and result
in highly misleading conclusions. We shall analyze them in turn.
1. The index
CBS claims that the Violence Index is deficient because "It includes kinds of
dramatic incidents which should not be included-comic violence, accidents, natural
disasters." The report suggests the unlikely example of a "pie in the face," and
amplifies its conception of what should be included: violence "which might conceiv-
PAGENO="0437"
433
ably make potentially wayward youths wayward" and violence "in what reasonable
citizens would consider to be potentially harmful dramatic forms."
The fact is that our analysis of television content as reported in the Violence
Index does not presume effects-useful or harmful. The reporting of trends in the
Gross National Product, the Employment Index, or in weather conditions, cannot
depend on the presumed effects of the facts being reported, be they good, bad,
indifferent, or mixed. CBS confuses communications content with the scientific
study of communications effects and thus ignores our study of television viewers.
Yet only by studying the conceptions and behaviors of the public, rather than
speculating about "wayward youths" or what seems "potentially harmful," can one
determine the actual consequence of exposure to any form of violence.
CBS would also prefer to discount all violence in a comic context, which is
especially frequent in children's programming. But CBS recently published, "The
learn while they laugh," a public relations booklet extolling the educational virtues
of its children's programming, including cartoons. The weight of scentific evidence,
including the recent Rand Corporation research summaries compiled by George
Comstock, indicates that a comic context is a highly effective form of conveying
serious lessons. If CBS wants to maintain that comedy teaches only what they wish
for it to teach, the burden of proof lies with them.
Overall, the Violence Index for fall 1976 shows that violence occurs at the average
rate of nearly 10 incidents per program hour. Yet CBS-and other industry spokes-
men-typically attach these findings by the supposedly disarming example of the
"pie in the face." First, we do not think there has been "a pie in the face" in one of
our samples of TV drama in a long time. Second, the Violence Index rules specifical-
ly exclude any noncredible comic gesture or verbal abuse. We classify as violence
only the credible indication or actual infliction of overt physical pain, hurt, or
killing. This, if a pie in the face does that-which depends on the actual incident-it
is violence and should be so recorded.
The contention that "serious" violence is only what "reasonable citizens would
consider harmful" is equally specious. It again confuses communication content
with the assessment of effects. For example, we know from independent studies of
the physical environment and of foods and pharmaceuticals that citizens are not
necessarily aware of the full range of consequences of many of our industrial
activities and products, including the products of the television industry. That is
why independent research is needed. That is why the scientific diagnosis of a
complex cultural-industrial phenomena-such as television-cannot he left to con-
ventional wisdom, and even less to rationalizations by the corporate interests in-
volved.
CBS also argues for the exclusion from the definition of TV violence dramatic
incidents portraying "accidents," and "acts of nature." But there are no "accidents"
in fiction. The author invents (or the producer inserts) dramatic disasters and "acts
of nature" for a purpose. The pattern of violent victimization through such inven-
tions may be a significant and telling part of television violence. It is Hardly
accidental that certain types of characters are accident-prone or disaster-prone in
the world of television. Such TV content patterns may have significant effects on
some viewers' conceptions of life and of their own risks in life. These patterns are,
therefore, important to report if one is concerned with the full range of pontentially
significant consequences.
Another objection raised by CBS is that the Violence Index includes a set of
measures rather than only a single indicator, and that different measures may
move in different directions. The CBS report also cites an OTP Staff paper by Bruce
M. Owen as complaining that the Index "involves adding apples and oranges." CBS
could just as easily criticize any set of comprehensive indicators such as the GNP,
labor statistics, or the weather report.
As pointed out in our response to the Owen paper (dated July 13, 1972, and also
distributed through OTP but not cited by CBS), the usefulness of any index is
precisely that it combines measures of different aspects of a complex phenomenon.
One must add apples and oranges if one wants to know about fruit.
The Violence Index reports all its components separately as well as in combina-
tion. That has made it possible for any user of the Violence Index, including CBS, to
observe the movement of each component, and to weigh each as they see fit.
The CBS report correctly notes that the absolute number of violent incidents in
CBS family hour programs declined in 1976, while other components of the Index
showed as increase. CBS fails to discuss the nature of these other measures. It also
ignores the reasons for including them in the Index. Mr. Schneider's letter further
confuses the issue by claiming that the Index rose "apparently because we had the
`wrong people' involved in the action."
PAGENO="0438"
434
The kind of people involved had nothing to do with it. As Table 31 of Violence
Profile No. 8 (to which the CBS report refers) clearly shows, 23.1 percent of all
leading CBS family hour characters were involved in violence in 1975, compared to
31.8 percent in 1976. Even more important, violence was more broadly distributed in
1976 CBS family hour programming, making it more difficult for viewers to avoid
(or have their children avoid) violence during family viewing time. While in the
1975 sample only 27.3 percent of the CBS family hour programs contained violence,
in the 1976 sample 62.5 percent contained violence. So, although the number of
violent acts was reduces in 1976, the percent of leading characters involved in
violence increased and violence was found in many more programs. Much as we
empathize with the CBS attempt to get credit for partial effort, we cannot agree
that such contrary evidence should be covered up or omitted from the Index.
2. Units of analysis
The CBS complaint about counting multiple acts of violence when single acts
should be counted is unfounded. In the tradition of such research since the first
studies of the 1950's, our coding instructions specify that a violent act is "a scene of
some violence confined to the same agents. Even if the scene is interrupted by a
flashback, etc., as long as it contains in `real time' it is the same act. However, if
new agent(s) enter the scene it becomes another act."
The CBS coding instructions define a violent act as "One sustained, dramatically
continuous event involving violence, with essentially the same group of participants
and with no major interruption in continuity." The two definitions are similar
except for the ambiguous CBS qualification of "essentially." As the criteria for
determining the "essential" set of agents are not specified, the CBS rule permits the
arbitrary and subjective manipulation of the unit of violence. Such ambiguity not
only tends to reduce the reliability of the measure but also gives the coder employed
by CBS the opportunity to stretch the rule on which all other measures depend. For
example, under the CBS rule it would be possible to ignore shifting participation in
a long series of violent scenes, possibly involving an entire program as not "essen-
tial" and thus to code the whole program as a single violent incident. Such a
defective measure cannot be accepted as the basis for the sole standard of network
performance.
3. Sampling
CBS asserts that "Dr. Gerbner only measures one week of television, which can
lead to statistical errors of horrendous proportion." Elsewhere the report states that
CBS research found wide variability in its own count of violent incidents.
Plausible as that claim seems, in fact it reflects the limitations, instabilities, and
ambiguities of the CBS definition. Our own interest in assessing the representative-
ness of the one-week sample led to an initial analysis in 1969, to repeated spring-
season test samplings in 1975 and 1976 and to an analysis of six additional weeks of
fall 1976 programming. These studies indicate that while a larger sample may
increase precision, given our operational definitions and multi-dimensional mea-
sures that are sensitive to a variety of significant aspects of TV violence, the one-
week sample yields remarkably stable results with high cost-efficiency.
With respect to the number of violent actions per program (the measure of most
concern to CBS) our six-week analysis found the same rank-order of the three
networks no matter which week was chosen, except for one instance when ABC and
CBS were tied (see table 1).
PAGENO="0439"
435
TABLE 1
Test sample week
Fall
1 2 3 4 5 19761 Total
Total:
Number of programs 58 58 57 58 61 61 353
Number of violent acts 345 342 365 365 341 342 2,100
Rate (acts per program) 5.9 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.6 5.6 5.9
ABC:
Nunber of programs 20 20 19 19 20 19 117
Number of violent acts 114 107 112 132 116 110 691
Rate (acts per program) 5.7 5.4 5.9 6.9 5.8 5.8 5.9
Network rank 2 2 1.5 2 2 2 2
CBS:
Number of programs 22 21 22 21 21 24 131
Number of violent acts 90 91 130 97 66 84 558
Rate (acts per program) 4.1 4.3 5.9 4.6 3.1 3.5 4.3
Network rank 1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1
CBS:
Number of programs 16 17 16 18 20 18 105
Number of violent acts 141 144 123 136 159 148 851
Rate (acts per program 8.8 8.5 7.7 7.6 8.0 8.2 8.1
Newwork rank 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
1 Fall 1976 week reported in Violence Profile No. 8.
CBS claims it found that the week with the highest number of incidents on any
network had 2.5 to 3 times the number of incidents or the lowest week. We found in
our six-week test that this multiple was 1.98 to one for CBS; for the others, it was
even less: 1.29 to one for NBC, 1.23 to one for ABC.
The explanation for the discrepancy between our results and those of CBS lies
more in differences of methodology than of sampling. CBS limits its observation of
violence to those acts its coders presume to be intentionally harmful and excludes
the majority of violent presentations they judge to be "comedic" or "accidental."
These arbitrary limitations involve much subjective speculation and introduce vari-
ability and instability leading to gross statistical aberrations.
Sharply reducing both the number and potential reliability of observations, and
then limiting the analysis to a single unstable measure, do indeed lead to "statisti-
cal errors of horrendous proportion." These are the errors that our broadly-based
and precisely operationalized methods are designed to overcome.
4. Risk ratios
The Violence Index reports absolute as well as relative risks. It makes clear, for
example, that women are less likely to get involved in violence on television than
men. But it also finds that, when involved, relatively more women than men end up
as victims.
CBS claims that relative victimization (i.e. victimization compared to the commis-
sion of violence across different social types) is difficult to grasp, and is, therefore, a
"meaningless statistic."
We must repeat that the validity of a TV content indicator does not depend on
viewers' conscious understanding of its meaning. Our Cultivation Analysis shows
that exposure to violence-laden television drama cultivates a sense of exaggerated
fear and mistrust in the minds of heavy viewers. Young women-with and especial-
ly unfavorable risk ratio-are particularly affected, despite the fact that in absolute
terms they are not likely to get involved in violence as are the men. What CBS
terms "meaningless statistic" turns out to be potentially important in its conse-
quences.
Our analysis of the CBS report and methodology confirms the judgment of social
scientists, legislators, and the general public that only a scientifically tested, inde-
pendent, and comprehensive set of indicators, measuring both TV content and
effects, can be the basis for judging network performance. Our experience indicates
that the Violence Index and Profile provide such a set of indicators. For indepen-
dent confirmation, we recommend the findings of an international panel of distin-
guished industry-affiliated and academic social scientists charged by the Social
Science Research Council conducting a year-long investigation "to conceptualize and
give scientific context to the researh required for the development of a multi-
PAGENO="0440"
436
dimensional proffle of violence in television programming." The recommendations,
published in the Annual Report for 1974-75 of the Social Science Research Council
(pages 67-72), provide broad scientific support for the general direction an method-
ology of the Violence Index and Profile and offer advice which is directly opposed to
the CBS methodology. A detailed study comparing the Violence Index and Profile
with CBS methods will be published in the near future, providing further documen-
tation.
STATEMENT OF THE TELEVISION COMMISSION OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
PARENTS AND TEACHERS
NETWORK/AFFILIATE RESPONSIBILITY
In announcing the new FCC study of network/affiliate relationships, FCC Com-
missioner Wiley cited his concern about the rapid growth of network revenue and
incomes coinciding with increased network involvement with program development.
Wiley also cited the 237% increase in the cost of a one-half hour program from
1960. The economics of network growth are only one aspect of the network/affiliate
relationship, however.
The National Congress of Parents and Teachers would like to raise a different set
of questions: questions regarding the networks' policies on program development
and selection, and the affiliates' role in that process. Are the networks actively
assisting their affiliates to fulfill their mandated responsibility to serve the "public
interest, convenience and necessity?" Are the affiliates allowed reasonable opportu-
nity to influence program development in its formative stage? Are the affiliates
given the opportunity to preview particular programs with enough advance time to
arrange alternative programs and sponsors if the networks' program is found to be
unsuitable for showing in the affiliate's community?
The testimony we heard at our recent series of eight regional hearings leads us to
ask these questions. The public is concerned about the quality of television program-
ming, particularly the programming in prime-time which comes directly from the
networks. We heard testimony at each hearing that decried the content of some
network programs-programs that glorified violence, aggressive anti-social behavior,
and violation of the law. It is our belief that the networks must become more
conscious of the "public interest" and assist their affiliates in serving it. It is our
recommendation that the affiliates, those closest to the community-those mandat-
ed to serve the public interest-be given a clearer and stronger role in network
program selection and development. They must also be given the opportunity to
preview programs far enough in advance so that alternative programs can be
arranged if the network program is not in harmony with their community's needs
or values.
It is our hope,-Members of Congress, that your recommendations will address this
vital component of the network/affiliate relationship. Our PTA Action Plan will
actively involve our membership (which is 6½ million persons) in monitoring televi-
sion programming and pressuring the networks, the affiliates, the advertisers, and
the FCC to improve the content of television. The basic question that you must face,
however, is "What is the proper role for the affiliates in network programming?"
We hope our comments will be helpful to you in answering that question.
PROGRAM PRACTICES AND STANDARDS
The National Congress of Parents and Teachers Television Commission is meeting
at this hour in Los Angeles with network officials concerning television program-
ming. This written statement, in lieu of personal testimony, will outline for you the
history of the PTA's concern about the effect of mass media on children and youth,
and detail the present PTA Action Plan. It is our belief that television programming
must change: that the violence and aggressive anti-social behavior in television
programming contribute to aggressive behavior among youth, and is not acceptable.
Broadcasters must begin to seriously acknowledge their mandate to program for the
"public interest."
The National Congress of Parents and Teachers was an early advocate of orga-
nized attempts to influence the mass media. As early as 1910 the PTA expressed
concern about the influence of media presentations on children and youth, and
urged local organizations to supervise both motion picture and vaudeville atten-
dance. More recently the PTA produced a parent guide, Mass Media and the PTA,
which suggested, "the quality of programs will always be at a level that the vocal
part of America wants."
PAGENO="0441"
437
Delegates to the 1973 and 1975 National PTA Conventions passed a series of
resolutions calling for increased efforts by the PTA to influence mass media pro-
gramming. In 1976 the National PTA Television Commission was appointed by
National PTA President, Carol Kimmel. A four phase program was developed.
Phase One: The Commission members attended a week-long intensive seminar to
better understand the television industry and research. Training included the eco-
nomics of the broadcasting industry, communications law, review of the research on
the effects of television on children and youth, television production operation, and
review of program practices of the major networks.
Phase Two: Well briefed, the Commission embarked on a series of eight regional
hearings, held in November 1976 and January and February of 1977. At each
hearing, approximately 60 persons, representing parents, teachers, children, social
workers, clergy, juvenile officers, television station managers, television networks,
civil liberties groups, citizen groups, and youth service agencies testified.
Phase Three: After reviewing the research and hearing the testimony of approxi-
mately 500 persons, the Commission summarized its findings:
1. Aggression. Televison violence contributes to aggressive behavior among youth.
2. Violence. Some youths will be incited to commit violent acts in direct imitation
of violent acts seen on television.
3. Desensitization. There is a growing desensitization among youth and adults in
this country because of the violence on television.
4. Distortion. Perceptions by children and youth of real life problem solving
methods is distorted by television programming which fails to proportionately illus-
trate non-violent methods such as discussion, negotiation, and compromise, which
are prevalent and acceptable to society.
5. Paranoia. Youth and adults who regularly view television violence are more
fearful of real life.
6. Quality of Life. The quality of life is diminished for both children and adults
with continual exposure to a television malaise of murder, rape, arson, assault and
other violence to persons and property.
The Commission members believe that the following responsibilities should be
assigned:
The parent/citizen has the responsibility to monitor television programs for suit-
ability; to provide interpretation and evaluation of programming to their children;
to inform appropriate industry and government bodies when programming is offen-
sive.
The licensee has the responsibility to broadcast programs in the public interest
and to assume the burden of proof that programming is not injurious to the public
welfare.
The networks have the responsibility to provide programming which is in the
public interest; to assume the burden of proof that programming is not injurious to
the public welfare; and to give local licensees an adequate amount of time to be
critically selective of network program offerings.
The Federal Communications Commission has the responsibility to license only
those stations which exhibit programs which are in the public interest and which
are not injurious to the public welfare.
The federal government has the responsibility to encourage, through appropriate
grants, research studies on the specific effects of television and the development of
new curricula which would give youth a critical appreciation of television.
Phase Four: Based on these findings, the Commission developed the PTA-Televi-
sion Action Plan which will begin on July 1, 1977. Basically the plan involves
mobilizing the 6½ million PTA members and their families in a massive television
action campaign. PTA members will be instructed, at their local level, in the basics
of broadcasting: the role of the FCC in granting broadcast licenses; the prescribed
ascertainment procedures for determining local community needs; the rights of
individuals and groups to petition the FCC to deny a broadcast license; the roles of
the networks, the advertisers, and the local stations in program selection. Members
will be given addresses of the appropriate network officials, FCC members, and
major advertisers and encouraged to write letters to their local stations for the
public file concerning specific programming, both objectionable and exemplary. The
second major portion of the training will involve instruction in the use of the PTA
monitoring instrument. This instrument will be used by all PTA members to moni-
tor television program content. Based on the analysis of the findings, the PTA will
target the programs found objectionable by its members.
In early December 1977 the PTA-Television Action office will issue a progress
report. If the above activities have not proved effective, the PTA will consider
alternative courses of action, such as boycotts of programs, stations, and advertisers,
and selected test cases of petition to deny licensing.
PAGENO="0442"
438
The broadcasting industry representatives participated in the regional hearings.
We are meeting with them again today, and will continue that dialogue in the
coming months. In addition to the dialogue, however, the PTA-Television Action
campaign will involve its members in direct pressure activities aimed at altering the
content of televison programming. It is our hope that you, the members of the
Subcommittee on Communication, will join us in our efforts.
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RADIO TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
The Congress should enact legislation that recognizes the full First Amendment
rights of broadcasters.
Radio and television stations and networks are journalistic enterprises that pre-
pare and present news, commentary, documentary and other public affairs pro-
grams. As such, they are part of the "press" of this nation.
Most Americans now receive most of their news and opinion on current events
from radio and television,1 and thus broadcasting today, by this measure and others,
the most important institution of the press in the United States.
Historically, the print media of this nation have been generally free of govern-
mental interference with editorial content. But almost from their start, the electron-
ic media have been treated differently.
The fact that most broadcasters alsO present entertainment and commercial ad-
vertising is as irrelevant to the existence of the press function and its protections as
is the fact that much of the content of newspapers is entertainment and advertising.
Further, the Supreme Court has left no doubt that forms of expression usually
identified as entertainment are as protected from censorship as well-defined public-
issue speech.2
The reasons commonly given for greater governmental regulation of broadcast
programming cannot justify this deviation from general press law. In Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, in which the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's right-of-
reply rules and the concept of compulsory fairness, the Court emphasized the
scarcity and public-trustee explanations for broadcasting's regulatory posture. The
Court went further, compromising traditional press freedom generally, by stating
that the First Amendment was enhanced rather than abridged by the fairness
doctrine. Central to this conclusion was the Court's position in Red Lion that "[i]t is
the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral,
and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here." But more recently, in
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo,~ the Supreme Court took a contrary First
Amendment position in a newspaper case that raised almost identical issues. Argu-
ments made to the Court for a government-imposed right-of-reply in newspapers
were the same or similar to those used to justify fairness regulation in broadcast-
~ The Court's reasons for rejecting the arguments for a right-of-reply in newspa-
pers are virtually the same as those argued unsuccessfully before the Court five
years earlier to oppose fairness regulation in broadcasting.6 The rationales of Red
Lion and Tornillo are in hopeless conflict. For a comparative analysis of the two
opinions, see Appendix hereto.
The government's hand in choosing broadcasting licensees is a distinction that
has been advanced for the differing results in the two cases. To the contrary, that
distinction is really an argument for Congress and the Commission to be most
careful in exercising the licensing function to stay out of the programming decision-
making of broadcasters, lest government regulation become so entwined with licens-
ee action that the latter be considered "state action" requiring direct application of
the First Amendment to licensees.~ At stake is nothing less than the ability of
broadcast journalism to retain its status as part of the independent press of this
nation.
1 Roper Organization reported in Trends in Public Attitudes Toward Television and Other
Mass Media 1959-19743 (1974) that 65% of the persons interviewed received most of their news
from television and 21% received most of their news from radio.
2Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557-58. (19750; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v.
Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 503 (1952); Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948).
3395 U.S. 367 (1969).
~418 U.S. 241 (1974).
`Id. at 245, 248-54.
6 See, e.g., Brief for Respondents RTNDA et al., filed March 22, 1969, in United States v. Radio
Television News Directors Ass `n., U.S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term 1968, Case No. 717.
`See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94
(1973): compare id. at 114-21, 132-41, 148-50 (Burger, C. J., Stewart, Rehnquist & Douglas, JJ.)
(government action not found), with id. at 172-81 (Brennan & Marshall, JJ.) (government action
found), and with id. at 146-48 (White, Blackmun & Powell. JJ.) (not deciding).
PAGENO="0443"
439
Having decided to allocate radio frequency spectrum and to issue licenses for the
communication of ideas to the public, government may not abridge freedom of
speech and press.8 After it has licensed private broadcasters on the basis of criteria
which are neutral as to applicants' viewpoints, goverment should have no right or
obligation to oversee programming (including political candidate broadcasts or the
balancing of viewpoints on public issues) carried over the "public airwaves",~ any
more than government may regulate similar content in private newspapers because
they are delivered over public streets.
The Supreme Court's shift away from the rationale of Red Lion was signalled a
year before Tornillo in the case of Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic
National Committee.b0 The Court of Appeals had ordered commercial broadcasters
to sell advertising time for announcements on controversial issues. The Supreme
Court reversed, recognizing the importance of a broad journalistic discretion exer-
cised by broadcasters. Chief Justice Burger wrote: "For better or worse, editing is
what editors are for, and editing is selection and choice of material. That editors-
newspaper or broadcast-can and do abuse this power is beyond doubt, but that is
not reason to deny the discretion Congress provided. Calculated risks of abuse are
taken in order to preserve higher values. The presence of these risks is nothing new;
the authors of the Bill of Rights accepted the reality that these risks were evils for
which there was no acceptable remedy other than a spirit of moderation and a sense
of responsibility-and civility-on the part of those who exercise the guaranteed
freedoms of expression." 11
Three of the justices in CBS referred to the "role of the licensee as a journalistic
`free agent" who is "only broadly accountable to public interest standards." 12 Two
justices took the position that, as part of the "press," private broadcasters are just
as entitled to First Amendment protection from fairness and access claims as are
newspapers.13 Justice Stewart observed that "[t]here is never a paucity of argu-
ments in favor of limiting the freedom of the press" and that many of the argu-
ments made with respect to broadcasting are as applicable to newspapers. Question-
ing the Court's decision in Red Lion, Justice Stewart concluded his opinion in CBS:
"Those who wrote our First Amendment put their faith in the proposition that a
free press in indispensable to a free society. They believed that `fairness' was far too
fragile to be left for a government bureaucracy to accomplish. History has many
times confirmed the wisdom of their choice." 14
In the same case, Justice Douglas stated his firm view that the present scheme of
program regulation is unconstitutional: "We have . . . witnessed a slow encroach-
ment by government over that segment of the press that is represented by TV and
radio licensees. Licensing is necessary for engineering reasons; the spectrum is
limited and wavelengths must be assigned to avoid stations interfering with each
other. * * * The Commission has a duty to encourage a multitude of voices but
only in a limited way, viz: by preventing monopolistic practices and by promoting
technological developments that will open up new channels. But censorship or
editing or the screening by government of what licensees may broadcast goes
against the grain of the First Amendment.'~
Following both CBS and Tornillo, the Supreme Court, in Cox Broadcasting Corp.
v. Cohn,16 rested upon Tornillo to invalidate a state privacy law which infringed
upon the First Amendment right of a broadcast station to report information
8See Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). See generally, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birming-
ham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), and cases cited therein.
~Despite the development of a fallacious jurisprudence on public ownership of the "airwaves",
there is no property in the electromagnetic spectrum which would justify a claim of ownership
of it. See Segal & Warner, "Ownership' of Broadcasting `Frequencies': A Review," 19 Rocky
Mtn. L. Rev. 111 (1947).
10412 U.S. 94 (1973).
1'Jd at 124-25.
121d. at 117, 120 (Burger C.J., Stewart & Rehnquist, J.J.)
13 Id. at 132, 148 (Douglas & Stewart, JJ).
~4Jd at 145-46.
"Id at 157-58.
16420 U.S. 469 (1975).
PAGENO="0444"
440
disclosed during a criminal trial: "In this instance as in others reliance must rest
upon the judgment of those who decide what to publish or broadcast. See Miami
Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. AT 258." 17
These Supreme Court opinions of the `70s have eroded the intellectual and legal
foundations for FCC regulation of program content. Professor Glen Robinson, an
experienced government regulator as well as communications law scholar, had this
to say about the present state of the law: "Tornillo must be considered an implied
repudiation of the [listeners' rights] theory so far as the print media are concerned;
and with respect to the electronic media, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Democratic National Committee seems basically hostile to the theory. Thus, the
listeners' rights theory seems to have no real vitality except as a rhetorical bow to
the unexceptional notion that free speech does not totally supplant the rights of the
people at large to exercise their sovereign powers." 18
Commentators are less sure of the consequences: "How Miami Herald will affect
the law of broadcast regulation in general, and Red Lion in particular, is an august
question for the future. The answer will probably come from the Supreme Court,
unless Congress steps in with a basic reform of the Communications Act, a most
unlikely prospect." 19 The Communications Act rewrite that Professor Schmidt
through so unlikely only a year ago now appears to be one of several possible
approaches to remedying defects in the Act. Schmidt believed that future judicial
holdings may eventually establish, under the existing "public interest" standard of
the Act, "a degree of autonomy for broadcasters from FCC program-by-program
review that will resemble the constitutional autonomy guaranteed to print publica-
tions in Miami Herald." 20
Thus, the trend of the law is toward equal treatment of the print and electronic
press under the First Amendment. Regardless of how fast the Supreme Court moves
toward this result in case-by-case adjudication, the Congress has the responsibility,
in reconsidering the Communications Act, to decide for itself whether the First
Amendment requires non-regulation of program content by the government.2'
Chairman Van Deerlin has already placed himself on record as to where he stands:
"If a broadcaster doesn't have the same, precise protection as the print journalist he
has no protection at all." 22
"420 U.S. at 496 (emphasis added). At the above-cited page 258 in the Tornillo opinion, the
Court had said: "Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compul-
sory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion
of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its
intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit
for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the
decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public
issues and public officials-whether fair or unfair-constitute the exercise of editorial control
and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial
process can be exercised consistent with the First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they
have evolved to this time.' *
"Fairness Report Reconsideration, 58 FCC 2d 691, 706 n. 8 (1976) (dissenting statement).
1'Benno C. Schmidt, Jr., Freedom of the Press v. Public Access 243 (Aspen Institute 1976).
20 Id. at 245. The Supreme Court emphasized in CBS that traditional First Amendment
freedoms were written into the Communications Act, thereby appearing to overrule the Court's
dicta in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943), and Red Lion,
supra, 395 U.S. at 389, insofar as language in those cases had sometimes been read to mean that
traditional free speech for broadcasters would be contradictory of the statutory scheme. In
upholding broadcasters' discretion to deny access to others, the Court stated in CBS: "Many of
those policies [of the `public interest' standard of the Act], as the legislative history makes clear,
were drawn from the First Amendment itself; the `public interest' standard necessarily invites
reference to First Amendment principles."
21\O~j~~ the courts have the final say in interpreting constitutional provisions, it is clear that
"Congress also interprets the Constitution." Harrell v. Tobriner, 279 F. Supp. 22, 25 (D.D.C.
1967)(Fahy & Bazelon JJ.), affd sub nom. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). Congress
has a duty to protect First Amendment rights through legislation, for as the Supreme Court has
noted, "legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as
great a degree as the courts." Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270
(1904).
22Remarin of Rep. Lionel Van Deerlin before the National Association of Television Program
Executives, Miami Beach, Fla., Feb. 14, 1977, as quoted in Broadcasting magazine, Feb. 21, 1977,
p. 60, col. 3.
Senator Proxmire and Representative Drinan have introduced bills (5. 22 and HR. 837) in this
Congress that would repeal Section 315 of the Communications Act and otherwise remove the
government from the area of broadcast programming.
PAGENO="0445"
441
As demonstrated in the Appendix, the Court's opinion in Tornillo is implicitly a
compelling brief for deregulation of broadcast journalism and other program con-
tent. This is especially so when the legal principles of that case are read against the
near future of increasing abundance in electronic communications channels carry-
ing the written word as well as voice and picture.23 The enunciation of these
constitutional limitations upon the Congress' power to regulate communications
media should be a matter of first priority.
Considering the serious First Amendment interests involved and the burgeoning
means of communication, the Congress should decide, at the least, that it is unnec-
essary and unwise to continue the FCC's costly and controversial scheme of program
regulation. There is no substantial evidence or other reason to believe that, if
broadcasters were left to their journalistic judgments, the public would be left
uninformed on its vital choices. 24 Since serious and widespread abuse by broadcast-
ers is not a real threat, the FCC should perform its licensing role without regulating
program content.
For all of these reasons, the Congress should revise the Communications Act to
make statutory law fully consistent with a broad application of the First Amend-
ment to the electronic press.
This paper was prepared by J. Laurent Scharff, Pierson, Ball & Dowd, 1000 Ring
Building, Washington, D.C. 20036, General Counsel for Radio Television News Direc-
tors Association, 1735 DeSales Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
RTNDA is a nonprofit professional organization of journalists. It includes approxi-
mately 1,300 members who are active in the supervision, gathering, reporting and
editing of news and other information of public affairs broadcast by the national
networks and by local radio and television stations throughout the nation.
March 1977.
23 See Vagianos, "Today Is Tomorrow-A Look at the Future Information Area," Library
Journal, Jan. 1, 1976, PP. 147-56; Barnouw, "So You Think TV Is Hot Stuff? Just You Wait,'
Smithsonian, July 1976, pp. 78-84; "Tuning In Your TV to Electronic Newspapers," Popular
Science, Jan. 1976, pp. 62-63.
245ee Green v. FCC, 447, F.2d 323, 239 (D.C. Cir. 1971): "In our view, the essential basis for any
fairness doctrine, no matter with what specificity the standards are defined, is that the Ameri-
can public must not be left uninformed. `(Emphasis in original.) Compare Red Lion,. supra, at
394 ("Congress need not stand idly by and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems
which beset the people or to exclude from the airways anything but their own views of
fundamental questions"), with CBS, 412 U.S. at 124-25, as quoted at page 6, above.
APPENDIX
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RED LION BROADCASTING
Co. v. FCC and MIAMI HERALD PUBLICATING Co. v. TORNILLO
In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), the Supreme
Court held unconstitutional a Florida right-of-reply law applicable to newspapers.
The reasoning of the Court in that case contradicts, on many identical points, the
explanation of the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969),
which upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Communications Commission's
right-of-reply rules concerning personal attacks and political editorializing (47 C.F.R.
§~ 73.123, 73.300, 73.598, 73.679) and, implicitly, the general concept of the fairness
doctrine.
In Tornillo, the three opinions of the justices are most remarkable for their
failure to mention the Red Lion case. Broadcasting is mentioned only to note the
existence of newspaper-broadcasting conglomerates and the fact that the limitations
of space in a newspaper are less a factor than the limitations of air time in
broadcasting (a point that would make a stronger case for broadcast freedom).'
Arguments made to the Court for a government-imposed right of reply in newspa-
1418 U.S. at 248-50, 256-57. In its brief amicus curiae filed in the Tornillo case, RTNDA asked
the Court to reject both the effort to extend the fairness rationale to newspapers and the
invitation to reaffirm the fairness doctrine for broadcasting. RTNDA argued that the constitu-
tionality of the fairness doctrine was doubtful despite Red Lion and that the Court should
"promote or at least not foreclose the possibility of an early reexamination of government-
imposed fairness in broadcasting by avoiding any reaffirmation of the validity of Red Lion in
deciding the instant case." Brief for Radio Television News Directors Association, as Amicus
Curiae, p. 4, filed Feb. 28, 1974, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, U.S. Sup. Ct. Case
No. 73-797. See also the amicus curiae briefs of the National Association of Broadcasters and
the National Broadcasting Company, both filed Feb. 28, 1974, in the Tornillo case. The Court's
subsequent silence in Tornillo about the closely analogous regulation of broadcasting was
consistent with the position urged by RTNDA.
PAGENO="0446"
442
pers were the same or similar to those used to justify fairness regulation in broad-
casting. The Florida Supreme Court had ruled that, under the rationale of the Red
Lion case, the newspaper right of reply statute involved in Tornillo .served to
enhance rather than abridge free speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States referred to this rationale and recited
other arguments by the appellee Tornillo:2
Newspaper technology and ownership have changed drastically since the First
Amendment was enacted in 1791.
Newspapers are big business, and there is a concentration of control of them as
well as of the wire services and syndicators which furnish much of the material for
newspapers.
There is also less diversity of viewpoints being expressed in newspapers because
there are a decreasing number of them to serve an enlarging population.3
Not just anyone can make himself heard through the print media, as once was
the case, because economic factors have made entry into the marketplace of ideas
through new newspapers "almost impossible."
Newspapers are "surrogates for the public" and have a "fiduciary obligation to
account for that stewardship."
It was also argued that the only effective way to assure fairness and accuracy and
to provide for some accountability is for government to take affirmative action. The
First Amendment interests of the public in being informed were said to be in peril
because, allegedly, the marketplace of ideas is today a monopoly controlled by the
owners of the marketplace.
The Supreme Court had accepted similar arguments and catch-phrases about
broadcasting in Red Lion.4
The Tornillo Court quoted from the Associated Press case5 (e.g., "Freedom of the
press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction
repression of that freedom by private interests") much as the Court did in Red
Lion.6 However in the Tornillo case the Court concluded its discussion of the AP
case-and other cases recognizing that "debate on public issues should be uninhibit-
ed, robust and wide-open" v-with a far different result. In Tornillo the Court said:
"However much validity may be found in these arguments, at each point the
implementation of a remedy such as an enforceable right of access necessarily calls
for some mechanism, either governmental or consensual. If it is governmental
coercion, this at once brings about a confrontation with the express provisions of the
First Amendment and the judicial gloss on that Amendment developed over the
years."
~418 U.S. at 245, 248-54.
3J~ the United States there are approximately 1,756 daily newspapers (without regard to
whether published on Sunday), as compared to 9,132 radio and television broadcast stations.
1976 Editor & Publisher International Yearbook, 7; FCC News release, "Broadcast Station
Totals for November 1976," mimeo no. 75783, Dec. 14, 1976.
~See 395 U.S. at 386-95.
`Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945).
6~Jmpare 418 U.S. at 251-52, with 395 U.S. at 387, 390, 392.
~New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
8418 U.S. at 254 (footnotes omitted).
PAGENO="0447"
443
The Court's reasons for rejecting the arguments for a right-of-reply in newspapers
are virtually the same as those argued unsuccessfully before the Court five years
earlier to oppose fairness regulation in broadcasting.~ In Tornillo the Court ob-
served: 10
The antitrust decree in the AP case "does not compel AP or its members to
permit publication of anything which their `reason' tells them should not be pub-
lished." 11
The Florida statute exacted a penalty for attacks on political candidates in terms
of the costs of printing and newspaper space in publishing a reply. Moreover, if a
newspaper is forced to publish a particular item, it must, as a practical matter, omit
something else. 12
Faced with these penalties, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to
avoid statements that could create the necessity to print something else-and politi-
cal coverage would thus be reduced or blunted.
Even if publishers were to suffer no penalties for their bold speech about candi-
dates, the Florida law "fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of
its intrusion into the function of editors."
~ * * The choice of material to go into a newspaper and the decisions made as to
limitations on the size of the paper, and content, and treatment of public issues and
public officials-whether fair or unfair-constitutes the exercise of editorial control
and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this
crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a
free press as they have evolved to this time. * * ~ 13
In sum, the rationale of Tornillo cannot be convincingly reconciled with the
rationale of Red Lion.
TEr~xvIsIoN, YOUTH AND PARENTAL CONTROL
(By Gerhard J. Hannenman, Ph.D., Director, Center for Communications Policy
Research, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern Califor-
nia)
Let me acknowledge this opportunity to share with you my research and positions
on the effects of television on children and youth. What I would like to do during
the time available is to discuss some aspects of the effects of television on youth
that we typically ignore in public debate, as well as make some very specific
proposals about television to the Commission and audience.
In my professional capacity as a communications research and Director of the
Center for Communications Policy Research at the Annenberg School of Communi-
cations, I have interacted in various capacities with the Congress, the FCC, the
National Institute for Drug Abuse, and numerous private organizations as an expert
witness and consultant on the effects of television. Based on these interactions and
my experiences, it is my belief that it is time to put aside the public debate about
the effects of television. Let us accept the fact that research evidence indicates
television does affect children and youth in both prosocial and antisocial ways. And,
let us remember that the effects of television extend beyond the mere impact of
See, e.g., Brief for Respondents RTNDA, et al. filed March 22, 1969, in United States v.
Radio Television News Directors Ass `ii., U.S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term 1968, Case No. 717.
10 418 U.S. at 254-58.
11 Quoting Associated Press v. United States, supra, 326 U.S. at 20 n. 18.
12 The Court recognized also that "a newspaper is not subject to the finite technological
limitations of time that confront a broadcaster * * ~" (418 U.S. at 256-57).
13 418 U.S. at 258. (emphasis added). This lan~uage at page 258 of the Tornillo opinion was
relied upon by the Court to uphold a broadcaster s free press rights in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v.
Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 496 (1975).
PAGENO="0448"
444
content per Se, and include the allocation of time, the disassociation from face-to-
face communications with parents and peers, and the socializing and priority setting
constraints of continued exposure to one medium.
Television creates agreements about the interpretation of society's activities and
values. It presents the norms that are rewarded and punished in our society; it
shows us ways that man relates to man; it illustrates the ways that people cope
with life. However, other media-books, magazines, newspapers, and radio-present
similar messages. Finally, television, for the poor and for the handicapped, is a
window-however clouded-on our society.
In accepting a conclusion that television has effects, however, we must consider
the concept of "variance explained." To translate such a scientific term, means that
we must examine the proportion of effect a particular television influence is respon-
sible for on children's behavior vis-a-vis other societal influences such as parents,
peers, books, radio, movies, and so forth. For instance, what if it is proven that ten
percent of a child's aggressiveness is attributable to certain violent television con-
tent, while another 20 percent is due to parental influences, and another ten
percent is attributable to playground activities? What would we conclude about the
impact of television in such a case? And that is precisely the point. Let us assume
television has some effects, but let us not forget that other potent societal influences
create similar effects.
In this regard, we simply fuss about television too much. Television is no longer a
novel or unique medium nor the only way by which we can receive entertainment
and news. The television industry, of course, would have us believe so. The simplest
remedy for resolving the effects of television is to turn the set off. The responsibility
for television's influence lies with parents. Rather than restrict certain types of
programming for the 20 percent of the total television audience that is two to 11
years old, let us encourage more program diversity, more choice for all. And, let us
find a way to restrict children's access to programs parents find objectionable.
I am against any amendment of Section 326 of the Communications Act of 1934
which prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from censoring television
content. I am no more in favor of censoring television content than I am in favor of
burning books. Children do deserve protection from unwarranted abridgement of
their 14th Amendment rights-that is, from exposure to ideas that some parents
may deem shocking or unpopular. Yet, the First Amendment issues are clear: Just
because some persons find some ideas offensive does not imply a restriction on the
availability of those ideas to the general public.
Yet, despite repeated attacks by certain segments of the society on television
content, there is very little evidence in the research literature that parents regulate
their children's viewing behavior. This is an especially critical concern in the
nation's television homes that have more than one television set and where children
are present. It seems to me that if a parent is concerned about television content,
putting a second television set in a child's bedroom or in the family room is akin to
letting one's young child choose any book he/she wants from the library. In our
research, we have found little relationship between parents concerned about content
and their exercise of control over their children's television behavior. What a
curious paradox.
Before I make a specific proposal for action to this Commission, I would like to
indicate two trends. First, the television industry has largely completed the action-
adventure show cycle.
All available industry sources specify that there will be a marked reduction in
such shows for the fall, 1977-1978 television season. This, of course, is related to
reduction in advertiser support for violent programs. Second, by the year 2000,
when our children's children will be the new television consumers, over-the-air
television as it exists today will be~a rarity. Not only are broadcasters losing the
battle to keep the UHF spectrum, technological developments are moving us toward
some form of viewer control over television content-whether it is delivered by
cable, by videodisc, videocassette or some other means. These developments "get" at
the crux of most discussions about the effects of television: The frustration that
parents and viewers express over their inability to control what is coming into their
house or to choose from a diverse number of alternative programs.
Given these considerations, what might the PTA do to raise the consciousness of
the American public about television? And, what might the television industry itself
do to support those parents that want some restriction of content available to their
children? I propose two steps.
One, I propose that the close to seven million members of the national PTA each
designate $1.00 per year to develop television programs for prime children's time.
The programs would be about how television works, how conflict is resolved in
drama and similar concepts that teach video literacy. These series of programs
PAGENO="0449"
445
could be made available to all elementary schools as part of a national PTA policy
of supporting a video literacy curriculum in the schools. Concurrent with these
activities, I propose that the PTA also develop a series of Public Service Announce-
ments designed to reach all parents about how to teach their children to become
video literate.
Second, I propose that the national PTA make a formal recommendation to the
Electronics Industry Association, the television networks, and the National Associ-
ation of Broadcasters to develop a device that I call the blanker (for lack of a better
label).
The blanker is an inexpensive device that parents could choose to purchase and
attach to the antenna terminals of their television set(s). The blanker detects a
program signal not detectable by the viewer. If this signal is present during a
program, the screen would go white, unless the blanker were set by the parents to
"accept" the show.
I propose that the national PTA, and other interested groups, in conjunction with
the NAB and the television networks convene a program rating board similar to the
Motion Picture Association of American's board. I propose that this board be consti-
tuted in a way acceptable to the broadcast industry. Perhaps it will consist only of
the broadcast standards officials of the networks or, of the broadcast standards
executives and an NAB representative, a PTA representative, an ACT representa-
tive, and so forth. I further propose that all new television series be graded either G,
PG, R, or X, or perhaps dichotomously, that is, suitable or unsuitable for young
viewers.
I also propose that these ratings be published in newspaper and television guide
listings as well as included in a parental advisory preceding the television program.
For example, if a series were rated R, one of four subaudible tones would be
present, or a certain video signal would go to the blanker and, with a key switch, set
the blanker to pass any one or all four signals. Thus, if the parent set the blanker to
pass only PG and G rated content and a R rated program came on, the television
would go blank for that program only.
Technically, if you are interested, the device would work something like this.
Either a subaudible tone, below the audion carrier or a reference signal imbedded in
one of the first 21 vertical intervals would be transmitted along with every series. It
could be imbedded in the off-screen picture portion of the series itself. For movies
and other forms of material, the signal would have to be inserted by the television
station itself according to the rating of the motion picture. The blanker contains a
couple of integrated circuits that would scan all channels for the presence of signal.
If the signal were present for a particular channel it would pass that channel's
television signal through an amplifier, inverting its phase, hence inverting the sync
pulses and making it impossible for the television to lock onto the signal. For all
other channels where signals were not present, the pulses would bypass the RF
amplifier and go directly to the first stage of the television set in the normal way.
The device requires no internal modifications of the set nor does it require technical
assistance for installation. I would be as simple to install as is any television game
hookup. The device is technologically feasible; I estimate it could be mass produced
for around ten dollars.
Undoubtedly, this proposal will be met with considerable controversy by the
broadcast industry and the creative community. A more controversial issue, of
course, is the constitution of the program rating board. However, I believe that if
the television industry can formulate standards for the family viewing period, and
the FCC can formulate children's programming standards, te industry can rate
television programs. It does not require a huge bureaucracy or intricate mecha-
nisms. It can be as simple as the Motion Picture of America Association's board of
seven staff reviewers. Initially, I propose that ratings apply to all prime time series
that are not designed for children and hence not subject to guidelines for children's
programming.
In conjunction with this proposal however, I would hope that national PTA will
heartily endorse broadcast deregulation and greater freedom and programming
diversity in the television industry. Let us let the television industry off the hook.
Let us keep our children's programming standards; let us find ways to stimulate the
other 80 percent of the viewing audience with a rich choice of programming. Let us
not shy away from controversial themes, nudity, and even, in some cases, violence;
let us allow television programming to be as rich content-wise as we permit the
print media to be. Yet, concurrently, I would hope that the industry and the
national PTA will support the development of a means of permitting parents to
choose whether or not they want such content in their home and accessible to their
children.
20-122 0 - 78 - 29
PAGENO="0450"
446
COMMENTS ON THE "BEu~orrI PETITION" AND ISSUES RAISED AT THE FCC-FTC
HEARINGS PERTINENT TO FCC RULEMAKING No. 2570
(By Gerhard J. Hanneman,' Center for Communications Policy Research,
Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California)
This paper comments on the issues raised during the FCC-FTC hearings, May
20-21, 1976, on the impact of televised over-the-counter (OTC) drug advertising
pertinent to the "Bellotti Petition."
ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER-BELLOTrI
The Bellotti Petition contends that OTC advertising creates an artificial demand
for drugns and that such drugs are dangerous to children because of their ingestion
dangers; and that children are especially susceptible to OTC advertising since they
are "ill equipped to digest or discount" such messages. No further claims are made
by the Petitioner in regard to causal relationships between television exposure to
OTC messages and subsequent behaviors. Although it has been interpreted that the
Petitioner is seeking a proscription of televised OTC advertisements because they
could foster illicit drug use among youth, no such statement is explicit in the
petition.
Comment. it is unclear from the body of the Bellotti Petition-and related peti-
tions-exactly what injury is attributed to exposure to OTC advertisements. The
only evidence presented by the Petitioner is poison mortality data, a count of the
frequency of OTC commercials in the Boston area, and expert tesitmony about the
possibilities of pro-drug using norms being learned by viewers. The Petitioner cites
statistical evidence of mortality attributable to the ingestion of OTC substances by
children and imputes such mortality to exposure to televised OTC advertisements.
Such causal linkages have never been established and, of course, are erroneously
confounded with such child drug-taking influences as exposure to drug-taking beha-
viors in program content, in other media, and the accessibility of medicine cabinets
to children, parental use of substances, and similar parental drug modeling influ-
ences well-documented by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug
Abuse.2 In addition, poison data presented by Henry L. Verhulst at the FCC-FTC
hearings on this matter contradicted the evidence and conclusions stated by the
Petitioner.
Further, the Petitioner begs the question in equating exposure to a quantity of
OTC commercials with qualitative impact. This is a fallacious line of reasoning
which communications researchers long ago rejected. Our research data indicate
there is as much likelihood of learning pro-drug using behaviors from program
content as from television commercials.' While all media do provide the symbolic
support system for non-prescription drug use in America, particularly alcohol, iden-
tifying and censoring any one component is meaningless.~
In addition, the Petitioner's claims of deception and inefficacy are not considered
to be FCC matters, but rather FDA and FTC concerns that, if established, may
suggest legal remedy.
CONFOUNDING ISSUES
Confounding the basic position of proscribing televised OTC drug advertisements
are a number of issues that emerged during the FCC-FTC hearings:
(a) Missing dependent variable-It was repeatedly argued during the hearings
that it is unclear exactly what injury or what dependent variable either the Peti-
tioner or researchers are addressing. In the matter of a relationship between tele-
vised over-the-counter drug advertising and illicit drug use, panelists were repeated-
ly unable to reach consensus on whether the meaning of illicit drug use extended to
abuse of substances such as alcohol or prescription drugs; whether the dependent
variable should be defined in terms of generalized norms supportive of all types of
drug use including caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, OTC substances, illicit substances, and
prescription substances; to use of illicit substances only; or to use of certain dosages
of certain classes of illicit substances.
(b) Intermodal competition.-If the case is granted to the Petitioner, it cannot be
shown that the effects maintained are not caused by media other than television.
OTC substances are also advertised on the radio and in newspapers and other print
media. Research evidence is clear that children learn jingles from radio as readily
as they attend to visual images.'
Footnotes at end of statement.
PAGENO="0451"
447
(c) Quantity and quality confusion.-Throughout the hearings and within the
petition, confusion of impact of repeated exposure to OTC messages with the psycho-
logical impact of a particular message was expressed.
(d) Tissue of objectionable television content, per se.-The Petitioner as well as
ACT and others consistently ignore additional drug references surfeit in both televi-
sion content and competing media that espouse and show drug behaviors similar to
those in OTC commercials. The norms described by the Petitioner may also be
learned from television advertisements promoting the sale of alcoholic beverages.6
Comment: Identifying exactly which dependent variable, that is exactly what
negative influence critics of OTC advertising assume, is critical to the case of the
Petitioner. Insofar as the National Institute for Drug Abuse advocates the decrimi-
nalization of marihuana, and that NIDA documents indicate that prescription psy-
choactive substances such as valium and librium are abused (i.e., cause hospitaliza-
tion or death) far more than any illicit substance, the contention that illicit drug
use (broadly defined) is a legitimate dependent variable cannot be supported. Even if
illicit drugs are an assumed dependent variable, and restricted in definitioon to
certain classes of substances such as the opiates or cocaine, it is clear, as the
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse has pointed out, that qualifi-
cation needs to be made for users who takes drugs for recreational purposes, versus
those that are dependent upon the substances, as well as considering the fact that
users take substances in varying dosages whose impact varies with the phsiology of
the individual.
The issue of intermodal competition is especially acute in this case, since proscrip-
tion of televised cigarette advertising has shown that a shift in advertising expendi-
tures away from television can sufficiently sustain and stimulate cigarette consump-
tion to new record levels. Thus, a ban on televised OTC messages, whether or not
argued on the basis of the minimal literacy required of attending children, is
unjustifiable in terms of this prior experience and the fact that radio is an equally
powerful purveyor of messages to pre-literate youth.
ISSUES RAISED DURING THE FCC-VrC HEARINGS
The frequently expressed concern was the contention of insufficient research
evidence on either side of the issue to support or refute the Bellotti Petition. The
research pertaining to the influence of OTC advertising is minimal. Yet, the litera-
ture reviews, studies and our own data, all cited in the preliminary statements,
generally conclude that there is no relationship between televised over-the-counter
drug advertising and illicit drug use. Unfortunately, the contention of insufficient
research may become a cause for inaction. This would be a grievious mistake.
As discussed earlier, the question of insufficient research must be followed by a
statement that asks "about what?" or "about what dependent variable?" There is
research on mortality attributable to the ingestion of substances. This evidence does
not support the Bellotti Petition, as was made clear during the hearings. There is
also a plethora of research on the influences of advertising on youth and on adults,
the symbolic modeling influences of television on youth, and the relationship be-
tween various communication vehicles and the use of various types of drugs among
various population subgroups.
On the other hand, as with other mass communications effects issues, there is a
lack of over-time data on the long term effects of television content. Simply put,
historically there have been insufficient funds to support this type of research. The
methodological problems, even if such research funds were available, are over-
whelming. Typically, the claim that there is not enough research is an expression of
not understanding the scientific method. In science, action is based on the probabil-
ity of being wrong after acting on available data. In scientific research, there are
never enough data to yield a zero probability of being wrong.
In addition, one may always make the claim, whenever a new argument is put
forth about the deleterious effects of television or other mass media, that there is
not enough research on a particiular issue, and therefore a conservative action
would be to grant the Petition until further evidence is forthcoming. Yet, social
scientists like other scientists, look for parsimony and broad theoretical relation-
ships rather than issue by issue investigations. In accepting this perspective, the
claim that there is not enough research becomes unwarranted since, as we shall
shortly indicate, there exists adequate research on the basic issues addressed by the
Petitioner. On the other hand, evidence to answer some of the questions raised by
Peter H. Rheinstein of the FDA about youthful expectations of pill-taking from
doctors or the extent of awareness of drugs among young children is lacking. It is
lacking not because of the failure of the scientific community, but because the issues
have never been raised before. However, there is an abundance of related research
PAGENO="0452"
448
on communication and drugs from which adequate conclusions may be deducted for
the matter at hand. This research evidence includes massive amounts of data
gathered by the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.
Another major issue that surfaced during the discussions pertains to what the
research evidence ought to be in the "ideal" case. This issue was expressed primar-
ily in questions about the amount of variance that needed to be accounted for in the
relationship of viewing televised OTC drug advertisements and illicit drug use. The
discussants generally asked each other and the panelists how much variance would
prove what, and how much variance would be "acceptable" before it could be stated
unequivocally that televised OTC drug advertisements are harmful?
For instance, if it is shown that viewing OTC messages on television accounts for
ten percent of the reason that a person uses illicit drugs, is that sufficient to
indicate proscription, or should the proportion for action be 30 percent, 80 percent,
or 100 percent? As previously indicated, this question is confounded by the fact that
even though a ten percent explanation may be statistically significant, socially it
may be meaningless since a person's drug use, as the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse indicated, is influenced primarily by parental modeling,
peers, as well as by other media influences.
Thus, the question becomes; if it is shown that teleyision viewing accounts for,
say, 20 percent of the reason a person turns to illicit drugs, and parental influence
accounts for 40 percent, and radio listening 20 percent, what action is suggested
about television? Again, one might conclude that the conservative stance, in order
to minimize risk to the consumer would be to procribe OTC television advertising.
This, of course, is an erroneous conclusion since other sources are obviously influ-
encing use in greater proportion.
However, there are two different approaches that resolve this dilemma. The
approaches involve examining the research, which is abundant, on what behaviors
television influences, and what is known about the influences on youthful drug
taking. As mentioned in the preliminary statement (attached), modeling of behavior
on television by children is well documented. The younger the child, the more
likelihood he or she will model behavior seen on television, with the following
qualification. Parents' influences directly countermand the effects of television
when parents take time to interpret television for the child or do not totally
abandon the child to the television set. As the child reaches preadolescence, the
influence of television decreases because the peer group emerges as the predomi-
nant influence in the preadolescent's life. Of course, the child's peers have probably
also been similarly socialized by television.
Nevertheless, while children do model from television, they model from all con-
tent, not only advertising, but also programming. As was discussed earlier, drug
messages, the data indicate, are surfeit in both programs and in advertising.
The data~ on modeling influences on youthful drug use have been reviewed in
numerous sources and basically suggest that parents provide the predominant influ-
ence on youthful drug taking. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug
Abuse claimed that parental use of alcohol was highly correlated with youthful drug
taking of all types. In other words, just as media viewing behavior is initially taught
by the parents, drug use behavior is also initially learned from parents. No matter
how much research is executed, it is unlikely that television would account for more
influence on youthful drug taking than parents.
Another issue raised at the hearings concerned the question that if, indeed, it is
proven that television (OTC drug advertising) influences youthful drug taking, so
what? Given all the confounding variables, it would have to be shown that youthful
drug taking is a greater risk compared to the positive notions children learn about
drugs from OTC messages, and compared to what the poor and older population
groups who are the primary OTC drug users gain from such messages. In other
words, a social cost-benefit model would have to be invoked before the issue could be
resolved. Children need protection of their First and 14th amendment rights. Yet,
there is simply no evidence that OTC advertising abridges these rights and that its
proscription would outweigh the constitutional protection that adults, particularly
the poor and the elderly have a right to. In addition, the programmatic carriers of
drug messages are totally protected by the First amendment. Thus, protecting
children under the 14th amendment would disenfranchise substantial portions of
the population who rely on self-medication.
Finally, an issue that was raised frequently concerned the concept of who exactly
bears responsibility for youthful influences. In this society, and in the present legal
climate it is assumed that people are responsible for their own behavior. Ultimately
then, parents bear the responsibility for the drug taking and media use habits of
their children. The evidence is clear that in these matters children are primarily
socialized and influenced by their parents. Indirect regulation of individual behav-
PAGENO="0453"
449
---ior, premised on the assumption that one of the sources youth have access to
presents possibly objectionable material and, therefore, should be regulated runs
counter to constitutional tradition.
CONCLUSION: THE BELLOTfl PETITION SHOULD BE REJE~fED
Neither the Petitioner's claims nor other data warrant support of a proscription
of televised over-the-counter drug advertising.
While such a statement prima facie appears to dismiss some of the claims of the
Petitioner, this is not totally the case. It is clear that there are data that indicate
that the NAB's guidelines about OTC Commercials are not always strictly adhered
to. In addition, both advertisers and programmers could make efforts to restrict the
gratuitous use of drug references in programmatic content. And OTC advertisers
could reduce slice-of-life dramatizations in advertisements. In fact, the NAB or FTC
should advocate the total exclusion of slice-of-life dramatization in OTC advertising
which is in line with similar restraints on alcohol and drug advertisements in most
Western countries. Children do model symbolic behaviors from television. There
would be little negative consequence in terms of cost-benefits and social cost-benefits
in restricting slice-of-life dramatizations in OTC advertising.
Finally, the evidence is strong and clear that the mass media in this country do
indeed provide the symbolic support system for drug use. That, is, the media, as
primary socializing agents convey themes and norms about drug use. However, such
drug use is pervasive in program content, in print content, and in advertising. It
extends to the governments monopoly at taxpayer expense of anti-drug messages at
the expense of minority groups' (e.g., NORML) opposition to such messages. This is
a larger issue that merits sober reflection from the entire communications industry.
FOOTNOTES
`Dr. Hanneman is director of the Center for Communications Policy Research at the `Annen-
~berg School of Communications, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Ange-
les.
2 National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "Drug Use in America: Problem in
Perspective." Report No. 2, Washington: Government Printing Office, March, 1973.
3 preliminary statement, attached.
4Hanneman, G. and W. McEwen, "Communication About Drugs: The Politics of Use." Center
for Communications Policy Research, University of Southern California, 1976.
`See preliminary statement, attached.
`Hanneman, G. J. and W. J. McEwen. "The Use and Abuse of Drugs: An Analysis of Mass
Media Content." In R. E. Ostman (ed.) Communication Research and Drug Education. Beverly
Hills: Sage, pp. 65-88, 1976.
See preliminary statement, attached.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TELEVISED OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUG ADVERTISING
AND ILLICIT DRUG U5E*
(By Gerhard J. Hanneman,1 Annenberg School of Communications, University of
Southern California)
"it is impossible to hide the fact that people perceive advantages in the use of
drugs." Second report of the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse.2
The issue before us is one that arouses perennial concern from politicians, par-
ents, press, and members of the drug-industrial complex. It appears again as a red
herring to divert attention from other complex concerns: guilt over this country's
continued clamor for psychoactive substances; the culpability of the media in diffus-
ing symbols of drug use; the efficacy of proprietary remedies, per se; and perhaps, in
this case, intellectual and consumerists' qualms over the impact of the deleterious
* A preliminary statement prepared for presentation May 20, 1976, at FCC-FTC Hearings on
the impact of televised over-the-counter drug advertising pertinent to FCC Rule Making
Number 2570, the Bellotti Petition. These comments address the role of televised over-the-
counter drug advertisements and the illicit use of resricted drugs.
Footnotes at end of statement.
20-122 0 - 78 - 30
PAGENO="0454"
450
effects of television on children. The former concerns have direct historical parallels
to society's outrage at youthful coffee drinking at the turn of the century, and at
youthful cigarette and alcohol use in the 1920's.
Nevertheless, my evaluation of research on the relationship between televised
over-the-counter drug advertising and illicit drug use remains basically unchanged
from that which I proffered before the National Council of Churches' 1972 inquiry
into this same matter: Calling for a ban proscribing drug advertising seems prema-
ture, naive and a somewhat hysterical reaction to society's inability to contain drug
abuse. It seems to me that drug advertising has been appointed the scapegoat. That
is, the media, because they are so pervasive, are immediately considered guilty of
cause.
Televised OW drug advertising and illicit drug use
There are four considerations, however, that should be examined about the
impact of televised OTC drug advertisements.
First, available evidence is consistent in finding no causal relationship between
viewing televised OTC drug messages and illicit drug use.4 This is not to say that
exposure to televised OTC drug advertisements may not incrementally contribute to
some degree of licit and fflicit drug consumption. Such exposure probably does
reinforce a drug taking agenda for all substances, but certainly less than other
television content.5
Second, there is evidence that social learning from television by children does
occur.6 Young children, prior to adolescence are subject to the modeling influences
and information inputs about reality from two primary sources: parents and televi-
sion. Television competes heavily for control of the child's view of the world espe-
cially when parents use television to replace their companionship.~ By adolescence,
the primary socializing influences upon children come from similarly television
saturated peers.8 Nevertheless, television advertising is only one media force that
may socialize youth about drugs. Television programming, as well as the use of
print media by literate children also provides opportunities for learning norms
about drugs. In the world of television programs, analyses indicate that licit drugs
ar usually consumed routinely; rarely is there refusal or justification of use, and
only illicit drugs are shown being abused with consequence. Alcohol is the most
prevalent television drug, and the drunk is romaniticized and a cartoon caricature.8
Additional data indicate that youth may also be turned on to drug experimentation
by routine news articles on exotic substances,'° sensationalized reports of illicit drug
use,1' and even anti-drug use PSAs.'2
Third, in countries where televised drug advertising is prohibited, drug use is
nevertheless a substantial problem. In Sweden, Denmark and France as well as
countries without television, drug use and drug abuse are significant social phenom-
ena.13
Fourth, as has already been alluded to, drug abuse in the United States antedates
the broadcast media. In fact, America's concern with remedies and poisons and
other illicit substances was highly touted in the press around the turn of the
century, and through the 1930's. Politically, we have continually redefined and
expanded our defmitions for "drug abuse" to seemingly create increasingly serious
social problems.'4
Footnotes at end of statement.
PAGENO="0455"
451
Patterns of drug use
Historically, Americans have always been a drug using people; the term "drug
abuse" has usually been synonymous with suppression of politically disenfranchised
people. Today's major drug users and abusers are middle aged housewives who
consume the majority of psycoactive substances, the elderly, alcohol-using adults,
and youthful marihuana smokers. The licit substances charge social costs far ex-
ceeding that attributable to any illegal drug.'~
Mood altering drugs have had religious and recreations uses for thousands of
years. Only in the 1800's, with the acceptance of a medical model for the treatment
of mental illness, were psychoactive substances used in medicine. 16
OTC drug use has historically been associated with those who could not afford
physician legitimized medication. Today, market research data indicate the primary
users of OTC drugs are people over 50, the poor, and the uneducated. These are also
the individuals who attend to television in disproportionately large numbers and are
usually outside of legitimate medical treatment channels. 17
Culpability of the media
In accepting the data that most youthful drug taking is largely attributable to
parental models, one might postulate that parental norms for drug taking may be
reinforced by the media. Such an assertation, however, would not explain drug
taking that preceded television, nor reflect on the power of the media in general to
lead societal norms. All media content promotes risk taking and similar symbolic
attributes associated with drug taking. So does advertising for a variety of products,
including alcohol. And, so do our lifestyles and beliefs. Anything short of a total ban
of drug references in communications, which is inconceivable, would simply have no
effect on drug use socialization. In any case, a radical change in our values and
beliefs about aspiration, work, play and medication would have to be a concomitant
occurrence.
The Bellotti petition
Because of these considerations and data, the claims and warrants explicated in
the Bellotti Petition do not support the proscription of television OTC drug advertis-
ing. In addition to the evidence just reviewed, the Bellotti Petition urges a quantita-
tive ban on OTC drug advertising; yet millions of children watch television after 9
p.m.; parents do not generally restrict their children's television behavior.18 In
addition, the evidence has never been very convincing that withholding information
results in a decrease of undesirable behavior. People are not necessarily rational;
nor is information contagious. Ultimately, parents bear the responsibility of demon-
strating drug taking and media use habits to their children.
Remedies: Based on this analysis, the following conclusions and remedies are
proposed.
One: There is no evidence to support a recommendation proscribing television
advertising of OTC drugs.
Two: Social science evidence is suggestive, however, that slice of life advertising,
dramatizations and animated caricatures can foster long term normative modeling
influences in children. These message strategies should be prohibited in OTC drug
advertisements and alcohol advertising. However, such a ban would not have posi-
tive effects unless television producers are willing to restrict gratitious use of drugs
in programming.
Three: Certain testimony and evidence indicates that the majority of proprietary
remedies are impotent-85 percent of consumer advertised substances according to
the Senate Subcommittee on Monopoly.'9 This issue is unrelated to illicit drug
consumption. Strong action is needed by the FDA, the FTC and the FCC to stop the
marketing and advertising of these products. The FCC and FTC should immediately
prohibit the advertising of all remedies the FDA identifies as lacking therapeutic
efficacy.
Four: All OTC drug products should be clearly and prominently labeled advising
of the danger of the product to children, and the possible danger of misuse either
singly or in conjunction with other substances such as alcohol.
Five: New license renewal requirements should be promulgated by the FCC re-
quiring broadcasters to ascertain the scope of social crises, such as illicit drug use or
veneral disease, in their service area. Broadcasters would have to budget public
service time during periods of targeted audience attendance and not on a laissez-
faire basis. A minimum constant (not average) proportion of PSA time should be
specified.
Six: Legislative action should open the purchase of broadcast time to advocacy or
consumer groups. Time would be available for purchase in some ratio to the amount
PAGENO="0456"
452
of commercial revenue derived from advertisements of products that are potentially
hazardous or impact public policy.
FOOTNOTES
lDr. Hanneman is Director of the Center for Communications Policy Research and an Asso-
ciate Professor in the Annenberg School of Communications. Some of the research discussed in
this statement was conducted as part of Project DAIR (Drug Abuse Information Research),
codirected with Wffliam J. McEwen, and supported in part by the John and Mary R. Markie
Foundation.
2 National Commission on Marthuana and Drug Abuse, "Drug Use in America: Problem in
Perspective. "Report Number 2, Washington: GPO, March 1973.
~Hanneman, G. J. "Testimony on Drug Advertising." Testimony at the drug advertising
hearings, National Council of Churches, Washington, D.C., November 1972.
Cf. Hanneman, G. J. "Communicating Drug Abuse Information Among College Students."
Public Opinion Quarterly 37, 2-summer: 171-191, 1973; Hanneman, G. J. and W. J. McEwen
"The Use and Abuse of Drugs: An Analysis of Mass Media Content." In R. E. Ostman (ed.)
Communication Research and Drug Education. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 65-88, 1976; Kanter, D.
L. "Student Perceptions of Advertising's Role in Drug Usage and Attitudes." In R. E. Ostman,
pp. 117-132; Kramer, E. H. "A Review of the Literature Relating to the Impact of the Broadcast
Media on Drug Use and Abuse." In "Drug Use In America,"pp. 586-611; Milavsky, J. B. et al.
"TV Drug Advertising and Proprietary and Illicit Drug Use Among Teenage Boys." Public
Opinion Quarterly 39, 3-winter: 457-481, 1976; See also the Oxtoby-Smith series, "Why Do
American Youths Use Illicit Drugs? A Summary of Scientific Research." Reports to the propri-
etary association, 1971-75.
Cf. Kanter, D. L., op cit. and McEwen, W. J. and G. J. Hanneman, "The Depiction of Drug
Use in Television Programing." Journal of Drug Education 4, 3-fall: 281-293, 1974.
6See the literature cited by Comstock, G. et al. "Television and Human Behavior: A Guide to
the Pertinent Scientific Literature; Television and Human Behavior: The Key Studies." Santa
Monica: Rand, 1975.
~Bandura, A. "Social Learning Theory of Identificatory Processes." In D. A. Goslin (ed)
Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969.
~Comstock, op cit.
~Hanneman, G. J. and W. J. McEwen, op cit.
lOHanneman, G. J. "Communicating Drug Abuse Information Among College Students." op
cit.
llBrecher, E. M. "Licit and illicit Drugs." Boston: Little, Brown, 1972.
l2Kanter, D. L. "Some Aspects of the Broadcast Anti-Drug Program." Public Opinion Quarter-
ly, 35, 3~ 459, 1971.
13 Cope, James D. "Television Advertising of Nonprescription Medicines: The Case for the
Defendant." Journal of Drug Issues 6, 1-winter: 85-90, 1976.
14 National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, op cit.
15 See for example, National Commission on Marthuana and Drug Abuse, ibid. p. 225.
l6Musth, D. "The American Disease." New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.
17 group index.-"Remedies." New York: Axiom Market Research Bureau, 1975.
19 Bower, R. T. "Television and the Public." New York: Holt, 1973.
19 U.S. Senate. "Advertising of Proprietary Medicines" (2). Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on
Monopoly of the Select Committee on Small Business, 1971.
TELEVISION STATION EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, 1976, THE STATUS OF MINORITIES
AND WOMEN
(By Ralph M. Jennings and Allan T. Walters, United Church of Christ, Office of
Communication, January, 1977)
INTRODUCTION
For six years, 1971-76, the Federal Communications Commission has required all
broadcasting stations to file Annual Employment Reports. These reports are public
documents. each year the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ
has compiled the employment statistics provided by television stations and has
issued a report of the employment status of minority persons and women. This
study is the fifth such report to be published.
Comparative analyses for the years 1971-76 are based upon the official FCC
computer tapes. For the years 1971, 1975, and 1976, we were able to find reports for
592 commercial television stations. The official FCC tapes for 1971 and 1975 did not
PAGENO="0457"
453 /
include some stations for which we had earlier obtained copies of the annual
employment reports. Because the official Commission tapes were not as complete as
the earlier tapes compiled by the Office of Communication, this monograph will
actually be based on fewer stations than we used in 1975.
Each year since 1971 there has been an increase over the previous year in the
proportion of minority persons (mostly blacks) and women in the television labor
force.
Minority persons made substantial gains in number in 1972 and 1973, rising from
8.3 percent of the commercial television work force in 1971 to 11.5 percent in 1973.1
In each succeeding year the growth rate has declined. In 1975, minorities made up
14 percent of the total work force. In 1976 the percentage rose to 15 percent. This
represents a rate of increase of about 8 percent in the number of minority persons.
Each year between 1971 and 1976, the commercial television stations have in-
creased the size of their full-time work forces. In 1971, we reported the encouraging
finding that they were apparently filling many of these new jobs, as well as
vacancies occurring on their staffs, with members of minority groups and women.
Between 1973 and 1974, 435 new full-time jobs were added by the stations that
reported. Employment gains by minority persons and women exceeded this total of
new jobs, 445 for minorities and 592 for women.
Between 1974 and 1975 this trend had apparently been reversed. While 730 new
jobs were added in 1975, only 242 additional minority persons and 687 women were
hired on a full-time basis (some of these new jobs went to women who are members
of minority groups).
Between 1975 and 1976, the trend again changed. Once again minorities and
women obtained more jobs than the total increases in the full-time work force.
Between 1975 and 1976 the total full-time work force grew by 414 jobs. Among the
592 stations minorities obtained an additional 445 jobs; women obtained an addition-
al 504 jobs.
FCC job categories
Between 1975 and 1976, full-time jobs classified in the upper four categories
(officials and managers, professionals, technicians and sales workers) increased by
705 (2 percent), while jobs classified in the lower five categories (office and clerical,
craftsmen operatives, laborers and service workers) declined by 291 (-3 percent). In
1976, 78 percent of all full-time jobs were listed in the upper four categories; in 1975
the proportion was 77 percent.
Among the 592 stations, an additional 352 minority persons were reported to be in
the upper four full-time job categories in 1976 over 1975. 592 women were added in
these categories. Minority representation among officials and managers remained
the same in 1976 as it was in 1975, 6 percent of the total full-time work force.
Although such representation also remained the same for professionals (13 percent),
among technicians it increased from 12 percent to 13 percent and among sales
workers from 6 percent to 7 percent of the total.
Women increased their representation slightly in each of the upper four catego-
ries. Officials and managers, professionals and sales workers all increased by two
percentage points and technicians by one percentage point.
In previous studies, we have pointed out the need for job classifications that
describe actual positions in broadcasting. The generic titles currently in use by the
retain-provides an important measurement of how the television industry is afford-
ing equal opportunity in employment.
lFjgijres for the year 1973 are taken from Jennings, Ralph M., and Tillyer, David A.:
"Television Station Employment Practices: The Status of Minorities and Women, 1973" (New
York: Office of Communication, United Church of Christ, 1973).
PAGENO="0458"
454
FCC are subject to widespread misinterpretation. There is no clear, firm definition
of what kind of work and responsibility each job category embraces. Therefore, the
classification of individual employees is left solely to the discretion of the broadcast
licensee. It is difficult for the Commission and impossible for public groups to
separate those broadcasters who may have manipulated job classifications to create
a false image of their employment practices from the licensees who have made
serious attempts to improve the employment status of minorities and women.
For example, the data suggests that women in clerical posts are being given paper
promotions with impressive titles that licensees can report to the FCC. The propor-
tion of women employees in full-time office and clerical jobs has purportedly
dropped 22 percent since 1971, from 77 percent to 55 percent of all full-time women
employees. In the same period, the percentage of women in the upper level manage-
ment, professionals, technical and sales jobs is reported to have increased from 19
percent to 42 percent of all women employees.
The suspicion that much of this improvement in the status of women is ficititious
arises from the fact that between 1971 and 1976 the number of office and clerical
worker positions reported dropped by 755. In the same period 1,251 new positions
were reportedly established for officials and managers. It seems improbable that
this greatly increased corps of management personnel can function with reduced
clerical support.
In the lower level full-time job categories in which racial minority employees are
most often found, craftsmen dropped from 2,420 to 1,190 and operatives from 1,377
to 535. The combined labor and service categories dropped from 865 to 668 jobs.
In contrast, the upper level positions increased markedly. There were 2,758 new
professionals posts reported, 1,756 new technicians and 357 new sales workers.
The FCC can uncover false reports of promotions and improper job classifications
(a) by making the job categories apply specifically to broadcasting and (b) closely
scutinizing an adequate sample of the employment reports that are filed each year.
This initiative by the commission is long overdue.
There are 116 (18 percent) of the 655 commercial stations reporting in 1976 that
employ no minority persons on their full-time staffs. In 1975, 134 (21 percent) of the
649 stations that ified reports had no full-time minority employees. There are even
more stations (158, or 24 percent) that have no minority persons in the upper four
job categories (in 1975, 155, or 24 percent).
Five of the stations (1 percent) employ no women full-time, and 42 (6 percent)
have none in the upper four job categories. In 1975, 11 stations (2 percent) employed
no women, and 63 (10 percent) had none in the upper level jobs.
Noncommercial stations
The 103 noncommercial stations enlarged their full-time staffs by 34 percent from
1971 to 1976, from 3,193 to 4,288 employees. Between 1975, when there were 4,145
employees, and 1976, the increase was 3 percent. In 1976 the proportion of full-time
minority group employees at noncommercial stations was 13 percent. In 1971 the
proportion was 8 percent and in 1975, 12 percent. Stations located in large metro-
politan areas are responsible for a major portion of these increases in minority
employment.
The proportion of full-time women employees in noncommercial stations was
greater than that in commercial stations again in 1976. Women held 33 percent of
all full-time jobs in noncommercial stations in 1976, 32 percent in 1975 and 28
percent in 1971.
In 1976, 81 percent of all full-time employees in noncommercial stations were
found in the upper three job categories (officials and managers, professionals and
technicians: noncommercial stations employ no sales workers). In 1975, 80 percent of
all full-time employees were considered to be employed in the top three job catego-
ries. While there was only a one point increase in the percentage working in upper
level jobs between 1975 and 1976, between 1971 and 1976 there was a 7 percent
increase. There was only about a one point increase in the percentage of minority
group employees in the upper three job categories between 1975 and 1976, from 10
percent to 11 percent. In 1971 the figure was 7 percent. The percentage of women in
these upper three job categories was 13 percent in 1971, 20 percent in 1975 and 21
percent in 1976.
In 1976, 40 (25 percent) of the 158 noncommercial stations reported no minority
group members on their full-time staffs. Forty-eight (30 percent) had no minority
group members in the upper three job categories. Nine (6 percent) had no women on
their full-time staffs and 24 (15 percent) reported none in the upper three job
categories.
PAGENO="0459"
455
We are indebted to Jerome Weiland for writing the computer programs used to
analyze this data. Barbara Lewis performed the data reduction operations and also
prepared the final version of the monograph.
In previous reports we have also analyzed data about trainees that is routinely
collected by the Federal Communications Commission in Annual Employment Re-
ports (Form 395). However, the FCC does not include this information on its official
comuter tapes supplied to the Office of Communication. Therefore we are not able
to include information about data in our current report. The omission is but another
indication of the FCC's failure to closely monitor employment practices in broad-
casting.
METHODOLOGY
In June, 1969 the Federal Communications Commission promulgated rules that
forbid broadcasting station licensees from discriminating against employees or pro-
spective employees on the basis of their race, sex, nationality or religion.2 The rules
also require that each licensee shall conduct an equal employment opportunity
program to recruit, hire, train and advance minority persons and women. Each
station with 10 or more employees (until 1976 it was five or more employees) must
submit a copy of this program with its license renewal application, and each station
with five or more employees must also file an Annual Employment Report each
May on FCC Form 395.
In its past reports, the Office of Communication has studied employment statistics
obtained by copying directly from the Annual Employment Report forms submitted
to the FCC by the stations. This year, all data has been taken from computer tapes
prepared by the FCC and released through the National Technical Information
Service.
For the first time it has not been necessary to key punch data from individual
station reports. It also allows this year's report to be based on the same data base
used officially by the FCC.
Howeverç the change has put an unforseen limitation on the present study. Over
the years, the Office of Communication has been able to locate and record data from
a larger number of stations than is found on the computer tapes prepared by the
FCC. Thus, the present study includes information from about 7 percent fewer
commercial stations than were included in the 1975 report. It appears that this
reduction in the number of stations has had little or no effect on the trends
reported here.
this study (a) compares the employment records of television stations for the years
1971 and 1976; (b) compares the years 1975 and 1976; (c) analyzes trends in employ-
ment of minority persons and women and (d) updates the data bank of television
employment statistics that is maintained by the Office of Communication with the
addition of the 1976 computer, tape prepared by the FCC from station reports.
This study is in two parts. Part One reports the employment practices of commer-
cial television licensees; Part Two reports those of non-commercial stations.
Each part has two sections. Section one is a comparison of 1976 data with 1975
data and with data filed in 1971, the first year in which the FCC collected employ-
ment reports. This comparative analysis is based on information derived from 592
commercial television stations and 103 noncommercial television stations which
reported five or more employees in 1976 and whose reports are included in FCC
computer tapes covering 1971, 1975, and 1976.
Because the FCC's 1971 computer tape provides data for fewer stations than do
tapes compiled by the Commission in 1975 and 1976, a separate comparison of data
for the latter two years is also presented. There are 641 commercial television
stations and 143 noncommercial television stations whose employment reports can
be matched for the years 1975 and 1976. The second section of each part of the study
analyzes 1976 reports.
This study, like those of previous years, is designed to highlight the number of
minority persons and women who are employed in the upper four job categories-
officials and managers, professionals, technicians and sales workers (noncommercial
stations do not employ sales workers). These upper level positions command the
highest salaries. Their occupants make the important decisions. In 1976, 78 percent
of the full-time employees of commercial stations and 81 percent of those in noncom-
mercial stations were reported to be in the upper level jol~s. The proportion of
minority persons and women that has been hired-especially when compared with
the proportion of lower level jobs in television that they have occupied and still
2 rules were issued in response to a petition for their promulgation that was presented to
the FCC by the Office of Communication, Board for Homeland Ministries and Commission for
Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ.
PAGENO="0460"
456
PART ONE.-COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS
Total employment-nationwide: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
The 592 commercial television stations included in this five year comparison
reported a total full-time and part-time employment of 41,874 in 1971, 44,748 in 1975
and 45,215 in 1976. The change from 1971 to 1976 was 3,341, a rate of increase of 8
percent and from 1975 to 1976 it was 467 a rate of increase of 1 percent.
TABLE 1-592 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
38,175
40,859
41,273
3,699
3,889
3,942
41,874
44,748
45,215
1975-76 change 1
1971-76 change
414
3,098
1
8
53
243
1
7
467
3,341 8
1 In the bottom line(s) of tables ito 6, we report the numeric change occurring between 1971 and 1976 and/or between 1975 and
1976. The percentage statistic to the right of the number shows the rate of change. Thus in table 1, we see that the number of full-
time employees increased by 414 between 1975 and 1976. This represents a rate ot increase of 1 percent.
Total employment-nationwide: 1975-76 comparison
The three year comparison included in this report is based on 7 percent fewer
stations than were included in our 1975 report.1 Because of this loss, we will also
show changes based on employment reports filed during the two most recent years,
1975 and 1976. There were 641 stations for which both the 1975 and 1976 reports
were available, as opposed to the 592 stations for which employment data was
available for 1971, 1975 and 1976.
The 641 commercial stations included in this two year comparison reported a total
full-time and part-time employment of 46,670 in 1975 and 47,177 in 1976. Between
1975 and 1976 the number of employees in these stations increased by 507 or 1
percent.
TABLE 2-641 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975
1976
42,529
42,988
4,141
4,189
46,670
47,177
1975-76 change
459
1
48
1
507
1
1This three-year comparison includes 7 percent fewer station reports than were included in
our 1975 study (592 stations in 1976 and 639 in 1975) The reduction is caused by our shift from
the use of data compiled and processed by the Office of Communication from individual Form
.395 reports to the use of data tapes prepared by the FCC.
The FCC's 1971 data tape is especially limited. Many stations appear to have been delinquent
in making timely filings of employment data during the first year reporting was required. The
Commission waited more than a year to audit the returns. Some reports may have been mislaid
by the FCC. Most stations, however, have subsequently sent in missing Form 395 reports.
Each year, as the Office of Communication collected the current year's employment reports, it
also checked the Commission's ifies to locate past reports which were previously unavailable.
These reports were used to increase the number of stations included in tapes which were
compiled earlier. The FCC, on the other hand, does not seem to have made an ongoing effort to
supplement its data base, particularly for the year 1971.
The FCC's data collection and recordkeeping procedures appear to have become better in 1975
and 1976. Comparable reports for stations are found on its computer tapes for these two most
recent years. We will take advantage of this improved data base by also providing a separate
comparison of data found on the Commission's 1975 and 1976 tapes.
PAGENO="0461"
457
Full time-nationwide: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
In 1976, 78 percent of all full-time employees reported by the 592 television
stations were found in the upper four job categories: officials and managers, profes-
sionals, technicians and sales workers. In 1975, 77 percent of all full-time employees
were found in these upper level jobs; in 1971 the figure was 68 percent. Over the
five-yehr period the percentage of employees reported to be in the upper four job
categories increased by ten percent.
Full-time employment increased between 1975 and 1976 and between 1971 and
1976, but the increases were all in the upper four job categories. In 1975 and 1976
the number of employees declined in the five lower job categories: office and
clerical, craftsmen, operatives, laborers, and service workers.2
TABLE 3.-592 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, UPPER 4, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 4 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
26,138
31,555
32,260
69
77
78
12,037
9,304
9,013
31
23
22
38,175
40,859
41,273
1975-76 change
1971-76 change
705
6,122
2
23
-291
-3,024
-3
-25
414
3,098
1
8
Full time-nationwide: 1975-76 Comparisons
The full-time nationwide employment trends observed in the three year compari-
sons (1971, 1975, 1976) are also found when comparing the two most recent years,
1975 and 1976 (see table 4). There is still a 2 percent rate of increase in the number
of employees in the upper four categories and a 3 percent rate of decrease in the
number of employees in the lower five categories.
TABLE 4-641 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT UPPER 4, LOWER 5 AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 4 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975
1976
32,866
33,606
77
78
9,663
9,382
23
22
42,529
42,988
1975-76 change
740
2
281
-3
459
1
Part time-nationwide: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
The number of part-time employees found in the upper four job categories contin-
ues to increase. In 1971, 44 percent of all part-time employees were in the upper
four job categories; in 1975 the percentage had risen to 62 percent, and in 1976 it
stands at 64 percent.
Total part-time employment was greater in 1976 and 1975 than in 1971. Following
the trend found in full-time employment, all of the increases were in the upper four
job categories.
2Despjte an increase in the total full-time work force, there is a decline in the number of
employees in each of the lower five job categories. The reason for this decline cannot be
ascertained from the data in the Annual Employment Report as it is now conducted. However,
as noted in our previous report it is a departure from the usual pattern in other industries of
increasing support personnel when supervisory staffs become larger.
PAGENO="0462"
458
TABLE 5.-592 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT UPPER 4, LOWER 5 AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 4 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971 1,640 44 2,059 56 3,699 100
1975 2,412 62 1,477 38 3,889 100
1976 2,528 64 1,414 36 3,942 100
1975-76 change 116 5 -63 -4 53 1
1971-76 change 888 54 -645 -31 243 7
Part time-nationwide: 1975-76 comparisons
Data in table 6 shows that the trends observed in part-time employment in the
three-year comparison remain, even when the base is increased from 592 to 641
stations in the two-year comparison.
TABLE 6-641 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT UPPER 4, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 4 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975
1976
1975-76 change
2,578
2,683
105
62
64
1,563
1,506
-57
36
4,189
100
4
-4
48
1
Total employment-minority: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
The percentage of minority group employees among all full-time and part-time
employees was 9 percent in 1971, 14 percent in 1975, and 15 percent in 1976.
TABLE 7.-592 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL MINORITY GROUP EMPLOYMENT 1
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971 3,254 9 591 16 3,845 9
1975 5,324 13 820 21 6,144 14
1976 5,769 14 875 22 6,644 15
1975-76 difference 445 1 55 1 500 1
1971-76 difference 2,515 5 284 6 2,799 6
`Unless otherwise specified, 2 sets of numbers are used in remaining tables in this section. One number is the total of minority
group persons (or women) employed in a particular category. The other number, usually in parentheses, is the percentage of
employees which minority groups (or women) represent. Thus in table 7 above, 3,254 is the number of minority persons employed in
1971 on a full-time basis. This represents 9 percent of the total number of full-time employees. Line 3 of the third column shows that
total minority group employment has risen in 1976 to 6,644. But the total employment has also risen and 6,644 represents 15 percent
of the total employment in 1976. Simple subtraction or addition shows the difference in the number or percent of employees. For
example, from 1971 to 1976 there was an increase of 2,799 in the number of minority group employees, and an increase of 4 points in
the percentage of minority employees.
Fourteen percent of all full-time employees at the 592 commercial television
stations in 1976 were minority group members. The percentage of fuiltime minority
group employees among all full-time workers was 13 percent in 1975 and 9 percent
in 1971.
Black and Spanish surnamed Americans, Asians and American Indian females
show slight numerical increases between 1975 and 1976. The number of American
Indian males declined. (See appendix A, table 1 for a detailed six year comparison of
nationwide statistics for the 592 commercial stations.)
PAGENO="0463"
459
Total employment-minority: 1975-76 comparisons
Table 8 shows no difference in the profile or trends in overall minority employ-
ment when the base number of stations is increased from 592 in the three year
comparisons to 641 in the two year comparison.
There is, however, one set of percentage comparisons which is quite striking. As
can be seen in both tables 7 and 8, minority employees make up considerably more
of the part-time labor force than they do of the full-time labor force.
TABLE 8-641 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL MINORITY GROUP DEPLOYMENT
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1915 5,451 13 876 21 6,327 14
1976 5,907 14 937 22 6,844 15
1975-76 difference 456 1 61 1 517
Full time-minority: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Both the number and percentage of minority persons found in the upper four job
categories increased between 1971 and 1976 and between 1975 and 1976. The in-
crease over the five year period was 2,066, a five percentage point rise. Between
1975 and 1976 it was 352, or one percentage point. The number of minority employ-
ees in the lower five job categories increased by 449 workers between 1971 and 1976
(ten percentage points); between 1975 and 1976 this number increased by 93 workers
(two percentage points). The 1975-76 trends observed for the larger set of 641
stations are similar to those just noted.
Sixty-two percent of the minority persons employed by the stations were reported
to be holding upper level jobs in 1976. In 1975, 47 percent were employed in upper
level categories. The percentage of upper level positions occupied by minorities is
reported to be 6 percent of the total work force in 1971 and 11 percent in 1976.
Minority group workers gained ground in each of the upper four job categories
between 1971 and 1976. The greatest increases were among technicians (from 6
percent to 13 percent) and professionals (from 8 percent to 13 percent). Lesser gains
were found among officials and managers (from 3 percent to 6 percent) and among
sales workers (from 4 percent to 7 percent). Among lower level jobs, minority
workers gained proportionally in all five categories between 1971 and 1976, but
gained numerically only among office and clerical workers. This is due to the
reduced size of the lower level job poo1.
While the tables are not shown in either this section or the subsequent section,
data from the larger set of 641 stations does not lead us to modify the 1975-76
trends observed in tables 9 and 10.
TABLE 9-592 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, MINORITIES IN UPPER 4, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 4 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1,522
3,236
3,588
6
10
11
1,732
2,088
2,181
14
22
24
3,254
5,324
5,769
9
13
14
1976
1975-76 difference
352
1
93
2
445
1
1971-76
2,066
5
449
10
2,515
5
Part time-minority: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Part-time employment of minority persons by the 592 stations was greater in 1976
than in 1971, but only slightly higher than it was in 1975. Numerically most of the
gains between 1971 and 1976 were in upper level jobs.
Because of changes in the total number of employees in each category, the overall
changes shown in table 10 conceal a good deal of movement. For example, between
PAGENO="0464"
460
1971 and 1976 there has been oniy a slight numerical increase (i.e., 5) in the number
of minority employees in the lower five categories. However, in 1976 blacks had an
even larger proportion of those jobs than they had in 1971 (26 percent vs. 18
percent). This is particularly true of part-time service workers (10 percent increase),
part-time office and clerical workers (8 percent increase) and part-time operatives (7
percent increase). In both the service workers and operative categories, there was a
substantial net loss in jobs (down 42 in the former and 335 in the latter category). In
addition, compared to their proportionate share of jobs in the lower five categories,
blacks have an even somewhat lower percentage of jobs in the upper four categories.
Numerically, however, there has been a greater increase in black job holders in the
upper level part-time job categories than there has been in the lower level part-time
categories. This is particularly true of the part-time professional and part-time
technician categories. The number of part-time employees has grown modestly
between 1971, 1975, and 1976. Blacks hold a somewhat larger porportion of the jobs
in the lower level job categories.
TABLE 10-592 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, MINORITIES IN UPPER 4, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
1971
1975
Upper 4 catego
Number
229
477
508
ries
Percent
14
20
20
Lower 5 catego
Number
326
343
367
ries
Percent
18
23
26
All job categori
Number
591
820
875
es
Percent
16
21
22
1976
1975-76 difference
31
0
24
3
55
1
6
1971-76 difference
279
6
5
8
284
Total employment-women: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Gains in the employment of women by the 592 commercial stations were compara-
ble to those gains characterizing employment of minority group members. The
number of women employees increased in 1975 and 1976 over 1971 figures~ In 1975
and 1976 the percentage of women employees was 26 percent and 27 percent
respectively. The percentage of women employees was in 1971, 22 percent. As can be
observed in table 11, the bulk of the gains were in the full-time positions.
While the tables are not shown in this and the subsequent two sections, an
examination of the data for the larger set of 641 stations does not lead us to modify
any of the 1975-76 trends observed in tables 11-13.
TABLE 11-592 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
8,426
10,367
10,871
22
25
26
904
1,213
1,292
24
31
33
9,330
11,580
12,163
26
27
1975-76 difference
504
1
79
2
583
1
1971-76 difference
2,445
4
388
9
2,833
Full time-women: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Between 1971 and 1976, both the number and percentage of women employed in
the upper four job categories increased, from 1,638 (6%) to 4,581 (14%). During the
same period, the number of lower level jobs assigned to women declined, from 6,788
in 1971 to 6,290 in 1976. However, because the total number of lower level jobs was
reduced by an even greater factor the proportion of women in these positions
increased from 56 percent in 1971 to 70 percent in 1976. In upper level jobs,
increases were greatest among professionals, (1,437, or 11 percent) and officials and
managers (724, or 10 percent). In the lower level positions, declines were greatest
among office and clerical workers. Although the number of women in these posi-
tions was reduced from 6,496 in 1971 to 5,988 in 1976, the percentage of female
PAGENO="0465"
461
office and clerical workers actually increased by two percentage points, from 88
percent in 1971 to 90 percent in 1976. Apparently these stations have had little or
no success in hiring males in such traditionally "female jobs."
TABLE 12-592 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, WOMEN IN UPPER 4, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 4 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
1975-76 difference
1,638
3,989
4,581
592
6
13
14
6,788
6,378
6,290
-88
56
69
70
8,426
10,367
10,871
504
22
25
26
1
1
1
1971-1976 difference
2,943
8
-498
14
2,445
4
Part time-women: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
The percentage of women employed in all part-time jobs at the 592 commercial
television stations increased slightly between 1975 and 1976 and between 1971 and
1976. The number and proportion of women employees both in the upper four and
lower five job categories rose between 1971 and 1976. Growth in the lower five job
categories was, however, minimal. The number of part-time male employees de-
clined between 1971 and 1976. Thus minority and women employees accounted for
the slight overall increases in the number of part-time jobs.
TABLE 13-592 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, WOMEN IN UPPER 4, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
1975
1976
1975-76 difference
Upper 4 catego
Number
479
555
ries
Percent
10
22
Lower 5 catego
Number
734
737
ries
Percent
50
52
All Job categori
Number
1,213
1,292
es
Percent
31
33
76
2
3
2
79
2
1971-76 difference
336
9
52
19
388
9
Between 1971 and 1976 the percentage of women in the part-time office and
clerical job categories increased by six percentage points: between 1975 and 1976
this percentage rose by two points. In 1971, 66 percent of all women working in
part-time jobs were in the office and clerical work; in 1975 the figures was 52
percent and in 1976 it was 51 percent.
INCREASES AND DECREASES IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF MINORITIES AND WOMEN IN THE UPPER
FOUR JOB CATEGORIES
Top 10 markets~
Increases in the number of women employed in the upper four job categories
(officials and managers, professional, technicians and sales workers) were reported
in all of the top 10 commercial television market areas. Eight of the top 10 markets
reported increases in the number of minority group members employed in the upper
four categories. One of the top markets reported a loss in minority employees in the
upper four categories and one stayed the same.
Top 25 markets
Minority employment increased in 18 of the top 25 markets and decreased in six.
One of the top 25 markets reported no change. The number of women employed in
upper level jobs increased in 19 of the top 25 markets, decreased in six markets.
~In the 1975 rankings compiled by the American Research Bureau, the top ten markets are:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, San Francisco, Cleveland, Wash-
ington, D.C., and Pittsburgh.
PAGENO="0466"
462
Top 50 markets
Minority employment increased in 33 of the top 50 markets, decreased in 9 and
remained the same in seven. The number of women employed increased in 37 of
these 50 markets, decreased in nine of and stayed the same in three.4
Top 100 markets
There were increases in minoirty employment in 60 of the top 100 markets,
decreases in 20 and no change in 19. Employment of women increased in 69 of the
top 100 markets, decreased in 16 and stayed the same in 14.~
Increases and decreases: States and District of Columbia6
Commercial television stations in 36 states increased employment of minority
group members in the upper four job categories between 1975 and 1976 while
stations in three states decreased minority employment. Stations in 11 states
showed no change.
In 44 states, employment of women in the upper four job categories increased
between 1975 and 1976. Stations in three states showed a decrease in employment of
women and in three states there was no change.
Increases and decreases: Nationwide
Among the 641 commercial television stations included in this comparative analy-
sis of the two most recent years, increases in the employment of minority group
members in the upper four job categories were reported by 239 (35%). One hundred
and ten stations (19%) reported decreases in the employment of minorities, while
292 (45%) reported no change between 1975 and 1976.
Increases in the employment of women in the upper four job categories were
claimed by 330 stations (56%) and decreases were reported by 123 (18%). No change
was reported by 188 stations (24%).
Table 14 shows the number and percentage of the 641 commercial television
stations which increased or decreased the number of minorities or women employed
in each of the upper four job categories.
TABLE 14-641 STATiONS: NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STATIONS REPORTING INCREASES AND DECREASES OR NO CHANGE IN
THE EMPLOYMENT OF MINORITIES AND WOMEN IN THE UPPER 4 JOB CATEGORIES
Increases
Decreases
No Change
- Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Officials and managers:
Minority 65 10 45 7 531 83
Women 160 25 62 9 419 65
Professionals:
Minority 154 24 97 15 390 61
Women 262 41 132 21 247 39
Technicians:
Minority 179 28 97 15 365 61
Women 138 22 71 11 432 67
Sales workers:
Minority 65 10 27 4 549 86
Women 119 19 71 11 451 70
Total: Upper 4 categories:
Minority 239 37 110 17 292 46
Women 330 51 123 19 188 29
1975 ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT REPORTS
The 665 commercial television stations included in the analysis of 1976 Annual
Employment Reports had 43,268 full-time employees and 4,239 part-time employees.
Total full-time and part-time employment was 47,507.
4Figures were derived from 42 of the top 50 markets. Market number 37 has not been
designated.
5Figures were derived from 99 of the top 100 markets. Market number 37 has not been
designated.
6Figures do not include Delaware since it has no commercial television stations. However, they
do not include the District of Columbia.
PAGENO="0467"
463
Full time: Minority
Minority group members accounted for 5,932 of the full-time employees (14%), 945
of the part-time employees (22%) and 6,877 of the total employment (12%). Of the
665 commercial television stations, 116 (17%) employed no minority group members
on their full-time staffs. There were 158 stations (24%) which had no minority group
members employed in their upper four job categories.
A list of the number and proportion of minority employees found in each of the
upper four job categories, in the combined upper four job categories and among all
full-time employees at each of the 655 commercial television stations is presented in
appendix A, table III.
Full time: Women
There were 11,437 women among the full-time employees at the 655 commercial
television stations (26%), 1,399 women among the part-time employees (33%) and
12,836 women among all employees (27%). Only five of the 655 commercial televi-
sion stations reported no women on their full-time staffs. However, 42 stations (6%)
had no women employees in the upper four job categories.
The number and percentage of women found at each of the 655 commercial
television stations in each of the upper four job categories, the combined upper four
job categories and among all full-time employees are listed in appendix A, table IV.
Top 50 markets: Total employment
During 1976 the commercial television stations in the top 50 markets reported a
total of 24,059 full-time employees. Among them were 4,027 minority group mem-
bers (17%) and 6,412 women (27%).
Top 50 markets: Upper 4 job categories
The stations in the top 50 markets employed 18,681 persons in the upper four job
categories including 2,478 minority group members (13%). Table 15 shows the pro-
portion of minorities in the upper four job categories in 1976.
TABLE 15-655 STATIONS: TOP 50 MARKETS, PROPORTION OF MINORITY FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN UPPER 4 JOB CATEGORIES
Job category
Number of
minority employees
Proportion of
minority employees
Officials and managers
Professionals
282
946
1,095
155
8
16
14
12
Technicians
Sales workers
Total, upper 4
2,743
13
The stations in the top 50 markets reported 2,743 women in the upper four job
categories (15%). Table 16 shows the proportion of women in each of the upper four
job categories in the top 50 markets.
TABLE 16-655 STATIONS: TOP 50 MARKETS, PROPORTION OF WOMEN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN UPPER 4 JOB CATEGORIES
Job category wpmen
Officials and managers /
Professionals /
Technicians /
Sales workers /
Number of
employees
Proportion of
women employees
667
1,430
383
263
19
24
5
20
Total, upper 4
2,743
15
Top 10 markets: Total employment
Among the 9,917 full-time employees reported in the top 10 markets for 1976,
there were 2,043 minority group members (21%) and 2,704 women (27%). The
proportion of minority employees in the top 10 markets was four percentage points
greater than in the top 50 markets. The proportion of women in these two market
groups was the same.
PAGENO="0468"
464
Top 10 markets: Upper 4 job categories
Stations in the top 10 markets reported 7,647 full-time employees in the upper
four job categories during 1976. Of these 1,258 were minority group members (16
percent). Table 17 shows the proportion of minority group members in each of the
upper four job categories in the top 10 markets.
TABLE 17.-TOP 10 MARKETS: PROPORTION OF MINORITY GROUP MEMBERS EMPLOYED FULL-TIME IN UPPER 4 JOB CATEGORIES
Job category
Number of
minority employees
Proportion of
minority employees
Officials and managers
167
486
536
75
12
20
15
17
Professionals
Technicians
Sales workers
4
1,258
16
Total, upper
There were 1,253 women employees in the upper four job categories in the top 10
markets (16%) in 1975. Table 18 shows the proportion of women in each of the
upper four job categories in 1976.
TABLE 18.-TOP 10 MARKETS: PROPORTION OF WOMEN EMPLOYED FULL-TIME IN UPPER 4 JOB CATEGORIES
Job category
Number of
women employees
306
668
159
120
1,253
Proportion of
women employees
23
28
5
27
16
Officials and managers
Professionals
Technicians
Sales workers
Total, upper 4
The proportion of women and minority group members employed in the upper
four job categories was slightly larger in the top 10 markets than in the top 50
markets.
Total employment: States~
Sixteen states had a higher proportion of minority personnel employed in their
commercial television stations in 1976 than the proportion of minority group mem-
bers in their population. Twenty-three states had a smaller porportion of minority
personnel in their commercial stations than the proportion of minority group mem-
bers in their populations. Eleven8 states had minority employees in about the same
proportion as their population (within one percentage point). The proportion of
minority group members in the upper four job categories exceed state minority
populations in 13 states, and is less in 22 states. Proportions in population and
employment are about the same in 15 states.8
At the official and management level, the minority employment proportion is
larger than the population in six states. It is smaller in 37 states and about the
same in seven states.8 In the professional category, the minority employment pro-
portion is larger in 23 states, smaller in 18 and about the same in 9~8 Among
technicians, the minority employment proportion is larger in 18 states, less in 23,
and about the same in 9*8 In sales, the minority proportion is larger in seven states,
smaller in 31 and the same in twelve.8
Statewide employment and population statistics can be misleading because they
do not always reflect population differences in urban and rural areas. In New
Jersey, which has a full-time minority employment proportion of 39 percent (the
minority population is 11 percent), two of the three commercial stations are Spanish
language stations serving New York City.
`Because Delaware does not have a commercial television station, it was excluded from these
comparisons.
8The number includes three states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) where no minor-
ities were employed and where minorities made up less than 1 percent of the population.
PAGENO="0469"
465
Three states reported no minority group employment: Maine and New Hampshire
(both 0.7 percent minority population), and Vermont (0.3 percent minority popula-
tion).
In no state was the employment of women greater than one-third of the full-time
work force, and in only one state did it exceed 30 percent in 1976.
PART TWO-NONCOMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS
Total employment-nation Wide: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparison~s
The 103 noncommercial television stations included in this five-year comparison
reported a total full-time and part-time employment of 4,355 in 1971, 5,483 in 1975,
and 5,618 in 1976. The change from 1971 to 1976 was 1,263, a rate of increase of 29
percent, from 1975 to 1976 the change was 135, a rate of increase of 2 percent.
Employment on both full-time and part-time jobs was greater in 1976 than in 1971.
While part-time non-commercial employment was slightly less in 1976 than in 1975,
full-time non-commercial employment was somewhat greater in 1976 compared to
1975.
TABLE 19.-FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
3,193
4,145
4,288
1,162
1,338
1,330
4,355
5,483
5,618
1975-76 change
1971-76 change
143
1,095
3
34
-8
168
-1
14
135
1,263
2
29
1As with the commercial stations, the official Commission tapes for 1971, 1975, and 1976 do not allow us to report on the
employment practices of nearly as many noncommercial stations as had been included in our previous employment reports. The loss of
noncommercial stations is, however, somewhat greater than that found when examining the data for the commercial stations. When
examining the 5-year (1971-76) trends for noncommercial stations, we are only able to report on changes for 103 stations. In our
previous report we examined such 5-year trends for 145 stations. This represents loss of approximately 29 percent in the number of
stations examined. Particularly notable is the failure of the Commission to include 1971 reports for such stations as KQED in San
Francisco, WQED in Pittsburgh, and WNET in New York. In order to retain comparability with previous years reports, we will report on
the 5-year trends. However, we will also report on the differences found when comparing data for 1975 with that obtained for 1976. In
the latter comparisons, we are able to look at trends for 143 stations.
Total employment-nationwide: 1975-76 comparisons
Between our 1975 and 1976 employment reports, there was a 29 percent loss in
the number of stations for which we could make three-year comparisons. As with
our analysis of the commercial stations, here also we will report on differences for
that file of stations for which 395 reports were available for both 1975 and 1976.
This increases the base from 103 stations to 143 stations. Additions to the base
number of stations do produce some aggregate differences. For example, in contrast
to the apparent loss in part-time employees observed for the 103 stations, in table 20
we see that there was a slight increase for the 143 stations (a rate of increase of 3
percent). Otherwise, comparable rates of change were within two percentage points.
TABLE 20-143 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975
1976
1975-76 change
6,393
6,662
1,808
1,856
8,201
8,518
269
4
48
3
317
4
Full time-nationwide: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
In 1976, 81 percent of all full-time employees reported by the 103 noncommercial
television stations were found in the upper three job categories.1 In 1975, 80 percent
1Non~ommerciaJ television stations do not employ sales workers.
20-122 0 - 78 - 31
PAGENO="0470"
466
of the full-time employees were in the upper three job categories and in 1971, 74
percent were in these positions. Between 1971 and 1976 noncommercial stations
increased their proportion of employees in the upper three categories by 7 percent.
This shift parallels that occurring among commercial stations.
TABLE 21-103 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, UPPER 3, LOWER 5, ANO ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories Lower 5 categories All jobs categories 1
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
1975-76 change
1971-76 change
2,358
3,329
3,453
74
80
81
835
816
835
26
20
19
3,193
4,145
4,288
124
1,095
4
46
19
0
2
0
143
1,095
3
34
1975
1976
1976-76 change
5,065
5,295
79
80
1,328
1,367
21
20
6,393
6,662
230
4
39
3
269
4
1 Noncommercial television stations do not employ sales workers.
2 This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
Part time-nationwide: 1971, 1975, and 1976' comparisons
Total part-time employment was somewhat less in 1976 than in 1975. Compared to
1971 the total part-time employment was greater in both 1975 and 1976. Thirty-nine
percent of the part-time employees were in the upper three job categories in 1971,
61 percent were in the upper three in 1975 and 64 percent were in the upper three
in 1976. In the lower five categories, there was an increase among the part-time
office and clerical workers and part-time service workers, but overall employment
in the lower five job categories decreased over the five year period, particularly
among the part-time operatives.
TABLE 23-103 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
1975-76 change
1971-76 change
458
817
854
39
61
64
704
521
476
61
39
36
1,162
1,338
1,330
37
396
5
86
-45
-228
-9
-32
-8
168
-1
4
1 This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
Full time-nationwide: 1975-76 comparisons
As can be seen in table 22, the trends characterizing the 103 stations in table 21
are also true of the somewhat larger group of 143 stations. Between 1975 and 1976
the rate of increase in the upper three categories was about four percent; in the
lower five categories the rate of increase was somewhat less-two percent.
TABLE 22-143 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, UPPER 3, LOWER 5 AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories 1 Lower 5 categories All Job categories 2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
PAGENO="0471"
467
Part time-nationwide: 1975-76 comparisons
Among the larger group of stations (table 24) trends were comparable to those
observed in table 23 above. Some growth is evident in the upper three part-time job
categories (a rate of increase of seven percent), as well as a decline in the lower five
part-time job categories (a rate of decrease of four percent). In contrast to the
overall loss in part-time jobs among the smaller set of 103 stations, between 1975
and 1976 there was a slight increase in part-time employment (48, or a rate of
increase of three percent) among the larger sample of 143 stations. These differences
should not be exaggerated as we are only talking about a net difference of 56 jobs.
TABLE 24-143 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories Lower 5 categories All job categories
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975 1,131 63 677 37 1,808
1976 1,207 65 649 35 1,856
1975-76 change 76 7 -28 -4 48 3
Total employment-minority: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
The number and percentage of minority group employees among all full-time and
part-time workers was greater in 1976 than in 1971. Overall, in 1976, the percentage
of minority group employees was approximately the same in 1976 and 1975.
TABLE 25-103 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL MINORITY EMPLOYMENT
Full-time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
1975-76 difference
257
490
552~
8
12
13
148
149
11
11
638
701
12
12
62
1
1
0
63
316
0
3
1971-76 difference
295
5
21
0
Thirteen percent of all full-time employees at the 103 non-commercial television
stations in 1976 were members of minority groups. The percentage of minority
group employees among all full-time workers was 12 percent in 1975 and 8 percent
in 1971. The percentage of minority group members employed on a part-time basis
increased by less than one percentage point between 1971 and 1976.
Total employment-minority: 1975, 1976 comparisons
Between 1975 and 1976, trends in both full-time and part-time minority employ-
ment were similar in both the smaller (N= 103) and the larger (N= 143) group. Data
in both tables 25 and 26 show that between 1975 and 1976 minority employment
grew very slightly, by approximately one percentage point.
PAGENO="0472"
1975.
1976
784
850
12
13
215
233
12
13
999
1,083
12
13
1975-76 difference
66
1
18
1
84
1
Full time-minority: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Employment of minority group members in the upper three job categories in-
creased from 1971 to 1976 and from 1975 to 1976. The number and percentage of
minority group members in the lower five categories also increased between 1971
and 1976 and between 1975 and 1976. Twenty percent of the minority group employ-
ees were in the office and clerical category in 1976, while only 17 percent of the
total work force in noncommercial stations were in the office and clerical category.
Sixty percent of all full-time minority group employees were found in the upper
three job categories in 1971, 67 percent in 1975 and 67 percent in 1976.
TABLE 27-103 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, MINORITIES IN UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories 1 Lower 5 categories All job categories 2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
155
7
102
12
257
8
1975
1976
1975-76 difference
326
368
42
10
11
1
164
184
20
20
22
2
490
552
62
12
13
1
1971-76 difference
213
4
62
10
295
5
`Noncommercial television stations do not employ sales workers.
2This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
Full time-minority: 1975-76 comparisons
Data for the larger group of stations does not change the overview of the slight
aggregate increase in full-time minority employment. In this set of stations, minor-
ities do appear to be somewhat less likely to find themselves in one of the upper
three job categories. Among the 143 stations, 62 percent of all minority employees
were in the upper three categories in 1975. In 1976, 64 percent of the minority
employees were in these upper three categories.
TABLE 28-143 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, MINORITIES IN UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories 1 Lower 5 categories All job categories 2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975
488
10
296
22
784
12
1976
547
10
303
22
850
13
1975-76 difference
59
0
7
0
66
1
`Noncommercial television stations do not employ sales workers.
2This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
Part time-minority: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Minority persons employed on a part-time basis by the 103 noncommercial televi-
sion stations registered a small gain between 1971 and 1976, from 128 (11%) to 149
468
TABLE 26-143 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL MINORITY EMPLOYMENT
Full.time Part-time Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
PAGENO="0473"
469
(11%). Minority employment among the upper three job categories increased nu-
merically from 46 (10%) in 1971 to 74 (9%) in 1976. Slight numerical losses were
registered among minority group members employed in the lower five job categories
between 1971 and 1976 (from 82 to 75), but the proportion of minority group
members in these positions increased (from 12 percent to 16 percent).
While not shown, trends for the larger (N=143) group of stations are generally
comparable with those observed for the small (N= 103) group.
TABLE 29-103 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, MINORITIES IN UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories 1 Lower 5 categories All job categories 2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
46
75
74
10
9
9
73
75
14
16
148
149
11
11
1975-76 difference
-1
0
2
2
1
21
0
0
1971-76 difference
28
-l
-l
4
1 television stations do not employ sales workers.
2This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
See appendix B, table I for a detailed five-year comparison of nationwide statistics
for the 103 noncommercial television stations. In table II we show parallel data for
1975 and 1976; the nationwide statistics there are based on 143 stations.
Total employment-women: 1971 and 1976 comparisons
The percentage of women among all full-time and part-time employees at the 103
noncommercial television stations was 27 percent 1971, 32 percent in 1975 and 34
percent in 1976. This represents a numerical increase of 129 from 1975 to 1976 and
728 from 1971 to 1976.
TABLE 30-103 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
Full-time Part-time Total 1
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
879
1,323
1,398
28
32
33
298
453
507
26
34
38
1,177
1,776
1,905
27
32
34
1976
1975-76 Difference
75
1
54
4
129
728
2
7
1971-76 Difference
519
5
209
12
1 figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
Total employment-women: 1975-76 eomparisons
The 1975-76 trends seen in table 30 are similiar to those observed when the larger
set of stations is examined (cf. Table 31). Between 1975 and 1976 there was a one
point increase in the percentage of women employed in full-time positions and a
three point increase in the percentage of women employed in part-time jobs.
PAGENO="0474"
470
TABLE 31-143 STATIONS: FULL-TIME, PART-TIME, AND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
Full-time Part-time Total 1
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1975
1976
2,058
2,193
135
32
33
644
716
36
39
2,702
2,909
207
33
34
1975-76 difference
1
72
3
1
`This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
Full time-women: 1971, 1975 and 1976 comparisons
Full-time employment of women in the upper three job categories increased
between 1971 and 1976, from 879 (28%). The number and percentage of women in
the upper three job categories rose during the same period, from 307 (13%) to 721
(21%). Increases were also registered in the lower five job categories, from 572 (69%)
in 1971 to 677 (81 percent) in 1976.
TABLE 32-103 STATIONS: TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, WOMEN IN UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories' Lower 5 categories All job categories2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
307
680
721
13
20
21
572
643
677
69
79
81
879
1,323
1,398
28
32
33
1976
1975-76 difference
41
1
34
2
75
1
1971-76 difference
414
8
105
12
519
5
1 Noncommercial television stations do not employ sales workers.
2 This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
The percentage of all full-time office and clerical workers who are women was 92
percent in 1971, 91 percent in 1975 and 91 percent in 1976. the percentage of all full-
time women employees who were also in office and clerical jobs was 61 percent
1971, 47 percent in 1975 and 48 percent in 1976.
While the data are not shown, the 1975-76 trends observed for the larger set of
stations are similar to those already noted above.
Part time-women: 1971, 1975, and 1976 comparisons
Employment of women in part-time jobs at the 103 noncommercial television
stations increased between 1971 and 1976. Between 1971 and 1976 the number and
proportion women employees rose in both the upper three and lower five job
categories.
PAGENO="0475"
471
TABLE 33-103 STATIONS: TOTAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, WOMEN IN UPPER 3, LOWER 5, AND ALL JOB CATEGORIES
Upper 3 categories 1 Lower 5 categories All job categories 2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1971
1975
1976
1975-76 difference
62
194
254
14
24
30
236
259
253
34
50
53
298
453
507
34
38
60
6
-6
3
54
4
1971-76 difference
192
16
17
19
209
12
1 Noncommercial television stations do not employ sales workers.
2 This figure includes some employees who were misplaced by stations in the sales worker category.
In 1971, 74 percent of part-time office and clerical workers were women. In 1975,
79 percent of part-time office and clerical workers were women. In 1976, 81 percent
of workers in those jobs were women. The percentage of all part-time women who
were also office and clerical workers declined from 50 percent in 1971 to 42 percent
in 1975, and then rose to 57 percent in 1976. There was some growth in the
percentage of all part-time women who were also occupants of professional jobs: 13
percent in 1971, 26 percent 1975 and 28 percent in 1976.
Increases and decreases: States
Noncommercial stations in 24 states increased minority group employment be-
tween 1975 and 1976 and stations in 11 states decreased their proportion of full-time
minority employees. In 13 states there was no change.2 The stations in 13 states
increased minority employment in the officials and managers category and two
states decreased minority employment in that category.
Noncommercial stations in 25 states increased the proportion of women, and
stations in 15 states decreased the proportion of women on their full time staffs.
Stations in eight states remained the same. Stations in 14 states increased the
proportion of women in the officials and manager job category while stations in 11
states decreased the proportion of women in the category.
Increases and decreases: Nationwide
Among the 143 noncommercial stations included in this comparative analysis,
increases in minority group members employed in the upper three job categories
were reported by 52 (36%). Twenty-five stations (17%) reported decreases in the
proportion of minority employment in those categories between 1975 and 1976.
Increases in the employment of women in the upper three job categories were
reported by 58 stations (41%) and decreases were reported by 38 (27 percent).
Table 34 shows the number and percentage of the 143 noncommerical television
stations which increased or decreased the proportion of minorities or women em-
ployed in the upper three job categories.
2Employment reports were not received in 1975 and 1976 for stations in Alabama, Montana and
Wyoming. Montana and Wyoming have no non-commercial television stations. Reports for
stations in Alabama were not included on the FCC data tape.
PAGENO="0476"
472
TABLE 34-143 STATIONS: NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STATIONS REPORTING INCREASES OR DECREASES IN PROPORTION OF
MINORITIES AND WOMEN IN THE UPPER 3 JOB CATEGORIES
Increases
Number
Percent
Decreases
Number
Percent
No change
Number
Percent
Officials and managers:
Minority
Women
Professionals:
Minority
Women
Technicians:
Minority
Women
Total:
Minority
Women
18
35
38
51
30
27
13
24
27
36
21
19
5
21
21
39
24
16
3
15
15
27
17
11
120
87
84
53
89
100
84
61
59
37
62
70
52
58
36
41
25
38
17
27
66
47
46
33
1976 ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT REPORTS
The 158 noncommercial television stations included in this analysis of 1976
Annual Employment Reports had 6,904 full-time employees and 2,006 part-time
employees. Total full-time and part-time employment was 8,910.
Full time: Minority
Minority group members accounted for 881 (13%) of the full-time~ employees, 269
of the part-time employees (13%) and 1,150 of the total employment (13%). Of the
158 stations, 40 (25%) employed no minority group members on their full-time
staffs. There were 48 stations (30%) which had no monority group members in the
upper three job categories.
A list of the number and proportion of minority employees found in each of the
upper three job categories, in the combined upper three job categories and among
all full-time employees at each of the 158 noncommercial television stations includ-
ed in this analysis is presented in appendix B, table III.
Full time: Women
Among the full-time employees at the 158 noncommercial television stations,
2,265 (33%) were women. Nine (6%) of the 158 stations reported no women on their
full-time staffs. There were 24 stations (15%) that had no women in the upper three
job categories.
The number and proportion of women found at each of the 158 noncommerical
television stations in each of the upper three job categories, the combined upper
three categories and among all full-time employees are listed in appendix B, table
Iv.
Minority employment: States and the District of Columbia
In 23 states the proportion of minority group members employed full-time by
noncommercial television stations was less than the proportion of minority group
members in the state population. In 21 states the proportion of minority group
members employed was larger than the proportion of minority group members in
the state population. Four states had minority persons employed in noncommercial
television stations in about the same percentage as the minority population of that
state (within one percentage point). Annual Employment Reports were not received
for noncommercial television stations in three states in 1976.
Of the 48 states3 from which employment data was received, four states reported
no full-time minority employees in noncommercial broadcasting stations. Twenty-
seven states reported no minority employees in the professionals category and 11
states reported no minorities in the technicians category.
Employment of women: States
In eleven states, noncommercial stations employed women as officials and manag-
ers in proportions higher than 25 percent, an increase from four states in 1975.
3This total also includes the Districti of Columbia.
PAGENO="0477"
473
Stations in 12 states employed no women in the officials and managers category;
stations in three states reported no women professionals and stations in 15 states
reported no women technicians.
APPENDIX A-TABLES-COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS
CONTENTS
Table No. and title Page
Table I-Nationwide Television comparative report-1971, 1975, 1976 A-i
Table 11.-Nationwide television comparative report-1975, 1976 A-3
Table 111.-Proportion of minority employed in upper four job catego-
ries and total employment-full-time, station-by-station, 1976 A-6
Table IV.-Proportion of women employed in upper four job catego-
ries and in total employment-full-time, station-by-station, 1976 A-17
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1~52 to 1179 .
PAGENO="0478"
~FA1Y EEFO6T FCA COS806CIAL STATIONS TABLE I , jl/jA/76
- ~ ,~A. L.L. £5.7 .L_A_Y.1..E._S----.- B. L A A. K...__..____AAIENTAL_..... ~~08 ~
TOTAL PALE FEMALE HALE FEMALE HOLE FEMALE FALL FAMALE HALE FEMALE MINORITIES
FALL_T15~CFFO 587.0 MAO 775 92 027 8 - A 1 14 I ~1 6 8 2 53 1/ - 3* 5/ 555 3/ -~
7 6311 5252 847. 1019 167. 138 25 75 17. 24 6 11 4 83 1/. 27 07. 368 60
76 6u53 5302 827. 1151 18/. 144 27. 90 1/. 28 9 12 5 86 17. 33 17. 407 60
76C8805 t42'1I'~25 132 20 607. ~i5 ~5_43 - 0 ~i 3Q56i7.~ 39IS~~
71-76 CH4SGE 1051 527 -167. 724 107.' 89 17. 76 17. 16 . 3 4 3 33 07. JO 17. 252 30
FMkLJ15~HAF~0S1OA5_..7556_.6623*~~_'333*.jTS*'318''47. `58~17.23~ 9~~3 ~1O7 15 18 55 58Z80
75 9901 7818 797. . 2083 71/. . 526 55 311 37. 41 35 08 11 232 05 7 10 1254 137.
76 tOOls 7964 775 2370 237. 561 50 35. 3/. 40 41 3/. 11 044 20 73 15 1354 13/.
35~Q5 `~`43~~I7. 3-j'6' 2*51 -- 12*54 -. 3 AS_S ISSS_ 57.~
71-76 CHOOGA. 2758 1321 -lAO 143? 115 243 15 254 27. 17 35 21 6 13? 15 55 1% 772 57. *
~A7.L~LH~T5EC7T!LA0'0~577. `7.3883 A077't99~'' 112-.. 10*402* 6S~ 11 I7._~4_S_035* ~E 191 2S 2 `I% 693 6S~
75 7.2554 12057 9b5 499 47. 059 7/. 7' 17. ` .97 8 43 4 352 35 53 07. 1448 127.
76 12138 12C35 `057. 66. 57. 9s5 70 %~ 17. 126 11 43 5 JAb 30 21 oX 1627 130
7S~76CH8'3EC" ~ 86 05 IA'IST9~ o.7. ~34~ IS~ 1 IS
7 76 C 0 GE 17 1 492 5 3 3 79 1/ 62 11 20 5 195 14 19 0 93 7/.
FALL TIME SOLES WORKERS ` 3
712097 55!21*7. 16'67S 47*557 5'~I7. r *~`3'6'~" ` `t ` 25"~iS *4555 - - c2-4Z~
75 2787 . 2399 76/. 308 167. 79 37.0 25 17. 9 3 4 . 6 40 10 6 IX 16~ 60
76 2954 2390 845 456 167. 95 37. 31 17. 4 4 49 25 9 00 223 70
C0.0.BASE ` ~ 25 16 00 605~3 1S' 2 ~`` 9__SISS*_OS**_A/S_ 34j5
71-76 CHOOGA 357 67 -97. 290 97. 41 IS .26 17. A 1 -2 1 24 10 5 00 108 30
~ 24 ` `28 `IS' 043' `20 *839 5 1105-51
75 674 685 15/. 6051 0/. 183 25 753 117. 18 103 5 -34 53 15 264 47. 1383 215
76 6620 632 loX 5908 907. 149 27. 839 137. 15 . 110 3 44 49 10 270 40 1483 220
~ 07. 8627.61'~7 -2. 11 -4~ 0/. 6 ~~00- 105' 1S
71-76 7.58867. -755 -247 -27. -57.8 27. -10 00 417 77. 8 62 -1 Au 21 15 127 2/. 644 015
* 75*.~ 9 IS-6E 19' - 1~S6 `25 `rIO'269 -jj7..~
75 1288 1146 897. 142 115 115 95 18 17. 3 I 13 7. 51 45 2 05 199 157.
78.. 1190 1263 897. 127 115 109 97. 16 IS . . A 1 9 U 49 45 3 IX 190 160
75-76 CHASGE -98 -53 57 -05 OS -6 07. -2 07. . I 1 -1 7. -2 IA 1 AS -9 IS
* S_*_7,*.765 CHOUGE 3- 123I"'i237'"6~" 7*ThS65 - 27." 7~ 17. `lI'' 0 0 "-i'~-7 - 27. -* 2AS ~-79 -
FALL TIME OPEAXT1005 S , S
71 1377 1299 947 78 47 149 57.5 9 10 . 5 . I 6 I 37 35 3 AS 227 .157.
~75~ 564'~ 49,*802_*E9_I25 91' 177. A120512 i16 -_ 37_Q*5 05 ~132230
76 535 462 8LS . 73 147. 92 177. 11 057. . 7 2. 2 1 25 55 I IS 142 260
75-76 CHANGE -29 -33 -25 4 27. -4 57. I AX 2 1 . I I 9 27. A 00 8 30
,..,_.7I:?6.C80506 - -542 :837 ~ 9l,~,,_A?_, 6S___ 2,.._ ~ 1,__~12 -- 20,_~3 _AS 67
FALL TIME L.2CME9S .
71 160 155 975 A 35 39 240 2 17 2 0 1 0 8 55 1 15 53 337.
75 91 86 97.7. A 55 23 257. - 4 42 1 A 1 A 7 80 A IS 36 400
76'" ~5 e2 965 34523217. 3_47_j*7. ~ A ` 455~ 7.7.5* 31'360
75-76 CHBAGE -6 -4 iS -2 -17. I 37. -t - 07. 6 I -1 - A -3 ~30 0 05 -5 -40
71-76 CHANGE -75 -73 -iS -2 15 . -16 AS 1 30 -~ - I I - -1 0 -4 IS -1 -10 -22' 37. --
~LCT~~~EP ICE CS7EA 561687 8913 292 1 - A 6 iA 1 213 10/36452 -
75 620 554 837. 106 177. 251 407. 52 80 ` 1 ` - A - 3 1 29 50 1 AG 338 550
76 503 484 837. 99 170 242 427. 55 97. - 2 1 - 2 2 31 5% 2 US 33? 580
``7A-76 CHANGE `-37-32 o0'~-7 17.' -9 25 ` 3 17. 1 `t'~1' 1 2' IS -- 1" I0 -1 30'"l
- 71-76 CHANGE -122 -132 -65 II ~S -50 17. - 13 35 0 1 , -2 2 10 20 1 00 -2? 60
__EU7.L_116E. T5i57.I__,-
s' -`7j'357.755976"3'70/.'0G5A~'"225"0638 40*61T~ 230"E36'""54'68' 31 526 - iT'
75 40559 30452 757. 10367 250 224L 55 1321 37. 199 156 10?- 55 873 25 383 10 5324 130
7641273 32422 747. 11871 255 2360 67.0 1489 45 232. .179 lOS - 76 323 20 411 10 5769 540
~75~T& CHM'OSE ~l6 ..3-53*~10~ 5041S120 10 - 168 os'"33 ` 23 - -2 15 60 IS~ 28' OS 445 " lX~
71-76 CHONSA 3.0.98 653 -40 2645 47. 722 27. 874 2.5 - 96 115 37 39 - - 39! 10- 235 10 2515 50
A-i
PAGENO="0479"
_.A 0. L_E._. P...L_0_8._.E-t. ~_ _~- 8 0. A .G..JL_._________D.RUJ4TAI. ~ R CAM_ ___~S~A H____-_-----_~.----.-----~
TOTAL (ALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MISORITIES
.PART.i1ML.CFFICLALS_.M M~1AGE/.7...- ~. . .. . .~... - - - .. - - --
71 49 .2 867. 7 14/. 4 3% 0 07. 0 0 Ce 0. 2 47. 1 07.
75 46 2M 61/. . 18 3900 4 8% 2 47. 0 0 A 0 1 2% 1 27.
76 48 37 7s7. 12 24% 4 . 8% 1 2% 0 0 0 6 1 2% 1 IX
-~~cCi48lr.E 3
71-76 CMA9GE 0 -5 1% 510/ 0 1% 1 2/. . I 0 0 A -1 -27.. 0 0%
~ 2 ~ 182% 717.123 167
75 1118 777 69/. 351 31/. .113 13/. 61 57. 3 6 4 4 48 4% 12 17. 249
76 1200 8AM 68/. 382 32/. 109 3% . 70 67. 8 9 6 0 55 57. 15 10 273
~65~16CHA9GE - 8251
71-76 CMASGE 531 230 -8% 201 M% 46 10 45 3% 5 00 37 37. 8 AX
t._PART_T1M~.tECM(AIC1867. _.. .._.... __._ _. __. -- .---. -------~ --
71 783 769 98/. 14 2% 57 ~% S AT. 20 A 3 12 29 0
75 122/. 3.107 91% 0.13 9% 133 11/. 16 17. 13 0 4 2 39 37. 6
71. 1255 1103 MI?. 152 127. 141 11/. 23 2% 15 1. 7. 2 33 3% 6
7.E~6E 0T89C.8 ~ ~00
71-76 CHA1%1. 472 334 -10% 138 .107. 84 `.0 23 27. -5 -1. 2 21 10 . 6 07.
~PMRT~ME SALES 06 39 2 56 17 1 3 - 0 ~0 ~ ~ 10/ ~
75 28 01 75/. 7 25/. 3 117. 0 A?. 1 0 A I 3 11% A 07.
76 24 15 63/. 9 387. 1 ~/ 1 4/. A 0 0 A 3 137. 1 ~7.
~ C605 4 ~
71-76 008857.6 -15 -7 7% -M -67. 0 I?. 1 4/. -A -1 0 . 1 -1 35 1 40 -E
1_.PAMLJIME..GFFICE..M.CL0.8II.AL .._ .._. .. - S -- -- - .- -. .-- - -
71 852 266 7.17. (96 69/. 34 97. 56 6Z2 6 o 2 ii 15 15 27.
75 146 214 25% 632 75% . 35 `.7. Ml. 10% 8 6 1 7 16 25 22
75 86'. 199 23% 665 77% 31 $0 105 12/. 6 9 1 . 4 20 2% 23
7~7~C~39%E 18~~ ~1~ğ=%33 21 -63/. 24 2%~2~313'0~'
71-76 CnA(112 2 -67 -8% 69 8% -3 0% 49 67. 4 3 1 2 9 1%
~ART.T.IH~..CRAF.TSM~9 ... .._ .. .. . - . . .._. _._.- -
71 328 315 967. 13 4% 31 8% 1 0% A 0 . 3 A 11
75 177 157 89% 20 11% 2u 11% 3 27. A 0 0 A 9
76 144 132 927. 12 8% 15 13% 2 1% 0 A 0 S 7
L_ .._ ~_-~_75-76 CHASGE_.. -33
71-76 CHANGE -184 -183 -4% -1 4% -16 1% 1 1% -2 0 -3 0 -4
PART TIME OPESATIVES
517 598 36/._19_. *4%__58.11%_.2 .._..o/._1__...0._..1__.A.__. 9 - 2%_
75 239 17-i 85% .80 14/. 18 3% .8 1% 6 2 .3. 7 ~%
76 162 145 90% 17 10% 2.8. 1.7. 1 1% 3 0 2 A 4 2%
75-76 0080513. -47 ~j'. 57 ~j3 -4% . 5 5% -2 07. -3 0 A 3 j5
.7176 CR8553. -355 ~3V3 _-67..._~Z_. 6%_~35._. ~~__~j_1%._._2_.0~_1 _.:l_~5_A9_
PART TIME LAVCI-iER7.
71 .118 105 89% 14 127. 5 `.7. 1 17. 5 1 1 0 3 3% 0 07. 16
75 ~)_~C52%._.9_i6%_ 4 p 0.0% ~ A 0 .0 2 4% 1 2%8
A ~3 7 7137. 2o% ~3 / ~0~l A6 jj%127. 9~
75-76 CHANGE ` 8~ 5% -2 -5% -2 --.7. 0 AT. -1 0 0 0. 4 70 0 07.
71-76 CHANGE -Sb -59 -1% -7 1% -3 8% 1 -1% -1 -1 I 3 8% 1 20 -7
.PARTTAMESEVVICEWC(K6RS --. ----..---- - -
71 233 190 82% 43 18% 73 31% 16 7% 0 0 2 5 8 3% 1
79 196 153 70% 43 227. 64 .13% 16 8% A I A A 6 3% 3
76-.- 191 155 _i1Z_.36_. 19%_7M_.41% ._. ~6 _5%_0 __0 1 E._ -. 2%_2.
75-76 CR1566 -5 2 .87. -7 -3% 14 8% U 0% -1 0 1 A -2 -1% -1
7176 CHAICGs -42 -35 -1% -7 1% 5 13% 0 1% A 1 -1 1 -5 -10 1
~ ~ 2~82~~
75 38M9 2677. 6,7. 1213 31% 39'. 13% . leE 5% 30 10 11- 13 131 3% 47
76 3942 2656 67% 1292 33% `.7.4 13% 219 6% 33 19 12 6 133 3% 49
I _________
71-76 CHANGE 243 -147. -5% 388 97. 78 17. 158 3% -3 7 A 4 55 10 25
A-2 - .\ --
PAGENO="0480"
A L L F 3 F L 3 9 E E S 8 L A C K OTIENTAL AMOK SCAM S'*400H
IUTOAFA AMURICAT ALL
TOTAL MALE FEMALE MAL FEMA LU MALU FEMALE MALE FEMALE TALE FEMALE MITAORITIFS
FULL TIME OFFICIALS +MANAM,E95 .
" 75 6411 `5553840 ``1056 160" 14! `MM 73 10 25612' ``97'7F~ 00"381 63~h
.5 76 6769 5565 828 1704 189 147 29 50 10 29 9 12 19 19 34 18 415 69
-. ` -. 75-76 CHAMUT 159 92 `-20 146 5 ` 01 05 09 6"~'5--"0 `~-1'~ 2 00' 6'lZ" 3400
FULL TIME PAOFTSSIOMALS
7510079 3106' 790'217 2210' 540 SM 306 39 4T35 30~31 235 23'' `72' 18'
76 10722 8249 773 2474 230 370 59 362 39 43 .42 31 15 213 23 77 10 1389 133
75'-76C9A410 `444' 142"'~20 302"ZE 30'" 0?" 36 `O0''--1-7' 1'~0 ~ 303104'55.
FULL TIME TECHMICIANS
75 `13000' 02473 76! * 519 40 877 ` 71 ` 73 19 "``98" 8 ~~`46 - 359 39'"13 U? `1490''SET
76 13080 12454 950 627 50 371 71 99 13 126 11 45 5 393 39 22 09 1663 139
- "`"75-76 CHEUCT'" 90 -29-0 1090!'"94 0? `21
FULL TIME SALES AORKEES
75' 29762562~65'414'14M"M1'3M' . 7*59*~~*45~45 1'.'"6"0l765~'6M"
76 3034 2353 840 481 169 56 31 31 15 7 4 4 2 55 28 10 09 009 7M
t''~5-76 CHANCE' 59" -9 ~37~~47~ 2! "13 *09 6 03**__*2_~*1_0**__*~**
FULL TOME OFFICE CLUEICAL
- ~*~75'~ 700~'E9910M'630~' 001" ~S8 "2? ` 773 - 35!59104534 `` 53'59 272 49"'34I7233
S C - - 3 29 6 ~ _~_~ _____~_~-._ __~~__~ - - - -. -1
FULL TOME CKAFTSMEM
75'' 1340 "1093' Fsr'"147'l1o "120 - 9? 15 `1!""3"'0"10 0 53****49 - ~*7*_ 03"7U4S53''~
76 1235 1006 893 132 51?. ISO 3' 16 10 3 5 9 0 49 49 4 0! 194 165
75-76 CHANUE".302 "-87 `00~'-15' 07 - 0? ~ 0'2''292'0E-S0'19f~
FULL TIME OPETATIVES
` 75590501' 88~71"12T 95*57?~ .15~ 75"5~2'r56"3M~0'07~3?233''~,
76 547 473 869 74 540 02 17' 10 2?. 7 2 2 1 29 59 0 ES 540 26'.
"~15-76CHA4O~-33 "~36''~7Z~ "2E'' -4' TI ` 0!' 2~tS"'O~"9 "2!0"0~~1~',
FULL TIME LATORERS
76 87 83 955 4 5! 23 OF? 1 39 1 0 0 0 4 55 0 3M 31 36?
- - ""75-76 OHARLCF -5 ` -6~'"1?.-2-S9 -. -1 `3V. -5 -10 -0"-E -~1"" 0" -3-20 0 0'~'-E"-39"",~
:~ FULL TIME SERVICE MOFUFES
75 ` 641'" 530' 831""11S' 17! -. 256 40?" ĥ5' `TS"i 0'3 3'-
75-76 CHAMGE .. ~ 05 - -: 05" -7 ~ ~:. ~ ;-- ~_~__:::_~::.__J':'
- *~75 42329 31724 730 10205 251 22905? ``1332 ~3 20213~11357"" ~
76 42083 31532 74! 11356 `.6?. 2411 EM 0521 4! 237 181 508 71 948 23 428 19 5952 143 j3
75-76 CHANCE ` 459 -92 -11 351 19 ` 119 13 171 19' , 35 24 -5 ` 14 65 0,. 33 03 456 19
A-3
PAGENO="0481"
A L I. F F P L 5 3 F F S F L C 6 ORIENTAL AMEMICAA SPANISH
INTIARA AMFATCAN ALL
TOTAL MALE FEMALE MALF FFMA LE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE 3*1 F FEMALE MINCMTTIFS
PART TIME OFFICIAL SAMANANEFS
75 53 - 32 605 21 400 - 4 MM 7 4M~0 O -- 0 0 -. I 20 - r-25 ~8 150 -.
71-76 CHANGE - 9 150 `-7 ~155 2 5! -S'-20'" 0' 0' 0 ~`0 -0- 0! ``~1-7OF0P.'
PAFT TIME PROFESSIONALS
75 1207 837 65! - 370 31! 526 10' 65 50' ~ `A -. 4 -`- 4 54 NT 13 1!~~~'273 730
76 1276 863 NFl 413 301 103 30' 76 65 9 9 6 0 NO 50 18 10 301 240
PART TIME TECH'AICIANS
75 1287 SINS 915 155 90 540 TiM 07 10 13 - 0 S *,7~ 44 3! 6 `00 `217 iMP
76 1325 1165 880 160 121 148 515 24 20 15 1 2 2 36 31 6 00 234 18!
- ` 75-76 CHANGF~S''-3 * 35 41" 3S"~ 8 50
FART TIME SALES ROFRERS
76 27 17 638 10 370 2 7! 1 40 0 0 0 0 3 55?. 1 AT 7 265 -
7S-76 CHANGE -4 -7-14! 3 140-2-NM t4T'~S 7'0'''T"~ 11
PART TIME OFFICE A CLERICAL
75 R93 220 251 670 750 3S 45 P4 35 `M 5'' 1 "7 - iN 21 3T131 255
76 906 201 200 705 780 31 35 103 120 N 10 1 4 20 25 26 30 207 235
` 75-76 CHAFIE `ON'. -53 -33 35 30' -4 -5? 25 ~ ```40!''~~05~6 5!
PART TIME CRAFTSMEN
75 336 170 585 24 125 21 13? 5 `30' O'0'~0 0 "`S `SO 5P 37"195 -
76 163 148 95! 15 9?. 18 SIP 4 21 S 0 1 0 5 58 0 0! 31 190
70-76 CHANGE -31 -22 35~~ 9' 35 -. `-3 0!" -1 -1S0~0'1'' 0" S0T~2~IT'-'00T'
75 213 158 86!' 31 14~-' `21 SE! 1 15 `N"~'00' 5'' 735
76 577 150 P30 13 110 23 55? 2 15 3 0 8 0 4 FT 1 15 35 205
- - - 7S-7N CHFFGE -40 -30 `35' -12 _35 0' 3? _5 - "0O~~1~ S ~`S' `~3-5!"~5~~45?
PART TIME LATOAEAS , .
76 SN AS 88! 7 635 2 A! 0 0! 0 0 0 0 - 6 111 1 20 9 565
PART TIME SEFRICE WORNARS .
75 - 210 -. 164 -785 ` 46- 225 - F5 125 - S5 -95---'--S-O--- 5' N 3! 3'l 9545T
76 206 163 300 45 20'. 79 35! 15 95 5 0 1 0 5 25 2 10 105 505
- . . - ` - 75-76C4N9I~"-N -1 TO ` -5 -2? S0" 7' ~ST ~ ----r ~1!' ~SS5'lTF!'
PART TIME TOTALS
75 `4141 2544' 69!. 1097 `30? ---423- 15? - 194 5592S0'IT' `53 142' 35 30 5587N ~
76 4158 2803 678 1384 331 432 TOP 235 65 33 20 13 N .143 30 55 11 937 225
70-76 CHANGE 48 -39 -OS 37 25 - 9 0' 65 15 1 10 1 -7 S 01 5 05 61 55
PAGENO="0482"
A L I E H P L I V E E S B I A C C ORIENTAL AMERICAN SPANISH
INDIAN AMFMTCAEA ALA.
TOTAL MALE FEMALE MAIM FEMALE MALE FAMAI N MAI N NEMALE MALE FEMALE MINORITIES
;~
PART TIME OFFICIALS H MANAGERS
~~-7rI3T26RZ~Z1iOtc0H
At
0
0 00120120 I 150
76 55
41 750 14 250 6 SIT 1 20
0
0 0 0 1 20 0 00 8
150
73~7ACHANGE2
9t7~13Z2C1~2S
.
.0 ~0~~M-0.-O0 ~
PART TI~E PROFESSIONALS
76 60
3 44 454 I0131!2737307
9 9 6 0 60 50 IN 10 301
.
240
76 1276 863 680 413 320 103 100
75-75 ORANGE &9 28-10 3 10 -3OZ l110 5 52 -4 610 500 20 10
PANT TINE TECHNICIANS
731287S16091011990140 S101710t3~05~ 2~44 3M 600227100
76 1315 1165 MHZ 560 120 140 515 24 20 15 1 2 7 36 30 6 00 234 180
~t5~Th-CV0NGF~153~3Z41308 OO-7~102T~30~W0Z0Tt 7 00
PART TIME SALES WORKERS
-----75-31247Ft723O~4130 00z~I U ~0~R 31000O0M25T~
76 27 17 630 10 370 2 75 1 . 40 0 0 0 0 3 110 1 40 7 060
--75.~T5CMANGE-4~-7ThZ3140~2AOIN'.~ -L ~~U05 10r40-l00
PART TIME OFFICE 4 CLERICAL
----75730220250670750 35~ 40 -- M4~~900~b1~71U . 2t~243Z1812O0~
76 906 201 220 705 780 31 30 105 120 6 10 1 4 20 20 26 30 207 230
~ -? N 0~3~40Z~20!7'A3R
PART TIME CRAFTSMEN
75 154 170 000 24 ~2Z2151~ -5-----3r--0000~ 9 55~3T37190
.
76 163 140 910 15 90 .58 151 4 20 0 0 1 0 0 50 0 OS 31 190
75-70OM000E-3122309303 O1~~-1-10 0 o
PART TIME OPERATIVES
~ --~75 21R-l00V6031~1402I100i~1O a o ~ 00
76 177 150 090 19 110 23 13? 2 1?. 3 0 2 0. 4 20 1 10 35 200
- ~ :.. 0 R~B-1S I ~lV42T
PART TIME LABORERS *
---------7,-5G---4r---M2'.-9-19'.-4~'00G 1 0 0 O2401~2G 0 T60
76 56 49 000 7 130 2 40 0 00 0 0 0 0 6 110 1 20 9 160
- ~ -1 . . 0-0-0'47V0020 ~
PART TIME SERVICE BOOKERS
~_------15-210tA4-1fiZ-9A-22Z6N52T1M9~ 0 U . 00-6-3031t9545
76 204 163 800 41. 200 79 390 19 90 0 0 1 0 0 20 2 10 105 51'.
FART TIME TOTALS
-,
00
76 4109 2005 670
- A-5 75-7A CHANGE 48 -39 -25
1384 33'. 432 30' 230 60 33 20 13 6 143
07 25 9 O~ 45 10 1 10 1 -7 1
30 55 1?. 937 220
0'. 5 00 61 10
PAGENO="0483"
479
L~
~ :I::!:~I::i:~:::~I:!
I -
IJ~
- I
I I
I I
~ ~
PAGENO="0484"
480
~
I I ~I I
I
I `1 I
!`~LL1LLLLJJħLLLLJiii
:J
[ILILJIf1I ~
PAGENO="0485"
481
r
I::T~I~:F:rIi:TI::L:T
I I I
I I. I
t:I ~
20-122 0 - 78 - 32
PAGENO="0486"
482
~
I I I
I I
I : I
I I I
I I
PAGENO="0487"
483
I
~
!i~i~ii~I1HH1i~T
I,. ~ I~1
I I I
- ~ ~
PAGENO="0488"
484
Li ~ ~
I.
I I~
I I
Ii Ii
I.
~
PAGENO="0489"
485
-
r J
I I
it
1
.1 I..1 I
~ ~
~
PAGENO="0490"
486
I Fl
Ij
ii
1111
Itt
PAGENO="0491"
487
~:~t::~t::Ltjmtm ~::i::i:~:i
~
0~ `~ I
~;:~IjLJ:LLLJ!ILLLj
I ~W~i
Ic
~
LLLL JLLJ.~L~.LL~LL LILLJ
PAGENO="0492"
488
~ ~,I
::r:~
I I I *I (I
ILLLI
kill
11:1.
L IL_LJL~LLJLILLJ~LLJJ~JJ
PAGENO="0493"
489
f
~
~ ~
~ LJ(V~ I
~
~t ~
I,'
I I I
~ ~z;~:
ZLIII i.~LL~J
PAGENO="0494"
490
T~T
~ ~!1i
~
Li I
_L
PAGENO="0495"
491
Ni I
I I
I I I
!i~iI~~Ii'~iTI I
.1 1
~
~ `;:~;;~;:~;:::1;~ :i~':;i:i
LL1L LILJIrJħIL ~
PAGENO="0496"
492
!:~LL!:LLLjj~9hJ iJ~ LU~IJj
i I I
.1
.1 j
II
II
I I I
.1 :
(I I 1 :. ;I II
PAGENO="0497"
493
*1 I
II
T
I. .1
i
LLLJJ~JILLLLJILLL tL]
PAGENO="0498"
494
I
!::L!:I:L:LULII:::iHj:IINU:i
~~LLL!~:!ħLLLLU~L LIHLJ~
I I
lilt i1~ilI 1
L.
PAGENO="0499"
495
I i~7~
I I
~
~
1 ~LLLLLOL1 ~LLLJ u IL u:ii
; ~ ~
1 I
I . :
~ LLL~L~LLIħIħ. ~
PAGENO="0500"
496
~
I 1
~
II' II
L L_LLLL
PAGENO="0501"
497
11~t1 i~
I. I I I I I I
11-i~-~
1 *1
LJ_LL~ 1~i~ 1i L LL~~ ~LJ
20-122 0 -78 -33
PAGENO="0502"
498
F
~
~::i~::E:!~!::i::i::i:~ :IT:~:i:1i~F~
I
I I I I I I I H
~ ~iittTTN1tii~i~t~1
~;iJL:Li!;'
filth
- ~Lj~1 JLLJ_J~L1~i
PAGENO="0503"
499
~ ~ c~
I
~
~. .1 i I
~
~~T7~i~1
F
~ ;~~i~i
Li J~J~J~L:
~
L_~L1rT:r.:EI:L:J!TLT:rJ11~*
PAGENO="0504"
500
~ r
L:~!:~Lll!1!i:~LLL!:I:LUJ
I.
JIIIIIIIIIIIJIUJIIII
~L~JJ1LLJ JIiL~Jiħ1L~LL~U1
PAGENO="0505"
501
~*
I ~
ii
I 1
~
IFI:J/:L:::J:J::LLJ:LJ::LJ:
I .1
~
PAGENO="0506"
502
App~mx B-TABLES-NON-COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS
CONTENTS
Table No. and Title Page
Table 1.-Nationwide television comparative report-i971, 1975, 1976.. B-i
Table 11.-Nationwide television comparative report-1975, 1976 B-3
Table ffl.-Proportion of minority employed in upper four job catego-
ries and total employment-full-time, station-by-station, 1976 B-5
Table IV.-Proportion of women employed in upper four job catego-
ries and in total employment-full-time, station-by-station, 1976 B-8
PAGENO="0507"
11/1~/I8
OIIIENTAL OMA./.ICON SPOAISH
tOTAL MALE FEMALF MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE 3AL~ FEMALE MALE FEMALE HIN3R101ES
FULL TIME OFFICTALS * MA52C~7T
~_7~~63 - 395~877.- 6~1)/.~ j_)7._ ~ - 8 __ZZ~
75 742 577 78/. 165 2~0 14 80 5 17. 3 1 2 0 OS 2 07. 32 40
78 76? 607 775 1.50 2.85 15 25 13 27. 4 2 3 0 7 10 2 02 46 62
FULL TIME PROFESSIONALS -
~ .Z.-~- 65
152 117
- ,,_,,,7j_773..._.24E._777._22O~_23~'____30__30'.~12
76 1830 586 647. 446 34/. 56 62 37 35 6 4 7 3 25 27. 1. 12
76 1305 917 6(5 468 347 66 57. 47 35 10 6 6 2 27 27. 10 12 174 167.
~ ~ 17U/._~~1 ~
27. 35 20 AU 4 1 14 15 5 00 109 60
71-76 CHANAF 412 160 -117. 243 115
FULL TIME TECHNICIANS
76 1745 1177 97/. 5M 55 98 77. 9 jY. 13 0 2 U 27 22 1 05 142 110
73 67. 91 70. 7 17. 13 1 2 U 32 35 2 US 148 122
76 1250 1207 945
?A~7t 75! 358 305 -4S 53 ~ 45 07. 615.1 12013AS2O~ £2.7
FULL TIME SALES wO0/.FPO
/8 12 1 8/. 11 920 0 JO 0 0/. 0 0 U I 0 05 U 00 u/.
07. 0 3/. 0 07. 0 U U 0 0 07. I OX U 05
76 1 1 1007.
fl0Z~~ I ~ 0Z~-AZ-
71-76 C5A)~.r -z -2 US 0 05 I 05 0 IS 0 A 8 8 0 07. 0 02 . U IX
-
FULL TIMT OFFICE + CLETICIL
-~ ~ 8 ~_-_.3..~~..0_-_~___1 -
75 459 61. 97. 628 915 14 07. 70 16/. U 0.1 I. 3 4 iS 21 .80 123 185
`05 665 917. 17 T/. 73 II'. 1 11 1 6 5 15 34 52 145 210 -
: 76 733 ~
I
* 71-76 CIIASAF 150 21 iS A29 -10 10 17. 34 37. 1 8 1 5 3 17. 30 42 92 102
FULL TOME_C9AFT~~,~_~36_~,13,84.0.~_~6Z~_.A7......O._I7..__.A__1__2_-~1__~t~~~___~02__~Z__~
4 6S A 05 14 200
* 75 6) 62 SOS 7 100 10 1.7. 0 05 0 0 0 U
* 76 `58 47 87/. 8 155 7 1)5 1 27. 0 0 0 0 2 67. 0 02 10 192
76-76 FOOMEF -16 -17 -6S 1 57. -3 -05 1 25 0 0 U U -2 - 7. 0 OS -4 -17
-1 -,
* FULL TIME OFERATSVFS
71 63 55 87,. 8 137. 12 187. 0 07. U 0 0 0 0 OS 0 02 10 190
* ~ U I
7E. 13 15 100/. 5 00 5 310 0 IX 0 0 0 0 1 87. 0 00 6 s62
-2 -100 -1 37. 0 IS 0 0 0 8 -1 -27. U 07. -2 67.
85 0 07. -6 270
-
*
76-76 CHAAC.F -7 . -5
71-76 CHONGE -50 -42 137 -M -137. -7 1-37. - 0 OX 0 0 0 U 1
MM/. 4 127. 9 275. 1 37. 0 I 0 0 0 07. U OX 10 300
FULL TOME LAMOPEMS
0 05 1 165 2 292
.
71 33
- 7c 7 6 367. 1 ~6S A 35 0 37. 0 0 0 U
76 4 1. 1087. 0 55 1 217. 0 IS 0 0 0 0 0 07. 0 02 1 250
75-76 CHANCE -3 -2 16/. -1. -147. 1 21/ 0 17. -i 0 I 0 0 IS -1 -142 -I 42
71-76 CHANGE -29 -25 12/. -4 -12S -M -TO -0 -JO I 0 0 0 0 07. 0 05 9 -52
~EAIU 7777 MF+ILOTT33235LS5
71 20' Is SOY. 2 lAS - ii 550 1 57. 0 U 0 0 0 05 U 05 12 660
75 31 26 M67. 5 18/. 06 455 2 65 I 0 0 0 1 30 0 00 07 550
* 76 JO 25 M8T 6 13/. 15 477. 3 97. 1 U U A 0 05 0 07. 13 597
G ~ 8
12 IA -25 2 37. 4 -95 2 47. 1 * 0 0 0 0 IX 0 IX 7 i2
18 2.____3)___1Z__~S___~_~2~T .-_-~-
1095058 8(7080 700 5514 COO) 718100115 . TABLE
ALL EMPLOYEES OLACA
C
70.
FULL TIME TOTALS 81
~ ~ ~ - ~. 1~
~ .___1N~J6..CiHA51E~__.163--AC-~--00-
.4 - - 71-76 CHOSAF 1095 576 -50
B-i
30
29
16
20
11
12
6 65 ~.. 39 12 690 075
8 74 27. 68 12 552 130
- 62_~1X
519~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~Z 955Z~~~~
PAGENO="0508"
* 7c-76r.810r.F a 27.' 007. V - --
71-76 CR5611 -47 -36 217. . -to -zox -2 -6/. -1 -27. -16
PORT TIME SERVICE WTVYFRS .
71 21 16767. 5 244 `6 2VX 1 67. 0 0 0 .0 1 57. 1 57. 9434
`75 36 28 TV'. 8227. .7157. 0 ox 0 a 0 a 1 37. 1 37. 9257.
76 24 17717. 7 TR< ,4177. 1 44 Q.. 0 0- 0 1 47. 1 47. 7280
75-T6CRVRGF -12 -15-77. -1 77. -3-27. 5 47. 0 0 5 0 018 0 ox -2 47.
O 71-76CROUr.E 3 1-07. 2 57. -2-137. 0-17. 0 0 0 `0 0-17. 0-17. -2-147.
6 7 25 26 50 1 1 2 9 1 0 16 1 12 1 120 ii'.l
-H 750338 8V5 667. 453 344 68 54 31 27. 15 7 0 -3 12 17. 12 17. 148117.
76 133T 23 62 57 3/ 53 4 25 2 24 8 0 5 16 1 5.5 14 19 1-5
S6MRVRT 60039T PT'. 6TH COOn STATIONS
PA!RT TIME LATTVrRS ~ 50 41 75/ 1~ 2~ -
0
a-
3 - V4R'~18O4 44 55 67. -15 -IX -3 07. - 9 1 0 2 4 0.. 16 1 US
-t - 71-76 CR0511 168 -41-127. 209 127. 3 37. 12 17. - 0 -1 -s 5 0 07. 3 05 01 04
-. - B-2 -
PAGENO="0509"
TABLE II r
SLBU.A1.A.R.2_RCFORT.F.CR NON-CCSM.__OTA.TIONS __...._.______.____.__ii/1.51_t'.-._ _*____ -
B L L E M P L Or 6 B S B L A C K ORIENTAL ArERICAN SPANISH
1 __________________ __________ _._..~QI..A14......A%%0VICAL.__.
TOTAL MALE FEBALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE PALE FEMALE HALL FEMALE MINORITI~A
FULL TINE OFFICIALS M7'AAGERS .
75 1077 853 795 224 21% 18 07. 13 17. 5 1 1 6 IA 2 0% 43 40
_________________Z6_1157.._9O5..?8%_052_.2CL__LT..__0.T.L_~_29_2%_-0--_.----_-...2~-~----5--~~~~~1 9 . i0~ ~ 67 . 60...
75-76 CHANCE 80 52 -15 28 17. 5 .3% 7 17. C 1 3 0 3 30 1 00 19 27.
FULL TINE FROFESSICNALS
75 2019 1322 655 697 35% 87 47. 58 37. 7 8 11 4 34 2% 19 1% 228 11w.
___________________ _2~_.1__?_~2~3__~
75-76 CHANGE III. 62 05 39 57. 5 27. 19 17. 7 . 5 1 2 3 0% -7 0% 29 17.
FULL TIME TECPNICINNS
75 1955 1841 945 114 67. 128 72 17 17. 18 3 6 I 37 2% 3 1% 212 11/.
ON 7% 139 7% 15 1.7. 18 ~ 3% 4 0% 273 01
-2 07. 0 -1 -3 1 8 05 1 2% 11 3%
6 137. 20 43'. 2 47. 0 1 C 1 2% 0. 6% 2. AIG
5 11% 21 47% 3 77. 1 0 0 C 0 2% 7. 0/. 25 56%
-1. -27. 1 45 1 37.* 1 0 -1 1 -1 -2% 0 ~% 1 52
75-76 CFANCE 62
FULL TINE SALES WO8HC5S
75 14
41 -05 21 17. .7 . 27.
3 217. 11 I 37. 0 07. 0 0 0 0 0% 2 17.
-- _._.............._11iOS_._...L_.A7_.J.__S~0_.0.._..97._.L____.Q~__0 ..__%__.P~.___°_.~
75-76 CHANGE -13 -2 795 -11 -795 I 37. I OS I 0 0
FULL TINE OFFICE + CLEPICAL
75 1112 121 11% 991 89% 26 0% 127 11% 0 23 0
75-76 CHANCE 78 16 .15 62 -17. 1 0% 5 0% 1 -2 1 2
FULL TINE CRAFTSMEN
75 109 N9 915 10 9% 14 13% 5 0/. C I 1 1
1 ~ ... ..-_._
C 0 I -1
75-76 CHANGE -23 -24 -45 1 4% -3 1% 1 17.
FULL TINE CFERATI5EO
~0 75 45 62 93% 3 7% 11 247. 0 07.
75-76 CHANCE 8 -6 6% -2 *-4S -1 3% I 07.
FALL TINE LAUCRERS ~. . . S
75 15 03 87% 2 13% ~. 3 237. 0 07.
11 N N 122/ 0 5% N 56% 0 0%
UI
.0 0%
1 0 05 0 00 7. 30.
6 10 1% .37 35 232 21%
8 13... 15 46 `.0 2.7 20%
0 07. 9 1% 17 0%
5 50 U 07. 21 19%
2 2% 1 0% 15
-3 -3% 0 0% -â -20
0 . 2 47. 0 1% 13 292
I 1 3% 0. 0% 11 .8.7.
C -1 -1% 0 3% -2 1%
1 1 77. 1 7% A 537.
1. 0 00 0 0% 5 56%
o -1 -7% -1 -77. -3 3%
C 0 I
75-76 CHANGE -6 -4 135 -2 -13% 2 35% I 0% -3 0 0
FULL TIME SERVICE HCRKERS
75 47 41 577.
76 45 40 84%
75-76 CHANGE -2 -1 25
B-3
FULL TINE TCTALS
3 *0 0
36 Pr I? `.6 7% .,7 1% 703 020
PAGENO="0510"
~...IA A&LE.EO T FCR NON CC ITATICN$_________________ - - _____j1 IA_7 - - -
A I I. 0 N P 1. 0 9 E E S B L A C K ORIENTAL APERICAN SPANISH
________________ ___________ £6SIAN A.'IERICAN . S~.
TOTAL PALE FEPALE MALE FEMALE . MALE FEMALE MALC FEMALE TALE PAtIALE MIAAAXO0CS
PART TIME OFFICIALS V HAAAGERS . .
756CHANGE32-AS5RS12S000101 o i 2S izx -i -27.
PART TINE ~
75 441 204 607. 177 401 19 sC 12 30 1 1 1 7 13 37. 12 35 . 66 155
7~__!90__2RS_..58S__?O5_.._42T...._ TO V~__I2~_ 2/.___2_...~ A 3 ~__6l_15_ 3Z__A3
75-76 CHANGE 49 21 -21 28 25 1 05 0 -IX 1 2 -i -4 15 3S 3 0% 17 27.
PART TIME TECINICSISS . .
75 635 531 841 104 165 31 5% 6 1% 4 0 0 I 7 IX 4 1% 52 AZ
0 _.__7.6_j.6_~?9...Bp0~.....I~...ZIX 29 ~.L__.1.__I5_.J___i_L.___..L___1.._1%..._.._i_...~%.. 49
75-76 CHANGE 28 -2 -43. 30 45 -2 -15 -1 5% 4 0 4 1 -2 IX 1 0% -3 -1.0
PART TIME SALES WORKERS
.75 4 . 0 . 05 4 1055 0 3% 0 05 C S 1 1 0 05 7 OS I 257.
75-76 CHANGE -4 AO5-4-~ IS~Z -: . I -25~
PART TIME OFFICE N CLERICAL . .
75 361 RH 245 275 765 7 2% 24 75 4 6 0 1 0 . 05 . 5 1% 49 147.
__________ 76 357 70 200 207 815 7 2% 07 55 7 A 0 2 1 05 5 17. 47 137.
75-76 CHANGE -4 -16 -41 12 45 . -T -27. 3 0 0 3. 1 05 . 0 0% -2 -iS
PART TIME CRAFTSMEN . . . . .
75 150 67 677. 33 335 4 40 2 27. 1 0 0 C S ST A ~5 7 7*
~ 0 2 1_~__O_qZ 27 253
75-76 CPANGE 9 A 25 1 -2% -G -13. . 2 27. 15 1 0 2 1 IS 0 Cl 20 lAO
ART TIME OPERATIVES
3 20 0 AZ 27 15X*
2 1% . 05 3... 1~Z
-1 -15 S 05 -13 -5%.
_______ _______ -
75-76 CHANGE 5 5 IX S AS 1 14% 0 AZ C 0 I 0 1. 14% I 30 2 290
0 A 0 1 33 1 37. - 9 3.0
_______________ - -. - - - 5 0 *G 1 30 1 3% 8 37%
0 I C 3 IX A AZ -3. 2%
10 3 11 24 1% 22 10 215 120
7.2 - 4 A 41 20 27 1% 233 t.AZ__
75 176 140 805 36 205 Ii 6% 2 15
76 65.6 tOq 75% 37 252 8 5% 1 10
U'
C
75-76 CHANGE -30 -II -57. 1 55 -3 -110 -I 0% -4 1 -t -2
7 3. 1 2
3 0 0 2
PART TIME SERVICE WCRKE~
75 3M 30 793 5 21% 7 12% 5 55 C
1)7 76 30 23 772. 7 233 5 171. 1 37. C
.75-76 CHTNGE -R -7 -25 . -7. 25 -2 -IX 1 37. C
PART TIME TOTALS
B-4 75 1058 1164 641. 644 365 81 -.5 46 37. 18
76 1056 1140 615 716 395 74 ~/.: 42 25 28
PAGENO="0511"
--
~ I I I
.1 : 1'
I I
I I U J C
I400LL0~ L000001LL~ ~J
oL oLoo~eoLojoooLoLooLooLooLooLooLooLooLooLooLooLooLooL:
000 0 0'~ L 000
~ ~
~
*1
Loc
PAGENO="0512"
- - - - -
* I I. I .
~
1.. 1.
II
I I :
I 1 I ! I I
t' L0L0
~L~LOLOLLLJaOLaOLLLJ J 0~L i L0i0~L
JLJ J ~ J L LJ~ *
:E~~I1Ij:1~L*.:LJ:_LJL:L :L~fLT
Soc
PAGENO="0513"
509
I T I i i~ P
11 J L
fl
I I* I
11 I,
PAGENO="0514"
510
~JO~JOJ~LLLLLJOOLNJ~ ~JJ~JOOJ)~OJ~
~
~io I
III
~jlIJj:~II
I I
- ~
PAGENO="0515"
511
:~0eio0~00d0000Iİ0I00000c00ic0Ic0T0~,000~000I000Ic00le0d1
1" I I~
K
:00c~::c:~i:::: :L:0~:I::L0::J:
K~KJKLKKJKKKJKKKKKKJKK
~3IIIIIIIIIfIIrLffII[
~ ~ K;;> ;;; ;;~;;; ;;;;n ;;;;;r:1;& r
oc
*1
1 : I
PAGENO="0516"
512
________ - I
i:::J:~ ~~:i:
~ :: c:
-~ ~0~0i°°i0~i00iT0 ~OOO ~~OOC~OOO i00I~~i
1
I
~LJ~ L
I i
I-,
I I
r