5. (a) Ed Morgan makes frequent commentaries on Congress and its various aspects including proposed reforms. Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith also often discuss Congress' effectiveness. (b) No. 6. I really don't feel qualified to make any suggestions on this point. 8. Automatic access for cameras to any committee session or hearing which is otherwise "open". Actually, these are rules of the Senate and House, not of the Galleries. 9. I can't pass up this chance to argue for workable space in the Senate gallery. 10. This probably would call for a four-camera unit requiring augmented lighting. It's almost impossible to provide cost figures without a survey, because conditions are always changing on us. I am certain the three commercial networks would be happy to undertake a cost survey if desired. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. Hon. LEE METCALF, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. CBS NEWS, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1974. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I apologize for the delay in answering your queries of May 8. It is due, in part, to a change of command in this bureau and the subsequent, temporary, confusion such a change engenders. Anyway, here are the answers: 1. We have no records which indicate requests we have made for coverage, or if the requests were granted. What we can furnish you, if it will help, is a list of House and Senate committees and subcommittees which we have covered. Many of these were open to cameras, of course, at the chairman's ruling and not necessarily at our request. Please let me know if you want such a list. 2. Yes, is the answer; and the instances, I am told, are too numerous to list. 3. No. 4. Yes. Most notably House Ways and Means and full Senate Judiciary. 6. We do not, and feel uncertain whether it is something we, as news gatherers and distributors, should suggest. 8. Our first suggestion is to open all hearings and floor debate for complete coverage. Also, we would suggest more generous permission and latitude to do interviews and stand-up on camera pieces both inside and outside the Capitol. 9. Space, space, space. More space. Needless to say, we would pay out-ofpocket costs for decorating and other expenses associated with such expansion. 10. We cannot estimate such a project without an extensive survey and we would be reluctant to engage in such a survey until such time as a test, as outlined, was a concrete prospect. Any lag, of course, between survey and actuality tends to outdate the survey data, so a survey held now would be invalid should such a test be scheduled next year, for instance. I hope I have been of some help, and again, I apologize for the delay. Yours truly, SANFORD SOCOLOW, Vice President. RICHARD W. JENCKS, VICE PRESIDENT, CBS BROADCAST EDITORIALS-ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS Hon. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CLEVELAND: When CBS President Arthur R. Taylor testified before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations last month, you asked him to furnish information regarding editorials broadcast by CBS calling for the opening of legislative proceedings to broadcast coverage. I enclose for your information both a chronology and a set of transcripts of various editorial broadcasts by CBS dealing with this subject. This editorial material is of course in addition to the considerable hard news and documentary coverage, on both a network and local basis, which has been broadcast through the years dealing with particular legislative issues, as well as interviews with Members of Congress touching on the subject. The enclosed material includes both radio and television broadcasts and goes back as far as 1954. I think you will find it consistently representative of the view that Mr. Taylor expressed in his testimony, namely that free access of broadcasting microphones and cameras to the legislative proceedings of government is the best way to help broadcast journalism professionals provide what is worthy of public interest. With all good wishes, Hon. LEE METCALF, RICHARD W. JENCKS. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the course of testimony by Arthur R. Taylor, President of CBS, before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations last month, Representative Cleveland requested information as to editorials broadcast by CBS on the subject of access to legislative proceedings. A copy of Mr. Taylor's response to that request is enclosed herewith for the Committee's information. With all good wishes, RICHARD W. JENCKS. CBS BROADCAST EDITORIALS ABOUT ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS August 26, 1954. CBS President Frank Stanton delivered an editorial on the CBS Radio and Television Networks, dealing with a ruling that a Senate committee hearing on censure of Senator McCarthy (R., Wis.) would not be open to broadcast coverage. The editorial urged that broadcasting be allowed to cover legislative proceedings. March 11 & 14, 1966. WCBS-TV New York broadcast an editorial calling for "full access to Senate procedures" in the New York State Legislature, and seeking similar access to City Council sessions. January 18, 1967. KMOX Radio St. Louis broadcast an editorial defending the broadcasters' right to uncensored coverage of legislative proceedings. December 9, 1972. KMOX-TV St. Louis broadcast an editorial entitled "Open the Doors," supporting a bill requiring open meetings of all public agencies in the State, and commending the idea that legislative proceedings be open. May 30 & 31, 1973. KNXT Los Angeles broadcast an editorial protesting the closing of a California State Senate hearing to television cameras. July 10, 1973. WCAU-TV Philadelphia broadcast an editorial entitled "Let's Get Government Out into the Open" opposing "closed door executive sessions" of legislative bodies. July 30, 1973. WCAU-TV Philadelphia broadcast "It's Time to Follow Florida's Lead," an editorial urging other states to adopt Florida's "sunshine law" that all meetings of public agencies be open to the public. September 10 & 11, 1973. KNXT Los Angeles broadcast an editorial urging that U.S. Senate and House floor proceedings "open up for cameras and let every American see what goes on." December 20, 1973. KMOX-TV St. Louis broadcast an editorial praising the Missouri Attorney General's outlawing of "secret meetings of public bodies." January 4 & 5, 1974. WCBS Newsradio New York broadcast an editorial reiterating its long-standing position that all legislative committee meetings be open to the public. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Caution: For release in morning papers of Friday, August 27 and thereafter Good evening. This is to be a CBS Editorial. I am Frank Stanton, President of the Columbia Broadcasting System, and I am speaking for CBS. In accord with our policy of fairness and balance in the discussion of public issues and at our invitation, Judge Harold R. Medina, who disagrees with our point of view, will appear one week from tonight at this same time over these facilities. On next Tuesday, August 31, in Washington, D.C., an historical event will take place: A special six-man committee of the Senate will open hearings on the resolution to censure Senator McCarthy. This will be the first time in over two decades that the issue of censuring a Senator will be before the Senate. Reporters will be there. A small number of other people who happen to live in Washington or can afford to journey to our capitol and can squeeze into the hearing room will be there. But you of the radio and television audience will not be there. This is because it has been ruled that although the hearings are open, radio and television -and hence you listeners and viewers-may not enter. You will be barred from hearing and seeing part or all of these proceedings in your own homes. This means that you can learn about these proceedings by reading what somebody has written about them or by listening to what somebody says about them. But you cannot hear them and see them firsthand over radio and television for yourselves. That is why I am here this evening. We at CBS, and we think all broadcasters, believe that this prohibition hurts you. We believe that the ruling is wrong and raises some very fundamental issues. Radio and television comprise the newest kind of journalism—electronic journalism, which is a vital part of the press and thus its freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. By bringing the governmental processes back from Washington to the people themselves, wherever they may be, electronic journalism is playing an important part in permitting a citizen to exercise his basic right to be informed-to know what is going on. Radio and television, by letting people see and hear for themselves—by having enlarged the hearing room, so to speak-have greatly quickened the people's interest in, and knowledge of, the governmental processes. In that way, radio and television are contributing to a better government because as James Madison long ago said, “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." Yet this rule which would keep you out on these hearings turns its back on the contributions which electronic journalism can make. It shuts off your radio speakers and darkens your television screens and commands "Thou shall not hear or see.' This is a drastic prohibition. We believe that those who support it have a very heavy burden in trying to establish that the evils of radio and television coverage are so great that they justify keeping you from seeing your government in action. They have failed to establish that there are such evils. We do not think that this ban arises from bad faith. We think rather that as far as legislative hearings are concerned, the ban comes because of confusion and misunderstanding arising out of the fact that radio and television coverage are still something of a novelty. Legislators and others are not quite used to radio and television and have not yet learned to accept them for what they are. This is no different historically from what happened to the press itself. The legislatures in the early days of American history did not open their debates to the public. In the first sessions of Congress the presence of newspaper reporters was either forbidden or allowed without official recognition. It was not until 1794 that newspaper correspondents were admitted to the galleries of the Senate. Even as late as 1841, the Senate attempted to limit coverage of its proceedings to one official group of reporters, excluding all others. I am sure that many of the same reasons were advanced then for keeping out newspaper reporters that are advanced now for keeping out radio and television. I am sure that there were those who argued that the presence of newspaper reporters whose words were read by millions of people, created distractions, prevented the orderly conduct of business, and caused the legislators to think less about the business at hand than to think, literally, of "playing to the galleries." Similarly, today's arguments against broadcasting coverage of legislative hearings just don't hold water. The first argument is that radio and television encourage spectacles, create a circus atmosphere, cause legislators and other participants to misbehave and generally rob the hearings of a "judicial atmosphere." Let us get the facts straight. These are not judicial court proceedings. These are proceedings of the legislators-our elected representatives engaged in the public business of making laws directly affecting you and me. Issues as far reaching and as grave as this are most certainly our business. After all, radio and television hear and see exactly what happens. They don't create spectacles or circuses. They don't compel people to show off or misbehave. They are the public's mirrors reflecting things exactly as they are. To blame radio and television for blemishes or excesses makes no more sense than to blame a mirror because you do not like the reflection which you see in it. We would remind those who say that radio and television are responsible for circuses and spectacles that the midget sat on J. P. Morgan's knee during a Senate hearing long before there were any television cameras around. And if legislators find it impossible to behave themselves or measure up to their obligations when the public is looking in, the remedy is not to bar the public. Once the public has had an opportunity to see and hear for itself, we think that we can count on the public to reach its own conclusion. The second main argument against radio and television coverage is that physically they are obtrusive, noisy and disturbing and that they create a disorderly atmosphere in which it is hard to concentrate and hard to tell the truth. Let us just examine that claim for a few moments. First, there are already a number of distractions wholly apart from radio and television. Forget radio and television for the moment and consider what a witness at a legislative hearing faces. The chances are he has been given a subpoenawhich in itself can be a rather disturbing experience. He must face the crowds in the hearing rooms, the dozens and sometimes hundreds of reporters coming in and out; he must face the microphones of the public address system, the blinding flash bulbs of photographers, the questions of counsel and committee members, and the knowledge that what he says and how he looks will be spread across the land for millions to see. Add radio and television to all this, and there is only one more element. But it is not an obtrusive one. Let me show you what is involved. There are five different ways of covering legislative hearings for broadcasting purposes. One way is by live radio coverage-that is, broadcasting the proceedings exactly as they occur and at the time they occur. This involves absolutely no additional equipment or personnel in the hearing room. The microphones which are used for the public address system are enough to pick up the sound for radio. Physically, there is absolutely no difference in a hearing room which is being covered by live radio broadcasting and one which is not. Exactly the same is true of the second method of radio broadcasting-tape recording. Such broadcasts at a later time can air either the entire proceedings the way that they occurred or only the most interesting or important parts. The process is precisely the same except that wherever the telephone wires bring the sound, a tape recorder takes it down many miles from the hearing room. Now about television: One way to cover a hearing by television is by live broadcast-that is, to use live television cameras in the hearing room and pick up the hearings as they occur. As in the case of radio, these hearings can be, and often are covered by networks on a pooled basis so that a total of only two or at most three live cameras are necessary for all the networks. Each camera has one cameraman. A single camera set-up, consisting of one cameraman and one camera, requires space about equal to the space needed by two newspaper reporters. By using special lenses the cameras can be located in the rear of the room and a partition or screen can shield the cameras so that the participants will hardly be aware of their presence. There is no additional noise created by the presence of television cameras. And contrary to what is generally understood, there are no hot and glaring lights for live television coverage. Ordinary room lights found in the rooms where legislative hearings take place have been demonstrated to be sufficient. As far as the sound or voice part of television is concerned, it is the same as for radio-nothing need be added to the hearing room. Thus, as far as live television coverage is concerned, there is no justification for a ban based on extra space, extra noise or extra lighting, because there are none. The same is true for the second method of television coverage-what we call kinescoping or television recording. This is accomplished by covering the hearings in their entirety as they occur with live cameras as I have just described. The pictures are then transmitted to New York where they appear on a picture tube from which in turn they are photographed on film. At a later time, this television recording can then either be broadcast in its entirety or it can be edited to include only the most important parts for later broadcast. Obviously, this method presents no more problems in the way of noise, lighting or space than does live coverage, since the method of taking pictures in the hearing room is precisely the same. And I would like to point out to those who say that this kind of television detracts from the decorum and dignity of the proceedings that the British Coronation and religious ceremonies inside churches have been televised in this way without disturbing the solemnity of the occasion. Now we come to the third method of coverage for television broadcasting. This is the method which uses regular film cameras, not electronic television cameras, to make pictures for later broadcast. Here it is true that in the present state of the art-which we believe will be only temporary-some extra lights are necessary and there is some noise which comes from the operation of the film camera. But let me make it perfectly clear first, that whatever disadvantages there are arising from this method can hardly be used as an excuse for prohibiting the first four methods, and second, in any event these difficulties involving film cameras are not anything which television has added. Broadcasters use the same film cameras which the newsreels have used for many years. Newsreel cameras have been allowed to cover legislative hearings in the past-before television came along. So whatever distractions film cameras might cause, the Congress seems to have lived with them in the past. In fact, during the last 15 months, CBS News has on some 85 different occasions covered Congressional hearings by film camera, yet there was no outcry and no great difficulty. If the disturbance caused by film cameras were as bad as some people would have you believe, it seems to me that they would have been banned from legislative hearings long ago—yet their presence was taken for granted. And as in the case of live television coverage, I would call to your attention that film cameras have, without intruding, covered such solemn events as the memorial services for Senator Taft in the rotunda of the Capitol and the consecration of a Bishop at St. Patrick's Cathedral. So much for the technical details. At this point we want to emphasize that the right to cover legislative hearings for broadcasting necessarily carries with it the freedom of choice as to what method of radio or television coverage to use. The form of coverage must depend on the circumstances. Nobody would suggest that newspapers should be deprived of the right to cover legislative proceedings simply because a few of them sometimes choose to print the entire testimony while most others print only summaries. All we ask is the same choice for radio and television. But it is not the broadcasting industry's interest in this matter which concerns me chiefly this evening. The larger issue raised by the Senate committee ruling transcends personal considerations, whether yours or mine. This is a complicated world in which we live and there are many difficult problems that all of us must face and do our share to resolve. That is part of our privilege of citizenship. But if you and I are to help make this a more orderly, peaceful and happy world, we must first have the facts on which we can base intelligent action. In a democracy our best protection against the uncertainties of the future is that we know what is going on, that we are informed. It is the informed people which in the long run makes the wise decision and reaches the sensible conclusion. I can only leave it to your own judgment whether some of the events which television and radio have covered in their own way-the explosion of the hydrogen bomb, the national political conventions, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth and the Army-McCarthy hearings-have contributed to your personal awareness and understanding of history in the making. I believe they have. But radio and television cannot continue to play their rightful role in electronic journalism if they are not allowed to do so. We at CBS earnestly believe that in |