ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

"It is my belief that WMCA has not put any feature on the air in the last two years that has achieved a greater acclaim or a wider popular response. There is a real desire on the part of the listening public to hear the debates in the halls of Congress. . . . I have not heard one adverse criticism . . . of our dramatization of the Congressional Record."

Thus, both reason and experience prove that broadcasts of Congressional debates would be a strong weapon in the armory of democracy. It would educate, enlighten, and inform the people, and result in a more responsive and responsible electorate during the crucial years to come.

[blocks in formation]

J. Edd McLaughlin, Executive Vice-President. Security State Bank and Trust Company; Past International Director, Ralls, Texas

To wire the halls of Congress for sound would be to encourage a senseless, disruptive scramble for the microphone which could destroy what dignity our lawmaking bodies now possess. Weak members, hoping to sound large in the ears of the home folks, would vie for the floor, expanding grandiloquently on narrow themes of purely home-State interest. Surely this would be true if a legislator's votes came mainly from one class-such as farm, labor, or industry. 'Twould be a field day for crackpots and for masters of the meaningless phrase.

With the limited audience appeal which Congressional broadcasts would soon prove to have, no commercial broadcasting company could long afford to carry the feature. Would that then lead to a Government-owned broadcasting system? From there to a Government propaganda system would be but one step—the most misguided one my country could take

WOULD TIE LOOSE TONGUES

Wesley Hayes, Manager, Federal Security Board, Olympia, Washington To the degree that it would promote careful speeches, I favor the broadcasting of Congressional sessions. No man can in fairness find much fault with simple windiness or silvery oratory-these are the prerogatives of any legislator who (foolishly, I think) chooses to exercise them. But every American has a right to demand responsible, factual statements from the man who represents him in the nation's highest legislative chambers.

Would a Senator or Representative be likely to "go off half cocked" if he knew 10 million or 100 million citizens were listening to him? Not very. Petty tirades, personal puffing, and partisan sniping would fall before the public demand that the gentlemen get down to business.

NOTHING COULD BE DULLER

J. Raymond Tiffany, Lawyer; Past International Vice-President, Hoboken,

New Jersey

Before me as I write is my current binder of the Congressional Record. I have opened it at random-to the proceedings of the House for April 18, 1945. Here is a summary of what I find there:

Prayer. Pan American Day resolution. Printing additional copies of President's address. Extension of remarks (q.v. appendix for complete speech). Tribute to radio industry. Tribute to Ernie Pyle. Extension of remarks. Correction of the record. Inflammable material in boys' cowboy suits. Treasury-Post Office appropriation bill with a long roll call following reading of the bill in much detail. Deficiency appropriation bills. Naval appropriation bill. Report on leaves of absence and enrolled bills signed. Time consumed: 5 hours and 10 minutes.

What kind of a broadcast would that have made! Yet it was typical of Congressional routine; it is what you would hear day after day if the proposal discussed here were to carry (and if you had the patience to listen).

Then, too, there are such questions as: Which house would you "air" when both are in session concurrently? Both? Would you then tie up two wave lengths? Who would handle the broadcasting-private stations or Government stations? If the latter, how would you prevent political abuses? But why go on? What ever merit the idea has in theory would be completely lost in practice.

[blocks in formation]

Chester M. Knight, YMCA Secretary, Hornell, New York

One gain the broadcasting of Congressional proceedings would almost certainly record would be the elimination of that foolish, childish, antiquated institution known as the Alibuster. No legislator, knowing that his constituents and millions of other Americans were hanging upon his words, would dare to rise and read books and magazines hour upon hour merely to hold the floor.

But that would be a somewhat negative gain. A positive one would be that the broadcasts would increase popular knowledge of democratic processes, From that would come increased interest-a condition we must encourage at every turn if we want democracy really to work. Properly timed, the broadcasts would greatly aid parents, teachers, clergymen all individuals and groups that are trying to develop an intelligent informed citizenry.

[graphic]

SHOULD A MAN DROP WORK?

A. Dean Greenlee, Egg-Products Distributor, St. Louis, Missouri One of many complications which make the broadcasting of Congressional sessions impracticable is the matter of timing. When the two chambers convene, it is noon in Washington-but 9 A.M. in San Francisco. If adjournment comes at 5 P.M., it is only 2 o'clock on the Pacific Coast. At these hours business and professional men in the West and throughout the nation-the very men who, if anyone, might have the desire to hear Congress through are at their desks hard at work. Even an outstanding speech could not easily be timed for the proper listening periods.

That the workings of Congress are by their very nature too complex and undramatic to make good listening is another point, and that the proposed broadcasts would slight the many earnest Congressmen who labor fruitfully but quietly in committees is still another but the problem of timing alone is suffcient to end further consideration of the proposal.

[graphic]

DON'T WORRY, THEY'LL LISTEN!

Percy Hodgson, President, Parkin Yarn Mills; Past International Director, Pawtucket, Rhode Island

It is true that with a bit of effort any American can obtain a copy of the Congressional Record, but how many do? Yet present that same material in the spoken voice and they will listen. On paper, the American Forum of the Air and the Town Meeting programs might make dry reading-but put them on the air and you know what happens. Millions tune in every week.

In the proposal to "air" Congress I see an opportunity to develop that informed public opinion we speak so much about and do so little to realize. And informed, we shall be better able to choose leaders competent to weigh and enact our wishes.

COUNT THE COST!

Walter T. Helms, Superintendent of Schools, Richmond, California

Those who support the plan to broadcast Congressional proceedings are fond of citing New Zealand as an example. With all credit to that splendid little Dominion and the apparent success it has made of its legislative broadcasts, I consider the instance somewhat beside the point.

What we in America have to decide is what we need and want in America. Here in our national legislature most of the real work is done in committee chambers. What you would hear were you to tune in to an average session of House or Senate would be largely routine decisions taken on that committee work-about which you would know little or nothing. To broadcast those formal proceedings, which have great significance but do not sound like it, would be to reduce popular respect for our lawmaking institutions.

We have representative government because we have men of experience who are willing to make sacrifices of time and money to speak in our behalf, Let's not force those men, most of whom are modestly trying to do a good job, to become rich-voiced, empty-headed radio actors.

Perhaps New Zealand with its 11⁄2 million people does it cheaply and well. More power to it! We with our 189 million could not do it without far greater cost than it is worth.

DEMOCRACY OVERDONE

R. P. McWhinnie, Registrar, University of Wyoming; Past District

Governor, Laramie, Wyoming

[graphic]

Three of many reasons why I deem the proposal to broadcast Congress unnecessary and impractical are:

1. It overdoes democracy, in attempting to utilize it in the marginal area of diminishing returns, where its cost is greater than its benefits.

2. It encumbers the process of lawmaking, putting members of Congress in the position of having to take time to justify every minor contention, particularly among partially informed and overly argumentative listeners.

3. It is hardly practical for the average man, whose time for radio listening is limited. Press, Congressional Record, and radio reports supply all information more conveniently for the man who works for a living eight or more hours daily.

WELL WORTH A TRY

Paul Eugene Ehly, Olergyman, Pratt, Kansas

It would pose mechanical problems; it would cost considerable money; it would be subject to abuse as all good things are but putting Congress on the air would be worth all this expense if it did just this one thing: if it instilled in the generation now in knee pants and pigtails a new respect and a heightened interest in the processes of that body. The Congress of the United States is something more than mere raw material for cartoonists and smart satirists.

"Listening in" from their schoolrooms, the children of the United States might begin to understand that it is the most important single assemblage of men in the nation. And, seeing where it falls short of its mark, they themselves may not many years hence do something to correct the aim.

I do not say that broadcasting Congress will succeed. I only say that we will not know until we have tried.

[graphic]

IT'S A QUESTION OF TRUST

Howell G. Frans, Furniture Manufacturer; Past District Governor,
Two Rivers, Wisconsin

I do not favor broadcasting Congressional proceedings. Now, I am in favor of radio publicity for special events, such as an address to the Congress by the President of the United States or by some outstanding guest. As representatives of the people, Congressmen are expected to use their good judgment on matters that call for sound thinking and thorough consideration. The work of Congress is behind the scenes, and the stage is set before final action is ever taken.

The reasons for arriving at a certain decision cannot be explained in a single speech nor by a group of speeches. Much can be covered up, and even though the public might arrive at a decision on any one matter, it still remains for the member of Congress to make the decision that he thinks is right in the light of his own judgment and conscience, with regard to not only the present picture, but the future. I believe that publicity can only weaken his power and right to decide.

[graphic]

[From The Congressional Record]

BROADCAST OF CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I think the whole country was very much influenced and delighted by being able to hear over the radio the proceedings of the two great national conventions. I have been immensely impressed by the number of people who after our convention was held have made reference in talking to me to some detail of the convention which they had heard over the radio. I think the millions of people of the country remained close to their radios to hear the proceedings of both conventions because they knew that there the policies of

their Government were being determined. Because the people are interested in the democratic processes, and because the radio brought the conventions almost into the homes and the public places of the country the proceedings of the conventions had a profound influence upon the thinking of our people.

Mr. President, it has seemed to me for some time a project worthy of consideration as to whether the proceedings of the Congress might be broadcast to the people of the country. Surely the people of this country are sovereign. Surely all of us regard ourselves as their spokesmen. We are all trying to serve their objectives and their great purposes. If they could by the marvel of the radio be brought, as it were, as the visitors in the galleries are privileged to be, to be witnesses of the deliberations of their Representatives and Senators in Congress, I believe it would be in furtherance of the democratic process.

So, Mr. President, I introduce and ask to have appropriately referred a joint resolution authorizing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I bespeak for the joint resolution the consideration of my colleagues in the Senate. It is not contended that the joint resolution is perfect in form. It does not contemplate the setting up of any Government-owned facilities. It does direct the Architect of the Capitol to aid the broadcasting companies in the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 145) authorizing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives, introduced by Mr. Pepper, was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Rules.

February, 1974

PRELIMINARY REPORT

Prepared for the Joint
Committee on Congressional
Operations

Reaction and Evaluation of "Today in the Legislature" by Legislators, Capital Press and the Public*

By

David J. LeRoy
Director

C. Edward Wotring
Associate Director

Communication Research Center
The Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306

*This study was designed and executed in corroboration with Dr. Jack Lyle, Communication Research Office, Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Funds for this study were made possible by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »