IV. CORRESPONDENCE U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, Hon. LEE METCALF, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: It has been brought to my attention that an erroneous statement concerning the rules governing the anchoring of media broadcasts of the hearings held by the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities was submitted during testimony before your Committee on February 21, 1974. I wish to take this opportunity to inform you of the guidelines which governed the anchoring of such broadcasts during the course of the hearings. I make this statement in my capacity as the Deputy Chief Counsel of the Select Committee and as the immediate supervisor of the day-to-day workings of the hearings. While no live anchoring was permitted during the Committee sessions, network commentators were allowed to be present in the hearing room during the course of the hearings and were allowed to broadcast directly from the hearing room both before the start of the hearing sessions and after the close of the sessions. In addition, Josh Darsa of National Public Radio was allowed to conduct interviews and provide live commentary from the hearing room during the frequent recesses which occurred in the course of the sessions. The Select Committee's experience with National Public Radio is especially noteworthy in that it was the only broadcast network which anchored the hearings from the hearing room itself for the complete duration of the hearings. This "no open microphone" arrangement resulted in a whollly acceptable accommodation between the needs of the broadcast journalists who covered the hearings and the desire to the Committee to safeguard against the distractions and interruptions which could have resulted from live broadcasting by commentators during the course of the hearings. I am convinced that the interviews with Committee members, staff members, public figures, and constitutional authorities which were aired by virtue of this arrangement provided an indispensable extra dimension to the live broadcasts of the hearing sessions. The function of the Congress in conducting hearings of the type which were conducted by the Select Committee is to inform the public. I firmly believe that the media coverage resulting from the ground rules employed by the Select Committee was the most efficient means of performing this informing function while still maintaining appropriate working conditions in the hearing room. I might add that Senator Ervin fully approved of the guidelines under which the various members of the news media operated, and he has authorized me to make these remarks. I hope that this brief explanation of the rules employed by the Select Committee will assist your committee in its study of the working relationship between Congress and the media. Sincerely, RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, Professor RICHARD DYER MACCANN, APRIL 9, 1974. Professor of Film, Division of Broadcasting and Film, Department of Speech and Dramatic Art, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa DEAR PROFESSOR MACCANN: I want to thank you for your very helpful letter regarding the Joint Committee's hearings on "Congress and Mass Communications" that will conclude this week. Your suggestions will be considered carefully by the members of the Joint Committee in drawing up whatever recommendations are ultimately approved. Enclosed is a preliminary study on the subject prepared by the Congressional Research Service which you may find interesting. Very truly yours, LEE METCALF. THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, Iowa City, Iowa, February 22, 1974. Senator LEE METCALF, DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I see by TV Guide you are launching hearings into mutual access-radio and TV access to the House and Senate chambers, at least, and possibly by indirection access to TV by more members of Senate and House. I am familiar with the hearings on the Fulbright proposals in August of 1970 and gave them some attention in my recent book, The People's Films (Hastings House), a history of U.S. government film production. Enclosed is a copy of a few relevant pages. Some of my views are shared, as you probably know, by Newton Minow and his collaborators in Presidential Television (Basic Books). Íthiel deSola Pool, professor of political science at MIT, also agrees with some of my assumptions about the President as educator, in his paper for the Aspen Notebook on Government and the Media. The points on which I differ from the usual view are these: Congress should have control of its own TV image, recording what goes on in committees and on the floor as a visual Congressional Record, and offering this footage to the networks. But this would be no more than costly press releases on film unless there were also access to regular time on the Public Broadcasting Service. And there should also be quarterly and annual reports about specific issues in the form of documentary films. While studying government subsidy and film in England last year on a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, I gave considerable study to British television. Among other things I watched a series of three programs about Parliament on commercial TV. If you want my reactions, I can send them. Sincerely yours, CHAIRMAN, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. RICHARD DYER MACCANN, NEDERLAND, COLO., April 9, 1974. TO ALL MEMBERS: I was home ill today and listened to your hearings on Congress and Mass Communications on KUNC-Greely, Colorado. As one who has made his business-Communications-I fully support proposals to Televise Congressional Activities and to distribute them across our nation. There is no doubt in my mind that broadcasting could be accomplished without description and that with present Satellite Technology distribution would be no problem. The biggest problem would probably be a political one from objections by the phone company. If I can be of assistance please let me know. Sincerely, Senator METCALF, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, PAUL DAUBITZ. It was my good fortune that KQED-Radio brought me your considerations, (considering the problem of broadcasting via TV and radio), as Congress debates the issue. I am very grateful for this "inside story" of what goes on in Congressit is infinitely more "real" than words in print. But-and it is a large “but”— could you then also permit the public to participate on issues by expanding the Franking Privileges to all mail addressed to as well as from officials by not requiring me to give up bread for a stamp? I cannot afford the double taxation; so I go unheard. Senator LEE METCALF, Washington, D.C. Mrs. MAENA HENDRICKS. MY DEAR SENATOR(S): I have never been to Washington, but some day I be to do so. It would be a blessing and a wonderful learning experience to me ble to see our government in action on TV. Please open your chambers es of the people, the television. After all, you are doing our business. WAYNE TETRIG. Dr. WILLIAM F. FORE, MARCH 26, 1974. Chairperson, Advisory Council of National Organizations, Washington, D.C. DEAR DR. FORE: I appreciate you sending to me a copy of the Advisory Council's resolution in support of access by the broadcast media to congressional deliberations. Your interest in our work in this area will be most helpful to us in the development of any recommendations the Joint Committee may make as a result of the hearings presently underway on Congress and Mass Communications. Because of your interest, we will make sure that you receive a copy of the hearings record as soon as it is printed, probably in mid-April. Meanwhile, I will offer your letter and the resolution for the record at our next hearing on April 9. Very truly yours, LEE METCALF. ADVISORY COUNCIL OF NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, Hon. LEE METCALF, DEAR MR. METCALF: The Advisory Council of National Organizations to CPB (ACNO), meeting in Washington on March 5, 1974, unanimously passed the following resolution in strong support of access by the broadcast media to Congressional deliberations: "The Advisory Council of National Organizations moves that the Congress provide regular, on-the-record and full disclosure of its deliberations by the broadcast media as a matter of future policy. Further, it is moved that this disclosure include the full spectrum of public Congressional activities, from committee and committee mark up hearings to floor debates. ACNO moves the above as a matter of the electorate's right to know, not merely in summary, but in detail, the deliberations of their elected representatives.' After reviewing the statements made before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, the Advisory Council further endorses the type of plan outlined in the presentation of Henry Loomis, President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We hope this resolution and letter will be included in the record of the proceedings. Sincerely, Dr. WILLIAM F. FORE, Chairperson, Advisory Council of National Organizations. MARCH 27, 1974. Mr. MICHAEL J. SALES, DEAR AR. SALES: Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments on opening Congress, via the communications media, to enable the American people to learn more about the institutional role and the day-by-day activities of their National Legislature. Because of your interest, I am enclosing a study entitled, "Congress and Mass Communication: An Institutional Perspective." This study was prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress at the request of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. It contains background material for use by the Committee in preparation for our hearings, which began in February and are scheduled to continue through April. I trust that you will find the information contained in this study useful. Again, my thanks for your letter and comments on the work of the Joint Committee. Very truly yours, Enclosure. LEE METCALF. FEBRUARY 26, 1974. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I am passing this letter along to show my support of television in government. I think that an obvious distribution channel for Congressional programming is the governmental access channel available on every CATV system in the nation's top 100 markets. I hope to do this kind of work someday, so I'm excited about this idea. Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, Washington, D.C. MICHAEL SALES SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 23, 1974. DEAR SENATOR: I read with approval your recent statements on the need for a televised Congress. I am a graduate student in the field of Broadcasting and I have felt for a long time that our newer electronic media should play a more important role in the dissemination of governmental information. The pace of events in our time is already inductively creating a necessity for a televised government and support by intelligent public figures for such a proposal simply echoes the force of a phenomenon in process. During my adult life I have been deeply concerned by a series of persistent crises facing our nation: senseless militarism leading to the debacle of Vietnam; an inefficient and unfair distribution of wealth resulting in widespread poverty and misery; and a lack of moral integrity and good sense in all areas of social life culminating in the sensibility offending election of Richard Nixon and his subsequent attack on our national institutions. This latter illness I view as most important because I believe it saps the creativity and resourcefulness of our people while feeding the poisonous waters of alienation that nurture irrationality. I believe that it is within the power of television to alleviate these difficult problems. The complexity of our society can no longer afford the centralized decision-making that has so characterized the last forty years of our national life. By providing people with the basic information about problems and potentials facing our society, television can relieve the burden of responsibility placed upon our elected representatives who must now be making many more decisions than they should (a responsibility which, I believe you have noted, the public does not believe is being met by the Congress). Most important, this new availability of information through our most modern and efficient communications medium shift the decision making process back to the People at large and thereby help us all to become more mature and active citizens. A Fellow American, MICHAEL J. SALES. Mrs. W. R. CONDRA, Baytown, Tex. MARCH 27, 1974. DEAR MRS. CONDRA: Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments on opening Congress, via the communications media, to enable the American people to learn more about the institutional role and the day-by-day activities of their National Legislature. Because of your interest, I am enclosing a study entitled, "Congress and Mass Communications: An Institutional Perspective." This study was prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress at the request of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. It contains background material for use by the Committee in preparation for our hearings, which began in February and are scheduled to continue through April. I trust that you will find the information contained in this study useful. Again, my thanks for your letter and comments on the work of the Joint Committee. Very truly yours, Enclosure. Hon. SENATOR LEE METCALF, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. LEE METCALF. BAYTOWN, TEX., February 22, 1974. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I am interested in something I read in a media magazine, T.V. Guide an issue for the weeks of February 23-March 1st. In an article by Richard K. Dean, entitled "Congress on Television", it was stated that you are Chairman of a "Joint Committee on Congressional Operations" and that the "Pros and cons of giving radio and television access to the House and Senate chambers" would be aired. Not knowing how long such committees meet or whether the resulting decisions are made public immediately, I still am interested in expressing my opinion. Although I am sure that your people are more capable, having all the information at hand, in deciding whether something comes about or doesn't, I am throwing in my 2 cents worth. I addressed a letter similar to this to Senator John Tower. At this time, I am "fer" it. My first real insight into the workings of government committees came through the Watergate coverage. I am sorry that although the overall objective was to show the people that the government was at work sorting through the confusion and bringing to surface the truths, it was still a negative introduction. For myself and many others, however, the hearings were enlightening and educational. I was both shocked and then reassured by just realizing that this Nation's growth and progress rests in the hands of human beings with quirks, faults and misconceptions. pleased by it too since we saw on the faces and heard in their voices their respect for the situation and how it would be handled. It made me aware of many good things but most of all, it sparked an interest that has not waned. Although I am not a learned person, I have been reading more, listening carefully and am anxious about all that is going on "up there". If indeed the Presidency, which was at one time considered with awe, has been opened for scrutiny it is something long overdue and only coincides with the growth and changes coming about in this Nation. Whether it is good remains to be seen by how these new attitudes are fashioned. If the media were permitted coverage of whatever areas decided, if the people were once again allowed to see, hear and be touched by hearings and debates, there would be reaction but it could all have positive results. As it seems to be now, people are becoming a part of movements, groups and organizations, wanting to be a deciding factor but still not really aware of or satisfied with what they can do. This is because we do not really understand what is going on. It is not ignorence. For the most part, many folks do not consider themselves worthy of having opinion or say. Bringing this government workings into the homes where we are personally touched, might bring about a sort of balance. We will understand "Why" some things happen and honestly be able to judge for ourselves how we feel and want to react. I am sorry that there is so much negative opinion around our country. It will be a while before people realize that the media do not always offer unbiased reports and yet, for many folks, we depend on this coverage what we read in news magazines and do not want to believe that it is only half of a truth. It is difficult to sort through reports and commentaries and come away feeling that something has been settled. I was interested in an incident that occurred over a radio program recently that made an impression. For an hour or so, a host allowed his audience to call in with their opinions about Watergate, the energy crisis, etc. The first caller sparked off a chain of negative response He said he was down on the government and everyone else who called said the same thing in one way or another. The next hour, the host said something good about our President. .. and was showered with calls from people who had something good to say. It was a rally of sorts and very rare to hear, but it was there and still is. Regardless of what we know or think about our President, the Government or politics. people latch on to what hits closest to home. Television is a tool that has unlimited power with certain segments of our population. I believe that the time has past for it to be just an entertaining medium. I am for special networks. . . Education networks, sports networks and have already wondered why someone didn't consider bringing the government into it. It all has to be handled with much care and respect. there's the clincher. . If this is not possible . . . if it turns into entertainment or past times, it will not be of any value. However, if such a project was tried, the possibilities are endless, the results could serve to educate and reassure this country. And there are other ways of looking at it too . . . ideas that I do not have access to and am interested in. I am interested in knowing how long it takes for a matter such as this to be considered and how one goes about finding out what the discussion consisted of and what conclusions were made. Thank you for your time and attention. It is good to know that this letter will be read. God bless each of you. Yours truly, Mrs. W. R. CONDRA. |