Congress and Mass Communications

Mr. JAMES F. SPILLANE,
Bronz, N.Y.

MARCH 27, 1974.

DEAR MR. SPILLANE: 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. LEE METCALF,

LEE METCALF.

BRONX, N. Y., February 23, 1974.

Chairman, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: While viewing the Watergate hearings on television, I was really impressed with watching government at work. At the time I was struck with the idea that television coverage should be expanded to include not just Senate Committee hearings but the full spectrum of Congress at work. I though then and still do that it would be good for the people to see the Congress pursuing the people's business.

During the past few years the President has had commanding use of television to get the administration's viewpoint across. The American people would be well served by having the opportunity to see Congress present its own views during the television coverage. This proposed coverage would show Congress as a co-equal branch of government not just as an obstruction to the President. With the people's faith in government at an all time low, due to the Watergate and other recent disclosures, this Congressional coverage would do a lot in restoring that faith in their elected officials.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge you and your conferees to propose that Congressional proceedings be fully televised. This television coverage should be an open-door policy as television has with the United Nations. This open-door policy would not only keep the people informed on government business but would go a long way in keeping Congress on its toes, too.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. DAVID J. SCHMERER,

JAMES F. SPILLANE.

MARCH 27, 1974.

Producer, Radio Station WFSU-FM, the Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla.

DEAR MR. SCHMERER: 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.

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.

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Tallahassee, March 5, 1974.

Senator LEE METCALF,

Russell Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR METCALF: We here at Public Radio News wish to commend you and the other members of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, for finally taking steps to improve communications between Congress and the public.

Being producer of a program which capsules the weekly activities of the Florida delegation, I find it increasingly difficult to air a timely, newsworthy program. Our primary sources of information are newsletters, which contain mostly public relations, and the Congressional Record, which arrives a week late.

I find it frustrating to have to consistently prepare programs with outdated information. A news program should be able to broadcast the latest news, news as it develops; and to have to rely on newsletters and out-of-date congressional publications is both a burden and a restraint on our right and responsibility to present to our listening public the most current of the news and activities which emanate from the Washington scene daily.

I suggest that the members of Congress should send tapes to all members of the mass media who presently receive their newsletters, I'm sure that every congressman has one or two radio stations or newspapers on his list. The tapes could be sent out once a week and should contain exactly what that representative or senator has done in the way of sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation, his or her support or dissapproval of important issues and supportive reasons, and the results of any committee meeting he or she deems as relevant.

Any broadcaster will tell you that actualities (actual voice tracks) on a program will make for better listening, which leads to a growth of interest and increased popularity. What better place for a representative to communicate to his constituency than to be heard or seen on a popular radio or T.V. program.

I submit that part of the problem lies with the Congress for waiting for the media to request the information and the other part lies with the media for not pushing harder to get the news from the Congress. I am not referring to the Washington press corp, Senator, I am referring to the thousands of local radio and television stations, newspapers and magazines who should be presenting to the represented the work of their representatives.

Providing tapes is not a difficult proposition, nor is it an expensive one. I'm sure that many Representatives and Senators do cooperate in this manner, but I'm also sure that many do not. If you wish to explore this possibility, I'm sure that Representative Bill Gunter of Florida could provide your committee with insights into the feasibility of such a proposal-we receive a tape from him every week; or perhaps Senator Chiles of Florida will be available to discuss the use of the WATS line for such a purpose-his office calls us every Friday and provides us with a weekly rundown of the Senator's activities.

Senator Metcalf, I hope that you will construe the meaning of this letter as a little concern and a lot of constructive criticism. Again I wish you and your colleagues the best of luck in your exploration of this subject, and if I have at least provided a little food for thought then I have accomplished a lot. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

DAVID J. SCHMERER, Producer.

MARCH 27, 1974.

Mr. and Mrs. ALVIN HARRIS,
New Castle, Ind.

DEAR MR. AND MRS. HARRIS: 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.

29-801 0-74-App.-33

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.

Representative JACK BROOKS

JACK BROOKS.

NEW CASTLE, IND., February 26, 1974.

This is to let you know we saw you and Representative Dellenback on T.V. Agree with you hundred per cent, the American people should know what is going on in our Government. We haven't been told the true facts as to oil and gas shortages. I for one, feel all these shortages are man made-done to get higher prices-Mr. Simon isn't helping the cause one bit, it is plain to see he is in favor of price increases; inflation and more inflation so we are told. How can we retired folks go on paying more and more each week for food, utility bills, doctor bills, much less clothes, still the President says we do not have a recession-he isn't in our shoes. I can tell you Sir-we are in deep trouble-thousands out of work. Where unemployment runs out, what then? I trust you can get a law through where by we the people can see and hear what our Congressmen and Senators say-and action on bills, up before them are voted on-Yes and No? That would certainly make a change in way many of them vote.

Thank you for wanting we the people to see and hear our Government in action. Trust you get your Bill passed.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. ALVIN HARRIS.

V. NEWS CLIPS

[From the N.Y. Daily News, Feb. 25, 1974]
CONGRESS ON TV?

Sens. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine) and Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.) would like to televise congressional sessions to regain public confidence in the lawmakers.

They've got to be kidding! If the public saw Congress and all its committees in action, more than a few of the members would be tossed out of office on Election Day.

Congress should rightfully be concerned about the lack of public confidence. They can't blame President Nixon or the energy crisis for that.

There is a tide of voter wrath against ever-higher prices, growing shortages, less take-home pay in the weekly envelope, budget deficits, and so on. Democrats as well as Republicans are fearful of the result this election year.

Renewal of esteem and trust in public officials is vital to making our system of government work.

As for Congress, Rep. James Cleveland (R-N.H.) says the best way to—

IMPROVE ITS PUBLIC IMAGE

Is "to improve its public performance."

Congress in all its wisdom might wish to think on these things-suggestions, shall we say, coming from the voters:

Stay and work on the job full time nine months of the year. Ten days' vacation for every holiday is silly. January and February are usually wasted months. Congress gets down to business in March.

Act with more responsibility. Two months ago Congress began work on an energy bill. The other day the Senate passed its version with a rollback clause it knew the House and the President wouldn't accept.

Pass all appropriations bills by July 1 so government agencies will know how much they have to spend in the next fiscal year.

Set up budget machinery to keep money appropriations equal to funds available. Stop the hypocritical introduction of bills in an effort to win votes, knowing they'll never be passed.

Ban all junkets.

In all actions, "promote the general welfare" as the preamble of the Constitution sets forth, rather than selfish or special interests.

All this could go a long way toward rewinning public approval.

[From the Valley News (Lebanon, N.H.), Mar. 11, 1974]

BETTER JOB, BETTER IMAGE

Rep. James C. Cleveland knows that our form of representative democracy cannot succeed without the informed consent of the governed.

All during his 12 years in Congress, Cleveland has been searching for better methods of keeping his constituents informed about what he is doing and what the Congress is doing.

It is one of our nation's basic problems.

It is the reason why Cleveland has been striving to open the halls of Congress to microphone and camera. He believes that what Congress is doing is the people's business and the people ought to have all the help they can in understanding it. Last month Cleveland went to the very heart of the problem in his testimony before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations on "Congress and Mass Communications."

In essence he said the best way for Congress to get a better image is to do a better job, and to open itself up more to newsmen.

He said, "Representative government requires the informed consent of the governed. In turn, informed consent presupposes a free and meaningful flow of news from and about Congress. To achieve better understanding of its activities by the public through coverage by the news media, Congress must both facilitate more perceptive coverage procedurally and assure such coverage through better performance."

Both houses of Congress are rightfully concerned because public opinion polls have given them poor marks, even lower than President Nixon's. To the extent that this prods them to reform and perform better in the public interest, that concern is healthy.

It should not panic the Congress, however, because Congress has hardly ever won much public praise from the American people, although there seems to be a feeling of more security when Congress is in session than when it is out of session during a national emergency.

America will be well served if Congress opens its work to the people, in this case most effectively by opening it up to newsmen.

The peril to the nation created by the collapse of the government's credibility demands a major effort.

[From the Greenfield, Mass., Recorder, Mar. 12, 1974]

SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCES

New Hampshire Congressman James C. Cleveland deserves a round of applause from Americans for his efforts to improve the Congressional "image". Before you say "so what?", take a minute and see why.

As the ranking Republican on the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, Cong. Cleveland has been a leader in getting his colleagues to consider ways to improve the procedures used by the legislative body and the public's access to information about Congress' actions.

When the committee began the so-called "mass media hearings" a few days ago, Cleveland delivered a thoughtful paper outlining his views. The opening summarizes the entire statement: "I hope that out of these very important hearings at least one basic principle will emerge with renewed force. It is this: The best way for Congress to improve its public image is to improve its public performance.'

He pointed to "significant imbalances" in the relationship of the legislative branch to the executive. He explained: "The executive branch's superior ability to communicate its views would weaken-and, indeed, has weakened-the coequal position of the legislative branch and jeopardize the balance which secures our liberties as a people."

Cong. Cleveland was talking about how easy it is for the President to get to the people. He can command prime time on television with a snap of his whim. Reporters hang out by the dozens at the White House (or San Clemente or Key Biscayne or Camp David) waiting for trickles of terse reports on the chief executive's comings and goings.

The Congressional delegation is somewhat less aggressive, although obviously active and present.

Where the United States has come in its mass communications relationship with the President is dramatically apparent to the reader of a book, "The Talkative

President." It consists of about one sixth of the off-the-record press conferences of Calvin Coolidge.

Coolidge met weekly and more often with the press in his office. When he travelled, he took care to have the press accommodated. But he answered only written questions at his meetings with reporters. And even then he would answer only the questions he cared to. At an occasional conference, he would stand at his desk and, one by one, silently read the questions and drop the pieces of rejected paper on his desk.

The book, published by the University of Massachusetts Press, continues: "When the last bit of paper had been discarded, he would look the reporters dead in the eye and say, 'I have no questions today.' The reporters would march out." Copies of Cong. Cleveland's statement are available from his office, 2236 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. It's worth reading.

BILL MONROE, RADIO, TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION

The day is coming when radio-television cameras and microphones will regularly monitor the action on the floor of the U.S. Senate and the floor of the House, and evening news programs will present tape segments of the day's debates. There's a gathering climate on Capitol Hill that makes this seem inevitable— maybe not next year but very probably in the 1980s.

Sam Rayburn and John McCormack, two of the old men who opposed television, are gone. The House now allows its committees the option of broadcast coverage. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Democratic whip, has talked favorably of allowing electronic access to the floor.

Congressmen and Senators are increasingly impatient with television focus on the President. Newton Minow responds to that in his new book which proposes an artificial, regulatory solution consisting of time periods for presidential opponents who will certainly not attract presidential audiences.

In the meantime, there's a new study in the works inside the Congress that suggests a more natural, free press solution-and one that well may be more effective for the Congress in the long run.

John Stewart, a political scientist who was once chief information man for the Democratic National Committee, has conducted the study for the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, chaired by Senator Metcalf.

Stewart's report on Congress and mass communications has a simple basic thrust as to radio and television: let the mikes and cameras into the legislative chambers.

Stewart went to New York to look over the United Nations TV-radio operation and came back to recommend to his bosses a system for Congress which, like the UN plan, would provide a gavel-to-gavel electronic record of every session in each house. He proposes four basic alternatives for control of the system, alternatives that will undoubtedly be widely debated in the near future by broadcasters and by legislators: (1) Control by a broadcasters' pool. (2) By Congress. (3) By a quasi-public corporation. (4) By the Library of Congress.

The issues to be thrashed out eventually include: Shouldn't electronic journalists have the same free access to congressional chambers and control of their electronic instruments (necessarily on a pool basis) as print journalists have with pad and pencil?

Should the lawmakers have the kind of control over this twentieth century visual reporting as they have over the Congressional Record-the power to erase, withhold, revise and generally tell it like it wasn't? The journalists' answer to this is obvious.

(I'll never forget a filmed interview with Senator Russell Long conducted years ago. A WDSU reporter on the phone in New Orleans asked a dozen questions of the Senator, who was being filmed in the Senate facility in Washington. The Senator obviously didn't like two of the questions. When the film reached WDSU, there was a straight-faced note from the film facility saying they were sorry but those two questions and answers somehow got ruined in the machine.)

Finally, will a broadcast pool (chiefly the networks) want to pay for a gavel-togavel monitoring system partly serving an intitutional purpose and possibly feeding by closed circuit into the offices of every Senator and Representative? I'd be curious to learn, by the way, whether RTNDA members have encountered lawmaker efforts to control or guide filming of those state legislatures which admit

cameras.

« 이전 계속 »

도서

Congress and Mass Communications: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on ...