[Television Digest, January 7, 1974]

TV LIGHTS MAY SHINE ON CONGRESS

Ever since Franklin Roosevelt's use of radio for fireside chats, succeeding presidents have so exploited broadcasting that 40 years later "a massive imbalance" exists between Legislative and Executive branches of government, so much so that people have little idea how Congress operates. That's major thrust of study to be submitted soon to Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, and will serve as vehicle for hearing starting February 20. Witnesses will include boardcasters, congressmen, legislators from states where chambers are open to TV and radio coverage, newsmen, etc.

"Public officials are trying hard to reach their constituents-through personal contacts, open office doors, speeches and newsletters," survey says. "But it is evident that these channels have not been adequate and likely that other avenues remain to be explored." Senator Metcalf (D-Mont.), who chairs Committee, said: "We hope to bring together, for the first time the broad range of questions that should be asked in considering ways to improve the capability of Congress to reach the American people.” Details of hearing, he said, will be announced later. While every election year legislators make noises about media "over-covering' President at expense of Congress, last major effort made to cure imbalance was in 1970 hearing before Senate Commerce Committee on bill sponsored by Senator Fulbright (D-Ark.) and group of other Democrats requiring networks to give time to congressional spokesmen on regular basis (Vol. 10:32 p2). Bill was opposed vigorously by broadcasters and FCC, and networks now say their modern access practices make such proposals unnecessary.

But there's still strong desire by broadcasters to gain regular access to House and Senate chambers. "Even on an experimental basis, it would be a worthwhile exercise," one network official told us. "The real interesting debates are on the floor, particularly in the House where debate is necessarily limited." While 1971 Reorganization Act opened up most House committees to TV-radio coverage, committees on Commerce, Agriculture and Post Office remain closed. Judiciary was opened for first time in 1973 under new Chairman Rodino (D-N.J.). Senate has traditionally been more open to TV-radio, although committees on Finance, Judiciary and Armed Services frequently prohibit cameras.

Heading latest effort to give Congress better press is Metcalf, Co-chairman Rep. Brooks (D-Tex.) and consultant John Stewart, former communications director for Democratic National Committee, who wrote study. "The records available on this subject are fragmented," Stewart said, referring to congressional hearings, 20th Century Fund report, etc. His report, Stewart said, "doesn't sell a point of view, but points out there is a problem and there are no self-evident answers." He said Committee was non-legislative, may or may not issue recommendations after hearing.

Stewart's report focuses on 3 major points. First is chamber coverage. Should it be gavel-to-gavel or only selected debate? Should only debate on major bills be covered? Who should cover? UN, for instance, has own broadcast service. Or should Congress create quasi-public corporation with a governing board of congressmen, newsmen and public?

Right of access is 2nd approach. "No matter what we do here, there are problems," Stewart said, referring to fairness, free and equal time. Among considerations mentioned in report would be requirement that broadcasters air joint leadership report 4 times a year, or leadership reports on major issues, coverage of special night sessions or congressional reply within 15 days after Presidential address.

Third area of concern is facilities and staff in Capitol to serve press. "There should be a central press briefing area in the Capitol," Stewart said, also suggesting establishment of communication staffs in Senate and House and that Congressional publications be made more readable. Among other suggestions is that Congress make greater use of "field hearings" outside Washington and use of video tape air express service to local broadcasters "who want to see their local congressman in action" that day.

[Warren Weaver, New York Times, February 3, 1974]

CONGRESS WEIGHS TELEVISING ITSELF

JOINT COMMITTEE WILL HOLD HEARings on proPOSAL

Washington, Feb. 2-After years of isolation and indecision, Congress is finally making a serious study of permitting radio and television to broadcast part or all of Senate and House sessions.

Advocates of such broadcasting argue that it would increase public understanding and recognition of Congress and help counter-balance the immense political advantage that any President can realize by commandeering air time on the networks.

In the past, many members of both houses have resisted letting the media broadcast from the chambers on the ground that the public would misunderstand the proceedings. But there are signs that the desire for favorable Congressional publicity may at last overcome fearful opposition.

Later this month, the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations will open hearings on whether news cameras and microphones should be admitted to the sacrosanct halls and how Congressional leaders may obtain better access to the broadcast media to publicize the legislative viewpoint.

LETTER TO MEMBERS

Senator Lee Metcalf, Democrat of Montana, chairman of the committee, emphasized in a letter to all members of Congress this week that the hearings were not intended to "make the case for a particular point of view or a specific course of action" but to explore the politically sensitive issues involved.

Television cameras are permitted in the House chamber once a year for the joint session at which the President delivers his state of the Union Message, as he did last Wednesday, and also for heads of state and other dignitaries. But no coverage of legislative activity on the floor has ever been permitted, only hearings such as those of the Senate Watergate committee.

Hostility toward any sort of photographic intrusion has been so intense in the past that still cameras have been admitted only once to each chamber, both in the 1963 session, when the members posed ceremonially at their desks for a formal panoramic view.

The Metcalf committee has circulated to all Senators and Representatives a background study called "Congress and Mass Communications." The 80-page report carefully avoids any endorsement of broadcasting floor debates and voting but presents a number of cogent arguments in favor of such a policy.

REPORT IS PREPARED

John G. Stewart, former director of communications of the Democratic National Committee, prepared the report for the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. He is now serving as a consultant to the committee, preparing for its Feb. 20 hearings.

"A decision by Congress to permit some form of television and radio coverage of floor proceedings," the report says, "would produce broader and more informative news coverage of the institution.

"It is to be hoped that citizens would begin to acquire a new sense of Congress institutional role by witnessing the legislative process in operation and by seeing their elected representatives openly conduct the public's business."

No one expects that commercial television would undertake gavel-to-gavel coverage of either house, except during a debate of extraordinary importance. Some authorities believe, however, that public television and radio might eventually provide such service.

PERMITTED IN STATES

More likely the networks would use film clips of Senate and House proceedings in their nightly news programs and as part of periodic documentaries on various issues. Upon occasion, a network might choose to interrupt its regular schedule to broadcast live the close of debate and the voting on a major bill.

The Library of Congress report says that two dozen states now permit radio and television to cover their legislatures on a daily basis. The United Nations provides comprehensive coverage of all its working sessions. A half-dozen European countries and Australia permit some form of televising their national legislatures.

The report recognizes the fear that "some members would play to the cameras in an attempt to appeal favorably to their constituents" if radio and television were allowed to broadcast proceedings in the two chambers.

Some supporters of the broadcasting reform believe that showboating would be less of a problem if the full sessions were routinely telecast by public broadcasting and the members were not aware when the commercial networks were cutting in and out.

[Broadcasting Magazine, February 4, 1974]

HILL STUDY FINDS STUTTER IN ITS OWN COMMUNICATIONS

REPORT STRESSED PROBLEMS NOT FACED BY OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, OFFERS SUGGESTIONS FOR RECTIFICATION

A congressional study group advised the Congress last week on how it might be able to correct a communications-access imbalance that "poses a serious threat to the balance of powers between the branches of national government." The report, "Congress and Mass Communications: An Institutional Perspective" issued by the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, based most of its suggested remedies on Congress opening up regular floor sessions to television coverage.

"The President can routinely present his views to the people, directly and in his own words, with simultaneous coverage by three networks, public television, independent stations and radio," the report states. "Congressional views, for better or worse, must first pass through the filter of network news organizations, usually appearing in highly fragmented and episodic form. The end product of this system is to give the President a distinct advantage."

Initially, the report cites the "barely adequate level of facilities for journalists, especially those of the broadcast media" on Capitol Hill as being a deterrent to impactful coverage. The physical limitations of the Capitol's facilities has precluded the network news departments from maintaining permanent staff and equipment there. Unlike the White House, the Capitol has no central briefing room and the "internal communications services provided are geared to the needs of individual members and not those of the institution," it says.

The report cites a "formidable barrier of noncommunication" that exists because "members believe a more open and professional approach to the communications media will hamper Congress in its operations or will not be in the political interests of individual members. In the end, the issue [of increased coverage] could well turn on a consideration of whether certain modifications of floor procedure in response to broadcast coverage would be worth the increased opportunity afforded Congress to present its viewpoints to the people."

The study suggest four alternate forms of floor coverage produced and managed by four different types of organizations. The Congress could either permit coverage of the closing portions of debate (the last 30 minutes is suggested) and the roll call vote on major bills; or, Congress could "work out an agreement with commercial and public broadcasters" to cover the full debate and vote on major bills only; or, Congress could hold periodic evening sessions where important matters before the Congress during that term would be discussed (as suggested in the Twentieth Century Fund study "Presidential Television"); or, it could simply open itself up for gavel-to-gavel coverage.

The four approaches to who should provide the coverage comprise: (1) establishing a congressional TV and radio service similar to that of the United Nations, that would supply subscribers with a feed; (2) authorizing the commercial and public electronic news organizations to set up pool facilities; (3) creating a "quasi-public" corporation, made up of congressmen, communications industry representatives and private citizens, to manage the service or (4) establishing a special unit of the Library of Congress to manage it.

The study anticipates broadcaster objection to a Congressionally run service as "a program of government propaganda. The most effective response to this allegation would be a record of dealing objectively with events on the floor," its asserts.

Despite open floor coverage, the report says that without the single spokesman aspect, inherent in the Executive, Congress might still not be co-equal with the President in terms of impact. It suggests that if a majority opinion on an issue can be found in Congress, that that majority choose a spokesman for that one

issue. Still it concedes that the nature of the legislature does not lend itself to an easy solution of that problem.

Senator Lee Metcalf (D-Mont.) and Representative Jack Brooks (D-Tex.), co-chairmen of the Joint Congressional Operations Committee, open hearings on Feb. 20 on the report's findings. CBS President Arthur Taylor, among others, will testify. Hearings will also be held Feb. 21, March 7 and 12.

[The Tulsa Tribune, Tulsa, Okla., February 8, 1974]

HAMMING UP CONGRESS

The proposal to televise sessions of the U.S. Congress will soon be before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations and if it isn't elected Queen of the Worst Ideas of the Twentieth Century it should at least be First Runner-up.

If anyone is in doubt about what will happen he might go to Australia and tune in on the broadcast (not telecast) sessions of Parliament at Canberra. In an evil hour Parliament agreed to this and now it can't shake it loose. The result is asinine speeches, idiotic votes and brawling billingsgate that shakes one's faith in the democratic system.

Some congressmen are bad enough before a small crowd in the gallery. We got our word "bunk" from Buncombe County, North Carolina, the county seat of which is Asheville. More than 100 years ago a gaseous congressman from that district, seeing one of the home folks in the gallery, would leap to his feet and launch into an arm-waving tirade appealing to all mountaineer prejudices. When baffled brother congressmen would ask him what brought that on he would explain that he was speaking for Buncombe County-hence, bunk.

The Australian experiment, which is far less conducive to theatrics than tv exposure would be, causes normally intelligent legislators to leap at microphones to douse each other with hyperbole and alleged wisecracks. Some put-downs are moderately clever, as when one criticised another's expertise on agriculture by roaring, "The only thing he knows about soil is what he has learned from examining his fingernails!" But when the Prime Minister publicly referred to the opposition as "bloody bastards" it was more typical.

The worst thing about the Australian broadcasts is that it gets the MPs far out on limbs. In an effort to show the unseen audience their vigor and forthrightness they take impossibly extravagant stands, and then are forced to back them up in the voting.

Sound legislation, like sound business decisions, is often based on a sober and slow examination of dull facts. Statistics are lousy theater. The speech that draws yawns is often the most constructive and even if the House or Senate floor is almost empty its meat will be examined by legislative assistants or standing committees.

But if Congress goes on camera-look out! What the nation doesn't need is a side-show in the Capitol.

[Washington Star-News, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1974]

CONGRESSIONAL TV?

By Jay Sharbutt)

New York-On Feb. 20, a congressional committee will start hearings that eventually could lead to live radio and television coverage of those great debates everyone reads about but rarely sees or hears-the verbal wars in the House and Senate chambers.

It's an idea that's kicked around for years, yet in this era of the electronic journalist, neither the House nor the Senate is allowing live broadcast coverage of its floor debates.

The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, which will hold the coming hearings, began studying the matter last year.

It recently gave Congress a report that said, to no one's surprise, when the President speaks, he readily gets national broadcast coverage; when Congress speaks, its impact is frittered away in the broadcast shufe.

It said in addition that Congress should explore ways to get its views across more fully to the public to correct a media-access problem that "poses a serious threat to the balance of powers between the branches of the national government.

It noted that the President "can routinely present his views to the people, directly and in his own words," on the networks and other broadcast media but that congressional views filter out through network news organizations, usually in highly fragmented form.

"The end product of this system is to give the President a distinct advantage," it said.

Despite the report's concern over the President's ready access to national broadcast time, this won't be the focus of the coming hearings, according to Gene Peters, staff director of the committee involved.

"Its an incidental aspect of it, but it's not the prime purpose of the hearings," he said, noting that they'll cover not only chamber debate but also committee sessions.

"Basically, what we're looking into is how we [Congress] can get our message across and why we're not getting it across," he said. "We also want to know what people in the broadcasting industry think about what we're doing and how we could improve it.

"It's really exploratory, to get the ideas together," he said, adding that any recommendations the committee makes after the hearings will go to the House and Senate Rules committees.

A spokesman for Sen. Lee Metcalf, D-Mont., co-chairman of the committee, said the hearings will be held Feb. 20-21 and on March 7 and 12.

He said that the heads of the CBS, NBC and ABC networks and the Mutual Broadcasting System have been invited to testify before the committee Feb. 21 and that public-television executives will testify March 7.

Peters said he expected the committee would make its recommendations about six weeks after the hearings concluded.

[The Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, Pa., February 8, 1974]

AN EXTRA EYE ON CONGRESS

A question which will be carefully weighed during the upcoming Joint Committee on Congressional Operations hearings later this month is whether or not the House and Senate should open their regular sessions to some type of broadcast coverage.

Committee chairman Sen. Lee Metcalf (D-Mont) says the hearings' purpose is not to "make the case for a particular point of view or a specific course of action" but rather to examine the issues involved. However, such added congressional coverage would more than likely benefit both the Congress and the public. On purely pragmatic grounds, Congress should take advantage of any and all means to increase public awareness and understanding of its institutional role. Particularly at this time, when Congress has the opportunity to assert itself in so many areas and regain some of the muscle it has surrendered to the Executive Branch, it should give serious considerations to the merits of increasing its communication links with the public.

Currently, broadcast coverage is permitted at certain open meetings of congressional committees and when the President or a noncongressional dignitary addresses a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.

The standard arguments against expanding broadcast coverage are that it could have undesirable effects on the legislative process and possibly cause legislators to "play" for the cameras. However, coverage of committee meetings and state legislatures indicates that lawmakers are often better prepared when they know constituents are watching them, and peer pressure tends to hold down the grandstanding.

Last March the House adopted an open meetings rule and the majority of its committee and subcommittee meetings were opened to the public. The Senate has not enacted an antisecrecy measure.

The whole Congress should open up.