[Boston Post, Boston, Mass., February 15, 1974]

A CBS FOR CONGRESS?

(By Richard L. Worsnop)

President Nixon's strength is as the strength of the 535 members of Congress, and then some, when it comes to the power to communicate. The President's recent State of the Union message was carried live on nationwide television and analyzed exhaustively in the following day's newspapers.

Two days later, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana delivered a rebuttal on behalf of the Democratic majority in Congress. This address also was telecast live, but the nation's press devoted far fewer column-inches to it than to Nixon's speech.

Mansfield may have been unhappy, but he could not have been surprised. He had previously asserted that, "It is time for Congress to determine who really should decide what is a fair input by a co-equal branch of government into the perceptions of the American electorate . . . With the revolution of communications in this country, the whole notion of the separation of powers has been significantly diminished by the inordinate input that the executive branch, through the President and the Cabinet officers, has on television.”

To a certain extent, this is a chicken-or-egg problem. Does the presidency command more ready access to the mass media because it has become more powerful than Congress? Or is intensive media coverage of the executive branch largely responsible for the President's expanded powers? The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations will wrestle with these questions when it opens hearings Feb. 20 on methods that Congress might employ to improve its capability for communicating with the American people through the mass media.

The committee has its work cut out for it. Public opinion surveys taken by the Louis Harris and Gallup organizations over the years indicate that a majority of Americans are not entirely sure what Congress is. Twenty per cent of the respondents to a recent Harris Survey said they thought that the national legislature consisted of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

Many of Congress' communications problems are beyond its control. The President and vice president are the only two federal officials elected by nationwide popular vote. On the other hand, senators represent single states, and congressmen individual districts within a given state. Furthermore, Congress is divided along party lines. Who, then, can be said to speak for Congress?

Perhaps no one can, but it is obvious that the legislative branch needs to do something to burnish its image. Televising of the Watergate hearings may have helped. The trouble is that, fortunately, a Watergate scandal is not a routine occurrence. It has been proposed also that certain proceedings on the House and Senate floors be televised. The problem here is that congressional debates and floor votes rarely provide any drama.

Other proposals envision a congressional information service in the Library of Congress, instructional films to improve the quality of teaching about Congress, and even the establishment of a Congressional Broadcasting System. That last proposal has a probably fatal flaw. The nation already has a CBS television network and it would not welcome the pirating of its initials.

[East Oregonian, Pendleton, Oreg., February 16, 1974]

DON'T NEED TV IN CONGRESS

Sen. Lee Metcalf's congressional committee will take up the question of whether television cameras should be allowed in the House and Senate chambers. Committee members needn't waste their time.

Most members of Congress have opposed television coverage of House and Senate sessions. The main reason is probably that they are afraid the viewing public might get the erroneous idea that their representatives and senators do little for their pay.

Nearly all the work in Congress is done in committee meetings. By the time a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, it has usually had its delicate points eliminated. Debate ensues in the House and Senate before votes are taken, but it's infrequent that such debates are worth putting on national television.

Legislative bodies-Oregon's included-need to work that way. If most issues underwent extensive debate by the full membership, the legislative work would bog down hopelessly.

It's common to see just a few members on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Once in a while a bell will summon the lawmakers into the chamber to vote, and activity will perk up. The floors of the two congressional chambers aren't quiet because the members are taking it easy; work is going on in committees. But most members would rather not have viewing America get the wrong idea.

Television is unneeded in the House and Senate chambers, and it might be detrimental.

Cameras are allowed in congressional hearings so that news programs can feature testimony and congressional comment on important bills. And members of Congress are interviewed in the corridors of the Capitol.

If the networks rolled their equipment into the House and Senate chambers, it would tempt many members to slick down their hair and loosen their vocal chords for an appearance on the tube before the folks back home. And now that so many presidential candidates come from the ranks of Congress, campaigning via television might run wild.

It's best to leave the cameras where they are.

[The Blade, Toledo, Ohio, February 17, 1974]

CONGRESS SEEKS WAYS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC

JOINT COMMITTEE TO STUDY TELEVISING FLOOR ACTIVITIES

(By Frank Kane)

Washington-This week a joint congressional committee will open hearings on the question of how Congress can improve its communications with the public. Much of the hearings, which will be conducted by the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations headed by Sen. Lee Metcalf (D., Mont.), will center around the possibility of providing television, radio, and photographic coverage of congressional floor sessions.

As it stands now, Congress permits such coverage of committee meetings, although it was not until 1970 that the House agreed to let the cameras and microphones into its committee rooms.

And, of course, it permits live radio and television coverage of joint sessions when a president is delivering his "State of the Union" message or when visiting dignitaries, such as astronauts or foreign heads of state, are being welcomed.

But neither house has permitted such coverage of its floor activities, with the single exception of the opening session of the House in 1947.

That session 27 years ago was covered by television at a time when the medium was in its infancy, and the New York Times commented that "the views were so clear that a bandage could be seen on the finger of the House tally clerk as the voting proceeded." But the scenes weren't duplicated in later years.

In preparing for the hearings, the Metcalf committee commissioned John Stewart, former director of communications for the Democratic National Committee, to undertake a study of "Congress and Mass Communications."

In his study, Mr. Stewart argues that Congress, in trying to exercise its responsibility to be a co-equal branch of the Federal Government, has a substantial stake in being able to communicate effectively with the people.

This is particularly the case in light of the massive and highly sophisticated use of mass communications by the president and the executive branch. In the 20th century, Mr. Stewart pointed out, the executive branch has moved vigorously to expand its capacity for communicating with the citizens.

Theodore Roosevelt, according to Mr. Stewart, started the trend by actively courting the media and using them to reveal his ideas and hopes for the nation. Admittedly, President Nixon has made less use of press conferences than his predecessors, but his use of television and radio in prime time has been up sharply, according to the study. He even became the first president to veto a bill on television, Mr. Stewart says.

"Beyond the personal initiatives of the president, however, the entire executive branch has built an impressive array of communications and public relations facilities," Mr. Stewart added.

"The smallest bureau is now likely to have at its disposal a communications operation that exceeds the resources available to Congress at the institutional level."

"In 1971, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that 6,144 federal employees were engaged in full-time public relations work at an annual cost of at least $165 million," and this did not cover communications activities carried on under different labels by the executive branch.

Except for the press operations of individual members, which are usually, but not always, limited to the media of a district or state, Congress follows a communications approach that is essentially passive, Mr. Stewart said.

"Whatever information reaches the American people about the Congress is the result largely of journalistic initiative. Only on rare occasions has the Congress taken an opportunity to present its case, using its own spokesmen, directly to the people."

Opinion polls, he noted, show that not only does the public take a generally uncomplimentary view toward congressional performance but it has a low level of knowledge about the membership and activities of the national legislature. For example, a study conducted by Louis Harris showed that 20 percent of the people believe that Congress is made up of the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court; 8 percent thought Congress was just the Senate; 6 percent just the House, and 8 percent had no idea of the structure of Congress.

Of those questioned in the Harris study, 41 percent were unable to name one U.S. senator from their state; 61 percent were unable to name a second senator, and 54 percent were unable to name the House member from their district.

If citizens are to get a more accurate sense of Congress and its role in the government, they should have more opportunities to see it in action, Mr. Stewart

argues.

For example, congressional committees could move more hearings out of Washington and use regional and local broadcast facilities to air them, he says. In addition, the House and Senate could experiment in various ways with permitting broadcast and photographic coverage of floor proceedings.

Mr. Stewart points out that in the past those members who have opposed changing the rules on floor coverage have argued that much of what happens on the floor is too complicated to understand or too routine to be interesting to the average viewer.

And there also has been concern that some members would "play to the camera" in an attempt to appeal to their constituents.

But these potential difficulties have not ruled out such coverage in other legislative assemblies, both in the United States, and other nations, he says.

For example, in Austria all of its national legislative proceedings are recorded on videotape and an official broadcasting agency selects appropriate excerpts for television and radio broadcasts. Austria, however, keeps its committee sessions closed to the public.

In West Germany the Bundestag has an agreement with the two major television networks to broadcast major legislative debates. The networks observe guidelines that specify camera locations and other operating procedures, but do their own editing and commentary. Committees of the Bundestag also are not open to broadcast coverage.

The United Nations, in Mr. Stewart's view, provides the outstanding example of comprehensive coverage of a representative assembly by the mass-communications media.

It operates its own television service, feeding directly to the major U.S. television networks and provides them with a "broadcast quality color picture" of meetings of the Security Council, the General Assembly, and principal committees.

The networks subscribe to this service for about $1,800 a week, not including overtime charges and weekend service. They have complete freedom to use the feed in whatever way they choose, either live or videotaped for excerpts.

In most meetings the cameras are completely unobtrusive and completely forgotten and that U.N. lighting engineers have found a level of lighting that provides an acceptable picture without causing discomfort to the meeting participants, Mr. Stewart said.

"Several network news executives interviewed during this study described the U.N. service as a model for devising similar coverage of the U.S. Congress," he added.

In addition, 23 state legislatures permit radio and television stations to report on their proceedings on a daily basis.

In general, public television and radio provide most of the extended election coverage of major debates in those bodies. The commercial stations usually utilize excerpts.

Most of the foreign nations that permit broadcast coverage of their national legislatures are parliamentary democracies whose operations are better suited to broadcast coverage than those of Congress, Mr. Stewart acknowledged.

In a parliamentary democracy, legislation is primarily written and perfected by the executive, he said, and the Parliament is more a place for general debate on the merits of executive policies and less a forum for writing details of the legislation.

The question period in parliamentary regimes, where ministers are questioned by their colleagues, also is easily adaptable to coverage by radio and television. There is a closer parallel between the operations of state legislatures and those of Congress, where the specifics of legislation are considered routinely on the floor and there is less opportunity for general debate, he noted.

He also pointed out that the length of debate is strictly limited in the House and that, although debate in the Senate is freer, it often tends to be "sporadic and unpredictable, with a senator often responding minutes or hours later to a point made earlier by a colleague."

But he believes that it would not be impossible to change these procedures to permit more general debates.

For example, the House might decide to adopt a format where national policies are debated on a regular basis, he said, and some senators have advocated a question period, during which cabinet members might be questioned.

And often the last few minutes of debate before a roll-call vote is taken on an important bill are lively and succeed in summarizing the major arguments for and against the bill, he noted. Therefore, the commercial networks might be interested in broadcasting this portion of the debate or excerpts from it, with their own commentary.

In any event, the changes in coverage from what is now possible should be spelled out, he says.

"Instead of network correspondents standing on the Capitol lawn describing what took place in the Senate or House (as Roger Mudd did every evening during the civil rights debate in 1964), or artist sketches supplemented by voice-over commentary, the actual events in the House and Senate would be seen by the viewers.

"The Congress would be seen at work-debating, considering amendments, voting. Much of the drama that surrounds consideration of an important bill would be captured for the viewers.'

Public television could be expected to commit more time than commercial networks to coverage of congressional debates, just as it continued with the Watergate hearings after the commercial networks stopped, Mr. Stewart said. In addition, public television could use videotaped excerpts of the debates to develop programs that examine the procedures of Congress and specific issues. And if a television pool was recording all floor debates, local commercial stations might frequently request videotape excerpts of segments that feature their senators or representatives. The videotape could be sent to them air express for use that evening or the following day, Mr. Stewart said.

Recording House and Senate floor proceedings on a gavel-to-gavel basis would not mean gavel-to-gavel broadcasting except on rare occasions, Mr. Stewart said. But the material would be there for commercial and public television to use as they choose.

Congress could follow the example of the United Nations and set up its own television and radio service which would provide a video and radio feed to subscribers as well as fill requests from local stations.

Some broadcasters might be expected to object on grounds that it constituted government propaganda. But Mr. Stewart said that the most effective response to this fear would be to establish a record of dealing objectively with events on the Senate and House floors.

Providing the broadcast media with access to floor coverage, which should result in expanded news coverage of Congress, probably would give the broadcasters an additional excuse to refuse congressional spokesmen free time to respond to broadcast appearances by the president, Mr. Stewart said.

Under existing law, no person or group enjoys an automatic right of response to a presidential broadcast appearance, he said.

The networks do grant such time occasionally, as they did with the recent response by Mike Mansfield, Senate Democratic leader, to President Nixon's "State of the Union" message.

However, Congress could amend the federal communications law to require broadcasters to give congressional spokesmen free time for such responses, Mr. Stewart said.

He also suggested a number of things that might improve Congress's ability to communicate, such as establishment of a central press briefing room, such as the White House has, and attaching communications staffs to the majority and minority caucuses in each house with the idea that these staffers could work with party leaders in developing stories that reflect the viewpoints of the parties.

WORRIED CONGRESS HOPES TO BOLSTER PUBLIC IMAGE
(By George Kentera)

Washington-Congress again is worried about its unfavorable rating by the American public and will begin new hearings this week to see if something can be done about it.

The hearings, by the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, were scheduled a month ago to start Wednesday, but they will come little more than a week after a Louis Harris poll showed Congress with its lowest public rating since Harris began compiling it in 1965.

Members of Congress were dismayed by last week's poll. Sen. Philip A. Hart, D-Mich., noted Congress received a lesser degree of public confidence than President Nixon.

Hart said it was "a sobering and a disappointing kind of a tally and yet I can't quarrel with it."

But the negative public attitude toward Congress and its work is not a new development, as a recent study for the joint committee by the Library of Congress' congressional research service shows.

Citing Gallup surveys going back to 1939 as well as the more recent Harris polls, the study noted:"

"The three decades charted by these Harris and Gallup surveys have been times of war and inflation, peace and recession, hardship and prosperity. But, through it all, Americans have sustained a generally low opinion of their national legislature, with only occasional deviations, such as in the mid-1960's, from this pattern."

Understandably, Congress would like to change the pattern, especially since it has long felt that its ability to communicate with the American public has been progressively and substantially weakened by the growing power of the presidency. To that end, the Joint Committee has scheduled hearings for next Wednesday and Thursday and March 7 and March 12 at which public and private broadcasters, state and national legislators, newsmen and congressional experts will discuss what might be done to improve both public understanding and public respect for Congress.

The committee is composed of five senators and five House members, including Rep. James G. O'Hara, D-Utica.

Sen. Lee Metcalf, D-Mont., the committee chairman, recently expressed the committee's aim as one of providing Congress with information and opinion about three general questions:

1. "How can the institutional role of Congress be more fully and accurately covered by the news media?

"We will examine various aspects of this problem, including both wider dissemination of congressional news in the print media and more extensive photographic and broadcast coverage of Senate and House activities (for example, the question of opening floor debate in both chambers to television, radio or still photography).

2. How can spokesmen for Congress gain direct access more readily to the broadcast media to present congressional viewpoints on major issues? An important consideration here is the substantial imbalance between the access afforded the President and that available to congressional spokesmen.

3. "What additional facilities, staff and other supporting services, if any, are required to provide Congress with a more adequate institutional capability in its response to the American people?"