How do the Hartford legislators like it? "Basically, just fine," Tau responded. "They mainly complain when we've had to cut one of them off in the middle of a speech."

A number of foreign countries have long since opened their lawmaking bodies to TV without harmful result. Among these are West Germany, the Scandinavian nations, Austria and New Zealand, which was a pioneer in this regard, admitting radio back in the 1930s. What, if anything, will happen as an outgrowth of the Congressional hearings this month? "The purpose," Stewart says, "is not to sell anybody but simply to build a body of knowledge on the subject." The inquiry, however, may present a wedge of some sort for prying the Senate and House doors open for TV. One such device could be the establishment of a closed-circuit TV system throughout the Capitol. Seeing themselves constantly on the tube, it's thought, might get the lawmakers accustomed to the idea and dispel their anxieties.

Any actual steps to open doors, though, will have to come out of the "housekeeping" committees of the two chambers.

One notion going the rounds: why not spread the Congressional welcome mat to radio and TV by 1976 as a Bicentennial "gift" to the American people? Why not, indeed!

[Idaho State Journal, Pocatello, Idaho, Feb. 25, 1974]

DOES CONGRESS WANT EXPOSURE?

Let's see if we have this straight.

Here is Sen. Lee Metcalf, Montana Democrat, complaining that Congress is thus unable to get the public ear and thus is unable to safeguard liberties or check the president's power.

Metcalf says the president has virtually unlimited access to the news media, while Congress seems unable to make its voice heard. "A Congress unable to project its voice much beyond the banks of the Potomac-to be heard and understood only dimly outside Washington, D.C.-can be neither representative nor responsive," Sen. Metcalf told his Joint Committee on Congressional Operations. Okay. Sounds as if the Congress needs more media attention, such as live television coverage. What's holding it up? Congress, that's who.

Executives of three broadcasting networks and public broadcasting are urging Congress to allow radio-television coverage of its sessions. The Committee on Congressional Operations is weighing that plea. So far, radio and television reporters are allowed to cover House and Senate sessions with pencil and paper, but cameras and microphones are banned.

What will you bet is the committee's decision? Despite Sen. Metcalf's admonition, and despite the pleas of the networks, we fully expect the majority of the nation's lawmakers to hew to the hoary tradition that says too much daylight is to be avoided.

[Television Digest, Feb. 25, 1974]

Congress, Camera and Mike: Dismayed at low confidence public has in Congress these days and eager to compete with White House for broadcast time, Congress last week began talking about ways to re-introduce itself to public. But while there was agreement with network executives testifying during Joint Govt. Operations Committee hearing Feb. 20-21 that unlimited media access to all committees & floor debates is best solution, some legislators think journalists aren't giving Congress fair shake.

After accusing media of misrepresenting & underreporting Congress, Sen. Muskie (D-Me.) offered his "far out idea. . . I can conceive of a public TV network controlled by Congress offering nothing but views of Congress at work." Long-time advocate of congressional right to broadcast time, Muskie said Congress has been frustrated by editors, had obligation to make sure public heard "our views of what is significant." There was near unanimous agreement from Committee Chmn. Sen. Metcalf (D-Mont.) and Reps. Brooks (D-Tex.), Giaimo (D-Conn.), Cleveland (R-N.H.), Dellenback (R-Oreg.).

CBS Pres. Arthur Taylor: "The healthy pluralism that now exists-with the multiplicity of Congressional voices and the variety of broadcasting outlets-would be foreclosed by any govt.-imposed reply requirement, whatever formula or device was used. Such mandated coverage would be in our judgment, an affront the Constitutional process, amounting to a major, unprecedented & improper

intrusion into journalism by govt." He said CBS coverage of Congress is already "deep & comprehensive." Cleveland disagreed, accused Taylor of not being responsive, said networks should cover Congress "as an institution.' Not so, said Taylor: "It is deceptive to refer to Congress that way. The Executive is easily understood, it's one man. Congress is hundreds of voices. Let this multiplicity of voices speak in the normal workings of the Congress."

Taylor & ABC Pres. Elton Rule agreed with Metcalf's suggestion that pool coverage of floor proceedings would be best & simplest arrangement, although both network presidents said separate cameras were desirable for extraordinary events. Rule outlined ABC's access plan. As "an important first step," he offered onehour of prime time to Congress at beginning & end of each session, featuring majority & minority leaders of both houses. Congressmen would determine format. Congress would open all proceedings to TV & radio. Committee members balked. "An hour before & after each session just isn't enough," Metcalf said.

While commercial networks aren't interested in gavel-to-gavel coverage, public broadcasting is, CPB Pres. Henry Loomis testified. In strong endorsement of public affairs programming, Loomis disagreed with Taylor & Rule, said "our first goal" is to make public understand Congress' "institutional role." He endorsed congressional coverage system similar to one used at U.N. This service, he said, "would result in the greatest flexibility for broadcasters." But cable, he said, is perhaps best channel to connect Congress with people.

JEFFERSON PILOT BROADCASTING CO.,
Charlotte, N.C., February 25, 1974.

Hon. LEE METCALF,

Chairman, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations,
Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR METCALF: The enclosed editorial was broadcast by WBT, WBT-FM, and WBTV on the evening of February 22. In the interest of fairness and in an effort to present as balanced a picture as possible to our audience, it is our policy to invite response from a spokesman representing an opposing viewpoint. We are extending this offer to you in connection with the enclosed editorial. You may respond by videotaping your statement in our studios, by sending us a recorded response, or by a written statement to be read by one of our staff announcers. We ask that your response be limited to 300 words and that a copy of your proposed remarks be forwarded (for review by our Editorial Board) in advance of recording. If your response is to be read by our announcer, it would be helpful to have a glossy head-and-shoulder portrait of yourself, preferably in color.

If at all possible, we would like to hear from you within the next week, but we do want to hear from you. Your comments will enable our viewers and listeners to form their own opinions and draw their own conclusions from having heard both sides of the issue.

Thank you for your consideration, Senator Metcalf, and we look forward to sharing your thoughts with our radio and television audiences.

Cordially,

LARRY M. HARDING.

Enclosure: "Putting Congress On The Air-For The Right Reasons."

PUTTING CONGRESS ON THE AIR-FOR THE RIGHT REASONS

Some months ago, this station spoke strongly in favor of broadcasts from the floors of both houses of Congress. Such broadcasting is now forbidden except on certain ceremonial occasions and for committees who choose to allow it.

So we're naturally glad that the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations is now holding hearings on the subject. But our pleasure is shaken a bit by indications that the Committee is interested in broadcasting not so much as a means of reporting to the people but of seeing that Congress gets as much air time as the President and the Executive Branch.

That's certainly the point that shines out from a study the Committee had commissioned as a preliminary to its hearings. And while the Committee isn't necessarily bound by the study, it's interesting that the Chairman and Vice Chairman added a preface to it in which they stress that "the massive and highly sophisticated use of mass communications by the President and Executive Branch" had created a "growing imbalance between executive and legislative power".

Well, the imbalance certainly exists. And it's Congress's own fault. In the past thirty years, nearly three dozen resolutions have been introduced to open the floors of the House and Senate to broadcasting. But no luck. No wonder the President's ahead.

But simply to catch up with the Executive Branch is not a compelling reason for lifting the broadcast ban. What is compelling is that the taxpayers of this country deserve first-hand knowledge of how their money is being handled and how their elected representatives are doing their jobs. That's the argument this station hopes you'll use in asking your members of Congress to do all they can in getting the broadcast ban lifted.

Invitation to respond has been sent to: Senator Lee Metcalf, Chairman, Joint Committee on Congressional Operations.

Editorial reply by Senator Metcalf, WBTV-Charlotte, N.C.

WBT has taken issue with what it perceives to be the purpose of hearings on Congress and mass communications now being conducted by the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations.

One element of this inquiry has been to assess the advisability of opening regular sessions of the House and Senate to some form of broadcast coverage. A number of witnesses, including WBT in its recent editorial, have spoken out favorably for such a move.

But WBT is incorrect in its assertion that the Joint Committee's primary motivation has been to devise ways of gaining equality with the President on television and radio.

Perhaps broadcast coverage of House and Senate sessions would have this effect. No doubt this would be beneficial to our system of government. But this is not the main reason why Congress is considering opening its doors to TV and radio. Time and again in our hearings we have stressed the point that Congress must communicate more effectively with the American people. Why? Because the people have a right to know what Congress is doing. Period.

The question of televising Congress is not an easy one to decide. A lot of knotty problems must be worked out. And we are looking hard for sensible answers. Whatever way the issue is decided in the coming months, WBT needs to know that the problem of presidential domination of television and radio is far down the list of the Joint Committee's concerns.

First and foremost, we want to find better ways of bringing the work of Congress closer to the people. Television and radio coverage of the House and Senate may well provide part of the answer.

[Broadcasting, Feb. 25, 1974]

CONGRESS BEGINS SEARCH FOR WAYS TO GET ON AIR MORE WITH STRONG BOOST FROM VAN DEERLIN, BROADCASTERS SEEK ACCESS TO CAPITOL FOR NEWS COVERAGE OF DEBATES, VOTES-BUT OTHER LEGISLATORS

CONTROLS

Plusses and a minus. A CBS Radio Network feature, One View of the Press, editorially endorsed the notion that Congress should open its floor deliberations to the broadcast media. The editorial was written by producer Dale Minor for delivery by CBS News correspondent Dallas Townsend Sunday, Feb. 1, three days before hearings on that subject opened in Washington (see story this page). The editorial noted an objection to open access: the thought that cameras would "bring out the ham" in congressmen. "The most casual reading of the Congressional Record makes it plain that television lights are really not needed to bring out the ham," Mr. Townsend said. But, "in genuine seriousness," the editorial noted that "one danger that could cause second thoughts" is that "it could result in more of the work of Congress being done in the old, smokefilled rooms and behind the closed doors of executive sessions."

WANT

Broadcasting executives told a joint congressional committee last week that opening the floors of both houses and congressional committee sessions to broadcast coverage is the key to greater congressional impact. But, they said, the choice of sessions to cover must be left to broadcast journalists themselves.

Joint Congressional Operations Committee Chairman Lee Metcalf (D-Mont.) stated at the opening of hearings last Wednesday that the Congress "must now consider methods which could permit it to bring more meaningful information more directly to more of our citizens . . A Congress unable to project its voice much beyond the banks of the Potomac can be neither representative nor responsive."

Broadcast executives-CBS President Arthur Taylor, ABC Inc. President Elton Rule and Mutual Broadcasting System President C. Edward Littleinterpreted the chairman's statement as perhaps calling for legislated congressional access to the networks, a condition they oppose. All also suggested that more news of Congress is getting out than Congress understands. As CBS's Mr. Taylor said, "the extent of coverage generally is not realized" by members of Congress and the public. The only way Congress can improve that coverage is to open its floor and committee sessions to broadcast coverage, Mr. Taylor said.

"I doubt that Congress will ever be able to compete on a fully equal basis with the President for the attention of the national news media," Representative Lionel Van Deerlin (D-Calif.) had testified the day before. "The President and the White House are one and the same, but Congress speaks with 535 different voices." And that, for the broadcasters, was the crux of the issue.

"The healthy pluralism that now exists would be foreclosed," Mr. Taylor said, "by any government-imposed reply requirement, whatever formula or device was used... The public's attention simply cannot be mandated.

"Far better than the current situation, or some of the proposed remedies," Mr. Taylor said, "is the simplest and most logical solution of all: Make the proceed-' ing of Congress available to broadcast coverage on the same basis as they are available to other news media."

"We feel that freedom of information is indivisible," Elton Rule of ABC said. "There should not be two standards, one for printed press and another for the electronic media."

Mr. Rule cited TV coverage of the Kefauver crime hearings, the Army-McCarthy hearings and the Watergage hearings as events that not only "gripped televising viewers" but "informed millions, [who] were given front row seats and the opportunity to form their own opinions."

This same theme was sounded by Henry Loomis, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose organization offered live and delayed broadcasts each day of the Watergate hearings last year.

Mr. Loomis utilized a preliminary study of public television coverage of the Florida legislature as the basis for his position that an open Congress would increase public understanding. "Viewers were less likely to feel alienated from government," the study said, "more likely to feel that voting played an important part in public affairs."

ABC's Mr. Rule outlined for the committee his network's proposal-first made last year to get more congressional information on the air. To redress the executive-legislative imbalance, ABC would (1) make one hour of prime time available at the beginning of each session for a "State of the Congress" address; (2) cover "debates on critical issues" if Congress allows "reasonable access"; (3) make available another prime-time hour for a report on congressional achievements and future plans at the end of each session while (4) all broadcast time would be parcelled out on the expectation that Congress could choose a mutually agreeable format with agreed-upon spokesmen.

Mutual's Ed Little took a more journalistic approach.

"I submit that we can better explain the institutional aspects of Congress to the American people," Mr. Little asserted in a statement submitted for the record, "if you will open up your proceedings to us." He also urged Congress to revamp and enlarge the Capitol facilities accorded broadcast journalists. He said the radio-television accommodations had not changed since they were allocated in 1945. He spoke for at least a regular conference room-with space to permanently store equipment.

On Wednesday, the first of four scheduled days of testimony, congressional witnesses addressed the need for concerted congressional action to improve the exposure, though they spoke from different persuasions.

A recent Louis Harris poll which found that only 26% of the public expressed confidence in Congress was cited often in the hearings as proof that the legislature needs to reform itself or, at least, its image. "The Congress suffers doubly from its inattention" to the relationship between Congress and the media, Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.) asserted. "On one hand, we cast a blurred and confusing image for the man on the street; on the other we are regularly made victims to end-runs and upstaging by the President."

"I hope I am not mistaking the symptoms for the illness," Senator Edmund Muskie (D-Me.) said, “when I insist that relations between officials and the press are the key to restoring public contact and, ultimately, public confidence." But the Maine senator implied that he did not trust the press to redress any imbalance. He opposed gavel-to-gavel coverage for fear of "boring the public" but favored opening "significant" debates to TV cameras. But Congress "can't leave that decision [of what is significant] to the press. We have to find ways to present our views of what's significant," he said. He urged Congress to explore "the other option" to opening the floor, "that of finding new ways to inform the people directly, without intermediaries, of our activities. Obviously television is the only medium that can carry such a message for us effectively."

Representative Van Deerlin, "sandwiched between the giants of the Senate," as he put it during the first day's testimony, said "we should give the press free access, and then lay off. Instead of telling the media what they should do, we should make it easier for them to do what they want to do.”

"I tend to look at these things as a reporter and an editor," the former broadcaster and newspaperman said, "rather than a member of Congress. And I feel far safer as a congressman with Congress being covered by a few transparent scalawags than with laws which would have the government looking over the shoulders of reporters and broadcasters."

It was the policies of the late Speaker Sam Rayburn ("who was not a product of the electronic age, who was disturbed by the lights and the cables," Mr. Van Deerlin conjectured) that have held up TV access to the floor to date, Mr. Van Deerlin said.

Representative Robert N. Giaimo (D-Conn.) asked Mr. Van Deerlin whether the television news organizations might not exploit unbridled access to the floor, say, by showing empty seats and "perpetuating the myth" that congressmen are not at work when the chambers are not in session.

"I doubt cameras would travel to the House chambers when it wasn't in session just to show that Congress wasn't doing its job," Mr. Van Deerlin said.

"Don't believe it," Mr. Giaimo shot back.

"Well, it wouldn't make a good program more than once," the California Democrat replied.

But, as Chairman Metcalf said later, Mr. Van Deerlin's "best" contribution to the record was articulating what may be Congress's largest fear about letting cameras in. "If some of us are inarticulate, if some of us are hams, if some of us are lazy, let the chips fall," Mr. Van Deerlin said.

[The American Legislator, Iron Works Pike, Lexington, Ky., March 1974]
CONGRESS MAY PERMIT TELEVISION COVERAGE OF FLOOR ACTION

The U.S. Congress is considering permitting broadcast media access to legislative floor action. Many State Legislatures have such access.

In testimony before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations March 7, state legislators from Florida and Connecticut explained the filming of the legislative sessions in their States by public television.

FLORIDA PROGRAM

Representative William Birchfield discussed the program in Florida called "Today in the Legislature." The program, filmed and produced by WJCT, the Jacksonville public television station, is broadcast by the State's eight public television stations and is transmitted over cable television.

The 1973 coverage included more than 90 hours of live proceedings of House and Senate floor debates and subcommittee and committee hearings. Special reports regarding the preliminary work sessions of the committees were broadcast prior to the legislative session. The Florida Legislature and the State's Department of Education provided funding for the production.