CONNECTICUT PROGRAM

Connecticut Senate Majority Leader Lewis B. Rome and David B. Ogle, Executive Director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management, described public television coverage of the Connecticut Legislature. When the coverage began in 1969, they said, it was limited to film that was edited into special reports, usually broadcast the day after the film was shot.

By 1973, the speakers continued, the broadcast was originating live from the State Capitol. Additional formats were tried including interviews and nightly reports on the "Connecticut Newsroom" program.

In 1973, a series of television debates, modeled after the national public television program, The Advocates, was broadcast in addition to 20 hours of live coverage of floor debates and committee hearings. A grant from the William Benton Foundation provided CPTV with most of its budget for coverage of the General Assembly.

OTHER STATE BROADCASTS

Other television coverage, including special programs, interview sessions or live coverage in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnestoa, Maine, and Ohio, was noted by the committee in its report entitled "Congress and Mass Communications."

Access to the floor proceedings of the Congress is limited to special occasions such as the presidential address or swearing in of the Vice President. Committee access is free-limited only by the committee's own ruling.

Another issue considered by the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations and covered in a committee report was media concentration in the executive branch. The report noted that George Washington once said: "It is to be lamented that the editors of the different Gazettes in the Union do not more generally and more correctly . . . publish the debates in Congress on all great national questions and this with no common pains, everyone of them might do."

Even in Washington's day, the President was the focal point of the interest of the press, according to the committee report. Congressional activities were related to second rank or lower. The situation might be compared to the relationship between the Governor and State legislators, the report added.

Proposals made by the report include:

Moving more hearings out of Washington and using local and regional broadcast facilities;

Experimenting in different ways to permit greater access to floor proceedings to the broadcast and photographic media;

Creation of a congressional information service;

Authorization of instructional films to improve the quality of teaching about Congress;

Creation of a Congressional Broadcasting System;

Holding general debate on specific issues in the House, and

Installation of a closed-circuit television system to monitor floor proceedings.

WCBS NEWSRADIO 88

EDITORIAL

Subject: Closer Look at Congress, 74-28

Broadcast: March 5, 1974, March 6, 1974.

We think it's time you got to know your representatives in Washington a lot better.

It would happen if you were allowed to watch on television or listen on radio while Congress does some of its most important work-during debate on the floor of the House and Senate.

Congress doesn't permit live or recorded broadcasts of floor debat 3. But it's thinking about changing that rule. If there are any questions about the benefits or problems related to broadcasting, we suggest the representatives take a look at Connecticut.

Connecticut has permitted sessions of the state legislature to be broadcast for about five years. Lawmaking has not been stalled by show-boating members performing before the cameras. Assembly Speaker Francis Collins says long-winded politicians have become a bit more windy, and quiet ones have begun to speak up. But no more than they do, anyway, in front of packed galleries.

Sessions have not increased dramatically in length. Collins says politicians have become more responsive and the voters have become more educated.

For example, Connecticut taxpayers watched in horror while their lawmakers voted for a state income tax in 1971. The outcry after the broadcast was so intense that the law was repealed. That's called interaction.

If you think that's unusual, listen to this: The Connecticut legislature is considering letting citizens testify at committee hearings over the phone while they watch the proceedings on TV.

The point is, we have modern means of communication and we should be using them. Connecticut already is.

We think it's time democracy became updated. Congress is currently looking into ways of increasing its contact with the American people. The Connecticut experience has shown that broadcasting legislative sessions-when they merit it is one way to do it.

[Congressional Record, Washington, D.C., Mar. 5, 1974]

A FRIGHTENING COMMUNICATIONS GAP

(By Marianne Means)

Washington.-Twenty months after the Watergate break-in, a nagging question lingers on and festers: How could a national network of politicians, who were really criminals, flourish at the highest level of the Federal Government?

The easiest answer is to say the President is a knave, but it cannot be that simple. Evangelist Billy Graham would blame Watergate and its related horrors on a universal moral decline among the people, but that condemns too broadly, as though divorce and marijuana are to be equated with burglary and perjury. The heart of the problem Sen. Edmund Muskie recently suggested, is that most Americans have very little notion of what they are doing when they vote nor of what the persons they elect do when they get into office. This is not very flattering to the voters, and when President Nixon referred to them as "children," in that context he was roundly criticized.

But Muskie cited a survey taken for his Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations by Lou Harris; the results showed a frightening communications gap between the people and the so-called servants whose salaries they pay.

DON'T WANT TV EXPOSURE

Muskie was testifying before a joint Congressional committee on behalf of a measure to permit floor debates to be televised. Most Congressmen, however, seem more frightened by such television exposure than by the statistics. They clearly have their priorities in the wrong place.

Repeated polls have indicated that only a minority of citizens know the names of their local, state and Federal Government officials. The Harris survey confirmed this situation: only 46 percent correctly identified their Congressman; only 42 percent could name both Senators; and 20 percent believed that Congress is composed of the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court.

In exposing the giant communications gap, the survey also showed that state and local officials thought they were reaching the public, but the public said otherwise. Both local and state officials over-estimated public information about their activities by 26 points.

Surprisingly, the public reported more confidence in television and newspaper news than did the officials. But none of the figures are awe-inspiring. Forty-one percent of the public had confidence in TV news, 30 percent in the press. But only 17 percent of state and local officials had faith in TV news and 19 percent in newspapers. Muskie noted that problems are inevitable when "the men and women who know most and best what government is doing trust least the only reliable means they have for communicating their knowledge."

THE PUBLIC'S OUT OF TOUCH

The survey found only 24 percent of the public reported ever having gone to the local government; most who did were professionals, the college educated or active citizens. The percentages were lower, but the pattern similar, for contact with state and Federal governments.

The concerns that took these people to their government were primarily ersonal rather than issue-oriented. Traffic-related problems and zoning questions

were the most frequent reasons at the local level. At the state level, financial help was the big motivator. At the Federal level, help was sought for grants, passports, disability insurance payments and the like.

No substantial number of citizens tried to communicate with state or local governments about broad policy questions. Only 25 percent of those who said they had ever written to express an opinion to Congress or the White House did so on a public issue.

It appears some of the responsibility for Watergate can be spread in every direction. The President, of course, established the climate that made it possible. But the public was not paying enough attention to realize what was going on, and honest officials were not pressing for better communication and more open disclosure.

[Roll Call, Washington, D.C., Mar. 7, 1974]

MEMBERS PONDER CONGRESS TV IMAGE

(By George M. Lies)

Top television executives from two major networks have encouraged Congress to open its sacrosanct doors to the broadcasters on a permanent basis, but some ticklish questions on televising legislative sessions are worrying the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, which held recent hearings to explore this very question.

The TV executives said fairly much the same thing they've said in past few years, that they support efforts to provide the nation's viewers with televised proceedings of Congressional floor debates and committee activities, and that they would do the job better than anyone else in presenting the show in a lively manner. On hand to support this proposition were ABC-TV president Elton H. Rule and CBS-TV president Arthur R. Taylor.

"Networks and local stations," noted the ABC executive, “should be allowed to exercise their own news judgment as to which debates are of wide enough public interest to be presented, and committees of both the House and Senate should be authorized to make their own ground rules for such television and radio coverage." Furthermore, Rule reported that technical advances have minimized the argument that TV cameras may disrupt floor proceedings.

CBS president Taylor, likewise, detailed how its Washington bureau staff— 22 reporters and eight camera crews-has increased to show that CBS "is well prepared" to cover daily Congressional activities. Much of the broadcast coverage, he indicated, would take the form of excerpts of Congressional debate for use on regular news broadcasts.

"Free access of broadcasting to Congress," he concluded, "will allow broadcast journalism professionals to do what they do best-apply their best news judgment to the selection of what is most vital, interesting and newsworthy to the American people."

On the other hand, several Members of Congress, though mindful of a need to permit public access to Congressional operations, raised the central question which prompted the Joint Committee's hearings: What is the best way Congress can use the broadcast media to educate citizers about its activities?

The possibility of gavel-to-gavel coverage of floor proceedings, for instance, was laid asunder by the outspoken Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex) who remarked: "The most common suggestion is that there be audio and visual coverage of the chamber proceedings. I question whether this would increase or decrease the public's understanding. I suggest rather that such coverage for the most part would be confusing and of no interest at all.

"Gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceedings would be similar to continuous coverage of hospital operating rooms for the purpose of improving the image and understanding of the medical profession."

Brooks raised the point to emphasize the complexity of the problems of televising floor sessions because the present rules of the House and Senate are not conducive to the kind of debates which regularly occur in parliamentary bodies of other countries which permit broadcast coverage of their procedures. In the parliaments, which tend to be forums for commentary on the policies of the Executive, ministers are quizzed at length by their colleagues on the floor, and the exchanges make for lively action on radio or television.

The U.S. Congress, as many state legislatures, works out the specifics of legislation, for the most part, before a bill goes to the floor for a vote. Although Congress

receives draft legislation from the President on major national issues, such as the emergency energy legislation, it funnels bills through an exhaustive committee system, from subcommittee hearings to full committee markup, to conference committee compromises.

To tackle the complexities, the Joint Committee chaired by Sen. Lee Metcalf (D-Mont) with Rep. Brooks as vice-chairman, will examine a host of alternative ideas submitted for the hearing record by Sens. Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn) and Walter Mondale (D-Minn), and Reps. Robert McClory (R-Ill), John Anderson (R-Ill), James Cleveland (R-NH) and Lionel Van Deerlin (D-Cal).

Unique proposals for broadcasting Congressional activities are contained in an all-encompassing bill introduced by Sen. Humphrey to modernize the machinery of the legislative branch. Dubbed the "Modern Congress Act," the legislation would establish an Office of Congressional Communications to operate an internal information system for lawmakers, as well as provide facilities, equipment and expert technical advice to help them communicate with the public via the news media.

Along these lines, Sen. Mondale made note of his resolution introduced last year, to amend Senate rules to permit periodically televised question and report sessions, at which executive branch officials would visit the Capitol to answer policy questions put forth by the entire Senate body.

Both Reps. Van Deerlin and McClory also favored television coverage of Congress, and supported the networks' position. "I'm opposed to Congress going into the television business," McClory stated. "There doesn't appear to be a need for it when the media already have facilities adequate to the task."

Van Deerlin, likewise, wants to provide the news media with free access. "Instead of telling the media what they should do," he said, "we should make it easier for them to do what they want to do."

Reps. Anderson and Cleveland had other ideas. Noting that television news shows use either "short, sensational... or heated exchanges," Rep. Anderson observed that, "this is good television, but does it really convey to the public what the legislative process or the constitutional role of Congress is all about?"

Additional questions were posed by Rep. Cleveland, who pointed to the obvious logistical difficulties in covering, for example, a recent week's business in which the House and Senate debated different major energy bills, and 17 committees and subcommittees considered energy-related matters in random order with much duplication. "Where," he asked, "should the media focus their attention?"

"Who can speak authoritatively about either the substance or the prospects of the legislation?" he inquired. "How can such wide diversity be organized for orderly presentation to a vast audience?”

[Broadcasting, Mar. 11, 1974]

UN-TYPE BROADCAST SET-UP URGED FOR CONGRESS

Consensus emerging from joint congressional committee hearings into improving Capitol Hill's media access and communications abilities suggests setting up United Nations-type system for covering floors of both houses. NBC President Julian Goodman and Public Broadcasting Service President Hartford Gunn both endorsed idea of setting up such service, if Congress decides to open chambers to cameras, at hearings (March 7). UN operates its own TV-radio system, supplying feeds, both live and taped, to subscriber news organizations. Broadcast executives said they were satisfied with integrity of that operation and, assumedly, would trust similar, congressionally run system.

Advocates of televised floor coverage won support of important figure in fight, Senate Majority Whip Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.). Senator Byrd traveled to House side of Hill last week to strongly back "government in the sunshine" push. TV coverage is "vital, necessary and imperative contribution to the system," he said.

COMMENTARY OF JOSEPH MCCAFFREY

As Broadcast over WMAL-TV (7), Washington, D.C., March 8, 1974 Senator Lee Metcalf's committee is holding hearings on whether the floor proceedings of Congress should be opened up for television coverage. There is a great

reluctance on the part of members to put the big red eye on what goes on during the sessions of the House and Senate.

There is one way to make everyone happy; those who want to have the proceedings televised, mostly big TV moguls who don't know any better, and those who don't want television, mostly old entrenched members of Congress who also probably don't know any better.

There is, as I said, a solution. It will make everyone happy.

Simply open up the House and Senate floor proceedings to television. This will keep those TV bosses who don't know any better happy, because then they can put their cameras in and turn on the lights.

It will keep those who oppose television happy for one reason. After one or two sessions are put on the tube the networks doing the telecasting will find they have no audience, or if they do, it has fallen fast asleep.

After the novelty has worn off, in about three days, the cameras installed in the House and Senate will gather dust.

The old timers on the Hill who oppose television will be satisfied. The bright guys with the button down shirts in the networks will have won their point, but, of course, to no avail.

So, Lee Metcalf, let'em in, and get it over with!!!

[Broadcasting, Mar. 18, 1974]

LET THE SUNSHINE IN

It may be unrealistic to hope that anything positive will come of it, but a congressional committee is at least considering the admission of radio and television to proceedings of the Senate and House. The trouble is that some members want to be both the performers and editors in radio and television coverage.

The Joint Congressional Operations Committee is trying to find ways to get more national exposure of congressional affairs, to counter the attention paid the President and his administration (Broadcasting, March 11, Feb. 25). At the outset it was getting bad advice from such witnesses as Senator Edmund Muskie (D-Me.), who testified that Congress should not leave news judgments up to newsmen.

"We have to find ways to present our views of what's significant," Mr. Muskie said.

Happily for broadcast journalism and the broadcast audience that may some day be admitted to the places where its elected representatives work, later testimony has been more enlightened. Elton Rule of ABC, Arthur Taylor of CBS, C. Edward Little of Mutual, Julian Goodman of NBC, Henry Loomis of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Hartford Gunn of the Public Broadcasting Service have argued for journalistic freedom to cover Capitol Hill as news values warrant. "There should not be two standards," said Mr. Rule, "one for printed press and another for the electronic media." Mr. Goodman suggested that Congress install a counterpart to the United Nations broadcast service which covers all formal sessions with audio and video feeds that may be taken at will by broadcasters for whatever use they want to make of them.

The UN-type of basic service is beginning to pick up support. Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the majority whip, has argued for television coverage as "vital, necessary and imperative." Representative Lionel Van Deerlin (D-Calif.) has said of all news media: "We should give the press free access and then lay off."

The Byrds and Van Deerlins may be too progressive to be instantly heeded in halls where clerks still keep inkwells filled and snuff boxes at the ready. But if broadcast gear is ever given permanent admission to the Capitol, those names deserve a plaque on the first camera installed in the chamber.

[New York Times, Mar. 25, 1974]

CONGRESS ON THE AIR

Periodically, leaders of the electronic media can be counted on to propose the regular televising of Congress at work. The idea, advanced again in recent testimony before the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, has a persuasive ring. It is hard to deny the contention of Elton H. Rule, president of the American Broadcasting Company, that "freedom of information is indivisible."