ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Indivisible, however, is not the same as identical. The various media are variously adapted. At the heart of the difference between normal press coverage of Congress and electronic coverage is the question of selectivity. Reporters for the printed media note whatever seems to them important on the floor of Congress or in committees, whenever it happens. Television cameras, geared to program schedules and involving elaborate equipment, would either be forced to record every minute of every session or give the leadership in the two legislative bodies the power to fill a prearranged time slot with whatever segment of a debate might favor their party, their faction or their individual causes. Presiding officers, holding the power of recognition, would in effect decide who would be seen and heard by the television audience in any excerpted portion of the proceedings and who would not.

Among other objections to making a running show of Congress is the premium it would place on playing to the audience, particularly a member's home audience, instead of on those concessions and compromises which are the core of the democratic legislative process. Members would have to show themselves in attendance at all times, instead of absenting themselves to attend committee sessions where much of the real work of the Congress is done.

The very nature of reporting a legislative body inevitably favors the printed word-just as the nature of reporting a rocket takeoff to the moon, a Presidential inaugural or a football game gives the TV screen an edge over the newspaper.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 5, 1974]

CONGRESS AND TV: FOR THE FIRST-HAND VIEW

NEW YORK, March 28, 1974.

To the Editor: Your March 25 editorial "Congress on the Air" concludes that "the very nature of reporting a legislative body inevitably favors the printed word." This must have been a considerable surprise to an audience that has been television eyewitness over the years to the full course or portions of a broad range of legislative hearings, including the Army-McCarthy Senate hearings, those on the nomination of Gerald Ford as Vice President and the Ervin committee hearings of 1973.

C.B.S. recommended to the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations in testimony in February that the proceedings of Congress be made available to broadcast coverage on the same basis as they are available to other media, subject to the news judgment of broadcast journalists as printed news is subject to the news judgment of its professional journalists. I am unable to follow the reasoning that leads to your arguments that "the regular televising of Congress at work' would make "a running show of Congress" or would "give the leadership in the two legislative bodies the power to fill a prearranged time slot with whatever segment of a debate might favor their party, their faction or their individual causes.”

The leaders of Congress do not tell editors of The Times what, when or how much to print. Television news editors similarly must have the freedom to exercise professional news judgment in determining which floor debates or committee hearings to broadcast live, which to record for later broadcast, which to include in regularly scheduled news broadcasts and which in special reports. This process is no different in substance from that exercised by your own editors and need have no greater effect on the effective functioning of Congress than does the reporter with his pad and pencil.

You cite a fear of Congressmen "playing to the audience." Over the years the American public has shown considerable ability to recognize this for what it is. Surely that public is not so naive that it cannot be exposed to the actions of its elected representatives except through the print press. Print reporting is essential to public understanding of Congress, but it is not a substitute or a medium which enables citizens to see for themselves the proceedings of government.

The Times has been a stanch defender of freedom of the press and the public's right to information about its government. It is strange indeed now to find The Times aligned with those who would exclude a portion of the press from important public events, and who would deny the public the opportunity to view first-hand the activities of its elected leaders.

ARTHUR R. TAYLOR,
President, C.B.S.

[The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Mar. 31, 1974]

HILL DEMOCRATS FRUSTRATED OVER IMAGE, TV ACCESS

(By Mary Russell)

Congress was already worried about its image when President Nixon launched his latest series of televised press conferences and appearances in Nashville, Chicago and Houston.

But after the President's appearance in Houston last Tuesday, during which he charged that Congress was doing nothing on energy legislation and the House Judiciary Committee was not acting constitutionally, the frustration of congressional Democrats reached a new peak.

Senate Majority Whip Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) chafed over the fact that the President can command prime television time to counter impeachment moves and to attack Congress, while Congress has no corresponding access to television. Rep. Torbert H. Macdonald (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, charged, "When the President-any President-can command the attention of 75 million Americans to propagandize on behalf of the administration's side of a political issue, we have a situation that cries out for correction."

He then introduced a bill that would require equal time and equal audience potential to answer "partisan addresses by the President of the United States" and promised hearings on his bill "as soon as possible."

And Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) pleaded with Speaker Carl Albert (D-Okla.) to ask for equal time to defend the Judiciary Committee.

But House Majority Leader Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.), who answered the President's attack with a speech on the House floor, said the reality is that congressional response just doesn't command that much attention.

"When the President speaks, he gets on the front page. When (Senate Majority Leader) Mike Mansfield speaks, he's lucky to get on the back page. When I speak, I'm lucky to get three lines in a paper," O'Neill said.

To find out why Congress can't compete with the President in communicating through the media and what can be done about it, the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations held a series of hearings that ended recently.

The main proposal under discussion was the feasibility of radio and television coverage of House and Senate floor action, an idea that has been around a long

time.

It was Congress' low rating in the polls, and a Harris survey for a Senate committee showing Americans know little about Congress and how it operates that touched off the hearings and renewed the interest in televising floor debates, but the President's recent performances gave the hearings some added impetus.

Presidents of CBS, ABC, NBC and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting testified, along with members of Congress and newsmen.

Almost all endorsed opening of floor sessions to radio and TV broadcast, but the problem was how to do it without interfering with congressional deliberations and without boring the public with debates that sometimes can be long, dull and full of parliamentary procedure.

Arthur R. Taylor, president of CBS, suggested what he called "the simple and most logical solution of all: make the proceedings of Congress available to broadcast coverage on the same basis as they are available to other news media. Give broadcast journalism full and open access to the important events taking place in the well of the Senate and on the floor of the House."

It isn't expected that commercial television would provide gavel-to-gavel coverage as is done at the national political conventions, except perhaps during an important debate. But film clips might be used on nightly news programs, or as part of a "special," showing Congress actually at work, rather than having a TV newsman describing the action.

Public television might provide fuller coverage, as it now does with a few state legislatures.

John G. Stewart, former director of communications for the Democratic National Committee, noted in a report for the committee that one of the problems is that "some members would play to the cameras in an attempt to appeal favorably to their constituents." Another is that during most debates, the chambers are often more than half empty.

However, several witnesses expressed a belief that members of Congress and the public would get used to the spotlight and the novelty of a half-empty floor or the call of the camera would soon wear off.

But some witnesses warned the committee that a public-relations approach to the problems of Congress or even fuller coverage by all the media isn't the answer. Rep. John B. Anderson of Illinois, the third-ranking House Republican, said, "The only way for Congress to resume its rightful role is to resume it-by action, not by some media magic. The way for Congress to make the news is to make news.'

Time magazine's Capitol Hill correspondent, Neil MacNeil, said that "openness will bring better understar ding, but it will not necessarily bring popularity." The erosion of congressional power started with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress has continued to abdicate its power ever since, he said.

"The press concentrates its coverage on where power lies. The solution for Congress is to reassert its lost powers. The best way for Congress to improve its public image is to improve its performance."

[The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., Apr. 11, 1974]

MINOW BACKS TV FOR CONGRESS

A former Federal Communications Commission chairman told Congress yesterday that young Americans might not have taken to the streets as an avenue of political expression in the 1960s if House and Senate floor debates had been open to television news cameras.

Newton N. Minow, also a co-author of the new study, "Presidential Television," said young people who could have seen the Congress in action would have understood the American political process better and expressed their grievances within its normal channels.

Minow and one of his other co-authors, Washington attorney Lee Mitchell, were among eight final witnesses as the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations concluded hearings that began in February on Congress and mass communications.

All advocated some form of broadcast coverage of floor action and committee meetings with either direct feeds to local stations or access for networks and establishment of tape library for public and industry use.

Minow reviewed for the committee one of the major theses of his book: that presidential use of television as a political tool has amended a fundamental precept of the 1789 Constitution.

"In dividing the powers of government, the framers. . . took pains to balance the executive and legislative branches by limiting the powers of Congress because they believed it would have an inherent ability to communicate more effectively with the public" because of its members' many constituencies, said Minow, an attorney and broadcast executive.

"Through television, it is now the President who is closer to the people. and the advantages its offers are too important to Congress' vitality to be passed by any longer," he said.

Lee Mitchell and Rep. James G. O'Hara (D-Mich.), a member of the study committee, recommended that Congress schedule about four times a year a floor debate on issues or proposals of prime national importance. The debates would be held in evening hours for broadcast live on all networks-if the networks chose to— and the party leadership of each chamber would choose the debaters.

O'Hara's version of this proposal would have the debate before committee consideration of a major bill and include a floor vote on a nonbinding "sense of the Congress" resolution on the issue.

Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R-N.Y.) also urged opening the floors to television and radio reporters with their broadcast equipment. But he said, at least at first, Congress should let the news persons select what should be covered and do it themselves as reporters, rather than have the chambers provide the film or videotape.

Rep. William A. Steiger (D-Wis.) called for full, taped gavel-to-gavel coverage of floor proceedings with feeds to subscribers and a copy maintained as the official record.

Barry Zorthian, a Time Inc. vice president representing the National Cable Television Association, and Walter S. Baer, a Rand Corp. consultant, addressed the panel on the broad possibilities CATV presents to Congress for airing of such coverage locally, regionally and nationally and uses of those channels for constituent polling.

[Broadcasting, Apr. 15, 1974]

METCALF COMMITTEE GETS CHORUS OF AYES FOR OPENING CONGRESS TO BROADCASTING

Fred W. Friendly, former president of CBS News and now a professor of broadcast journalism at Columbia University, told a joint congressional committee last week that it could "by-pass the gatekeepers at the network" if it were to directly broadcast television coverage of the chambers of Congress to local stations via a domestic satellite system.

Senator Lee Metcalf's (D-Mont.) Joint Committee on Congressional Operations has been hearing testimony over the last two months on congressional access to the media and how it could properly balance the President's command of direct access to the electorate through the television networks.

"My proposal is not only to make the wired Congress available to all networks," Mr. Friendly said, "but to leap over all those gatekeepers with their varied values and priorities and deliver the signal direct to 200 American communities. If telephone long-line and microwave distribution is too expensive, synchronous satellites made possible by this nation's maximum, costly effort in space will in this year and in the next three years make it possible to spray-telecast television signals into every time zone simultaneously or on a delayed-time basis." Mr. Friendly set the cost of operating such a satellite system at about $10 million per year.

If Congress were to provide a broadcast service delivering the proceedings of Congress to broadcasters, similar to the system employed by the UN, some members of the committee were anxious about how the networks might excerpt parts of the proceedings. Mr. Friendly's proposal struck at the heart of that anxiety as he pointed out that local stations would be able to pick and choose which debates or speeches would be relevant to their service area, thereby precluding the networks from becoming the sole disseminators of congressional coverage.

The president of the Radio and Television News Directors, Bos Johnson of WSAZ-TV, Huntington, W. Va., told the committee that if Congress does indeed adopt a UN-type system (that is, a service produced by Congress and offered to broadcasters for a fee) there should be provision for broadcaster-operated cameras in the chamber. "If for technical reasons such a UN-type service might have to be established," he testified, "we feel it should be operated strictly as a record of the proceedings, with the government camera trained only on the member speaking. There should also be a provision for broadcast industry cameras to show the rest of the chamber-other members, the audience in the galleries, etc."

But the committee members did not warm to that idea. Representative James G. O'Hara (D-Mich.) said that the network's coverage of the Democratic and Republican presidential nominating conventions "makes us hesitate. Would you be in the cloakroom instead of covering the official business? Would you be in a corner of the chamber asking someone what he thinks of what the speaker is saying rather than concentrating on the speaker?"

Mr. Johnson assured the committee that broadcaster-operated cameras would do nothing like that. They were needed, he said, because a camera fixed on the person speaking "cannot convey the atmosphere-the tension, for example-in the chamber, which television is uniquely equipped to do."

National Association of Broadcasters President Vincent Wasilewski joined other broadcast-industry representatives in calling for the opening of floor proceedings to broadcast coverage. As well, he said that if the equal time and fairness doctrine were repealed it "would allow more appearances and more robust debate among all candidates for federal office which could improve the understanding of the great issues confronting the government. . . and allow journalists to do more investigative reporting and topical documentaries without the fear that government will second guess them."

Newton Minow, former chairman of the FCC and co-author of "Presidential Television," claimed that "the Constitution has been amended by technology." That is, because of the President's ability to command television time on all networks simultaneously, the Chief Executive has-in the years since President Kennedy become more powerful than the other two branches of government with which it was mandated to be equal. "The President can speak on television when, how and on what he wants," Mr. Minow said, "Congress should have the same right." The President, however, should not be seen less on national television, he said, but Congress should be seen more.

Lee N. Mitchell, another co-author of "Presidential Television," told the committee that "even when you add up all the negatives [mentioned in conjunction

29-801 0-74-App.- -35

with televising chamber proceedings]-grandstanding, hot lights, disruption of proceedings-nothing permanent would be done to Congress. Try it.”

Mr. Minow also advanced his proposal for television prime-time debates in Congress on major issues. That idea has been criticized as being an invitation for members of Congress to play up to the audience. Senator Metcalf thought that since most candidates for President are coming from the Senate these days, "We'd have the same group selected by the majority and minority leaders advancing their cause for the Presidency." Representative O'Hara supported the prime-time debate concept in a separate statement for the record. Despite his misgivings, Senator Metcalf believed the idea could be a "first step" in the eventual broadcasting of floor action.

In fact, the committee spent much of its time during the last days of the hearings discussing first steps. Another such proposal was advocated by Senator Robert Č. Byrd (D-W. Va.), who has introduced a rule change that will equip senators' offices with a closed-circuit television system so that they might monitor chamber proceedings while not on the floor. If the rule change is adopted, the system would be built with a broadcast-quality signal in mind. After a period of experimentation with the closed-circuit system, the signal would then be made available to broadcasters.

Though these hearings have been concentrated on a permanent, long-range program for congressional access to the electronic media, one current issue kept popping up: the televising of the impeachment and trial of President Nixon, if that should happen. Senator Metcalf said at one point that he felt Congress would have little time to study the mechanics of broadcast coverage of the House and Senate because they would soon be in such an impeachment proceeding and that Congress would probably vote to open those events to the broadcast media. Later, the senator told BROADCASTING that he would be testifying before the Senate Rules Committee on this committee's findings at some time in the future if it votes to investigate the possibility of televising impeachment and trial proceedings.

Interestingly, during the seven days of hearings, no one appeared to speak against the idea of televising floor proceedings. It seemed apparent, as Representative Lionel Van Deerlin (D-Calif.) pointed out early on in the hearings, that there is a "new generation" in Congress which is more accustomed to the realities of television. And, one committee staff member believed, the idea is a popular one among an electorate that is seeking a "more open Congress."

The Metcalf hearings have been uncommon. The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations is basically toothless, with ability only to write a report but not to initiate legislation. Nonetheless it has been able to get a "quality" set of witnesses who include the presidents of two network corporations (CBS's Arthur Taylor and ABC's Elton Rule) and the chairman of NBC, Julian Goodman. (By contrast, it was the heads of the networks, not the corporations, that appeared before Senator John L. Pastore and the Senate Commerce Committee for hearings on television violence two weeks ago, a subject and committee that bears more directly on the networks day-to-day operations.) As well, the line-up of Congressional witnesses has included a good number of the "giants" (Mr. Van Deerlin's word) in the Congress. Among them were Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.), Jacob Javits (R-N.Y.), Edmund Muskie (D-Me.) and Senator Byrd, the majority whip.

The target date for broadcasters obtaining the right to cover the chambers of Congress on an equal footing with the print media is 1976, the bicentennial year, the pro-TV people are saying.

[Los Angeles Times, Apr. 4, 1974]

MUSKIE URGES RENEWED DIALOG WITH THE PEOPLE

CONGRESS SHOULD EXPLAIN ITSELF-VIA TELEVISION

(By Edmund S. Muskie)

"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. These are the names of the 535 members of Congress. Less than half the people in the country know which ones speak for them. Only two Americans in five feel they know what the members of Congress are doing. Fewer than one out of three trusts them very far. Forty-two percent believe that most elected federal officials make promises they never keep. Three-quarters

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »