ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

this year and in the next three years make it possible to spray television signals into every time zone simultaneously. . .

One may ask: Why will these local broadcasters relay them to regional audiences if the networks won't? My response is--for the same series of reasons that cause some 500 different newspapers to send correspondents to Washington. These editors know that political reporting from the nation's Capitol is like regional accents and customs-different for various communities.

Debates on farm subsidies will find their audiences in Kansas, Iowa and Louisiana, while New York and Massachusetts would be more attentive to the hearings on mass transportation and urban blight. . . .

To sum up, take Senator Byrd's proposal of June 1973 seriously, combining it with Senator Pastore's proposal to commemorate our 200th birthday by opening Congress to the nation. A study on costs and feasibility would take less than six months, a decision to go could be possible in time for 1976.

[Houston Post, May 11, 1974]

CONGRESS ARGUING TV USE

Washington (UPI)-How could you explain to a national television audience such scenes as:

A congressman sprawled in a chair sound asleep during a House debate?
Two senators locked in "debate"-with the other 98 seats empty?

A cluster of congressmen laughing and talking, backs turned on a colleague who is delivering an impassioned argument in the well of the house?

Congress is agonizing again--for the fourth time since 1965-over whether to open floor sessions to live television. This time the controversy is spiced by the apparent certainty of an impeachment proceeding, at least in the House, against President Nixon.

The current vehicle for debate is the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, which in early April completed public hearings on the broad question of how Congress can "improve its capability for communicating with the American people through the mass media."

Boiled down, this means "how can Congress compete with the President in using television as a propaganda tool?"

Witnesses from the media were unanimous in turning the occasion into a demand that television be given equal access with the print media in covering congressional sessions.

In fact, none objected to the idea. But when it will happen-television is pushing to start coverage in the bicentennial year of 1976 and under what congressional restrictions remained big questions.

The chairman, Sen. Lee Metcalf, D-Mont., said at the close of the hearings: "I am persuaded that broadcast coverage will not jeopardize the dignity and decorum of congressional activities.”

But he got an argument from Rep. James O'Hara, D-Mich., a member of the committee.

"Would you be panning over a bunch of empty seats or concentrating on a member reading a newspaper while another is speaking?" O'Hara asked.

C. Bosworth Johnson, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, said "the electronic media is not out to pillory Congress or any other government institution. No professional broadcast newsman would fail to note that much of the work of Congress goes on in committee and not on the floor of the Senate and House."

[Roll Call, May 16, 1974]

NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT FOCUSED ON HOUSE

(By George M. Lies)

HOUSE TV RULES

Subpoenaed witnesses-according to House rules governing televising of committee hearings-have the right not to appear on camera if asked to testify for the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry.

Other TV guidelines adopted by the House permit only four unobtrusive, fixed television cameras in rooms during hearings. And the House rules also disallow the commercial sponsorship of any hearings being broadcasted.

Ready for another live TV spectacular from Capitol Hill? It's Part Two of the Watergate Drama. And political sages are predicting it will top Part One shown last sumn er.

That's the preview offered by Capitol officials who are preparing to televise the House impeachment hearings beginning around May 20, nearly a year to the day Messrs. Ervin, Baker, et al. enlivened daytime television in millions of homes across the country. The scenario might resemble just another summer rerun-if it were not for the cast changes.

Instead of seven Senators propounding intricate questions and belaboring minute details, the home viewing audience will see 38 House Judiciary Committee Members in action. Usually, House Members rate second billing to their Senate counterparts. For many of them, the occasion marks their television debut, although the impeachment investigation might make them TV stars overnight; an ambiguous political situation for some of them in this election year.

No such sticky questions hamper the appearance of scores of other minor characters such as the press corps, Congressional staffers and a host of lawyers working on the impeachment investigation. Many of these secondary actors, as a matter of fact, played important supporting roles in Part One as well.

Ready to pick up all of the developments are the three major networks ABC, CBS and NBC, the National Public Broadcasting network and Public Broadcasting Service. The three major networks will carry the hearings live in a rotating pool arrangement with PBS Radio also carrying the sessions live for listeners. Public TV will provide delayed gavel-to-gavel coverage during the evening hours but would convert to a live telecast if the major networks drop their broadcasts as they did last year when interest waned in the Watergate hearings. Hearings are expected to run through late July.

House Rules on the broadcasting of committee hearings are very strict (see accompanying story) but another problem threatens to hinder the writing press corps. The lack of space to seat everybody is the overriding concern.

House Press Gallery Supt. Ben West expects the number of requests for press seats from major news organizations to top the number of reporters who covered the original Watergate hearings. "It's certainly going to equal it," he remarked. "And, if it goes to the (House) floor, it's certainly going to surpass it."

The space shortage came about when the House Judiciary Committee, in order to preserve the integrity of their forboding inquest, voted against moving to a larger meeting room such as the Cannon Building caucus room. Members indicated preference for carrying on the historic task in accordance with committee tradition.

Last year the select Senate Committee on Presidential Campaign Activitiesto be remembered forever as the Watergate Committee-arranged to use the spacious Russell Building Caucus Room which seats about 500 people and holds another 100 standees. By comparison, the House Judiciary Committee room has a seating capacity of 225.

The space squeeze has prompted Chairman Rodino, the committee staff and House Speaker Carl Albert to consider other proposals to provide adequate access to the impeachment process for the news media and the public. One alternative under consideration, Roll Call has learned, would be to provide additional areas where reporters and/or the public could view the regular network telecast or a closed-circuit television monitor. One suggested site is the House press room located on the same floor as the committee room in the Rayburn Building.

Also, the House Democratic leadership is looking at an unprecedented proposal to provide access to floor debate for daily press corps and magazine writers, if a resolution of impeachment comes before the House. In this case, the plan calls for one or more TV cameras to be installed in the press section in order to carry the floor debate to other locations on Capitol Hill. No decision has been reached. Closed circuit monitoring, of course, might be put off if the full House decides to permit televising of any impeachment debate. Except for Presidential addresses to joint sessions of Congress, the House has allowed television cameras in its sacrosanct chamber only once in 1947 at the opening of the 80th Congress.

Proposals to televise floor proceedings on a permanent basis are being considered by the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, which held hearings on the subject early this year.

House Speaker Carl Albert also has before him a request for additional gallery seats for correspondents. If approved, the request would result in a loss of seats allocated to staff and the public.

Most requests for press coverage are coming from Washington-based bureaus at present. But even if the 580 news organizations (with 1,200 reporters) accredited by the House press gallery are limited to one writer per group, the gallery superintendents are still hard-pressed to find room in the hearing room and the gallery. Pooling of reporters would be tried only in desperation, West said. But he said some thought has been given to "revolving seats" which reporters would share. Major news organizations usually dispatch three correspondents to cover big stories. The House press gallery, however, seats only 94 daily reporters with room for about 60 standees while the periodical section seats about 20.

It appears that many reporters assigned to cover the impeachment proceedings are going to be part of the viewing audience—all of them clamoring to watch the outcome of the Watergate television drama.

[Parade Magazine, May 19, 1974]

AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME-TELEVISING CONGRESS

(By Donald Lambro)

After a broadcast blackout of 27 years, Congress may be on the brink of reopening its doors, via television, to the American people it serves.

The idea of televising House and Senate proceedings-frozen for decades in the dusty antiquity of its rigid rules and customs-has suddenly been resurrected at a time when Congress' public confidence rating has sunk to an all-time low.

Leaders on both sides of the Capitol have spoken out in support of bringing the nation's Legislature into America's living rooms. The Joint Committee on Congressional Operations has been holding a lengthy series of hearings on proposalsincluding radio and television-to bring Congress closer to the people. The Senate Rules Committee later this year will hold its own hearings on televising Senate sessions.

Actually, television may be allowed into the House and Senate chambers even before either body acts on legislation to allow cameras regularly to record its proceedings.

That eventuality would be President Nixon's impeachment proceedings by the House and, if the House votes to impeach, the subsequent trial in the Senate. Again, leaders on both sides have spoken in favor of televising the historic event. The first and last time television cameras were allowed to observe lawmakers at work was the opening of the House session in the 80th Congress of 1947.

The views were so clear that a bandage could be seen on a finger of the House tally clerk as the voting proceeded,” marveled a New York Times story at the time.

Since then, facilities for the 1708 magazine and newspaper reporters accredited to the Congressional news galleries have been significantly expanded. But the 526 radio and television reporters also covering Congress have seen their facilities, in the Senate at least, virtually unchanged since 1945.

TOUCHES ALL LIVES

Because the work of Congress touches the lives of every American, supporters of bringing Congress to television believe its major debates and votes should be beamed into the home of every citizen.

A number of factors have fed this growing belief that Congress-if it is to survive as a co-equal branch of government-must take to the airwaves.

Members were stunned, for example, to learn from a recent Louis Harris survey that only 21 percent of the American people-lower even than President Nixon's 30 percent gave Congress a satisfactory rating. Moreover, the office of the Presidency has continued to overshadow Congress as by far the strongest branch of Government.

Even though beleaguered by the scandals of Watergate, the President has still been able to effectively attack Congress in a series of televised press conferences and speaking engagements.

Rep. Torbert H. Macdonald (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Communications Subcommittee, summed up Congress' plight this way: "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."

FOR EQUAL TIME

Macdonald's answer is a proposed bill that would grant the opposition party in Congress equal prime time on television to answer "partisan addresses by the President of the United States."

But the solution to Congress' sagging rating in the public opinion polls, most members are convinced, is education-getting Congress, what it does and how it does it, across to the people, warts and all. One by one the consensus appears to be forming that television is the only way to get that message across.

Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.) has said Congress must "move to increase public understanding of what goes on in the House and Senate. Televising of Congress debates is inevitable-an idea whose time has come."

And Sen. William Brock (R., Tenn.): "We can't go on excluding the one form of communication that reaches more Americans than any other-television." Network officials have been pleading for years to convince Congress to drop its barriers against bringing the tools of their trade into the chambers. CBS President Arthur R. Taylor urged a joint Congressional committee recently to "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 the floor of the House."

Significantly, however, the question of control has been persistently raised by members during the joint committee's recent hearings: Who will decide when and what is to be televised?

Byrd and others believe that the cameras will have to be run by Congressional personnel-no doubt to avoid panning empty seats or focusing in on a dozing Congressman. Moreover, some mechanism will have to be found, they say, to select specific debates and votes to be telecast.

NEWS JUDGMENTS

The networks, including Public Broadcasting, argued that these are essentially news judgments and must be left to the broadcast media to decide. Any effort to "can feed" a Congressional television service to the networks would be tantamount to government censorship of news, some said.

Yet even Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D., Maine), could "conceive" of a Congressional network established solely for broadcasting House and Senate proceedings. The United Nations, for example, operates its own television service and the networks have access to it by a direct line for a fee.

But NBC's chairman of the board, Julian Goodman, as did others, insisted that any comparable system "should not preclude direct news coverage by broadcasters with their own equipment and on their own initiative."

Thus, the question of control is far from resolved and, in the end, may be the one major stumbling block that could doom televising Congress for the foreseeable future.

'WHO SPEAKS FOR CONGRESS?'

In an 81-page study entitled "Congress and Mass Communications," done for the committee by the Library of Congress, the eternally asked question that has plagued Congress for decades was posed: "Who speaks for Congress?" The answer may be simply this: Let Congress speak for itself.

By televising its proceedings, Congress can regain its lost power and prestige; it can do even more.

Instead of the few who are able to sit in its tiny public galleries, all Americans— either through nightly news programs or special broadcasts-would be able to watch their elected representatives argue and finally vote on the major issues of the day. That is the way toward a more informed electorate and its chief dividend, a more viable democracy.

[Letters to Editor, Washington Post, May 24]

THE EFFECTS OF TV ON LEGISLATORS

We would like to footnote the editorial comments of The Washington Post (Monday, April 29) regarding "Television and Impeachment," as well as the comments of both Mr. Barron and Mr. Reedy.

During February and March, 1974, the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations conducted public hearings on the topic: "Congress and Mass Communications." The purpose of these hearings was to study the question of live television coverage of the proceedings of the Congress.

The committee invited public television station WJCT-TV, Jacksonville, Florida, to testify regarding the process and the effects of the live, daily television coverage of the proceedings of the State of Florida Legislature. Such coverage, "Today in the Legislature," is produced by WJCT-TV and distributed over the Florida Public Broadcasting station interconnection.

In his testimony, Mr. Fred Rebman, president, WJCT, specifically addressed the issue of whether live television coverage affected the behavior of individual legislators. His testimony was further supported by Rep. William Birchfield, Florida House of Representatives.

The testimony and our evidence indicates that live, daily television coverage of the Florida State Legislature does not intrude upon the process of legislative activities and does not turn individual legislators into "posturing demagogues." The basis for such evidence is an extensive research project sponsored by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting conducted during the 1973 state legislative session. A few of the results of this research may be helpful:

Of 140 legislators interviewed, more than 80% responded to the following question:

[blocks in formation]

Analysis of these interviews indicated that one-third of the legislators themselves felt that the television equipment did not affect the behavior of the legislators. If one considers that 55% felt that the equipment bothered others but not themselves, the result is that 85% of the legislators reported no difference in behavior for themselves.

Further analysis of these interviews indicated that if and when legislators did attempt "posturing" for television, a quick, and not often ungentle, ribbing from his legislative peers provided suitable corrective therapy.

There are several hundred pages of research results of the 1973 television coverage of these legislative proceedings; this major communication research project is in the process of being published by the Florida State University Press. We felt it would be important to "footnote" for you and your readers the evidence to date concerning the issue of the effect of live televised coverage of legislative proceedings.

While it may be inappropriate to compare a state legislature to the Congress, we do not think it inappropriate to infer that there may be useful comparisons between the individual behaviors of state legislators and national legislators. H. JEROME MIRON, Director, Research, WJCT.

MAIN STREET U.S.A.

(By Bert Mills)

Washington, D.C.-Congress feels misunderstood and has created a new Joint Committee on Congressional Operations which hopes to find ways to improve the tarnished image of the legislators.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »