ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

a different camera shot, a different emphasis on one channel than they had on the other.

Representative GIAIMO. I agree with what you are saying, that you would rather have a diversification rather than depend on a pool at all times. I was going to ask if, can you not do that anyway in the sense of having a pool set up to take the shots, and then you have your own comments added, you have your own commentators interpret and comment as you did do, I think, at times in the Watergate hearings? You sort of answered the question when you mentioned taking a different shot, which would mandate having your own equipment.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is the caveat.

I think in most cases, Congressman, you are right, and what needs to be defined and can be defined by people with technical activity is what kind of a pilot light will function, so that a flame can be ignited at times which are appropriate for you and appropriate for us.

I did want to hold out the necessity, however, that there are moments, there are times, when I think it is quite important that the networks each have their own facilities there so that one can get that gradation of approach which seems to me to be one of strength of our present system.

Representative GIAIMO. Of course, you are talking about the incidents of great public interest?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Representative GIAIMO. Actually these hearings are trying to get beyond that, because you already to a great degree have that opportunity now, such as state of the Union or Watergate speeches. Hopefully you will have the opportunity to televise the impeachment proceedings if they are held.

I do not want to prejudge impeachment, but what about the more ordinary, less sensational types of activity in which we are trying to get you involved? Congress perhaps would elevate its own activities in order to comply with the more observing public interest if the American public were made more aware of its workings.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I would think in most cases a pool or rotational arrangement with our own commentators available, our own reporters, would be the way in which the situation would develop.

I would, however, want to hold out that caveat for those circumstances which I described.

Representative GIAIMO. Have you given any thought, Mr. Taylor, to the real serious problem which has to confront you at all times; that is, how do you maintain or develop public interest in your programforget the Watergate-type hearing, where there was obviously great public interest, but in our ordinary but important committee hearings which can be rather dull. For example, my Appropriations Committee held very important hearings yesterday, and the day before with Mr. Ash, the head of OMB, and Secretary Shultz on the overall Federal budget.

Those hearings are certainly important, as you know, but they are not the exciting or sensational type of news which holds public interest. I often wonder from your standpoint if you can really justify showing a program that many people are not going to watch.

I am reminded, for example, that in the press, the difference is great in New York City, between the New York Times and New York Daily News.

The New York Times certainly presents more information than the News does, yet I think I am right when I say more New Yorkers buy the Daily News than the New York Times. Is that right? Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct.

Representative GIAIMO. And the Daily News does not get into this nonsensational, but important even though it may be a dull and dry type of news activity. Would you not be faced with that problem, and how do you propose to work it out?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; that is a very, I think, keen perception on your part.

This is the problem we are faced with virtually all the time. It serves, I think, no good to write a book which very rarely anyone reads.

There is, however, a purpose in that, the purpose of providing an historical record. This is why, as I said in my prepared statement, that to a great extent the coverages of committee hearings will appear in excerpts in the evening and in the morning news. It will give rise to interviews, just as it does now, even though our cameras and our microphones are not in place, but this is an important point.

It does not seem to me that it is in the Congress' interest to have extensive coverages and complete coverage of hearings which, as you indicate, in many respects are routine.

I am not qualified to select those portions of the hearings, which would be of interest to the American people, but the professionals in our organization make these judgments and decisions each and every day, and I have confidence that they are capable of doing so. I think that completes my answer, Congressman. Representative GIAIMO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Giaimo. Our vice chairman, Congressman Brooks.

Representative BROOKS. I just want to welcome you here, and say that anybody that studied Renaissance history, and was chief of International Paper and now CBS, he has studied a lot of history.

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman, I saw the light and converted to American history.

Representative BROOKS. I know you did well at it. I scanned through your statement, and heard the last part of it. I think it was helpful, and I would ask you to comment on my feeling that what Congress needs is more individual coverage, and also that gavel-togavel coverage of certain sessions of the Congress, or even of committee hearings, which is basically dull, would be difficult to understand and to explain, you could not make people listen to it.

There are opportunities where individual Members, individual committees take action, which I think are very newsworthy and sometimes it seems there is some difficulty about getting any coverage at all. Some of the editing, the editing process within the television network is, it is just like editing on paper, they take that big pencil, one branch uses a pencil, and the other uses scissors, and they just snip whatever they please. Very often, even when your own people do a good job of

shooting down here, they will take a good bit of footage, and they submit it to New York, or wherever the main editing offices are, and they will not use any of it, or they will use 20 seconds, and so I think a little more heart on the part of those editors which of course is a goal you aspire to all the time, would be helpful.

Sometimes they need a little more sympathy, the editors you have here on the ground can do a good job, but if it is not processed through the organization, it never gets on the tube. This is one of the problems that affects us, plus I think that individual Members when they have something that is worthwhile, Republicans or Democrats, really, there ought to be some way for them to get a little better coverage.

We are not all public relations experts, a handful of Members are, but most of us are not.

Television is a specialized media. I was invited to be on one of these morning shows this morning, and I could not do it. The subject was impeachment, what would constitute impeachment, sort of a meaty subject these days, but the committee of which I am a member has issued today a memorandum on that subject, and I thought it would be rather inappropriate for me to discuss that subject this morning. To do so, I would have to study half the night to educate myself on the various aspects of what could constitute impeachment, historically and currently. You can see when you invite Members, they sometimes cannot take advantage of the opportunity, so I just say that I appreciate your sympathy, your concern, and hope that it will be both profitable and appropriate for CBS and the major networks to cover more carefully, and with, I hope, kindly intelligence, and forebearance sometimes of the Members.

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman, you speak our goals. That is always what we are striving to do. It is true we have an editorial and editing process. We have constraints upon us, one thing that the other media does not, that thing is called time. I think, just like all human beings, we make mistakes occasionally, and we will continue to do that. We attempt to correct them. We will always attempt to correct them, and on balance, I believe the job we have done has been very good, but we are always striving to improve that.

It does seem to me, that in fact the Congress as an institution, as I indicated to Congressman Cleveland, must be considered as a multiplicity of voices. One must take this into account, and not be frus trated, because the Executive speaks only with one voice. The Congress speaks with many. To change that is to change an historical precept which is very dear to some of us, and we have to work with

that.

I think it was Jefferson who was kind of discouraged with what he had done with the Constitution and the press treatment, he received, he said, he was so irritated by what the press was saying about him, but if he had a choice between having them irritate me and not, he preferred the irritation.

Well, I do not suggest we are in business to attempt to irritate anyone, but I will promise you that my colleagues and I will strive to approach more and more the kind of goals which you just set forth. Chairman METCALF. Mr. Taylor, years ago when I was a Member of the House and on the Ways and Means Committee, the State of Montana was leading the Nation in unemployment. We had the Berlin

erisis, and we had several other crises. We were studying tax reorganization, and there was some talk in the Montana Legislature about control of television. I got more mail, sacks full of mail from people who thought they were going to pull the plug on the television set. They did not write about the possibility of losing their jobs down at Anaconda, or whether they were not going to get any unemployment compensation, or what was going to happen to us in Berlin. But they were really concerned and exercised about whether they were going to have television. I not only have a great deal of respect for the media you represent, I also believe you have tremendous responsibility.

I think your statement today has demonstrated you are aware of that responsibility. You talk about professional newscasters.

We know them, Roger Mudd and Walter Cronkite, for example. They know Congress, they understand our problems and our role, and I could say the same thing for the other networks. But what we are trying to do is to explore ways in which we can help you remove some of the obstacles that we have put in the way of better and more thorough coverage of Congress as an institution. I hope that we will be able to write to you or your representatives, and perhaps ask additional questions that you can answer for the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would be delighted, Senator, to have that personal communication.

Representative CLEVELAND. Mr. Taylor, just one or two more tries

here.

Your point regarding a multiplicity of voices is certainly valid, and because Congress and the Senate or the House has a multiplicity of voices, it is difficult to consider it as an institution. But let us get back to your statement. As I recall from your statement, you address yourself to the fact that you, unlike the printed media, cannot take your equipment on the floor of the Senate or the floor of the House.

Now, have you or your editorial staff ever addressed this problem and discussed it with your viewers?

Mr. TAYLOR. Discussed it with our viewers? Certainly we have discussed it among ourselves at great length.

Representative CLEVELAND. I am talking about your viewers-
Mr. TAYLOR. As to whether they would be interested?

Representative CLEVELAND. No, have you ever just editorialized this question with your viewers?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, we have raised it with the public. I raised it in several public statements. My predecessors have been raising it for 20 years.

Representative CLEVELAND. I am talking about programs, part of the programs.

Mr. TAYLOR. I cannnot speak to that definitively, Congressman, not because we have not done it. It's simply that my historical background with CBS is not long enough.

We will go back, and I feel quite sure we will find editorials that we have done on this subject, and we will be pleased to seek those out and make those a part of the record if the chairman would like that.

Chairman METCALF. Yes. If you find some editorials and other relevant materials, we would be delighted to have them, and we will incorporate them in the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. As I said, I cannot answer that question definitively, but this has been a subject which literally began in 1953, and we will

go back to the record and put together those matters, those periods when we did give attention to the situation.

Representative CLEVELAND. You would certainly consider it worthy of comment by your commentators if serious efforts were made to address this problem?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, indeed.

Representative CLEVELAND. Am I correct in saying this has nothing to do with individual Senators or Congressmen?

This is something that Congress as an institution would address? Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I think you are correct in saying that the need for the American people to have a clear idea of what their legislators are doing and how they are doing it is important.

Representative CLEVELAND. No; you missed my point. I am talking about the events leading up to our permitting this electronic presence on the floor of the Senate and House. Is that worth comment?

You have commented in your statement this morning

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; the answer to the question is I cannot cite a specific instance, but I feel if we go back and go through the record of what all of our people have said, and the editorials that have gone out we will find evidence of statements where we have advocated the importance of making clear to the American people this process in which we are engaged. Primarily that is through access of our facilities and our cameras and microphones to the hearings which we think is the best way to accomplish what I think you and I both want to accomplish.

Representative CLEVELAND. I have not made myself clear. I do not think we are on the same wavelength. What I am trying to get across is this rule that now exists. That you cannot have radio and television on the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate, is a rule of the institution, of the body. It is a rule of the House, it is a rule of the Senate. What I am trying to get across is that it is an example of a rule of the institution, that you could comment on. Not Congressmen, and so on, not Senators, and so on, but this is a rule of the Congress, and to improve it as an institution-and I feel it would improve it as an institution-this rule should be changed?

Is that the type of thing that you feel your people might someday comment on?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think it is worthy of future comment, but let us go and see what our people have said on that subject, on that rule, or on other rules that may exist, and we will submit that to you.

Chairman METCALF. Any material you find and can submit will be incorporated in the record.

[The material referred to appears in the Appendix on p. 451.] Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman METCALF. Mr. Taylor, I think maybe there are some parallels between Renaissance history and present day history of the United States, particularly as it pertains to the White House staff. It is seldom wasted effort to review what has been said earlier on a given subject before commenting further on it.

I am grateful to you for appearing and helping us in our inquiry. You have been most helpful, most forthright, and I am going to write to ask you some more questions after we have had an opportunity to review the transcripts of these hearings.

This is not a legislative committee, Mr. Taylor, as you know. We have an advantage in that we do not report legislation, so we can look

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »