August 17 1910
Page 29191
TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL FORCE
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President on August 4 the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications. The subcommittee was then considering the question of the use of television as a political force, and had before it Senate Joint Resolution 209 introduced by the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT).
I have just read the transcript of Senator MUSKIE’s testimony. I must say that he has set forth with outstanding perspective the far-reaching problems included in this issue and has given us some concrete suggestions. It is clear that Senator MUSKIE understands fully television’s impact on today’s society. To borrow his own words he says:
Used to its fullest, television can determine the outcome, not only of every political issue, but more importantly, of each and every national issue. In short, the use of television is an issue. It is an immense issue – one we must explore in the greatest detail.
I commend Senator MUSKIE for this outstanding statement, and for the benefit of the entire Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
Statement of Senator EDMUND. S. MUSKIE, Democrat of Maine Before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Commerce Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you during your consideration of S.J. Res. 209. The impact of television on our society in general and particularly on our governmental institutions demands the most serious consideration by all concerned citizens. The fact that you, Mr. Chairman, have undertaken such an examination guarantees all Americans the deep and comprehensive investigation that is required.
Television is the overwhelmingly dominant instrumentality in forming public opinion, not only in the market place but on national issues as well.
The dimensions of the problem are graphically framed by Federal Communications Commissioner, Nicholas Johnson, in opening his book How To Talk Back To Your Television Set. There he says, and I quote:
"There are 60 million homes in the united States and over 95 percent of them are equipped with a television set (More than 25 percent have two or more sets). In the average home, the television is turned on some five hours forty-five minutes a day. The average male viewer between his second and sixty-fifth year will watch television for over 3000 entire days – roughly nine full years of his life. During the average weekday winter evening, nearly half of the American
people are to be found silently seated with fixed gaze upon a phosphorescent screen.
"Americans receive decidedly more of their education from television than from elementary and high schools. By the time the average child enters kindergarten, he has already spent more hours learning about his world from television than the hours he would spend in a college classroom earning a B.A. degree."
(How To Talk Back To Your Television Set, Nicholas Johnson, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission; Atlantic Monthly Press Book, Little, Brown and Company (1969))
No longer can television be considered as a plaything, a novelty or as an entertainment device – if ever it could. Television is how the facts are provided, how opinions are formed, how judgments are made, how products are sold, and – not least of all – television is how politics is played. On the latter score, used to its fullest, television can determine the outcome not only of every political issue, but more importantly of each and every national issue. Television can organize public opinion, activate and mobilize public energies, and, in the end, become the most potent instrument through which the government governs. After all, what happens is largely determined by what people think. And in today’s world, television must be regarded as the greatest single influence on people’s thought processes. Television has changed totally the whole system of checks and balances. It has changed the nature of the political process, making the value judgment of the people on specific issues far more significant than ever before in history.
Heretofore, the entire governmental process has been largely indirect. This, of course, is the nature of a republican form of government. Its control over the purse strings kept Congress at least in a competitive position in relation to the Executive. Both branches enjoyed the detachment granted by a benign electorate. Television has changed all that. The electorate is now far from detached in its relationship to the issues that emerge at every level of government.
That is a good sign. But unless the challenge is met responsibly, rather than providing the greatest rejuvenation to our democratic institutions, this phenomenon called television can virtually destroy the checks and balances so carefully established by our Constitution. The country, the Congress, and the industry must accept the awesomeness of this responsibility.
What is the challenge at stake? What is the responsibility involved? Clearly; it goes far beyond retaining the viability of the two-party system. It is also to maintain Congress as a "coequal branch". But most importantly, it is for Congress to be permitted to discharge its duty to contribute to the dialogue out of which is determined the direction of this Nation on every front, and for television to be structured to contribute to a balanced national dialogue. The responsibility simply cannot be met by techniques of the past. The responsibility requires that we adapt to the present. That is the challenge. For Congress to meet its full constitutional obligations to the electorate, television must become part of the Congressional formula. Today it is not. Tomorrow it must be.
The very first Article of the Constitution established the Congress. Its clear function was to provide a separate institutional filter through which the Nation’s most important decisions must pass. It is important that television aid, and not destroy that function. There exists today, however, a distinct imbalance in the use of this medium to communicate with the electorate. In the circumstances, I believe the emphasis should be placed, not on restricting its use but in providing wider use of television to inform the American people. That is the legislative goal of S.J. Res. 209. It establishes a door-opening policy for the use of television by the Congress. In a nutshell, S.J. Res. 209 says: The people have a right to be informed of the prevailing Congressional attitude on the significant national issues.
The present disposition of the networks is to allow the President such television time as he requests. To my knowledge, he is never refused. It is given to him because of his office and because a statement by a President is considered newsworthy per se. On balance, I think this is a sound policy. It is hard to envision the mechanics of any voluntary system that could refuse a Presidential request. But it should be remembered that when the President addresses himself to the issues, he assumes the role of an advocate. This is a valid Presidential posture if not a responsibility. A democracy is predicated upon an informed electorate.
In the past, the process of reaching the electorate with the facts and the arguments has been much slower and far less effective. Before the wide use of television, it actually took an immense effort on the part of the electorate to become informed – to obtain the information upon which to base a judgment.
That was especially true when it came to the complicated issues of national and international affairs. A great effort is still involved in the process but more people are arriving at quicker judgments after an almost exclusive diet of television information. What we must assure is that the viewer receive a balanced diet. And the question is how to mold television into a medium that presents a balanced picture of national and international issues.
There is no precedent here. The famed fireside chats that dominated the Roosevelt era were different because of the difference in the persuasive capacity of the media involved and, more importantly, because television commands an audience of enormous proportions. The televised veto of the HEW appropriations bill in January of this year provides a splendid example. The entire viewing audience of one of television’s most popular programs – the "Laugh In" show – sat captured while the President spoke. He rebuked a Congressional action and advocated a position on this issue on that weekday winter evening when Commissioner Johnson states nearly half the American people are watching. The position the President advocated was contested by overwhelming majorities in Congress with equal access to information. That Congressional position was never heard or seen by those Americans. If the President happens to be wrong there is little that can be done to make that known to the people.
At an evening press conference on January 30, 1970, the President stated that the antiballistic missile system against China is now "virtually infallible". As a result, that statement was imbedded in the minds of millions, although there is unanimity among scientists – and admissions by the Administration subsequently – that the statement was dead wrong. The awesome potential of this use of television could be brought home by other less striking examples.
In the circumstances, the question is what steps must now be taken to permit an evolution of television as it affects the national dialogue. A far better balance must be achieved. If differing viewpoints exist, a more competitive position must be assured. Leaving the American people open to the total and unquestioned impact of a Presidential pronouncement is simply wrong.
What is missing is the perspective added by public officials representing a coequal branch of government, even if they happen to be of the same political party. The selection of the personalities and the format of the Congressional viewpoint should be left to the Congress. The networks might well appreciate this exercise of responsibility on the part of the Congress preserving to the networks the detachment they seek.
But the televised response to Presidential pronouncements that is so necessary to provide balance and perspective is not enough. Congress takes many initiatives on national questions that deserve direct electorate participation and involvement. The tax relief and tax reform measure developed last year by Congress would be a recent example. What Congress conceived and achieved singlehandedly with that issue was of such importance to the American people that a national airing of its many facets on television would have been highly justified. It was the most significant tax reform act passed by the Congress since the establishment of the income tax. It closed $6.6 billlon in tax loopholes. It was conceived in the Congress and weaved its way through a plethora of roadblocks – many imposed by the Executive branch itself. To put it simply, the law would not exist today were it not for a Congressional demand for reform before granting the President’s request to extend the income tax surcharge. Tax reform – said the Congress – had to accompany any surtax extension.
The Administration badly needed that surtax. But the country badly needed tax reform. This was the message Congress had for the people. If Congress could have conveyed its message through television to the people, I am convinced that the roadblocks would have tumbled quickly. That this viewpoint prevailed anyway is a fact attributable more to the actions of Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield’s personal determination and insistence than to the direct insistence and determination of an informed electorate. The electorate deserved to be better informed on such an important issue. All I am saying is that the allocation of television time to Congress should be afforded as the need is justified. The issue will establish that need, and when it does, then Congress must have the ability to determine its own format and its own participants. It is the only way. If the American people are to be assured a balanced diet of viewpoints, we must act now.
Of course, there are serious hurdles involved; questions like how much time should be made available; who shall speak for the Congress; what issues justify this procedure and so forth. But these are problems than can and should be met on an ad hoc basis. Clearly the test would be met on any significant national issue where there is a substantial and prevailing viewpoint in the Senate or the Congress that differs from the Executive. In those cases, the opportunity to provide the "Congressional viewpoint" must be afforded, and the selection of the "who" and the "how" should be left to the Congress. I am certain in most cases that the differing viewpoint will be shared on a bipartisan basis. On almost every issue a Congressional majority is composed of members of both parties.
The party identification of a majority of that bipartisan view could provide the identification of the institutional leadership through which the networks could work. In many other cases, the leadership of the prevailing Congressional viewpoint is easily identified. On the recent national debate over the Cambodian invasion, the natural selection in the Senate would have been obvious. The leaders of that prevailing and bipartisan Senate viewpoint were Senators Cooper and Church. So it is no answer to say that making time available to Congressional viewpoints creates too many internal problems for the Congress. Congress is capable of working out these problems, and I am sure it will, if afforded the opportunity. Our goal is to assure the American public its right to know – to know in much greater depth and from more varied perspectives the full impact and ramifications of the day’s most vital issues. To be sure, the so-called hard news programs of the networks – wherein the world’s happenings are compressed into 28 minutes in any one day – attempt to present a fair balance. But the limitations of time prevent in-depth coverage of the complicated national issues. It is the use of television beyond the hard news programs that presents the great imbalance. The American people have a right to know and there is thus a deep and abiding responsibility on the part of the Congress to make every effort to correct the communication imbalance and grant them that right.
In addition, we cannot ignore the special role that must be played by the Senate in setting the tone for the issues as they emerge in the national dialogue. The original concept of the legislative branch – with the House of Representatives being elected every two years and the Senate every six – presupposed that the House would remain closer to the pulse of the people and the issues of the day. It was intended, on the other hand, that the Senate have an added degree of insulation from temporary changes in public attitude, precipitous acts of a transient majority or demands based upon the superficial whims of the electorate. Televisions has changed all this.
Toward the end of the 1960s, it became clear that the Senate of the United States was very sensitively attuned to issues, especially the issues that were drawing national attention on television. Perhaps it is because Senators, when they campaign, use the medium of television much more. They must be far more conscious of the tone and response attached to an issue by a larger Statewide segment of the population. Senators set the tone of their own elections through the use of television. They in turn respond to the tone set by a national administration. The reaction of the Senate on crime legislation and the reaction of the Senate on school busing and countless other matters are examples of this phenomenon at work. These were responses to the tone set by the Executive on these issues. They were national responses, not pitched to parochial biases, but patterned to answer a national problem in a broad and comprehensive manner. As of now, the Senate has no way to participate fully or fairly in setting the tone to which it responds. I believe that the Senate has a special interest in assuring that the present imbalance is corrected.
One final point Mr. Chairman. I would like to emphasize a dimension that goes beyond what we have been here discussing. It goes beyond the viability of the two-party system – beyond the maintenance of the Congress as a coequal branch of government, and even beyond our obligation to assure a national dialogue on the great issues that confront society. We must decide, here and now, that television will not become the establishment medium designed to preserve the status quo. Providing fuller expression of the two major parties is not enough; providing a medium through which the Congress may report to the American people directly is a major start but still is not enough. We must guarantee that television can adapt as quickly as the times can change. We cannot always identify what the most pressing challenge will be 3 or 4 years hence. We must not structure our answer today that might conceivably deprive the airing of any viewpoint in the future. I don’t know if a structural approach to the use of television can accommodate this most important dimension. I hope it will receive serious attention as these hearings develop.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman I must admit that I have raised more questions than I have answered. That is the nature of this subject. I have attempted to speak to the issues raised by S.J. Res. 209. As my remarks should have indicated, the thrust of S.J. Res. 209 is one that I wholeheartedly support. I only hesitate now in endorsing the measure, because I would rather evaluate the attitude of the industry to these questions before urging legislative action. The heritage of the equal time and fairness doctrine has made me hesitant about structured solutions. I am not unmindful of the difficulties faced by the networks – competitive among each other both for audiences and revenues. They are asked to reach for the less lucrative public service formats without assurances that the other networks will do the same. The legislative approach embodied in S.J. Res. 209 may be the only answer for a beginning. I believe it must evolve this way to meet the national responsibility for the public to know; for the Congress to fulfill its responsibility; and for the government to assure its viability.