November 14, 1973
Page 37028
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. FULBRIGHT, and Mr. METCALF)
S. 2699. A bill to amend section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, in order to require the furnishing of equal opportunities in the use of a broadcasting station to the national committee of the major opposition political party in certain cases when the President uses such station. Referred to the Committee on Commerce.
PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSE TIME ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the age of television has produced a potential for the perfection of democracy – the opportunity to present to the public at large, in their homes, the great political issues of the day, and the proposed responses of our political leaders.
In 1970, testifying before the Subcommittee on Communications in favor of a proposal to insure Congress some greater measure of national television exposure, I had occasion to observe that, used to its fullest, television could determine the outcome of every political issue and, in fact, every national issue. But television has not yet been successfully integrated into our political system. There is yet no mechanism to insure adequate access to television while protecting against unequal advantage. And the cost of television advertising has led to perversion and abuse of political campaigns.
The use of television in Presidential politics illustrates some of the most difficult of these problems. Different Presidents use television differently; but regardless of the individual who occupies the White House, or his party, by his access to television he exercises unmatched political power which threatens to create an imbalance between the President's and his opponent's ability to communicate with the electorate. Although there may be dispute about how to remedy this imbalance, a remedy surely must be found.
Today I introduce, as a basis for formulating a possible remedy, the Presidential Response Time Act, to give the opposition party access to television to respond to the President during Presidential and congressional election years. I am pleased that Senators FULBRIGHT and METCALF are cosponsoring this measure.
The tremendous impact a President's use of television can have on the opposition political party, Congress, and even the judiciary has been described in a newly published book entitled "Presidential Television" – Basic Books, New York, 1973 – by former FCC Chairman Newton N. Minow, Writer John Bartlow Martin, and Washington Attorney Lee M. Mitchell. This book, produced with the support of the 20th Century Fund, is a welcome analysis of the critical relationship of politics and television.
Each succeeding President, this study reports, has made more effective use of the power the President alone holds to appear simultaneously on all national radio and television networks at prime, large-audience hours whenever and in whatever format he wishes. Today the President, and only the President, has this unique opportunity to present his image and his explanation of his policies and plans to the American voting public. The study suggests that this power of Presidential television can affect the continued ability of the opposition party and the Congress to perform the very important function which our political and constitutional traditions have led the public to expect of them – checking and balancing Presidential discretion.
To counterbalance a President's use of television, the authors of "Presidential Television" suggests that Congress periodically hold special prime-time sessions to debate the most important issues before us and that we allow the broadcast of these sessions by the networks.
They further suggest that the major political parties and the networks agree upon the broadcast of periodic "National Debates." And they propose that the opposition party be given a right to respond to Presidential television appearances during important preelection periods. The legislation I introduce today is based on this latter suggestion contained in the book "Presidential Television."
The Presidential Response Time Act establishes a right of response to Presidential appearances for the opposition political party during the 90 days prior to a congressional election and during a period commencing January 1 before a Presidential election – if the opposition's own Presidential candidate, if any, would not already be entitled as a result of the President's appearance to broadcast time under present "equal time" provisions. During these periods, the major opposition party is given a right to "equal opportunities" when the President uses a radio or television station. "Equal opportunities" is defined to provide reasonably equal broadcast time in terms of length and audience potential of the time period. If the President has chosen the format of his appearance, the opposition party may choose its format; if the President's appearance has been carried simultaneously on more than one network, the opposition party response is to be carried simultaneously also. Exceptions to the opposition party response right are provided for Presidential appearances in newscasts or news documentaries and on-the-spot coverage of news events where the President's appearance is incidental. The bill also establishes an exemption from the "equal time" requirement for appearances of a candidate in an opposition party response to a Presidential broadcast.
The cosponsorship of this measure by Senators FULBRIGHT and METCALF is particularly welcome. Senator FULBRIGHT, in 1970, introduced a similar measure, which I cosponsored, which would have required broadcasters to provide network television time to congressional representatives. And Senator METCALF, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, has displayed a consistent interest in the role of television in the work of Congress. I commend their continued concern with the problems of television and politics.
Mr. President, we must insure that Presidential television does not dangerously imbalance politics and Government. I hope the Presidential Response Time Act will be considered by Congress as a possible remedy to that imbalance.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and an article in the Washington Star News by Messrs. Minow, Martin, and Mitchell, be inserted in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill and article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 2699
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended
(1) in subsection (a) by striking out "or" at the end of clause (3), by inserting "or" at the end of clause (4), and by inserting after clause (4) the following:
"(5) broadcast time made available pursuant to subsection (b) of this section,";
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (g) as subsections (c) through (h). respectively, and by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
"(b) If the facilities of any broadcasting station are used by the President of the United States within a period of ninety days preceding a general election of members of the House and Senate of the United States or, in a year in which a presidential election is to be held, within a period commencing January 1 of such year and ending on the day of such election, and if subsection (a) of this section is not applicable to such use, then the licensee of such station shall afford equal opportunities to the national committee of the major opposition political party. Appearances by the President on any–
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(3) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (if the appearance is incidental to the event), shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station with the meaning of this subsection.;
(3) in redesignated subsection (f) by striking out "subsection (c) or (d)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (d) or (e) ";
(4) in redesignated subsection (g) (2) by striking out "subsections (c) and (d)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsections (d) and (e) "; and
(5) In redesignated subsection (g) by inserting at the end thereof the following:
"(3) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this section, 'major opposition political party' shall mean the political party whose nominees forPresident and Vice-President of the United States received the second greatest number of votes in the last presidential election; 'equal opportunities' shall mean a time period the length and scheduling of which is reasonably equal in audience potential to that used by the President and a choice of program format if the President's use consisted of a format chosen by him, and where the President's use of a broadcasting station occurs simultaneously with his use of other broadcasting stations, 'equal opportunities' shall also include the same simultaneous carriage."
THE OPPOSITION NEEDS A FAIR SHAKE
(By Newton N. Minow, John Barlow Martin and Lee M. Mitchell)
On the evening of July 15, 1971, a spokesman for the so-called western White House at San Clemente, Calif., told the three major television networks that President Nixon had an announcement he wanted to make on nationwide television. The networks quickly cleared time for the announcement, which would interrupt their regular shows at 10:30.
But even after agreeing to the presidential preemption, the networks did not know the subject of the President's address. Network newsmen with the President in California received neither advance copies of his statement nor pre-broadcast briefings.
Promptly at 10:30 p.m. EDT from studios in Burbank, the President's image appeared in 25 million homes across the country. "I have requested this television time tonight," he said, "to announce a major development in our efforts to build a lasting peace in the world." He then told the American people he had accepted an invitation from Premier Chou En-lai to visit mainland China. At the same time, he revealed that his chief foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger, had secretly spent three days in China already.
President Nixon's dramatic announcement of a major reversal of U.S. foreign policy took the news media, the American people, and the rest of the world completely by surprise. And its impact was greatly increased because he made it directly and personally to the American people.
One professional observer, calling this use of television a "bombshell approach to major news announcements," wrote that such an approach almost guaranteed that the first wave of news coverage would be extremely heavy and would be limited to straight reporting, thus giving the new policy powerful momentum – and momentum without critical appraisal: "Surprise makes for confusion and, at least initially, confusion does not make for valuable analysis."
Time and again, and in recent years with increasing frequency, presidents have appeared on television to explain their policies, to mobilize support, to go over the heads of the Congress and the political parties, and to speak directly to the people for their cause – and their reelection.
Recognizing the pervasiveness of television, its role as the electorate's main source of political information, and its ability to convey images, candidates for election have embraced the public airwaves with enthusiasm. By a television appearance, a politician may place his views before a potentially enormous audience; by appearing simultaneously on most major television channels, so that alternative viewing choices are sharply limited, he can assure that much of the potential will be realized. If a viewer is not sufficiently resistant to turn his set off, the political message generally gets through. As one analyst noted–
"When asked, they say that they dislike political broadcasts ... but when there is no alternative, they watch. There is good reason to believe, moreover, that these are people who were not previously reached ... Television has activated them. They now have political opinions, and talk to others about them. It can be demonstrated that they have learned something – even when their viewing was due more to lack of alternatives than to choice."
But the power of political television is not limited to individual candidates or to election campaign periods. Sen. Edmund Muskie has even testified that "used to its fullest, television can determine the outcome not only of any political issue, but more importantly of each and every national issue." The success of candidates' use of television has given rise to presidential television – the use of television (and radio) by an already elected president to advance his legislative programs and his political objectives.
Evidence indicates that the televised presidential address can have an important effect on public opinion of national issues. Polls have disclosed, for example, that public support for a Kennedy tax proposal rose by 4 percent after his television address on the subject; that support for President Johnson's position on Vietnam issues rose by 30 percent after one of his television addresses; and that support for President Nixon's Vietnam policies rose by 18 percent after one of his television addresses. Louis Harris reports a definite "correlation between televised presidential speeches and increased public acceptance of the President's positions."
Effectively used, the presidential television address can undermine the ability of the party out of power to mount an effective electoral challenge.
The public and Congress have turned their attention to financial and fairness problems resulting from the use of television by candidates but have paid relatively little official attention to the rampant growth of presidential television. Yet presidential television may damage, or at least drastically restructure, democratic institutions even more than campaign television: Television's impact threatens to tilt the delicate system of checks and balances among our governmental institutions in the direction of the president.
Though a president has a wide choice of radio and television techniques the most direct form of presidential television is the formal address preempting regular television programs to announce an important event or policy decision.
The three networks usually carry the president's message simultaneously, with the result that in cities served only by network-affiliated stations, viewers have no choice of what to watch; in larger cities, viewing choices are diminished. Presidential television addresses usually are carried at the same time by all major radio networks. More and more, the televised presidential address has been delivered during prime time, the 7:00– 11:00 P.M. period during which commercial broadcasting attracts the largest audience.
The opposition can never equal the president's ability to make news. When, in the campaign of 1972, George McGovern, Democratic candidate for President, requested television time to explain why he had asked Sen. Eagleton to resign as his vice-presidential candidate, the networks refused on the grounds that his appearance would not be news unless he were to name Eagleton's successor – something he was not then prepared to do. It is hard to believe the networks would not have given President Nixon television time had he decided to drop Vice President Agnew from his ticket and asked for time to explain why. This is not to suggest that the networks are biased against the Democrats. It is merely to suggest the newsworthiness of the President of the United States.
Because of who he is, newsmen and their editors allow the president to speak for himself. The remarks of an opposition spokesman may be summarized in television news reporting or analysis; the president's views usually are given in his own words. If a president asks for time, network executives can hardly decide that what he wishes to say is less important than what Marcus Welby has to say. Moreover, they are hard put to determine what part of his discourse is most important, especially if he insists that it is all important.
A President is further assured of broadcast time because broadcasters are eager to please him. They are after all, licensed by the federal government, by the Federal Communications Commission. And the president appoints the members of the FCC. Broadcasting is privilege, revocable by the FCC. Since television stations are enormously valuable, commonly worth many millions of dollars, broadcast executives admit to being sensitive about incurring the displeasure of the president and his FCC.
Occupants of the White House have not hesitated to capitalize on broadcaster fears of retaliation. Franklin Roosevelt let the industry know that FCC policies could begin at the White House. President Johnson was quick to let broadcasters know in no uncertain terms when they displeased him. Vice President Agnew has charged broadcasters with being unfair to the President, while reminding them that they operate under government licenses. Whether intentional or not, the incumbent exercises power over broadcast decision-making.
The only restriction upon a president's use of television is imposed not by the broadcasters but by the audience. Franklin Roosevelt once observed that "the public psychology ... cannot, because of human weakness, be attuned for long periods of time to a constant repetition of the highest note in the scale." At some point too much presidential television exposure will bore the public.
If every appearance of the president on television has political significance, if the president can be regarded as campaigning throughout his term, then it is essential that the opposition – whether it be the opposing political party or some other group formed over a particular issue – somehow maintain the ability to compete. It is not only diffuseness, lack of structure, and lack of a preeminent leader or a single line on issues that have limited the opposition party's effectiveness in responding to presidential television. Lack of comparable access to television severely compounds the opposition's difficulty.
It has been suggested that, in combination, the president's political opponents may even have greater exposure than he. President Nixon's press secretary, Ronald Ziegler, believes that the opposition can "collectively – regularly – and with great impact – attack the president's policy ... The collective weight of their opposition equals or outweighs the TV statements of the President. It balances without question."
The only way an opposition party spokesman can gain access to television time under his own control is to be given it by the networks or to buy it himself. Occasionally, one of the networks has offered time to the opposition to use as it sees fit. But the networks have never directly given the opposition party simultaneous three-network prime time to present its views and images at a time and in a format chosen by the partythe conditions in which the president operates.
From Jan. 20, 1969, through August 1, 1971, President Nixon made 14 television addresses and held 15 televised news conferences, all carried simultaneously and free by all three networks, while the opposition party as such made three appearances, none of them broadcast on all networks simultaneously.
Of course, the opposition party can buy time. But a half-hour of simultaneous prime time on all networks can cost more than $250,000, more than the opposition should reasonably be expected to spend to balance the President's free appearances. In 1972, it was also more than the Democratic party could afford. And even if it were not, the networks are not eager to disrupt program schedules, and they also fear complaints from sponsors whose commercial messages may happen to appear immediately before or after a controversial political program.
Our proposal is this: "Equal broadcast opportunities" should mean free time when the president's time has been free, at an equally desirable time of day and of a duration approximately equal to the length of the President's broadcast. The national committee should control format of the presentation if the president has had control of his format.
In exercising its "right of response," the party's national committee would not be limited to addressing only those issues raised by the president in his appearance. It could for example introduce its leaders or the party candidate or candidates in the coming election, or both.
When a presidential appearance has been carried simultaneously by the networks, the national committee response should also be carried simultaneously by the networks. Otherwise, the television exposure clearly could not be termed "equal."
Under this proposal, if the president delivered a prime-time, three-network broadcast address to propose an international agreement, for example, radio and television stations (and CATV systems,) that carried the address would be obligated to provide the national committee of the major opposition party "equal opportunities."
The party response time should be put in the hands of the party's national committee because the committee is responsible for the party's election campaign. If party members are dissatisfied with their national committee's response, they should work to change it. The committee surely would be more responsive to pressures from party members than would the networks.
The purpose of response time in the periods prior to federal elections is to insure equality in the electoral use of television. Each presidential television appearance can help create a favorable image of the president or his party and may change votes. Even when the president is not a candidate for reelection, his appearance can affect the candidacies of other nominees of his party.
But there should be a limit on the period when response opportunities are required; this avoids the danger, on the one hand, of over-politicizing the presidency and, on the other hand, of boring the public. If the response period were unlimited, the president might have difficulty in maintaining a consensus with which to govern; and the public would have no respite from politics. The proposal establishes, at the least, the right of response during all of a presidential year before the election.
The opposition response should be exempt from the equal time law and the fairness and political party doctrines. This is necessary to prevent a continuing "response" to a "response" – an unnecessary and unfair burden on the broadcaster.
Between elections, the national committee of the opposition party, the national committee of the president's party, and the commercial and public television networks should together develop a plan to present live debates – perhaps titled "The National Debates" – between spokesmen for the two major parties with agreed topics and formats quarterly each year (only twice a year in federal election years). All debates should be scheduled during prime time and broadcast simultaneously by all networks. They should be widely advertised and promoted by the broadcasters and the parties. This proposal should be carried out voluntarily by the parties and networks rather than be required by legislation.
The debate format, including minor parties at times, might help overcome the public's lack of interest in political programs.
In addition to providing television access for the opposition party, "The National Debates" would prevent unfairness to the president's party. Ordinarily, any position that the party in power takes is consistent with the president's position. But important differences sometimes arise, as recent history indicates, between the president and a significant faction of his own party.
We also propose adopting reforms to ensure all significant presidential candidates a minimum amount of free, simultaneous television time. The voters' ability to watch and assess candidates for president and vice president is in danger of being limited by the high cost of television. Each presidential candidate and his running mate shall be given campaign "voters' time" without cost to them – broadcast time provided simultaneously by all television and radio stations. The two major party candidates would receive six 30-minute, prime-time program periods in the 35 days preceding a presidential election; candidates of minor parties of sufficient size would receive one or two half-hour periods depending on the party's relative strength. Candidates could use their voters' time only in formats that "promote rational political discussion and substantially involve live appearance by the candidate." The federal government would compensate broadcasters for voters' time at reduced commercial rates.
In combination, these reforms would do much to protect the traditional functions of the loyal opposition in an electronic era. Between elections, the opposition could develop and present through debate its positions on issues.
In each case, the opposition's television time would equal the president's – free, prime-time, and on all networks simultaneously. The proposals would not, and should not, guarantee successful opposition to the president. But they would provide the opposition party with what it requires to continue as a vital institution, a reasonable chance to take its case to today's marketplace of ideas – television.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) in sponsoring legislation which would establish a right of response to Presidential appearances on radio and television. Under this bill, the national committee of the opposition
party would be given an automatic right of response to Presidential radio-TV appearances during a Presidential election year or within 90 days preceding a congressional election in a non- Presidential year.
This legislation was recommended in the 20th Century Fund's report on "Presidential Television," coauthored by Newton N. Minow, John Bartlow Martin, and Lee M. Mitchell. Senator MUSKIE and I are introducing this legislation in order to draw attention to this significant report and to stimulate discussion on this highly important topic.
This bill would represent one step toward redressing the communications imbalance that has seriously distorted our constitutional and political systems.
Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 would be amended to require that every radio or television station or cable television system which carried an appearance of the President within the designated "response" period provide, upon request, equal broadcast opportunities to the national committee of the opposition political party. Those Presidential appearances in documentaries or spot news coverage in which the President's appearance is only incidental, and appearances that already give rise to "equal time" for an opposition candidate would be exempt from this requirement.
The opposition would receive free time if the President's time was free, and should be at an equally desirable time and of similar duration.
As the 20th Century Fund report states:
The purpose of response time in the periods prior to federal elections is to insure equality in the electoral use of television. Each presidential television appearance can help create a favorable image of the president or his party and may change votes. Even when the president is not a candidate for reelection, his appearance can affect the candidacies of other nominees of his party.
This legislation is aimed primarily at assuring fair and balanced access to television during Federal election periods and deals with the political imbalance which results from the President having relatively unfettered access to TV, while the opposition currently has nothing approaching equal access. This bill would reduce the advantage that a President now enjoys in such a situation – an advantage that I believe is inconsistent with our political and constitutional system.
As I stated earlier, this would be one step toward redressing the communications imbalance which has developed in the television era, an imbalance which threatens serious damage to our democratic institutions.
The issue is stated very well in the report on "Presidential Television":
The Constitution established a presidency with limitations upon its powers – the need to stand for reelection every four years, checks than can be exercised by the Congress and the Supreme Court.
The evolution of political parties and a strong two-party system provided a rallying point for opponents on an incumbent administration, enhancing the importance of frequent reelection. An intricate set of constitutional balances limiting the powers of each of the three government branches added force to the separation of government functions. These political and constitutional relationships served the country well for many years. Television's impact, however, threatens to tilt the delicately balanced system in the direction of the president.
As Fred Friendly has written, the almost exclusive Presidential access to television "bestows on one politician a weapon denied to all others," and this device "permits the first amendment and the very heart of the Constitution to he breached."
The bill which Senator MUSKIE and I are introducing would help alleviate the political imbalance which results from Presidential television.
However, it would not really alleviate the imbalance among the coequal branches of Government which has resulted from the domination of television by the executive branch. It may be recalled that in 1970 I introduced legislation which would have required radio and television stations to provide a reasonable amount of public service time to authorized representatives of the Senate and House to comment upon and to explain issues of public importance. The broadcast time would be made available at least four times a year, consistent with the obligation of broadcast licensees to serve the public interest.
Hearings on "Public Service Time for the Legislative Branch" were held by the Communications Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce under the chairmanship of the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), although no final action was taken on the proposal.
That proposal was of an institutional, not partisan, nature. Its purpose was to help restore the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches and to guarantee the right of the people to hear diverse and opposing views, regardless of party.
I still feel that there is a strong need for such legislation. A variety of different suggestions have been made about presentations, and I am convinced that a suitable arrangement can be developed. One of the possibilities suggested in "Presidential Television," and one of the alternatives I have mentioned, would be the broadcast of special prime time evening sessions of Congress. The report specifically proposes:
Congress, in consultation with the television networks, should permit television cameras on the floor of the House and Senate for the broadcast of specially scheduled prime-time evening sessions at which the most important matters before it each term are discussed, debated and voted on. The sessions should be scheduled and broadcast at least four times per year and carried simultaneously by all three networks. These broadcasts should be exempt from the "equal time" law and the fairness and political party doctrines.
Mr. President, without specifically endorsing this proposal, I do commend to the Senate and to those interested in resolving this problem, the report on "Presidential Television." I think it deserves our serious consideration.
I understand that the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, under the leadership of the Senator from Montana (Mr. METCALF) is also looking into this question and I am hopeful that the committee will come up with some positive recommendations.
As the majority leader, Mr. MANSFIELD, said earlier this year:
It is time for Congress to determine who really should decide what is a fair input by a coequal branch of government into the perceptions of the American electorate.
I believe that any sensible interpretation of a notion of fairness requires that the American people have the input of the Congress on an issue of great vital importance especially when that issue was drawn into question by the President in an attack upon the Congress.
With the revolution of communications in this country, the whole notion of the separation of powers has been, significantly diminished by the inordinate input the executive branch, through the President and the Cabinet officers, has on television.
I believe this is a matter of immense importance and that action must be taken to insure that the legislative branch does have access to television. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution which says that, of all elected officials, the President alone shall have the right to communicate with the American people. That privilege was a gift of modern technology, coming in an age when chronic war and crisis were already inflating the powers of the Presidency. The Congress has recently taken steps to reassert itself in the area of war powers and I am hopeful that in the future we can move to right the balance in other areas.
The legislation we have introduced today, in conjunction with action to provide congressional access to television on an institutional basis, would help reaffirm the constitutional principle of coequal branches of government and the democratic principle of fair elections, with equal access to the voter.
As I stated in testimony on behalf of my 1970 proposal, communication is power and exclusive access to it is a dangerous, unchecked power.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD articles by Herbert Brucker, from the Boston Globe of November 7, and by John O'Connor, from the New York Times of November 11.
There being no objection, the article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
[From the Boston Globe, Nov. 7, 1973]
THE CHECKS AND BALANCES NO LONGER DO
(By Herbert Brucker)
The Twentieth Century Fund has issued a report saying in effect that television has twisted the Constitution out of shape. The checks and balances among the separate departments, says the report, no longer check and balance. Why? Because television has given Presidents one-way access to the American people, while by comparison Congress and the courts are muzzled.
The reception of this report has been as usual in a world too full of a number of things. Here and there there has been comment. But we may expect that the whole study, despite its significance to every citizen, will be filed and forgotten.
This is what the social scientists call technological lag. It takes a long time, maybe a generation, after a public need becomes glaringly obvious for society to get around to bringing itself up to date.
Other examples stare us in the face. If the political and constitutional turbulence now swirling through the nation has proved anything, it is that we are far behind in updating such fundamental political processes as choosing Vice Presidents, providing for presidential succession, and financing political campaigns. The entire national convulsion we are entering was made possible by television's astronomical escalation of the cost of presidential campaigning.
Then, too, there is another defect in our inherited political system that we have done nothing about but talk. This is the pressing need, under today's conditions, for scrapping the Electoral College and substituting the direct election of Presidents. Only luck has saved us, so far, from the disaster inherent in an electoral deadlock thrown into the House.
Well, one thing at a time. To correct the imbalance caused by TV, the Twentieth Century report suggests among other things:
That prime-time debates be arranged for television, including live debates between spokesmen for the two major parties four times a year.
A right of reply for the opposition national committee, any time a President addresses the nation during the 10 months before a national election.
Government purchase of network time, at half price, for presidential candidates.
Additional free television time for all significant presidential nominees in the 35 days before an election.
TV coverage of both houses of Congress for prime-time evening sessions at which important matters are debated and voted on.
One reason proposals along these lines need to be enacted into law is that broadcasters do not cover government and politics as news to anything like the extent newspapers do. Except for giving presidents primetime TV coverage on all three networks, plus occasional fragmentary exposure of other political figures on the morning and evening news shows, or on the Sunday interview shows, broadcasters charge politicians for time on the air.
Newspapers, to be sure, also welcome political advertising. But with them it is a minor part of their coverage. Most newspapers simply report in their news columns what candidates do and say. There is no reason why broadcasters – who make millions by having free, exclusive use of a portion of the public air – should not give free time to government and politics just as the papers and news magazines do.
Then again we fail to turn advancing technology to our advantage. In our day-to-day following of the Watergate-induced political crisis it is silly that whenever some crucial event takes place in Judge Sirica's court or some other court, we have to put up with an artist's sketch of what it looks like, while an offstage voice tells us what is going on.
We bar cameras and microphones from our courts, and often from our legislatures, though there is no reason why they cannot be kept within bounds there, just as they are at royal coronations, Kennedy or Churchill funerals, or other public events in which dignity rather than staging an entertainment spectacular is the overriding concern.
Of course the Constitution, which has been adapted to changing times for the better part of two centuries, can be adapted to television. All it takes is that we bestir ourselves – and that we choose leaders who can lead.
[From the New York Times, Nov. 11, 1973]
No BACK TALK FROM THE PRESS, PLEASE
(By John J. O'Connor)
When "Bill Moyers's Journal" returned recently to the public television schedule with "An Essay on Watergate," the occasion was reassuring on several levels, some perhaps not anticipated fully by Moyers himself. Most strikingly, the essay was excellent, succeeding forcefully as a "personal attempt" to get to the roots of the Watergate morality, to explore the premise that "Watergate is something everybody does, it's politics as usual."
The program offered broad and thoughtful perspective at a time when broadcast journalism generally is preoccupied with simply reporting the incredible cascade of news stories concerning the Nixon Administration over the last several months. The result was an object lesson on the potential role of a truly independent public TV system. And, of course, it is hardly coincidence that when, in pre-Watergate days, various Washington officials were demanding an end to news and public affairs programing on public TV, the name of Bill Moyers was prominent on the enemies list.
Those officials presented ingenious and ingeniously empty arguments. From Clay T. Whitehead, director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, to Patrick J. Buchanan, special assistant to the President, to Henry Loomis, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the well-orchestrated lament was for a return to "localism," where in effect most stations couldn't monetarily afford to be a threat to anyone.
The official dictum seemed to be "less is more," neatly wrapped in sanctimonious declarations of impartiality. Any detections of an Administration-wide conspiracy to silence, or at least better to control, portions of the press were dismissed with patronizing condescension.
Then, happening to be a day after the showing of "An Essay on Watergate," Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Republican of Connecticut, made public a series of White House documents obtained by the Senate Watergate committee. The memorandums – involving such familiar names as H. R. Haldeman, Charles W. Colson and Jeb Stuart Magruder – were written over 12 months, beginning in February, 1970. At issue was nothing less than a series of efforts to "tear down the institution" of broadcast journalism.
One of the most revealing, both of the Administration and of broadcasting, was a Sept. 25, 1970, memorandum from Colson to Haldeman. Colson had been pressuring top executives of the three commercial networks to deny requests by the Democratic party for free air time to reply to televised Presidential statements. Colson wrote:
'These meetings had a very salutary effect in letting them know that we are determined to protect the President's position, that we know precisely what is going on from the standpoint of both law and policy, and that we are not going to permit them to get away with anything that interferes with the President's ability to communicate."
With the President as the only person in the nation having unlimited and virtually instant access to television, it is curious to find his aides so worried about art "ability to communicate." But, of course, the thrust of their efforts went much further. It concerned the ability of the President to monopolize communications, to eliminate altogether the possibility of questioning and criticism, whether from political opponents or TV commentators. That would be the ultimate victory in a crusade "to protect the President's position."
In his television essay, Moyers presented an especially apt sports context to define the name of the game, the cause reflecting the old American will to win, with a modern twist: "When the one great scorer comes to write against your name, he marks not that you won or lost, but how you played the game."
"The sports writer Grantland Rice formulated the ethic in 1923. In theory, at least, the name of the game was fair play.
"By the nineteen-sixties, football had a new ethic, articulated by Vince Lombardi of the Green Bay Packers and Washington Redskins: 'Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing.'
"In the situation room of the Committee to Re-elect the President, a windowless, well-guarded command post across from the committee's headquarters, the President's team hung a sign borrowed from Lombardi: 'Winning in politics isn't everything; it's the only thing.'
"The name of the game was victory."
If the consequences weren't so tragic for the nation, the playing of the game, the tactics employed, might be almost laughable for their ineptness and miscalculation. Consider another section of the same Colson memorandum
"To my surprise CBS did not deny that the news had been slanted against us. [William S.] Paley merely said that every Administration has felt the same way and we have been slower in coming to them to complain than our predecessors. He, however, ordered [Dr. Frank] Stanton in my presence to review the analyses with me and if the news has not been balanced to see that the situation is immediately corrected. Paley [chairman of CBS] is in complete control of CBS – Stanton (former president of CBS] is almost obsequious in Paley's presence."
Since the Nixon Administration continues to complain strongly about TV news commentaries, it can only be concluded that CBS did not find any reason to have the situation "immediately corrected." And it was the "obsequious" Stanton who later stood up to the Administration and Congress in the fracas over 'The Selling of the Pentagon" documentary.
The self-deception is almost laughable, but not quite. As Moyers put it, commenting on the entire Watergate quagmire: "It was close. It almost worked. But not quite. Something basic in our traditions held. What is best about this country doesn't need exaggeration. It needs vigilance."