Nicholas Johnson, How to Talk Back to Your Television Set (New
York: Bantam Books, 1970)

Copyright Notice: Copyright   1970 by Bantam Books, Inc.;
Copyright   1996 by Nicholas Johnson.  All rights reserved.  This
book may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any medium
known now or in the future.  Provided, however, that permission
is hereby granted to distribute this book under the following
conditions:  (1) that it is distributed in its entirety,
including this copyright notice, (2) that no charge is exacted,
or revenue received, directly or indirectly, by anyone in
connection with the transfer, and (3) as a matter of courtesy and
information, that the author be informed, simultaneously with the
distribution, of any distribution to more than one person or
posting for availability on the Internet, Web, or publicly
available directory.  Any other use requires the prior permission
of the author:  Nicholas Johnson, 1035393@mcimail.com, postal: 
Box 1876, Iowa City IA 52244-1876, U.S.A.

                                   # # #

# p. 157 #

8 Reforming Television: Institutional Realignments

# p. 158 #

[blank]

# p. 159 #

     THERE HAVE BEEN EFFORTS to "investigate" and "study"
television and radio since their beginnings. Uncounted words have
been written in books, articles and speeches about broadcasting's
ills. The question, as always, is "What do we do about it?"
     What we propose depends in great part upon what we think
will alter men's behavior. A meaningful reform must be premised
upon its capacity to be carried out by self-serving men of
average intelligence. To dream schemes of institutions that will
function only when men are angels is futile. This is not to say
that the world is not populated with a significant number of very
decent persons who are willing to risk future and fortune to do
"the right thing"; the point is that you cannot count on having
one of them in all the right places at all the necessary times.
Indeed, there are even some who question whether one can pass
moral judgment on a man who simply finds himself carried along by
the system of incentives--rewards and punishments-of his
institutional environment. To some extent, that's what Fred
Friendly's book Due to Circumstances Beyond Our Control is all
about. It is not enough to wish that networks were being run by
men who would televise Senate hearings instead of scheduling a
rerun of I Love

# p. 160 #

Lucy. For such a wish requires them to refund pocketed profits to
advertisers and to give away for free time already sold -- in an
institutional environment in which their performance, their
"success," is measured almost exclusively in terms of how much
they can increase profits.
     Let's think for the moment of a precedent, the history of
industrial safety. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the effort to produce safety through the avenue of
moral suasion had little effect. The real turning point in
industrial safety came when plaintiff's awards in lawsuits,
workmen's compensation schemes and insurance premiums rose to a
level that made it more profitable to protect human arms, legs
and eyes than to continue to pay for the quantity consumed in the
manufacturing process.
     It is in this sense that I concluded, early in my term as an
FCC Commissioner, that speeches by me or other officials
complaining about the "vast wasteland" would not have much
lasting effect upon the contribution of radio and television to
the  quality of American life. What is needed are institutional
realignments.
     The kind of realignments I am talking about are evolutionary
rather than revolutionary. Indeed, the process of adaptation and
self-renewal is the essence of conservatism. There are forces of
revolution and alienation abroad in our land. There are those who
preach that our system cannot work, that it cannot adapt fast
enough, and that our institutions must be destroyed--government,
universities, corporations, and so forth. I believe that our
system can work, but only by evolution and adaptation to changed
conditions and needs. Those who practice corporate arrogance and
preach

# p. 161 #

haughty disdain of legitimate demands for popular participation
are the real handmaidens of revolution in this country today.
     Government regulation of business seeks to make the free
enterprise system work better, not to stifle it. We should seek a
relationship between government and business such that legitimate
public demands and needs and interests will be met by  
institutional adaptation within the private sector -- not by
nationalization. As McGeorge Bundy has said: "More effective
government, at every level, is the friend and not the enemy of
the strength and freedom of our economic system as a whole." The
American industrial system was strengthened, not stifled, when
corporations began paying a fair market price for the human
beings consumed in the manufacturing process. The very purpose of
the antitrust laws is to encourage competition and establish some
ground rules for its perpetuation. The food and drug industry is
made more profitable and popularly acceptable, by laws that
prohibit profiting from products that produce disease and death.
Laws requiring fair employment opportunities for Americans of all
races do not hamper big business--they produce more potential
customers and reduce the corporate tax burden to sustain the
unemployed. We can argue about the details of such proposals in
this country--and we do -- but I think we can all agree that what
we are trying to do is make the American system work better. In
the process, we also make it competitively possible for basically
decent men to do the right thing. Shareholders may expect
corporate officials to maximize profits, but they do not expect
them to violate the law.
     In this light, consider some of the proposals that

# p. 162 #

have been made to alter slightly the system of institutional
pressures within the broadcasting industry.
     
Public Broadcasting
               
     There are a number of sources of public broadcasting today:
National Educational Television's programming and occasional
networking service, National Educational Radio, the Children's
Television Workshop ("Sesame Street"), the Eastern Educational
Network, the programming of some one hundred ninety stations
throughout the country, and so forth. The Public Broadcasting
Corporation has begun a regular live interconnection of these
stations. The National Foundations on the Arts and Humanities
have provided some financial support already. The Ford Foundation
has been by all odds the most significant source of support for
public broadcasting over the years.
     This programming is significant in a number of ways. It is,
first of all, an alternative when and where it is available. A
few people listen, and watch, and are enriched. In view of the
relatively small audiences, however, the principal value of
public broadcasting must be measured today in terms of its impact
upon commercial television. This has been significant. It is a
professional training ground for the various jobs in commercial
broadcasting. It is a source of programming ideas, public affairs
issues, and technical innovations. It is commercial
broadcasting's graduate school, its farm club, its underground
press, its research and development laboratory.
     It is a $90 million tail (or perhaps I should say head) on
the $3 billion dog of commercial broad-

# p. 163 #

casting. But to the extent that it can move the animal, it can
have a tremendous impact upon our nation with very little
investment. As McGeorge Bundy has said: "Twenty years of
experience have made it very plain indeed that commercial TV
alone cannot do for the American public what mixed systems--
public and private--are offering to other countries, notably
Great Britain and Japan." The Japanese people have chosen to fund
their equivalent of our Public Broadcasting Corporation at a
proportion of their gross national product that would be
equivalent to $2 billion a year in this country. The Japanese are
richer for it. The United States is now on the threshold of
finding out whether it can muster the national will to do as
well. (A budget of $500 million a year would still be less than
1% of what we spend on public education.) I think that it is
crucial that the Public Broadcasting Corporation be adequately
funded and, in line with the Carnegie study, in such a manner as
to be independent of the government. Such an effort would be a
classic example of an institutional change that could benefit
everyone affected by broadcasting far more than it costs -- and
harm no one.

Citizen Participation

     A statesman has been defined as a man who stands upright due
to equal pressure on all sides. It is in this sense that the
Federal Communications Commission is made up of statesmen. Mr.
Bundy has said of the FCC: "Its weakness is a national scandal.
But it is not true that the Commission responds just to pressure
from the broadcasting industry. It responds to pressure from
anybody.

# p. 164 #

Increasingly, citizens all around the country are learning that
the FCC's adversary process will only work if they will make it
work. For you can only have an adversary process if you have
adversaries.
     The typical station's license renewal proceeding goes like
this. The FCC gathers at ringside and offers to referee. At the
sound of the bell the licensee jumps in the ring and begins
shadowboxing. At the end of three minutes he is proclaimed the
winner by the FCC majority, found to have been serving the public
interest in his community, and given a three-year license
renewal.
     Members of the public are learning how to make this a more
meaningful contest. In Seattle, a voluntary citizens' council has
brought interested parties together to improve media coverage of
the black community. (The general concept of local broadcasting
councils has worked in other countries and might well be tried
here.) John Banzhaf, who established the "fairness doctrine"
requirement that broadcasters inform their audiences about the
harmful effects of cigarette smoking, is contesting the license
renewal of stations which have not complied. Labor unions are
contesting the license renewals of stations which do not fairly
represent labor's story. Citizens in Chicago, Seattle and Atlanta
have, independently, protested changes in the programming format
of their favorite local stations from classical music to
something more popular -- and profitable. A number of
organizations are fighting renewal of the license of a station
that broadcasts a surfeit of what they consider right-wing hate
programming.
Other groups are protesting children's programming, violence on
television, and the absence of

# p. 165 #

meaningful local service programming. (As one group of young
blacks' picket signs put it, "Soul music is not enough.")
Needless to say, I am not expressing a view on the merits of
these cases. But I believe they show a trend that is going to
continue. And I think that it is, in most cases, basically
healthy for listeners and viewers to be able to participate in
the Commission's proceedings. It creates the reality, as well as
the illusion, that it is possible to "do something" to make our
seemingly intractable institutions respond to popular will, that
you can fight city hall. It removes the pressure for
revolutionary action that otherwise heats up without escape like
infection in a boil. Finally, it should be welcomed by the vast
majority of American broadcasters who are responsible, involved
with their community, and who are already making efforts to
obtain more audience interest in their stations' programming.

Public Service Time

     Businessmen who would like to perform a public service that
does not maximize immediate profits often have difficulty
convincing their shareholders they should do so unless their
competitors undertake a similar burden. Take the safety record of
commercial aviation, for example. It would be competitively
difficult for a single airline to establish and follow the kind
of maintenance and safety standards imposed by the FAA and CAB.
There would always be a competitor who, by taking a few more
risks, could cut costs, reduce rates and attract customers. By
having industry-wide standards enforced by a government agency,
however, everyone is comparatively equal -- and everyone

# p. 166 #

benefits from a reputation that builds confidence in airline
transportation.
     Because of the almost total absence of programming standards
from the FCC, the broadcasting industry is at a substantial
disadvantage. It becomes competitively difficult for a single
network to put very much news and public affairs in prime time,
to increase its financial commitment to public service, or to
broadcast programs without commercial sponsorship -- so long as
the other two networks can continue to maximize profits.
Competitive position as well as profits are involved. The FCC
owes the industry--and the public -- the assistance that only
government, with its antitrust immunity, can provide:
establishment of standards that will create for the industry the
opportunity to do its best more often.
     Such standards could take a number of forms. We could
require that a given proportion of gross income be invested in
programming. We could require that each network provide a given
proportion of its prime time, each evening or each week, to
public service programming; stations could have similar
standards, especially for local programming. (For example, each
of the three networks could be required to provide a single hour
of such programming Monday through Saturday between seven and ten
P.M. on a staggered basis. Thus, at any moment of this segment of
prime time, viewers would have a choice of something other than
advertiser-supported, lowest-common-denominator programming.) We
could require that for some programs (like news) there be no
commercial interruption. We could set standards for the size of
the news staff, or news budget, as a proportion of gross income.
Such standards could, of course, be

# p. 167 #

worked out with the networks and station owners, for--as with the
commercial airlines' safety record -- it is the responsible
professional elements in the industry who ultimately have the
most to gain from such proposals.

Program Diversity and Ownership Standards

     Many of the FCC's policies in the broadcasting field are
based upon the assumption that the more independently owned
broadcasting outlets there are, the better. That is, minority
tastes will be better served, and programming quality improved,
by increasing the number of sources of broadcast programming.
There has never been a thoroughgoing effort to find whether this
theory has worked out in fact, and thus each of us must judge for
himself. But today's 7500 operating radio and television stations
do represent about a tenfold increase over the number of
broadcast outlets in the 1920's and 1930's. This has come about
through the addition of relatively lower-power, daytime only,
local AM radio stations, the wholly new FM radio service, and
television-first VHF and then UHF. Cable television--which now
serves some four million homes--has the potential of bringing
twenty or more television signals into the home (compared with
the four or five signals in most major markets today).
     Additional individual choice is provided by services that do
not involve broadcasting. Music can be obtained from phonograph
records and audio tapes. The sale of tape recorders is up
markedly, including stereo tape players for automobiles, and
there is widespread taping of music from radio stations for
subsequent personal use. Films have

# p. 168 #

always been available, but have been expensive and difficult to
operate; now the prospect of video cameras, tape recorders, and
video disc and tape recordings opens up a whole new consumer
market. 
     Diversity in broadcast programming is also affected by FCC
rules regarding programming practices. In the largest hundred
markets the FCC requires that jointly owned AM-FM stations not
duplicate programming more than 60 percent of the time. The
Commission has held hearings on proposals that would limit a
network's ownership interest to a maximum of 60 percent of the
networked programming and limit the amount of prime time
programming that any affiliate can take from networks. Of course,
the mere joint ownership of broadcast properties in the same
market decreases the likelihood of diversity in programming. And
the FCC has also proposed a rule that no single owner can hold a
license to more than one full-time facility in a single market,
a proposal which the Justice Department believes should be
expanded to take account of newspaper ownership. (The limits now
contained in FCC rules are five VHF, two UHF, seven AM, and seven
FM stations for a single owner. No commonly owned TV signals may
overlap, nor AM or FM, but a TV plus AM plus FM may be commonly
owned in a single community.) To the extent that diversity of
signals, programming, and ownership has led to greater audience
choice, service to minority tastes, and improved quality, such
efforts are to be encouraged.

Professionalism

     Members of the radio and television industry like to think
of themselves as members of a profes-

# p. 169 #

sion. No one would question that there are, within the industry,
individuals with impressive records of academic training, and
participation in programming that represents a high sense of
responsibility, creativity, and technical standards. The fact
remains, however, that most of the ingredients one associates
with a profession are not to be found in broadcasting. There are
no academic standards. There are no professional qualifying
examinations. There are no associations for those who have met
such standards. There is no procedure for processing public
grievances addressed to one of the members. A lawyer, by
contrast, must hold college and law degrees from accredited
institutions. He also must be found to be academically qualified
by examiners from the legal profession. He must meet character
qualifications. The courts before which he appears must first
"admit" him to practice after satisfying themselves as to his
qualifications. He belongs to a bar association, which may be a
requirement to practice. Grievances filed against him are
evaluated by a grievance committee against the standards of
professional canons of ethics and prior decisions interpreting
those canons. Similar qualities are associated with doctors,
dentists, engineers, architects, accountants, and so forth.

     Or consider for a moment the rigors of qualifying as a
third-grade teacher. The applicant may have to have a college
degree from a school of education. She must be qualified under
standards established by the state for a teacher's certificate.
She must meet the standards of the local school board. She
probably must have spent some time as a supervised practice
teacher. She may be compelled to continue to take in-service
training. She must meet these standards because she is going to

# p. 170 #

spend time with a group of perhaps twenty-five children for
several months out of the year. She will be giving them ideas,
information, opinions, attitudes, and behavior patterns that must
hold them in good stead throughout life. We don't want to trust
their minds to any but the most skillful and responsible of
hands. Contrast these concerns and standards, if you will, with
those we associate with broadcasters, with their access to
millions of young minds for far more hours every year. The
average child of eighteen has spent nearly 25,000 hours in front
of the television set, and has seen approximately 350,000
commercials. As Harry Skornia, of the University of Illinois, has
said, "Although broadcasting is one of the most powerful forces
shaping social values and behavior, broadcast staffs and
management in the United States generally have no specific
professional standards to meet." There are exceptions. But of the
National Association of Broadcasters' Code, Skornia says: "A
document so vaguely worded, so defensive, and so flagrantly 
violated can hardly be seriously considered a real code of either
ethics or practices." He believes that the mass media "should be
entrusted only to professionals, who study their effects as
carefully as new drug manufacturers are expected to test new
drugs before putting them on the market." News is, of course, a
special concern: "It must be recognized that news, like medicine
or education, is too important to be entrusted to people without
proper qualifications."
     Let me hasten to make clear that I do not urge that the FCC
is the most appropriate agency to establish such professional
standards or to engage in licensing. But I do urge that the
American 

# p. 171 #

people have the right to expect from those who instruct millions
of young people on Saturday morning, professional standards at
least as high as those it imposes upon the teachers who instruct
a classroom of twenty-five on Monday morning. And I share Harry
Skornia's concern that:

     In news and public affairs, particularly, the fact
     that there is no national academic standard 
     prerequisite to practice, and that neither the names of the
     schools from which newsmen graduate, nor their
     diplomas or degrees -- if indeed they are even considered
     necessary to employment -- represent any definitive standard
     of intellectual accomplishment, morality, character
     qualification, or even technical skill, is disturbing if not
     shocking.

Such standards and procedures of professionalism, were they to be
adopted, would represent another example of a modest
institutional restructuring that should be fully acceptable to
the responsible elements of the broadcasting industry as well as
of great benefit to the public.

Programming Liability

     Legal liability or a monetary damage award has often proven
to be an effective spur to reform. Manufacturers' concern for the
safety and suitability of their products has undoubtedly been
entranced by the "product liability" standards that have been
laid down by the courts. It is simply too expensive to try to run
a manufacturing business with the threat of suits from injured
customers. The same principle has applied to industrial safety
practices. Safety procedures and equipment that once seemed "too
expensive" appear much more

# p. 172 #

reasonable when balanced against adequate plaintiff's awards for
injuries and death. Perhaps the networks' concern about the
quality and impact of their programming could be intensified in
this way, either by principles of liability found in the common
law or from new legislation. I appreciate that this is a
provocative suggestion, that it could sometimes raise First
Amendment problems, and that proof of causation would be
difficult. Nonetheless, I think it is an idea we should begin
discussing.
     Most products are warranted as safe for the purposes for
which intended. Why not the televised product? A drug
manufacturer must do sufficient experimentation to prove the
efficacy and harmless nature of his product before offering it to
the public. Why not the television company? Why shouldn't the
broadcaster bear a measure of any tobacco manufacturer's
liability to the widow of a lung cancer victim for failing to
tell her husband the whole truth about the impact of cigarette
smoking? Many states recognize damages for "psychic" or emotional
injury. (For example, bill collectors may be liable for harassing
innocent debtors.) Why shouldn't a television network be liable
for the psychic harm it does millions of young children who watch
the Saturday morning "children's programs"? The television set
manufacturer is legally liable for physical damage done by
radiation from the set. Why should the network be free of
responsibility for the psychic harm done by what it radiates from
the set? To state the extreme case, suppose a psychiatrist would
testify that a child's mental illness was directly traceable to a
particular show watched regularly. And suppose, further, that
numerous other children were

# p. 173 #

affected in this way -- and that the network knew the program
would probably produce that result. Is legal liability out of the
question?
     Legal liability has been an effective instrument of reform
in the past, and is at least worth examination as a means of
improving the most extreme instances of injurious programming.

Public Access to Television

     We are living in an age in which television has become
confused in a crazy way with reality. If an event is not on
television it hasn't happened. And if you -- or those with whom
you can identify--are not on television you don't exist. A Harris
poll reported in December 1968 that a sense of alienation was
growing among many Americans -- principally, it seems to me,
those who are excluded from participation in television. The
right to petition one's government, guaranteed in the First
Amendment to the Constitution, has become the need to petition
one's media -- usually television. That is how a citizen helps to
change things. That is how he communicates with his fellow
citizens. As we've discovered, even a riot is a form of
communication.
     The Kerner Commission report spoke of a mass medium that
"repeatedly, if unconsciously, reflects the biases, the
paternalism, the indifference of white America." Daniel Walker in
his report to the Violence Commission quoted Yippie leader Abbie
Hoffman: "You got a TV set? That's a jungle. . . . We get on that
tube . . . we get information out, and our information is heavy,
and it sticks, and it's exciting, it's alive." Among the most
popular newspaper features today are the letters to the

# p. 174 #

editor and "Action Line" columns. "Call-in" radio
shows are riding a crest of popularity. Alienated young people,
who have been shut out from access to the Establishment media,
are doing a thriving business (economically and aesthetically) in
underground newspapers and films.
     One can draw a number of conclusions from observations like
these. One is that we might as well face up to the fact that
television is responsible for the violence to the extent that it
insists upon action from those with legitimate grievances to
share with their fellow citizens. People with something they must
say will do whatever is necessary to be heard. What is necessary
is what the gatekeepers of our television channels define as
necessary.
     Another conclusion is that we probably ought to be giving
more thought to principles of public right of access to
television. The FCC's "fairness doctrine" is, of course, designed
and administered in ways which seek to serve this need in part.
But it is inadequate. Professor Jerome Barron has argued in the
Harvard Law Review that in order to breathe life into First
Amendment freedoms today we must make them mean something more
than the right to establish one's own multimillion dollar TV
station, network or newspaper--there must be a public right of
access to the mass media. Television networks and stations today
retain a very tight control over who uses their facilities -- 
even to the point of requiring the Xerox Corporation to set up
its own "network" to show some of its more creative
documentaries. The only public access comes during news programs
and interview shows when, of course, the outsiders are carefully
screened.

# p. 175 #

     It is in part this control which has required the necessity
of establishing the rather expensive duplicate facilities
represented by the approximately one hundred and ninety
educational television  stations. Corporations have made
contributions to help sustain educational broadcasting. But some
have also used commercial television to bring the same kind of
programming to the American people--Xerox, Hallmark, AT&T, Union
Carbide, to name but a few. It is the means chosen by the
National Geographic Society. If we are to limit the surfeit of
advertiser-supported network entertainment programming during
prime time, perhaps we should consider a rule making a proportion
of this time available for noncommercial programming of an
educational, scientific, or cultural nature paid for by
foundations or similar institutions. Such time would then be
available to them as a matter of right rather than as a matter of
sufferance from the networks. The FCC has recently proposed a
similar principle with regard to cable television systems -- that
extra channels be made available on a common-carrier basis for
lease to those who wish to distribute programming, the costs for
which may be relatively low.

Citizens' Commission on Broadcasting

     In 1947, with the leadership of Robert M. Hutchins and the
funding of Henry R. Luce, the Commission on the Freedom of the
Press took a look at our mass media at that time and recommended
"the establishment of a new and independent agency to appraise
and report annually upon the performance of the press."
     In 1968 the Kerner Commission recommended,

# p. 176 #

among other things, the establishment of an "Institute of Urban
Communication on a private, nonprofit basis" with the
responsibility to "review press and television coverage of riot
and racial news and publicly award praise and blame." And in late
1969, a Staff Report to the National Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence found a clear need for a national "Center
for Media Study," independent of both media and government, and
responsible to the people. The Center would have limited
authority only to observe the performance of the media, request
information from government agencies, and to publicize its
observations and recommendations. Whether or not the media
accepted its recommendations would be a purely voluntary choice
on their part.
     In between, similar suggestions have come from such
distinguished citizens and students of the mass media as
Professor Harold Lasswell, former Senator William Benton (who,
along with Senators John W. Bricker, Leverett Saltonstall, and
Lester C. Hunt, proposed to the Senate in 1951 a National
Citizens Advisory Board for Radio and Television), Jack Gould of
the New York Times, Harry S. Ashmore of the Center for the Study
of Democratic Institutions, and Professor William Rivers of the
Institute of Communications Research at Stanford. Representative
Oren Harris, when chairman of the House Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, proposed a similar idea. Dr. Otto Larson,
of the University of Minnesota, called for an "institute" to
conduct "continuing, systematic, objective comparative
surveillance of mass media contents." Thomas B. Hoving's National
Citizens Committee for Broadcasting

# p. 177 #

could develop in this direction. And former FCC Commissioner Lee
Loevinger has urged the industry to establish its own "American
Broadcasting Council on Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting." In
1969 the Columbia University-Dupont awards group issued its first
annual report on broadcasting--a function supplemented by the
quarterly Columbia Journalism Review. I am hopeful that this
idea, which has appealed to so many distinguished Americans, will
be realized.
     What form should such a citizens' commission or institute
take? Others have spoken to the details and I will not attempt to
repeat all of the proposals here. A few general characteristics,
however, seem to run throughout.
     Although there may be some appropriate ways to funnel some
federal or industry funds to such an institute, I believe that
most proponents would agree that the organization ought to be
completelY free from any suggestion of government or industry
influence. It may already be impossible, in this day and age, to
isolate any institution from the overpowering political pressures
of Big Television. But the institute should, at least, not draw
its membership or employees from either government or
broadcasting.
     Funding should come from foundation and other private
sources and would probably have to be in the range of one to ten
million dollars a year. There is a certain "critical mass" of
individuals necessary to undertake an effort of this kind in
terms of the quality and variety of professionals and sheer
quantity of work involved. This is somewhere between fifty and
two hundred professional people. To the extent that projects
would be contracted out to others or training programs
undertaken, addi-

# p. 178 #

tional funding would, of course, be required. Federal funding
might be possible through the National Science Foundation, the
National Institutes of Health and Mental Health, the National
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, the Public Broadcasting
Corporation, or the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
But I would assume that government and industry funding combined
should not exceed, say, 30 percent of the annual operating
budget, and that it would be far more desirable, if possible, to
do without it altogether.
     What would such a citizens' commission or institute do?
There would be, of course, a wide range of potential activities
that would evolve with the interests of the participants. But the
following may be illustrative.
     (1) Analysis and evaluation of broadcasting practices. The
processes and substance of voluntary standards, both internal and
industry-wide, could be subjected to intense, continuing
institute scrutiny. The institute might be expected to give
priority to evaluation of such standards as those providing for
limitations on violence in entertainment programming, standards
for avoiding minority stereotyping in entertainment programming,
codes of conduct for the treatment of social disorders, and
standards for the classification of program materials designed to
afford parents the opportunity to select appropriate viewing
material for their children. This task could be limited to
pre-existing codes and standards, or could undertake the
development of new criteria (without, of course, enforcement
powers).
     (2) Creation and evaluation of programming standards. The
institute could particularize stand-

# p. 179 #

ards of public interest programming. We presently have very
little in the way of "social indicators" for evaluating broadcast
programming and its impact. For example, the institute could
develop guidelines for the quantity and quality of time to be
given significant controversial public issues. The institute
could serve an important need by developing recommended minimum
standards for the staffing and equipping of broadcast media news
bureaus and editorial departments.
(3) Monitoring and evaluation of broadcasting. In monitoring the
media, the institute could determine the degree of adherence to
standards as well as measure the extent to which broadcasters
meet the commitment to provide specified amounts of public
interest programming which they have made in their license
applications to FCC. The monitoring function might also include
institute-directed audience surveys in order to check upon the
accuracy, integrity and relevance of the broadcast rating
services.
(4) Evaluation of media grievance machinery. The institute might
well contribute to the development of workable procedures to
ensure access to the media for significant dissident groups. The
responsiveness of the media to complaints and requests for the
opportunity to present alternative views on public issues could
be monitored and evaluated by the institute. To the extent that
the industry undertakes to develop professional grievance
machinery, such as broadcasting councils, the institute could
contribute to their development and effectiveness by evaluating
the industry's responsiveness.
     (5) Analysis of the economic structure of the media. The
impact of economic concentration or

# p. 180 #

other ownership patterns in the media should be an intensive,
continuing concern of the institute. The institute could also
perform a valuable service by focusing public attention on the
effect of advertising in determining program selection and
content.
     (6) Analysis of media employment practices. As the Kerner
Commission and others have observed, the quality of reporting on
minority group problems is directly related to the extent to
which Negro and other minority group members are employed in
substantive broadcasting capacities. The institute could monitor
practices and trends in employment.
     (7) Evaluation of the effectiveness of government agencies
charged with media-related responsibilities. Many of the current
deficiencies in media performance can be traced in part to the
lack of vigor with which such agencies as the FCC have carried
out their present responsibilities. The fact that the FCC has
never revoked a license for the failure of the licensee to
undertake adequate public service broadcasting suggests that the
public interest standard -- so vigorously articulated -- has been
less than rigorously implemented. The sporadic attention paid to
mergers affecting the media gives little confidence that a
diversity of editorial comment will continue to exist in even our
major cities.
     (8) Development of standards and programs for improving
community-broadcaster relations. In the view of the Kerner
Commission, "the institute could undertake the task of
stimulating community action" and "could serve as a clearinghouse
for an exchange of experiences in this field [Police-press
relations]."

# p. 181 #

     (9) Provision of training in areas of critical social
significance. The institute could be authorized to conduct or to
fund programs for the training of Negro and other minority group
journalists as well as for the training of non-minority group
members in techniques for reporting on minorities and on social,
economic and environmental problems generally.
     (10) Research contracts and the stimulation of
public-interest programming through grants and awards. The
institute's impact should not be limited to the negative
sanctions of critical evaluation and condemnation. To the extent
that its resources permit, the institute could engage in
affirmative programs to stimulate public interest programming
through grants. Such grants may be particularly appropriate for
local media projects which without financial assistance may lie
beyond the resources of local commercial broadcasters. Such
grants would complement the programs contemplated for the Public
Broadcasting Corporation to aid nonprofit broadcasters. In
addition, the institute might appropriately develop a program
of awards for outstanding public interest programming--awards
which could be designed to maximize the competition for prestige
which is evidently a strong motivating force within some segments
of the industry. The grant programs undertaken by the institute
might include funding of an urban affairs news service, as
suggested by the Kerner Commission, to focus on social issues
which are of limited interest to the major networks and wire
services.
     (11) Annual report. Finally, to provide a check on its own
activities as well as a formalized occasion for evaluation of the
overall performance

# p. 182 #

and trends within broadcasting, the institute should annually
prepare and present to the public -- and to the President and
Congress--a comprehensive report detailing its activities and
rendering its judgment.
     Now, what powers should an institute have to carry out such
a formidable array of functions? Certain minimal powers seem
apparent.
     (1) Authority to publicize its findings and conclusions. The
institute would be expected to seek the widest possible
dissemination of its statements and reports. While the institute
should be authorized, if the occasion necessitates, to purchase
media time or space for the publication of its findings, the
media would normally be expected to provide adequate coverage for
institute releases.
     (2) Authority to request data and reports through government
agencies. The institute should be able to obtain, through FCC
processes, broadcast information which it deems relevant to its
tasks but which it cannot obtain voluntarily. Similarly, the
institute should have access to relevant economic data. The
institute could cooperate with the Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission in obtaining information on hiring and task assignment
practices.
     (3) Authority to appear as advocate for the public interest.
While the institute would have no regulatory authority, it is
essential that its findings be widely circulated -- not only
through publicity, but also through advocacy in all appropriate
forums. Thus the institute should be authorized to appear before
the FCC to speak on setting standards, licensing, and other
issues relevant to its purpose; to appear before antitrust
agencies to comment on the impact of economic concentration      

# p. 183 #

on media performance; to appear before fair employment practices
commissions and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to
discuss issues relating to the employment of minority group
members; and to appear before Congress to testify on proposed
legislation and related inquiries.
     The American people are calling for some meaningful response
to the corporate arrogance that posts a high wood fence around
the television business with "Keep Out!" written on one side and
"First Amendment" on the other. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., has
observed:

     No rational person wants to reestablish a reign of
     censorship or mobilize new Legions of Decency....
     Yet society retains a certain right of self-defense.

We do retain a right of self-defense. The people are looking for
those in responsible positions in government and in
communications to exercise it. A crucial first step would be the
creation of a nongovernmental, non-industry citizens' commission
on broadcasting.

# p. 184 #

[blank]

                                   # # #