Voice:
[Station Pledge Request] You're a regular
viewer. You know that there aren't any commercials here on Channel 2. No one
here is, no one here will ever try to sell you anything other than the very
best in programming. But that means we don't have any revenue from
advertising, and that's why we have to turn to you, our viewer and ask for
your support for 80 percent of our operating budget. And let's face it,
operating this television station is a very expensive business.
[Station Pledge Request] —Because we need you. We
need your subscription.
[Station Pledge Request] Make a pledge of $5; make
a pledge of twenty; make a pledge of fifty. Fifty dollars will bring you a
lot of things as you well know. It will bring you an umbrella.
[Station Pledge Request] Whatever you pledge
tonight can be paid for on the installment plan. You can use your credit
card—Master Charges or Visa, or you can give check or money order.
[Station Pledge Request] So we want you to do your
part if you haven't done it. Now is the time, and in a couple of more
minutes before we go back to the PBS special—
[Offer] For a $35 family membership, we
have a special premium offer during festivals, and here it is.
[Offer] This go-anywhere, do-anything
pitcher and cup set is a real family-pleaser at the beach or on the table,
made of sturdy—
Viewer:
Hey, hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it. Hey,
fellows, listen. I think you do a terrific job. I'm wild about a lot of your
programs. But, if you're going to keep on asking me for my money like this,
you might as well have commercials.
Dukakis:
Good evening and welcome to The Advocates. I'm
Michael Dukakis. We're debating an unusual subject tonight, but it's one
that should be of special interest to all of you who are watching because
you are watching public television; and many of you listen to public
radio.
The funding of our non-commercial stations in this country
has always been a problem. In the early years, a few viewers and the Ford
Foundation, in particular, contributed to keep the stations going.
Educational funds from the federal government helped to buy, as they still
do, some of the equipment. But there was no public broadcasting network. The
first report of the Carnegie Commission on public broadcasting in 1967
recommended that the stations be tied into a national system to be called
the Public Broadcasting Service. The Carnegie Commission report also
recommended that a central corporation for public broadcasting be
established to distribute funds to the stations which produced programs and
that major federal funding be provided for public broadcasting. The system
was established. But only recently did federal support reach the 100 million
dollars recommended way back there in 1967.
In February of this year, the second Carnegie Commission
report was issued. It recommended some changes in the management structure
of public broadcasting to save some administrative dollars. But it also
asked for substantially increased federal funding for public
broadcasting—some 590 million dollars a year, or 4 1/2 times the present
level of federal support. Just a few days ago, the House Sub-Committee on
Communications, chaired by Representative Lionel Van Deerlin of California,
came up with its own proposal. It would also provide substantially increased
federal funds for programming. The Committee recommended a new national
program endowment which would replace the present Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and that endowment would distribute money, but could also
produce programs for the system—something which is not possible under the
present system.
Tonight we're going to be debating the central principles
common to these proposals—that federal funds should make up a substantial
proportion up to half of the total budget for public broadcasting and the
programming decisions be more centralized. Should Congress substantially
increase federal funding for public broadcasting? Advocate Roger Fisher
says, "Yes."
Fisher:
Public broadcasting is today's town hall. It needs
substantially more funds. Our witnesses tonight are two experts in the
field, television critic for The Boston Globe, William A. Henry, III, and a
man who served with both Carnegie Commissions on public broadcasting, Eli
Evans, president of the Revson Foundation.
Our case this evening is simple and direct. As our society
grows bigger and more complex, we can no longer exchange our ideas in the
village green or in the town hall. Concerns of the elderly, the ethnic
groups, the minorities, tend to get lost in the shuffle. Commercial
broadcasting can provide mass entertainment. It can serve some of our
communication needs, but it means most of them unmet, large numbers of them
unmet. The profit motive in free enterprise helps a lot, but it can't solve
all our problems. Profits do not build public schools, public libraries,
public museums, state universities, art galleries, and things of that
kind.
Without federal funds, public broadcasting will be over. It
will be dead. It will take an increase in federal funds to provide to make
it fulfill its needs. Diversity of funding sources will assure the kind of
balance and independence that we need. If we each year, we can pay some $75
for federal aid to schools, we can pay two dollars and a half per person for
federal aid for federal broadcasting, to public broadcasting. That's what
we're talking about. Our children spend more time in television than they do
in school. What we're talking about is two bucks and a half per person in
this country for public broadsta—, broadcasting. We can afford it. Thank
you.
Dukakis:
Advocate William Rusher says, "No.”
Rusher:
There can't be many assignments less inviting at
first glance than trying to persuade an audience composed entirely of people
who watch television on the public broadcasting system that the federal
government should not give more money to PBS. And yet, if you will just
think about it a minute, I believe you will agree with these men who say it
shouldn't—Mr. William Poorvu, vice chairman of Boston Broadcasters,
Incorporated, and lecturer at Harvard Business School, and Mr. M. Stanton
Evans, nationally syndicated columnist and commentator for CBS radio. I
think you will agree because you are, after all, by and large the same
people who voted for the scores of propositions and initiatives and
amendments all over the country this past year to limit the expenditures of
government and reduce the tax burden on everyone. You have certainly seen in
recent years the steady invasion by big government of more and more areas of
our lives, always accompanied by large amounts of cash—your cash.
Tonight, once again, THE ADVOCATES deals with a proposal
for more government spending. The only difference is that this time the
money will be spent, or so we are led to believe, on television programs
that you and I like. My hope of prevailing this evening depends, therefore,
on appealing to your sense of social responsibility. Do you really want
people a great deal poorer than yourself to be taxed to furnish you and me
with the kind of supposedly high level entertainment we prefer? Luckily the
days when only tax money could provide decent television are fast drawing to
a close. We're on the threshold of new, technological advances, such as
video cassettes and cable TV, which will make opera and Shakespeare and even
The Advocates available to everyone who wants them without costing America's
taxpayers a nickel. So, wait till you hear our side. Thank you.
Dukakis:
Thank you, gentlemen. We'll be back to your cases
and our debate in a moment, but first a word about tonight's debate—an
additional word. One of the more interesting proposals in the Van Deerlin
Sub-Committee was one that would allow public television stations to run
commercial advertising to raise money. Under the proposal, the ads wouldn't
be allowed to interrupt programs They would have been, or would be limited
to 3 percent of air time in three restricted blocks a day. And that compares
with 12 to 30 percent of the commercial station's air time, which is now
devoted to commercial messages. I want to emphasize, however, that our
witnesses have varying opinions on that subject; and it will not be a part
of tonight's debate. Now let's get on with our discussion and our debate.
Mr. Fisher, the floor is yours.
Fisher:
Thank you. I call as my first witness one of
America's best-read critics in this area, someone who really watches
television as many of us may not as much as others, William A. Henry, III.
Mr. Henry—
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Henry. Nice to have
you with us.
Henry III:
Thank you, Governor.
Fisher:
You've just heard Mr. Rusher say that this is a
special program for the elite. Who watches public television, Mr.
Henry?
Henry III:
The short answer is, "Everybody." There's a rumor
out there to the effect that public television's audience is an elite, a
tiny few. In fact, 60 percent of the country finds a reason to tune in every
single month, and the median viewer of public television has a household
income of $15,000 or less and a high school education or less. It seems to
me, that's Joe Average.
Fisher:
Is that significantly different from commercial
television?
Henry III:
The public television audience is perhaps marginally
more affluent, marginally more educated. But both audiences pretty much
match up with the national statistical norm. The, the short version is
everybody watches television—both public and commercial. And the people who
watch the most public television also turn out to watch the most of "Laverne
and Shirley" and "Lou Grant", too.
Fisher:
All right, with, with the average household
watching television 6 1/2 hours a day, as we're told, do we need any more
television, more money for television?
Henry III:
I'm not sure that more television is what we're
talking about here. We're talking about more diverse television. In some
ways, the three networks aren't three corporations. They're one giant
corporation with three divisions. Most of us can't tell the difference
between an NBC and a ABC and a CBS program. But we sure can tell the
difference in a PBS program.
Fisher:
Well, what does public broadcasting do that the
commercial networks do not do?
Henry III:
Public affairs, particularly on things that are not
hard-core politics— shows like "World," which deal with the Third World
point of view, "Nova" dealing with science and which CBS is going to attempt
to imitate later this year; culture, giving not merely a, a floor for the
BBC and its productions, but for American cultural institutions—American
theaters, American dance companies, American symphony orchestras; and they
reach not only the people in their own areas, but people who live in parts
of the country that don't have comparable institutions.
Fisher:
Now quickly, why doesn't commercial television do
this for us?
Henry III:
Because commercial television is not the
entertainment business. It's not the news business. It's the advertising
business, as anybody in it will tell you. The job is to get the audience
there so you can rent their eyeballs to the advertisers, and there is no
interest in how much the program pleases the audience, how intensively they
want it or like it. It's only how extensive an audience you can get, how big
a crowd you can draw into the tent.
Fisher:
Does public television need more funds?
Henry III:
I think it clearly does.
Henry III:
Because at the moment, it's producing some drama,
teeny bits of that, a fair amount of public affairs, and pretty good, but
limited, cultural items. It has to buy from abroad, it has to do things on
the cheap, and above all, it has no margin for error. It's not able to make
mistakes. The three networks spend an average of $400,000 per pilot to make
140 pilots, to come up with maybe 20 series for the fall. That's $56 million
on losers. There is no opportunity for public television to waste ten cents.
We're all human; we're not perfect.
Fisher:
What would happen if all federal funds were taken
away from public broadcasting, radio and television?
Henry III:
It would disappear.
Henry III:
Corporations will pay for particular programs that
they can put their names on. Individuals will send in when they see programs
that they like. Nobody wants to send in money to maintain the satellite
interconnect and all of those facilities of the two hundred and some-odd
stations around the country that give every major community its own locally
oriented public television.
Dukakis:
Mr. Henry, excuse me. What is the "satellite
interconnect"?
Henry III:
That, that's the system by which the, those two
hundred-odd stations receive their programs. They, they don't use the
telephone system as their commercial networks have done and are likely to
continue doing for a little bit—
Dukakis:
In other words, it ties the public broadcasting
stations-
Dukakis:
—around the country together. Thank you.
Fisher:
—all these stations—. Now, would permitting
commercial broad—, advertisements, on public television end the need for
federal funding as proposed, uh, as Mr. Dukakis said, by the Van Deerlin
Committee?
Henry III:
No, it seems to me it's a relatively harmless
proposal, but harmless mostly because it's so inconsequential. The
commercials would have to be grouped together. They couldn't be scattered
throughout the programs. There couldn't be very many of them. They'd be only
3 percent of the day. And because public television attracts a lot of
different people, but not too many at any one time, you couldn't charge very
much for the commercials. Figure that the public television audience is a
fifth of the network audience and the number of commercials would be a
tenth, while you're talking about two percent of the rate for commercial, on
a commercial network. That's not very much money.
Dukakis:
Gentlemen, let me interrupt at this-
Dukakis:
—point. Mr. Rusher, you have some questions, I'm
sure, for Mr. Henry.
Rusher:
Mr. Henry, you say that 60 percent of television
households watch public television at least once a month.
Henry III:
That's the cumulative figure, according to the
latest study, yes.
Rusher:
What would be the figure be if you excluded "Sesame
Street"?
Henry III:
It would be somewhat smaller, but it seems—
Rusher:
Now, come on. How much smaller?
Henry III:
It's not absolutely clear, but probably 35 to 40
percent—-
Rusher:
—35 to 40 percent.
Henry III:
—and the people who watch only "Sesame Street"
include a very large percentage of those who are in low-income households,
low-education house-households; and it's shows like "Sesame Street" that
give the next generation a chance to break out of that syndrome.
Rusher:
In point of fact, if "Sesame Street" isn't included
in the figures, not only would 35 to 40 percent of public television's
once-a-month attention of the public disappear, I can give you figures—we'll
hear some testimony where it will be nearer 50 percent, but also most of its
claim to have much viewership in the black and, and, and blue collar
segments of the society because that's where it is—in the "Sesame Street"
category, is that right?
Henry III:
At this point, yes—
Rusher:
Would you agree with—
Henry III:
—with more—, more government money, there will
certainly be more and similar programming for children.
Henry III:
Right now corporations want to program only to
children when they can advertise cereals and toys to them.
Rusher:
Would you agree with the statement that in
practice—
Henry III:
—and public television won't take cereal and toy
money.
Henry III:
Yes, Mr. Rusher. I studied your technique, and I'm
doing my best to follow it.
Rusher:
Would you agree with the statement that in
practice, public television seeks public money without accountability?
Henry III:
No, I don't think so. I—
Rusher:
Why did you make it then? I've been studying you.
I'm quoting you, Mr. Henry.
Henry III:
No, I think there are—
Rusher:
From one of your columns.
Henry III:
I think there are individuals in public
television—
Rusher:
No, that's not what it said. What it says is "the
vision sounds elitist, and in practice it, meaning public television, seeks
public money without accountability." This is one of your own columns.
Henry III:
I, I think that is a, an incorrect excerpt of what
I've said.
Rusher:
Well, then I'll give you the entire column. Suppose
you tell us what is correct about it. Go ahead.
Henry III:
Thank you very much. Do you want to ask me a
question while I look at this?
Rusher:
Certainly. I asked you whether or not you agree
that in practice public television seeks public money without accountability
was what you said in your own column. You don't disagree with that, I
gather.
Henry III:
No, I don't agree with that—
Henry III:
I do think there are individuals in public
television who think that they should be secluded foundations. I
don't.
Henry III:
I think public television, as part of getting more
money, should have a mandate to donate a spec—, or devote a specific amount
of its air time to the elderly, to children, to ethnic minorities. I think
we're entitled, in exchange for public money to get particular commitments
to the public—
Rusher:
Do you wish you, or do you wish you had agreed at
that time with what you're saying now?
Henry III:
I don't think that there is a distinction—
Rusher:
You don't see a distinction between individuals
seeking money, public money, without accountability and an entire public
television doing it?
Rusher:
All right, perhaps you don't. I think some of us
do. Tell me, what public affairs program of a political type on the public
broadcasting would you say it can point to with pride?
Henry III:
I certainly enjoyed "The Real America," the Ben
Wattenberg show. I disagreed with a great deal of it, but I thought that he
had a good deal to say that doesn't otherwise get said, not only in public
television—
Rusher:
How about it in commercial television? How about
the one in which the narrator described Castro as a man who had not only
changed the course of Cuban history but fired the imagination of the
world?
Henry III:
I think that's a fair estimation. Stalin and Mao
Tse-tung did the same.
Rusher:
And did -- You're a part of the world. Did it fire
yours?
Henry III:
He certainly made me, m-m-m, shall we say fantasize
about missiles landing over my house. That's firing my imagination.
Rusher:
Would it, would it be fair to say that before
asking for more money, public broadcasting should do a better job with the
money it has? You know, it has been said that its office is on the sweeping
sixth floor of the building in the Mussolini monumental new L'Enfant Plaza
in Washington. You know who said that, don't you?
Henry III:
I'm not sure that I do.
Rusher:
You did. Another one of those—. You should read
your columns more often.
Henry III:
I write eight of them a week. I can't always
appreciate—
Henry III:
—when a clever phrase is my own.
Rusher:
Another clever phrase in that particular—. Let me
continue, please-
Henry III:
Could I come back to your question?
Henry III:
What I said was, "no one but the system's own
employees lobbies for quality television for an artistic vision that ignores
ratings and special interests."
Rusher:
Let me read you this.
Henry III:
"That vision sounds elitist and in practice, it
seeks public money without accountability—
Rusher:
Seeks public money without accountability—
Henry III:
“That is that some employees in the public
television system want to do only high art."
Rusher:
Allow me one more question.
Henry III:
I don't believe in high art. I—
Rusher:
Allow me one more question—
Henry III:
I believe in serving the people whom the commercial
system that you endorse leaves unserved.
Dukakis:
Mr. Henry, let's let Mr. Rusher ask one
additional question.
Rusher:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dukakis.
Henry III:
This was one of his questions.
Rusher:
Yes, Mr. Henry. Pursuing another one of your
points in another column, President, do you believe that President Grossman
of Public Broadcasting Service deserves a hundred thousand dollars as a
salary for heading a service that is funded by the taxpayer?
Henry III:
I wonder if the President of the United States
deserves two hundred thousand dollars. I don't. But, I, I also don't think
that United States Senators and Congressmen and their staff people should be
paid what they're paid. I think they should base their salary closer to the
average wage.
Rusher:
At least they're elected by the people, where Mr.
Grossman isn't. Isn't that a distinction? They have, in other words, public
money with accountability exactly what I was talking about in the paper in
your hand.
Henry III:
The staff of Congress, the staff of Congress is not
elected by anybody at all.
Dukakis:
Gentlemen, I'm sorry. I have to interrupt. Let's
go back to Mr. Fisher now for an additional question or two. Mr.
Fisher—
Fisher:
As a student of public broadcasting, do you
believe that the two hundred and odd television and public radio, public
radio stations are in fact responsive to public interest and perform ably in
that role?
Henry III:
Every single one of them is run by a local board
made up of local people. The majority of them, in fact, are part of school
systems; and school systems, is we all know, receive public funds and are
entirely publicly accountable. I don't know that there's anybody more
accountable than a school board.
Fisher:
Thank you very much.
Dukakis:
Mr. Henry, thank you very much for being with us.
All right, let's turn to Mr. Rusher now who has his first witness for us.
Mr. Rusher—
Rusher:
I call as my first witness Mr. William
Poorvu.
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Poorvu. Nice to
have you with us.
Rusher:
Mr. Poorvu is, as I said, the vice chairman of
Boston Broadcasters, Incorporated, and a lecturer at Harvard Business
School. Mr. Poorvu, why shouldn't public broadcasting get the quadruple and
more federal funding that it wants?
Poorvu:
I think PBS is doing a very good job of serving a
very small segment of the overall audience.
Rusher:
How small a segment?
Poorvu:
Oh, runs 2 to 5 percent, normally closer to 2
percent. They—. I'm not sure that a substantial amount of funding would be
as necessary to serve that audience. And, as a matter of fact, I think if
they get the substantial amount of money, it would force a basic
restructuring of the whole public broadcasting system, and I don't think
that's a very good idea.
Rusher:
Would it change the programming?
Poorvu:
I think it probably would in many ways.
Rusher:
But, what about commercial broadcasting in which
you're involved? The accusation is that it zeroes in on mass markets and
does—, doesn't do much with quality film.
Poorvu:
Oh, there are many commercial broadcasters who do
do local programming. We do programming in the health area, in the religious
area, and arts areas. As a matter of fact, they get very good audiences. We
did something last week, "This Was America," which used still photographs to
show a segment of American history; and this show not only won its time
period over other network shows, but I think it got much higher rating than
any show in PBS all year.
Rusher:
What about nationally?
Poorvu:
Well, nationally, what—, the networks are
beginning to do more—"Roots," "Eleanor and Franklin," "60 Minutes," "Edward
the King." There are programs that are being done at the national level and
will be done increasingly so. I --
Rusher:
What about the impact of new technology? Will that
have any further effect?
Poorvu:
Well, I think it's going to encourage all local
broadcasters to do more programming. There's going to be more diverse
outlets as we get pay cable, as we get videocassettes, easier forms of
transmission. The viewer's going to have more options. And the broadcaster,
to survive, is going to have to develop more forms of programs.
Rusher:
It'll be sim—, simply a matter of commercial
survival to give variety.
Rusher:
—and diversity. With more money, though, in the
case of public broadcasting, wouldn't it guarantee better programming or
will it?
Poorvu:
I think if you look at some of the more popular,
more informative PBS programs, already, you see "Julia Child," "Jim
Crockett's Victory Garden," "Thalassa Cruso," "This Old House,"'—these
aren't high-budget shows.
Rusher:
So that high budgeting is not necessary to public
broadcasting quality. Is that your point?
Poorvu:
That's correct. Not only that, but I think that if
you, if you increase the budget, you may get less diversity. What you may
end up doing is getting more blockbusters, more centralized control of the
broadcasting.
Dukakis:
And what do you mean by a "blockbuster," Mr.
Poorvu?
Poorvu:
Oh, I'd say programs such as "Scarlet Letter,"
where you're spending $3 million to produce one program.
Rusher:
A technical question. We use this term, "public
broadcasting." But who, what, actually owns the top ten, say, so-called
public TV. stations?
Poorvu:
Well, major markets are primarily owned by
private, non-profit entities.
Rusher:
Not by the public and not by government, but by
private, non-profit entities.
Poorvu:
In most of the major markets.
Rusher:
So that the term, "public broadcasting" is in that
sense something of a misnomer.
Rusher:
It is private, non-profit broadcasting, although
the employees make salaries just like the commercial network employees, I
presume. Is that correct? There is no stockholders?
Rusher:
That's the point. Tell me lastly, in your opinion,
can public television, if it has really good programs to offer, get
non-governmental funding for those programs?
Poorvu:
I think they've proven in the past that they have
been able to get this funding.
Rusher:
And in point of fact, you expect they could
continue to a sufficient basis and in sufficient quantity in the
future?
Dukakis:
All right, Mr. Poorvu, let's turn to Mr. Fisher
who has some searching questions, I'm sure, for you. Mr. Fisher—
Fisher:
Let's try to understand that you come first from a
very nice commercial station here in Boston. I want to congratulate Mr.
Rusher on picking a man from the single station that has more public affairs
than any other commercial station in the country. Am I right?
Fisher:
Very local origination programs than any other
station in the country?
Fisher:
Good, that's fine. Now, and you're not very
typical of commercial broadcasting, are you? If you're the single commercial
station in the country that's the best, you're not very typical.
Poorvu:
I think you're getting into a semantics question.
I think there are many broadcasters who are doing local programming, and I
think there are many more that are beginning to realize how important it
is.
Fisher:
Now, let's talk about government money for public
broadcasting. What—, you—. The commercial stations have the, the frequency
licensed to them exclusively by the government for free, don't they? Each
commercial station has a free use to make money out of that channel. Is that
right?
Poorvu:
There is some fee for it, but—
Fisher:
What's the fee? How much do you pay for your
license, more or less? Very little. Legal fees to get it, but beyond that,
how much to—
Poorvu:
It amounted to millions of dollars.
Fisher:
How much would you sell it for now? A license? A
hundred million, would you sell it for?
Poorvu:
It's a conc—, it's a concept I've not
considered.
Fisher:
No, you would not sell it for a hundred million.
You have, when we give the private profit makers a chance to graze in public
lands, we charge them for it. When you give them the chance to make money
out of the airways, you get it for free. Now, you essentially, each
commercial broadcaster, has a free use on which they make a gross profit on
8 billion dollars of, of revenue more or less, of 2 billion—something like
that, commercial broadcasters—
Poorvu:
They, they pay several billion dollars to the
government in taxes. The government makes a great deal of money from the
commercial—
Poorvu:
—TV broadcasters, where as PBS do not.
Fisher:
You end up with a higher, you end up with a higher
profit on using this government channel. You get, say, 25 percent compared
to supermarkets that on gross, compare 1 or 2 percent on gross—something
like that. All the top 500 corporations make 5 percent on gross, and you
make 25 percent on gross, roughly. Now, and you --
Poorvu:
They've asked for more.
Fisher:
—wouldn't sell the channel if you have free—. We—.
The public could charge you for that several million dollars a year—public
commercial broadcasting—you'd still take it and make money, wouldn't you on
it, on the commercial channels?
Poorvu:
Well, it would depend on what we would be doing
then. We'd be running different kinds of stations, and I don't think we'd be
performing the kind of local services.—
Poorvu:
—that we do perform and do the kind of local
programming-
Fisher:
You agree there are local services to be
performed.
Fisher:
Such as health programs, public service programs,
public affairs, things of that kind.
Poorvu:
Yes, I think broadcasters should be doing this
kind of programming.
Fisher:
Should they be doing more than they are
doing?
Poorvu:
Well, that's always a definition of terms I
suppose we always should be trying to do more and better.
Fisher:
Should most other stations be trying to do as much
as your station is trying to do?
Poorvu:
Oh, different markets have different sets of
problems.
Fisher:
And, why, why don't they do more?
Poorvu:
I think they're, perhaps, being shortsighted. I
think if they did more, I think that this would be something that they would
find, as we did, that it not only draws an audience but involves the
community in their station and can be profitable as well.
Fisher:
It's fair to say the reason they don't is because
they want to make money, isn't it?
Poorvu:
No, I think that's—
Fisher:
Isn't that why they don't do more, because it's a
profit organization? The Board of Directors of a commercial broadcaster is
trying to make money.
Poorvu:
I would make an argument that if they did more
local programming and they paid more attention, they perhaps would make even
more money.
Fisher:
All right, if you, you agree there are some needs
of this kind, small audiences, Chicano-speaking audiences, blacks, the
elderly, people who don't buy much toothpaste, proportionately don't buy the
automobiles, that need service programming; somebody should meet that. Why
shouldn't it be public television to meet that?
Poorvu:
Well, I think we all should, should be meeting it.
As an ex—, example, you talk about Spanish programming. In many communities,
there are large markets. There are UHF stations that are specifically
broadcasting in Spanish. They can provide the kind of service to a Spanish
community that PBS can't do because obviously you can only have occasional
programs in Spanish, in the same way that we as a commercial broadcaster
have occasional programs that are also in Spanish.
Fisher:
You believe there should be public stations, the
kind we have here tonight to supplement the commercial stations.
Poorvu:
I think that, that a diversity of program source
is a good idea.
Fisher:
Right. And do you think we could survive without
any federal funding?
Poorvu:
Well, you'd probably be a different entity. I
think that you'd perhaps be more locally minded than you would worrying
about what's on the national network. It would be a different operation.
Whether it would be better or worse, I'm not quite sure.
Fisher:
You think that we could do better programs on less
money, whereas you spend an average of what—eight times per pro—, hour on
commercial broadcasting than public television?
Dukakis:
A brief response, Mr. Poorvu.
Poorvu:
No, we don't have big budgets for local
programs,
Fisher:
No, nationally—. Nationally, commercial
television—The Advocates, for example, we can do ten weeks on what one hour,
average hour of prime time commercial broadcasting is costing.
Dukakis:
A brief response, Mr. Poorvu, and then I'll have
to call this to a close.
Poorvu:
I wish I had your budget for one of our programs,
too.
Dukakis:
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Mr. Poorvu, thank
you for being with us.
Rusher:
As my second witness, I call Mr. M. Stanton
Evans.
Dukakis:
Mr. Rusher, before you begin, let me just say a
word to our viewing audience because some of them may have joined us late.
And for those of you who have, our question tonight is, "Should Congress
substantially increase federal funding for public broadcasting?" Advocate
Roger Fisher has presented his first witness, William Henry, III, who is a
television critic and who has argued that public broadcasting is a good
thing, that it provides diversity and special programming for many groups in
our society that don't get the kind of programming that Mr. Henry suggests
they should on commercial television.
On the other hand, Mr. Rusher has presented his first
witness, Mr. William Poorvu, who is in commercial broadcasting. And Mr.
Poorvu has argued that public broadcasting is a limited audience, that it
doesn't need these vast sums of money, and that commercial television can
provide the kind of diversity and difference and variety which our viewing
population needs. Now, let's go to Mr. Rusher who has his second witness.
Mr. Evans, it's nice to have you with us.
Rusher:
Mr. Stanton Evans, who is my witness is to be
distinguished from and not confused with Mr. Eli Evans, is that correct, who
is going to be the second witness for the other side.
Rusher:
Uh, Mr. Evans, this Mr. Evans is a nationally
syndicated columnist and a commentator on CBS radio's "Spectrum." Mr. Evans,
what's wrong with the basic idea of government funding for
broadcasting?
M.S. Evans:
I think that there are inherent, doctrinal and
practical problems in having government funded broadcasting that create a
kind of insoluble dilemma, a sort of impossible situation that you can't
escape from. Either on the one hand you have a, an insulated
self-perpetuating set of idea logs doing as they will with taxpayers• money
to pursue their own interests without public accountability, or on the other
hand, you have the political arm that extends the money, exercising control
over the way in which programming occurs. You've got to have one or the
other of those situations. It seems to me that both are unacceptable, we
have had both. Under the existing public broadcast setup, we continue to
have both to some degree, and I think both are not only philosophically
offensive, but in my opinion are in violation of the First Amendment.
Rusher:
Can you give me examples of these?
M.S. Evans:
Well, in the first category, you, yourself, in
your questioning to Mr. Henry, referred to an example, a program on sports
in Cuba, which, in my evaluation, was virtually an hour-long commercial for
Communist Cuba, which proves there are commercials on public television; and
another one in that same series about North Korea, which was virtually the
same. I found both of those programs offensive. I bitterly resent having my
tax money used to disseminate that kind of programming against my will to
the viewing public. On the other hand, you have the difficulty that occurs
when political people step in to try to correct the situation. The Carnegie
Commission talks about this. Many other people have talked about it; the
effort of the Nixon Administration to restore what it thought was "balance"
to public broadcasting. And while I sympathize with the impulse that the
Nixon regime felt because of the imbalance, I think there is a real danger
in that kind of initiative of having political control of a, a journalistic
and artistic entity.
Rusher:
But what about the need so often talked about for
diversity in programming, some alternative to the alleged mass audience
approach to the commercial networks?
M.S. Evans:
Well, I think the answer to that problem is not
more government in broadcasting, but less. The reason we have the kind of
structure we have in commercial broadcasting today is because of the
regulatory policies of the Federal Communications Commission, which, since
1966, it's been loosening up in the last few years, imposed a powerful
impediment to the development of cable. Cable was barred from the 100
largest markets from 1966 to 1972 to protect the existing network setup and
the vested interests that are involved in that. So that what you need, I
think, is to free up, diversify the broadcasting situation authentically by
getting government out of the roadbed and letting people through, pay cable,
pay for the broadcasts that they want to get.
Rusher:
But now in the case of pay, cable and so on, what
about people who cannot afford pay cable television?
M.S. Evans:
Oh, we had a rather glancing allusion to the
demographics of public broadcasting earlier. I would, looking at those same
figures, which I have done with some care, those figures show the, the
commercial, or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own statistics show
that 72 percent of the viewers of public television have household incomes
of $10,000 a year or more. There's no question both on a common sense rating
and on the statistical rating that the tilt is toward higher income
audiences and public broadcasting, which means you have a regressive
transaction here because you are taxing the people who are relatively poor
to provide entertainment and instruction to people who are relatively well
to do.
Rusher:
What about the statement that the BBC is a good
example of the way to truly independent and yet publicly funded television?
Our time is short, so—
M.S. Evans:
BBC is a very good example. The problem I'm
talking about in the 1930's, prior to the outbreak of World War II, Winston
Churchill attempted to speak out against the policy of appeasement in Great
Britain. He was prevented from getting access to the British public through
BBC. That occurred, also, when he tried to speak on, on Indian policy on
another occasion. And there are problems right now with BBC with voices in
the Parliament, the Labor Party speaking out to politicize BBC. Once again,
this has happened in other countries such as France and Sweden. It's an
inherent danger of government funded broadcasting.
Dukakis:
Mr. Rusher, we'll be back to you for some
additional questions. I'm sure most of our audience knows this, but the BBC,
of course, is the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Evans, which is
government owned and funded.
M.S. Evans:
That is correct.
Fisher:
Thank you. Mr. Evans, let's see where we disagree.
I think we disagree on two questions. One is on the appropriateness of using
taxpayer dollars for programs like The Advocates, like public television,
whatever it might be; then the question of whether we can insulate it from
governmental control. That's—. Is that a fair statement of the differences
in position?
M.S. Evans:
Well, I, I would provisionally say yes.
Fisher:
All right, now as to app—, as to appropriateness
of using taxpayers' monies to support views with which taxpayers disagree,
how do you feel about the public library buying books with your tax dollars
with which you disagree?
M.S. Evans:
Well, the difference between a public library,
and, and broadcasting is one of how you balance. If you want balance in a
public library, and I think you should have balance in a public library,
don't you?—
M.S. Evans:
Well, there you can balance it by simply adding
books, so you have a full spectrum of available reading material. In
broadcasting, you have a limited time frame, where ordinarily to add one
thing means taking something else off. And that is a judgmental decision
which has to be made by some political authority. And that's where the
danger enters in, the politicizing of journalism and artistic enterprise
through government funding which necessarily involves the—
Fisher:
Let's go—. Let's keep the—
M.S. Evans:
—political decision.
Fisher:
You don't mind buying the books you disagree with
as long as they're balanced, as long as there's something else by someone's
judgment. A public library can't buy the 40,000 titles published every year.
They must make selection, too.
M.S. Evans:
There is a judgment. There is an inherent
problem in, in libraries that you have to have some kind of monitoring to
see that there is balance.
Fisher:
And you wouldn't throw away the public library
because that’s difficult, would you?
M.S. Evans:
Well, I'm not saying to throw away the public
library. I'm saying the same problem—
Fisher:
You would support tax—. You would—
M.S. Evans:
—in principle, the same problem does exist, but
the solution is much simpler in the case of the library.
Fisher:
How about state universities? How about Faneuil
Hall, from which this program used to be broadcast?—
M.S. Evans:
The same problem exists—
Fisher:
—supported by taxpayers' money.
M.S. Evans:
The same problem exists. I was, I was a
newspaper editor in a state capital for 15 years. There was nothing but
political fighting over what went on at that state university all the
time.
Fisher:
All right, and we did not quit. We would not give
up the public parks because who speaks in there. We would not give up public
libraries, not give up public schools, not give up public buses—
M.S. Evans:
But, you're ignoring the, the intrinsic problem
which is wherever you have public funding, you have public control. Now what
your … what the public broadcasting people are advocating, what your side is
advocating is that we have, in essence, some way to evade this dilemma, that
either we can have—
Fisher:
Public trustees. We're, we're su—, suggesting
essentially the form that we now have—280 public stations with e—,
independent boards, so in their fiduciary duty—
M.S. Evans:
Okay, but where is the accountability in that?
So Where's your accountability?
M.S. Evans:
I'm a taxpayer. How do you justify to me what
will be done by those trustees with my taxes?
Fisher:
At the end of the year, at the end of three years,
Congress can look and see how well the trustees have performed their duty.
They don't come down and pick out each book out of the public library. They
can change the board. Now, wh—
M.S. Evans:
There have to be guidelines by which they decide
whether they've done their duty. How do you know they've done their duty?
What criteria would you use to decide that the trustees have done their
duty?
Fisher:
I would say the trustees ought to do that
communications—
M.S. Evans:
—that is unbalanced to, to one political point
of view; have they done their duty?
Dukakis:
Mr. Evans has asked a question. Mr. Fisher, I
guess you're going to respond and then we'll get back to the other
side.
Fisher:
I was going to say that the public duty we see is
to do those things which people motivated solely by profit in commercial
television to maximize their profits don't do.
M.S. Evans:
That's totally negative. What should they
do?
Fisher:
Communica.—. They should communicate public
service citizenship participation—programs like this should be available and
funded.
M.S. Evans:
This is a balanced program, or reasonably
balanced.
Fisher:
I think it's reasonably balanced.
M.S. Evans:
What about a program that is an hour-long
commercial for Fidel Castro's sports program?
M.S. Evans:
Is that doing their duty with my tax money?
You're --
Fisher:
I believe that over the year, the World program
on, on Cuba, other points of view, helps us, United States, understand
better how other people see things. Yes. I do. Now, the fact that you
disagree with all sorts of people, Mr. Evans, I'm asking who would you have
decide—?
M.S. Evans:
No, what I disagree with—
Fisher:
Let's look, look up with. Excuse me, if I can
just—
M.S. Evans:
I don t disagree with having that opinion. I
disagree with making me pay for it with my tax money, Why—
M.S. Evans:
—should I pay my tax money to put Fidel Castro's
propaganda on American television?
Fisher:
If his books are in the public library, if Karl
Marx is in Widener Library, do you want to stop pa—
M.S. Evans:
But, I'm also in the public library. I'm not on
public television except in an adversary position.
Fisher:
On the contrary, you have more television time
than you could possibly expect to get. The, the—. You're on commercial
television and public television—
M.S. Evans:
No, I'm not. No, I'm not.
Fisher:
Excuse me, commercial radio and-
M.S. Evans:
And it's sustaining.
Fisher:
All right, now, on-
M.S. Evans:
No commercials.
Fisher:
No commercials. In terms of ways of protecting it,
federal dollars, an average of $75 per person in the United States, federal
tax revenue goes to support education—primary, secondary, and higher
education. Do you think the federal government controls our educational
system too much?
M.S. Evans:
As a matter of fact, I, I do,
M.S. Evans:
If you'll examine, where do you think all this
busing comes from? That is coming right out of Washington, D.C. It's coming
out of H.E.W. and the leverage of the federal dollars that are used against
the local school districts.
M.S. Evans:
There is tremendous federal control over our
school systems today with a small minority of federal funding. You're
talking about something that's going to be heavily funded by the federal
government. It will definitely mean
Fisher:
The funding of public broadcasting would be the
equivalent of $2.50 per person compared to federal funding of education,
which is $75 per person.
M.S. Evans:
But proportionately, proportionately for the
total budget—
Dukakis:
We're going to have one more response, and that's
it, Mr. Evans.
M.S. Evans:
—the federal funding of public broadcasting will
be much bigger than proportionately the federal funding is of the public
schools, and by controlling the public schools, you're—
Fisher:
All, all public schools—
Dukakis:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I'm sorry. I have to
interrupt at this point. We're going to go back to Mr. Rusher for another
question or two. Thank you, Mr. Fisher.
Rusher:
Mr. Evans, you mentioned that you don't like your
tax money being used for particular propaganda films, say on public
broadcasting, and I can understand that. But is that any different from the
argument we sometimes hear that, well, everybody's tax money is used for
things we don't like—either for the Vietnam War or for welfare or something
like that? How do you justify a particular complaint in this case?
M.S. Evans:
Well, it's, it's very different because of the
different nature of the enterprise involved. If I don't like, what is being
done with my tax money in other ways, and I must say there are many ways
that I don't like my tax monies' utilization, I have political redress. I
can lobby my Congressman. I can take political action in some way to demand
political impediments being placed in the way of this utilization of my
money. If that same kind of protest or activity occurs in the case of
journalism or artistic expression, as it would in the case of public
broadcasting, that puts us in the constitutional dilemma that I talked about
before. We then run into the First Amendment, and you've got government
interference with expression.
Dukakis:
Gentlemen, I'm sorry; I have to interrupt. Mr.
Evans, thank you for being with us. Now, Mr. Fisher has his own Mr. Evans,
as I understand it. Mr. Fisher, your next witness.
Fisher:
Yes, thank you. Our second witness has the unique
distinction of having served with both Carnegie Commissions—one in '67 and
one in now. He is the president of the Revson Foundation, Eli Evans. Eli,
you take the seat.
Dukakis:
Welcome to The Advocates. Nice to have you with
us.
Fisher:
Excuse me. As a student at an unusual chance to
study public broadcasting, how's it doing? What's it been doing the last ten
years?
E. Evans:
Well, I think what we've seen in the last ten
years is the growth of an extraordinary force in American life, a force for
education, a force for instruction, a force for enlightenment. It's quite an
amazing story, really. To contrast with the BBC story in England, the
English started a public system in 1920 and really didn't introduce a
commercial system, broadcasting system into Britain until about ten years
ago. We did the opposite in this country. We turned our total broadcasting
entity over to commercial interests. It became entrenched; it became
pervasive. It's really been in only the last ten years that we really built
a viable, effective public system in this country.
Fisher:
Can public broadcasting function without federal
money?
E. Evans:
I think it would be difficult, and we would see
a very barren kind of medium. What people don't understand is that, that
broadcasting is an expensive business. We mentioned today that the "Scarlet
Letter," for instance, cost $500,000 an hour to produce. People complain
about the British pro—, programming, but the reason there's so much British
programming on public broadcasting is that you can buy that programming for
$20,000 an hour. But you contrast that with the $400,000 that it costs to
make constant drama, you can see why it's so economical really to put more
foreign broadcasting on public television than, than we really have been
able to produce with American artists. And that's a tragedy really, because
there is such a rich resource in American artists in this country who really
want to, who want to produce, who want to create. And we've got to be able
to support them. And the only way to do it really is to get a sizable amount
more money going into public broadcasting.
Fisher:
All right, let's deal with the question that the
other Mr. Evans was—, he and I were discussing, which is how we can
insulate, or can we receive federal funds without having federal censorship.
Can we get government money without having it radio Mos—, sound like Radio
Moscow, or whether it will be Radio Washington?
E. Evans:
I think this question which was really a
question which plagued both Carnegie Commissions, both in '67 and the one
that just made its report, has- been one that will be with us throughout the
history of having any kind of public enterprise in this, in this country. It
is always a struggle to maintain the independence of private institutions
and, incidentally, most public broadcastings are, public broadcasting
stations are privately, are privately, are privately run by lay boards. It
is always a struggle to retain that, that kind of freedom, The question then
is if it does take more money to produce quality broadcasting, $150,000 an
hour for a major documentary, if it does take that kind of money to produce,
how do you structure the receiving of that money in order to keep it free,
in order to keep it flexible, in order to provide a home for creative
artists to do their work? That's the struggle for public broadcasting, and
it is the same struggle that Harvard University has receiving federal funds.
It is the same struggle that the public schools have in terms of the freedom
of the teacher in the classroom. That artist, that programming is going to
be a continuing struggle; and we have tried in the Carnegie Commission
reports, both of them, to structure a system whereby a unique American
system, whereby trustees will, will help protect the system from undue
political interference.
Fisher:
And it's your conviction it can be done as it is
in state universities, public libraries, and private universities?
E. Evans:
It's a struggle. It's a constant battle, the
battles over academic freedom, the battles over government interference are
a constant one. But it's one that can be done in this country and must be
done if we're to have private institutions with some public support.
Fisher:
And if we win that battle, what kind of television
might we have on public broadcasting?
E. Evans:
Well, it's, it's difficult because in the last
ten years we've seen such an extraordinary, so many extraordinary flickers
of real greatness. The public broadcasting laboratory in 1969 was the
precursor of the magazine of the air, "60 Minutes," "First Tuesday" that the
commercial system adopted. "Sesame Street" was the first program really that
lift the vision of parents to see just what television could really achieve.
That's an extraordinary American achievement. We, we, by bringing the mini
series from Britain in, we introduced to commercial broadcasting the very
idea of a series of just five programs, the novel for television, which has
been emulated in commercial broadcasting. In that sense, I think I see
public broadcasting, the Commission did, too, as a pioneer, as an innovator,
that can show the rest of the broadcasting system what can be done and that
that public interest and innovation will continue to change over time as
public broadcasting continues to be an experimenter to, to bring new kinds
of broadcasting into, into the homes.
Dukakis:
Mr. Evans, let's turn to Mr. Rusher now, who bas
some good searching questions for you. Mr. Rusher—
Rusher:
Mr., Evans, a couple of primitive ones first, so
simple I think they're almost primitive. Who decides, who shall decide what
the public needs in television?
E. Evans:
Well, I think the answer to that is that all we
can do is, is hold out a vision of a kind of education, of the marketplace
of ideas, of importance of public citizenship, of, of knowledge about public
affairs and public events, of the importance of, of culture, generally not
to just to the rich, but to everyone and hope that we can, we can we can
sort of bring into the American homes that kind of vision.
Rusher:
That's a lovely vision, Mr. Evans; but answer the
question. Who shall decide what the public gets in television?
E. Evans:
I, I don't understand the thrust of the
question, really. Are you asking whether—
Rusher:
Well, there's going to be in this, in the United
States/ presumably television. It's nature is going to be determined by
someone what it programs. Who decides?
E. Evans:
Well, the broadcasters who run these stations
have to decide what kind of programming their local community needs,
and—
Rusher:
They, they decide what it needs?
E. Evans:
The, the local community, which is licensed to
that local community in this Country, with its lay membership on its board
and the professional broadcasters who run that station, don't decide what it
needs. They decide with the kind of understanding of their communities the
kind of broadcasting that they believe their community needs.
Rusher:
And some kind of osmotic process is going on in
which the public desire, assuming there is a public desire, and I think
there is one—
Dukakis:
Mr. Rusher, could you translate that word
"osmotic" for the persons who don't understand it?
Rusher:
Yes, oozing through.
Rusher:
—I would say would do it. Some kind of process by
which the broadcasters figure out.
E. Evans:
Well, the broadcasters—
Rusher:
What the public needs or what the public
wants?
E. Evans:
Well, the broadcasters. No, the broadcasters
really do try through what they call "ascertainment," which means a kind of
polling mechanism with the viewers in their area what it is the public
wants.
E. Evans:
What it is the public wants.
E. Evans:
And often that question is determined by what
the public is seeing. I don't know that if you, if you took a person who had
never really seen television at all and asked him what he wanted to see,
whether there would be necessarily a demand for it.
Rusher:
If I, I, I hate to lead the witness, particularly
one from the other side, is it possible that we could say that the public
would have something to say in what the public needs?
E. Evans:
Yes, yes. You would see—
Rusher:
And in democracy, what is the normal way of
ascertaining the public will?
E. Evans:
Well, I don't know where you're leading me with
this, but—
Rusher:
I know you don't. All I'm suggesting is
this-
E. Evans:
People vote; people vote.
Rusher:
As Mr. Evans said, there's a dilemma involved. And
I think it's a very real dilemma. You said it's a constant struggle.
Rusher:
That was your phrase. Either we are going to have
in the democratic society a, a, a political determination of, of the content
of our programming, in one way or another, or we have some form of group
determination, which is in necessarily more elitist than a broad public
determination.
Rusher:
This is the dilemma, and I, I don't much care
where you turn out on it, I just want to find out which—
E. Evans:
No, I recognize the dilemma, and I--
Rusher:
—whether you can make it go away.
E. Evans:
I, I think that it is going to be an on-going
dilemma for any system that is funded by public funds—
Rusher:
Another, another primitive question. You say
funded by public funds. Where do these public funds come from?
E. Evans:
They're tax dollars.
E. Evans:
Voted by Congress.
Rusher:
And they come from where?
E. Evans:
Well, let me just sort of spell that out a
little a minute. You know, this system is not funded by, totally by federal
funds.
Rusher:
Don't take too long at it. I'm asking about the
federal funds—where they come from.
E. Evans:
I know, but only a third of those, of that money
comes from federal sources. The rest come from private dollars contributed
by individuals, corporations, and foundations, as well as—
E. Evans:
—as well as from state governments and their
funds.
Rusher:
Your proposal, Mr. Evans, is for $590 million—over
half a billion dollars a year to be provided by the federal government from
tax monies taken from, let's say, shall we?
E. Evans:
But triggered, but triggered by-
Rusher:
Can we get the word out?
Rusher:
From the people of the United States-
Rusher:
All of them, whether they watch television or your
kind or mine or not. That's all I wanted to establish.
E. Evans:
Yes, but that money is to be triggered, Mr.
Rusher, according to the Carnegie proposals, by the amount of money that is
raised in the local communities.
Rusher:
Before it is triggered, wouldn't it be a good idea
for the Public Broadcasting System to do a better job with the money it has?
Your fast-writing colleague, Mr. Henry, in one of his eight-a-week columns
wrote that the general accounting office had found waste, mismanagement and
slipshod banking, bookkeeping practices in public broadcasting. Should
something be done about that before we pour another $590 million down the
same hole?
E. Evans:
Yes, I think so.
Rusher:
You think so. Yes, so do I.
E. Evans:
I don't defend mismanagement on the part of
public broadcasters.
Rusher:
I don't think you would. I take it there would be
less, there would be less British programming on the Public Broadcasting
System, as you see no more "Upstairs, Downstairs," right?
E. Evans:
Well, hopefully, if we can have original
American drama, we can sell some of those programs to the British and get
some money back from it.
Rusher:
And Joe, Joe Pap will do the Shakespeare
hereafter?
E. Evans:
Not necessarily.
Rusher:
No, not necessarily Joe?
E. Evans:
May—, maybe. No, maybe it'll be the School of
the Arts down in North Carolina where I come from.
Rusher:
Did the Carnegie Commission—
Dukakis:
One last question, Mr. Rusher, please.
Rusher:
Did the Carnegie Commission believe, I take it, it
did not, that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had successfully
resisted Mr. Nixon's in-roads? As a matter of fact, on page 49 of your
report, you say, "We observed that the Board took action to downplay public
affairs programming in order to avoid placing the entire federal
appropriation in jeopardy." And we just heard from Mr. Fisher that it is
essentially the same formula that he proposes to use for the future.
Dukakis:
A brief response, please, Mr. Evans.
E. Evans:
Well, I think the, the Nixon incidents and the,
the efforts of the Nixon Administration, not just to get public broadcas—,
public affairs broadcasting off the air, but to manipulate and exploit the
medium in their own behalf is one of the tragic—
Rusher:
It will never happen again-
E. Evans:
…stories of this decade; it is one of tragic
stories of this decade.
Rusher:
And will it happen again?
E. Evans:
It will not happen if there are diversified
sources of funding which I think—
Rusher:
If you use essentially the same formula that Mr.
Fisher says you axe asking for.
E. Evans:
—is the very centerpiece—, the center, the
centerpiece of the Carnegie proposals which is a mixed formula of funding
from, from many different sources.
Rusher:
It will have to be—
Dukakis:
Gentlemen, I'm sorry, gentlemen. I'm sorry. I
have to interrupt.
E. Evans:
--their strength and then diversity.
Dukakis:
Mr. Evans, thank you for being with us,
appreciate it. All right, let's go to our closing arguments. Mr. Fisher, you
have one minute.
Fisher:
We in this country have more to offer each other
than police shows and professional football. In our entire history, no tax
dollars have been spent more wisely than those we spend on public libraries,
public schools, public museums, state universities, town halls, and the
village green. Like these institutions, broadcasting inspires us, sometimes
bores us, brings us together, let's us hear the best that each can offer
each other. It helps
us govern ourselves as best we can. Ten years ago, with
such purposes in
mind, some of us who are here tonight started The
Advocates. During those
ten years, it was off the air for three years
because of lack of funds. Today, even though The Advocates is produced at a
ten weeks' program for
the cost of one on commercial television prime time,
we will desperately
need money—federal money. All we’re talking about is
$2.50 per person in
this country for a year of public broadcasting across
the … Certainly, it's worth that just to hear Bill Rusher alone. Now, if you
agree with me, write us and say, "yes, more federal money for public
broadcasting." Thank you.
Dukakis:
Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Rusher, you have one
minute, also,
Rusher:
If you don't think it's worth it to hear me, vote
"No." Public broadcasting has served a very useful purpose in this Country
in these early years when commercial television has been limited to a
relatively few channels and public taste was just developing. But we have
learned tonight that we are on the threshold of a brand new era in which
technology will be able to provide each of us through cassettes, cable TV,
pay TV, and much else with any kind of television- we want at a price
legitimately related to its cost. We have learned, moreover, that public
broadcasting as we know it today isn't even all that public, that large
chunks of it are comfortably in private hands, earning its executives very
nice salaries without the inconvenience of having to make any payments
whatever to stockholders.
This is the enterprise that now comes to you and demands 4
1/2 times the taxpayer support it has hitherto had, more than half a billion
dollars a year to aggrandize and perpetuate itself into a future that will
not need it. Ladies and gentlemen, stand up, not for your privileges and
pleasures, but for your principles. Vote "No."
Dukakis:
Thank you very much, gentlemen. And now we turn
to you in our audience. You're all viewers of public television this
evening. You're also taxpayers, and we ask you to tell us how you feel. What
do you think? Should Congress substantially increase federal funding for
public broadcasting? Send us your "Yes" or "No" vote on a postcard with your
comments to The Advocates, Box 1979, Boston, 02134.
On March 11, The Advocates debated the question, "Should
Congress deregulate trucking?" Our audience responded this way: 4 percent, 4
percent said, "Yes," and 96 percent said, "No." On the other hand, it
appears from our mail that there was an organized writing campaign which
has something to do with that 96 percent which said, "No."
And now, we hope you'll join us next week for another
important and exciting debate. Our thanks to Mr. Fisher, to Mr. Rusher,
their distinguished witnesses, and to our host, the Kennedy School of
Government here at Harvard University.
Thank you very much and good night.