Good evening. Welcome to The Advocates. Each week at this time The Advocates looks at an important public issue in terms of a practical choice. Tonight the issue concerns government regulation of television. Specifically the question is this: Should television news be exempt from the fairness doctrine? Advocate Howard Miller says yes.

The United States government has the power to remove from the air any television station it disagrees with. That power is justified under the deceptive label of the fairness doctrine, a bureaucratic name for the power of censorship. So the government, which should be criticized, has the power to silence those who should criticize it most. With me tonight to urge that television news have the same freedom of speech and press as newspapers and magazines have and that that power of censorship be removed are communications attorney Ted Pierson, distinguished documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman, and columnist and radio and television commentator Jeffrey St. John.

Advocate William Rusher says no.

Slanting of television network news is one of the open scandals of the American society. Yet, to date, not a single effective step has been taken to bring a little balance into this crucially important area. On the contrary, the forces that favor the present slanting are on the offensive tonight. They actually want to abolish the one existing check on their empower to slant the news as they please. With me tonight to oppose this proposal are Edith Efron, author of "The News Twisters," television news producer Arthur Alpert, and Professor Paul Weaver, of the Department of Government of Harvard University.

Thank you gentlemen. And now, ladies and gentlemen, for some background on tonight's question. It is the so-called fairness doctrine which, more than anything else, distinguishes the first amendment protection afforded to broadcasters from that enjoyed by newspapers and magazines. The fairness doctrine evolved over a period of forty years as a guiding principle in assuring the public an opportunity to hear contrasting views on controversial issues of public interest. The doctrine requires each radio or television station, when it treats a controversial subject, to seek out and provide an opportunity for the expression of contrasting views. The object is to assure that all points of view on controversial issues are aired, thereby fostering what the Supreme Court has called "uninhibited, robust, wide-open debate" on public issues. The Federal Communications Commission, which issues broadcast licenses and acts on license renewals, also judges the performance of stations in meeting their obligations under the fairness doctrine. Critics of that arrangement contend that it represents implicit regulation in areas of program content, in short, censorship. The last major revision of the fairness doctrine occurred in 1949, when television was still in its infancy. Since then, television has become the principle means by which the American public is informed. As such, it has enormous power and influence.

V. P. Agnew (film): As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve. The American people will rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government. The views of a majority of this fraternity do not, and I repeat not, represent the views of America

CBS Newsman Walter Cronkite saw in Vice President Agnew's speech a carefully planned program to reduce the effectiveness of a free press and to intimidate broadcasting. The Federal Communications Commission this summer announced that it would conduct a general review of the fairness doctrine in all its applications. And this fall Senator Sam Ervin's Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights is holding hearings on the application of the first amendment to television. So it's against this background of continuing debate that The Advocates considers tonight a proposal to exempt broadcast journalism from the obligations of the fairness doctrine. Now to the cases. Mr. Miller tell us why television news should be exempt from the fairness doctrine.

Suppose there were a federal newspaper commission and it monitored and investigated every newspaper in the United States and had the power to cancel the publication of any one that it decided was not reporting the news fairly. Then we'd know that we were talking about naked censorship. Suppose that, instead of the Federal Communications Commission, there were the Bureau of Censorship - and that's what's involved in regulation of content-and it put forth the thought-control doctrine, then I would supposed that even Vice President Agnew would oppose that interference in the freedom of the press. What's in a name? Everything. Because of the government regulation of the content of television news, it is not to television but to newspapers that we look for first-rate investigative reporting teams, for columnists, for editorial opinion, for the clash of ideas. And in television what we get is bland if it is not frightened. But, it is said, television is different, because there are a limited number of frequencies, so it needs more government control. It's not frequencies but finances that determine access to the media. In every market in the United States, there are more television channels than newspapers. The printed word is clearly governed by freedom of speech and press and so also should be the spoken word over the broadcast media.

With me tonight to urge that freedom of the press for television is Mr. Ted Pierson.

Good evening, Mr. Pierson. We're glad to have you on the program.

Mr. Pierson is a distinguished communications law attorney Mr. Pierson, what has been the result of the fairness doctrine?

Well the principle result over'-forty* years has been to gradually diminish the quantity and quality of the product that journalists could give to the television viewers if permitted.

Initially this very nice sounding phrase was said to mean that a broadcaster had wide discretion in determining, like any journalist, the content of his bit. However, the Commission was also asserting the right at that time to exercise its discretion as to whether broadcasters acted reasonably and in good faith. And recently the Court of Appeals has decided to monitor the Commission to see whether it's acting within its discretion and acting reasonably.

Have those judgments of the Federal Communications Commission, people in Washington, and the courts actually inhibited the kind of television news we get?

They have, because the broadcaster will tend to stay away from those programs that, because of their nature or complexity, are highly controversial, will put additional burdens upon them; and they are real burdens.

Does it also have an influence not only, we think, in terms of the network, but also on the local stations and the small broadcasters?

Well, the smaller the station, the more influence it has. Because money is the name of the game if you're going to have a highly competent journalistic production. And small stations just can't afford all of the problems that are created by the doctrine.

If there is bias in television news reporting, and I suppose there is in other media, is that any reason to regulate its content by the government?

No. The word bias seems to me to describe an intelligent person. I think bias - all people have their biases. And it's the professional responsibility, the ethical responsibility of journalists, to work against that bias, and that's what they try to do. I don't think the same thing exists in the people who are reviewing their judgments or trying to substitute their judgments for those of the journalists.

How do we deal with the question of bias in other media? Do we regulate it or simply let the biases clash?

Well, the way is not to eliminate the bias but to have many biased people talking.

All right. With that let's hear from another attorney, Mr. Pierson, who has a question for you.

Mr. Pierson, do I understand that - just off the top here - that you do concur that there is such a thing as bias in television news?

Oh, indeed. Well, wait a minute. I said that broadcast journalists have their biases as well as any other people. I said that their professional responsibility is to try always to eliminate those. I wouldn't think that unless they can walk on water that all of them succeeded all the time.

In point of fact there is some bias in television news, even at that?

I think I've answered your question. It's bound to seep through.

Mr. Miller said one thing in his opening statement that I would appreciate your clarifying for me if you can. He complained, or at any rate he said, and I took it to be a complaint, the government has the power to remove a station from the air by revoking its license. That was, I take it, the implication.

I didn't understand him to say that.

Well, it does have, in any case.

Oh, yes, they do have that.

Do you object to that? Should government get out of the licensing business? I'm rather encouraged by that if that is your drift and his. Should the government simply have no voice in the matter of who gets licenses?

Well, I would suspect it would be impossible to have broadcasting unless there was licensing.

You do favor licensing? And that involves the right to remove, doesn't it?

Well, of course it does, but for proper reasons.

Precisely. Now you - Mr. Miller also said that there's, there are more television channels than newspapers in every outlet in America. That carefully overlooks magazines, though, doesn't it?

Well, add them in. It makes no difference.

Oh, it does. It makes a very great difference.

Well, how many magazines do you suppose there are.

Let's just find out. I happen to be the publisher of one. I know something about the competition.

Well, that's one.

Yes, that's one, and there are others. There are as a matter of fact, hundreds upon hundreds of national magazines in this country, as well as about eight thousand newspapers.

I represent the Magazine publishers Association. My understanding is that they have four hundred.

The Magazine Publishers Association doesn't have all the magazines. It didn't even have us for quite a while. It may not again as far as that goes.

I hope you don't pay much dues.

Let me ask you, though, if you include magazines, take a city, take Boston, where we are. How many versions of the news, with interpretations of the news, would you say are available in print in the Boston area.

I have no idea, I don't live here.

Well, it would certainly be in the thousands.

It would?

Of course. Well, consider all the ...

Well, if you want me to assume your number for some question, all right.

Well, all right, if you disagree, would you say hundreds, then? There are quite obviously an awful lot. But how many are available on television in Boston?

How many what?

How many versions of the news with interpretations?

I don't know that.

Well, it sure as heck isn't hundreds, is it? As a matter of fact, I'll tell you, because I've researched the matter. There are about four or five, depending on how you count. And three of those are the national network news programs. Now you mean to tell me that there is any fair comparison between the amount of news and interpretation you get through print in Boston, because it is a medium which anybody can get into, and the very tightly limited amount of news and interpretation which you can get over television in the same area.

I don't know if I told you that, but I will tell you that.

You think that there is actually, what, more or less.

Well, your numbers are very misleading. I would suppose that circulating in Boston general news magazines would not number over ten.

Oh, there are many more than that. They don't have to be…

Gentlemen, no more numbers games about magazines and television.

Mr. Palmieri, may I make the point simply this way, that the argument that there are as many television outlets as there are magazine and newspaper outlets is nonsense. There is a potentially infinite number.

I'm sorry. Mr. Pierson, I have to interrupt the examination, and we have to move on with the show. I thank you for being on The Advocates.

The only comparison to make, of course, is to newspapers of general circulation, and they and all other sources that would circulate around Boston and any place else will get their news stories from the wire services. And there are two wire services. There are simply not that many versions of the news. There are in every outlet - in Los Angeles seven stations, two major newspapers. That goes to the major question of what we're concerned with - harm to the news. And to talk to that I've asked to join us Mr. Frederick Wiseman.

Welcome, Mr. Wiseman.

Mr. Wiseman is a distinguished maker of public affairs documentaries for television. His documentary "Law and Order" won an Emmy. Mr. Wiseman, is there today adequate public affairs coverage on television.

Not in my view, no. There are all kinds of issues that should be covered on television that I never see on the air.

Such as what?

The activities of local government, for example. School committee meetings, city council meetings, what goes on in the mayor's office in the city, how decisions get made, the activities of local police forces, all the various relationships between the individual and the state on a local level, which are bound to be controversial in any one community, hardly ever get explored in any detail.

Does that have anything to do with the fairness doctrine?

I think it does, yes, because the networks, and educational television, too, to some extent, seem to be fearful of getting into controversial issues precisely because of the fairness: doctrine. This seems to have had the opposite effect from that which was originally intended.

Are there any risks, however, in giving television news the same freedom that other media have?

I think there are certainly risks. But in presenting these kinds of reality issues on television, you're really just competing in a market place of ideas, and I'd much rather take the risk of the competition and all ideas coming forward rather than run the danger of some ideas not coming out because of fear on the part of the network.

And would a repeal of the fairness doctrine make a difference in the quality of public affairs programs?

Yes, I think so, because in many ways it couldn't be worse.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Wiseman. Mr. Rusher.

I agree with you that in many ways it couldn't be worse, but let's see what we do to make things better, Mr. Wiseman. From your remark about risks I take it that there is in fact bias in television news?

I think that any kind of reporting is essentially subjective.

And you complain, I believe, that television is afraid now to get into controversy or into ... what particular types of things are they afraid to get into?

Well, I wouldn't ever resort to a sweeping generalization of television. I think there are issues that I would like to see explored. For example, I'd like to see, we're in Boston, I'd like to see regular meetings of the Boston School Committee televised.

Is it your contention that the fairness doctrine is preventing this?

I don't know whether the fairness doctrine is preventing it or not. I know that there is some reason why in most communities that I've visited many controversial issues are never regularly explored on television.

In other words, there's some reason and you without really being sure sort of think it's maybe the fairness doctrine?

If I had to assign any one reason I would assign the existence of the fairness doctrine.

On what basis would you assign it? Why do you draw this conclusion?

On the basis of my subjective judgment.

Have you ever worked as a newsman or a producer for a commercial television station?

Certainly not.

Then how do you know what causes ... you're judging their subjective motivation.

Well, because I've read a variety of books about it, I've talked to people who told me off the cuff what the real problems are, or off the written record, maybe on the cuff.

They've spoken to you in private and you're now relaying their views from out of the ...

Well, I can't really say I'm relaying their views. I'm summarizing views I've heard.

Can you tell me, sir, I'm still having difficulty understanding what is going to happen if we exempt television news from the fairness doctrine. To begin with, we're talking, you appreciate, about television news, and we are therefore confining ourselves to that. Now what television news is going to be covered that isn't covered now because of the fairness doctrine?

Well, of course, you can't say with precision, but it's the kind of thing that good investigative journalism in newspapers and magazines covers.

Can you give me an example?

Oh, some of the - I've never seen television's equivalent of Lincoln Steffens, for example.

You think the fairness doctrine is preventing you from it?

I think so, yes, because I think that television station: in most communities that I've observed are afraid to get into very controversial issues.

So you've said ...

Let me interrupt at this time, because I think, Mr. Wiseman, that some subsequent witnesses may be furnishing exactly the examples that Mr. Rusher is asking about, or at least I think Mr. Miller may be asking them about those examples, and so I'll move on now, Mr. Rusher. Mr. Wiseman, thank you for being on The Advocates.

Thank you, Mr. Wiseman.

For our purposes we understand television news includes public affairs documentaries, and it's the absence of powerful ones of those as well as the news department that Mr. Wiseman was talking about. Those in power, of course, always oppose free speech, for it's a function of freedom of speech to criticize those in power. We've built up this curious distinction between print and the word on the broadcast. As Mr. Rusher mentioned he is the publisher of the National Review, and it is quite natural to ask, if the government cannot monitor the content of the National Review and cancel it because it is not fair, why does it get the right to monitor the content of every television station in the country.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. We'll be back to Mr. Miller for his rebuttal. Now let's go to William Rusher to find out why television news should not be exempt from the fairness doctrine. Bill.

America is rightly proud of its free press. There are about eight thousand newspapers in the United States and many hundreds of magazines. Out of this rich array of materials, you and I can choose anything we like and glean almost any imaginable political opinion. But television is different. Because, in the present state of affairs only a few channels are available for commercial broadcasting in any given city or town. These channels in turn, 576 of the national total of 689 are monopolized by just three huge national commercial networks. The result is that when you turn on your TV set to hear the national news, you have just one of three choices, NBC, ABC, or CBS. I need not tell you, then, how vitally important it is that the news broadcasts on these three networks should be free from political bias or slanting. The newscasters on these evening news programs are talking to 40 or 50,000,000 people, who count on them to make sure that both sides, or all sides, of a story get told. If they don't, we have just one recourse, the so-called fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, which the Supreme Court has already ruled constitutional, which requires that if a newscaster tells only one side of the story, time must be given to somebody else to tell the other side. Note that there is no censorship here. The newscaster can slant all he wants to. All that is required is that time be given to the other side of the story as well. The FCC has done a very poor job of enforcing the fairness doctrine, as you can tell by listening to the seven o'clock news any night. But evidently the commercial networks find it burdensome anyway. And tonight we are told that the fairness doctrine must be abolished as far as television news is concerned. To tell us why, on the contrary, it's rigorous application is essential for the time being, I call first upon the author of the exciting new book, "The News Twisters," Miss Edith Efron.

Welcome, Miss Efron.

Miss Efron, I'm going to be asking you just how fair network television news is. I know that you have made a special study of this, which is the subject of your book. As I understand it, you taped every word on the prime time evening news programs of the three networks, Cronkite, and Reynolds, and Huntley and Brinkley in the last seven weeks of the 1968 presidential campaign and taped all of those words and transcribed them. Then what did you do?

I selected the three major issues of the period, the presidential race, the war, and racial conflict. These were highly polarized issues with very strong pro and con opinion in the country about them, and that pro and con opinion appeared in the transcripts. I analyzed the material, I pulled out the pro and con opinion on each of the major controversies, and then, using an equal time standard as the ideal, I tallied the number of words of pro and con opinion on each issue. The result was very dramatic. The opinion was virtually all concentrated, loaded, on one side of the controversies. And, with almost no exception, it reinforced or was massed on the Democratic, liberal, or left side of the controversies.

Now, let's take from your study the biggest issue of them all that year in those seven weeks of 1968, Nixon versus Humphrey versus Wallace. Hoi/ was opinion distributed on the networks among those three candidates?

Well, let's look at my chart. Here you will see black is antagonistic opinion, white is favorable.

And this is the Wallace chart, I believe.

This is the Wallace chart, and you will see that on all three networks the antagonistic opinion dominates the totals, but not catastrophically.

The number of words on top of the columns are the number of words spoken pro or anti on that network.

That is correct.

How about Mr. Humphrey? How did he fare with the network!

Well, let's see that chart. Here you will observe that the first two networks, ABC and CBS, some degree more favorable than antagonistic opinion. On NBC, antagonistic opinion was greater than favorable. But, taken as a group, one might say it's close to fair and somewhat friendly.

And how did Mr. Nixon fare with those three networks?

All right, put that chart on, please. Your laughter speaks for itself. The bias is absolutely drastic. It was around 10 to 1 anti-Nixon on all three networks, this during a period when, until the last week, Mr. Nixon had a commanding lead in the polls.

Now, take the other two big issues you mentioned in 1968, the Vietnam war and the racial issue, and very briefly tell us what you found with regard to those issues.

Well, briefly, there was a principle in common, and that was that the prevailing attitudes of the majority at that time were either given short shrift or were omitted from the coverage altogether, and what was on the news, the opinions transmitted on the war, for example, was minority, antiwar opinion. And on the blacks, black militant, black separatist attitudes, with heavy rationalization of violence, which totally contradicted the majority black views of the period.

And, lastly, then, can you tell us briefly what in your mind the solution to this problem is?

The ideal solution to be enacted as soon as technology permits is to blow the government out of television altogether.

What kind of technology did you have in mind?

CATV, pay TV.

I see. I just want to make that clear.

To expel the government totally from the confines of an intellectual medium. Until that is done and the public, Congress, and the various vested interests are educated thereto, the basically monopolistic situation that exists can't be deprived of the only hedge against this kind of thing,

And that's the fairness doctrine?

Yes.

All right, let's hear from Mr. Miller on cross-examination.

Miss Efron, if the networks are consistently giving out information against the majority wishes of the American people, one of the things the study may prove is the remarkably little influence they actually have.

Yes, that's true. Whenever the bias is that gross, even idiots can see it.

Let me ask you, though, in fact there are other sources, I mean, you simply looked at one source of the news, many other sources are received with biases on other sides, isn't that true?

You mean in total network coverage?

Total media coverage.

The network prime-time news shows ...

No, media, newspapers, magazines, total media coverage, many sources of information to the viewer, who may get a bias from one side ...

All studies indicate,' Mr. Miller, that the majority of the American people receive their primary political information from those three shows, which is why I did that study.

But, in fact, during an average week, there is more local programming across the country and local news than there is network news.

In terms of the understanding of the nation, this is the source of understanding of the nation for most Americans.

But where does that lead you ... well, how can it be the major source of understanding if it's consistently against what the majority of the people believe?

I don't understand your question.

Well, let's ask another one. What is your solution? Let me talk about your solution. What would you do, for example, in a one newspaper town? Of all the cities in the United States, there are 1300 cities that have only one newspaper, and that's all. Would you impose a fairness doctrine on that monopoly?

Not in the least.

Well, I don't understand.

Because there's no town in the United States where, if you fill out a postcard or go to your local news dealer, you can't have at your fingertips the publications of the entire world.

But once you say that, isn't that equally as true for network news? There's no town in the United States where you can't get the same thing against the monopoly of networks.

In other words, you wish to justify the flaws and the bias of network news by pointing out that it can be supplemented by other things?

No. You wish to justify the flaws and the bias of the one newspaper town by demonstrating it can be supplemented by other things. Why do we apply a different standard to what may be natural bias inherent in reporting?

There is no dependency on, by the individual, on any print medium. He can solve the problem quickly. This is being poured into the nation by three gigantic corporations, a triple-headed monopoly, with which allegedly is fair, which declares itself to be fair ...

Let's go back over the reason and let's understand it. One newspaper towns, the only newspaper in the city, 1300 cities in the United States like that. You think that does not present a problem of fairness because there are other sources of news for people who read that newspaper. But you do think the monopoly of television presents a problem.

Because people can get alternatives and the whole spectrum is available if they wish to buy it. You cannot find the whole spectrum on network television. It is not there.

But you think that getting other media information can counteract the bias of a newspaper, why can't getting other media information counteract the bias of the television station?

I'm not too inclined to push this argument, but it's significant anyway. People prefer television. It has the greatest amount of impact, the greatest amount of vividness. It consequently has the greatest effect. Also, may I say...

Do you know that from your study?

My own study? No. It's established ...

As a matter of fact, your study was simply a gross estimate of the words used, there was no study of the influence of those words on the audience?

None whatever.

For example, one of the things you mention in your study is the crowd reactions. You list - for example, crowd reaction against Nixon is listed as anti-Nixon when its shown.

As public opinion.

As public opinion, yes. Would you say the crowd reaction against President Nixon in San Jose, where he was stoned, and later saw that that was publicized throughout the entire country, would you categorize that in the 1970 election as pro-Nixon or anti-Nixon?

Public response was anti-Nixon.

Anti, despite the fact that the president himself went on all three major networks to show that again and again because he thought it helped him, and you would categorize it as anti-Nixon?

I would categorize that as anti-Nixon, you mean?

Yes, the stoning in San Jose before the 1970 election.

In fact, are you asking how I would classify it in my study? There would be various classifications, because obviously it would be Nixon opinion as well.

No, no. In other cases you assume that every crowd reaction against the candidate is anti the candidate, you said that.

If the reporter says so.

well, the reporter says it. So in this case the reporter says it, which he did. You categorize it as anti-Nixon. The president didn't think so. He had that shown all over the United States.

No, the president had other purposes which would be perfectly clear...

Which would be pro-Nixon.

which would be pro-Nixon, yes.

Yes, of course. So the same event could be anti or pro depending on the bias of the viewer looking at it.

Different aspects of it would have different purposes objectively that could be named and classified.

Exactly, and who decided the categorization for each of these events that you categorized?

The reporters in most cases ...

You did.

The reporters in most cases. Pardon me. The reporters in most cases. In the gross ...

Miss Efron, may I interrupt you. I want to thank you for testifying here tonight. Mr. Miller.

I'm afraid Mr. Miller's going to have to work harder than that to make those figures go away. We'll next hear from a man who has worked in the television news industry, Mr. Arthur Alpert of New York City.

Welcome, Mr. Alpert.

Mr. Alpert is news director of WRVR-FM radio in New York at the moment. He was formerly a television news producer and in fact is now doing a regular program analyzing the news media. Mr. Alpert, is television news in fact biased, as Miss Efron's book indicates?

Well, of course it is. It's run by humans. Many of them are liberals. Liberals seem to drift into the news media. They’re welcomed. I was one of them. And the news media are not, frankly as open to - I should have said white liberals, and middle-class, white, middle-class liberals - television is not as open to women, to blacks, to poor people, to people who are chess fanatics or are in some way very different.

May I add to that great list "conservatives”?

And conservatives.

What about the argument, though, that the fairness doctrine winds up scaring everybody and thus prevents robust journalism?

Well, if you are a manager of a local television station and your aim is to make money and your newsroom is full of liberals, you may very well adopt and impose upon your news people a cloak of objectivity - it turns out to be phony objectivity - so as to protect yourself. On the other hand, I don't know that that's the only way to go about it. I can conceive of hiring a varied bunch of journalists, letting them go, giving them air time.

Lastly, then, why not let this happen? Why don't the stations do this on their own?

I think that for one thing it takes effort and it takes money. For another, I think the stations have a difficult choice. They can give up the current situation in which a small amount, or some amount of corporate liberalism sneaks in to this overtly objective frame. Or they can admit that that happens and admit that everybody's human and get all different kinds of views. It's a tough choice for reasons I don't fully understand, but I suspect that they're in part financial and in part ideological. They choose phony objectivity.

Let's explore that on cross-examination with Mr. Miller.

Mr. Alpert, you didn't tell us what you thought of the fairness doctrine. What do you think?

I think as long as the television system is a monopoly, we need the fairness doctrine.

What do you mean, as long as it's a monopoly? Suppose we had extensive cable television throughout the country?

Cable television's shape is yet to be determined. Cable television may well turn out to be as democratic and open and full of access as is conventional television, meaning not a bit.

And your test, then, is if it's a monopoly. So in any medium where there's a monopoly you would favor a government regulation of content.

No, I wouldn't go so far ... I would say merely that when information is involved that this country is dedicated, at constitutionally and so on, to John Stuart Mill, a free market place of ideas, and we don't have any in television.

Let's see what kind of a monopoly. I'm interested in the distinction between monopolies. Let me ask the same question, and pardon me for repeating it, because it's so critical, of the one newspaper town. If the basis is monopoly, there's the basic media monopoly in the United States, that is the basic situation in the United States, one newspaper towns. Shouldn't we impose a fairness doctrine on them?

do, I don't think so. As I've indicated, I think the fairness doctrine is a necessary evil as long as television is a monopoly. I don't see any reason to extend it. When, in fact, and I agree with Miss Efron, when in fact we end the television system and start all over again ...

We'll still have the newspaper monopoly.

I think, I agree again, I'm sorry to agree so often, because I come from another part of the political spectrum, but in fact I think Miss Efron is quite right, there are many sources of information in print. There are not many sources of information in television.

Well, let's look at a specific market and test that out then. In the city of Los Angeles there are seven television channels.

Excuse me, Mr. Miller. The city of Los Angeles, the city of New York are very great exceptions.

Oh, are you willing to say the fairness doctrine should not apply in New York and Los Angeles?

Not a bit. I merely want to point out before you go on...

Well, let's talk about them ...

You're taking an atypical situation ...

Well, but let's see if it's atypical as to the fairness doctrine. The city of Los Angeles, the city of New York, have seven television channels. They have many news broadcasts, very strong independent news broadcasts, besides the three networks. They also have in Los Angeles, two major newspapers, in New York more. In those markets would you apply the fairness doctrine?

I would still keep the fairness doctrine.

Why? There's no monopoly of network news in Los Angeles.

Well, first of all, as long as no other competitor can come in, there is a monopoly, and there are no unused channels.

Have you ever tried to start a newspaper in New York City. Do you think other competitors can come in?

I do know people who have just tried to start a newspaper in New York City and some others who will try shortly and I wish them the greatest of luck.

We all wish them the greatest of luck.

It is conceivable at least. At least they don't have to get a channel. In Los Angeles there are no empty channels. But perhaps more importantly the corporate interest of everyone of those television stations is pretty much the same.

But why is it if it's so difficult, if it's a Question of access to a channel, that's really phony. If it's so difficult, why is it that there are more television stations than there are city-wide newspapers?

There are more television stations than city-wide newspapers?

Yes. In every city in the United States.

The number of television stations is the result of a table worked out by the FCC.

But, no, that would be true if there were many more newspapers. If the limitation is technical, why are there everyplace more television channels than newspapers?

Gentlemen, Mr. Alpert, I'm going to interrupt at this time. I'm sorry. I want to thank you for being with us. Mr. Miller. Mr. Rusher, will you continue.

I have my thirty seconds, and I'm going to use them to address this matter of the one newspaper town which so bothers Mr. Miller. The one newspaper town is a one newspaper town because nobody else has bothered to come in and start a second newspaper and make it good enough that anybody there could buy it. If anybody wants to do it, it can be a two newspaper town or a twenty-two newspaper town, but as Mr. Alpert pointed out there are just so many channels available, and the government has long since allocated to itself, with the entire approval of Mr. Pierson, the job of allocating those channels. And as long as that monopoly situation exists, where only three gigantic networks exist for news in this country, then the fairness doctrine is needed to watch over them. I think we may have gotten before ourselves.

Well I thought you - I think there's no problem - I thought you felt the need to make a statement at this time and take your witness afterward.

I did. And I was so anxious to do it that I neglected to call on one other witness, to discuss the matter from the standpoint of the government itself, Professor Paul Weaver. Professor Weaver is professor of government at Harvard and teaches a course in media. You know, I'm glad I did take those thirty seconds then because while I lose my wrap, I will save you a certain amount of trouble on cross-examination. We've taken care of that.

Thank you.

Do you believe Miss Efron's book is basically sound in its methodology and its conclusions?

Yes, I do. When I first read the book and when I saw its rather startling conclusions, of course I had my questions about its methodology. And so I took myself, as Miss Efron invites any reader to do, I took myself to New York and spent some time going over her documentation. I went through the various opinion files pro and con that she had pub together, analyzed the decisions that lay behind them, and satisfied myself that it was a substantially competent, valid methodology, and that the conclusions are equally competent and valid.

Turning now directly to the fairness doctrine, does the fairness doctrine, or does it, as has been contended sometimes, I believe most recently and unsuccessfully by Mr. Miller's witness Mr. Pierson, violate the first amendment of the constitution?

Well, the Supreme Court has considered that question recently, and it decided that in fact the fairness doctrine does not contradict first amendment rights of free speech. It should be pointed out that the point of the fairness doctrine is to prohibit those few men who have access to and control the three great national network news operations from excluding all opinions other than their own from the news. It does not prevent them from putting forward their own views as long as they also give access to the views of those who disagree.

Now, if the fairness doctrine, though, is as even-handed as all that, it sounds as if it should work and yet manifestly it doesn't work, because look at the results that Miss Efron got in her research study, how do you explain those results if the fairness doctrine is what we want it to be.

I think the answer is very simple. The networks have not followed the fairness doctrine and the FCC has not enforced it. I think what is required now is for the networks to begin taking seriously this part of public policy and for the FCC now to see to it that the networks do in fact take it seriously.

Can you tell me briefly how you would have the FCC go about this?

Well, I think the FCC is only a part of the answer. The first place where this now effort should be made is of course within the network and news operations themselves. They are the people that produce the programs from day to day, and they are the people with the primary responsibility. They could, for example, compile a content analysis of their own news coverage along the lines that Miss Efron's book pioneers. The FCC could do the same thing.

Professor, I'm going to ask for Mr. Miller's cross-examination, and I think he may be pursuing the question of your suggestion with you.

Professor Weaver, there arc two wire services, basically, two major wire services in this country, Associated Press and United Press International. They send their stories out over wires generally leased from Western Union, which itself is regulated by the FCC. Should we have a fairness doctrine for the AP and the UPI?

Well, first of all, I don't think I would accept your formulation of the way things are. Yes, those are the two principle news services. On the other hand, there's the New York Times wire service, which reaches over 200 newspapers; the Washington Post-L.A. Times service, there are various foreign services, Reuters, and so forth, there are a large number of wire services available.

Certainly no more than half a dozen. It's a kind of monopoly. Most small newspapers rely on the AP and the UPI. Suppose they were the only two. Suppose there were four, so it's a monopoly situation. Would you impose the fairness doctrine on the wire services?

Well, I think one point to be made, the first point and the most important, is that indeed these wire services have imposed just such a doctrine on themselves.

How do we know? Has anyone like Miss Efron done a study on the wire services?

No, but other people have. There's a large literature on the subject and let me tell you about it. When in 1848 the AP was first founded ...

That's 122 years.

That's a long time ago - the question of fairness and the acceptability of the news they gathered came up immediately. And the resolution that the governing board of the AP came upon was something almost precisely analogous to the fairness doctrine. It remains the guiding principle of the AP and other wire services to this day.

That still leaves the question. Because it's also the guiding principle of the networks. If someone were to show that the AP and the UPI had the same kind of - let's use the word for the sake of the question - biased coverage, that the wire services indicated bias in their coverage, would you favor a fairness doctrine for the wire services?

Well, I think that's a very "iffy” question. It depends on the hypothesis.

Why don't you answer the question? Because the answer is no, you wouldn't.

Wow, wait a minute, are you interested in my answer to the question...

Yes, your real answer.

... or are you interested in my view on this matter.

The answer to the question.

OK. The answer to the question is that the cases are dissimilar. They're dissimilar because the nature of the monopoly that you have posited for the wire services is not comparable to the monopoly possessed by the network television services.

Why not?

OK. For a number of reasons. First, the government has created the monopoly that the network news programs enjoy. It has had nothing to do with the monopoly - it's not in fact a monopoly, but let's assume there were…

You think the government should not regulate monopolies that come about financially rather than by government regulation? That's no distinction in monopoly law. If you get together and form a monopoly because of your financial power, the government steps in just as well.

That's right, and of course there are famous cases concerning wire services the government has stepped in ...

And we both know it, so why not apply the fairness doctrine to the wire services?

Because they don't possess a monopoly, and that's what I was trying to explain.

Well, gentlemen, that brings us - professor, I think you've made that point very clearly.

There are two more parts of it yet.

I have to say thanks now for being on The Advocates and return to Mr. Miller.

Everyone, of course, wants to shy away from the consequences of what's being done, but censorship is censorship, whether it's applied to the print media or to a voice on a broadcast. And if you begin to regulate the content of television news and public affairs because it goes out over the airwaves and there are only three networks, despite the exception of Los Angeles and New York, then you set the principle for regulating the content of the wire services and one town newspapers as well. Is that what we mean by freedom of speech? To talk to that question I've asked to join us Mr. Jeffrey St. John.

Welcome, Mr. St. John.

Mr. St. John is a newspaper columnist and a radio and television news commentator. Mr. St. John, is the fairness doctrine a censorship that's a threat to the freedom of the press?

Yes. Particularly if the government is empowered to at its own will to intimidate those who are the transmission belt for ideas, whether we agree or disagree with those ideas.

And is there in fact a real threat that this fairness doctrine, now that we have it in television, will go on to newspapers and other forms of communication?

There's no question about that. As a matter of fact, current FCC commissioners and past FCC commissioners have said publicly that there should in fact be a fairness doctrine for newspapers to which Clifton Daniel, the former managing editor of the Now York Times and now in a higher position with the Times, said in effect that if you begin editing newspapers by judicial fiat you no longer have newspapers but transmission belts for those ideas of those people who hold the coercive power of government.

Why do people think of the fairness doctrine? Are they afraid that people who read and see the news can't make estimates on their own of what's going on?

I think that's partly it. It's a kind of intellectual arrogance on the part of people who don't trust a country with an enormously high literacy rate to make fundamental judgments, to use their own minds. But I think there's also the belief in the doctrine of coercion, that is, that instead of arguing for your ideas in the marketplace of ideas, as I think I have tried to do personally, what they believe is that somehow you can either command creativity or that you con command fairness. You can't command fairness and the fairness doctrine illustrates that rather…

In your view, has the fairness doctrine intimidated what otherwise would have been good public affairs shows?

No question about it. It's not only intimidated, it's put a restraint on them, broadcasters, to essentially get into presentation. By the way, there's one issue that I think is very important here. We tend to forget that the fairness doctrine deals with opinion, not news, and I think that's a crucial distinction to be made. And what is being advocated here tonight is essentially the extension of that doctrine to include news judgments, as opposed to opinions, as I represent in the various commentary work that I do. And I consider that insidious and totalitarian.

We've heard that all the networks are populated by liberals who are out to tell us what to think. Is there a vast liberal conspiracy in the news media?

No, there's not a liberal conspiracy, but there is a predominant liberal bias in broadcasting today.

Is that a reason to regulate its content?

No, no. The way that you get at that particular problem is that you argue for your particular values to change that through peaceful, persuasive means and not by government coercion.

Mr. Rusher has some attempted persuasion now on cross-examination.

Mr. St. John, when did you begin your current series of broadcasts on CBS radio?

January of 1970.

And you'd been asked to do that about when, can you pinpoint it for me?

As a matter of fact, I was not asked, Mr. Rusher, this serves to illustrate my point about going into the marketplace and persuading people to accept your particular point of view in terms of presentation of opinion that is lacking. I wrote a letter to Mr. Richard Salant, President of CBS News, and I said, I have the professional credentials to fit the criteria that you have now laid out with respect to the CBS series spectrum, two from the right, two from the middle, and two from the left. I received a letter which said to contact Mr. Emerson Stone, and that's the way I got this particular assignment. I've done this also in other ...

That was January 1970.

January 1970.

What a felicitous coincidence that Vice President Agnew's speech we saw was in November 1969.

I take the view, Mr. Rusher, simply that the Vice Presidents speech performed a very valuable service. It flushed out the buzzard called bias. It does exist. I think the real question here, Mr. Rusher, is simply how do we deal with this issue. Do we deal with it by coercion? Do we deal with it by government imposed standards, or do we deal with it in a genuine intellectual debate of ideas?

I couldn't agree with you more. But you say the American people ...

wail, how can you justify the fairness doctrine, then?

Just a moment, I'm about to tell you, please, I'm asking the questions, remember?

I sometimes wonder.

Suppose the people on - you say we don't have sufficient confidence in the American people exercising their judgment. But what if they are given basically just three prime time news shows per night on which to exercise their judgment and they don't care for any of them. What do they do then? Listen to you on CBS radio?

No, what they do is - again you're scrambling your categories, you're assuming that essentially the issue is one dealing with news. And I say that you've got to differentiate between news presentations and opinion. Now, I would say that the way that you deal with this is that you examine the complexity of this problem. Host people who share a particular point of view such as you may hold or I hold, tend to go off and not write books they tend to become businessmen. There's a whole complex issue there in terms of the intellectual bias. Now how do you use the government's coercion and powers to rectify what is essentially an intellectual choice. Now, I don't understand that.

Since you’re asking, Mr. St. John, I'll tell you. You are yourself in point of fact an example, perhaps the principle example, of the tokenism of the major networks.

Sir, let me tell you something.

They have, now let me finish, they haven't put you on television and they're not about to ...

Gentlemen, it really helps for one of us to be talking at a time, and you're getting more than your share, because it's Mr. Rusher's turn to ask you questions on cross-examination.

Mr. St. John ...

His formulations are so outrageous that one can't keep still.

You haven't heard anything yet.

I'm beginning to be very grateful that the fairness doctrine stands between me and Mr. St. John, I'll tell you that.

I'm very worried that the government stands between you and me and liberty.

Well, so am I, Mr. St. John. I think that we are going to do very well in containing it if only we can keep the monopoly which has developed of liberal opinion on the major television networks in this country from overwhelming all of us. I don't think the fact that you're on CBS radio really reassures me sufficiently. Let me ask you ...

I'm also on NBC television.

But not on prime time in a network show.

Oh, yes, I am, on the NBC Today show every two weeks.

Way up there in the morning, but how about the evening.

Sixteen million people watch the Today show.

Mr. Rusher, would you believe it if I said last question

I'd believe it; I think I'd welcome it. You imply that the fairness doctrine somehow implies government control. How?

It imposes government control simply by the fact that the government is empowered to grant or deny a license. The WPIX television case now before the commission is an example.

The government has never once denied or revoked a license because of bias in the news.

Sir, as a matter of fact, right now, the FCC is deciding just such a question in the WPIX television ...

Deciding, yes. And if they decide as they decided in the others, there will be no revocation.

Mr. St. John, with that I'm going to thank you, thank Mr. Rusher, we're going to go to our summaries. Thanks for being on the program.

Mr. Miller, you have one minute to summarize your case.

Every generation has to learn anew what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech was only, once, applied to the print, and now we have new media, and we're faced with a major challenge to it. The limitation on television channels is not the limitation of frequencies but the limitation on media is the limitation of money. There simply are no other newspapers that have been started in major markets. In all places there are more television channels than newspapers. Does that mean that fairness must be imposed on newspapers? Does that mean it must be imposed on wire services?

The questions have been constantly evaded, but once freedom of speech has been invaded, those questions cannot be evaded. Basically, to believe in the freedom of speech you have to believe in what is true, that the clash of the biases in the marketplace of ideas that the clash of everyone's opinion, to be judged and valued by all the people.

Thank you Mr. Miller. Mr. Rusher, you also have one minute for your summary.

The biases will be allowed to clash. You are watching this program on your television set, and I can't think of a better person therefore to ask, do you fool that these three huge commercial television networks in their news programs, are giving you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Mr. Miller's own three witnesses, not one of them, said so. These newscasters are just as human, just as prejudiced as you and I. And, if so, given their virtual monopoly, what on earth is wrong with a fairness doctrine that requires them, if they slant the news, to let someone tell the other side of the story. Is there any sane reason why such a simple requirement should be abolished? Until that happy day when pay TV or a scientific breakthrough in the number of available channels can break at last the monopoly of the big three. You watch The Advocates. I assume, I hope you like it. Would it be a better program if you heard only Mr. Miller's side or only mine? How would the cause of freedom conceivably gain by such a change? I urge you to vote against tonight's proposal.

Gentlemen, thank you both. Well, now it's time for you at home to act. Express your views on tonight's question. Write us, The Advocates, Box 1971, Boston 02134. The question on which you'll be voting: Should television news be exempt from the fairness doctrine? Send us your vote on a letter or postcard. We'll tabulate your views and make them known to members of Congress and to the White House and to others concerned with this issue. Every one of your votes is important. Remember that address: The Advocates, Box 1971, Boston 02134. Write us tonight.

Thanks to our advocates and our witnesses. I'm Victor Palmieri Please join us again next week at this same time. Thank you now. Good night.

The Advocates as a program takes no position on the issue debated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more clearly.