on the part of this administration to manage the news or to stifle the free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Mr. RICHARDSON. That may be. We quoted in here management of the news by the Kennedy administration and we will not pick any favorites politically. It can just as easily be managed by the Nixon administration. But the instance of the Vice President's criticism is not an example of such management, in our opinion. Mr. EBNER. Well, that is what makes your answer interesting, because the Vice President has been used as an example, an overt example of that sort of conspiracy. Thank you. Mr. BASKIR. One might, from the two examples discussed here from the Kennedy administration and the Nixon administration, or at least the charges, perhaps come to the general conclusion that Government's efforts to make sure the news is all favorable to it and not all disfavorable transcends party lines and administrations and is an inherent part of Government; and that indeed, perhaps the First Amendment, recognizing that fact, may be wiser than we are by making sure that we keep Government out of it as much as possible. Mr. RICHARDSON. I would certainly concur with your injection, because I worked for the Government for 5 years as an attorney, and I think administrations come and go but the policy of the Government never changes. Mr. BASKIR. And the desire of bureaucrats not to be criticized isMr. RICHARDSON. Constant. Mr. BASKIR. Constant and never changing. Mr. RICHARDSON. Never changing. Mr. BASKER. We appreciate your coming, Mr. Richardson. Again let me apologize on behalf of the Senator for his not being here. We will recess until tomorrow at 10 o'clock and tomorrow we will meet in room 318 in the Old Senate Office Building. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed until Thursday, February 17, 1972, at 10 a.m.) FREEDOM OF THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1972 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:50 a.m., in room S-407, the Capitol Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman), presiding. Present: Senator Ervin, (presiding). Also present: Lawrence M. Baskir, Chief Counsel and Staff Director, and William Pursley, Counsel; and Stanley Ebner, Minority Counsel. Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Counsel will call the first witness. Mr. BASKIR. Mr. Chairman, our first witness this morning was to have been Prof. James Q. Wilson of Harvard University and a member of the Sloan Commission on Cable Television. Professor Wilson can't come today because of the death of a close friend, but he will submit a statement for the record. Senator ERVIN. I am sorry he cannot be here and for the circumstances that keep him from being here, but we will receive his statement and include it in the appendix. Mr. BASKIR. Our first witness this morning is the Reverend Everett C. Parker of the United Church of Christ. Senator ERVIN. Reverend Parker, I am delighted to welcome you to the subcommittee and I want to express to you our appreciation for your willingness to come and give us the benefit of your views on what I consider one of the most important parts of our Constitution. STATEMENT OF REV. EVERETT PARKER, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST Reverend PARKER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name, as you have heard, is Everett C. Parker and I am director of the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ. I have a rather lengthy testimony here which I would like to have in the record, but I will only deal with the highlights in it for about 15 minutes. My qualifications are on the first page of my testimony. I would like to say that the Office of Communication for many years has conducted programs to encourage freedom of speech in the United States and particularly for those minorities whose ideas and cultures have not received adequate access to the mass media. We initiated the landmark court proceedings which established the right of citizens to participate in license renewal proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission, and we have been called upon by citizen coalitions in more than 100 cities to assist them in evaluating and improving broadcasting services and especially in gaining access to the air. Few aspects of American life are as universally revered as the guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, and the press that are expressed in the First Amendment. The United States was founded. on these guarantees and virtually all its democratic processes are based on their existence. Few Americans are willing to tamper with the First Amendment. It has, in a manner of speaking, become sacred to us. But like so many other sacred symbols, we tend to accept it unthinkingly and without trying to understand its origins or its basic concepts as they pertain to our own time. The First Amendment, of course, was conceived and adopted in an era when the technology of mass communication was undreamed of. Interestingly, Prof. Erik Barnouw has pointed out in Mass Communication, that the American people in the 1790's got their news largely by word of mouth. Few could read. The profession of reporting was unknown. The total subscription of the entire national output of the 35 so-called newspapers has been estimated at well under 20,000. Even half a century later, with the huge advance of the industrial revolution and the introduction of steam power, the biggest newspaper press could turn out only 200 copies an hour--one side at a time. Any one-man printshop could start a newspaper; with one assistant, the printer moved into the big-time. Clearly, there are major differences in the media today when it is not unusual to reach 50 million persons instantaneously, and such vast investments are required that monopoly ranks equally with regulation as a threat to our basic freedoms. Suppression of news by our economic masters, by giant corporate communication conglomerates, looms as a menace to our freedom equal to suppression by a governmental Big Brother. Lest I be suspected of some gross heresy, I want hastily to get into the record the fact that there already is substantial support for this view in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Religious groups in this country have been expressing the view for some time that the guarantee of the First Amendment, especially for broadcasting, is primarily directed toward assuring the public of right of access to information, rather than toward the protection of the media. Most often, of course, the rights of both are intertwined; but when they conflict, it is the right of the public which is paramount. This was our own argument, as amicus curiae in the Red Lion case, and Mr. Justice White, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, agreed: "The people as a whole reatin their interest in free speech by radio, and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount." Admittedly and obviously, there are differences between the electronic media and the printed word. Equally obvious under some monopolistic conditions there are parallels. What we are interested in, Mr. Chairman, is not any cutting down of freedom of expression, either by government or anybody else, but in administering our present laws to afford much wider freedom of expression. In this brief presentation, I shall limit myself to four aspects of the First Amendment application: The right of access. The Fairness Doctrine. The regulation of broadcasting by the Federal Communications Commission. Finally, and very briefly, newspapers. Access-The Supreme Court in conducting the Red Lion decision upholding the Fairness Doctrine stated: In view of the prevalence of scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold that the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. The Court thus recognized what we believe is the most urgent need in broadcasting today-government protection of the right of holders of minority views to have access to present them. As a practical matter, the freedom to disseminate and receive information is empty indeed unless it takes place in the media of mass communication. The soapbox orator in Grant Park is no match for the Chicago Tribune. All too often, publishers and broadcasters concern themselves only with their own rights to publish or broadcast without giving adequate recognition to the limitations which are imposed upon those who, in a modern technological and economic era, have no practical means of disseminating their own views widely and adequately to a mass audience. There must be a balance. The mass media pay little attention to the concern, for example, of the underprivileged until their needs are expressed in forceful protests. Persons holding minority views are finding it necessary to make their demonstrations ever more forceful and more illegal to sustain media interest. No one should have to break the law to be heard. There is no doubt in my mind that some of this inattention is simply an unwitting injury to the underprivileged without malice on the part of the media. Without members of the underprivileged among the directors, or officers, or editors, or, often, of staff, how are they to know or understand the problems of the dispossessed? Our interpretation of access is that the media themselves have an obligation to seek out and give voice to all significant viewpoints reflected in the area of service. These opinions cannot simply be summarized by journalists; to be understood they must be presented by the partisans themselves. A means should be found to allow significant groups in the community to participate in selecting issues for decision. This approach does not involve the government in evaluating program content-always a difficult First Amendment matter— but only in multiplying the voices and ideas which may be heard. The media should also employ minority newsmen and take advantage of their insights to help identify issues of importance to minority groups and develop lines of communication with spokesmen for them. And Senator, since I know this issue will be raised about newsmen, I also mean newswomen. They are a minority in the news field. Now, the Fairness Doctrine. It is difficult to separate the question of access from a consideration of the Fairness Doctrine because, in many ways, they are intertwined. Perhaps the major reason for the current distinction is the FCC's failure to enforce the doctrine's positive requirement that broadcasters deal with all significant issues and viewpoints. The FCC's Fairness Doctrine refers to television and radio as a medium of freedom of speech and freedom of expression for the people of the Nation as a whole. It calls upon broadcasters to make sufficient time available for full discussion and states that this duty extends to all subjects of substantial importance to the community coming within the scope of free discussion under the First Amend ment ... Yet, even today, The FCC routinely refuses to enforce this affirmative obligation to cover all significant issues and viewpoints. Enforcement is limited to insuring that all sides are covered on those selected issues which the station chooses to raise. The Office of Communication finds nothing wrong with the fairness doctrine and sees no need for any changes in it. Stricter enforcement rather than watering down is needed. Networks, for instance, long have recognized their special responsibility for fairness. For the most part, however, they have approached this responsibility by attempting to maintain high standards of objectivity rather than by presenting a diversity of viewpoints. Networks endorse no candidates, take few editorial positions and generally avoid commentary. Many broadcast editorials deal with subjects which already enjoy broad acceptance and rarely concern heated controversy. There are probably more controversial issues and viewpoints presented each day in the Lancaster, Pa., Intelligencer Journal, North Carolina's Greensboro News, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times than the three networks present in a year. The daily editorial positions of these newspapers are more blunt and forthright than the occasional broadcast documentary like "The Selling of the Pentagon" or "Hunger in America." Such documentaries probably seem more startling to the public because it is so unaccustomed to their presentation. Although viewpoints are often balanced in television documentaries, they represent a narrow range of opinion and many views are unrepresented. Worse yet, the search for objectivity often results in blandness. Small wonder that such programs have low ratings. Audiences want to hear the arguments of the partisans and these spokesmen would like to make their own cases. We are not impressed with the cry of some broadcasters that criticism of their programs "chills" their freedom of speech. Broadcast licensees are public trustees and it is appropriate that they be held accountable by the American people. We deem it healthy that citizens -even public officials-speak out when they regard the performance of broadcasters as something less than perfect. We see nothing wrong with political parties or public officials filing fairness complaints. Broadcast licensees stand astride our most important channels of communication. They control an indispensable instrument of our |