FCC CHAIRMAN REED E. HUNDT Address Before The International Radio and Television Society New York, New York October 19, 1994 Thank you, Peter Lund, for that kind introduction. In Washington lately there's been much decrying of the failure of Congress to pass health care reform, telecom reform, campaign finance reform, superfund reform, and many other serious important measures. It was a sad sight to see. So much good work, especially by Ed Markey, Jack Fields, John Dingell, Fritz Hollings and others on the telecom bill, was frustrated. The process just broke down. But I don't mean the legislative process. I mean the public reasoning process. All of these failures of reform can be traced to a failure to achieve a consensus on the underlying facts. This consensus is not easy to achieve. We live in an enormously complex, multilingual, multiethnic country that leads the world in the pace of change. Yet in the midst of our constantly changing complexities, we must find ways to reason together in order to live together. The historian Daniel Boorstin said "America grew in search of community." In a functioning community, people must be able as a group to do at least three things well. First, we need to be able to learn information. We need to share true facts, as opposed to fostering fantastic fictions, whether born of fear or fervid conviction. Second, we need to develop and share reasonable opinions based on facts. Third, we need the means to come to agreement about the right course of action after a full exchange of opinions on all the crucial issues. These are the three steps in a public reasoning process. Without this process, we cannot function as a community. TV and radio broadcasters can and must help us do all three things. Broadcasting's role in facilitating public reasoning was far from obvious when radio and TV were first developed. Radio, for example, was designed to be a method of personal communications over the air. The idea was that you would use radio by going into a phone booth, paying a quarter, and broadcasting a message to someone who tuned into your frequency in some distant location. Seventy years later this idea is the key to the PCS services we will be jumpstarting in the mega-auction starting December 5 of this year. But it was not the right idea for radio. TV, in its earliest days, was seen primarily as a way to increase the audience for sports. Hockey and boxing were particularly big on NBC in New York in 1940. With apologies to Lowell Thomas, news was not a major feature of early TV programming. My own first memory of television was of a kind of sport, at least in Washington. It was a congressional hearing. The year was 1954. I was sitting on the rug in the living room of my family's apartment in northern Virginia. On the screen were flickering, black and white, ghostly visions, slightly blocked from my vantage point behind my mother's ironing board. The combination of sight and sound was for me, as it is for almost everyone, magnetically compelling. The person on the screen also had a seductive appeal. It was Senator Joe McCarthy. From 1950 to 1954, McCarthy was one of the most powerful figures in American political history. He dominated Washington, personally drove out of the United States Senate at least four senators, changed Hollywood, captured the attention of all Americans and frightened many. The rules of truth and falsehood were suspended in Senator McCarthy's arguments in the court of public opinion. McCarthyism started on February 7, 1950, at McLure Hotel in Wheeling, West Virginia, when Senator McCarthy told a crowd, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 names known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who are nevertheless still working in and shaping the policy of the State Department." McCarthyism was, in the Senator's words, "Americanism with its sleeve rolled up." This well-muscled jingoism was the enemy of public reasoning. Three years later, on October 20, 1953, for the very first time a major network ran a program that took a vigorous editorial stand. The network was CBS. The show was "See It Now." The commentator was Edward R. Murrow. The editorial was against McCarthyism. Murrow was attacked by McCarthy, but he did not quit on the story. About five months later, on March 9, 1954, Murrow became the first major television commentator to deliver a full-scale critique of Joe McCarthy. Newsweek wrote then that television had "come of age." Since no one knew then how this chapter of history would end, none of us should minimize the integrity and courage of Bill Paley, Ed Murrow and CBS in taking on McCarthy. Television's exposure of McCarthy's untruthful ways caused his approval rating to begin dropping. As the Senate hearings concerning McCarthy's allegations of communists in the Army were shown later in 1954 to 20 million people -- including my mother and me -- the nation was prepared to decide whether McCarthy was entitled to remain a major figure in the public arena. A famous epiphanic TV moment was triggered when McCarthy attacked an associate in the law firm of the Army's counsel, Joseph Welch. McCarthy said the youth had been a member of the National Lawyers' Guild, and therefore was of suspect loyalty. Welch responded: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" But it wasn't just Welch's eloquence that caused the nation to recoil in horror at McCarthy's behavior. It wasn't just the lack of proof of McCarthy's assertions that caused the Senate to censure him. McCarthy's fall came because the country could judge him over television. They could see exactly how truth and honesty played no role in McCarthy's behavior. TV made public reasoning work to end McCarthyism. Edward R. Murrow's "See It Now" was cancelled by CBS four years after the McCarthy-Army hearings. Paley explained his decision by saying "I don't want this constant stomach ache". Murrow's response was "It goes with the job." It's ironic that Paley replaced Murrow's show with a new format -- the quiz show. We've all been reminded by Robert Redford's new movie that the era of the quiz shows was not a monument to truth and honesty over the airwaves. We all know that truth does not always triumph in courts of public opinion or in electronic forums. But the occasional absence of truth only makes you value its presence more highly. As Bill Bennett recently wrote in The Book of Virtues, we all hold certain beliefs in this country. One of them is a belief in the value of honesty. Bennett wrote, "How is honesty best cultivated? There is a quick answer that may be given in three words: take it seriously. Take recognition of the fact that honesty is a fundamental condition for genuine community. But be sure to take it seriously for itself, not just as 'the best policy'." Just as democracy demands eternal vigilance, the effort to obtain an honest understanding of facts is a constant duty for anyone who wishes to participate in the public reasoning process. Edward R. Murrow pursued the facts. He helped expose one of the biggest purveyors of falsehood in our history. Many of his successors in TV history have continued his heritage. And the generations of television and radio newsmen and newswomen have changed our country for the better. As my friend and mentor Jim Quello recently said in a speech in St. Petersburg, Russia, "The major impact of television and radio today on the American way of life is in news and news analysis, not in entertainment programs." Seventy percent of all Americans get 100% of their news from TV and radio. This striking fact means that we need TV and radio to provide us our facts. But because TV and radio reach all Americans, these mediums give us the potential to live in the most well-informed society in history. I'd like to highlight three specific implications of the role of TV and radio in our public reasoning process. First, I'd like to mention talk radio. Second, I'd like to discuss children's informational and educational television. Third, I'd like to discuss the need of broadcasters to include women and minorities in their management. First, talk radio. This format is growing tremendously. In the last five years, the number of stations with talk radio formats has tripled. One out of every seven dollars in revenue earned by radio in 1993 came from talk radio. Talk radio plays a hugely important role in communicating information to all Americans. One- third of all talk radio listeners say they listen in order to keep up with current issues of public importance; only 1 percent say they listen because of the host's personality. But it is far from clear that the talk radio format engenders a common appreciation of true facts among the millions of listeners. It is far from clear that radio license holders even accept that in programming talk radio they are playing a major role in determining what the public believes are the facts bearing on public policy determinations. People sometimes question whether sufficiently diverse opinions are fairly expressed over the airwaves. As far as I can tell, broadcast TV and radio is long on opinions, but short on facts. I see and hear no shortage of opinions. But whether broadcasters are doing as much as they could or should do to disseminate true facts and to correct disinformation or misinformation -- that is a serious and open question. I believe we are more likely to come to consensus in this country and get done that which needs doing, if we concentrate, like Joe Friday on Dragnet, on "just the facts." My friend Jim Quello spoke very directly to this subject in his St. Petersburg speech, "Editors, publishers and broadcast executives have the responsibility to make sure reporters are not wrong too often or to such an egregious degree that they are an embarrassment to their organization or profession. In my view, broadcast owners, executives and managers should more and more assume the role of publisher or even editor-in-chief. Top management must emphasize truth and responsibility in news and public affairs reporting over individual or corporate quests for ratings, money and power." Now, as I've said elsewhere, the primary mission of the FCC is to promote competition among the five lanes of the information highway: broadcast, cable, wire, wireless, and satellite. The FCC is in effect working to become the Federal Promotion of Competition in All Communications Markets and Protection of Consumers from Monopoly Commission. What we don't want is for the FCC to be the judge of the quality or content of public discourse. We don't want the FCC to be in the business of deciding who has spoken truly or falsely over the airwaves. We don't want it ever to become the Federal Censorship Commission. So if Americans are going to try and come to agreement on public issues through participating in the electronic media, we should not ask government to monitor the airwaves. Instead, we should encourage the efforts of private citizens like Diane Rehm who want the licensees of the airwaves to change their ways. Diane Rehm, a talk radio host in Washington, D.C., recently asked the following questions in an article in the Washington Post: "Should there be as careful an examination of statements uttered on the air as there is of words printed? Is there any way in which talk programming can be monitored to ensure factual presentation and correction of error? How can we as citizens participate more fully in the process of questioning and demanding accuracy?" I don't think Jim Quello or I or anyone want the government to issue regulations providing answers to these questions. But if broadcasters answer Diane Rehm's questions, they can help guarantee an extended run for the world's longest playing experiment in democracy. A second aspect of broadcasting and public reasoning concerns the need to involve everyone in the process -- including even the next generation, the nearly 60 million children in our country. The Supreme Court said in Metro Broadcasting that "it is axiomatic that broadcasting may be regulated in light of the rights of the viewing and listening audience." That audience is all Americans, adults and children. The rights of children concerning broadcast as set forth in the Children's TV Act of 1990 include but are not limited to the right to have access to educational and informational programming. At the FCC, we will be moving in the next several months toward a notice of rulemaking designed to implement this law fairly and fully. Research shows that television can play a major role in educating and inducing pro-social behavior in children. For example, a 1990 longitudinal study showed that children's vocabularies improved when they regularly watched "Sesame Street." Several studies have shown that preschoolers develop such positive traits as task persistence, imagination, and empathy from watching "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." Yet psychologist Dale Kunkel has reported that while some stations prove their compliance with the law by citing such generally recognized educational programs as "Beakman's World," and "Name Your Adventure," others list cartoons such as "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and "The Jetsons." Still others strain credulity by listing comedies such as "Full House" and dramas such as "Highway to Heaven." I'd have to say that I was especially flabbergasted to read that one station even listed John Waters' movie "Hairspray" as educational. We know TV can reach kids. We want it to teach them, too. There is no one better suited to guide our thinking on this subject than broadcasters. We all -- government and broadcasters, social scientists, parents, and viewers -- want TV to achieve its full potential in training our children to participate in our public reasoning process. Third, I want to discuss the need to include all Americans in broadcasting -- and therefore to include all Americans in the public reasoning process. Last week I spoke with approximately 200 Latino leaders in Los Angeles at a meeting sponsored by the National Hispanic Media Coalition. I discovered that this was the first time any FCC Commissioner or Chairman had visited with representatives of the Latino community of East Los Angeles -- even though more than 40% of that great city is Spanish speaking, even though the number one radio station in town broadcasts in the Spanish language. I told them it would not be my last visit. But let me say to broadcasters, if you haven't already done it, I'd like you to make that visit, too. Currently, women represent 3.6% of broadcast employees in the top four job categories. Minorities represent 2.4%. Although these numbers represent an improvement since 1986, they are way short of satisfactory from anyone's perspective. In particular, news and talk shows need to include women and minorities. I believe increasing opportunities for employment of women and minorities in broadcasting will help you reach more listeners and viewers and serve them better. And perhaps the most important, inclusion of women and minorities in broadcasting will guarantee their participation in the vitally important public reasoning process that TV and radio must facilitate. By making possible this public reasoning process, broadcasters will be cementing what some, including recently Ed Markey, call their social compact with the public. The social compact concept was around long before I got my terrific job and it will, I hope, be around for years. It is simply the notion that broadcasters have some obligation to perform public service because they get scarce licenses for free. But a social compact can't just be about policies and rules requiring certain public service from broadcasters. It must come from a sense of personal responsibility between the broadcast business and the public. Indeed, it is not just the broadcast business that feels such responsibilities. The last time I spoke here at the Waldorf, I had dinner with Charles Lazarus, the CEO of Toys 'R Us. I remembered being impressed that he articulated his huge corporation's responsibility to the country as being just the same as his relationship to the neighborhood in Washington, D.C. where he had his first store about 50 years ago. He recently demonstrated that sense of responsibility bred in what was once a small town when he announced that Toys 'R Us will no longer carry realistic-looking toy guns. There is no definitive proof that these toys contribute materially to violence in our country. But the mere risk that his toys were even indirectly or accidentally hurting the people was enough to convince Lazarus to suffer a large monetary loss in order protect his customers and the public. Charles Lazarus believes he has a social compact with his customers and his country. Now Charles Lazarus, of course, does not obtain the real estate for his stores rent-free from the government. Yet some say that broadcasters do receive a big break from government. I refer, of course, to the free use of scarce spectrum. Some have suggested broadcasters pay for this spectrum. I don't think that's a good idea. But I would urge broadcasters not to put their heads in the sand. America is about to watch the FCC raise billions of dollars auctioning off that which broadcasters receive for free. I predict America will ask what broadcasters are giving back to the public that justifies their deal. They will ask, if Charles Lazarus, a toy maker, lives up to a social compact with the public, why shouldn't broadcasters, who powerfully influence our public reasoning process and our fate as a community, do the same. I believe broadcasters can and will make a powerful case that they do live up to a social compact. In particular, they can show that they help America reason its way to consensus on major public issues -- at least sometimes, at least potentially. But this is a case that must be made every year. It is a case that must be pressed even as everything seems to change in society, in technology, and in the way you do business. It is a case that must be made with respect to new issues and it is a case that is best made with new arguments -- arguments about the commitment of broadcasters to providing reliable information, to meeting the informational needs of children as well as parents, to including all Americans not only in their audience but also in their management. Making this case may require change. But it is far easier to change in good times than in bad. And in these boom times for the broadcasting business, our challenge is to make the best of a great situation. So I predict if you choose the right path you'll have big challenges but greater opportunities for success. You'll have greater flexibility to conduct business, but you'll have clearly and reliably defined social responsibilities. Finally, and most important, you'll have regulators demanding less while customers demanding more. In closing let me quote from Mr. Woody Allen -- "It is clear the future holds great opportunities. It also holds pitfalls. The trick will be to avoid the pitfalls, seize the opportunities, and get home by six o'clock." We at the Commission have abandoned all hope of getting home by six, but we'll do our best to avoid the pitfalls, seize the opportunities and help you keep the communications revolution rolling. Thank you very much.