In that sense, as I understand it, there is a burden.

Dean BARROW. Mr. Chairman, we have held to our schedule quite well today. The indicated time of adjournment was 5 o'clock. We will turn the meeting back to you for your pleasure, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there are others who want to speak, and I know there will always be. Someone said after the first paper this morning that we could have spent all day discussing it. I am sure this is true, especially if you turn it over to this committee.

There are others who will want to speak afterwards. I think we better recess for the evening and start again tomorrow morning. We will have enough food for discussion and talk tomorrow. Then maybe we can take care of some of these thoughts in other ways, if you wish. Tomorrow morning we will reconvene at 9:30.

I want to thank all of this panel. I am just sorry that I couldn't be here all day. I had a meeting with Secretary Udall and other Congressmen, and there were other appointments that had to be kept. But we will have the record and we will read it.

I don't know when we have had such a fine panel in Washington on such a vital subject. I say vital and I mean it-vital to America and to our future.

I don't know that the Congress will take up anything more important in regard to the way we are headed and what we are going to do in the future.

I want to thank you, Mrs. Pilpel, for being here; I understand you have to be in New York shortly. We hope you have a safe journey back. We look forward to seeing the rest of you tomorrow morning at 9:30. The committee is now adjourned for the day.

(Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 6, 1968.)

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C.

The special subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The special subcommittee will come to order. I have one or two thoughts before we start this morning.

We originally thought of this panel discussion as an experiment. It has turned out so successfully that we think it is a good idea. This is turning out to be a very useful and productive set of hearings.

At the end of these hearings, I would like to have any suggestions you gentlemen may have for legislation. If you do have recommendations, please give them to us and we will deeply appreciate them.

I am not sure this will necessarily lead to legislation. We think, however, that the hearings are timely and appropriate at this time. Today, if the members of the subcommittee have a question that they would like to ask, which would not take too much time, that will be all right. However, we would still like to restrict questions as much as possible so that the panel will have the time to give their views. It might sound a little contradictory, but we want the panelists to have all the time necessary.

I might also say to the panel that we don't want to curtail their remarks at any time. At the same time, any panelist may insert all of his statement into the record and summarize it in his own words. We don't want to curtail you in any way. This is too important a panel. The reason I say this is because we want to give the members of the subcommittee an opportunity to ask questions at the end of the hearing. I am sure all of them have questions in mind.

With that, Dean Barrow, we turn this meeting over to you again.

PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT 1

ROSCOE L. BARROW (MODERATOR), HERBERT E. ALEXANDER, HOWARD H. BELL, JOHN R. CORPORON, JAY CROUSE, REUVEN FRANK, LINCOLN M. FURBER, HYMAN H. GOLDIN, WILLIAM G. HARLEY, ROSEL H. HYDE, LOUIS L. JAFFE, LOUIS M. LYONS, FRANK ORME, PAUL A. PORTER, GLEN O. ROBINSON, CHARLES A. SIEPMANN, VINCENT T. WASILEWSKI

Dean BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the first paper this morning will be read by Mr. William G. Harley, president of the National Association of Educa

1 See pp. 7-14 for bibliographic data.

tional Broadcasters. His subject is "The effect of section 315 and the Fairness Doctrine on educational broadcasting.”

PAPER NO. 5—WILLIAM G. HARLEY: THE EFFECT OF SECTION 315 AND THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ON EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING

Mr. HARLEY. I would like to begin by saying that the NAEB gives enthusiastic endorsement to the goals which have prompted these informative panel discussions on the Fairness Doctrine and related subjects.

The fair and reasonable discussion of controversial topics is a matter of deep concern and interest to all educators, and the association I represent is proud to participate in these hearing sessions.

The NAEB is the organized professional association of institutions and individuals engaged in areas of educational radio and television in the United States. Its membership consists of universities, colleges, public and private schools, and nonprofit community corporations which operate or hold construction permits for 170 educational radio stations, more than 150 educational television stations, and over 700 closed-circuit television systems and program production centers. Its membership also includes individuals who are classroom and studio teachers, producers, directors, technicians, and researchers involved in educational application of radio and television.

As we at NAEB understand the nature of the problems that arise under the general heading of "fairness," three broad areas of inquiry can be identified. The first of these is the Commission's so-called Fairness Doctrine. The second is the somewhat related, but specialized, problem of editorializing. The third is the matter of political broadcasting under section 315 of the Communications Act.

The principles underlying the Commission's Fairness Doctrine are basic to the philosophy of educational broadcasting; namely, that reasonable opportunities must be provided for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

Educational broadcasting has from its inception emphasized that diverse viewpoints on important local, regional, national, and international issues must be actively encouraged. Variety in thought and opinion is the mainspring of an informed American public.

To our knowledge educational stations have been able to adjust without undue difficulty to the specific provisions and procedures of the Commission's fairness doctrine. Although there has been some misunderstanding of the nature of the doctrine, and considerable dissatisfaction with the hypertechnical nature of certain procedures such as the methods and manner of notification in so-called personal attack situations, educational stations are nonetheless readily attuned to the necessity, and indeed the desirability, of presenting opposing conflicting viewpoints on controversial issues.

Responsible discussion of issues under intense debate in the community of nations is healthy, not only in terms of a greater awareness of the issue at hand, but also in terms of a greater receptivity and tolerance for viewpoints by others. An important byproduct of the airing of controversial topics has been an increase in the size and interest of audiences for educational broadcasts.

There have been rare instances where educational broadcasters have faced complaints with respect to particular programs which have been broadcast. I know of few, if any, instances, however, where the educational broadcaster has been found to have acted unfairly in terms of the concerns of the fairness doctrine.

In the instances that I know of, the educational station has assiduously provided ample time for all responsible viewpoints, either in the context of the individual program or within comparable time spans. To a much larger degree than most commercial broadcast stations, educational stations foster the development of local programs on controversial issues. Such programs are usually prepared with the direct participation and guidance of interested local groups and individuals, thus assuring the representation of all shades of thought and opinion.

The chief concern of educational broadcasters in the area of the Fairness Doctrine relates to the manner of its administration by the Commission. Such a doctrine, which by nature touches on the borderlines of free speech and thought, must be wisely and reasonably administered. Otherwise, the effect on educational broadcasters, and on commercial broadcasters as well, is likely to be substantially inhibiting.

Thus, if the Commission were to follow a practice of close over-theshoulder surveillance of controversial programing, and insist upon second-guessing the reasonable judgments of licensees, then educational broadcasters and others might ultimately have to avoid the discussion of important issues in their programing.

I do not believe that these are active concerns at present. I believe that the vast majority of educational stations freely and enthusiastically encourage this type of programing. Nor do I think that the Fairness Doctrine to date has been a substantial inhibiting force.

Moreover, considering the caliber of decisionmakers at the Commission, I do not think it likely that these concerns will grow to such an extent that there will be a serious threat to the continuation of a pattern of controversial-issue programing on educational stations. But the fear must be expressed, and it must be expressed often, in order to guard against even the potentiality for any curtailment of this necessary form of dialog on important issues.

With respect to the second area of concern-editorializing-educational stations have not heretofore editorialized on any significant scale, if editoralizing is defined to embrace only the broadcast of licensee or station management opinions on specific issues.

This subject of editorializing was discussed in detail in the House hearings on the Public Broadcasting Act. As a result of those hearings, language specificially forbidding educational stations from editorializing was subsequently included in that act. Section 399 of the Communications Act, as amended, now provides that

No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may engage in editorializing or may support or oppose any candidate for political office.

As clarified by the statement of the managers on the part of the House, appended to the conference report accompanying the Public Broadcasting Act:

The prohibition against editorializing was limited to providing that no noncommercial educational broadcast station may broadcast editorials representing the opinion of the management of such station. It should be emphasized that