I think on the other points that have been raised, and they are thoughtful points, by both Mr. Mathias and Mr. Kastenmeier, that I would like personally to have the time to do some research before I undertake to make an answer to the committee. But I would be very pleased to try to answer any questions that the members of the committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. As I take it, under your bill, there would be editorial competition, but there would be no commercial competition. Is that right?

Mr. EDMONDSON. News and editorial competition would be required, as I understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be no competition as to cost of advertising? That would reside in the agreement which would be an agreedupon contract between the two papers? There would be no competition in that area?

Mr. EDMONDSON. There would be no requirement of competition, Mr. Chairman.

I can foresee some arrangements that would be made that would continue competition, but there would be no requirement in the law that there be competition on this point.

The CHAIRMAN. The point is that, therefore, from a practical standpoint there would be no requirement for competition as far as advertising rates are concerned, or circulation, or other business aspects in newspaper operations.

That is correct, isn't it?

Mr. EDMONDSON. My understanding of the law is that the antitrust law requirements of the present on this point would not be present, and would not be a requirement for a joint operating arrangement. I can foresee joint operating arrangements in which the element of competition on these points was continued and was entered into as a matter of agreement between the two papers, but I don't think it would be required, under this proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. No matter how burdensome those rates might be on the local shopkeepers and local industry or local business, nonetheless, it would be legal?

Mr. EDMONDSON. They would have the same freedom in this regard that a merged newspaper combination has under antitrust laws today. So long as it fixes its rates uniformly, so long as it does not strive unfairly to eliminate other competition by its rates, I think it is lawful.

The CHAIRMAN. To qualify your statement on mergers, a merger would only be approved if one of the merged papers were a failing newspaper. But if A and B are both newspapers and prosperous, I doubt very much whether they would be immune from an antitrust bar.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I agree with that, sir, but I am saying that a merger consummated under the same circumstances that these joint newspaper arrangements are consummated, and are required by this law to be consummated, is permitted a license in this field today that should be extended to the joint operating arrangement.

The CHAIRMAN. I simply ask you these questions to bring out all the facts and all the new answers of this very difficult problem. Mr. EDMONDSON. I appreciate your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. It might not be my final opinion on this matter. It is a very perplexing situation, as you know.

Mr. EDMONDSON. We are not seeking any special privilege or special opportunity in the commercial field that is not today enjoyed by a merged newspaper operation, in which a failing newspaper has joined with a successful newspaper, and in which they have set up a merger. We seek the same opportunity, with the benefit to the public of continued operation of independent news and editorial policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Edmondson, I understand that a joint arrangement is for the publication of a paper, printing, and things of that nature. They enter into the agreement voluntarily.

Now, do you think that one may be in a position to dominate and control what the other should pay for that service? In the Tulsa situation, has there been any problem raised that you know of whether one really pays more for work than the other?

Mr. EDMONDSON. For work?

Mr. ROGERS. For printing, for example, as I understand, the joint operation involves printing, Linotypes, and things of that nature. Mr. EDMONDSON. I have no competence to answer that question. I am sure that representatives of the newspapers can give you details on that point.

I am unaware of any problems in the operation of the nature that you are talking about, but I don't have the details on it, so I couldn't answer it.

Mr. ROGERS. It has been in operation in Tulsa for, you say, 20 years?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Twenty-seven years, I believe.

Mr. ROGERS. And during that period of time, has there never been any question raised as to whether one of the newspapers took advantage of the other in this joint operation, so that one would be compelled to pay a bigger price than the other?

There is no distinction for the services performed?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I am unaware of any distinction in the payments that are made by the two newspapers in connection with the oper

ation.

That is something, however, on which I would like to defer to people more intimately acquainted with the operation.

Mr. ROGERS. Has this resulted in a different price the respective newspapers may charge for its newspaper by the month?

Mr. EDMONDSON. A single copy of the two newspapers costs the same, and the subscription rates for the two are different subscription rates. You get a Sunday newspaper with the Tulsa World, and the Tulsa Tribune does not publish a Sunday paper.

Mr. ROGERS. Was that as a result of the agreement, or for some other reason, or do you know?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I will have to defer that question to someone who has a better knowledge of the operating arrangement between the papers I have no knowledge.

Mr. ROGERS. Were the facilities that are used now for the printing purposes in full use prior to the time the agreement was worked out 27 years ago? Were they two competing printing plants prior to the agreement?

20-914 0-68- -3

Mr. EDMONDSON. My understanding on that is that they had independent presses, independent circulation departments, independent business offices, prior to the consummation of the joint arrangement. Mr. ROGERS. But after the joint arrangement, they made use of the same typesetters and things of that nature?

Mr. EDMONDSON. What they have now is a press facility and a typesetting facility and a business office and a circulation department that are jointly occupied and jointly operated, and they are, of course, in much more continuous operation by reason of the fact that they are putting out both a morning and an afternoon newspaper, several editions of each, on the same equipment.

Mr. ROGERS. And by the automation that we now have, not only in newspapers but in other operations, they have better use of these facilities, and use them for a greater length of time?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I would say they have greater utility of operation by reason of the fact that they are getting more use out of the equipment that they have.

Mr. ROGERS. Is there joint agreement as to advertising rates in the respective newspapers, that you know of?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think their advertising department is a joint operation in the same way that their circulation department is a joint operation.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to get this clear.

Will you turn to page 2 of the bill, line 25, over to page 3, line 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The term "newspaper publication" means a publication produced on newsprint paper which is published in one or more issues weekly, and in which a substantial portion of the content is devoted to the dissemination of news and editorial opinion.

Is that broad enough to embrace, for example, a weekly like Time and Newsweek?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Well, I personally would regard Time and Newsweek as magazines, rather than newspapers.

The CHAIRMAN. But that is a pretty broad definition, here, isn't there?

*** published in one or more issues weekly, and in which a substantial portion of the content is devoted to the dissemination of news and editorial opinion. Mr. EDMONDSON. I think it is also a fact that they are not produced on newsprint paper, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That might be a way of excluding magazines, but they might be changed to newsprint.

It would cover a weekly, wouldn't it, a weekly newspaper?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I believe it would cover a weekly newspaper; yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?

What do you do about something like New Republic? Didn't New Republic come out on newsprint?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think New Republic is a paper that in my recollection used a paper with general newsprint.

The CHAIRMAN. It is still published.

Mr. BROOKS. It is still published, and I believe on newsprint. It is not a slick.

Mr. EDMONDSON. It is a heavier quality paper than most newspapers are printed on.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe one of these newspaper reporters present could tell us about the kind of paper the New Republic is printed on. They don't get the New Republic?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, that is a publication engaged in the dissemination of feature articles throughout the country, and not

news per se.

I agree with the comment that Time would not be qualified because it is not printed on newsprint. New Republic and Progressive magazine, which are printed on newsprint, are not devoted primarily to the news and editorial opinion, but rather to feature articles. The CHAIRMAN. Any more questions?

Mr. ROGERS. No.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, not to belabor the point, I think we ought to make crystal clear in the bill and in the report, if we do report it, that this does not include magazines.

We have enough problems with the combination magazines now, without giving them the opportunity of publishing 50 of them on one printing operation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. ROGERS. May I ask one more question of Mr. Edmondson?

Do you feel that radio or TV may get into this picture? Do you envision that radio and TV would be "failing newspapers" in this setup, if they got into financial difficulty?

Mr. EDMONDSON. They clearly would not be covered by this bill. This bill would not cover anything other than a newsprint publication.

It is not intended to open any doors for any other type of operation, in my personal opinion, anyway.

Mr. ROGERS. What about the instances where there is a relation between TV stations and a publisher of daily newspapers? Do you think that is one factor that should be considered in this legislation?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Well, I will defer to the committee on that. It is not involved in the content of the bill at all.

Mr. ROGERS. I know, but we do have instances where ownership of a newspaper and a radio and TV station are controlled by the same group. In many instances, even separate corporations are set up.

Should that be a factor, or should we confine ourselves only to the failing newspaper as defined here?

Mr. EDMONDSON. The broad picture I think includes situations in which many communities in the country are confronted with a possible or even an imminent complete domination of the news and editorial information reaching the people. I think that when you do get one control over what news is reaching the people in a community, you have a situation that is less desirable from an antitrust standpoint by far, in my view, than the situation that we are attempting to protect and preserve with this bill.

If you have a town in your district in which all news goes through one channel to the people, I don't think you have any difficulty in

seeing the potential dangers in that situation, as contrasted with the situation that prevails in these 22 communities, where you have two different channels of news and editorial comment coming to the people.

Now, I have lived with it, and observed it, in my own area down there, and I know we have a situation that is healthier than that which prevails in some other communities, and healthier by a good margin.

If we can't get our story told in one newspaper down there, and sometimes it happens that we can't get through in that newspaper, the other newspaper can be approached, and very often will tell the story, and will take the other side of the news to the people. To me, it is almost incomprehensible that the antitrust laws, which are designed to protect and preserve competition, could be an instrument to knock out competition in this very vital area of news that is reaching the people.

And that is what we are confronted with in this Tucson case. I think it is what we will be confronted with in these 22 communities, if the antitrust law is not modified to make possible a continuation of this basically more healthy situation that prevails in a joint operating arrangement.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Edmondson.

I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kastenmeier.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I just want to compliment my colleague on his, I think, concise, as I understand his last explanation, position for this bill.

I would further like to comment that my own observations about the editorial independence parallels his own in Oklahoma.

In connection with this, however, I suppose we are limited by our own experience and observations in our own areas.

I am wondering whether in Tulsa, if it were a merged operation, and both were independently owned, both editions were still put out by one ownership, whether you might not have editorial independence. The reason I ask that is because, for example, in Wisconsin, we have the Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Sentinel case. Here a moderate liberal afternoon paper that was financially sound bought out the morning paper. To the dismay of many, the morning paper, editorially remained stridently conservative, as it had been before. So really, in a sense, you have both news and editorial independence even in a merger.

Can you distinguish between what might happen in Tulsa, as to why the joint operation should be preferred in that respect to a merger, in which you could still have two independent voices?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I would concede that there are situations in which you have competition by the staffs of newspapers that are merged newspapers.

I have seen competition between the staffs of a television station and newspapers that are owned by the same management for news, but I think you can also demonstrate, from the record, that you get into some situations in which some people, some candidates, or some