I would like to note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I have been joined by Professor Heller, seated on my right. It is good to see him again. I was about two-thirds of the way through my statement, and I can abbreviate now the final portions, taking note of the funding proposals as made by the Carnegie Commission and as made in H.R. 3333. Dr. Heller will, I think, deal certainly more professionally than I can with some of the subtleties of funding public broadcasting in the United States. We note a point of difference between the proposed legislation for supporting public broadcasting essentially on a population basis and the proposal of the Carnegie Commission to do it through a system of matching grants. Our idea was to try to build into the funding mechanism some evaluative, some system performance scheme. Our notion was stations would be encouraged to raise resources as best they could from their local communities, municipal and State governments, and that these locally based funding activities, which obviously measure the approval of the local community with the work of the radio or television station, would then be matched with Federal funds. We think that this offers a profoundly effective method of insulating public broadcasting from undue influence and pressures. The automatic character of the matching grants system has that quality, but then the proposal of the legislation has somewhat the same aspect. We think missing is this notion of attempting to reward people who do well in performing in their local communities. We recommended a spectrum fee. So do you. I think you recommended it first. If this is "Son of Rewrite," as I heard you say once, then our interest in the spectrum fee was certainly triggered by the original rewrite bill. I have discovered in the literature a paper in the Journal of Marketing in the late 1950's by Professor Sandage, who is the President of the Farm Institute in Urbana, at the time he was on the faculty of the University of Iowa, in which he makes the clearest and most precise proposal of a spectrum fee of the form which appears in the legislation and which appeared in our docu ment. I promised Professor Sandage at one point that somewhere in a public forum I would see that he got proper credit for the intellectual quality of his initiative, and I want to do it this morning. We differ principally, I think, on the propriety of using advertising revenues even under the restrictions proposed in the legislation. Perhaps we can talk about that later. I would like to conclude my statement by noting other advances in the proposed legislation that do not deal with matters of either structure or funding: The removal of the ban on editorializing, which seems to me to have unfairly penalized public broadcasting for more than one decade, removing an editorial voice that is given to the commercial vehicle. I would also take note of the section on program rights and the principle, I guess, of what might be called artistic sweat equity: That an artist, after having worked very hard to produce a creative work, is at some point, at least, entitled to some of the benefits of that work, and that the work itself is not an investment for public broadcasting but belongs, in effect, after a period of time, at least, to the artist or producer. We think that is a good idea. It is very hard to cast in legislation the very delicate subject upon which a great deal of flexibility is necessary in order to balance the rights. We are very glad you raised it and we applaud the kind of thinking which led to this proposal. Finally and in conclusion, we see in H.R. 3333 a reinforced emphasis on the use of public broadcasting as a vehicle for public enlightenment, for public education. At some point after 1967 when educational broadcasting became converted into public broadcasting, it seems to me there was doubt in some minds as to whether or not it was appropriate to continue the educational function of public broadcasting. We think it is absolutely critical to the future of public broadcasting in the United States. The bill seems to take essentially the same position and we applaud that as well. If you permit me now, I would like to turn to my colleague, Professor Walter Heller, for comments on the funding proposals of the Carnegie Commission and the H.R. 3333 legislation. [Testimony resumes on p. 355.] [Dr. McGill's prepared statement follows:] Statement of Dr. William J. McGill Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am I am William J. McGill, President of Columbia University. here today in my role as Chairman of the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting. The Commission appreciates this opportunity to present its views on those portions of H. R. 3333 dealing with public broadcasting. I do sincerely congratulate you on this effort to reexamine and bring up-to-date our nation's basic communications policies. We on the Carnegie Commission grappled with many of the same issues and questions. They are posed by a rapidly changing technological environment. Perhaps better than most observers we appreciate the difficulties involved in such an undertaking. The Rewrite is important to public broadcasting for still another reason. Although Congress approved public broadcasting legislation last year, the "Public Telecommunications Financing Act of 1978" left important issues unresolved. You yourself, Mr. Chairman, referred to the bill as President Carter spoke of the bill as a step in the process of strengthening public broadcasting and pledged to re-examine appropriate funding levels based upon the system's needs and potential after Carnegie II issued its report. Today, the Commission is asked to discuss its own work and to comment on the public broadcasting provisions of H.R. 3333. I believe what we learned during our year and a half of intensive study of public broadcasting will be of great help to you as you contemplate rather fundamental changes in the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. At the outset, I want to say that the Carnegie Commission is pleased to note a number of conceptual similarities between our recommendations and the philosophy underlying the public broadcasting rewrite. We agree, I think, on the need for public broadcasting to focus a much greater share of its resources on programming and services. We agree that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has not performed as well as might have been hoped; that history shows the necessity for improving the procedures for selection of leadership in such statutory bodies, as well as for improving and simplifying the method of generating and allocating federal funds to the system. We also agree that public broadcasting must give far greater attention to defining its relations with the emerging video and audio technologies. There are, of course, several areas where we are in disagreement with H.R. 3333, and I shall turn to those in a moment. Nevertheless, I think it important to point out that the areas of agreement between H. R. 3333 and the Carnegie report suggest an emerging consensus on several major problems which have plagued public broadcasting from the beginning. It appears that a long-sought consensus is developing, and I believe it also fair to say that both the Rewrite and the Carnegie Commission have stimulated long overdue efforts within the public broadcasting community to come to terms with some of its most fundamental problems. Before attempting to comment on Titles IV and VI of the Он bill, I wish to make several brief observations about the Carnegie Commission's own work. As you know, the Commission was formed in July, 1977 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York in response to formal requests by the Boards of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio, and by a number of concerned citizens. Our charge was to make an independent reassessment of the state of public broadcasting, focusing particularly on long range issues related to programming and services, public participation, structure, funding, and on the impact of new technologies. The first ten months of our effort was devoted to fact learning finding, seeking out the views of diverse individuals and groups. I believe our effort constitutes perhaps the most exhaustive and wide-ranging attempt ever made to seek out opinion and attitudes on public broadcasting. We talked to everybody the system, the producers, public interest - |