of our governmental set-up. I think it should be cleared. And that part of the bill I think becomes rather objectionable.

I think also that a further objection to that particular portion of the bill might be that very often it happens that during a political campaign, there are persons who are not candidates, but who, when it comes to an election, may become write-in candidates. I know in the city of New York very often we have had write-in candidates. Now, this candidate is seeking election, or organizations are supporting him for election, but he would be barred from using the air waves. He is not a member of a political party, and he has no organized political party behind him, as we understand it. He could not use the air waves, and the people could not be informed of the advisability or desirability of writing in this individual's name.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say that there is some force in what you have just said, and it deserves some consideration by the committee. However, under existing law complete control is exercised by the licensee; he says who may speak and who may not.

Mr. FAULKNER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do not think that I am going to agree with everything that you say.

Mr. FAULKNER. No; I think that disagreement is a good thing. Senator CAPEHART. That has been brought out on many occasions heretofore.

Mr. FAULKNER. I am glad to be one who is adding to that. Another item, of course, is as to the source of news and the responsibility. That was elaborated upon to some extent before. I think that our opposition to that may be different, probably is different, than that of the previous witness. Much of the news that is gathered by news commentators is gathered from sources other than the Associated Press, the United Press, or the other recognized news agencies. And it becomes a sad situation if those sources have to be revealed at times.

I am sure that many of the statements made by Walter Winchell or Drew Pearson are gotten from other sources than the UP or AP or INS or any of the other recognized news sources. But it would be damaging, probably, for them to have to reveal the sources from which they obtained that news.

I think the responsibility rests entirely upon the reliability of the individual who is making the news broadcast. And I think in this respect, if the person abuses his position on the air by giving irresponsible statements-statements which cannot be backed up by fact, as may eventually be shown-his position is very much weakened, and eventually he gets himself off the air without any great difficulty.

I think we find that many of these commentators are reliable in their news; that when they do say something, it is based upon some fact which they have obtained. I don't know the source of their information, but I think that many times it doesn't come, and too often it doesn't come, from these recognized news agencies.

Senator CAPEHART. Should they be wrong, how are you going to correct the damage?

Mr. FAULKNER. I think there are laws, if the statement is libelous. I think there are libel laws that would protect the person who would be damaged by such a statement. Those things happen every day. If there were no legal recourse against those individuals, we would never have any libel laws. But it is just because such things do happen that

there is protection. And the libel laws offer that protection. That is why I say that eventually, if a person is irresponsible and does make damaging, unfounded statements, he will automatically and without any great difficulty eliminate himself from the air. It does not take too long to eliminate the irresponsible individual. That will come about in the natural course of events. He will not last long if he is not a person who is giving out facts.

Senator MOORE. Who would put him off the air?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, either the station, or his sponsor, after it has been shown that he is an irresponsible individual. He is given time on the air through some source.

Senator MOORE. But you were complaining about that.

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, we are complaining about it up to the point that he is a responsible individual. But until the man is proved to be irresponsible, we think he has a perfect right to have his say.

Senator CAPEHART. Now, when I asked you to read into the record the reasons why your committee was organized, you gave us four or five examples. Now, if the stations were responsible for taking those gentlemen off the air, were they right in that instance?

Mr. FAULKNER. As far as the information that has been given to me on it is concerned, I would say no.

Senator CAPEHART. They were wrong in taking them off?

Mr. FAULKNER. The stations were wrong; either the stations or the sponsors who deprived them of their rights.

Senator CAPEHART. Have you any suggestion to make to the committee, then, as to who will be held responsible for taking them off when they should be taken off? You objected to the fact that these half a dozen men were taken off. You say they were taken off wrongly. And yet you said a minute ago that if they are irresponsible, they should be taken off.

Mr. FAULKNER. That is true.

Senator CAPEHART. Who is to be the judge?

The CHAIRMAN. Who is to determine the question of responsibility or irresponsibility?

Mr. FAULKNER. Events will prove themselves. When an individual makes irresponsible and unfounded statements, and it is eventually shown that they are irresponsible and unfounded, his right to the air can be taken away.

The CHAIRMAN. Who would take it away?

Mr. FAULKNER. Whoever gave it to him. Simply because he happens to be telling the truth, but telling it in a way that the particular sponsor or radio station does not like, because his view may be a liberal viewpoint on a particular subject, or a progressive view on a particular subject, is something else.

Senator CAPEHART. May I interrupt you? Who is going to write the rules and regulations you have just described?

Mr. FAULKNER. I think the people will do it, the voice of the people. Senator CAPEHART. Then suppose the station takes someone off of the air who should not be taken off the air? How are you going to get him back on again?

Mr. FAULKNER. I think the FCC should be in a position to see that that person stays on the air.

Senator CAPEHART. But you are objecting to the FCC having anything to do with it.

The CHAIRMAN. The FCC, you say, has to pass upon the question of responsibility?

Mr. FAULKNER. My position is this, and I think I could perhaps state it in my own way. We think the air ways should be free to responsible individuals.

Senator MOORE. But who is to say who is responsible and who is not responsible?

Mr. FAULKNER. A certain individual is given a contract to speak on the air. He is selected, for one reason or another. I don't know why a previous witness was selected to be a news analyst, but he was. He is a reputable individual. He has earned a certain position in the newspaper field which gave him the opportunity of speaking. However, when he becomes irresponsible, after he takes the air, and makes statements which are either libelous or are unfounded in fact, or irresponsible, I think then, when it is brought to the attention of the proper authorities, the question should be brought up as to whether they are true or not. And if he is giving untruths on the air, then he should be taken off.

Senator CAPEHART. Who are the proper authorities?

Mr. FAULKNER. I think that public opinion will quickly come to the fore.

Senator CAPEHART. Public opinion itself cannot take a man off the air.

Mr. FAULKNER. Let's see. Public opinion, in my estimation, represent the people. And when the people say that this particular news analyst is objectionable, that he is obnoxious, that he is not wanted, I think then the time is ripe to consider

Senator CAPEHART. How would they do it? What medium would you use to find that out?

Mr. FAULKNER. Public protest.

Senator CAPEHART. Of what kind? Picketing a station? Demonstrations, or what?

Mr. FAULKNER. There are many ways of publicly protesting, mail, telegrams, delegations, committees. The very fact that I am here today as a representative of an organization to speak for them is an indication of a public protest of this group against provisions of this bill. I think this is the way to bring to the attention of those responsible individuals like yourselves, who have something to say about the air waves, as to how it is to be regulated, how it is to be controlled, such matters as we have discussed.

Senator CAPEHART. But my understanding is that you do not want us to have anything to say about it, or the broadcasters, or FCC. This bill tries to set up some sort of a formula. Are you opposed to this specific formula, or are you opposed to any formula?

Mr. FAULKNER. We are opposed to the formula which, in the first instance, will prevent the man or woman from having a say.

opposed to that. Secondarily, we think that when the person. does have his opportunity, after it is given to him, and he is no longer carrying out his functions as a person who is giving fact and truth, then the question arises: what shall we do with him?

Senator CAPEHART. Let me ask you this question: How are you going to get these five or six people back on the air that your committee was formed to protect, unless you do it through some sort of a law, or some Government agency? How are you going to convince

the broadcasting company who, I presume, took them off, that they should put them back on the air?

Mr. FAULKNER. One of the ways that we are trying, which is not in our brief, is this: We have organized a monitor service. This monitor service is listening to the various radio stations for comments by the various commentators. And when we have gathered together sufficient information, where we feel that the particular radio station. has abused its position in discriminating against one commentator as against another, because of his own political viewpoints, his liberal viewpoints, we are then going to press the issue for a showdown. Senator MOORE. To whom?

Mr. FAULKNER. To the authority that grants the license; and that would be the FCC.

Senator CAPEHART. Who is going to write the rules and regulations for FCC?

Mr. FAULKNER. When the rules for the FCC are formulated, they are formulated, as I understand it, by the committee, based upon the law, the law as handed down by Congress.

Senator CAPEHART. Does it not eventually get back to where somebody has to have sufficient authority to say "yes" or "no"?

Mr. FAULKNER. Yes. And we say that the FCC should be in a position, as a hearing body, to hear what the difficulty is, hear what the dispute is, and then analyze it properly. And if there is a deficiency in the operation of that particular radio station in the handling of its license, in an abuse of its license, by discrimination against one commentator as against another, the FCC should be empowered to impose certain penalties.

Senator MOORE. To revoke the license?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, the penalty may be one of many things. I am not prepared to say whether it would be to put this particular commentator back on, or take that commentator off, or curtail the license. I would not be in a position to say. But certainly it is a distinct curtailment of free speech to remove one particular type of commentator, and leave the other commentator on the air, because one does not agree with the radio station's position on a certain point.

Senator CAPEHART. Then your thought is that one of the ways that this can be handled is by having a committee such as you have, who will monitor, or listen to all programs. And then, if, in the opinion of your committee, which is a small group, it is felt that commenator A is wrong, then you are going to in some way, some how, try to get him eliminated from the air. And if another commentator is eliminated from the air by the station or some other source, you are going to make an effort, through your committee, to get him put back on the air.

Mr. FAULKNER. Precisely.

Senator CAPEHART. Then you are setting up a committee here to do what you are opposed to having the Government do by law, and what you are opposed to having the FCC do by regulation. You are taking the law into your own hands, in a sense.

Mr. FAULKNER. No.

Senator CAPEHART. In a practical sense?

Mr. FAULKNER. I would hate to see that impression go into the record.

Senator CAPEHART. I mean that you are setting yourselves up to do what you are opposed to having the Government do, or the stations themselves.

Mr. FAULKNER. No; we are setting ourselves up as a fact-finding body, in that sense.

Senator CAPEHART. Who is going to be the judge as to whether your facts are facts?

Mr. FAULKNER. That should be determined at a hearing.
Senator CAPEHART. Before your committee?

Mr. FAULKNER. Before the FCC.

Senator CAPEHART. But you are opposed to the FCC having rules and regulations covering these things, are you not?

Mr. FAULKNER. No; we are not opposed to the FCC acting as an impartial body to hear both sides. If I may say this, we feel we may be wrong, too, at times. But we should be given an opportunity to present our facts before a body which could hear both sides.

Senator CAPEHART. Is that not what we are trying to do in this law, possibly?

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, no. I don't see where that is provided here in these amendments to the law. I may have overlooked it. But is there any provision here that would provide such an opportunity?

Senator CAPEHART. Well, I think there is. Perhaps there should be a provision for getting the facts before someone who has the authority to rule upon them, but, of course, broadcasters are critical of "too much government" now and in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Your contention is that the FCC, by hearing or other means, should arrive at a determination as to whether a particular broadcaster is responsible or irresponsible in the character of broadcasts he sends out. And if the Commission finds that he is irresponsible, the Commission can rule him off the air. Is that right? Mr. FAULKNER. Either that or some other

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if the Commission has authority to rule him off the air, would you not say it should have authority also to rule him on the air and compel the station to carry him? The same man?

Mr. FAULKNER. Yes; if it carries it one way, I think it must carry it the other way.

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that your broadcasts are irresponsible, and not in the public interest, you say that you should be excluded from the air by the Commission?

Mr. FAULKNER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, on the other hand, suppose it finds that your broadcasts are of service to the public? Should it not have the right to order a broadcast station to continue you on the air?

Mr. FAULKNER. Definitely. The air waves belong to the people. The radio broadcasters have a license granted by the FCC.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that not lead you to acknowledging or urging that the authority of the Commission should pass upon every broadcaster as to the quality of his program?

Mr. FAULKNER. The FCC should be in a position to examine the quality of the broadcaster's programs and the contents of these programs.

The CHAIRMAN. And exclude a man?

Mr. FAULKNER. Exclude him, or force him to do certain things, after a hearing, a public hearing, I would say, where all the facts can be