pending. At no time did the newspaper threaten to sue me, the originator of the charges to which they objected. They still have not done so.

Now, I think this case raises a very serious question which involves the Bill of Rights and the right of the people to full information. I think that when a newspaper, a competing medium, if you will, can use threats to stifle commentary on all of the stations of a State on the eve of an election, we have a very serious situation.

The mere threat of suit against a radio station can be used to muzzle the opposition in a political campaign. It does not matter whether the basis for the threatened suit is valid; all that is necessary-with the law as it now stands-is for an antagonist to threaten suit or to file suit, and under the fear of such a suit a broadcasting station may be forced to cut off the opposition because of a very real danger of financial ruin-the damages asked in these complaints, as you know, are always fantastic, and there is no predicting what a jury will award. Or, if it so desires, a station can use the lawsuit or threatened lawsuit as a gilt-edged excuse for being partisan.

Under the present law, the Federal Communications Commission is powerless to intervene. When we appealed to the Commission after the Boise incident, we were told that there was nothing it could do. I am happy to say that most of the radio stations in the State of Idaho were not intimidated by these threats-but they are facing court action for their pains to protect free speech and full discussion. However, some of the station owners were intimidated by the threat of $100,000 damage suits and declined to broadcast the speech.

The speech was broadcast at all only because some station licensees had the guts to defy the most powerful and most wealthy newspaper in the State. For this courage all of these people are now in court. It may be that these suits will result in damage verdicts against them. The State courts have already ruled on the point of law involved. having overruled a demurrer to the complaint and ordered the case to trial.

I think that is an unhealthy situation. I think that I, and I alone. should be responsible for statements I make over radio stations. I do not think stations should be put into the position of having to choose between their own economic life and their duty to present issues fairly.

I think radio has been doing an excellent job in its discussion programs. But I think it will do a much better job if liability for slander and libel and the corollary right of censorship is taken away from station licensees.

I understand that most station licensees support this position, and I understand that the Commission also has shown no opposition to it. I hope, that regardless of what is done with the other provisions of S. 1333, this committee will see fit to report some measure which will take care of this libel problem that I have described to you today. In so doing I think that you will be doing a great deal to encourage free speech and fuller discussion on the air waves.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator TAYLOR. Thank you, gentlemen.

You

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Fulton Lewis, Jr. have a prepared statement, which will be filed with the committee and made a part of the record.

STATEMENT OF FULTON LEWIS, JR., RADIO COMMENTATOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. LEWIS. Perhaps it would be easier for me to read this statement to you. It will only take a few minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Instead of reading it to us, suppose you just casually refer to it and comment on it as you go along. I want to avoid a repetitious record. But you may go ahead in your own way, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. The particular section of this bill to which I wish to refer, Senator, is section 332 (a); that is the section entitled “Identification of Source in News Broadcasts." That is on page 26, sir.

My views and comments are very thoroughly set forth in this prepared statement, and unless the Senator has some additional questions to ask on the subject I think the prepared statement fully covers my sentiments on it.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad to have you give a summarized statement of what is in your prepared statement, or to amplify it.

Mr. LEWIS. In summarization of it I should be very glad to see what I can do, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Because it is very difficult to ask questions, when you have not seen the text.

Mr. LEWIS. That is why I suggested reading it. This section reads: All news items, or the discussion of current events broadcast by any radio broadcast station shall be identified generally as to the source, and all editorial or interpretative comment, if any, concerning such items of events, shall be identified as such, and as to source and responsibility.

Now, the term "identify generally as to source" confuses me. What that means I haven't the slightest idea. Perhaps that means that I, in the course of delivering the news broadcast, and reporting on the doings of Congress, would be required to state the source of every statement that I make. If it means that, it is a wholly unworkable and thwarting and throttling provision.

I suggest to this committee that not only would it be throttling from the standpoint of the news reporter, but it would be paralyzing from the standpoint of radio news in general. It would place radio news on an entirely different standard than newspaper news. Because I doubt that this committee would assume the authority to require the printed word in newspapers to have the same restriction, and require that the source be stated for every bit of news. I think it would be thoroughly unconstitutional, and I doubt the constitutionality of requiring any such provision here.

Suppose, for example, I make a factual statement of news. Suppose I am covering the override of the Presidential veto, and I do a color story describing what goes on. According to the terms of this provision, as I read them, I would have to have some source to which to attribute every factual statement that is made in the course of the description of what goes on.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Mr. Lewis, I do not know enough about the mechanics of radio to know just what this provision would, in fact, do to a speaker over the radio. I do know what we were seeking to do.

We were seeking for identification of the speaker and of the person or persons for whom he spoke. I thought the listening public had a right to know if a speaker was speaking for himself or was speaking in behalf of someone else, and who that someone else was; whether a speaker was paid or not paid; and I thought they were entitled to general information about that speaker which would bring to the listener confidence in what was being said, and would give some authenticity to what is being said.

That is generally what we were aiming at. anywhere near the target, I do not know. be glad to have you tell us.

Whether we have come That is what we would

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I discerned that very meritorious purpose in the provision. I rather read that between the lines of the provision. But in the deepest of respect, if I may say so, I believe that this does not accomplish the end that you wished to achieve. The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, could you, and would you make any suggestions?

Mr. LEWIS. I would be more than delighted.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have them in draft form, if you could find the time to do that.

Mr. LEWIS. I should be delighted to, sir. The objective which the Senator wishes to achieve is one of "integritizing," if you will, if I may coin a word, radio news broadcasts. It is something that not only is not challengable, but is a very meritorious objective and purpose. It is badly needed in some quarters of the radio industry.

I have very specific suggestions to make along that line. But I do not believe that morals or integrity can be legislated, any more than temperance or tolerance can. And I believe that Congress would do well to remember that there are still, and there always will be. men of very high character in the radio industry, and very high patriotism, who, of their own volition want to do right.

What you are worried about, what the committee is properly worried about, is the process of individuals propagandizing over the radio under the guise of radio news; perhaps people being paid by outside sources to propagandize the public; a lack of integrity in the honest and very noble function of informing the people, something which is designed to help the functioning of a republic, a selfgovernment, by helping the people to better decide their destinies and rules themselves.

I do not believe that the treatment of the eruptions of smallpox by putting salve on them is nearly as good a treatment as is the treatment of the smallpox itself internally.

I believe that to attack the problem frontally is the proper method. And with that in mind, there is one bit of explanation that I would like to make. This is premised, Senator, upon the theory that radio news or any news can be objective, that it can be "caponized,” if you will.

There has never been any objective news reporting. There never will be any objective news reporting.

First of all, that is because the mere standards of objectivity are different in different minds. I have my own standards of objectivity. which are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; but other individuals with just as much right to an opinion as I, feel

that those standards are not nearly as important as the standards that support a program of political thinking called the New Deal.

In view of the fact that the standards of objectivity are different, it manifestly is impossible ever to arrive at anything that is actually objective reporting. I can try to be objective. I do. But it is from my standards of objectivity.

Even the local radio announcer, who merely takes United Press copy or INS copy, and selects certain items for five minutes work or 15 minutes work: You would think that he comes as close to objectivity as possible. That is not so. As a matter of fact, the mere selection of this item or that item is in itself editorialization and the expression of opinion.

In view of the impossibility, therefore, of attaining anything that is, as I say, "caponized" news, anything that is actually completely objective news, let us recognize the impossibility of that and try to get an alternative.

The alternative that I suggest is not to try to throttle or restrain but, in the good process of American free speech, to emphasize a principle under which we have operated for many, many years, for 150 years, and which presupposes that if there is free expression on all sides the extremes over here and the extremes over there, and all of the intermediate ground, then, in the long run, the public, hearing everything, is going to come out on top and is going to reach a reasonably accurate and true conclusion.

On that fundamental there is one thing very constructive that could be done. This Congress and past Congresses have very properly declared that the air waves belong to the general public. I agree with that conception completely. That being so, I enjoy the prerogatives, the privileges, the emoluments, the prestige that I enjoy by virtue of the fact that I am allowed to use those air waves for 15 minutes a night. And I enjoy that only insofar as I perform a public service in the informing of the people. That being so, and since I enjoy those privilege, I heartily agree with the concept of this committee that not only my integrity but the integrity of all others who use those air waves should be beyond question.

Now, if the public is well aware of the mill that is my mind, and what it is, and what my sources of income are, what my background is, what my mental processes are, my influences, and know all of that perfectly and thoroughly, the public then is thoroughly able to judge how much prejudice, what slants, I may have in my mind, and they may discount whatever they wish to that extent.

If, for example, sir, I am receiving money from the Russian Government-which I assure you I am not-and I do a given broadcast, it is vastly different than if I were receiving money from the United States Chamber of Commerce, which I am not, and doing the same broadcast.

Therefore, I suggest that this committee require that every person engaged in news broadcasting, whether it be as a commentator, whether it be as a news analyst, if there is any difference, or whether it be the somewhat lesser editorial expression of a news broadcaster, who is not gathering and compiling his own news, be required under oath to keep on file at all times for public inspection, subject to heavy penalty, if you will, sir, for any evasions, for any misstatements,

for any misrepresentations, a complete statement of his own income, every source of his own income, every source of income of every member of his immediate family, every organization or group or society or anything else that he has ever belonged to, the jobs that he has held, a complete open book on his career.

I think that is not too much to ask of individuals who enjoy the position of trust that we enjoy, and who use public facilities.

If there is nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, on the part of the radio commentator in having that known, no one is hurt. If there is something to hide, I suggest that the individual is not a proper person to hold a radio news job. To me it is an open and shut case.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further you would like to say? Mr. LEWIS. That is the essence of my remarks, sir, except for one suggestion; that is to back up the remarks of Senator Taylor. This bill does grant an exemption, of course, from liability for libel, slander, and similar actions, for political speakers. But if you will notice, section 332 (b) deactivates that so far as regular newsbroadcasts are concerned.

I would suggest that the committee include the regular radio news broadcasts as well as political broadcasts, for this reason. When I do a broadcast at 7 o'clock at night, sir, that broadcast is aired simultaneously by some 400 different radio stations. Now, manifestly, it is impossible for any one of those radio stations to have any control whatsoever over what I say. If they rebroadcast it later, that is another matter. But if it goes out "alive," as the saying goes, at the time I broadcast it, there is no possible way in which they can protect themselves against any libelous statement that I make. They are mere cogs in a piece of distributive machinery.

To hold a radio station responsible for any libel that I express by virtue of the fact that they are merely airing the program, is to hold the pressmen responsible in a newspaper for having turned on the power that started the presses going to print a libelous statement in the newspaper. If there were some way in which they had control over the issuance of the statement it would be another matter.

Senator MOORE. Who would be responsible for the libelous statement?

Mr. LEWIS. If there is a libelous statement, I am the person who should stand responsible for it. I do.

Senator MORE. You might not be able to respond.

Mr. LEWIS. The Mutual Broadcasting System, with which I am a contractor, and who supplies this program to them, would be jointly responsible with me. The Mutual Broadcasting System, under our contract, does have the power to read my broadcasts every night for libel in advance.

Senator MOORE. As a matter of fact, none of the stations that are connected up with Mutual Broadcasting System have an opportunity to see in advance what you are going to say.

Mr. LEWIS. Not the slightest opportunity.

Senator MOORE. Of course, that is quite different from political broadcasts, especially if the broadcast is on a local station. There, the originating station is responsible.

Mr. LEWIS. If WPDQ in Jacksonville, Fla., has a local newscaster who, there in the studios, puts together a broadcast and airs that