AT 9:38 A.M.

Morning Session
[Click to view the afternoon session]

Reported by:

                   TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, taken
on the 8th day of June, 1998, commencing at 9:38
a.m., at the Marquette Hotel, 710 Marquette Avenue,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, before Barbara J. Stroia,
notary public.

                   MR. LESLIE MOONVES, Co-Chair,
President and CEO, CBS Television.

                   MR. NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN,
Co-Chair, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise

                   MR. CHARLES BENTON, Chairman and
CEO, Benton Foundation, Public Medica, Inc.

                   MS. PEGGY CHARREN, Visiting
Scholar, Harvard University Graduate School of
Education, Founder, Action for Children's

                   MR. HAROLD C. CRUMP, Vice
President, Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.

                   MR. FRANK H.  CRUZ, Vice
Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

                   MR. ROBERT W. DECHERD, CEO,
Chairman of the Board and President, A.H. Belo

                   MR. BARRY DILLER, Chairman and
CEO, HSN, Inc.

                   MR. WILLIAM F. DUHAMEL, Ph.D.,
President, Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises.

                   MS. KAREN EDWARDS, Designated
Federal Officer, NTIA.

                   MR. ROBERT GLASER, Chairman and
CEO,  RealNetworks, Inc.

                   MR. JAMES FLETCHER GOODMON,
President and CEO, Capitol Broadcasting Company,

                   MR. PAUL A. LA CAMERA, President
and General Manager, WCVB-TV.

                   MR. RICHARD MASUR, President,
Screen Actors Guild.

                   MR. NEWTON N. MINOW, Professor,
Communications Policy and Law, Northwestern
University, Counsel, Sidley & Austin.

                   MR. JOSE LUIS RUIZ, Executive
Director, National Latino Communications Center.

                   MS. SHELBY SCHUCK SCOTT,
President, American Federation of Television and
Radio Artisits.

                   MS. GIGI B. SOHN, Executive
Director, Media Access Project.

                   MS. KAREN PELTZ STRAUSS, Legal
Counsel for Telecommunications Policy, National
Association of the Deaf.

                   MR. CASS R. SUNSTEIN, Karl N.
Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor,
University  of Chicago law School.

                   MS. LOIS JEAN WHITE, President,
National Parent Teacher Association.

                   MR. JAMES YEE, Executive
Director, Independent Television  Service.

                  *  *  *

                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  It is June 8,
    1998.  We are in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  First
    of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Crump for his
    fine hospitality.  Great to be in your fine
    city, and you've done a spectacular job and,
    we're very happy to be here.
         In addition, Rob Glaser in RealNetwork,
    we'd like to thank them for sponsoring this
    broadcast on the NTIA website.
         Frank Blythe will not be here, and Barry
    Diller will be participating via telephone, as
    will Richard Masur and Shelby Scott from
    Geneva, Switzerland.  Are we trying to get in
    touch with them now via the operator?
                   MS. EDWARDS:  Yes, we are.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  So because
    three of the members will be joining us by
    telephone, please identify yourselves so they
    will know who is talking.
         In a moment, Norm is going to talk about
    the process we would like to do, take today in
    terms of an outline that he has drawn up about
    the various issues.  I'd like to thank all the
    members for participating, and there's a lot of
    very good thought put into the process.  I'd

    like to thank Norm for drawing up an outline
    which at least gives us the framework to begin
    our discussions today because I think there
    will be a lot of interesting things to come out
    of it.
         As you know, our next meeting officially
    was scheduled for September.  There is a real
    possibility -- and it depends on what happens
    today and in the next few weeks -- there's a
    real possibility we may have to add a meeting
    in August, so we should leave open that
    possibility.  Once again, that's something that
    we won't be able to determine for a few weeks
    to see how close to a consensus we are.  As I
    said, my guess is we probably will need another
         And Norman, I will turn it over to you,
    your opening remarks.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Thanks very
    much, Les.  I also want to thank Harold, and I
    urge all of you to look out the window and see
    the beautiful lakes that makes this the area
    of -- it's actually more than 11,000 lakes, but
    for public relations purposes, they've said
    10,000 lakes.  I speak as a native of this

    state born in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, the
    birth place of Francis Gump.  People here know
    some others, Judy Garland, of course.  But I
    find whereever I go, people ask me why there is
    a typo on my resume when it should be
    Grand Rapids, Michigan.  So it's good to be in
    a place where they know the reality here.
         As Les suggested, we're going to try to
    work through the major areas that we have
    identified and that you have identified as core
    of what we might recommend here and try to come
    as close as we can to reaching understanding on
    both the broad ones -- some areas we clearly
    already have -- and as many of the specifics as
    we possibly can.  I think the process that
    we'll follow is at the conclusion of this
    meeting, we will canvas all of our members
    again and see where we are.
         The meeting, I suspect, will be just like
    our previous ones in that it will not be simply
    an opportunity for members to exchange views,
    but we will -- we all learn from and change, to
    some degree, our perspectives, and so we may
    have somewhat different ideas, especially on
    some of these specifics.

         And from that, over the course of the few
    weeks that will follow, Les and I will canvass
    you all again, talk amongst ourselves, begin a
    drafting process, we hope, and it's quite
    possible, although nowhere near certain from
    that, that we'll actually be in a position
    where we won't have to have another meeting.
         But at this point, it is also something we
    needed to reserve.  Yes, Bill?
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  How are we going
    to do the drafting process?  I don't understand
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We are in
    the process of -- our staff has been in the
    process for a while of taking bids from
    professional writers who have both been
    experienced in drafting reports of this sort
    for different advisory committees and who are
    knowledgeable in this area, and they are going
    to pick some individual or two.
         It's possible it will be an individual to
    do a lot of the first drafting, and then
    somebody else will work the production through
    because we're on a fairly tight time frame.
         That's all for drafting purposes, and

    obviously, we circulate whatever comes out of
    that among the group we hope several times
    along the way.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Of course I know
    dealing with my lawyers they say the power of
    the first draft is important.  That's why we
    always have our lawyer do the first draft.  Who
    does the draft is important in this.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  There's no
    question about it.  This is, from what I can
    gather, the practice that is normally followed
    with advisory committees.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Which writers are
    we looking at?
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Karen has
    brought a number of writers to our attention.
    And once again, Bill, I think the important
    thing is -- and I don't disagree with you in
    terms of the first draft -- the important thing
    is we will all have ample time to comment in
    great detail to every line in that draft.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We have left
    it up to our staff to go through a professional
    process of picking the writers here.  We're not
    doing it.  So if you're suspicious that either

    Leslie or I are going to try to manipulate this
    process so that we can have our lawyers do it,
    rest assured that this is being handled at a
    different level.  Anyhow --
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  By
    nonmanipulative persons.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Having gone
    through the calendars that we have generally
    pretty much settled on, it appears -- of course
    it's difficult to find any date in the summer
    when we can get the vast bulk of our members
    together -- it appears that August the 5th,
    Wednesday, August the 5th, seems to be the date
    that works for the most members.  It's a
    Wednesday.  I'm sorry that it's a Wednesday.
    We tried to pick something that had the least
    absences, and I'm sorry that it's a Wednesday.
    It's just one of those things that happens.
         By the way, Barry Diller is now joining
    us.  Here's not in Geneva, he's in Los Angeles,
    I think, but welcome, Barry.
         We were saying that we were going to try
    and go through the areas today that we think
    will possibly comprise the core of any report
    recommendations that we'll make, try and come

    as close as we can today to a consensus on the
    larger issues and some of the specifics.
         If we can't, in the weeks that follow,
    begin to pull things together, if there are a
    few areas even where there are serious matters
    of contention among the members, then we're
    going to reserve the date of Wednesday,
    August 5th for another meeting.  So let's -- if
    you can, just simply put that aside and hold it
    on your calendars.
                   MR. RUIZ:  For those of us who
    finance our own -- (inaudible) -- it's a $1,700
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  If it doesn't
    go through a Saturday?
                   MR. RUIZ:  Yeah.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  $1,500 from Kansas
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, we'll
    try to figure out something or work with you as
    best we can.  We've set out in all of our
    meeting to try and pick dates that would
    facilitate weekend travel.  This one we may not
    even have the meeting, but this just seemed to
    be the date that worked the best.

                   MR. DUHAMEL:  What about the
    following Monday?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I'll give
    you a couple of tricks.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Monday the 10th,
    which would allow a Saturday night stay
    Saturday night stay.  There's an alternate date
    listed there of Monday the 10th when Paul La
    Camera --
                   MS. EDWARDS:  I think we were
    trying to keep it as close to the beginning of
    August as possible, I think the thinking there
    that you would need a final meeting.  So the
    thought would be end of July, which is
    absolutely impossible.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  The middle of the
    week is an expensive trip, while a Friday or a
    Monday, you know, allows a Saturday night stay,
    and it literally makes a difference of $1,200,
    you know, between $1,500 and $300.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yeah, it is
    a big difference.  We wanted to make this late
    in July if we could.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  I think the
    five days between the 5th and the 10th.

                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  All right.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Change to the
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  That one
    doesn't work for you, Paul?  Can you phone in?
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I'll be in
    Sicily.  It might be difficult.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, we've
    got two phoning in from Geneva.  I don't know.
    We've set precedent.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  We may need
    some help from Sicily at that point.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let's see if
    we can get that outline.
                   MS. EDWARDS:  Yes, we'll do that
    today, Xerox that.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well,
    let's -- I think we ought to start with the
    Code of Conduct.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Did you pass
    out the outline?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yeah, it's
    being Xeroxed now.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Can I ask one
    question?  I take it that the date of the

    September meeting--
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We're not
    going to set that yet until we see where we
    are.  We'll work that one through.
         We have had a couple of task forces
    working and doing a tremendous amount in the
    last couple of weeks so that we could try and
    take the areas where we clearly seem to have an
    overall agreement, a voluntary Code of Conduct
    and some variation of the education proposal
    that both Gigi and Robert came up with and work
    through some of the details to try and come up
    with as much as we can before this meeting.  So
    maybe we should start and spend as much time as
    we need to, certainly this morning, on those
    two, and perhaps we should start with the Code
    of Conduct.
         You have all seen, I hope, and read the
    draft that Cass Sunstein, who chaired this
    committee and put a tremendous amount of work
    into coming up with hopefully some
    understanding for us of the antitrust issues
    here, and reading, in particular, that letter
    from Sheila Anthony, the head of the antitrust
    division, on why we had controversies over

    antitrust questions in the Code of Conduct.  It
    at least made it clear to me that we shouldn't
    have any difficulties with what we're doing
    here.  That was a very narrow question of
    trying to preclude -- basically trying to raise
    the price of advertising, which I don't think
    we need to worry about, but we can easily come
    up with a rationale there, and with a draft of
    specifics of the code, including how it might
    be monitored and enforced down the road.
         And Cass, maybe you could start with a few
    minutes on what you did and where you are.  And
    we also have now a fairly interesting proposal
    that perhaps Jim Whitman can discuss on the
    table, specifically for minimum level of
    obligations, but let's hear from Cass first.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Yeah, I wanted to
    make sure that the members of the Broadcasting
    Task Force got copies first.  So all of the
    members of that task force have had faxed to
    them what I did.
         The rest of you may or may not have it.
    I'm not sure.
                   MS. SOHN:  We haven't gotten it.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Okay.  Is it

    being copied now, Karen, for everybody?
                   MS. EDWARDS:  Did you want
    everyone to have a copy?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Yeah, let's make
    a copy for everybody.  I wanted to make sure
    that the task force people had a crack at it
    first, but let me just describe it.  It's very
         The first idea is that this idea of codes,
    actually, has a very long history.  What
    surprised me was that the 58 Code was a
    successor to a long series of practices of
    self-regulation in the broadcasting industry
    that were followed until the antitrust
    challenge, so there's a discussion of the
    history here.  So it wouldn't surprise you the
    concerns that have come up since 1923 or so are
    about the same with changing technologies as
    the concerns that we have.
         The antitrust issue is more easily
    remedied and less of a concern than I and I
    think some others had feared.  The lower
    court's opinion, district court opinion,
    involved a narrow segment of the old code; that
    is, that segment that seemed to control

    advertising time in the interest of driving up
    advertising revenue.  So it really wasn't an
    antitrust challenge.  The Justice Department
    didn't bring an antitrust challenge to those
    parts of the old code that tried to protect
    programming content.  It was about restrictions
    on advertising time.  It seemed like a
    traditional form of collusion.  That's what the
    court held.
         There are two lower court opinions, also,
    upholding content controls as against antitrust
    challenge, and there's a Justice Department, an
    official position by the Justice Department in
    1993, suggesting that efforts to regulate
    violence on television through something like a
    code wouldn't create an antitrust problem.
         So the basic idea is that the kind of
    restrictions that we're talking about; that is,
    voluntary restrictions, would probably have
    little adverse effect on competition, they'd
    allow a large room for competition among the
    signatories to the code, and they would
    probably be upheld under the Rule of Reason,
    which the antitrust law applies to regulations
    of this kind.

         There's a lot of technical detail here,
    but I think it would really be boring.  So just
    the bottom line is the antitrust concern isn't
    trivial, but it's not a lot more than trivial.
         There's an important First Amendment
    notation that should be added here, which is
    that if there's a sense that the government is
    mandating this code or imposing it on threat of
    coercion, then the First Amendment kicks in.
    The code, by itself, so long as it's genuinely
    voluntary, raises no First Amendment problem at
    all.  But if there's a sense that we're
    threatening or mandating a code, then there is
    a problem, so this has to be handled very
    delicately as a suggestion, which if adopted,
    would be adopted only voluntarily and without
    any coercion in the background.
         With respect to the content of the code,
    basically what I've done is to take the old NAD
    code to delete the provisions that seem
    unrelated to our concerns, to take away those
    provisions that raise antitrust problems and
    basically to do maybe a tiny bit of tinkering
    and updating with those old provisions of the
    code that seem connected with what our mission

    is about.
         I guess the way to think about this is
    that there's a general principles and rationale
    section which is a very slight amendment of the
    old NAD code.  Then there are substantive
    provisions for which maybe the most important
    to us involve responsibility to our kids and
    covering elections.  Those that have been kept
    tried to steer middle course between the
    vacuous and the unduly specific.
         And then there's a provision on
    enforcement, which is very much like the old
    NAB enforcement provision, but it's put in a
    little more in the way of carrots; that is,
    rewards for good programming and a tiny bit
    more in the way of at least symbolic sticks in
    the form of notification to the FCC of
    egregious or continuing violations,
    notifications which are, by themselves,
    entirely without legal force and effect.
    That's very important, maybe a First Amendment
    problem otherwise.
         I'm not sure what way to organize the
    discussion, but we have provisions here which
    have been based on our previous discussions and

    some informal discussions between me and some
    of you.  But basically, these are, you know, an
    introduction to discussion, and I bet we can do
    a lot better.  They're just my, with
    consultation, minor revisions to the old NAB
    codes with a few editions.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Okay.  I
    think there are, clearly, several areas we need
    to consider, Cass.
         We need to consider the substance of the
    code itself, what we would recommend
    specifically, go into it in each of these
    areas.  We need to consider what follows from
    the code, including reporting requirements of
    public interest activities and how we want to
    frame those, and we've had some discussion of
    that, as well as monitoring the performance and
    highlighting the adherence here.
         And I think with that, especially given
    your admonition about the First Amendment
    considerations, we need to have some discussion
    of how we can keep this a voluntary process
    while making sure that it achieves -- or if not
    making sure, enhancing greatly the chances that
    it will achieve what we want it to achieve,

    which is stations adhering to the code.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Right.  It should
    be voluntary.  Our relationship to the
    broadcasting industry should be one of
    recommendation and nothing else.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  It is fine if the
    broadcasting industry makes the code mandatory
    on its members.  So self-enforcement that has
    strict punishment, so long as it's not
    government mandates, that's fine.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  What if we,
    as an independent body, but which has its
    genesis in the federal government, recommended,
    not only that broadcasters create a code, but
    that it be taken into account in the license
    removal process.
                   MR. CRUMP:  This is what
    occurred, you may recall, in the old code.
    This is exactly how it was handled.  It was
    strictly a voluntary basis on the part of the
    broadcaster, but there was a little section in
    the old license renewal form where you had to
    indicate whether or not you were a code
    member.  And if you were not, it simply opened

    the door for perhaps further investigation, and
    usually did, on the part of the FCC at license
    renewal time.  So you had an implied situation
    there that I think this is good.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I'll give
    you my own.  This is a personal preference.
    What I would like to see happen down the road
    is that if you end up with stations that fall
    way below any of the minimum standards that we
    set that, in effect, you turn around the
    license renewal process.  The burden goes to
    the broadcaster to show why he has not come
    anywhere close to this, and in a way,
    strengthening what became the practice of the
    FCC under Chairman Wiley when stations were not
    performing their public interest obligations,
    the license renewal got racheted up to the
    level of the commissioners themselves.
                   MR. CRUMP:  Well, I would remind
    you again that under the old code, the way it
    was enforced, the code itself had it's own
    enforcement wing, and they pushed this and they
    did mean it.  They did put clamps on the guy.
    It was not a government regulatory portion at

                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Right.
    Well, we don't want to make it that.  Clearly,
    the other area we need to discuss is what kind
    of enforcement wing would emerge in the
    industry itself.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Peggy Charren.
    There's some aspects of the codes that are very
    easily enforced, especially if they tend to be
    taught the numerical way of thinking about
    content, some percent of, or you must do this
    when it's very specific, just the way the
    advertising limits in the Children's Television
    Act are carefully enforced by the FCC and
    stations are getting fined for going over those
    limits.  That's an easy thing to count.
         When it comes to defining for the FCC to
    talk about the educational programmings,
    they're going to find that very tough if they
    try to do it, and that's always a part of the
    problem of that law because that's, you know,
    that's one person's opinion versus somebody
         There are aspects of the old code, like
    the description of how to serve children, that
    were never paid any attention to.  They

    actually sounded like I wrote them, and if they
    were happening during the 30 years that I was
    in business, I never would have started to
    act.  It was a very nice description of what
    the public interest obligation to children
    was.  I'm looking at Paul La Camera who
    understood them and started the life of that
    station when it was taken over by -- what was
    it called?
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  Boston
                   MS. CHARREN:  Boston
    Broadcasting with a daily children's program.
    So there are some broadcasters who do pay
    attention to even the soft and fuzzy language.
         But when they don't, I suggest that it's
    going to be impossible even for the industry to
    say they're not doing it, and that we shouldn't
    think that that part of the code, which is
    different from some discussion of free time
    maybe, which is easy to see if they're doing
    that or not doing that, that came into the
         That will never work, and just as a
    commission, we should understand that it will

    never work to be enforced.  I don't mean it's
    illegal, but we'll never be able to enforce it,
    so that we shouldn't have that as the way we
    think that that programming is going to
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We also have
    to consider what our alternatives realistically
    are, and I think, frankly, there are always
    going to be areas of subjectivity where form
    location alone won't work.
         What one has to hope in that process is if
    you can have a disclosure of what stations are
    doing and you have a process where outside
    groups and others bring public attention to
    what they feel are the failings here.
                   MS. CHARREN:  And that's what
    happened with children, but I'm just saying 30
    years later it still isn't fixed.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Sure, but we
    don't have a better way to do it.
                   MS. CHARREN:  We shouldn't get
    too optimistic about what it's going to mean
    for public interest in the question.
                   MR. BENTON:  Charles Benton.
    Just to question your having raised the issue

    from your 30 years' experience what should be,
    what should we do because, clearly, to have, as
    Cass said, the big question is the vacuous
    issue specifically -- I thought that was a
    great point.  If the old description of
    children's programming falls into the category
    of vacuous --
                   MS. CHARREN:  I don't mean the
    description is vacuous.  I mean the enforcement
    has to be vacuous.  That's different.  Even the
    description wasn't bad in the original
                   MR. BENTON:  What should be done
    about that?
                   MS. CHARREN:  What should be
    done?  My solution had nothing to do with the
    code, and therefore, I would rather discuss
    those at other parts as we go into the report.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It is
    important to emphasize that this is not the
    only recommendation we're going to make here,
    obviously.  It interacts with the others.  Some
    of what you're talking about may be dealt with
    with minimum standards, too.  And Goodmon has a

                   MR. GOODMON:  Just for
    information, how many stations are in the NAB?
    How many are in the NAB?  That's for
    information purposes.  I mean, there could
    be -- not everybody is going to subscribe to
    the code.  We're not suggesting everybody has
    to subscribe to the code.
         Minimum standards, from my point of view,
    is outside of the code, so that there's a
    minimum standard for everybody.  And then the
    next level is in the voluntary NAB code, and
    rather than having minimum standards in the
    code as a voluntary basis.  Maybe I'm just
    missing the --
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  No, if --
                   MR. GOODMON:  But how many
    stations are in the NAB, is my question?  I
    don't know that.  Jack is --
                   MR. JACK GOODMAN:  About 1,100
    television stations.
                   MR. GOODMON:  Out of how many
                   MR. JACK GOODMAN:  1,500 full
    power stations.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  So 1,100 out

    of 1,500.  So what you're talking about, Jim,
    is a set of minimum standards that would apply
    to all 1,500, every broadcaster, every
    full-power broadcaster.
                   MR. MINOW:  Newt Minow.  Jim's
    point is a very good one.  The best
    broadcasters belong to the NAB.  The worst
    broadcasters do not belong to the NAB, and
    you're very often preaching to the choir.
         Now, I know Cass has said that it would
    not be proper to require membership in the
    NAB.  However, I would point out under the
    Securities Act, every broker/dealer must belong
    to the National Association of Broker/Dealers
    which is able to discipline broker/dealers for
    violating its code.  I don't know why that
    isn't relevant -- or a relevant precedent here.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I didn't mean to
    take a position on that.
                   MR. MINOW:  I recognize the
    problem.  I favor mandatory membership in the
                   MS. SOHN:  Is that a possible
    thing to do?  I mean, can you make membership

                   MR. MINOW:  Congress would have
    to pass a law.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Versus who would
    the "you" be.  If the "you" would have to be
    Congress, it would appear, and then the
    question would be, would there be a First
    Amendment problem if Congress required all
    stations to be in the NAB with the knowledge
    and hope that participation required adherence
    to a code which had substantive control.
                   MR. MINOW:  My argument, Gigi,
    is I don't think broadcasters are less
    important than broker/dealers, and I think if
    Congress looked at it, they'd see is.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  It may be a First
    Amendment.  Broker/dealers don't have a First
                   MR. MINOW:  If the NAB created
    its own standards.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Peggy Charren.  I
    think I understand what you're saying, and I
    used to take that position about advertising to
    children; that it should be like a disclosure
    when you put a stock up for sale instead of
    what we do.

         But I think that in the court of public
    opinion, it's better to have the broadcasters
    not belong and sort of take the people who do
    that kind of thing can take them apart for
    being part of the -- you know, there's the 400,
    the Society 400.  We can have the Broadcaster
    400 who put it to the industry.  It's sort of a
    nice way of separating the wheat from the chap
         And given that I don't think the code is
    going to be a very significant way to get
    public interest anyway, I don't really mind
    that the broadcasters don't belong.  How does a
    station that just does home shopping manage to
    get to be part of some wonderful series of
    things that we should do in the public
    interest?  You're changing the whole way
    broadcasting functions today by doing that.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Of course,
    one of the things, we're going to, no doubt
    later on, have an animated discussion on the
    pay or play issues.  I mean, partly my support
    for provision of that sort is because it seems
    to me that stations that do shopping or
    religious programming, that we'd be much better

    off, instead of requiring them to put on the
    kind of programming for which they are
    ill-suited, to have them pay in lieu of those
    things and put the money into better
    broadcasting, although we have a wide range of
    views here.
         Let me just focus our discussion.  We can
    have a very interesting discussion about
    mandatory membership, and I don't know what the
    NAB's position on this would be either, but we
    don't need to get into that at the moment.  All
    those revenues against a government mandate, an
    interesting balance to strike, but let's not
    discuss that now.
         And since Jim has put a proposal on the
    table for us, which most of us haven't read yet
    about minimum standards, but this is outside of
    the code.  Well, at one level we might want to
    consider that first.  I think it is appropriate
    to consider it later and give us a chance to
    read it, perhaps, and discuss it after lunch.
    Obviously, if we agreed on the set of minimum
    standards that either fit these specifics or
    came close to it, then it does change the
    dynamic here in terms of the code itself as

    well, and so that's something that we need to
    come back to.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  This is
    getting away from the volunteerism, this
    minimum code, is that what you're saying?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, what
    Jim Goodmon, I think, has thrown on the table
    is a set of minimum standards that would not be
    incorporated into the code, but rather be a
    separate entity so that it brings in all
    broadcasters, including those who are not
    members of the NAB and who, therefore, don't
    adhere to the code.
                   MR. BENTON:  One factual
    clarification.  Charles Benton here.  There are
    1,541 broadcasters, as I understand it, of
    which about 350 are public broadcasters.  That
    leaves approximately 1,200 commercial
    broadcasters.  I'm wondering, of the 1,100, are
    these mostly commercial broadcasters?  Is the
    preponderance of absence among the public
    broadcasters?  What are the facts here, Jack?
                   MR. JACK GOODMAN:  I don't have
    that number at hand, but the large number,
    there are a large number of public

    noncommercial stations in membership, but the
    percentage of membership among noncommercial
    stations is lower than it is among commercial
    stations.  I don't have the numbers at hand.
                   MS. SOHN:  I'd like to get the
                   MR. BENTON:  Yeah, let's get the
    numbers.  We need the facts here.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let's then,
    for now, separate out the issue of minimum
    standards for what I suspect will be a vigorous
    discussion later on, although we should note
    for the record that this interesting proposal
    has come from the president of Capitol
    Broadcasting, and talk about the code itself.
         And maybe, Cass, we could just go through
    not every specific, but the sort of bullet
    points in these areas that we've raised and
    then have some discussion.  Let's go through
    each of them seriatim and then maybe talk about
    a self-enforcement mechanism after that.
                   MS. SOHN:  We still don't have
    Cass' thing.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It's a
    little slow to get them produced on the

                   MS. SOHN:  Can I just ask a
    question really quick while this is getting
         On the antitrust thing -- and I don't know
    why I didn't read this, I thought I've read
    every piece of paper I've been sent in the last
    month, but I guess not.  Tell me a little bit
    more about the antitrust concerns.  You said
    they're not huge, but there are still -- you
    still have some antitrust concerns.  Can you
    tell me what they are?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Well, you could
    imagine a lawsuit brought by a disappointed
    producer who wanted to get programming which
    would violate the code.  They'd have to show an
    antitrust injury.  It's not at all clear that
    they could show that.  They'd have to show
    their inability to get on television is a
    product of the code.  Extremely speculative.
    Possible they could show an antitrust injury,
    and what they'd claim then is that this
    caramelizes the industry in such a way as to
    prevent certain programming from getting on the

         And then the question would be is this
    Cartel, subject to -- this is going to be
    really boring, so I apologize.  Is it subject
    to a per se rule of invalidity which the
    antitrust law applies to price fixing.  That
    would be a shock.  That would be like a meteor
    hitting the earth tomorrow.  It's very
         And if they show an antitrust injury, the
    question is whether this fails under the Rule
    of Reason, and the first question would be
    whether this actually decreases competition
    rather than increases it, and it's not --
    that's not clear.  It might increase
    competition by putting on shows that wouldn't
    otherwise be on shows, increasing viewer
    choice, and there would be internal competition
    among signatories to the code in different
    areas.  So it's not at all clear that this
    isn't pro competitive.
         If you can show that this has anti-
    competitive effects, the question is whether it
    can be justified by social welfare
    consequences, which may be such things as
    producing more programming for kids, serving

    educational goals for adults as well, serving
    political process codes by entering more
    informed electorates, so forth.
         Those sorts of things the court has shown
    some hospitality to in cases involving what
    Newt is describing; that is, efforts by
    professional associations to engage in self-
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We don't
    need to get into anymore detail.
                   MS. SOHN:  I just have one
    thought, if I could just ask about.  Perhaps
    one thing to do -- and this is not a cure-all
    yet.  I've enjoyed this, but probably only one
    of the people that has.
         But perhaps it's not a complete code.
    Perhaps one of the things that could be done is
    maybe one of the networks and some others, some
    other broadcasters, could kind of like, if this
    code develops, say, you know, we believe this
    is legal, certified this is legal.  That,
    obviously, wouldn't stop anybody from
    eventually bringing an antitrust suit, but the
    point is to try to get as many people to say,
    yeah, this is kosher, this is legal and perhaps

    sort of serve as a beacon that this code is
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I'm going to do
    some more work on this, and I have talked to a
    bunch of antitrust specialists, and not one
    think this raises serious antitrust problems so
         If it, otherwise, does raise an antitrust
    problem, the fact that the signatories
    certificate that it's legal won't help.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  One question that
    I have on this, in Sheila Anthony's letter, she
    says, "The conditions of the exemption --" this
    is the antitrust exemption "-- that any
    guidelines be truly voluntary and the
    collective activity not result in the boycott
    of any person."
         Wouldn't that raise the, you know, the
    satisfied producer who didn't -- wouldn't he be
    just almost --
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  It wouldn't be a
    boycott victim.  If someone is excluded because
    there's an agreement, there's a difference
    because someone is excluded because there's an
    agreement that you can't have, let's say,

    really violent programming on and a boycott of
    a particular person.
         The reference is to if there's a boycott
    of a particular producer or some such, then you
    have a hard time, but if you have people that
    don't get on because of the agreement, that's a
    different --
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  I was worried
    about that collective activity because this is
    essentially what a code is, it's a collective
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  She's referring
    to something very specific, that is a boycott,
    and the exclusion, the de facto exclusion that
    might result from this -- this is very
    speculative -- wouldn't be what she's talking
         Basically, what this letter says is that
    Senator Simon's exemption from the antitrust
    laws was entirely unnecessary, that if there
    was an agreement on guidelines, that agreement,
    by itself, would raise no antitrust problem.
         Now, that's the Justice Department
    position.  That's very important because the
    other case was brought by the Justice

    Department.  That's one reason the court took
    it very seriously.  The Justice Department has
    a very strong position here.
         There's only one sentence that I think is
    any concern at all in that letter, and that's
    the sentence that says there's a difference
    between agreements on a code and an effort to
    enforce its provisions.  The enforcement
    action, she leaves a little bit of an opening
    there, and that's the sentence maybe that is
    worth underlining.  But I really think this is
    not worth worrying about very much, the
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yeah, we
    don't want to take anymore time on getting into
    the specifics of antitrust other than to make
    it clear that the reasons that caused the
    original code to be withdrawn, we should be
    able to deal with, handle it here, and we do
    have some questions about enforcement that
    we're going to have to be sensitive to, and we
    discussed that.
                   MR. GOODMON:  I think we should
    mention at least twice in the last few months,
    Congress has suggested that if the industry

    will adopt a voluntary code, they, Congress,
    will help us with the antitrust and have
    suggested we do it.  We might have problems,
    but I think we also can get some help.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We needed to
    be sensitive to this, and we need to in the
    presentation of our recommendations, but I
    don't think we need to spend a lot of our
    precious time on this.
                   MR. BENTON:  Norm, as a final
    point of clarification, as I understand it, the
    antitrust really applied entirely to the
    advertising part of the code and not to the
    programming part of the code.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
                   MR. BENTON:  The program part,
    that's not -- and this is not an issue, the
    antitrust, as I understand it.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We want to
    be sure that we don't raise red flags.  We also
    want to be sure that we cover our bases, and we
    will do that.
         Well, what we have here and what Cass has
    done, and I hope will be delivered to you all
    momentarily, we have a set of -- let me just go

    over these quickly and you can supplement -- a
    set of general principles and a rationale for a
    code, most of which was taken from the original
    code, basically the broadcasters of public
    trustees, that there are some obligations that
    have been imposed on broadcasters, but that the
    government has generally restrained itself from
    going further because of a belief that
    broadcasters are doing themselves, voluntarily,
    what should be done, that most broadcasters do
    take their obligations seriously going beyond
    the requirements of law, and they do offer
    public service announcements, provide
    educational programming for children, offer
    community services, cover substantive issues in
    a serious way, avoid exploitation,
    sensationalism and attend to important issues,
    public debates and elections, and the purpose
    of the code is to reflect an explicit and
    voluntary commitment to certain basic
    principles, to ensure that broadcasters
    generally act as public trustees and are not
    penalized in the marketplace for doing so, and
    it explains why we need a code.
         Then we move on to some of the substantive

                   MS. STRAUSS:  Norm, I think that
    she has the copies.  It would be helpful to
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Can I just ask a
    quick question while they're being passed out?
         I'm a little confused about the
    relationship between the codes and the public
    interest obligations that we arrive at, and
    here's the source of my confusion.
         It seems to me that the code is going to
    be above and beyond the obligations that we
    determined, and therefore, it would seem to
    make sense to determine those obligations
         I understand that you just want to go over
    the code, but it doesn't make much sense, it
    seems to me, to determine what the code is
    since that's a voluntary effort because I know
    that, for one, I'm not sure what I want to
    agree on within the code, and I don't want to
    say it has to be in the code if it's already in
    the obligations, but I do have to worry about
    it at least getting into the code if it's not

    in the obligations.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, we
    don't have to agree on every -- we're not going
    to vote on line items in a code, Karen.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  No, I understand.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I would
    argue, even if it's an obligation, an
    obligation can be given and taken away, and
    whether it's an obligation or not doesn't mean
    it's redundant to have it in a voluntary Code
    of Conduct.
         But for our purposes of discussion here,
    since this is an area, if we start to discuss
    the areas where we have disagreements or
    potentially deep disagreements and leave for
    the end getting to the specifics of the areas
    where we have some agreement, we will probably
    never get to those.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I was hoping to
    discuss the areas where we had agreement first
    within the obligations.  Is that--
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I'll tell
    you what.  If you have questions about the code
    that you want to raise after we've discussed
    those, then we will come back to them, but I

    think we can safely go through most of the
    general principles here and see where we
    highlight disagreements.
         And if you would turn, basically, I think
    to page -- page 12 had the general principles.
    The first 10 pages of this are a very nice
    discussion of the antitrust issues.  11 gives
    the overall code provisions, and then 12 was
    that first discussion.  I'm looking at the --
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Oh, got it.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Look at the
    top, the faxed pages.  So turn to page 13 of
    the 20 or page 12 at the bottom of your page,
    and that's the first substantive discussion.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Page 12 at the
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Most people are
    looking at page 12 at the bottom.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  12 at the
    bottom.  So what we had a couple of pages
    earlier was the outline on page 7 at the
    bottom, the general principles and rationale,
    which I think we've basically covered.  It's
    more or less what was there before, and I think
    it's largely boilerplate, and we can talk about

    responsibilities towards children.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  This is very much
    like the old provision.  Maybe number 4 is the
    one we might focus on, which is about
    educational programming for kids, including a
    minimum of or a reasonable number of hours of.
    The rest is, I think, entirely vacuous because
    you can imagine what an egregious violation
    would look like.
                   MS. CHARREN:  For all the help
    that is.  Peggy Charren.  I always was able to
    imagine what an egregious violation would look
    like.  For example, I think it's egregious to
    promote violent programming in programming that
    you want children to watch, like sports
    programming, so that the minute or half minute
    of violent content of a program that isn't as
    violent as that promo because, after all,
    that's contexted in the movie but there isn't
    in the promo.  It would be nice if it that
    didn't show up in sports programming.
         I could talk myself blue in the face for
    100 years and I couldn't do anything about
    that.  So that my only concern is that, as a
    body, we don't look at this and say, we have

    dealt with the need to take care of children on
    television.  I think it's perfectly reasonable
    to have this in the code.  I used to use it in
    testimony in Washington.  I would read what the
    industry said about what it should be doing,
    and I'd read it, and then I would take it
    apart.  I'd make fun of it.  I would say, if
    they did it.  It's sort of an excuse for people
    like me to have something to talk about it.
         But let's understand that this doesn't
    then qualify as this committee's way of dealing
    with the needs to serve children.  It does not
    bother me that this would be in a
    recommendation for broadcasters anymore than it
    bothered me that it was there.  It only
    bothered me when the NAB used it to prove that
    they were taking care of kids.
                   MR. RUIZ:  Peggy, what is the
    age group when you say children?
                   MS. CHARREN:  The industry has
    made it 2 to 17 by working on the legislation,
    to deal with 2 to 17.  My feeling was it sort
    of stopped at 15 because if you call any
    16-year-old a child, they'd have a nervous

         On the other hand, I am willing to go to
    17, which NBC says it is serving.  It would be
    nice if they did some election-related
    programming so kids might vote when they got to
    be 18, but I don't mind that.  That's the
         For advertising purposes in the law, it's
    2 to 12.  There's two different numbers.  They
    can't decide which children are in that law,
    but that's the way it is.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I think I didn't
    articulate myself well enough before, but this
    is exactly what I was getting at.
         What Peggy, I think, is saying is that
    there are principles in here that we can all
    live with, but the question is, is this going
    to be the be-all and end-all of what we
    require, and that's why I think it's fine to go
    through it now, but I think that the only way
    that we can agree on what's in the paper is to
    first agree on what are the obligations that we
    want to require.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I think you
    can discuss the principles that we can all
    agree on and recognize that, for most of the

    members, a code may be a necessary but not
    sufficient recommendation to make.  We're not
    suggesting this is the only thing that we're
    doing, so --
                   MS. CHARREN:  These are very
    content-sensitive rules as they're put here.  I
    mean, violent programming, you know, a civil
    rights drama is violent, and we hope that
    they're not going to do in a civil rights drama
    in the interest of children, especially if it's
    a children's program, which can also be violent
    if it's a good children's program.
         But there's nothing in here about
    advertising, and one of the major programming
    problems of programming for children is in the
    content of the advertising, and we could
    discuss at some point in this endeavor whether
    we can talk about the content of the
    advertising in terms of where it appears, when
    it appears.
         And I would ask Cass, would that get us in
    too close to a constitutional problem without
    making the rule of you can't do it, just
    suggest?  After all, this is a suggestion.
    Maybe we can suggest that you don't promote

    their worst programs directly to children.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  No constitutional
    problem but a possible antitrust problem.  But
    we shouldn't be terrified of the word possible
    antitrust problem from my -- if you think about
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We can also
    recognize that, basically, we're not -- any
    voluntary code is going to be put together by
    the broadcasters.  All we can do is recommend
    language, and the greater the unanimity we have
    or consensus we have in our committee,
    presumably more impact it has, but we have to
    start with that premise, that nobody is going
    to take this and adopt it in toto.
                   MS. CHARREN:  For example, when
    it says three hours, which is what's in the law
    now, it also has limits on advertising in the
    law, which are very high, but you might want to
    put them in again because the FCC is already
    finding stations that go over it.  That can't
    really be a problem.
                   MS. SOHN:  You can make a broad
    statement about how children can't really
    express themselves in the marketplace and

    broadcasters should be careful not to, you
    know, over --
                   MS. CHARREN:  We do that for
                   MS. SOHN:  The other thing that
    I saw was missing, also, was we were talking
    about different ages.  There isn't anything
    about serving children of different ages.  I
    mean, I just skimmed it.  Did I miss
         Because if all your shows are directed
    towards kids between the age of 4 and 7, then
    what about everybody else?  You might want to
    put some language in there about certain
    different age settings.
                   MR. RUIZ:  I would answer that,
    you know, some of the demographics.  You may
    have areas where they're largely a Native
    American population, and the programming --
                   MS. CHARREN:  Could you talk a
    little louder?
                   MR. RUIZ:  You may have areas of
    large Native American, Asian, Latino
    populations, yet the program is not reflective
    of that society.  Are they seeing themselves?

    Are they seeing their world in the
    programming?  There's no mention of that.
                   MS. CHARREN:  That diversity
    covers a lot of various public interest
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Any other
    suggestions in this part?  I think maybe what
    we can do here is go over that and subsequently
    we can embellish or change.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  This is helpful.
    There are three new provisions we can think
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Maybe
    briefly discuss -- let's move on to the next
    one, public elections.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Yeah, what this
    tried to do is a couple of things.  One is
    emphasize the role of television in promoting
    democraticals, another is stressing the value
    of coverage of federal, state and local
    elections, as well as initiatives and
    referendums, and a third is to have some
    language about the value of having covered the
    substantive oriented issues rather than sound
    byte issues and horse race issues.  I'm

    thinking of the Belmont stakes, tragic loss.
         And the last -- the last is to say
    something, and this is Section 5, about the
    need for candidate-centered discourse, not
    defined, in the evenings.
         Now, this may be too specific.  It would
    be interesting to get people's reactions to all
    of this.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I have a question.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yes, Karen.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I had a question
    about Number 4.  You say that the station would
    focus on races and candidates the station
    believes is important and deserving of
    attention by its viewers.
         Can you give anymore thoughts about how
    the station would determine that and whether
    you could add something about making such
    determinations based on ascertainment of
    community needs for information in certain
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  You're going to
    overwhelm the station in detail.  The stations
    know -- the news people know where the interest
    is.  In other words, there's occasions we've

    had debates on attorney general candidates.
    Typically we don't, but when you have an
    important attorney general's race and it looks
    like there's interest in it, we will cover it.
    Otherwise, some of those are just routine, and
    nothing happens.
         You can't get into -- if you really want
    to run surveys, the general public, the general
    public does not understand -- not understand --
    the general public does not want -- I've never
    seen anything.  They vote by viewing, and I've
    never seen anything that says they want to have
    half hours of discourse with candidates.  I
    think a station that ran half hours, the public
    would vote by leaving.  They would go alternate
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I'd be interested
    in hearing some other views on this, whether
    you feel -- I mean, this is not my particular
    area of expertise.  This jumped out at me, that
    the station decides.  So other people around
    the table that have had more background in
    this, I'd be curious to know your views.
                   MS. SOHN:  This is Gigi. I'm not
    trouble by --

                   MS. SCOTT:  Hello?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Shelby?
                   MS. SCOTT:  Yeah, I can barely
    hear anything.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Because
    you're too far away, Shelby.
                   MS. SOHN:  We can hear you,
                   MS. SCOTT:  Well, that's great,
    but I can't hear a thing.  I hear mumbling like
    in the background.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, we'll
    try and speak up and speak right into the
                   MS. SCOTT:  Thank you.
                   MS. SOHN:  Shelby, this is
         I'm not that troubled by allowing
    broadcasters to use their discretion on what
    races are important.  What I am troubled by are
    sort of absolute blanket bans on either
    covering or even selling time to candidates.
         Now, we've seen this, I think -- did you,
    Charles, attach an article to your issues and
    consensus memorandum about how basically some

    of the California stations are absolutely
    refusing to sell time to down-ticket
    candidates?  That's something of great
         So reasonable -- the point I was going to
    make, Cass, is that reasonable access has to
    mean that you just can't -- the law says, this
    is CBS versus FCC certainly says this, but you
    can't have blanket policies refusing to even
    sell time.  I think broadcasters should have a
    firm obligation to cover these races.  You
    can't just say we're only going to cover the
    governor's race, and that's what's been going
    on in California.
         But generally, Karen, I'm comfortable, you
    know, within the grander scheme of ensuring
    that, you know, local and important local races
    are covered.  Why should a broadcaster have to
    cover the race for the dogcatcher where the guy
    is going unopposed or he's going up against a
    crank candidate.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, I
    guess the question there, Gigi, would be
    whether that sixth provision, which is the
    station should provide reasonable access, is

    enough to cover those concerns.  The term
    reasonable access is, in fact, one that comes
    out of the law, is it not?
                   MS. SOHN:  Yeah, and in fact,
    the way the law has been interpreted, it's been
    interpreted -- again, CBS versus FCC -- that a
    broadcaster cannot make a blanket policy of
    refusing to sell.  Remember, reasonable access
    under 312 (A)(7) is only for federal
    candidates, not for state.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  The use of
    the term reasonable access here ought to
    take that into account, I would think.
                   MS. SOHN:  I'd make it more
    specific.  I would say this means that
    broadcasters cannot have a right to refuse --
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  That's
    different.  Are you mandating what item -- this
    is Paul La Camera -- mandate that television
    stations provide access to local and state
    candidates, news access?
                   MS. SCOTT:  I hate to interrupt,
    but am I still hooked in?
                   MS. STRAUSS:  You're hooked in.
                   MS. SCOTT:  You cut out

    completely.  I'm hearing static.
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  Right now we're
    obligated, obviously, with federal candidates
    but we'll have a similar obligation with local
    and state candidates.
                   MS. SOHN:  Yeah, that's what 6
    says, that stations should provide reasonable
    access to candidates of state and local
    offices, as well as to federal candidates, and
    I'm all for that, but --
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I'm sorry, Gigi,
    are you talking about news public peer
    coverage, or are you talking about access in
    terms of purchasing commercial time?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
                   MS. SOHN:  Well, you have to ask
    Cass.  He wrote it.  I'm assuming that he means
    in terms of selling time.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I wrote it, and I
    have no idea what it means.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I think the
    reference here is, in the context of what's
    here, is selling time, and that is a response
    to what has become a practice that's occurred
    in a number of areas.

                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I know it
    happened in the Washington, D.C. market.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Not only the
    Washington, D.C. market, but it happened some
    in California, and that is, as Gigi said, it's
    not just a selective refusal; we don't have the
    time, but we will accept no time even for those
    who have cash in hand for these races.  And, of
    course, in California, that also included no
    news coverage of the races either.
         So I think, you know, this is an attempt
    through a code to get at the need for some
    sensitivity to --
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  One question is
    should we clarify it to say that, and another
    question is so clarify that people like it.  I
    consider myself agnostic right now, but --
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I'm fine on the
    issue of the commercial time.  I mean, I'm
    always uncomfortable when we start dictating
    journalistic policy.
                   MR. CRUZ:  That was covering
                   MR. GLASER:  That's what I was
    saying to Karen.  I'm fine with the broadcaster

    choosing what important races to cover.  What
    I'm not fine with is a blanket policy that we
    will not sell time to candidates.  That's
    what's been going on.
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I have no
    problem with that.  Just in item 5, just for
    the sake of reality, 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
    11:30 p.m..  Make that 11:35 p.m., which is the
    reality of late night local news.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  In the mountains,
    a lot of times our prime local newscasts is
    5:30, and we have a higher proportion of adults
    watching the 5:30 than we do --
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  5 o'clock p.m.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Should it be 5:00
    to 11:30?
                   MR. CRUZ:  California starts in
    at 4:00 in the newscasts.  If you want to
    blanket the country, let's go with that.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  If you want
    the evening hours here, 5:00 is okay.  Charles,
    Charles Benton?
                   MR. BENTON:  Charles Benton.
    Cass, I'm just as the original.  The old NAB
    code broke itself into program standards and

    advertising standards.  It seems to me that,
    especially in this elections area, you might --
    there might be some refinement in not just
    lumping everything in together, but of thinking
    about it in terms of program standards and
    advertising standards.
         Clearly, in the program area, the notion
    of diverse views and conflict is the -- and
    avoiding propaganda or avoiding unbalanced
    coverage of competing candidates is kind of a
    part of it.
         And in terms of the advertising time,
    there's -- there were a lot of comments in our
    various papers about no less than one minute of
    spots are given and no less than one minute,
    and the candidate has got to appear 75 percent
    of the time, issues like that.
         I'm not -- I'm not enough of an expert to
    dictate precisely what those things ought to
    be, but the general point has been to try to
    move away from the manipulation of advertising,
    especially as done by outside forces and having
    the candidate be more directly -- if free time
    is to be given and all that free time were
    given --

                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  We're not
    dealing with free time here.
                   MR. BENTON:  All right.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  And may I add
    that I think this is a very good document.  The
    more we get bogged down with tiny specifics,
    the harder it will be to draft something that
    we will get a consensus on.
         I think there are a lot of very good
    points in here, and I know I may feel
    differently than some of you, but the
    generalism of it is a very positive thing.
                   MR. BENTON:  I hear you, but I
    think still thinking it through, both from the
    standpoint of programming standards and the
    commercial standards would be very good.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Some of that
    is in the next section as well, which we can
    turn to with news and public events, which also
    has relevance for elections.
         How much of this, Cass, was in the --
    basically in the original?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Most of this was
    in the original.  I think the third sentence
    under 2, I think the word "gossip" I added.

                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, that
    would really test whether there's any meaning
    to a code.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  It should be
                   MS. CHARREN:  Might do in the
    news altogether.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Actually, if
    we took all the gossip out, we'd leave enough
    time in the newscast for whatever free time we
    wanted to provide for candidates.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  How about the
    stories of crime or sex, or take out crime, sex
    and gossip.  We would have had a hard time
    covering the government the last few months,
    wouldn't we, if you adhere to that.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It's mostly
    gossip about government.
                   MS. CHARREN:  A lot of blank
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Maybe we
    should take a minute to just read this, but
    most of it is, I think as Cass suggested, was
    in the original.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I added 9.  9 is

    the only one I added, and the word gossip.
                   MR. BENTON:  Is there an 8?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Yes, but it's
                   MS. CHARREN:  There's something
    about saying undo the simple versus complex
    issues.  Something I feel I need a lot of the
    time is for a very simple discussion of a
    complex issue so that I can manage to
    understand it, and I think that this could be
    misconstrued somehow.  I mean, I know what it
    means, but --
                   MR. CRUMP:  I have to agree with
    you because, to me, the purpose of a newscast
    is to explain to the general public what's
    going on when they're getting all the
    gobbledygook that are being putting out, many
    times, by the constituents themselves.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I think this can
    be misconstrued.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  What would be
                   MS. CHARREN:  I don't know.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Maybe we could
    just delete the first phrase, "The station

    should make an effort to devote sufficient time
    to produce --"
                   MS. SOHN:  That's a good idea,
                   MS. CHARREN:  That says it,
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  I think you're
    right, sure.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let's move
    on to community responsibility then, and we
    could move through some of the substantive
    stuff here really quickly and then turn to what
    is a more contentious, I suspect, or at least a
    more difficult question, and that is the
    question of how you revise and enforce.  Maybe
    the responsibility was also largely taken from
    the previous code.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I like this.  Is
    this new?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  A lot of it's
    new.  It's from one of our colleagues.
                   MS. CHARREN:  That's nice.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yeah, Jim?
                   MR. YEE:  Jim Yee.  Luis brought
    it up again, but also, since this code, should

    we also reflect the changes of the community in
    the issue of how do you address the fact about
    issue of diversity and makeup?  I know it's
    sort of a static term these days.  I'm just
    wondering how can we reflect the changes?  I'm
    looking to you, Cass, for that.
         And also, there was discussion last time,
    predominantly about the PSA about being such a
    major centerpiece of the commercial
    broadcasters when we had not talked about local
    programming or had it represented in the
    language as much as it should be.  Again,
    that's an area I hope could be addressed.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I think that's an
    interesting idea, a provision that says the
    broadcaster shall attend to the diverse
    demographic segments of the community and
    provide a reasonable service for all viewers.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I think that
    would be a very wise thing for us.
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I think the
    others addition there would be an emphasis on
    local groups that's in other documents and not
    necessarily on this page.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Is this a good

    place to talk about the fact that in public
    service speech, particularly, with diverse
    populations, the use of the same way we do the
    captioning can help in terms of language, for
    example.  It's very important that everybody
    vote, and if you have a language problem, where
    do we -- there's an opportunity there for
    broadcasters to make use of technology in that
    area to help that process a little more.  I
    don't know where that belongs, but it just
    occurred to me when somebody said something.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Well, I'd like to
    respond.  I'm kind of sitting here again
    thinking that most of the captioning rules do
    not cover most of the principles in here.
    Again, the captioning rules, right now, don't
    require captioning on political debates, PSAs,
    local news, or at least not real-time
         So that was part of my concern, because
    the question is where do I go for broke?  Do I
    go for broke on here on the code of the
    voluntary code or --
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Again, I
    don't think they're mutually exclusive.

                   MS. STRAUSS:  One possibility is
    in general principles and rationale to have
    this overriding statement that indicates the
    need for disability access where it's not an
    undue burden, which would be consistent with
    all of the federal laws on that.
                   MS. CHARREN:  And in talking
    about captioning, we could add language there,
    which is a way of dealing with people who can't
    speak English.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  You said where
    it's not an undue burden.  That's an
    important --
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Oh, yeah, I have
    no problem with that.  That's been the law of
    the land for quite some time, the undue burden.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  In South Dakota,
    it was going to cost South Dakota broadcasters
    about a billion dollars a year.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  No, it's
    reasonable to have a defense where it's going
    to be a financial hardship, and that's always
    been incorporated in the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973, Americans with Disabilities Act, and now
    the captioning provisions of the

    Telecommunications Act.
         But I do think it would be nice to have
    something in here that recognizes disability
    access since that was not on the radar screen
    when the original code was created.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  There are two
    ways to do it offhand.  One is to have it in
    the general principles, another is to have it
    under some of the provisions.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Right.  I suppose
    that my preference would be to specifically
    have it under the individual provisions,
    especially the election provisions, the news
    and public events and the community
                   MS. CHARREN:  Peggy Charren.  I
    think it's also important because we're talking
    about the future here.  This isn't supposed to
    be a rewrite of the code for broadcasting as we
    know it now.  It's for digital television,
    right?  And these kind of opportunities are
    going to be more easier to make it happen in a
    digital universe.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It seems to
    me a provision that basically says that

    broadcasters will be sensitive to the diverse
    elements of a local community to make sure that
    all of these provisions of news and programming
    otherwise will, as much as possible, without
    undue expense, be sensitive to the needs of the
    disability community or other groups, including
    through language, to meet what would be
    perfectly --
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Let me think
    about whether that should be under general
    principles or under the specifics, and we can
    certainly --
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Peggy just
    brought up a very interesting point in that she
    said this is for digital television.  Digital
    television, we're looking into the future.  Is
    this a Code of Conduct for today, for right
    now?  Are we dealing with analog and as we move
    forward?  I think we have to specify if that
    is, in fact, the intent of what we're doing
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  One element
    of that, Les, is that a little further down
    where we're talking about revisions and
    enforcement authority, we don't need to get too

    far into it here, but there's a provision to
    basically go back and reconsider the code
    periodically as digital television changes.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Well, Norm,
    there are certainly things that we're obviously
    going to get into a little bit later on about
    HDTV and multiplexing and talking about the
    eventuality of that world, what would happen if
    there are three channels or four channels or
    five channels, et cetera, et cetera.
         So I think it's very important on every
    issue to distinguish whether we are talking
    about what is going to go on with broadcasting
    today.  Are we including any other people, such
    as cable?  We really have to distinguish
    between what is happening with the world and,
    when appropriate, if we're looking down the
    road.  Charles?
                   MR. BENTON:  Yes, Charles
    Benton.  I think Les has made a very good
    point.  What was sent out to us in preparation
    of this meeting was this NAB code, which I
    believe is over 20 years old.  We were handed
    out, at the last meeting in mid April, a
    four-page quote "statement of principles" of 3

    pages -- 3 and one-third pages statement of
    principles, and clearly, and given the
    antitrust blanket that NAB has apparently
    applied to, not only advertising but
    programming standards, maybe this has fell
    into, if not disuse, much less use now, and so
    the move from analog to digital does give the
    profession and the association a leadership
    opportunity here to rethink through the code
    and how it should apply today and in the future
    with technology.
         So I think it's a great opportunity for
    the NAB to reassert its leadership role in
    this, which historically, as I understand it
    from talking to some of the broadcasters here
    last night in particular, it was very important
    in the life of broadcasters 20 years ago.
         Obviously, this is fallen.  There are a
    lot of changes many of us don't understand or
    don't know, but the move from analog to digital
    does give it an enormous opportunity for
    reasserting leadership by the profession and by
    the association here on the standards to help
    reposition broadcasting, vis-a-vis the
    competition of cable and the tel cos.

         So therefore, this is a real opportunity,
    it seems to me, and shouldn't be looked upon as
    a threat or thou shalts, et cetera.  There's a
    real opportunity for leadership.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We do need,
    I think as Les is suggesting, to be sensitive
    to what are principles that apply no matter
    what the electronic era brings us, and many of
    them here clearly do, and where we begin to get
    into specifics and specific standards and
    quantification, we clearly need to be very
    sensitive to the reality of what applies today
    may not make sense a few years down the road.
         And I think since our core responsibility
    is digital television broadcasters, we can,
    obviously, recommend strongly a code for the
    NAB here in a separate spot assuming that we
    can all reach agreement on many of these
         It is utterly appropriate for us, it seems
    to me, to recommend that some standards apply
    in other areas as we move into the digital
    age.  But it also means, Les, that we need to
    be sensitive to what we, I hope, will get to in
    a few minutes, which is the question of how you

    have an ongoing process of altering the code to
    take into account these changing realities.
         So let's turn to controversial public
    issues, and I think we probably can work
    through most of these relatively quickly.
                   MS. SOHN:  Norm, can I just -- I
    like this language very much, though one thing
    that's missing.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Which language?
                   MS. SOHN:  The controversial
    public issues, except local is missing.
    There's not one mention of local.
         And the thing I am a little bit concerned
    about as I look through community
    responsibility and controversial public issues
    is some sort of statement about covering local
    communities, underserved communities.  Jose and
    Jim did mention that.  I don't know exactly
    where that would fall in, whether it would fall
    in under E or F or somewhere else but --
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  There's
    probably no problem with mentioning sensitive
    to local concerns in each of these areas.  You
    can add a clause here that basically says alter
    the life or welfare of a substantial segment of

    the public, including the sensitivity to those
    issues that are specific to a local community,
    or something of that sort.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I'd like to add
    something as wispy as that also, to the
    children's page, because serving the particular
    needs of children in the community is different
    than national programming for children, and
    very productive.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  We can do that.
                   MS. SOHN:  I just wanted to add
    one other thing on a technical thing.  You
    could add something either to Section A, or
    again, to any of these saying how the
    broadcasters should deploy new technology to
    ensure access, you know, a broad statement
    about employment of digital television to sort
    of A, B, C.  Just a thought.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Okay.  Let's
    move on to special program standards, crime,
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  There's actually
    nothing here on sexual materials except sexual
    violence, and I just noticed that the NAB's
    current principles has some material on

    sexually-oriented material.  It isn't bad.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Then maybe
    if that's in the NAB's current material --
                   MS. CHARREN:  Read it.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Okay.  "Obscenity
    is not constitutional for speech.  It is, at
    all times, unacceptable for broadcasts."
    That's the least controversial.  "Where
    significant child audiences can be expected,
    particular care should be exercised when
    addressing sexual themes.  All programming
    decisions should take into account current
    federal requirements limiting the broadcast of
    indecent matter.  Creativity and diversity in
    programming that deals with human sexuality
    should be encouraged.  Programming that purely
    panders morbid interests should be avoided.  In
    evaluating programming dealing with human
    sexuality, broadcasters should consider the
    composition and expectations of the likely
    audience and the context."
         All that's good.  We might want to have a
    separate provision on sexual violence,
    something about special care with respect to
    sexual violence.

                   MS. CHARREN:  That's a good
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I did add,
    already, a section in the last sentence of 2.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I think that's
    very good.  Peggy Charren.
         I once asked a big-deal psychiatrist who
    was at Yale, what is the most -- the worst
    thing that children can see on television,
    because a lot of what we talk about is okay if
    we use it to educate.  What's the worst thing
    they can see?  And his answer was, sex with
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  And gossip
    and lying.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  We'll add
    something along those lines.  The trick here is
    that, you know, you wanted to say something
    that gives guidelines but not something that
    restricts diverse views.  So there's this last
                   MR. RUIZ:  How much of this will
    apply to cable?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  How much of
    it will apply to cable is the question, and the

    answer, at least on the surface, is this would
    be a code created by the NAB for broadcasters.
         There is nothing that I can see that would
    prevent us from recommending that, among other
    things, the National Cable Television
    Association adopt a comparable code and that
    whatever association exists for satellite
    broadcasters also adopt a code and for strongly
    recommending that that occur.
                   MR. RUIZ:  You mentioned
    gambling, point 3 here.  They now have on cable
    handicappers for ball games with 900 numbers
    that diagnose the game and then have you call
    them for -- I don't know how much they charge
    and stuff like that, and a lot of kids are
    watching this, high school and college kids,
    and I haven't seen it on the commercial
    broadcast, but I see it on cable, and I think
    they're buying the time.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, again,
    we have no compunction about strongly
    recommending that, if not the same code, a very
    comparable code that may have some particular
    sensitivity to those issues.
                   MR. MINOW:  Newt Minow.  I'd

    emphatically endorse that.  I think it's unfair
    now to have the cable industry, which is
    getting more than half the audience in prime
    time, not subject to the same rules, standards
    of broadcasters.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Barley Diller has
    said exactly the same thing.
                   MS. SOHN:  But understand, I
    don't necessarily disagree with you, that there
    is very little local -- local programming on
    cable and non --
                   MR. MINOW:  That's a
    different --
                   MS. SOHN:  It is if you're
    talking about -- if you're talking about
    requirements to do local programming.  I'm just
    saying -- I'm not disagreeing with you, Newt.
    I'm just saying you have to be sensitive.  You
    can't really impose local requirements on DBS.
    They don't do any local programming.  It's all
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  We can write it
    up in such a way to apply those provisions that
    make sense to apply to cable.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Yes, because a

    diversity provision that is appropriate for
    somebody legally mandated to serve the public
    interests is different than mandating that kind
    of diversity on a channel that is just a
    cartoon channel or that is -- you know,
    channels are different for cable.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let us
    recognize that there are, of course, public
    interest obligations for cable.  The way
    they've been defined is through this set-aside
    of channel space which, presumably, is
    sensitive to local programming which, for the
    most part, has not been.
         And I frankly -- although our mandate is,
    one again, broadcasters, making a strong
    suggestion that perhaps the local content that
    comes through that channel space be
    strengthened and changed and made meaningful
    certainly ought to be within our purview to
    recommend as well.  So we can hit the local
                   MR. MINOW:  The viewer has no
    understanding or no care about whether he sees
    a program on cable or over the air.  It makes
    no difference to the viewer, and it's wrong for

    us to separate those two things.  Put yourself
    in the viewer's position.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Especially
    the younger viewer who has grown up with 50
    channels in his house.  Channel 33 is no
    different than Channel 2 to the average kid.
                   MR. BENTON:  Maybe this is a
    question.  Charles Benton.
         Since our commission mandate is the public
    interest obligations of digital television
    broadcasters, how can we structurally address
    this very important issue that has been raised
    by several people?  What do you suggest is the
    structural approach on this?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Some of this
    we will have to work out in the process of
    drafting a report, but it seems to me that,
    among other things, we are looking at the
    public interest obligations of digital
    television broadcasters, which means that we're
    trying to look at public interest obligations
    in a new era, and in the process of doing that,
    since every aspect of the use of the spectrum
    is going to change.
         And what is likely to happen is that a

    continuation and enhancement of what Les just
    suggested; namely, a blurring of the lines here
    for viewers, at least, that -- and since we are
    also making recommendations that go formally to
    the vice president, but which are clearly going
    to include recommendations for action by
    Congress or by the FCC, as well as by the
    broadcasters, that's suggesting, for example,
    Congress revisit the question of the set-aside
    space for local programming and community needs
    by cable to take into account some of these
    considerations.  I don't see why we can't make
    that suggestion or even a suggestion or report
    to the vice president that the strong
    recommendation be made to the cable industry to
    get their own house in order through voluntary
    means the same way that broadcasters are.
         Where we include it may be a question, but
    how we include it should be a fairly easy thing
    to do.
                   MR. BENTON:  Thank you.  Can I
    raise one more question?
         Most of these issues under the special
    program standards are dealing with the extremes
    and aberrational points, and they seem fairly

         I want to come back to Les's point about
    the application of these standards and just say
    a word about the treatment of news and public
         A number of foundations recently have been
    studying local news in particular, and the
    facts of the analysis are really depressing.
    39 percent of local news is crime, most of it
    violent crime.  If it bleeds, it leads.  45
    percent is involved in sports, in weather and
    commercials.  That leaves 15 percent for
    everything else.
         Now, maybe Cass, in the treatment of news
    and public affairs, one can say something about
    the mix of content to try to see if there can't
    be some breaking of that pattern that is, I
    think, causing increasing dissatisfaction on
    the part of the public.  You know, it's the
    body count, we're tired of the body count.  The
    competition of the local level is more
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  You're
    getting very dangerous.
                   MR. CRUMP:  This is Harold

    Crump, if I might jump in here for just a
         Let's not forget that we have, in every
    market, usually a number of stations who are
    competing for audience at the same time with
    newscasts, and if you don't believe that the
    reason for the amount of coverage that is given
    to the various stories has to do with, one,
    what we think the public needs to know about,
    and two, what the public will accept itself,
    and therefore, watch this station, then the
    assumption, I believe, is incorrect.
         And we have -- we go through cycles.  If
    you've been in the business a long time, as I
    have, you see cycles where various types of
    newscasts come and go, and they generally come
    and go because of the interests of the viewer
    itself.  He votes every day when he turns his
    set to one channel or another.  And you want to
    put on a quality newscast, but if no one sees
    it, then you're saying, gee, I need to wiggle
    it here a little, and it's an awfully hard
         And this is where we get back, I think,
    into trying to say -- dictate what the program

    content would be, and that's going to be tough
    because that's what we should not be doing.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I think that's
    right.  If we come out with micromanaging the
    news, we'll get ourselves in big trouble.  But
    that's what I find, if we're talking now about
    the code, the code says it.  The first one is
    news schedules should be substantive and well
    balanced and devote substantial attention, and
    it's there.  It doesn't say 20 percent, and I
    don't think it can.
         And I think that we have to be careful on
    that score.  Those of us who, after the fact,
    talk, and some people are more likely to talk
    about news than others of us, can keep making
    that point, and few can keep going to those
    meetings, and -- but it does say --
                   MR. BENTON:  It's the same gap
    between the reality of what's on the air and
    what's in the code, and Peggy was talking about
    it earlier.
                   MR. CRUMP:  There's another gap
    here, too, that we're not mentioning, and that
    is let's not forget that 20 years ago, most
    television stations that were in the news

    business had either one or two half-hour
    programs per day.  And now when you look at the
    expansion that we have with the early morning
    hours, with the expansions in the afternoon,
    just as Frank was bringing up in really large
    markets, the news starts at 4 o'clock in the
    afternoon, what you have -- the percentages may
    be the same, but the total amount of time
    that's devoted to these -- all of these types
    of stories is totally different and much, much
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We take it,
    I think, as far as one can reasonably take a
    code that talks about what's appropriate.
                   MR. CRUZ:  Yeah, I would agree
    with that also.  It's difficult to get into the
    realm of dictating newscasts and so forth.  I
    would agree to take that kind of approach.
         One of the other factors that has played
    into this is the evolution of the industry
    itself.  Not too many years ago, you didn't
    have cameras like this that were capable of
    going out into the field and covering stories.
         One of the concerns, I guess that you have
    as a news director and a producer of a

    newscast, it seems odd that you will spend an
    inordinate amount of time covering a fire,
    really of no major consequence, but you can
    spend a lot of time on air because the public
    supposedly is interested in that and tuning
    into that, yet the next day, it's only a minor
    paragraph on page 28 of the Los Angeles Times.
                   MR. CRUMP:  What you see in the
    newspaper is yesterday's news.  We put it on
    today.  Thank you for the point.
                   MR. CRUZ:  It's the length of
         And I guess the other concern that really
    goes to some of the sensitivity of the coverage
    of the news, for example, in Los Angeles,
    there's been an inordinate amount of coverage
    on high-speed automobile chases.  A highway
    patrolman recently said that they've been going
    on for a long time.  It's only you folks that
    have gotten interested lately with helicopters
    and so forth.
         It came, all of that, to a screeching halt
    recently when the police thought, the highway
    patrol thought that they were after another
    high-speed chase and a young man pulled over on

    the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles and blew his
    head off, and it was covered.  So that's the
    kind of area of concern that we have to be
    very, very sensitive to, and I think we have to
    make sure the code does cover it in that
                   MR. CRUMP:  But you know, you
    make a good point there, Frank, in that as our
    technology has changed, being totally candid,
    we are changing with it, but it's an
    educational process.  We're learning what we
    can do that we couldn't do yesterday.  We have
    to deal with what is acceptable, what is not
         Hopefully, I would say I -- I would
    hopefully think that you would agree -- that
    the news itself has changed in many ways that
    is much better than it was before and makes the
    American public much more aware of what is
    occurring at the time that it's happening, and
    that's what the live coverage has gotten us
         When you get down to the coverage of the
    Viet Nam War, it was the first one where we
    hear over and over again where the American

    public really understood what war was all
                   MR. CRUZ:  I just mention that
    it's a sensitive area that we have to be very
                   MR. CRUMP:  I'll agree with you,
    but we learn as we go, unfortunately.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  One of the
    reasons, it seems to me, why this is an
    important recommendation for us, it isn't just
    boilerplate, is that we're moving into an era
    where newspapers don't just present yesterday's
    news, but they go right up on the web to try
    and compete with television stations where
    you've got the drudges of the world and others
    who are out there as journalists, and it's
    going to change the competitive environment for
    broadcasters and for others on television.  And
    if we can't -- appropriately can't get into
    questions of even voluntary codes for internet
    providers or websites, it may have even more
    impact to suggest that, under these
    circumstances, broadcasters and other
    journalists have codes that they adhere to even
    in a very different and changing and

    competitive environment, and we need to be,
    obviously, sensitive to that.
         Let's talk about enforcement.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Something I
    forgot, and I don't know if this belongs, but
    it's been a concern of mine for 30 years, and I
    don't know if Cass can fit into this kind of
    paper, maybe either in responsibilities to
    children or in the news page, some sense that
    it's appropriate to have news programs for
    young audiences; that if we expect our nation's
    children to vote at age 18 and we consider them
    children up to age 17 for purposes of
    broadcasting, that if we're encouraging all
    kinds of programming, it makes sense to
    encourage news programming for young
    audiences.  And obviously, I don't mean two-,
    three-, four-year-olds, although when there was
    a set of assassinations in this country,
    Mr. Rogers, in public broadcasting, did a
    program for kids, for preschoolers.  It was
    Mr. Rogers on assassinations.  You can handle
    even those kinds of things sensitively.
         And it's a big poll in the broadcasting
    schedules of this country, something that in

    the late '70s was working.  CBS had 20 people
    in their news department doing news.  I don't
    expect that to happen again.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  CBS has 20
    people in their news department.
                   MS. CHARREN:  This was news for
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I'm not
    going to comment on that.
                   MS. CHARREN:  It's an
    opportunity to make a point that's sort of
    worth making.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I would
    think under the --
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Peggy, I
    think that gets a little too specific.  You're
    going to demand or request that each local
    station, all 1,500 of them, have a children's
    news program?
                   MS. CHARREN:  This is not news.
    This is a recommendation to the industry to do
    the kinds of things that we would love to see
    on the television, and one of the things we
    would love to see on television, which is not a
    mandate from the government -- it's not a

    mandate from anybody -- is more programming,
    news and public affairs programming, for young
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  As long as
    it's phrased that way, absolutely.  That's
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  The easy way
    to do that is going back to the
    responsibilities towards children, under 3
    where it talks about programming for children
    should take into the account range of interests
    and needs of children from a structural and
    cultural material and a wide a wide variety of
    entertainment material to include a provision
    on news and public affairs.
                   MS. CHARREN:  That's all I
                   MR. RUIZ:  And I also think that
    the age group -- (inaudible).
                   MR. BENTON:  Not to beat a dead
    horse here.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let's move
    on, Charles.  We've beaten this horse.
         Cass, why don't you briefly describe the

                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  What the old code
    did is it had two bodies.  It had a television
    code board, which was basically in charge, and
    it had a code authority general manager who was
    likely day-to-day authority.
         Now, I've added a few things here, you
    know, after talking to Norm and others about
    this, and the idea, really, was to try to use
    rewards for good programming as the first
         So there is this old provision, which is a
    seal of approval for complying stations, and
    then there's this notion of special public
    recognition for those who had a public -- an
    excellent public service record.  That's new
    and wouldn't do a whole lot, but it might do
         Then the question is what to do to punish
    those who haven't complied, if anything, and
    one idea is the old idea; that is, to deny the
    seal of approval.  Another idea is to have
    publicity for noncomplying or egregiously
    noncomplying stations.  And another idea is to
    have that go to the FCC and to Congress.
         Norm was actually talking about something

    a little tougher, which was to say that in
    cases of continuing or egregious violations,
    the burden would be shifted to the station to
    show that it should be renewed.
         Now, the code itself would not raise First
    Amendment problems if it did that, but insofar
    as the FCC relied on the violations of the code
    to deny a license, then there would be an
    as-applied First Amendment issue.  It's not to
    say there would be an as-applied First
    Amendment violation, but if someone was denied
    a license because of violations of some code
    provision calling for lots of programming
    involving public affairs, on one view of the
    First Amendment, there would be a problem.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  What
    currently goes on?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Nothing.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Absolutely
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  The last sentence
    of the principles are timorous, I think is the
    word.  It's like they're cowering maybe is the
         It says, "This statement of principles is,

    of necessity, general and advisory.  There will
    be no interpretation or enforcement of these
    principles by NAB or others.  They are not
    established basically to do anything other than
    reflect existing practice."
                   MS. CHARREN:  Is that what it
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  That's what it
                   MS. CHARREN:  That makes my
    point at the beginning of this meeting.  That's
    why I was a little concerned about us focusing
    too much time on the code.
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  I think it's a
    reflection of the fact that they've been made
    gun-shy about litigation that they've
    experienced in the past.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  The old code had
    a enforcement provision that was similar to
    this.  It had somewhat less in the way of
    rewards, and it had somewhat less in the way of
    punishment.  There was a denial of a seal of
    approval, and the informal understanding was
    that repeated code violations would become an
    issue before the FCC.  So one reason for

    compliance was concern about that, so it is
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  No, no.  I'm
    having trouble understanding it.  This code
    board, however it's formed, is going to meet
    twice a year to go through 1,500 stations to
    see who the good guys are and the bad guys?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  This is just a
    description of what was under the old code.
    There was the old code, which lasted a long,
    long time, and then there was the antitrust
    challenge, then there was fear, then more
    recently there was these principles, which are
    fearful both of antitrust challenge and the
    absence of such principles, which Congress is
    very upset about.  This is staring between two
    perceived tigers.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  If we, to
    get very quickly back to the antitrust issue,
    if we accept the idea that having moved away
    from a portion of the code that deals with
    advertising issues, we have really gotten away
    from the serious core antitrust questions,
    there are still, obviously, questions to be
    raised about enforcement, but it seems to me

    that we can then move away from timorousness
    and towards boldness in terms of trying to
    build some teeth into this, and --
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Except it's
    voluntary.  The more teeth you get into it, the
    less voluntary it is.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  It's voluntary,
    vis-a-vis government.  It's not voluntary --
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  You got 1,500
    broadcasters, and some of them are going to
    say, shove it.  You get something that's really
    wicked, I tell you just some of the small guys,
    some of the independent stations, you know,
    they're just lucky to be surviving.  You know,
    they don't have much of a news department, and
    you start dumping a lot of stuff on them,
    they're going to say, hey, I got other things
    to do in this world than voluntarily comply,
    and they'll say, we'll take public deals and
    just say to Congress, we don't have any money.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I should say I
    have no position on this.  I just want to hear
    what people have to say.
         The thing that would seem least
    controversial maybe or the special

    commendations for excellent service
    broadcasting, or is that, in itself,
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Well, I don't
    think it's controversial.  As I said, the
    practicality of it, I'm hoping of the 1,500
    stations, 1,200 get, you know, the special seal
    of approval.  And I don't know how this board
    does it, and frankly, the ability of the
    enforceability of this group is going to be
    very difficult.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I see the
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  There is a
    problem here, but let's face it.  We either
    want a code because we just want to avoid
    dealing with any of the issues of public
    interest so we can put something out there that
    is a bunch of words that has no meaning
    whatsoever, or we want a code so that, in
    effect, not that there's coercion here, but
    that there is at least peer pressure, and that
    if these broadcasters want to say, forget it,
    we're not going to do anything, then what the
    NAB has said about the sterling record of

    broadcasters in performing public interest and
    dealing with the public, there ought to be some
    obloguy brought upon these stations, and they
    ought to pay a price for it, at least in the
    public eye, and if you don't think they should
    pay a price for it then, in effect, Bill,
    you're aligning yourself with the worst
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  I'd say that's a
    small group, but there's a lot of small
    independent stations that are struggling.  I'm
    talking about the high UHF stations out there,
    and they don't have big staffs, and those are
    the people -- I can see a lot them just saying,
    hey, I'm surviving, and I'm not -- I'm not -- I
    just can't do it.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Bill, it's a
    much larger issue than that because now we're
    getting into the question of how voluntary are
    we?  What are we talking about?
         You know, we use the word voluntary and
    obligation in the same sentence, and I think we
    have to stop doing that, if I may pose the
    question without editorializing like my

                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Oh, I think
    you're editorializing very nicely.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  All right.
    Maybe just a little.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I am so sensitive,
    though, Les, to what you're saying, that I
    think that for us to set out enforcement
    standards that include things like special
    public recognition, which means we're telling
    the NAB to recognize their good members.  I
    mean, what kind of organization has to tell
    another organization to make nice on people who
    are doing good by their own rights?
         I think that a paragraph saying that we
    hope the industry is going to pay some
    attention to the substance of these guidelines
    and take appropriate action to encourage more,
    you know, paying attention to them is one kind
    of thing.
         I think -- this is somebody who has spent
    her life in front of the FCC asking for things,
    so it's not like I object to the FCC saying
    things out loud about broadcasting, but I don't
    see how the -- what the code is relates to the
    FCC overseeing it.  I just can't get my arms

    around that as a way of doing business with
         I think we can say all kinds of things in
    the rest of the report that the industry isn't
    going to like, and as a president of CBS won't
    like either, and maybe will never say them, but
    that's where that should get said, and the
    enforcement mechanism for this code has to be
    within the NAB itself.
         And to tell you the truth, given what they
    have put out over the last years whenever
    they're up against it with issues in terms of
    what they're doing right, I tend not to believe
    most of it anyway.
                   MS. SOHN:  Norm?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Can I just say
    this is the NAB's own mechanism from the old
    code.  The mechanism is just what they had.
         Does anyone here now how it worked?
    Because Les's question is very good about can
    you oversee 1,500?  Has anyone here -- we're
    all so young.
                   MR. MINOW:  The way it worked
    was at the FCC, if the station came in with the
    seal on it, the FCC said, well, they're

    complying pretty much with the industry
    standards, and that's no longer true.
         I take very seriously what Les said, but I
    want on the record I disagree.  Nobody makes
    anybody become a broadcaster.  Nobody makes
    anybody become a broker/dealer.  If you decide
    to become a broker/dealer, you subscribe to the
    NASD.  You know that going in.  Congress should
    do the same thing here.
         You want to get the FCC off peoples' back,
    the industry has got to regulate more of
    itself.  If they don't want to, then you're
    going to have more and more government and more
    and more First Amendment issues.
                   MS. SOHN:  Norm, I've actually a
    more sort of basic point to make, and that is
    we're a body that's gathered here to make
    recommendations to the FCC and to Congress and
    to the Vice President.  We've already spent all
    morning on this code.
         Do you have any guarantee that the NAB is
    going to adopt it?  That's point number 1.
                   MR. CRUMP:  You don't have a
    guarantee Congress is going adopt it, Gigi.
    All this is is a recommendation.

                   MS. SOHN:  I agree, but we were
    not formed to make recommendations to the
    broadcasting industry, okay.  We have -- we
    don't have control over what anybody does,
    that's true, but we've gotten some assurance
    over the NAB has been at the table -- it's been
    a major player here -- that it would be
    inclined to adopt such a code, I might feel a
    little more comfortable.
         I want to make a second point, and it
    relates to two things that Bill said.  I think,
    Bill, you make an excellent case what Peg has
    been saying all morning, and I haven't had to
    say it because I think it's pretty obvious,
    that the fact that a significant number of
    broadcasters can say "go to hell" is the reason
    why we need minimum guidelines.
                   MR. MINOW:  Is the reason what,
                   MS. SOHN:  That we need some
    sort of minimum guidelines, and that's why this
    afternoon discussion is going to be very
         Voluntary, you're right, it is voluntary,
    and I am troubled by the mix of voluntary

    enforcement, and I am very concerned, and I'd
    like to find a way we can legally put teeth
    into this.  I'm not so sure.
         You're second point, Bill, is that, well,
    some broadcasters, they're small, they're this,
    they're that, they can't afford.  I have to
    agree with Newt on this point.  Turn your
    license back in.  If you can't do it, there's
    somebody else who will.  There has to be a
    certain base minimum about which you serve the
    public interests.  You just can't say, I don't
    have enough money justify my license.  If you
    don't have enough money, go sell donuts.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  The things we got
    to get down to are what these minimums are that
    you're talking about.  Why do you say take
    20 percent?  A lot of small broadcasters don't
    have 20 percent to the bottom line.
                   MS. SOHN:  I'm not saying --
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  You're the one, in
    April, proposed that deal.
                   MS. SOHN:  It's a proposal,
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  It's outrageous.
                   MS. CHARREN:  That's something

    else, and we're going to talk about it.
                   MS. SOHN:  I told you, if you
    listened to what I said the last meeting, I
    said I'm not laying any particular number.  The
    next meeting I said that.
                   MR. GOODMON:  I still am very
    positive about the notion of a code, and we all
    know that you don't have to join, you don't
    have to comply, but I'm hoping that, as an
    industry -- and I believe that, as an industry,
    we can do this and make it a source of
    professional pride that we subscribe, and we do
    it.  I mean, that's not hard.  I mean,
    that's -- and some people will and some people
    won't, but I believe that we can do that, and
    it's just as simple as that.  Here's the code,
    and as a mater of pride, we want to follow it
    and be part of that and say that we are, just
    like we did before, and I believe that will
    work.  I mean -- and it is certainly preferable
    to increased regulations and stuff.  I'm
    positive about that.  I see more positives than
    negatives is what I'm trying to shift.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  To follow
    that with what Gigi said, I don't have a

    problem making recommendations that hit
    broadcasters, and it seems to me, going back to
    some of the things Cass said early on, if we
    look at our various models, I believe, as he
    does, that it's preferable to do this without
    regulatory mechanisms if we can.
         And that, in the first instance, the
    industry, on its own, creates a set of
    standards and regulates itself internally,
    making a regulatory apparatus or legal changes
    unnecessary or superfluous, we are all better
         Creating a challenge to the industry by
    putting as much explicitly as we can out there
    in recommendations, including using an
    enforcement mechanism that existed before that
    is self-enforcement and maybe even enhancing it
    a little bit so we can make sure that the
    stations that meet those standards are out
    there, which means that those that don't are
    going to have to justify it in some way in the
    court of public opinion, or possibly in the
    regulatory arena, would be a preferable way to
         And if, in the end, the industry, through

    its association, does not step up to the plate
    in that regard, that any recommendations that
    we make to Congress or the agencies ought to
    then have more resonance because, in effect,
    what the industry itself has said, that we can
    do this, would ring more hollow.
         So that makes, it seems to me -- that's
    why we are spending this much time on a
    voluntary code and why it is important to make
    sure that it isn't just out there without any
    mechanism internally.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Internally?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Internally.
    That's what we're talking about here.
                   MR. BENTON:  Following up on
    this great speech that you've just made, we
    have a representative to the NAB here.  Are
    they open to what we're talking about?
                   MS. CHARREN:  I don't want to
    discuss that now with them.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We're
    talking among ourselves here.
                   MS. SCOTT:  The NAB attorney is
    here in Geneva.  Do you want me to ask him?
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Geneva would

    be a good place for those negotiations.
         Let me just add, from what I can gather,
    the NAB didn't drop its code like a hot rock
    because it wanted to.  What ended up happening
    after the antitrust challenge was a consent
    decree, basically.  And there is no sense out
    there -- and certainly the broadcasters that we
    have on this panel, many NAB members in good
    standing and active in the organization, have
    given us no indication that would suggest the
    NAB would be adverse to returning to a code if
    there are no legal or antitrust implications,
    isn't that correct?
                   MR. CRUMP:  I think we all speak
    for ourselves, but that's certainly my personal
                   MS. CHARREN:  Peggy Charren.  I
    think the best thing is that this is a separate
    organization appointed to look at how
    broadcasting is working, and for us to have, as
    part of this report, these kinds of suggestions
    enables the public, that court of public
    opinion, to be more specific about what it's
    talking about, whether its station is doing
    what it should do.  It's kind of an education

    for activist groups in the broadcasting arena
    to hold their stations to some kind of
    standards.  And from that point of view, I
    think it's helpful outside the industry, but
    not for the FCC to hold the stations to this
    standard.  I just think like that relationship,
    the more likely to get it thrown out.  But the
    public can say anything it pleases.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  I think Cass
    asked a very good question.  I would love to
    know how this code board operated way back
    when, how it, in fact, functioned, what was its
    authority, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  I
    think that's a fairly important question.
                   MR. BENTON:  A lot of it is
    built into this code that was passed out that's
    20 years old.
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  We have no --
    in January, they went through 750 stations and
    in June they went through 750 stations, and
    these stations got a star and these got a slap
    on the wrist.  I mean, I think that's an
    important question.
                   MR. CRUZ:  And I think the
    conversation also indicates there's an

    evolution of the applicability of these states
    over years, and that has changed.  So you're
    really looking at something that's
    metamorphosed over X amount of years, right,
                   MR. MINOW:  Right.  Right.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well,
    perhaps since we have a task force on this
    subject, we can ask the task force to
    communicate with the NAB and find some people
    who are a part of that old board and see what
    worked and what didn't and maybe adjust the
    standards to fit those recommendations.
         One thing we should note here is that if
    we do build in a robust reporting requirement,
    that it doesn't require an inordinate
    expenditure of resources from the stations, but
    that works.  It will make that task of a board
    easier if, in fact, they have what the stations
    themselves have done.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  I suggest that
    what I'll do in the next few days is
    incorporate the many good suggestions and wait
    for any E-mails or faxes or phone calls and get
    out something to the broadcasting -- to the

    code task force within the week and then get
    something out within two weeks to everybody.
                   MR. RUIZ:  Would that include
    checking with the NAB as to whether we would
    recommend to Congress that all broadcasters
    become members of the NAB?
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Checking on their
    position on that?  Happy to do that?.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I think more
    significant is checking to see whether that's
    kosher, whether we can actually do that within
    the constitutional framework.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  That's a hard
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  That's a
    harder question, but if we can surmount that
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  And I still
    think we have to reserve the right that we have
    some serious enforcement questions at this
                   MR. MINOW:  As a member of the
    task force, I want to thank Cass for a great

                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Now, we can
    either discuss reporting requirements at this
    point in terms of the reports of stations on
    their public interest activities, or we could
    move to the educational arena.
         I suspect the minimum standards is
    something we ought to put aside until people
    have had a chance to read it, and that's,
    obviously, going to be something of real
    contention there.
         Maybe we should move on to the educational
    task force and see how far we can get before we
    break for lunch.  Perhaps Lois Jean White who
    chaired it and Frank Cruz and who drafted up
    some of the consensus recommendations.
    Ms. White?
                   MS. WHITE:  Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.  There is a bit of housekeeping
    that we need to do.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Move the
    microphone a little closer.
                   MS. WHITE:  There's several
    documents in front of you.  One is dated June
    3rd, and it was an operative passed out to you
    in error.  Would you please turn that back in.

    At the top it says, Corporation for Public
    Broadcasting, June 3rd.  This is a copy -- this
    is a copy that was meant for the committee
    members only for their discussion and
         The one we will be discussing is dated
    June 5th, and that's the one that you need.
                   MS. SOHN:  It's one of the
    smaller typed.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Oh, is that what
    that is?  That's the small type.
                   MS. WHITE:  Do we have the old
    copies here, because they're completely
    different.  Committee members made changes,
    additions and what have you, so you do not need
    to be looking at the June 3rd edition.
         Okay.  The committee met, the committee to
    discuss educational programming for the digital
    age, met on May 28th via a telephone conference
    a conference call, and I'm very pleased to say
    that all of the committee members participated,
    and I'd like to thank them for doing that.  I'd
    also like to thank Frank Cruz, as Norm alluded
    to, for printing the draft and passing it out.
         The committee members also adhered to the

    timetable, which enabled to us have this
    presented to you at this time.  I thank you
    also for that.
         Our committee members are sitting at
    various seats of the table; let's see, Frank
    Cruz, Peggy Charren, Gigi Sohn, Robert Decherd,
    and they will be participating in the
    discussion as they wish.
                   MS. CHARREN:  And Richard Masur.
                   MS. WHITE:  Right, Richard.  Is
    he on?
                   MS. CHARREN:  Yes.
                   MS. WHITE:  He's probably
    joining us by telephone.
         The report is in three parts.  The first
    part is an introduction, the second part
    consists of a discussion area, and the third
    part on the back page is a recommendations from
    the subcommittee.
         The introduction does not involve the
    definition of educational programming, and I
    suspect that all of us have our own particular
    definitions for that.  I'll give you mine if
    you'd like to have it.  We'll do that later,

         Our recommendations you can read.  I think
    the most important area of this report was the
    discussion area, and that begins on the second
    page.  What I'll do is just sort of go down
    each bullet, and our committee members may give
    their input, whether they agreed, disagreed.
    Is that okay?  And we'll go as far as we can
         The first bullet is allowing public
    broadcasters to retain a second channel, which
    would further the committee's goal of
    increasing public service broadcasting.
         I'll read it.  If you have some comments,
    you may stop.
         The second channel would enable public
    broadcasters to explore new ways to provide
    greater access to local educational, civic,
    cultural, minority and other nonprofit
         Public broadcasting can achieve increased
    public service only with guaranteed adequate
    public support.
         Proposed sources of funding for the
    additional public service channels may not be
    adequate.  Fees imposed upon commercial

    broadcasters from ancillary and supplemental
    services is speculative and may not be
         Creation of a trust fund for public
    broadcasting by Congress that will adequately
    ensure public service in the digital age.
         No comments?
         Funding of a trust fund to come from
    various sources.
         Educational trust fund to be administered
    by CPB with a percentage going to an alternate
    system for independent producers.
         Programming content of extra spectrum to
    include children's programming, nonfiction,
    news, public affairs, KidSpan, local
    programming and programming for underserved and
    diverse audiences and audiences with
    disabilities, long-distance learning and
    universal access, job training and arts
         The next bullet is trust fund monies
    should also go to independent producers and
    other noncommercial television providers.
         The last bullet on that page, a $5 to $6
    billion dollar trust fund for public

    broadcasting covers only the current annual
    appropriation by Congress and not enough for
    additional services.  New opportunities would
    require additional sources for revenue.  No
    unfunded mandates.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Do you have any
    idea how much you're talking about?
                   MS. WHITE:  Committee members,
    who dealt with that?  Was that you, Gigi?
                   MS. SOHN:  What was the
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  The question is
    the current $5 to $6 billion dollars, does
    anyone have a feel for how much -- (inaudible).
                   MS. SOHN:  Frank should be the
    person you ask about that.
                   MR. CRUZ:  It would be difficult
    to come up with an accurate figure.  Basically
    what we mean by the $5 to $6 million basis, is
    that would basically cover the annual allotment
    Congress makes for public broadcasting in FDR
    as it stands now.
         If added responsibilities were added on to
    public broadcasting, as has been suggested by
    some of the proposals, that would be additional

    funding.  That would be determined by whatever
    those additional services might be.
                   MS. CHARREN:  That should be
    part of what we covered in our discussions of
    what our rules have been for how we make all
    these things happen, and we didn't feel that
    the length of time we were together created an
    adequate answer to that question, which is
    certainly an important question, but it was
    understood, by at least most of us, I think,
    that just funding public broadcasting to the
    extent it's underground is not enough to cover
    a digital age.
                   MS. WHITE:  The next bullet on
    page 2 is establishing an adequate trust fund
    would get public broadcasting away from the
    catch 22 of asking Congress for money, and at
    the same time, doing pledge weeks and more
    commercial underwriting.
                   MR. RUIZ:  Did you say the trust
    it was established -- (inaudible).
                   MS. CHARREN:  Could you speak
    into the microphone?
                   MR. RUIZ:  Jose Luis Ruiz.  I
    think this is dangerous.  I don't think you

    should say this because many stations,
    especially the larger ones like WNT or KCT, the
    congressional funding is a very small portion
    of their annual budget.  Their larger portions
    come from their membership.  A small radio
    station perhaps, but they're not going to give
    a pledge in that membership base, in that
    database that they have established in
    Los Angeles and --
                   MS. WHITE:  Remember, this is
    just for discussion.
                   MR. CRUZ:  The key word here is
    an adequate trust fund.
                   MS. WHITE:  This is not
    recommendations now.
                   MS. SOHN:  Just something we
    talked about.
                   MS. CHARREN:  This was something
    we talked about, but that was not a
    recommendation because I don't agree with that
    either, and I was on that committee.
                   MS. WHITE:  What we tried to do
    is record everything that we discussed, just so
    you know.
                   MS. CHARREN:  This was not

    decisions made by this group.
                   MS. WHITE:  The next bullet is
    concern not to fund additional public
    broadcasting services from commercial
    broadcasters' revenues because they were given
    a great gift.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  What does that
    mean?  I don't understand the second sentence.
                   MS. WHITE:  Who brought that
                   MR. DECHERD:  I made the point
    in response to the renewed suggestion that
    we're dealing with a great gift here, and I
    thought we had left that subject in November.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  What?
                   MR. DECHERD:  The idea that
    spectrum is this great giveaway to
    broadcasters, and therefore, we should extract
    from broadcasters some sort of economic
    concession, and we got -- these are just
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  I agree with you
    on that.  Just the English, I wasn't sure what
    that sentence really said.  That's what I was
    having trouble with.

                   MS. WHITE:  It was taken from
    the transcript, so we were talking then.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Peggy Charren.
    Extremely disagrees, violently disagrees with
    that statement.
                   MS. WHITE:  Please remember that
    these are --
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Very
    difficult ideas.
                   MS. WHITE:  Please remember
    these are not the recommendations, just the
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  Keep going.
                   MS. WHITE:  Concern that delving
    into the relationships between CPB, PBS,
    Congress and the administration regarding a
    trust fund risk getting into highly divisive
    and contentious issues.
         It is important to give a broad definition
    of what educational programming is and then
    permit broadcasters to determine how to fulfill
    the goal.
         This is a discussion, not a
         Digital technology provides additional

    spectrum, and our commission should recommend
    constructive ways it can be used and let the
    broadcasters decide the details on how to use
         Public interest obligations for commercial
    broadcasters in the digital era should be the
    same as exist now and could involve more
    depending on how digital television evolves.
         The broadcast industry is spending
    billions of its own dollars on public interest
    programming, and the broadcast industry will
    oppose any additional mandates.
         Debate over whether commercial
    broadcasters have any or minimal public
    interest obligations with multiplex channels,
    creating an option for commercial broadcasters
    to have a channel with educational
         Belief that commercial broadcasters should
    work with those advocates who favor
    Congressional funding for public broadcasting.
    Chances of getting congressional funding
    greatly improve with a united effort.
         There should be incentives for commercial
    broadcasters to do more public interest

    programming by having 80 percent of the funds
    go to noncommercial broadcasters and 20 percent
    to commercial broadcasters.
         This is still discussion.
                   MR. RUIZ:  Which one are you
                   MS. SOHN:  This is my suggestion
    based on conversations I had with Barry
    Diller's staff, that there needs to be -- that
    there's no incentive for commercial
    broadcasters, commercial producers to produce
    good public interest programming.
         There's also something I heard.  I gave a
    speech on a kids program in digital age in
    New York, and several producers came up to me
    and said, you know, the money is not there for
    us to do this stuff.
         I thought maybe one way -- and again,
    let's not get -- I'm not wedded to these
    numbers at all -- that maybe some of the money
    should go to commercial producers to do public
    interest programming, and you would apply just
    as you would apply to CPB for a noncommercial
    programmer, you'd apply to CPB to get funding
    for a good public interest programming.

                   MS. CHARREN:  Let me reiterate
    that this was not this committee agreeing to
                   MS. SOHN:  It was my idea.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Incidentally, I
    think Gigi has got an interesting point there.
    I really do.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, if we
    strongly recommend, and if we ever got anywhere
    with the notion of taking revenues from the
    auctions and putting them into a fund to
    produce programming for public interest
    purposes focusing on education, and I think we
    have to emphasize here that what we would be
    talking about is public interest programming
    beyond the specific obligations that exist,
    that there, clearly, is a case to be made that
    in areas where it's simply not commercially
    feasible to have some revenue available.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Let me remind
    everybody that this creates a content-
    sensitive decision, and that NBC's idea of what
    is educational, like "Hang Time" and "Saved by
    the Bell" is not really mine.
         Now, I am not the genius to decide, but I

    think whenever you get into public money going
    to commercial interests, there's something
    that's defined as good, you have the problem of
    what is good.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  In this
    case, Peggy, it would be, presumably, either
    NBC or an independent producer making an
    application to an entity like a foundation,
    probably CPB, and if they made an application
    for funding for " Saved by the Bell", trying to
    make the case that it's not commercially
    feasible otherwise and this would serve the
    public interest and it's beyond the three hours
    that they have, they'd have to make an awfully
    good case.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I accept that, and
    they were separate caveats that go with this
    kind of recommendation.
                   MR. RUIZ:  The recommendation, I
    think there's public affairs programs,
    informational programs, and there's educational
    programs.  Most educators are going to tell
    you -- and we're not talking about preschool --
    that an educational for them to use has to fit
    into their curriculum.

         Nova, for example, is a great science
    series, but it's information.  A teacher can
    recommend that the children see it that evening
    and watch it, but they cannot build a class
    curriculum around it.
                   MS. SOHN:  Well, that's why that
    you'll see one of the recommendations, once we
    get to them, is that educational program needs
    go beyond classroom learning.
         I don't know -- I think the majority -- I
    don't want to say there's nobody, but the
    majority of the subcommittee thought that
    educational programming definitely needed to go
    beyond curriculum type stuff.  Otherwise, we
    wouldn't be talking about it.
                   MS. WHITE:  My definition
    doesn't even include that.  Would you like to
    hear my definition?
                   MS. CHARREN:  If we're talking
    about -- be careful because if we're talking
    about long-distance learning, that is
                   MS. WHITE:  That is true.
                   MS. CHARREN:  This is no longer
    the code.  This is recommendations for a

    digital age, and curriculum-related educational
    programming is certainly part of what you would
    hope would happen in a digital age.
                   MR. RUIZ:  I think if we're
    discussing partnership with the libraries and
    school systems that are especially involved in
    distant learning, we should have something that
    is uniform.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, it
    would seem to me that we obviously need to
    spend some time discussing what we mean here by
    educational programming, and we'll get to your
    definition in a minute.
         But suggesting that educational
    programming goes beyond classroom and
    instructional programming, whether it's distant
    learning or in the classroom itself, doesn't
    mean that it excludes such programming.  So I
    don't think any of us would suggest that an
    educational channel or a channel devoted to
    education oriented public interest programming
    should set aside instructional learning, but I
    doubt, Luis Ruiz, that you want to suggest that
    issue do only such programming.
                   MR. RUIZ:  No, I'm suggesting

    that maybe we add another word here so that
    educators don't go crazy.
                   MS. WHITE:  I think we could
    probably add it in the definition, more
    definition of educational program in the
                   MS. SOHN:  You do.  You have
    some introduction.  You say, in the first
    sentence, educational and instructional
    programming, including local, educational,
    children's and other public interest
    programming.  You can't get much broader than
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I have a question
    for Gigi on your suggestion about the 80
    percent, 20 percent.
         First, were you referring to educational
    programming or all public interest
    programming?  And secondly, if it was
    educational, are you proposing that it be above
    and beyond the three-hour requirement?
                   MS. SOHN:  Well, again, I would
    define educational to include just about every
    public interest program.  I would define it
    very, very broadly, and you know, that's

    basically -- public broadcast stations were
    originally tasked -- Frank, please correct me
    on the history if I'm wrong -- to do
    educational programming.  It was thought of as
    this more kind of narrow learning type concept,
    and over the years, it's evolved to be much,
    much, much, much more.
         I don't see any reason to why we should go
    back to what it was eons ago.  So that's the
    answer to question number 1.  Tell me what
    question number 2 was.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Well, that kind of
    answers it, I think.  I was asking whether it
    was three hours.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Three hours,
    that's a legal mandate.  That's a law that says
    every broadcaster has to provide, and I think
    this doesn't apply to that.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  No, this is
    over and above that.  If they want to do
    additional programming, that's not feasible.
                   MR. BENTON:  Charles Benton.  I
    think we do disservice to the idea of
    educational programming by following Gigi's

    definition of throwing everything into it that
    is public service.  I think this is not
         Let me speak to Robert Decherd's very
    imaginative and even courageous proposal that
    he shared with us in April.  The struggle
    between defining noncommercial television as
    educational or public has been the history of
    the business.  The Ford Foundation put a
    quarter of a billion dollars on the line in the
    '50s to support educational television.
    Cardine Corporation wrote its reports in 1967
    giving us a paradigm shift and moving us to
    public television.  And I think now that we're
    talking about educational television, we ought
    to be clear about what we're talking about, and
    it doesn't mean everything.
         And that, it seems to me, was the heart of
    what Robert, in responding to the panel as I
    remember that we had in January about
    educational programming, I think if we are to
    adopt the number one proposal here on this
    list, the discussion area; namely, allows a
    broadcaster to retain a second channel, which
    is not recommended by certain members of the

    committee, for example, if we are to adopt that
    idea, the only way Congress is going to go
    along with this is having us devote the second
    channel down the line because I know it's being
    led now, and we're talking not just the next
    two or three years, but we're talking the next
    50 years, and we got to be thinking about
         The only way Congress would allow that is
    by having that second channel devoted to
    education.  Now, I'm not thinking narrowly
    curriculum or K-12, but a preschool education,
    K-12, open university type of programs,
    Mr. Adenburg's original dream following the
    British, and then lifelong learning, but those
    are not public affairs programming and access
    programming, and they're not children's
    entertainment programming.  Those are different
    things, and I think we really do need to be
    more explicit about what we mean by education.
         And I believe that the other -- the second
    general point, which picks up on Luis's point,
    is by encouraging the linkage of community
    level with the other institutions that have the
    word public in them, the public schools and the

    public library and public television would
    really provide the basis then of cooperation at
    the community levels with public schools,
    public education -- I'm sorry, public schools,
    public library and public television where you
    have the institutional basis to be level, to be
    supplemented by a lot of others that would
    support education and programming and then
    public interest.
         So I think keeping the integrity of the
    word education and meaning what we say, not
    just it's everything and we're going to throw
    in the kitchen sink in public service, and I
    think, Bob, that's what you had in mind, and I
    really subscribe to that, and I think we ought
    to be very clear about that and stick to that
    vision because if we depart from that vision,
    then I think the idea of the public service
    broadcasting, keeping the second channel
    instead of having to return it as the
    commercial television will is -- just won't
         This could drive that decision long-term,
    and I'd like to have your reactions to that and
    what you had in mind with your bold and

    imaginative proposal.
                   MR. DECHERD:  Charles, that is
    essentially what I had in mind, and as you'll
    recall, the proposal also suggested that if
    this 6 megahertz is multiplexed in the future,
    that there might be a purpose there well-served
    for public interest or political time.
         I think it's interesting to look at CPB's
    submission here because their focus, Frank, if
    I am reading it correctly, is on this very
    point.  Said another way, with our existing
    6 megahertz, we have our hands full providing
    adequate funding for this large array of
    programming that fits under these other
    headings; public broadcasting largely defined,
    public affairs, community affairs and so forth,
    and I interpreted that document to suggest that
    CPB and PBS have a very ambitious agenda
    already to take advantage of the potentially
    five additional channels which they can program
    within the 6 megahertz.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Can I ask you, you
    just said -- you mentioned political speech,
    free time or something.
                   MR. DECHERD:  Right.

                   MS. CHARREN:  Which set of
    megahertz were you thinking for that, the
    original or the second?
                   MR. DECHERD:  Well, what I had
    originally proposed, Peggy, is that if you look
    at this additional spectrum as being primarily
    for educational purposes as Charles has defined
    it, that if you, again working through this
    evolutionary logic, believe that that's its
    primary purpose, and at the outset we might
    have our hands full putting one good and
    effective interactive educational channel
    across 50 states, but as that evolved and it
    became an accepted new medium almost, that it
    could then, through multiplexing, have the
    capacity to address unserved public interest
    requirements or even political speech
         But that's not its primary purpose, and
    then when you then overlay CPB's proposal, I
    think where you come back is to the crux of
    Charles' point and question; namely, should we
    put these two things together as we, as a
    committee, address a broad array of public
    broadcasting.  And I believe it's a mistake to

    do that.
         I believe that we need to follow Frank's
    and CPB's lead here and say, today we have a
    funding shortage for public broadcasting as
    it's evolved.  And then, on a separate page, if
    you will, say there is this choice, and that
    choice is to fund, in a discrete and separate
    way, a truly interactive educational national
    medium in cooperation with public schools,
    public universities, private universities,
    public libraries, the people Charles is talking
    about, and if other things evolve there, fine,
    but the real issue is, can we or should we
    propose that as a stand-alone idea which must
    be funded on a stand-alone basis.
         I think it would be a terrible mistake to,
    in effect, realize CPB's fears that we're just
    going to create more capacity with no
    additional funding and look up in ten years
    only to discover that we now have 12 megahertz
    allocated to the existing PBS, CPB regime, if
    you will, and no funding.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Have you got
    specific ideas for funding that second
    educational focus?

                   MR. DECHERD:  Yes, my proposal
    was whatever fees are obtained from the sale of
    spectrum in the future, and I said at the
    outset, and still believe, if it's so
    meritorious and an idea around which all
    political philosophies can rally, that Congress
    ought to fund it and assume that there will be
    funding from public schools and public
    universities and people truly interested in
    education who are the people we heard from in
         I sensed a tremendous amount of enthusiasm
    to come up with creative ways to obtain funding
    and create that capability, but that's
    completely different than the idea of a
    permanent trust fund for public broadcasting.
    I think to mix those two things is a
    nonstarter.  I would be opposed to recommending
    additional spectrum if that's the only --
                   MR. BENTON:  If I could just add
    one final specific, and others that want to
    come in here, right now, the most important new
    money for schools and libraries is in the New
    Schools and Libraries Corporation, which has
    two and a quarter billion dollars as a part of

    the Universal Service Fund, and all that does
    is help with connections.  It does not help
    with programming.
         So there is no money for programming short
    of thinking about this as a new challenge, and
    I come back to my basic point in support of
    your proposal, Robert.  Unless we can be
    explicit about this educational vision, if you
    will, and public telecommunications in the
    educational from cradle to grave, really, I do
    not think it will attract additional funding
    nationally.  But if we can stick to that, with
    two and a quarter billion dollars that are
    already there, one might look towards a --
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let's see
    what areas Gigi has.
                   MR. RUIZ:  I think this is a
    very complex idea, mainly because public
    broadcasting is so complex.  I think some of
    these work very well in especially state
    networks like Kentucky, Iowa, Alabama, but when
    you move into states like California, Texas,
    the licensees are so different.  You have
    anywhere from a community licensee to a
    university licensee to a board of education

    licensee.  You have all the overlapping
    stations.  You have San Bernardino, Orange
    County, two in LA, and you're going to leave
    all these spectrums there.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  There are a
    couple of additional areas here that we need to
    discuss at some length.
         We clearly have a problem that exists in
    places in California, it exists in Washington,
    D.C. where we have two public television
    stations, of setting aside one channel and
    figuring out which one.
         We also have the question which I would
    raise, which we've discussed a little bit
    before, and I put a suggestion on the table as
    well, as to whether this just automatically
    under every circumstance goes to a local public
    television station or not, and it shouldn't.
                   MR. GOODMON:  Should not.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  And what I
    would suggest is if we can resolve the question
    in areas where there's overlap which one moves
    forward, that any station be required to submit
    a plan for how it would use this spectrum to
    fit the objectives that we lay out, and that

    plan go to the FCC, which can accept it or
    reject it.  And if it's rejected, then it would
    be open for bid by other entities in the
    community to come up with a comparable plan so
    we can have at least some competition here with
    the initial nod to the local broadcast.
         We do have to resolve the question of
    overlap, but let's see if we can at least come
    to a consensus on the other areas.
         We, I think, have a consensus that we
    should recommend that public broadcasting in
    one fashion or another, if we can resolve the
    overlap, be able to keep its analog share of
    the spectrum rather than turn it back as other
    broadcasters will have to do with the proviso
    that it be used in a dedicated way to
    educational programming which we still need to
    define, and that adequate funding be there so
    that it not be an unfunded mandate.
         I would suggest to you that the obvious
    and logical thing, since we're tying this to
    the analog spectrum and since, presumably,
    public broadcasting is going to lag a little
    bit behind many of the others, is that our
    recommendation being simply that the funding

    for -- that come from the auction of the other
    analog spectrum, which now in the law go toward
    deficit reduction, and it seems logical to
    suggest that this be linked directly to that.
         Suggesting that the fees go to some
    entity.  I assume we're talking about the
    Corporation for Multibroadcasting to then
    allocate it among the other -- these new
    entities, and that a portion, which we can
    discuss, 15 or 20 percent, be set aside for
    open bidding to cover educational programming
    that otherwise would not be commercially
    feasible by commercial stations over and above
    whatever explicit legal obligations they have.
    I think we can probably all agree on that.
         Where we need to talk a little bit further
    is how we define the educational programming
    and how we deal with the overlap question and
    whether that process that I've described of
    creating a plan and bidding for it would be
                   MR. RUIZ:  I'm not so sure that
    I can agree on all that.  I think, first of
    all, if we want a level playing field and we
    didn't have various underserved audiences, and

    how many years have we been dealing with the
    minority question in broadcasting.
         Here we have an opportunity take some very
    bold steps and try to level that playing
    field.  Instead, we have to take safe steps,
    and we're going to go safe areas that we've
    always been in, we feel comfortable in, and I'm
    concerned that if you've got all these analog
    systems, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could
    build a system that serves reservations and
    makes people who feel that they're not part of
    the American public, that they've been defeated
    in war, that they've lost all their country,
    start to become part of the American society
    and see programming that reflects their
    culture, that reflects them, that reflects them
    in positive ways?  Can't we see a -- we look at
    the ghettos of this country where kids don't
    often see themselves in the way they should be
    seeing themselves in television in positive
         If you're going to use that system, let's
    use it to level that playing field.  Let's go
    into those areas that we've never gone into
    before.  Let's go into programming and really

    bring this country back together, and let's
    talk about the underserved.  Why give it back
    to the overserved?
         Are we talking about building a system
    that today has more British programming in its
    prime time schedule than that underserved
    audience?  Why do we want to do that?
         Public broadcasting is primarily, when you
    get into prime time schedules, it's a very
    elite group.  It's college-educated.  They can
    afford the membership.
         When we talk about the school districts,
    who's going to have -- what's the have and
    have-nots?  It's going to be the poor school
    districts that aren't going to have the
    capacity.  That's who we should focus on.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I suppose, in
    theory, that learning piece of the spectrum
    should be serving those audiences.  The
    question is what you do in the meantime, but
    we're talking about digital television.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  And we're
    not talking about replicating the prime time
    schedule of public broadcasters.
                   MS. CHARREN:  What do you think

    would happen, for example, with the second --
                   MR. RUIZ:  I think there are
    very specific things in here.  History will
    repeat itself, and those that have will get
    more, and those who have not, who don't have,
    will, once again, be left out.
                   MS. CHARREN:  How would you
    propose to affect the long-distance learning,
    for example, of the Native American community?
                   MR. RUIZ:  I would put money
    aside for that, and I would say specific money
    here would go for the underserved audiences.
    If we can write independent producers, can't we
    prioritize this money to go to the underserved
    audiences, those spectrums to go to the
    underserved audiences?  Can't we build a trust
    to start to level that playing field?  Can
    anybody argue?
                   MR. YEE:  I support you in the
    politics and the history of what you're talking
    about because I've been there, and I don't
    think that is an automatic guarantee it is
    going to go to the present PBS stations --
    better not because I won't support it.
         But I do think, when asking the commercial

    counterparts, we're also asking the public
    television counterparts to come up with a new
    plan, a new vision with accountability built
    in, because we're just giving spectrum to that
    is one thing, but I don't want to be,
    necessarily, going to the same people either.
         So I think there are ways of doing that.
    It's got to be dealt with in the details.
    Certainly it will not be a continuation of
    public television as it stands.  If it is, I
    think a lot of us would just walk out of the
    room, but I don't think by -- the issue of a
    trust fund is a magnet, and already we're
    seeing the magnet taking on a lot of
    connotations, a lot of layering.
         I think we have to be very careful about
    how we do that in terms of microengineering,
    because -- (inaudible) in the next two, three
    months working it out.
         But I believe that the recommendations
    that I see a lot of in all these reports,
    there's something promising here.  I don't want
    to kill it.  I also don't want to be exclusive
    either, and I think we've got to be as
    inclusive in this experiment as possible.

    Start creating set-asides which I do believe
    and I think is a way to navigate the language
    of that in terms of priorities and
    accountability, but I don't think -- I agree
    with what you're saying.  I think we got to be
    a little bit more farsighted rather than
    just --
                   CHAIRMAN MOONVES:  I don't think
    they're mutually exclusive.  I think there is a
    way.  What is set up here is a mechanism,
    basically, for financing educational
    programming in a new and exciting way.  I don't
    think it's impossible to also incorporate
    language that says that those that are
    underserved should be part of this time, and I
    think you could accomplish both.
                   MR. RUIZ:  I would like to see
    more than just part of it.  I think the
    priority should be a level playing field.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, we may
    not be able to come to a complete agreement on
    that, but I do think we clearly are trying to
    send a signal here, first of all, that this
    space would have to be justified by stations as
    distinct from and very different from the

    programming that they do otherwise.  It is a
    new and different entity.  It would have to be
    justified in terms of its links to local
    communities and organizations that -- with a
    cooperative and interactive effort.
         And clearly, it is designed to complement
    the Schools and Libraries Act, which probably
    needs more of a focus on making sure that the
    underserved schools are wired first.  But just
    to wire them isn't going to matter if you don't
    have something to put in there, and that's what
    we're designed to do, what we're trying to
    design something to do.
         And we want to make this a competitive
    process so that stations don't just get it and,
    in a cavalier way, ignore those communities.
    So I would hope we can, as James suggests, work
    out language.
                   MR. BENTON:  Norm, a very
    concrete point, the majority of money in
    elementary and secondary education under
    Title 1 is aimed specifically to the
    underserved.  So by tying in this with
    legislation, ESEA and the Higher Educational
    Act, which is up for renewal next year, and

    LSTA, these are the three acts to think about
    all this in big terms.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Just to take
    one example, a couple of which you mentioned,
    South Dakota Public Television, for example, is
    given this opportunity to do educational
    programming and given funding to do it.  I
    would have a hard time imagining that
    South Dakota Public Television wouldn't go out
    of its way to serve the Indian reservations in
    that particular community, and if they came up
    with a plan that didn't do that, then the FCC
    would be well-justified to reject it and open
    it up for bidding and maybe some other group,
    including an Indian group, might come forward
    with a better plan.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I have a
    question.  It seems to me that I hear two
    funds; one fund is for public interest
    programming that is separate from this other
    way of thinking about education, which I think
    is good and important, and the other is mostly
    spectrum auction of a piece for the education
    channel or the education hunk of spectrum.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Well, I

    think what we're suggesting, there are actually
    three things that are out there on the table.
    One is a suggestion that has come from all of
    those in the public broadcasting world, which
    basically is set up a trust fund for public
    broadcasting and fund it so that along the way
    it can reach a level of $5 or $6 billion
    dollars and we can do what we need to do with
    the digital age of public broadcasting.
         What Robert is suggesting, what many
    others I think agree with, is put that issue
    aside from a dedicated channel for educational
    purposes and see if we can come up with a
    specific link.  You know, we may very well want
    to recommend that Congress fund a trust fund
    for public broadcasting.
                   MS. CHARREN:  So it's two.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It's two.
         Now, we could also consider a third area,
    which is -- and we haven't discussed in any
    detail now what to do with the fees, which
    maybe small or may not, specifically for
    ancillary and supplementary uses, which now are
    going to have to be collected by the FCC, and
    we also haven't discussed yet, but we will get

    to, the question of whether funds come in on a
    separate track if stations move towards
    multiple channels of commercially-driven
    programming, which we'll get to at some other
         So there may be multiple streams of
    funding coming in.  The question is what gets
    dedicated to what or what we recommend.
                   MS. CHARREN:  At least there are
    two big hunks now.  If the public system is to
    keep its second one, and that is really a way
    of thinking about a democratic society and how
    it works and how education isn't working, and
    it starts to deal with some of the real
    problems in the way of this country is going.
    It does have two things, and I think that's
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  What Robert
    is saying, which I think most of us would agree
    with, is we do not want to commingle the idea
    of making sure that public broadcasting as an
    entity is funded adequately for its move to the
    digital age, and adding a new educational
    component to this that would be separate and
    distinct in term of its programming, though

    there's some overlap, obviously, and its intent
    that we would try to fund separately.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I like that
    because I didn't understand that from the
    initial thing.
                   MR. CRUZ:  I think it's
    evolved.  I think, in fairness to Gigi's
    proposal and Robert's proposal, what we
    attempted to do in the proposal that public
    broadcasting, as a whole, has submitted to the
    committee members -- and I trust, I hope by now
    all of you have gotten a copy of it -- what we
    try to do is we try to talk about the need for
    the creation of a trust fund so public
    broadcasting can do its job well that it's
    doing now into the digital era.  And then we
    look at if you agree to recommend that public
    broadcasting take on those second channels and
    those added ancillary responsibilities, then
    that should be something that should be with a
    proviso of adequate funding for that also in
    that context.  And I think if you look in our
    proposal, it's pretty well spelled out in that
                   MS. SOHN:  Well, I really like

    the way CPB, on pages 7 and 8 of their
    proposal, have laid out the types of public
    services they provide with a channel.  That's
    how I would define -- I mean, if we're saying
    you can only do educational programming on the
    second channel, this is how I would define
    that, and it's really very broad, but it may be
    too broad for some folks.
                   MR. CRUZ:  Does everyone have a
    copy of the public broadcasting proposal?  If
    not, I've got some extras here that I can let
    you have.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  What's the date?
                   MR. CRUZ:  Well, we dated it for
    today, but I had it Fed Exed to everyone, I
    think Wednesday or Thursday of last week.  But
    I've got some extras here.
                   MS. SOHN:  Once everybody has
    that in front of them, I would suggest two just
    minor, minor changes, editorial changes, but
    otherwise that's -- pages 7, bullet point at 7.
                   MR. DECHERD:  May I just make
    one observation, and it really relates to
    Peggy's point about how these things
    momentarily need to be emerged and now we're

    separating them again.
         The idea that on the outset on our part is
    that they be separate, and I think the funding
    mechanism for them as described are absolutely
    the place we should begin, but I will also say
    that I think if this works, that the
    inclination of the Congress to provide funding
    for this separately would be an entirely
    different political discussion than funding of
    PBS.  I mean, it's hard to imagine anyone being
    against this for work.  There's just an
    incredible yearning, I mean back to Jose Luis's
    point or anybody.  This is one way.
                   MR. BENTON:  If I may add again,
    I think it's really important to be clear about
    what we're saying.  We're talking about
    educational outreach.
         Here is -- the CPB, in its testimony to
    Congress, is passing out this brochure, which
    this is sort of the case in point, in effect.
    This is Maryland's, Maryland's idea, but it's
    kind of the model that CPB is putting out for
    the world here.
         And here's the analog for a single channel
    here, and the four channels, digital television

    and the multiplexing, the first channel,
    children's channel, ready to learn.  This is
    just one state's idea now.  The next one,
    Maryland Public Service, Maryland Public
    Service.  Then there's educational
    instructional, and then there's business and
    information.  Okay.  This is one vision of the
    use of digital television in a multiplexing
         These kinds of things can be done with and
    in line with DT's broad definition of all the
    public programming there is room for within
    this one channel, but what we're talking about
    now is phase two.  After this has been done
    over the next five years, talking about phase
    two, which is another channel, and that's the
    channel we're talking about now, vis-a-vis
    education, because if --
                   MS. CHARREN:  Five channels.
                   MR. BENTON:  In the current
    situation, one can do, for example, a national
    campaign on literacy, and we need a national
    campaign on literacy, can do job retraining
    programs.  We need job retraining desperately,
    and television can play a major role.  Those

    are ideas that can be experimented with in this
    role model.  But that is not speaking to
    Bob's -- to Robert's vision of keeping the next
    6 megahertz for education, which then can, in
    effect, evolve in its definition so that we can
    really roll out, in a major way, mid 2005.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Let me just
    procedurally suggest something here.  Karen had
    a comment she had wanted to make.  Let me say
    that our schedule, in our schedule, we were
    supposed to break at 12:30, but we were
    actually supposed to stop our discussion around
    12:15 for a brief period of public comment,
    which is required under the law, and I would
    suggest that we take Karen's brief comment and
    then open up for our public comments, and when
    we return after lunch, we can, I hope in an
    expeditious way, move to our discussion of how
    we want to define under these circumstances
    educational programming, have at least a brief
    discussion of where we want to go in terms of
    this problem of overlap, and then conclude with
    this area and move on to our more contentious
                   MS. CHARREN:  Somebody just gave

    me this public interest obligation broadcast,
    and I don't know where this came from.
                   MR. GOODMON:  I didn't mean for
    that to be passed out.  I had it copied.  On
    one side is the current.  I want to pass it out
    when we talked about public interest
    obligations rather than now.  On the left side
    is what the public interest obligations of
    broadcasters are now, and on the right side is
    what they had been at various times in the
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  So retain
    that for our discussion later on.
                   MS. WHITE:  I actually have more
    recommendations.  We dealt with some.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  But some of
    these in the pay or play vein, for example, are
    in areas that move beyond the specific ones.
    We'll take them up.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  This is just a
    minor point again.  I just noticed that in all
    the discussions, again the Disability Act is
    not mentioned, so I just wanted to add that
    where funds -- I would propose that where funds
    are distributed to stations, whether they be

    public stations or commercial stations, that
    there be a condition imposed on those funds
    that the programming used or the programming
    that uses those funds contain closed
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
                   MR. GOODMON:  I'm trying to
    think through how we keep Robert's idea going
    and this is six, seven, eight -- if it's 85
    percent, I don't know what it is, but I think
    it would be important for us to say we need to
    keep this spectrum, and if we set up some
    mechanism to work on how to do it, I mean to
    define this and somebody set up a task force or
    something, to keep this -- I'm afraid this will
    be lost.  I don't know how.  Since this could
    be six or eight years from now, we need someway
    to --
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It has to be
    embodied in the legislature, basically.  Among
    other things, the Telecommunications Act
    specified that the revenues from any auction of
    the analog spectrum would go to the general
    treasury, so you need a legislative fix

         But I think, as Robert said, it strikes me
    as being so politically attractive and
    nonidealogical that I don't think we'll have
    any difficulty finding support if we want to
    move this forward.
                   MS. CHARREN:  It's a hell of a
    thing to impose.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Therefore,
    we can pinpoint those who will oppose it.
                   MS. CHARREN:  That's right.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  We will now
    open up for public comment.  We're going to
    have a second period of public comment in the
    afternoon, so I would ask that if there are
    public comments, that they be basically
    tailored or targeted towards what we've
    discussed this morning.  Is that appropriate --
    or whatever else.
         Please identify yourself and step up to
    the microphone.
                   MS. FRENZEL:  Hi.  My name is
    Sue Frenzel, and I live in Minneapolis, and I
    think I should tell you a little bit about
    myself so you know where I'm coming from.

         I was raised on a dairy farm.  My
    background is German Lutheran -- or German
    Catholic and Swedish Lutheran, and I was in
    Girl Scouts and 4H, and I'm engineer, and I'm
    working as a legal secretary right now, and I'm
    unemployed, which is why I can be here today.
         I worked as a disk jockey.  I love the
    media, but boy, do I have criticisms for you.
    After being here today, more than ever I feel
    that the public that owns the airways should be
    leasing the airways so that we can cut the plug
    on people that aren't representing us.
         There's another thing that I'm not sure
    the people know because it's just been
    discovered in the past 20 years.  Men and
    women's brains are different.  Men have 20 to
    40 times the amount of testosterone than a
    women does, and those are the things that drive
    aggression and that drive lust, and that's why
    women are less interested in sexual and violent
    programming than men are.
         You're not serving us.  The majority of
    the demographics in the United States is
    female, and I've really been thrilled by the
    fact that the women on your panel have been so

    active and that you men have listened to them
    so well because they really represent the
    majority of the population in the United States
    right now.
         What else did I want to say?  Let me look
    at my list really quick.  Oh, yeah, this is
    really important to me.
         Even though my last name is Frenzel, I'm
    not related to Congressman Bill Frenzel in
    Minnesota, and I care very much that we're not
    getting the coverage locally of political
    issues that we care about.  Our system is being
    subverted by the lack of publicity that some of
    our politicians get when they do things.
         75 percent of this area, of this state, is
    a canopy state, and the right now the land is
    being cleared by the City of Minneapolis at the
    tune of $12 million dollars, and during the
    last elections, no one told what the different
    city council members in Minneapolis's views on
    the stadium were.  I knew because I went to the
    city council meeting, so I knew where they
    stood.  By the newspapers wouldn't listen to me
    because the newspaper is in favor of the

         So I want to see things like the school
    boards.  The school board a real hot issue in
    Minneapolis right now.  It's explosive, and you
    didn't see the school board's nominees in front
    on the TV.
         Do not cover them the way the politicians
    want to be covered.  Do not give them free ad
    time.  Ask them the hard questions about what
    their stands on controversial issues are so
    that we know who they are.  I want to know what
    their religious background is and if they're
    favoring the religious rights or not.  That's
    all I have.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  One thing I
    should mention to you is there's an
    organization now called the Minnesota Compact.
    It's not exactly an organization but it's a
    coming together of a variety of interests here
    in Minnesota, including broadcasters and
    newspapers and others with an agreement to move
    towards robust, in a voluntary way, robust
    coverage of election issues, such as the ones
    that you mentioned.
         So there is a movement here, which I think
    will be a model for the rest of the nation

    actually, of having responsible broadcasters
    and other journalists join together with the
    political parties and organizations like the
    League of Women Voters to try to do some of the
                   MS. FRENZEL:  Still, I want to
    see teeth, and I want the public to have teeth,
    and the only way we can have teeth is if we
    lease the airways instead of -- (inaudible).
         I listened to you talk this morning about
    voluntary, and what I see on TV is what we got
    right now because of voluntary compliance, and
    it's not sufficient, and it's not okay.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Go ahead.
    Go to the microphone.
                   MR. VOLARI:  Hi, my name is
    Steve Volari.  I live in St. Paul.
         I would, first of all, agree strongly that
    I think the airways need to be leased because
    we have a lot of large corporations that have a
    great deal of money and an ability for freedom
    of speech, and you have not a really powerful
    mechanism to prevent them from imposing what
    they would consider speech out on to the world
    versus what we, the citizenry, would say we

    want to hear and putting the mechanisms into
    the digital broadcasting medium would give us
    the ability to have a much stronger voice in
    terms of how that content is laid out and what
    parts of that content belong to what minorities
    or what specific political movements we, in our
    community or other communities, would feel.
         So I would like to see a law set up so
    that, for example, you might have -- you might
    lease the airways for 10 years at a time and
    have a five-year review process, and after that
    five years, if a specific company doesn't meet
    the review process, then, you know, a third of
    their profits are turned into the Congress of
    the United States and they're used to fund
    either other public television broadcasting
    interests or interests that the organization
    that handles that funding would use.
         My second comment would be specific to
    this board, and that would be I was looking at
    the schedule, and I was kind of angry because I
    felt like 90 percent of the citizens of the
    State of Minnesota might want to make a
    comment, but if you travel to the State of
    Minnesota and put this board together and start

    talking about the topics but give 30 minutes of
    public commentary at 12:15 to 12:30 and 4:15 to
    4:30, it becomes very difficult for us who work
    during the day to take an hour and a half or so
    out of our day and make our comments.
         It might be better to set the board up so
    that the comments came from -- you might
    convene and have an hour and a half or two
    hours, from 5:30 to 7:30, and make it a little
    bit more publicly available for those of us who
    have jobs and work and so forth to come down
    and make comments related to how we would like
    to see the content laid out and to other parts
    of your discussion.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  I should
    note that we've had, in previous meetings, we
    had some hearings, but we have a website and we
    get a very vigorous amount of public comment
    that comes in over the internet.
         Karen mentioned the address, and we
    welcome and have circulated among all of our
    members, and we pay great attention to what we
    get that comes in that way that doesn't require
    you to come in person.
                   MS. EDWARDS:  And Steve, I would

    just add to that, certainly the committee wants
    to hear from you.  And often, the best way to
    do that is not to talk here but really write
    in.  All of the comments that we receive are
    circulated, I know they are read and
    considered.  So don't think of this opportunity
    as the only opportunity that you have to share
    your views.  Certainly you can contact me
         I think one other thing I'd want to say, I
    think it's a good point you're making about
    having an evening meeting.  This committee
    doesn't really make decisions itself about
    exactly how to run it.  It is governed by the
    Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that act
    has, as part of it, a requirement that the
    meetings be held during normal business hours.
         So part of your concern here I think needs
    to be taken a little bit above this committee,
    and you say to your Congressman that you don't
    like that, that you think that there is value
    to having the meetings be after hours, but just
    so you have a bit more context about why the
    meetings are scheduled as they are.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Mention the

    website address.
                   MS. EDWARDS:  Sure.  You can
    access it through the home page of the National
    Telecommunications Information and
    Administration, and that's WWW.NTIA.DOC.GOV,
    and you can get that information right out here
    on the table if anybody else wants it as well.
                   MR. VOLARI: Thank you.
                   MR. CASHMAN:  (Through
    interpreter).  Good afternoon.  My name is Mike
    Cashman, and I'm with the State of Minnesota's
    Department of Human Services for the Deaf and
    Hard of Hearing.
         I'm really happy to be able to come to
    this meeting at the last minute.  I just read
    the article this morning.
         I have a very important issue that I
    wanted to bring up that focuses on captions,
    and that's during the -- on the TV stations.  I
    know that that's their responsibility to have
    real-time captioning.  It's not really closed
    captioning.  It's real-time live captioning
    that we're talking about here.
         I've had different experiences over the
    years and different problems with captioning,

    especially during emergencies, and I just
    wanted to let you know about a report that I
    have here in Minnesota, especially greater
         Recently during the storms that we had,
    the tornados that we had -- and we had a person
    here who was from that area in St. Peter.
    During that time -- really my goal here is --
    the big picture is the public, the airways
    there are open to the public but not always to
    deaf people, just to let you know that.  A lot
    of times we're left out.
         Yeah, we do have some contact here, some
    assistance, and we do have some technology
    here, but really, it's not being used, and it's
    very important that we let you know that this
    is a very important issue because deaf people
    are having a hard time accessing that, during
    emergencies especially.
         I encourage that TV stations have
    real-time captioning on their programs during
    emergencies.  Do you have any questions for
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I'm from the
    National Association of the Deaf, and there is

    an FCC proceeding right now that's going on to
    require real-time captioning of emergencies.
    And actually, I would also support that in the
    NAB voluntary code, that we encourage
    broadcasters to have real-time captioning,
    which is basically simultaneous captioning.
    Although there are, right now, are other laws
    in effect or other regulations in effect to
    caption emergencies, there are quite a few
    holes in those laws.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Is that
    going to be made easier, Karen, with digital
    technology, or is it the same?
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I think it's the
    same.  I think it's going to probably be made
    easier with speech recognition technology.  I
    don't think digital technology will change
    anything, but speech recognition, hopefully,
    will because that will bring down the cost
    considerably over real-time captioning.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Can I ask Karen a
    question?  For now when stations aren't
    captioning live, do they hold up boards with
    warnings on them, oh, your house is about to
    get knocked down?

                   MS. STRAUSS:  Different stations
    do different things.  Some stations have
    crawls, emergency crawls.
         The problem is that when the stations cut
    to live programming, more often than not,
    there's not live captioning.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I understand that
    there isn't live captioning, which is one kind
    of technology that they have to put in place,
    but it seems pretty easy to hold up some kind
    of a board, I mean something.
                   MR. CASHMAN:  (Through
    interpreter.)  I want to add something to
    that.  Really, holding up a board would not
    work.  The FCC, its critical work called --
    it's really essential for something to be
    shown, like a person, a weather person who is
    on the air would interrupt, would have these
    interruptions to explain what's going on.
    You've seen that on television.
         Really, what needs to be happening is
    captioning going along the bottom, called a
    crawl, and it's not the same.  Let's suppose
    that there's hail or something like that, it
    would say "large hail", and it would be

    captioned across the bottom.  So if a man was
    talking, hail, very large hail, size of a
    softball, that would be different.  That would
    be different.  It's not called captioning.  If
    that's essential information, it needs to be
         And also, the crawl, as it's called, will
    say, you know, there has been a tornado
    touchdown, and that's it.  When a weather
    person is talking and saying the situation is
    really serious and that something is happening,
    please take cover immediately, that's not
    captioned.  That's not shown.  So that's a lot
    of different information coming across.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  In the recent
    tornados that just occurred, that was exactly
    the problem that occurred.  The crawl was
    giving information that the tornado was
    occurring, but the newscaster was giving
    information minute-by-minute information about
    where to go and which community was being hit.
                   MS. CHARREN:  And that wasn't in
    the crawl?
                   MS. STRAUSS:  That was not
    captioned and not in the crawl.

                   MR. CRUMP:  If I might interrupt
    here, since I'm a hometown guy and I hear what
    you're saying, and I'm most interested in it.
    One of the good situations I believe has
    occurred, and I'd like to hear your comments on
    it, is the fact that several of the stations
    now display, when the weathercaster is talking,
    a time line as to where the storm is going and
    the exact minute that it will arrive so that
    you have, going out in front of these storms,
    exactly where they're going and the people that
    need to take cover at that point.
         Have you noticed this, and how did you
    feel about that?  Was that a good improvement?
                   MR. CASHMAN: (Through
    interpreter.)  No, really that's not good
    enough.  There has to be a greater improvement
    than that.  Really, there has to be a better
    way than that.  Really, for deaf people,
    they're not happy with that.  They're not happy
    with the system.  It's not working, and I just
    feel like that's the most honest, direct answer
    I can give you.
         Another situation through WCCO Radio, my
    boss is hearing, he told me -- he informed me

    that it was a hard of hearing woman -- two
    women in St. Peter, who tried to -- they were
    trying to hold their door during the tornado.
    They didn't know what was going on.  They
    didn't know what was happening or what kind of
    storm it was.  They didn't know.  They had no
         So maybe there needs to be something that
    says something about that, like the tornado has
    been seen.  They need to describe in more
    detail about what's going on, and it was left
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I have one last
    comment.  First of all, I did not plant this
    person here.  And secondly -- although it's
    worked out very well -- but secondly, I just
    want to say that this is actually a significant
    concern of the deaf community and that I've
    worked on deaf issues now for about 15 years,
    and I would say that this is probably number
         I hadn't raised it because I've raised
    just generally closed captioning throughout
    every conversation, and also because the SEC is
    hopefully going to handle it, but I would just

    love to have this committee address it.
         We're talking about life and death.  I
    mean, this is something that when the SEC
    opened up its proceedings, received hundreds,
    if not thousands of letters from people around
    the country who have said, please, we do not
    get the information.  Please, we are dying.
    Stories of hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes,
    people just completely uninformed about
    emergencies that are occurring, and this is
    probably number one on the issues of the agenda
    of deaf people.
                   MR. LA CAMERA:  Karen, do you
    have any information or knowledge at all about
    the capacity of captioning to provide --
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Well, that's a
    really good question.  One of the two things
    that came out of this proceeding is the fact
    that remote captioning is now being used on a
    much more wide-scale basis than it had in the
    past.  So whereas before there were only three
    or so main caption centers, as you know now,
    there are hundreds around the country, and
    there's one in particular, Caption Colorado,
    that uses exclusively remote captioning.  They

    use stenographers and transcribers or real-time
    captioners that can operate in their homes,
    have pagers and be on call so that when an
    emergency occurs, the costs are incredibly
    low.  I think they're around $120 per hour to
    real-time caption.  They're available quickly.
    They are skilled workers.
         And like anything else, we create a
    requirement.  You will have more people become
    skilled at a particular area.
         So I don't think that the supply is a
    problem here.  I think it's just a requirement
    that's the problem.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Karen, could you
    send some language for the code on this?
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Sure.
                   MR. SUNSTEIN:  Maybe we can talk
    about it.  It will be in --
                   MS. STRAUSS:  I have more than
    enough in my office.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Can you describe
    for me, if there is a difference, the
    difference between a crawl and a caption?
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Well, really, the
    point is that we want real-time captioning,

    live captioning on the spot as it occurs,
    spontaneous captioning.
                   MS. CHARREN:  Is a crawl --
                   MS. STRAUSS:  A crawl could be
    live, but it isn't always.
                   MS. CHARREN:  It could be the
    way the caption hits the screen.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  It doesn't have to
    be through closed captioning.  Closed
    captioning you have to have special equipment.
    If it's live and if it's open, that's fine.  In
    fact, it's even better.
                   MS. CHARREN:  It's goods for me.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  There are a lot of
    people who don't have their caption decoders
    turned on.
                   MS. CHARREN:  I'm saying that
    crawl is good for me, and I can hear.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Right, would
    benefit from open captioning.  And in an
    emergency, it's not like it has to be
    aesthetically pleasing.  You want information.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  Well, there's a
    delay, though, on live captioning.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  Well, there may be

    a few-second delay, but it's still going to be
    a lot faster.
                   MR. DUHAMEL:  In Colorado, you
    got to dial them up, get them transferred.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  There is going to
    a period of time where you have to make the
    hookup, but once you make that hookup, it's
    simultaneous.  It's done now for -- like I
    said, it's done for emergencies, and a few
    years ago -- or actually, this year it was done
    for the flooding in California, last year as
    well, and what was good was that because it can
    be done remotely, even if there are multiple
    emergencies in a given area, such as occurred
    in California, they can reach out to other
    parts of the country where the emergency is not
    occurring and get the real-time captioners to
    do it.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  A couple of
    things we should remember here.  Definitely we
    need to build this in.
         I recall that we had testimony from this
    emergency task force, which is already ahead of
    the curve on some of these areas, but we need
    to keep that in mind when we make our

    recommendations, which is to reserve what is a
    tiny portion of this ban for what will -- what
    is going to be the state-of-the-art, which can
    be, in fact, oriented to households, and they
    are very much on top of the question of making
    sure that for people who are hearing impaired
    or sight impaired, they have ways of reaching
    people to let them know that a tornado may hit
    their house.
         So it may very well be -- we can't count
    on it.  I think we need to build in as much as
    we can now, but a few years down the read, the
    technology will, in fact, help to enhance
         And already, I wish Rob Glaser were here
    because I'm sure he knows the state of the art
    of voice recognition software, and my guess is
    that by the time we actually get digital
    programming out there in any kind of a
    widespread way, that much of what we're talking
    about in terms of what Colorado is doing or
    otherwise that involves individuals sitting and
    transcribing will be superfluous, that for
    $49.95, we'll be able to get software.
                   MS. STRAUSS:  And just have a

    skilled or an articulate person reading in the
    information.  From what I've been told, it's
    not here yet.  We're not at that point.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  It's moving
                   MS. CHARREN:  And this is like
    public radio, the service public radio provided
    in, I think it was Alaska, where there was no
    connection in rural areas for emergencies in
    public radio.  This isn't for the deaf, but
    public radio was the way you learned what was
    happening that you needed to know.  And life
    and death is different from entertainment.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  This is the
    essence of serving the community, obviously, of
    making sure that it works.
                   MR. CLIFT:  Yes, hi.  My name is
    Steven Clift, and I have a handout.  And just
    quickly, by way of background, my name is
    Steven Clift, an independent consultant, I
    guess, here in Minnesota.  For three years I
    coordinated the State of Minnesota's government
    on-line project.  I do a lot of public speaking
    on internet democracy around the world, and I
    have a lot of interest in how we leverage

    additional broadcasting as, basically, what I
    consider the one-way internet.  What ones and
    zeros do we send out do we want to have in
    everyone's homes, and they're set for digital
         What I've handed out -- and there are
    copies on the table for those in the
    audience -- is just a good concept that I call
    community information syndication.
         Stepping -- earlier this morning I was
    listening on real audio, so listening to you
    via the internet, and I heard you mention local
    and what sort of learning from public access
    and some of the different -- the things we've
    done in the past.
         Well, video is very expensive to produce,
    but because these are just ones and zeros,
    perhaps we think about what web pages, what
    images, what small audio files, perhaps what
    video files might we want to send out in a
    community and how might, within a community,
    there be some aggregation.  There will be,
    obviously, lots of commercial aggregation.
         But stemming back to my government on-line
    experience, I looked at a screen for three

    years and thought, how in the heck can we serve
    the citizens?
         Well, really, it's through television and
    telephone after three years of looking at the
    web.  And so part of it is you think about
    government information, and whether it be
    police reports or crime watch warnings or
    community information like neighborhood picnic
    information or information about how to become
    involved in a global group.
         There's a lot -- there's a lot of stuff
    out there that if you can add geography as an
    indicator, if you streamed it out, with a
    set-top box and served by Teletext in Europe,
    you would be able to make available, really in
    a very tailored way, bits and pieces of
    information just as soon as you watch the
    sports, and they'd say look here to see the
    stat card on that football player.  You'd be
    able to make it more possible for other types
    of community information to be available.
         And so one of the key concepts is the idea
    of internet studio.  Obviously, you have to
    aggregate the stuff in some way.
         The other issue is how might it be

    accessible.  Well, digital broadcasting would
    be a key one-way vehicle.  Really, the most
    important information that you would want
    everyone to have by virtue of existing for the
    people who really only have the one-way
    connection to the net.  That's really, really
         Another area would be just on-line
    distribution as well as multi-tech access,
    figuring out how to use that information via
    telephone and fax back and the like.
         And just quickly to conclude, on the
    second page, I have community digital
    broadcasting where I basically suggest that
    perhaps it's one of the most fundamentally
    democratic opportunities, one discussion is
    election information.  Does it have to be just
    video?  Would you be able to make the last leap
    of the election, short nonpartisan constituents
    about candidates and information how to contact
    candidates for more information.  If every
    set-top box had it, that's access.  Not that
    people are going to necessarily use it all the
    time, but it can be out there.  It's possible.
         The big question is, with this convergence

    of this intermediating force, who aggregates?
    Obviously, public television, public
    broadcasters, public access, they all could
    play a role, and should play a role.
         And the other question is what -- you
    know, how do you fund aggregation.  Also, whose
    airways is it on?  Is it just on the public
    television's bands.  Could it be on some of the
    bands with some of the commercial broadcasters;
    all issues to consider.  So thanks for being in
    Minnesota.  You've got a great view here.  You
    can see my house.  So thanks for coming to
    Minnesota, and if you have any questions, feel
    free to ask me.
                   CHAIRMAN ORNSTEIN:  Thank you
    very much.  Okay.  If that's what we have for
    public comment for now, let's adjourn for
    lunch.  We'll reconvene at 1:45.
                   (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

                   ) ss

          Be it known that I took the foregoing

          That I was then and there a notary public
in and for the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota;
         That the foregoing transcript is a true
and correct transcript of my original stenographic
notes in said matter;
         That I am not related to nor an employee
of any of the parties hereto, nor a relative nor
employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
parties hereto, nor interested in the outcome of
the action;
JUNE, 1998.

                        BARBARA J. STROIA, RPR
                        Notary Public