Monday, November 9, 1998

The Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
Polaris Room, Concourse Level
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Transcript of the morning session, part two

(Click here to view part one of the morning session)
(Click here to view the afternoon session)

              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Our goal here is to wrap
    everything up by noon.
              MR. MOONVES:  One statement about what we have
    been talking about.  In fairness, to Mr. Ornstein, the
    provision, this paragraph, has been in existence for six
    weeks and has not been commented on until today. 
    Paragraph four on the multiplexing was in existence for
    six weeks versus the disclosure report which was in
    existence for six minutes.
              I am sorry, Gigi.  That wasn't a shot.  Well, a
    little one.
              MR. MOONVES:  So this was on the table.  And
    people are acting like it's a brand-new issue here.  So I
    just wanted to mention that.  I think the discourse is
    good.  And in fact Mr. Diller brings up some very
    significant points about free TV versus pay TV.  I might
    not tie them to minimum standards as he does, however this
    was in existence for quite a while.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let's see if there are any
    additional comments on this issue of multiplexing.  And if
    not, we will move on.  But please, the floor is open.
              Rob, who isn't here, I think had something to

    say.  But we will leave it open.
              MR. LACAMERA:  I know this has been in existence
    for a while and I have spoken on it before, so I am
    comfortable speaking on it again.  And that is the issue
    that the language that is in here, warning against any of
    this discouraging expansion or experimentation could not
    be -- it needs to be stronger I think.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  That is fine.
              MR. LACAMERA:  If you think this through, and
    the reality of the premise of what this is going to be,
    these could very well be niche channels.  I mean they
    probably will not be full-service channels.  So Jim
    Goodman's premise, which many cited, that a channel is a
    channel is a channel, I would dispute that.  And I would
    be very cautious that the structure or the same level of
    public service responsibilities and whatever don't
    discourage stations from providing additional services to
    viewers, and competing certainly on an economic front by
    providing free services in competition to what cable now
    charges for.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Okay, we will go back and work on
    that language, as well as think about the smaller stations
    a little bit more.
              I do want to note that Jose Luis Ruiz is with us

    electronically and is listening in.  And he is right here
    in this particular box.  So we welcome his comments, as
    well, and hope he is able to hear.
              MS. SOHN:  Norm, I am just unclear.  And I would
    like to at least see if there is a consensus for the
    notion that when a broadcaster multiplexes they have to do
    something more, whether it be multiple mandatory public
    interest obligations to the extent that that's what we
    vote for -- I hope -- or something else.
              MR. MOONVES:  There is also the ability to write
    a dissenting report.  There are people who disagree on
    this issue.
              MS. SOHN:  But what are we agreeing on?  That is
    what I am asking you.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  In a more general way, is there
    anybody who believes that whether it is in the form of
    mandatory obligations or some kind of menu as we have
    placed, that if you do multiple channels there is a
    significant public interest obligation that goes with
    them?  I mean let's -- that's probably convoluted
    language -- anybody who believes that there are no
    additional obligations that accrue when you do multiple
    channels, whether it be having all the public interest
    obligations apply across all channels or some other, more
    flexible structure?  Do we have any dissent there?

              MR. MASUR:  I actually wanted to respond to
    Gigi's question, since nobody seems to be screaming for
    the floor on yours.  Which doesn't mean it wasn't a good
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Thank you.
              MR. MOONVES:  Nobody understood the question. 
    That was the problem.
              MR. MASUR:  I just wanted to suggest there might
    be, again, depending upon how we go with the mandatory
    obligations and -- minimum standards, rather -- there
    might be a way to incorporate.  I very much want to
    identify myself with Barry's comments about consistency,
    either on one channel or many channels, on the one hand.
              On the other hand, because as other people have
    brought up, it may not be applicable in certain
    circumstances -- for example, if you are broadcasting an
    all-sports channels, you know, it is going to get public
    interest stuff in there, aside from United Way commercials
    or something -- so what I was going to suggest is that
    there could be a way to write this wherein we recognize
    that this is a consistent obligation that should run
    through, but may not be applicable.  And insofar as it is
    not applicable, here are some alternative ways that
    licensees could respond as variations to simply adhering

    to the mandatory minimum requirements, if that is what we
    agree to.
              And that may be a fudge, but I cannot figure out
    any other way to address the two divergent problems. 
    Which is I believe we have to state clearly that there has
    to be consistency, and that there should be obligations on
    all stations -- on all channels, rather -- and then figure
    out if there are ways -- or then state ways that these
    could be met, which would be distinct from the related to
    those obligations.  I do not know if that makes sense.
              MR. DILLER:  Except I think that there is a
    misconception.  And I think most people -- I won't say
    most people -- but I do not think there is -- I mean I am
    sure there is a program form -- but any program form,
    movies, sports, anything you want to say, you will be able
    to -- I can't imagine that you could not equip public
    interest responsibilities consistent with that form in
    various creative ways.
              And so I think there should be no dilution to
    it.  And that in 100 percent of the cases it can be
    figured out.  And if you can't figure it out, don't do it. 
    Do it on a pay service.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, that is the case now that
    an all-sports channel could bring on Jesse, "the Body,"
    Ventura, and cover the political stories obligations.

              MR. MASUR:  Or Steve Largent.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Steve Largent, J.C. Watts and
    professional wrestling is more appropriate for the
    leadership team.
              MS. WHITE:  Before we leave multiplexing, I know
    we discussed and we've exhausted the trust fund for PBS,
    but have we decided or have we determined where those
    funds will go?  And will we?  Or is that in another area
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Where the funds will go in terms
    of the trust fund?
              MS. WHITE:  No, the fees collected.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I will try and work on language
    that will satisfy everybody without creating the larger
    rift that otherwise might occur.
              I mean it seems to me perfectly appropriate to
    suggest that if Congress and the President in their wisdom
    do not want to change the law with regard to the current
    allocation of spectrum auction fees or whatever, that we
    urge them to look at additional sources of revenue.  And
    we have got places where those are suggested.  Certainly
    we want to emphasize -- I think it is our consensus
    here -- that recommending additional channels, say an

    additional educational channel, will not work unless there
    is adequate funding.
              And I think we have made our suggestion that a
    trust fund be provided for public broadcasting in the
    digital era, as clear as it could be.  And we offer
    multiple sources or opportunities for funding there, as
              Let me make just a broader comment here.  What I
    hope to do as we go through these -- if I can, I would
    just as soon not have formal votes on anything -- the idea
    here is that we will try and come up with a report that
    represents, again, a consensus, if not unanimity.  If
    people feel, individual members, feel in the end that they
    don't want to endorse the report, per se, obviously that
    is your right as individuals.  I would urge you all, as we
    go through this -- and we will try and take into account
    these comments when we go back and rewrite -- frame your
    problems in terms of individual views.
              The best way for us to emerge is to have a
    report that reflects the broad view of the committee with
    individual concurring and/or dissenting opinions, and
    specific areas -- or even I could see, for example, an
    individual view that would lay out a coherent, here is the
    way this whole thing ought to work; here is what free
    broadcast television is about and why it ought to be done

    through this kind of a structure.  I mean do it in a
    compelling fashion.
              And we will highlight the individual views in a
    way that I hope people will see them as an integral part
    of the report.  But as we go through this and we move from
    one area to the other, we will leave open the opportunity
    for people to raise these issues again.  But I hope, when
    we move past one, when I say, or when Les is providing and
    he says, all right, any other comments on this, and we
    move on, that's a fairly clear indication that we have had
    a lot of individual expressions, but that what we have put
    down here does reflect our larger consensus.
              MR. YEE:  But how do you measure the fervor of
    any consensus if we don't have a sense of our individual
    reactions to this?  Our silence may not necessarily
    constitute full agreement or partial agreement.  And when
    you say try and develop the broad recommendations, what
    concerns me in these individual dissenting remarks, it
    could undercut or devaluate the board recommendations,
    whoever puts this together.  It concerns me that the
    report could be weighted in terms of the dissenting
              I am worried about that we are not getting a
    sense of closure as to how you evaluate the consensus, the
    degree of consensus.

              MR. ORNSTEIN:  It seems to me that's the best
    way to evaluate the degree of consensus.  If in the end
    you have a recommendation out there, and let's say five
    individual members strongly or not say I disagree with
    this or I disagree with this part, I think we ought to do
    something else, then it's fairly clear to whoever reads it
    where the group is coming from.  Either you agree with it
    or you agree with exceptions, or you disagree with
    exceptions, or you disagree with vehemence.
              So anybody reading that is going to have a very
    clear picture of where the committee is coming from.
              MR. BENTON:  I am sure we will be discussing
    this very point you have been making later on in the
    meeting.  I want to come back to multiplexing, Norm, for a
              If we look ahead 10 to 15 years -- and I think
    that this is the area where we need to do that -- there
    has been a great deal of talk about the 500-channel
    universe in cable television.  It isn't here yet, but it
    could be here in five to 10 years.  The potential of
    multiplying now, from one channel to five or six, means we
    can go from 1,500 broadcasting stations to 10,000,
              So the diversity that Gigi is looking to and the
    potentials of meeting new needs, and especially with

    information as opposed to entertainment, I mean it is
    really mind-boggling.  That is why I have kept on
    hammering away at this datacasting idea.  Because the
    datacasting is just kind of a vague glimmer of what is
    coming up.
              We saw this morning just a little, tiny, vague
    glimmer.  And actually that program this morning, Frank
    Lloyd Wright, it was a retrofit.  It was not built from
    the beginning with the program creation and the
    alternative parallel production that they talked about. 
    No, it was a retrofit.
              So we are just at the very beginning of the
    first model, which is in fact, from the data standpoint, a
    retrofit.  So you can see the potentials here for the
    future, which we do need to give some further thought to
    as we move into the 10,000 universe for broadcasting
    vis-a-vis its competitors in cable and the telecos.
              So I think we need maybe to pull back here and
    to think in a more visionary way about the potentials of
    multiplexing to meet the public interest, convenience and
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Absolutely.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  As we go into multiplexing, the
    world is going to be changing.  But the point is that
    broadcasters are going to be going into segments.  Now, we

    have ratings.  And you are going to die if there is nobody
    watching.  And so the point is we have got to please the
    public and we have to please the diverse community out
    there.  Because if we don't, somebody is going to.
              I mean if you have got a 10,000 channel station
    universe, my God, it is boggling.  You have got to be
    there, and competitively.  The market is going to force
    you there or you are going to die.  And so that is why the
    flexibility is the other thing.  I am hearing a lot of
    requirements.  We don't know where this model is going, as
    Charles said, 10-15 years from now.
              And I think the market is going to force in
    there.  Because, you know, in Rapid City, we would be
    looking at 40 or 50 channels.  I have no idea what we
    would do with 40 or 50 channels.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Anybody else?
              (No response.)
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Okay.  We can come back to this
    issue.  But if not, let's move on.  And a number of people
    at the break suggested we bracket the pre-lunch and the
    post-lunch discussion.   When Robert arrives, although his
    plane, I gather, is having some trouble landing, we will
    have a discussion on the issue that clearly provides the
    most lively debate among us.  And that is the minimum

              So let's open up at least for a little bit of
    discussion on that issue now.  And then we will continue
    or come back to it.
              Jose Luis.
              MR. RUIZ:  If I could take an opportunity to
    comment on the educational proposal.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  The question is, will Jose Luis
    have any opportunity to comment on the educational
    proposal?  We will vote on that, Jose Luis.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Just kidding.  Of course you
    will.  Go right ahead.
              MR. RUIZ:  First of all, I apologize.  I didn't
    get back.  I was in a very remote part of the world.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Los Angeles?
              MR. RUIZ:  No.  Now I'm in Los Angeles, and I
    can hear you loud and clear.  I didn't receive Frank's
    letter, and I hope to get that during the lunch break and
    I can probably comment a little more, but first I think we
    have a consensus as a committee as to what we want in the
    area of education and public -- and hopefully public
              I think the question pertaining to the education
    part of the proposal is who best can deliver it, and I do

    have an objection to including the language that you have
    that prioritizes the public broadcasting station, and with
    your permission I want to submit a document that CTD gave
    to the 103rd Congress called reaching a common ground. 
    Before we rush off to judgment, if the committee members
    would look at that, it tells you how much minority
    participation there is in public broadcasting, where it's
    at, including the programming.
              What will help me a lot, and maybe Frank can
    help me here, is, my understanding there's a difference
    between children's programming departmentalized and public
    broadcasting and FCTB and educational programming, and I'd
    like to see where the budgets are, because I think we're
    confusing the two a lot of times.
              MR. CRUZ:  Jose, can you hear me?
              MR. RUIZ:  Yes.
              MR. CRUZ:  I'm not quite sure if I can give you
    a definite answer to the latter half as to the funding and
    how it breaks down for children's and education in
    general.  That the two of them exist, there's no question
    about that.
              I think the mission and the goals of public
    broadcasting, as you well know, includes educative goals
    as well as broken off separately to children's programming
    and children's education.  The educational goals I think

    are a much better context as you and I know them, which
    would include lifelong learning and adult education and so
    forth, distance learning, but in terms of the specific
    numbers, I can't help you on that now.  I don't have that
              MR. RUIZ:  It's my understanding, and this was
    from the Department of Education, that these are
    departments that are very cash poor, and I didn't
    prioritize within PCB or PBS, and if the goal is to
    increase educational programming I think we need a
    proposal that the money is going to go there and it's
    going to be used there and it's going to be just first
    from there.
              Right now, I think part of my hesitance is that
    there's a long history of having stepchildren at CPB, at
    PBS that do not have adequate funding in comparison with
    the other programming activities, and I feel very
    uncomfortable not having some kind of assurances as to
    what the goals are in the Department of Education and how
    can we support them in a way that they function in a way
    that I think the committee wants us to.
              MS. CHARREN:  It sounds to me like you're
    talking about the difference between the over the air
    programming which public broadcasting does for everybody,
    including children, and instructional programming designed

    to be used in school during the school day, that many,
    most public broadcasting stations offer directly to
    schools, and it's curriculum related, and it's the kind of
    programming that the extra space, the extra six MHz will
    be able to do more of.
              In a system that is supposed to be serving
    children the way everybody is supposed to be served by
    television, they can't just do instructional programming. 
    That would mean that the comparable thing would be if
    broadcasters only did one university in all their
    programming, and children are not second class citizens
    for the other kind of television.
              So I think the good news about keeping both sets
    of space, the two pieces of 6 MHz, that the instructional
    programming that really is designed in a different way to
    enhance education, will be in bloom if we can find the
    money to pay for it, and that the other stuff will
    certainly still happen.
              And that that's like -- you know, GBH, for
    example, now is looking for money to do a nifty
    educational programming that's not designed for in-school
    use, particularly, although the schools will make use of
    it, between the lines, which is a literacy goal, and I
    think the difference in those two kinds of programming is
    what -- for children at least is what is the reason why

    two pieces of spectrum for public broadcasting, because
    those uses of digital television is getting to be a fact
    of life.
              MR. RUIZ:  I agree with you, Peggy.  I think
    that is part of my confusion.  I think that while CPB and
    PBS do a wonderful job in children's programming I think
    when we talk about educational programs it's very cloudy
    right now.
              MS. CHARREN:  All that money isn't supposed to
    go just for educational programming.
              MR. RUIZ:  I think there are members there that
    have the impression that it is.
              MS. CHARREN:  Well, maybe we will fix that with
    this report.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Thanks, Jose Ruiz.
              Let's open up our discussion of minimum
    standards, and the floor is open.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Can we hear a little bit about
    the committee process that led to this?
              MR. GOODMON:  What do you want to know about it?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Before we do that, let me make
    one point in terms of framework and structure.  There are
    two separate issues here.  One issue is whether there
    should be minimum standards.  The second issue is what
    minimum standards, and as we carry out our discussion, I

    want to as much as we possibly can keep those distinct.
              They're obviously related together, but it's
    also -- it strikes me that we may have a different
    viewpoint as a committee on one than the other, so let's
    just keep that in mind.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  I just thought it would be
    helpful to understand how we evolved from your September 9
    cochairman's document to this document.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Why don't you talk a little bit,
    Jim, about what you guys did.  Who was on the committee?
              MR. GOODMON:  Let's see, Harold, Karen, and
    Shelby, and we were asked to have a report in by a certain
    date, and I was not able to get in touch with Shelby, but
    Karen and Harold, we talked about it, and did the best job
    we could at coming up with a report.
              I don't think anybody has suggested that every
    member of our committee absolutely agrees with every item,
    but I thought that with the two members that I did discuss
    it.  We came pretty close.  As a matter of fact, we made a
    lot of changes for Harold, but there's no suggestion that
    anything in here can't be changed, or we don't need better
    ideas.  I don't want process to get in the way.  I mean,
    this is up for any sort of amendment anybody wants to make
    to it.
              I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I don't know who

    wrote the public interest part, the history, section 2.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  That was drafted by David Bolyer.
              MR. GOODMON:  I think they did a very good job
    in terms of the history of the public interest standard,
    and I wanted to start this discussion with the notion that
    there's a whole lot more that we agree on here than we
    disagree on and that is, everybody here believes that the
    public interest serving the local community and the public
    interest obligation is the key to over-the-air
    broadcasting, free over-the-air broadcasting.  I don't
    think anybody disagrees with that.
              What we're talking about is what form does that
    commitment or covenant, what form does that take?  What
    form does that commitment to serve the public take, and is
    it reasonable to suggest that broadcasters make a
    commitment to do that in a form that is minimum standards
    and voluntary code, and that's the notion we've been
    putting forth.
              I don't know how we can make commitments, serve
    the public, and get our licenses, and I don't know what
    other form it should take if it's not in the form of
    minimum requirements.  I don't know what another vehicle
    for broadcasters to commit to operate in the public
    interest and what we have done here, and I started the
    first meeting, the first meeting I handed out the code and

    I talked about very minimum standards and a voluntary
    code, and that is the notion of, we need minimum
    standards, not what the standards are, but we need minimum
    standards and I believe we have a committee consensus in
    that regard.
              MR. MOONVES:  On what, the fact that you need
    minimum standards?
              MR. GOODMON:  Yes.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Harold, did you want to comment?
              MR. CRUMP:  I will agree with what Jim said.  My
    problem with all of this was simply that the last time
    that I was engaged in television conversation, Jim, as I
    tried to point out in the letter, he had a great deal of
    difficulty trying to pull all of us together and never was
    able to constantly, but as we worked back and forth I made
    a number of suggestions which, as Jim said, were accepted,
    and which pleased me, and I appreciated it as we went on.
              There were other suggestions that were still
    hanging out there, and I thought there was going to be at
    least another one or two conversations about what the
    final product would be that was sent back to the full
    committee and, unfortunately, this did not take place and,
    as I tried to point out in the letter, I didn't feel this
    was Jim's fault, because he just couldn't pull us all
    together as we went, but there are some areas in there

    that I do not have agreement with.
              MR. GOODMON:  But on the issue of, should we
    have minimum standards, which is what we're on, I think
    there is a consensus.  At least I didn't hear from anybody
    that we shouldn't have minimum standards.
              MR. CRUMP:  There are all sorts of ways to word
    this as we go along, and I had as you know some different
    feelings on that.
              I guess I come back again to what was brought up
    by Paul just a moment ago.  This paper that was given to
    us, I believe in September, which was titled, cochairman's
    framework for recommendations of the advisory committee,
    and as I went through that and we went through that
    together we come down to the final page and we have here a
    section entitled, new approach to public interest
    obligations, and I got the feeling everybody here, I
    really was very pleasantly surprised when I received this,
    when I read it through, because the vast majority of what
    was put in here I didn't agree with everything but I
    agreed with the phraseology and the way we approached the
    problem going in, and I was really hopeful that at some
    point this was going to raise its head again as to what we
    would go forward with.
              I was then somewhat surprised when we got to all
    of the documents that were sent to us.  I'm not saying I

    disagree with all of them again, but I certainly liked the
    thrust of what was in here.
              There are, if you want to go down through -- I
    don't know where you want to go, Mr. Chairman, from here
    in this, if you want to go down through this one
    subsection at a time, or how we go, but you've heard why I
    said what I did and how I feel as I feel, and I guess we
    can pick it up and go from here.
              I don't know how the other members of the full
    committee have responded or reacted to this as well, and
    Karen is sitting here who was taking part in that, and I'm
    sure she has her own thoughts.
              MS. STRAUSS:  It is my understanding also that
    at the last meeting there was a general consensus that
    there would be some minimum mandatory standards, that it
    wasn't just minimum voluntary standards but would be
    minimum mandatory standards.  I think it would be very
    helpful to confirm that there is a consensus that we would
    have this.
              MR. MOONVES:  I'm not voting on anything, Karen.
              MS. STRAUSS:  The reason I say this is because,
    as Jim just said, we're not wedded to everything in this
    document.  The goal here is to get a consensus, and if
    things have to be changed then in the interest of
    achieving consensus that can be done.

              I think it would be much worse if we put out a
    document with very, very strong dissents by very many
    members on the committee, so I think it would be helpful
    to take this in a two-step process.
              My understanding of what occurred and our phone
    calls, just to answer your questions, Paul, is that yes,
    we did have a difficult time getting together, but there
    was one significant conference call that the three of us
    took part in where we agreed generally on all of these
    principles, or most of these principles, apparently, then
    there were some additional matters that Harold had that
    were not followed up on, and I think they could be
    followed up on here.
              I don't think that's a problem and, as I said, I
    don't think there's necessarily anything in here that
    can't be discussed, but I would hope that the approach
    that we take to this is not a hostile one, but rather one
    of deliberation and discussion, rather than rejecting it
              It should not be an all-or-nothing document,
    especially since as we all thought, or many of us thought
    last time, we moved very close to agreeing that there
    would be some mandatory minimums.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Barry.
              MR. DILLER:  I would like to know with as much

    specificity as possible and clarity what the objections
    are to the specifics.
              MS. STRAUSS:  That would be very helpful.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  If I could just address one
    general principle first, and please understand I don't
    think there's any disagreement that digital broadcasting
    necessitates an affirmation if not an enhancement of the
    public service obligations of broadcasters and how we
    achieve that.  I thought we had taken an important step in
    the September 9 document, as Harold cited, and Les cited
    in his opening remarks.
              However, to propose defining content and time
    periods for that content I think most broadcasters view it
    to be, one, regressive and second, oppressive.  This is
    the mentality of the seventies, back when there were a big
    three networks and we affiliates were part of an
              That world has changed.  We are increasingly in
    a democracy of content delivery, of signals in
    competition.  While this may have made sense 20 years ago
    I think most broadcasters would argue it makes little
    sense today.
              That is not to dismiss my opening statement that
    we need to find hopefully some consensus, again, of
    affirming and advancing what our public interest

    responsibilities are, but to suggest that there should be
    60 minutes between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m.
    of public affairs programming each week on every
    television station in this Nation again is a regressive
    concept and one that was disabused many years ago and, I
    think, appropriately so.
              MR. GOODMON:  And Paul, how do you suggest we
    express our commitment?  I'm with you here now.  Nobody
    likes regulation.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  I think we've addressed the
    issue of how one documents that commitment and that's what
    I still, again -- and I had some concerns about adding up
              I think there was very fine work under the
    leadership of Gigi on the reporting requirements, and
    there are a lot of other creative concepts that were
    included in that September 9 document, everything from the
    commitment of the 5 minutes per night for political
    discourse in the 30 days leading up to an election.  I
    thought it was very creative.  It allowed some flexibility
    on the part of broadcasters.
              This attachment A does not allow flexibility on
    the part of broadcasters, and again, it's not sensitive to
    a representative of what is a very changed world of free
    over-the-air television today.

              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Richard.
              MR. MASUR:  I -- you know what, Norm -- well,
    let me wait until some other people express some of their
    reservations, then I will come back.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Gigi.
              MS. SOHN:  I think I know now how Charlie Brown
    feels when Lucy pulls the football away from him and he
    falls flat on his back.  That September 9 document was one
    which we shaped and changed significantly at the meeting
    and so I just don't understand how, Harold and Paul, you
    guys can say that that's the document, that document
    survived in almost any way, shape, or form after the long
    discussion we had September 9.  That's number 1.
              My concern, Norm, is that in yours and Les's
    reticence to take votes, that what we're going to have is
    a kind of mush agreement, and then we will come up with a
              I like this document, and let me just say, this
    document is not one I would have written, or most of my
    colleagues in the public interest community would have
    written.  If anybody thinks that I'm a radical on this
    committee they better look around the room, because I'm
              I was willing to sign on to something that was
    not nearly what I would like to see, and now I'm seeing

    people walking away from it, and I find that really
              What I'm concerned about is that you're going to
    go and you're going to work your behind off again and come
    up with a document that hopefully I will like again and
    other people won't sign on to it, and other people won't,
    so what we'll have is, maybe we'll have a majority for
    this document, okay, but that majority would have voted
    for an even stronger document, and I think we need to have
    some commitments today about what people are willing to
    stand up for and what they're not.
              I really think you need to rethink your
    reticence to take a vote, because I'm afraid that people
    are not only going to walk away from this, but we're going
    to reopen the disclosure requirements.  That's going to be
    reopened.  Everything is going to be reopened.
              And Norm, I urge you to start taking votes, and
    I also -- I'm very happy to resubmit my proposal that I
    submitted on September 1.  I've redone it.  I've made it
    even more moderate.  I think it's an incredibly moderate
    document.  I've got 30 copies for everybody.  I'll be
    happy to go down principle by principle and take votes. 
    We can do that.
              MR. MOONVES:  Gigi, yes, you could do that.  You
    could make as strong a document as you want, and I will

    write an entire dissenting opinion to the entire document
    and by the way, and I will use the press as well.  We can
    do that.  We can do that as well as you have in the past
    few weeks, okay.
              So you know, we are trying to reach a consensus,
    a compromise on certain things.  On September 9 we had a
    document that the cochairs put out for discussion.  I feel
    we have gone so far away from that document and yes, there
    was a consensus, I agree, and I will use that word, at the
    last meeting.  That September 9 document that Norm and I
    wrote was not strong enough, I agree.  There was a
    consensus in the room for minimum mandatory requirements.
              What we have here is so oppressive, and I will
    use Paul's word, that has gone so far -- and by the way,
    it addresses -- I don't know why we even need another
    document.  We might as well use the Goodmon document,
    because frankly it goes into what your committee did in
    terms of community outreach and accountability.
              It goes into diversity of employment, which we
    have another document on.  It goes into free political
    programming, which is another section, closed captioning
    in another section, multicasting in another section, and
    so I don't know why we need another document that covers
    everything.  That basically covers everything.  I didn't
    realize that subcommittee was empowered to basically deal

    with everything that the committee is dealing with.
              In addition, as Paul mentioned, the restriction
    of X amount of PSA's regardless of your station size,
    regardless of your location, in specific time period,
    basically does not give the broadcaster any leeway
    whatsoever, any credit for the fact that certain markets
    are different, that Bill Duhamel is very different than
    Paul La Camera, where the station in Boston can say, every
    station needs to do X amount of programming and PSA's
    during prime time, when, where, how, and what is not what
    I intended.
              When I left the meeting I said to Norm Ornstein,
    who felt very strongly about on the other side, and I
    respect that -- and I really do respect the fact that
    certain people feel like there's necessary minimum
    mandatory requirements, I really do.
              At that meeting I said to Norm, I don't know if
    I can get behind it, but we better leave it as general as
    possible so I can try to get my arms around it.
              This went so far the other way that I threw up
    my hands as soon as I received it.  I said, who empowered
    them to do that, and frankly I felt a little -- and hold
    it.  Hold it.  Let me finish, then you can speak.
              I felt a little bit sand-bagged -- excuse the
    use of the term -- when I got Harold Crump's letter that

    said he wasn't part of the process to the extent that he
    would like to be.  There was no way where it stated that
    everybody wasn't on the call.  In fact, one of the
    committee members wasn't there at all and, in fact, it
    appeared like this was a document that the entire
    committee supported.
              so in terms of process, it also was a bit
    annoying, and I agree that we shouldn't get hung up on
    process.  That's not the thing.  However, that was
    something that did take me by surprise when I received
    Harold's letter, because it wasn't presented as such.
              Those are my problems with this document.
              MR. GOODMON:  I put this in 6 months ago, and I
    thought when the committee at the last meeting said we
    want to do minimum standards, that we were supposed to
    work from the document that we had.  I mean -- 
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let me just go back to, since all
    these wonderful things were said about the September 9
    document, I would urge you all to compare the
    recommendations that we have here with that September 9
    document.  There have been significant changes, but most
    of the sections have changed hardly at all, and I'm
    assuming, and I hope I can take forward that the consensus
    that we had that all the nice things people have said
    continue to surround that.

              There are two changes of great significance in
    this latest document from the September 9 document that
    flowed from our September 9 meeting.  One is the section
    on mandatory minimum standards requirements and, if you
    notice, what we have in the report itself in the
    recommendations is less than a page on that.
              It talks about, as I said in the separation, the
    issue of whether there should be mandatory minimums, not
    the specifics of what should be there.
              The second is, we revised our section on pay or
    play because of the very vigorous dissent, and articulate
    dissent, and passionate dissent raised about that issue
    around the table, which made it clear we did not have a
    consensus there.
              Everything else in that document reflects minor
    changes that take into account individual comments, and so
    I'm assuming that we continue to have consensus around the
    rest of it and we have these areas of disagreement.
              We need to discuss whether the disagreement on
    the mandatory minimum standards is over the broader
    concept or the specifics here which are in the appendix as
    a suggested way to go and, of course, we can add another
    suggested way to go as an option if we want, or we could
    change those things.
              MR. DILLER:  Let's go backwards.  Let's start if

    we can with those things, Mr. Chairman, with again
    specificity that you feel are not either flexible enough
    or sensible enough, and let's talk about those
    specifically if we can and see if we can reach consensus
    on that, or at least -- well, let's just leave it there. 
    Why don't we do that.  Why don't we narrow it down.
              MR. CRUMP:  Okay.  To begin with, from my own
    personal view, when we start out talking about the way
    this thing is titled, minimum public interest requirements
    for digital television stations, to me it ought to be,
    minimum public interest for digital television stations,
    so when we get down to requirements we get down to the
    definition of what requirements are and how we go.
              And I guess what I kept throwing in, as Karen
    and Jim will tell you, I kept throwing in proposals, and
    we got it back here, proposed range, proposed this.
              I have no hang-up with proposing to broadcasters
    what minimums we would suggest to them.  What I have is
    the hang-up that Paul told us so eloquently about, the
    fact that if we start trying to pound them into the ground
    and going back to where we were before we're not looking
    at a level playing field because the world that existed
    back then does not exist today, either from a competitive
    standpoint nor from a practical standpoint.
              We changed a number of things as we went through

    to reflect that, as we went on.  We could go through the
    nitty gritty, but that's basically -- that's basically it. 
    That's basically where my feeling is, and I'm sure that a
    number of you here on the committee totally disagree with
    that, and I know that Jim totally disagrees with it.
              MS. STRAUSS:  Harold, do you oppose having
    something like attachment A, which are intended to be
    suggested minimums?
              MR. DILLER:  Let me just do one thing, because I
    just asked the question because it was stated that Jim
    totally disagrees with that, so I thought it was
    reasonable to say to Jim, do you totally disagree with
    that, which he says no, so if that's the case, you know,
    we keep dealing with this in fuzz terms.
              MR. GOODMON:  The first time I'm really working
    on not losing focus on what we're talking about, because
    you believe somehow that I didn't do this committee right
    or something.
              I don't accept that.  I talked to everybody I
    could.  I tried to get everybody together, and I believed,
    I honestly believed that everything that Harold wanted in
    this report was in here, and if it's not, Harold, I'm
              I never submitted this report with the
    suggestion that this is it, that everything in here -- and

    one other thing, further, I didn't have anything else to
    work from but the September 9 report that I submitted in
    September.  I thought that is what we were supposed to
    work from.
              MR. DILLER:  Is there a substantive issue, and
    if there's a substantive issue -- 
              MR. LA CAMERA:  There are substantive issues and
    philosophical issues, and the largest philosophical issue
    is having the Government dictate program content and
    program time periods.  That's been debated for a
              MR. DILLER:  Let's get around -- 
              MR. LA CAMERA:  You asked for specificity.
              MR. DILLER:  That's fair, but I don't believe as
    I read this quote, program content and program time
    periods, I mean, this is a very broad swath.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Look at Attachment A.  There are
    2 hours of public affairs programs.  1 hour of that is to
    air between 6:00 p.m. and midnight.
              MR. DILLER:  Let me ask a question.  If it
    wasn't 6:00 p.m. to midnight, but if it had less, so to
    speak, restrictive hours of some kind -- is it in the
    concept?  I mean, if you say there's got to be some public
    interest programming --
              MR. LA CAMERA:  I don't want to be an

    obstructionist.  I hate to be, and I'm sorry, because it's
    a bit out of character for me, but an enhancement of
    public service for broadcasters, I totally agree with you,
    if there are minimum definitions to that, I don't have
    problems with that as well.
              MR. DILLER:  The time period may be inflexible. 
    that may be true.  It may be an inflexible standard, in
    which case I would think we all should deal with that.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  What those obligations are I
    think need to be reasonable and responsible, and I don't
    think that the solution to this is to romanticize or re-
    embrace the past, because again this is a very different
    content environment and a very different economic
    environment, you know that better than anybody, that we're
    currently operating in, and I don't think this is
    reflective of that at all, and sensitive to it.  It just
              MS. CHARREN:  I had a little discussion before
    the break with Barry about stations with public interest
    obligations, and if that fulfills the mandate.  The more
    specific the recommendations, the more I can accept that
    as a reasonable approach to thinking about serving the
    public interest.
              If I'm going to give up some of the things that
    I'm thinking we need to do, this kind of a document is the

    minimum idea that I would look at to make that reasonable. 
    If this is a feel for what the public interest can be on
    every station, and we're going to go to a public interest
    requirement to every station, this is the kind of document
    I would think we would vote on, and it would make me much
    more amenable to the idea that if broadcasters are serving
    the public interest in their multiplex stations, that you
    can go along with an idea like that.
              If we don't spell it out my feeling is that -- 
              MR. DILLER:  The question is to spell it out in
    the kind of specificity that everyone can live with in the
    practical world, so if there is an issue of two
    restrictive time periods -- 
              MS. CHARREN:  I'm agreeing with you.  I'm
    agreeing with that, but not to undo the whole bloody
              MR. DILLER:  I don't know if anybody is saying
    to undo it.  I'm just trying to get it down to the kind
    of -- 
              MS. CHARREN:  i'm not arguing with you, Barry. 
    I was agreeing with you.
              MR. DILLER:  I'm just trying to get it to the
    kind of specifics that everybody would agree to the work
    of the purpose of it all and be livable.
              MS. CHARREN:  And then vote on it.  As Gigi

    said, I think we have to say yes to something in this
              MR. MASUR:  At the risk of repeating myself from
    an earlier meeting, I'm afraid we're back in a negotiating
    mode, and I just want to bring that up to people.  I hope
    that's part of what's going on here.
              My understanding, though I was not intimately
    involved at all in the preparation of this report or the
    previous report, my understanding is that these are being
    presented as ways to reach consensus, and I think what
    Barry is trying to do here is in that same direction.
              I want to just say that I believe that if this
    is being looked at by anyone as an opportunity to
    negotiate out some of the consensus that has been arrived
    at, what we may end up with is what Gigi was saying, which
    is a much stronger report coming from a majority of this
    committee, which will not be reflective of the feelings of
    many members of the committee but could possibly achieve a
    majority, and I don't think that's what Norm or Les has
    been trying to get us to, I think.
              And we've all stepped back from our individual
    positions in order to try and achieve that, and I know the
    broadcasters have as well.  I'm not finger-pointing at
    anybody.  I'm just saying that as this conversation goes
    on I hope we can focus on, if we can turn out a report

    that is consensus, maybe with some dissent, that would be
              This is an attempt at consensus, not anybody's
    idea of what the best solution is or the most perfect
    solution from our individual points of view, and I'm
    really worried that too hard of a push from one end may
    cause a reaction from the other end which is going to get
    us out of where we are now and put us in a position where
    we're going to be really voting on what may be a majority
    as opposed to a consensus.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I think that's right, and what I
    would like to do if we can is to isolate our disagreements
    and discuss them, and I don't have any problem with
    individuals taking a position that there shouldn't be any
    mandatory minimums at all, however they may be framed,
    whether they be as vague as could be -- you ought to do
    public interest programming or you ought to do public
    service announcements -- or as specific.
              Neither do I have a problem if people say having
    minimums is perfectly fine, but this specific kind of
    approach is a disaster.  It takes us back to the
    seventies.  It can't be done.  It ham-strings stations.  
              If we can, in that context, even isolate further
    within the concept of what kind of mandatory minimums for
    those who think there should be some, and see if we can

    either come up with one suggestion, and remember we are
    coming up with a suggestion.  We're not putting this out
    there to be implemented.  It's going to have to be
    implemented, as we say, very explicitly, anything, through
    a process that will be done through the FCC in conjunction
    with the stations.
              If we have a consensus suggestion that may
    differ from what Jim Goodmon and his committee put out,
    that's fine.  I don't think he would object to that.  Or
    if we end up with a separate document, even, that is a
    completely different approach to be taken, that could also
    be utilized.  That's fine.
              But I would associate myself with Richard's
    remarks.  We need to be careful here to make sure that we
    don't lose what has been an extraordinarily broad
    agreement across a broad range of areas, and have that
    bleed over into what is a very deep disagreement in these
              MR. BENTON:  I wrote to you, and it's been
    distributed to the committee, a memo of October 29.  The
    second paragraph about the minimum standards, look no
    further than section 2 of the executive order that created
    the committee.
              Quotes, the committee shall report to the Vice

    President on the public interest obligations digital
    television broadcasters should assume.  As the report
    reads now, we're merely stating that broadcasters should
    have obligations, not which obligations they should
              I think to implement your suggestion, Norm, we
    have essentially the five-page or four-page and three-
    line paper that came out that was sent out with the draft
    report, and we also have copies of the two-and-a-half page
    report that Jim passed out on September 9, 2 months ago,
    which essentially this is simply an application of, so I
    mean, the outline was on the table 2 months ago.
              There are extra copies on line, so people can
    look at the outline as it originally was and the now
    fleshed-out report that he has submitted.
              I mean, we can continue talking about agreeing
    in principle or not to this, but I agree with Barry, let's
    go through the specifics and see where we are.  If we
    disagree on the specifics, let's flesh that out and see
    where the disagreement is, but the idea that we should be
    in principle against any standard it seems to me is a
    violation of this committee's main charter and mission.
              MR. DILLER:  Can I ask it broadly?  The first
    part, the part without the attachment A, is everybody in
    agreement on that part?  Is the attachment A the issue,

    because the attachment A is fairly long and only has a few
    key points in it.
              MS. STRAUSS:  Let me just make a comment on
    that, because that's exactly what I was trying to get at. 
    What I wanted to describe is what attachment A was
    supposed to be.
              MR. DILLER:  Before you describe it, let's at
    least see if it is isolated to attachment A.  If it's
    isolated to attachment A, that's one thing.  If it's not,
    then you've got a bigger problem.
              So let me ask the question.
              DR. DUHAMEL:  You're talking about the minimum
    public interest requirements.
              MR. DILLER:  The body, without -- excuse me,
    without attachment A, just the body.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  To reflect the difference, the
    body in the area of public service announcements, to pick
    one example, says a minimum number of public service
    announcements should be required, with an emphasis placed
    on public service produced PSA's addressing the
    community's needs.  A certain percentage of these PSA's
    should be mandated to run in mandated times and day parts.
              Then it gets into this percentage and this hour,
    this number in this hour and that number in that hour.
              MR. GOODMON:  Originally this at Harold's

    request, and I thought it was a good idea.    You notice
    we emphasize the word, proposed, and you notice we change
    from the previous report that had specific numbers to
              MS. STRAUSS:  Originally we talked about having
    it in the body.
              MR. DILLER:  You do have what you've got, which
    is separate from attachment A.  Are there issues within
    that that are objectionable?  Les.
              MR. MOONVES:  There are issues in this that are
    covered in other parts of our document that I think should
    be eliminated from this.
              MR. DILLER:  What does that mean?  What is that
    in English?
              MR. MOONVES:  Barry, behave yourself.  Don't be
              MR. DILLER:  What I was saying is, when you say
    it's in other parts of the body of the thing, I don't know
    what we're talking about.
              MR. MOONVES:  For instance, as we deal with free
    political programming, should that be included in this
    appendix?  My answer is no.  My opinion is no.
              MR. GOODMON:  I point out that if you look at
    the proposed minimum standards and you look in other

    sections of the document there are inconsistencies.
              MR. MOONVES:  Okay.  Gigi's committee.
              MR. DILLER:  Can I ask a question, a technical
    question?  There are inconsistencies.  Do you plan to
    resolve those inconsistencies?
              MR. GOODMON:  In my view, that was today's work.
              MR. DILLER:  And what would the inconsistency be
    in that regard that you've just named?
              MR. MOONVES:  Barry, since we just dealt with a
    report from Gigi Sohn, okay, and I haven't had an
    opportunity to look at all of that to compare A and B, why
    should there be another section about accountability when
    we just dealt with accountability?
              MR. DILLER:  No, I'm asking if there's an
    inconsistency between what's contained here and what's
    there, and Mr. Goodmon says, of course we're going to
    resolve the inconsistency, if we can say what it is.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Multicasting is an example. 
    This document is not consistent with a larger document on
              MR. DILLER:  Do you plan to conform it so that
    it is, and if so, would there be any issues with regard to
              MR. GOODMON:  That's a good question.  In my
    discussion with Norm about that, there -- should the

    suggested minimum standards conform to other ideas in the
    report, and I think Norm's view is, he wants other views
    in the other sections.
              MR. MOONVES:  There are paragraphs A through J. 
    Over 50 percent are covered in other parts of our
              MR. GLASER:  The issue isn't that they are
    covered.  The issue is they're inconsistent if this
    document were consistent and basically a cross-hatch, that
    wouldn't be a problem, would it?  It's just the
              MR. MOONVES:  It is the inconsistencies.  That's
    number 1.  This was about minimum standards, mandatory
    minimum standards which are dealt with elsewhere.
              Now, I guess, Rob, the answer is yes, if they
    were exactly the same, dealing with accountability, if it
    is exactly the same as the report of Gigi's committee, I
    guess that's fine.
              MR. DILLER:  Would this committee really want to
    publish a thing, a document which is inconsistent inside
    of its boundaries, because I would say the answer to that
    has got to be no, so since otherwise we're all -- I mean,
    we all should not be even minimally paid attention to.
              MR. MOONVES:  Well, that may be the case, but
    Barry, if we are dealing with pages later on in our

    document that deal with free political programming and
    what we're going to do in that area, shouldn't we then
    remove that from minimum public requirements?
              MR. DILLER:  No.  You should just be consistent
    with it.  I don't understand how that argument can hold.
              And let me just make the point, then I will get
    off.  I'm sorry.  Take my microphone away.
              But what you're saying is that if you have it
    there you should, of course, have it over there, so long
    as it's consistent.
              MS. CHARREN:  I suggest if you have it there you
    can take it out of the other place, but if you're going to
    take it out, don't take it out of mandatory.
              MR. DILLER:  If you have it, it's broadly
    written and you don't have it as part of the minimum
    standards, I would suggest there's a bit of duplicity
    engaged in the proceedings, and I think that will remove
    all credibility, so if you agree, if it is in one place
    without being redundant -- 
              MR. MOONVES:  I do not share that it is
    duplicitous, or if you're devoting paragraphs or
    paragraphs in other areas, why is it necessary that it be
    included in the minimum standards?
              MR. DILLER:  Because if you agree with it, what
    would be wrong with it?

              MR. GLASER:  It seems to me that's really the
    question.  I think we all agree on the set theory idea
    that there shouldn't be something in here that is more
    restrictive, or goes beyond the bounds of the particular
              The question is, should the minimum standards
    represent a form of teeth associated with the specific
    recommendations, and I think there might be some cases
    where the recommendation is not clear enough, but I think
    as per the previous discussion about multiplexing for a
    number of us, if the minimum standards was the place
    that's sort of represented where we were actually causing
    implementation to happen, I think that's a good principle,
    perhaps not in all cases, but in a number of cases.
              I certainly agree that we shouldn't go beyond
    the recommendations in here, and clearly resolve that
    there are inconsistencies as we talk about the political
    programming or other issues makes a lot of sense, and I
    don't think there should be anything deemed precedential
    in here prior to us having that discussion about the
    specific category.
              The notion that the standards represent a form
    of teeth would seem to be a valuable thing for us to do.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let me just, to clarify, these
    recommendations should be consistent and coherent, but

    they are not mutually inclusive even as they are not
    mutually exclusive.
              In other words, this is not a set of
    recommendations where if you pull one out the rest fall
    down like a house of cards, so in our section on political
    discourse we talk about a lot of voluntary things, and it
    is quite possible that you could do much or all of what
    you want to do on a voluntary basis.  That doesn't mean
    you can't include something similar.  Frankly, I wasn't --
              MR. DILLER:  So long as it's consistent with
    what you write broadly or voluntarily, that your minimum
    standards are not inconsistent with that.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  And that's one reason why, if
    some individuals don't want to accept the concept of
    minimum standards, or don't want to accept this, it
    doesn't mean you can't accept the rest of the report, so
    you can have things mentioned in several different places
    because there are a lot of different ways to cut at each
    of these areas, and that's partly what we're seeing. 
    We're offering a lot of different options.
              So I think we're a little bit disingenuous, and
    this is, I guess, another fight in burying the mandatory
    minimum free time in an appendix and not mentioning it.  I
    think it needs to be mentioned in the body of the report.
              Now, that obviously is an area where we're going

    to have divergent views, but my guess is that there's a
    majority on this advisory committee, if not whatever you
    define as consensus, for some mandatory minimum free time,
    but there's a whole other fight about whether these
    categories should actually be in the body of the report.
              But I think at the very least if you put this
    attachment in the appendices you have to mention somewhere
    in the body of this thing section 3, that there's a
    significant majority or significant numbers of members of
    the advisory committee do want some sort of mandated
    minimum free time for political discourse.
              MS. CHARREN:  Did what Gigi just brought up come
    into the discussion?  I think all of these minimum
    standards should be part of the body of our report and not
    as an appendix.
              I mean, it just means saying them in this long
    document instead of -- because what happens is, people
    lose the appendices, and not people who are making rules
    for the country, but people who read it.
              MR. MOONVES:  If you want to add that to the
    body of the report, then there's more chance there may be
    dissent to the entire report, Peggy, and if that's what
    you want, that's fine.
              MS. CHARREN:  I think that is engaging in a kind
    of duplicity.  We're going to put it in an appendix, but

    we hope you don't look at it.  I mean, if you're going to
    say it, say it.  If you're going to say it, say it.  I
    feel very strongly abut the mandatory minimums.  If I'm
    going to sign on to this -- 
              MR. MOONVES:  We've now gone from September 9 to
    an appendix to the body of the report.
              MS. CHARREN:  You've got it.
              MR. MOONVES:  Now you're verging on my ability
    to support this report at all.
              MS. CHARREN:  But you could have supported it as
    an appendix?
              MR. MOONVES:  Possibly.
              MS. CHARREN:  Because that means it's not part
    of the report.
              MR. MOONVES:  I'll tell you why, because I may
    be able to, a) write a dissent to an appendix, and that
    would be another appendix, or it's going -- Peggy, when I
    said before, there's a tendency now to pile on, that is
    exactly what I mean.
              MR. MINOW:  I have enormous respect and
    friendship for our chairman -- 
              MR. MOONVES:  Uh-oh.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We'd better both brace ourselves

              MR. MINOW:  And I've been chairman, although a
    lot of things -- I know the job of a chairman, the two of
    you is to try to find a consensus, but if a consensus does
    not exist, and I believe that is the fact, then you have
    to resolve it by votes.  That's the only way, and the way
    we do things in this country.  We take votes, and at some
    point I suggest to the two of you we have to do that.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let me take you back to what
    Richard, a very skilled negotiator, said earlier.  We will
    have votes taken in the form of people signing on to this
    report or not signing on to this report.
              We have two ways we can go with this.  We can
    come up with a document in which we vote on everything and
    include everything in the body of it and end up with a
    sizeable number of people walking away from the whole
    thing and hope that the strength of what we have -- and
    let me finish, Newt -- will convince people this is an
    advisory committee, all we do is make recommendations, or
    we can try and figure out a way to focus on areas where,
    despite our differences, we all agree and isolate some
    smaller areas of disagreement.
              And the path that you're suggesting leads us, I
    believe -- and I think Les concurs with me -- down a path
    that is going to take the first form that will render us
    irrelevant, and I don't want to be rendered irrelevant,

    and we have moved very far from that to this point, and I
    think that is not a good path to take if we can avoid it.
              MR. GLASER:  I've a question about these
    advisory committees.  Is it the case that they generally
    speaking strive for a consensus rather than stronger
    majority positions with clearly articulated specific
    dissents, because for instance, we know that anything we
    say with regard to must-carry of anything other than the
    primary channel will be fiercely contested by cable, who
    would point out that nobody from the cable industry is on
    this commission, and that this panel did not have a
    charter that was directly related to nonbroadcast.
              MR. MOONVES:  On the contrary, Mr. Diller has
    quite a large presence in cable.
              MR. GLASER:  But you're not here as part of
    NTCA, but for yourself, so I guess my question is -- 
              MR. DILLER:  I certainly don't represent the
    NTCA, although I do pay dues, but as we know, that ain't
    got anything to do with nothing.
              MR. GLASER:  We know the NTCA would object to
    what we do here, but that wouldn't force us to say we must
    not touch must-carry, so by extension, why would we not
    feel comfortable having parts of the report not have
    consensus within the committee?  Why is it black and white
    and not sort of gray?

              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, it isn't necessarily, and
    I'm assuming you're going to have parts of the report that
    don't have consensus.  It's a question of how we get
    there.  There are a lot of different ways advisory
    committees can go.   You can start out with an advisory
    committee that is stacked entirely in one direction
    because what you want to do is have a fire breather
              Or you could have an advisory committee that
    makes an attempt to have at least a broad representation
    across a number of areas, although not necessarily every
    area, cable not being fulsomely represented here.
              When this advisory committee was put together,
    it was made to be an inclusive committee, and the clear
    suggestion and direction that flows from that is to try to
    reach I hope not a weak consensus, a strong consensus,
    with some areas isolated.
              It seems to me the great value that we will
    have, and what will make this report resonate, is that we
    have a lot of imaginative ideas here that have managed to
    draw in people from the public interest community and the
    broadcast community who normally don't agree on anything.
              That has taken very substantial movement on the
    part of both sides, and they're getting pressure and flak
    from their ends and wings, a very substantial amount, and

    at both ends I think a great deal of commendation is owed
    to those who are taking that kind of flak, but it's for a
    good end, and I think we should strive to achieve that
              MR. DILLER:  Mr. Chairman, let me ask a
    question.  Would it be possible for us to do the
    following, which is to say that there is consensus,
    complete -- no.  Now I have to come back a bit, that there
    is broad consensus that there should be minimum standards,
    that there is a suggestion for specificity of minimum
    standards, and it is set forth here.
              There are some broadcasters who think that's
    okay, and there are some broadcasters who think it's not
    appropriately flexible, and that in fact in a way we could 
    bifurcate the issue by saying those two things and have
    consensus on all.
              I.e., consensus, we can get away with doing it
    without a demand for actual vote-taking, and to get you
    into a position which I am totally respectful of, which is
    where you say you want something that is a recommendation
    that does not so force the issue that in fact you have to
    have people repudiate the whole.
              So if it is possible to say that 1) there should
    be minimum standards, 2) there is reasonably a difference
    of opinion as to what those minimum standards are, and it

    is not necessarily our job in life to vote on and resolve
    the exact specificity of those minimum suggestions. 
    Here's one take of it, and here's some dissention to it,
    and here it is.  Now go in an official capacity and write
    a rule and make a law.
              Would that work?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  It works for me.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Norm, you said something before,
    and Barry this follows up on what you said.  You suggested
    there would be some prole that rather than engaging in a
    vote may not be able to sign on to the final document, and
    that would be unfortunate to isolate five or six people
    out, however many there might be.
              If the vote is on minimum standards, I mean, I
    can only speak as an individual, I'd be comfortable on
              Unfortunately, minimum standards has been
    defined for our consideration right now by appendix A. 
    Now, Gigi and Richard have described appendix A as a
    compromise.  It's not a compromise.  It's an extreme
    document, at least I think in the view of most
              It's really unfortunate that Robert isn't here,
    because Robert has spoken in the past and I think quite
    passionately about the hope not only that there would be

    broad consensus coming out of this group in our document,
    but that somehow or another the larger broadcasting
    industry, at least the progressive elements within that
    industry, would be able to seize upon this document and
    it's recommendations and move forward.
              I think we have to be realistic, and again, this
    is what Robert has talked about in the past as well. 
    Appendix A is for all intents and purposes a declaration
    of war with the broadcast industry.  It's going to result
    in legal challenges, constitutional challenges, public
    relations battle, and again that may be of no concern or
    little concern to the group as a whole or the cochairman,
    but it's again something that at one time we were
    concerned with, and I think we have to give consideration
    to as well.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Getting to what we have in the
    body of the report, forgetting any appendix, are you
    agreeable to that?
              Let's even assume we had no appendices.
              MR. MOONVES:  You mean attachment A?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  No, I'm saying what we have in
    the body of the report.  We have four paragraphs on
    minimum requirements.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Given the fact that you should
    be engaged in those activities at a minimum level, no, I

    have no problem with that.  Some of the specific language
    in those four paragraphs, because they're reflective of
    appendix A, I do have a problem with.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I'm not even looking at that. 
    I'm looking at what we have in the body of the
    recommendations.  Turn to section 3 of the report, page 8
    and 9.
              MR. CRUZ:  Go to page 8 and 9.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  And in fact, Paul, the last two
    paragraphs there make the linkage very explicitly to must-
    carry.  It's the first two paragraphs that simply
    describe -- 
              MR. LA CAMERA:  I don't have a problem with that
    and, again, on the must-carry issue, aside from being
    rational, reasonable, and responsible, I think we have to
    be realistic as well, and again, I don't know whether that
    must-carry issue, this is the appropriate venue for
    getting to that, and whether we would have any effect on
    it whatsoever.  I don't think it is going to be an
    effective quid pro quo, if that's what you're suggesting.
              MR. DILLER:  What's not an effective quid pro
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Our recommending that if
    broadcasters accept mandatory minimums, that through the
    influence of this committee they can look forward to a

    must-carry provision.  I don't think that is where that
    decision's going to be made.
              MR. DILLER:  But they certainly have a right,
    one would think, you would think, that it is reasonable to
    say that if broadcasters have minimum standards, that in
    fact it is reasonable to say that must carry legislation
    should conform to that.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Philosophically I'm in total
    agreement with that, but I don't think we should kid
    ourselves that we would leave this meeting thinking that
    if broadcasters meet the minimum must-carry -- I mean,
    minimum mandatory requirements, that must-carry is going
    to come with it hand-in-hand.  It's not.
              MR. GLASER:  But Paul, the recommendation of
    this committee is what is at stake here, and not the
    eventual legislative process or the regulatory process. 
    We don't control those.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let's leave the must-carry issue
    for the moment to the side and focus on the simple
    question of minimum public interest requirements.  What if
    we just include what we have in the body of the report and
    leave it at that, and let others debate the specifics.
              MR. MOONVES:  I could accept that.
              MR. DILLER:  I would say at a minimum, but I
    would also say that there's nothing wrong with having an

    appendix that says this is a suggestion for a series of
    specific minimum requirements on which there is not
    unanimity, that there is disagreement, and state where the
    disagreement is.
              I think that's okay, too.
              MR. MOONVES:  Barry, I'm not necessarily drawing
    the line there.  I fear once you let the genie out of the
    bottle, and that is what it is, it goes beyond that.
              I can accept what's in the body of the piece on
    accepting that there should be minimum public interest
    requirements, which I think is a stretch for most
              MR. DILLER:  Isn't it reasonable, Les, and again
    this is a recommendation, isn't it reasonable, once you
    say that there should be minimum requirements, to say that
    there was lively and heated discussion over the
    specificity of it, and that there is a section that deals
    with that, and here are the arguments pro and con, and
    deal with it, as you're going to have to deal with it, in
    a legislative forum.
              MR. MOONVES:  Is it reasonable?  Yes.  Do I feel
    most of these things, a) are better served in other parts
    of the document -- over 50 percent of that is happening
    whether it be your document, whether it be in terms of
    free political programming, which we haven't even dealt

    with yet today, whether the accountability, if it is a
    general document, about public service announcements and
    public affairs programs, fine, but multi-casting is also
    dealt with elsewhere, closed captioning will be dealt with
              MR. GLASER:  Let me propose a modification to
    Barry's idea, which is, if the recommendation, or if the
    appendix that many people but not everybody sign on to as
    the property, that there's nothing in it that exceeds any
    of the recommendations of the body of the text or areas,
    but it is simply a question of whether we choose to have
    mandatory minimums need enforcement, does that solve the
    issue, because I think then we have a question of whether
    the body of the report is specific or not in other areas,
    but as long as there's nothing in the appendix that goes
    beyond the area of recommendations, that would seem to me
    to be the logical way to cut it.
              MR. MOONVES:  You have to understand something,
    Rob.  When you put it under minimum public interest
    requirements for digital television stations it does, in
    fact, go further than what would be in the body of the
    report.  By being labeled as that, whether it be an
    appendix or not, it does carry much more weight.
              Now, whether that's acceptable or not, I do not
    know, I really don't, but attachment A is certainly

    unacceptable, numbers, time periods, how much, and when
    and where.
              MR. GLASER:  Let me just be clear for a second
    so the committee can know what I'm proposing, then we can
    move on if this is a blind alley.
              Simply saying that, for instance, in the
    political area, it says one of the two options is 5
    minutes a day for the preceding 30 or 60 days.
               If we decide when we talk about the political
    programming issue not to include that in the body of the
    report, it would follow that it shouldn't be in the
    appendix, but if we decide to put it in the body of the
    report, then it would be fair game to be included in the
    appendix, the appendix, with a stipulation that not
    everybody would be necessarily signing on to having the
              MR. DILLER:  That sounds interesting.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  But I'm happy to cite an
    example, and there's no such thing as unanimity, but there
    was unanimity many months ago on that issue, and the
    strength of that issue was that it allowed great
    flexibility on the part of the broadcasters both in the
    time periods and in the content of what is being
    suggested, so I mean, I think that would be a step
    backward if suddenly we removed that from the body of our

    recommendations and put it in the appendix.
              MR. GLASER:  I'm not saying put it in the
    appendix.  I'm not saying only put it in the appendix. 
    I'm saying, put it in the appendix additionally if, or
    having it be a candidate for that if it is in the body as
    well, so the appendix is a cross-hatch with regard to
    minimums.  It doesn't introduce new recommendations.
              DR. DUHAMEL:  It was voluntary when it was in
    the body, and that's the key.
              MR. GOODMON:  Look, the appendix, the main body
    of the report, I've lost sight of what we're working on. 
    There's a group on this committee that believes we should
    have minimum standards and, as a matter of fact, support
    attachment A, and I worked really hard to get support for
    that, okay.
              MR. MOONVES:  Who did you really work hard with,
    your two committee members, one of whom is disclaiming
    that he was totally part of this.
              MR. GOODMON:  Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't work
    hard on it.
              MR. MOONVES:  Jim, I'm not claiming you didn't
    work hard.
              MR. GOODMON:  You're attacking me, not my ideas.
              MR. MOONVES:  No, I'm attacking your ideas.
              MR. GOODMON:  Let's stay with the ideas.  All

    I'm saying is, we've got two different ideas here, minimum
    standards -- 
              MR. MOONVES:  And I'm trying to work out a
    compromise.  That's what I'm trying to do.
              MR. GOODMON:  My suggestion is, we do both.  We
    put them both in the report, or both in the appendix,
    because that's what we have.
              MR. MOONVES:  We may not get a consensus, then.
              MR. DILLER:  if it is acceptable to have in the
    main report what we have all agreed on, and if it is also
    acceptable in the appendix to put the appendix in but then
    to describe the debate in the appendix, which is all
    reasonable, and to the point of the appendix, which is, it
    says it, and there is debate about it.
              Now you can't get away from it.  As Mr. Minow
    says, you're hung there, or on the other side.
              Now, the only way not to be, is that you're not
    going to resolve it.  You're not going to get any kind
    of -- forget unanimity.  You're not going to get anything
    but some kicks if you try and get the appendix to be a
    document that everybody's going to support, they won't
    support it.
              What they will do, though, is support the body,
    which is the main work, and in the appendix it is
    appropriate to say, here is one person, or nine people's

    suggestion for how to translate the body into minimum
    standards written this way, with real specificity.
              However, broadcasters have said the following
    things with relation thereto, it's impractical, et cetera,
    et cetera.  Let it sit there.  That's enough for this
    group to do.
              I mean, everybody's worked very, very hard to
    get all of this into one thing that will have coherence. 
    That would have that.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Richard.
              MR. MASUR:  Just to support this, I think if we
    say, if we come to an agreement in the body that there
    should be mandatory minimum requirements, and then in no
    way describe even the areas in which they should occur,
    it's going to seem bizarre, so if we look at the appendix
    as being descriptive of the statement of the principle, as
    described in the body, then as far as we can get consensus
    we should go to that length.
              In other words, if we can get consensus up to
    the point of including an appendix which describes
    basically how they should be applied without the specifics
    of the attachment A, then that should be included as a
              If then attachment A is attached with the
    descriptive that Barry just described, where there's a

    tremendous divergence of opinion, or if it's decided in
    the course of the conversation that we could reach
    consensus about this if we don't have attachment A in here
    at all, then that is something we should discuss.
              Perhaps we should, but I'm saying that's another
    possibility, if we could get full consensus on the
    principles, and if we can't, then I think attachment A
    should be in.
              MR. DILLER:  There may be full consensus minus
    one.  That is possible, because there's minus one in the
    room.  But let me ask it this way, and I understand your
    issue about a vote, but let me say that I do not hear a
    single dissenter towards the body of the work saying there
    should be minimum public interest standards.
              Now, if there is a dissent in this room right
    now, let's here it.  If not, then we will wait for dissent
    coming from a new shooter.  Is there?
              MR. MOONVES:  You're asking for acceptance of
    minimum public interest requirements within the body of
    the report as written.  However, you cannot totally
    isolate what is going to go on later on.
              MR. DILLER:  Yes, I am.  I am divorcing it.  I
    absolutely must at this point.
              MR. MOONVES:  But Barry, if you said to me,
    okay, and I can only talk for myself now, that number 4

    will be in the body of work, minimum public interest
    requirements, however, it will not be an appendix, there
    will not be an attachment A, I would say to you, yes, and
    don't smile.
              I'm saying if that is what we would be dealing
    with, minimum public interest requirements in its entirety
    in the report, I can say to you, yes, I could support it.
              MR. DILLER:  That's all I've asked.
              MR. MOONVES:  No.  You've gone further than
              MR. DILLER:  No, I haven't.
              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, you have.  Excuse me.  Then
    you've said in the appendix we will agree to disagree. 
    That's a different animal.  I am not saying I will not
    accept it.  I'm saying if this is all we're going to put
    in -- 
              MR. DILLER:  That's totally valid, except all
    I'm trying to do now is to say that there is complete,
    people in the room, unanimity on part 1.
              There is, if in fact there are attached, you may
    have another issue, not with regard to part 1, but with
    regard to the attachment.  Okay, fine.  Isn't that what
    you said?
              MR. MOONVES:  Wait.  That's not a fair way to
    negotiate.  You're saying, okay, let's -- if you agree

    with me on part 1, I'll leave part 2 to decide, and we'll
    talk about that later.
              If you're saying you're going to eliminate
    part 2, I could agree to part 1, but if you're saying,
    okay, I want you to agree to part 1 and we'll discuss part
    2 later, that I'm not -- that I will not agree to.
              MR. GLASER:  I think you're both being very
    articulate as to your positions.  I have one other thought
    that may or may not help and may simply complicate.
              One area that I seek, after discussion, to
    address in the document is the almost entire lack of any
    statement about the long-term desirability of harmonizing
    public interest obligations across media, across the
    distribution media, be it satellite, cable, Internet, or
              I think our report is relatively sound on that,
    and in the context of us having beefed up treatment of
    that topic, anything we were talking about here pertaining
    to the context of that kind of harmonization, does that
    help the broadcasters here feel better about this concept
    of having some type of mandatory standards?
              MR. LA CAMERA:  It's probably not going to
              MR. DILLER:  Of course, would any broadcaster
    like that?  Of course they would, but is it realistic? 

    Not only is it not realistic, I think, Rob -- I think -- I
    mean, the problem is, is that there is a relationship only
    in this area between a free license and X.
              That is not true, necessarily -- it's certainly
    not true in satellite, it's certainly not true in cable,
    so I don't know that you can make it, so to speak, across
    the spectrum, nor do I think -- and I don't know, Mr.
    Chairman, you know far better than I that it even begins
    to be the province of what you're supposed to be doing.
              MR. MOONVES:  I told you, we did have a cable
    person here on this committee.
              MR. DILLER:  No, believe me, I've made the
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  It is tricky ground for us to
    tread on.  We do, in fact, mention in a number of places,
    other media, and we've suggested, for example, where we
    talk about a voluntary set of standards, that the same
    process ought to work with the cable industry and the
    satellite industry.  They ought to develop their own sets
    of standards and operate in that fashion.
              Very explicitly, our mandate is to deal with
    digital television broadcasters, so we have to be careful
    about how far we tread.
              MR. GLASER:  But it seems to me if we can say

    that digital television should be subject to must-carry,
    when we talk about the intersection between digital
    broadcasting and the real world reality that 70 percent of
    the signals get into the home through cable, surely
    there's a corollary set of other real world
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We have to grapple with that and
    figure out the best way to handle it.
              MS. SOHN:  Norm, it was said in the beginning
    there were going to be some areas where we achieve
    consensus and some where we can't, and if you think we can
    pull something together, that's fine, but it seems to me
    there's a significant number of people around this table
    who are not going to be comfortable with this section 4
    without some specifics somewhere.  I mean, that's just not
    going to happen.
              I'm not going to sign on to a document that
    says, yeah, mandatory minimum standards, but we're not
    even going to mention the categories in which they should
    fall.  That's crazy.
              MR. MOONVES:  I didn't say we wouldn't
    necessarily mention the categories.
              MS. SCOTT:  That's where I've been trying to
    head.  There's a medium ground here.  It doesn't have to
    be as specific as attachment A or appendix A, or whatever

    the letter of the alphabet is, but prior to that in the
    report there are some subject heads some of which you
    don't agree with, some of which you do, but if we could
    pick from those subject heads, those are the things that
    broadcasters are part of the minimum requirements.
              They should have community outreach.  They
    should have accountability.
              MR. MOONVES:  We've already agreed on that.
              MS. SCOTT:  But now we're arguing about we don't
    even want to include that.
              MS. SOHN:  I reiterate what I just said.  This
    may be one of the areas where we're just going to have to
    have a stronger statement for people wanting the
    requirements and wanting the specificity and then another
    statement for people that don't, and I would venture a
    guess, that there's a majority of people around this table
    that would like the former and not the latter.
              MR. MASUR:  I just want to make my speech for
    hopefully the last time.  We are less -- actually, use the
    N word.  We are in fact negotiating now, and I really want
    to recommend against doing that.  The problem with going
    through point by point is that that will be a further
              What Barry brought out, what Gigi is saying, is
    possibly what we have to figure out how to do, is how to

    make the statement, this is where we're all together, this
    is where we came apart, and these are the ways in which we
    came apart.
              MR. DILLER:  What I don't understand is, how
    could you not say, since you can never, I think, get up to
    the printing press unless you say here's where we agree,
    and it's substantive, it's real, and it's worthwhile.
              Here's where we agree and here is where there is
    disagreement, because disagreement here, it would be
    foolish to think there wouldn't be, given the mix of
    people you've got around.  Why would that be in any way
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let me just raise one other --
    following on what Shelby said, there's another way which
    we could go here, and that is to add into the body of the
    report some description of areas where we think there
    ought to be requirements, community outreach,
    accountability, public service announcements, describe
    very briefly what they are, and then not get into specific
    numbers.  If we do that -- 
              MR. CRUMP:  Norm, it's already written that way. 
    You have it.  You've done an excellent job.  If you look
    at page 8 under the second paragraph, towards the tail end
    of that second paragraph, under minimum public interest
    requirements, any set of minimum standards should be

    drafted by the FCC in close conjunction with broadcasters
    themselves and phased in over several years beginning with
    stations' transmission of digital signals.
              We include as an example -- as an example, and
    that's all it is, not necessarily that it be followed, but
    as an example, so it's written well there as something to
    recommend, but I think this takes care of Les' and Barry's
    concerns.  Any set of minimum standards should be drafted
    by the FCC in close consultation.  That's really giving
    them the power, the right to specificity.  We're just
    submitting examples.
              MS. SCOTT:  But I think we have to say what the
    areas are without being specific.
              MR. DILLER:  You've got them.  They're listed.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  But we can list the areas without
    getting into specific numbers.
              MS. CHARREN:  Except in the appendix.
              MR. DILLER:  There's nothing wrong with saying
    that a group of people in this assemblage have suggested
    the following specifics.  There's nothing wrong with that.
              It is also not wrong to say there are a lot of
    other people who think they're crazy.  Fine.  End it
    there.  That's the work you've done.  Why not bring the
    work you've done to that kind of conclusion?
              MR. MOONVES:  Including the 110 to 150 per week.

              MR. DILLER:  Less.  If a number of people in the
    room, and I recognize the danger of counting heads, but if
    a number of people in the room say, we think those are
    reasonable specifics, and we represent -- 
              MR. MOONVES:  Does the word compromise, Barry,
    not exist here?  If a number of people in the room want to
    include the exact number of PSA's and exactly when they're
    going to run, then a number of people in the room could
    say, you know what?  I don't want minimum public interest
    requirements at all, and I was offering a compromise.
              MR. DILLER:  I think that's impossible.
              MS. STRAUSS:  What's your compromise?
              MR. MOONVES:  I'm fine with what is existing for
    minimum public interest requirements in the body of the
    piece, and let me go a step further, and my fellow
    broadcasters may disagree with me.
              I am fine, in fact, in including in very general
    terms some of the areas that we could deal with from
    Mr. Goodmon's report, and you had said earlier what was
    included later on.  Some of them should be included here,
    or can be included here.  I don't think free political
    programming should be in this area.
              MR. DILLER:  Can I say one thing, just one
    thing, because unfortunately I guess the true
    opposition -- I would like to say just one thing, and it

    does deal with free political time.  I think I would say
              I don't have any idea whether it has consensus,
    but the idea that this group would recommend that Congress
    must deal with political finance reform, that
    broadcasters, should they deal with it, that broadcasters
    will give generously of time if it is linked to real
    reform is something -- all I can do is introduce it and
    say I really believe it, and I've believed it for some
    time, and if it develops a consensus, fine, and if it
    doesn't, I've at least made the attempt.
              MR. MOONVES:  Barry, we're in total agreement on
              MR. DILLER:  So long as that -- and the stronger
    and clearer you can write that so that you can throw a
    challenge grant to Congress, that if broadcasters would do
    that challenge grant, while the cynics would say hopeless,
    maybe it will have a prayer.
              MR. MOONVES:  Barry, at an earlier meeting I
    said the most significant thing this body may ever do is
    attach those two things and urge Congress -- 
              MR. DILLER:  Do we have unanimity of that?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let's hope that's better than the
    handshake between President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich.

              We will break for lunch, and when we come back
    we will try to at least resolve this a little bit more,
    but it sounds as if we include all of these areas but not
    necessarily the specific numbers that are in that one
              MR. MOONVES:  I didn't say all these areas, but
              (Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the meeting recessed,
    to reconvene later this same day.)

(Click here to view part one of the morning session)
(Click here to view the afternoon session)