Transcript of the afternoon session

(Click here to view the morning session)

Admiralty Ballroom
Hilton Crystal City
2399 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA
Wednesday, September 9, 1998

                        AFTERNOON SESSION
                                                  (1:37 p.m.)
             MR. MOONVES:  All right.  Barry will be joining
   us a little bit late, he said.  A couple more housekeeping
             There is some sad news and good news.  Anne
   Stauffer, who has served as our liaison officer, has
   accepted a 3-month detail as an analyst in the Office of
   Management and Budget, so unfortunately she will be
    leaving us with our thanks and best wishes.
              However, Sally Ann Fortunado will be working
    with us while Ann is away, and Sally Ann, are you here?  
    Okay.  She was here earlier.  I met her.  She seems very
    nice.  We're very lucky to have her.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  The good news is that when Anne
    is at OMB she can change all those scoring rules.
              MR. MOONVES:  And there's no official word from
    the White House, but there is every indication the
    extension request will be granted, the reporting deadline
    still to be determined.  If they say no, does that mean we
    have to turn it in this week?
              Anyway, let's begin by talking about political
    discourse.  We will go into that, then we will talk about
    some of the other issues.  Karen will make a report, as
    well as Jose Ruiz.  We'd like to hear from you later on.  

             Yes, Charles.
             MR. BENTON:  Les, just one cleanup item from
   this morning.  The disclosure points are wonderfully
   spelled out here, and terrific, but I don't know -- it
   seems to me the ascertainment dimension, which was
   discussed on several occasions in past meetings and, in
   fact, Robert Decherd made considerable points in his paper
   about the need for assessing community needs and the
   ascertainment procedures.
              I just wanted to suggest that maybe we need a
    separate short section in here that is at the same level
    as the voluntary standards and disclosure on
    ascertainment, because ascertainment is the heart of
    understanding what community needs are.
              If we don't understand what the community needs
    are and if there is no procedure for determining that,
    then it is hard to follow through the rest of the process.
              MR. MOONVES:  It is one of the proposals that
    Jim has in his group of minimum standards.  As of this
    moment I don't think we know what is going to be
    incorporated in that.  However, clearly that is one of the
    things that should be discussed.
              MR. BENTON:  To strengthen that particular
    point, great.  Okay.  Wonderful.  No problem.
              MR. MOONVES:  And once again that will be --

   Norm and I talked about it -- a couple of subcommittees
   formed on the minimum standards issue as well as
   disclosure.  We will go from there.
             Clearly, when this committee was formed,
   probably the most pressing issue, or the most certainly
   public issue dealt with political discourse.  Norm and I
   have tried to formulate -- once again of all the things in
   this paper I would say this probably is the most general,
   and we are open for a great deal of discussion,
    interpretation on what we feel needs to be done.
              Clearly, something that we both feel is
    extremely important is that anything that the television
    broadcasters do should be part and parcel of a much larger
    campaign finance reform situation, something that, Newt, I
    know you would like to address.
              In addition, we should talk about the 5-minute
    rule, which is something that we both can embrace once
    again, as long as it is part of something further.
              So Newt, would you like to begin the discussion,
              MR. MINOW:  I am sorry Barry Diller isn't here,
    because I really want to pick up a suggestion he made on
    our very first meeting, which was that the broadcasters
    act as the good guys, the heros here, and put this
    question to Congress as follows, as a challenge, as a

   challenge grant, that broadcasters will provide X hours of
   time for political candidates without charge as part of
   their public service provided that Congress reforms the
   current political finance rules, and put the burden on
             In the business it is what we call an if-come
   deal.  If Congress does this, then we will do that, and I
   think that would be the framework that I would suggest we
   take Barry Diller's proposal and put it as a challenge to
              MR. MOONVES:  I do not disagree with that. The
    question is, what do they put to Congress, and what is the
    if and what is the come?  How far do we go in our requests
    of Congress to make changes in campaign reform, as well as
    what are we giving in exchange?  In exchange, are we
    giving the 5 minutes to them, or are we giving something
    further?  I think those are the questions.
              Yes, Bill.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  The only question I have is
    whether Congress really wants to do campaign reform.  You
    see, you're assuming they want this.
              MR. MINOW:  I am assuming it would put the
    public pressure on them.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Because I do not think they really

             MR. MOONVES:  That is the idea, is to be able to
   use this leverage to put pressure on them to do something
   that they would not normally do, and on behalf of the
   broadcasters, Newt, we do appreciate the broadcaster being
   the good guy for a change.
             Yes, Jose.
             MR. RUIZ:  After our first meeting, Newt passed
   out a paper on a global look at how campaign advertising
   is handled.  There is only two nations, or three nations
    that are out there.
              MR. MINOW:  There are three countries that do
    not require by law some sort of public service time, the
    United States, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia.
              MR. RUIZ:  And also paid advertising.
              MR. MINOW:  Many countries prefer that paid
    advertising -- such as Great Britain allows no sale or
    purchase of time for a political candidate.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  What about newspapers?
              MR. MINOW:  In Great Britain they are permitted
    to have newspaper ads, with some sharp limits on how much
    they can spend.
              MR. RUIZ:  I think we should look at the British
    model and see if it is not something, as it pertains to
    broadcasters, that we might not want to adopt.
              MS. SOHN:  I think the British model is

   interesting, but there is one problem.  The British do not
   have a First Amendment, and I think that while I agree
   with the principle, I really think there would be a
   problem telling broadcasters that -- telling candidates,
   not telling broadcasters, that they absolutely could not
   buy time.  I think you run up into a little bit of a First
   Amendment problem.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, the British system is very
   different from ours.  The British tradition is different
    from ours, but the system is.  You have no tradition there
    of individual candidates running individual campaigns. 
    They are national parties.  It's a small, homogenous
    country that has until recently not had anything
    resembling local or targeted television.  It is a national
    television audience.
              There was a group of British Members of
    Parliament who now are formed into a campaign finance
    reform committee who came to Washington several months ago
    to talk about their own system, and they met with several
    of us, and what is also clear is that as the world
    changes, as we move to a digital world, and a world where
    pictures are transmitted in so many different ways, it's
    not clear they can hold to their own system.
              Let's say, for example, that a group of British
    expatriots decided to put on substantial advertising on

   CNN, that would go to Britain through the sky channel and
   other mechanisms, whether they would have the ability to
   block that from taking place.
             So the world is going to change, as our world is
   going to change, and the nature of communications is going
   to change in dramatic ways, and we can't even predict in
   what ways as we move to a digital age.
             I would posit that advertising more generally,
   in an era of far more sophisticated remote controls and
    many, many more channels, is going to move in two
    directions simultaneously.
              One is going to be, to take advantage of an even
    more fragmented attention span, product placement and
    advertising integrated into programs, because if you move
    to commercials people will automatically switch out, and
    at the same time I think we're going to move to longer
    segments, 5 minutes or more, that take the form of
    stories, so that you can actually get people to pay
    attention and in a serial way carry along.
              And maybe as regular advertising moves in that
    direction, if it does, that political advertising will,
    and we will have not only the challenge of even shorter
    hit and run spots, but the opportunity of something more.
              We can't predict that, but what we can do is to
    figure out how we can in some fashion improve political

   discourse and satisfy that responsibility now and in the
   future with an appropriate trade-off, and what Barry
   suggested, what Newt is talking about, if we handle this
   in a good way, it seems to me we can, in fact, move from
   an image of broadcasters as the evil guys to broadcasters
   as the good guys, broadcasters making a challenge to
             And Bill is right, most Members of Congress are
   more than a little reluctant to move in that direction,
    but the best thing to do under those circumstances is to
    create every opportunity for them to change their minds by
    turning the focus where it appropriately belongs, which is
    on lawmakers manipulating their own system.
              So there, if we make this a challenge, and
    indicate that reform should not be solely on the backs of
    broadcasters, but that they will play a very significant
    role here, as they should, that is appropriate, and the
    question is, what would we make as the quid pro quo.
              MR. BENTON:  Just to follow up on Norm's comment
    here and Newt's reminding us of Barry Diller's very
    important interjection, and I think it was our second
    meeting, our third meeting early on, the House, of course,
    as you all know has passed the Shays-Meehan campaign
    finance reform legislation severely restricting third
    party advertising and limiting soft money.

             Everyone said this would not happen, this was
   impossible, but it did happen.
             The Senate apparently has announced that it will
   vote on some campaign finance reform legislation.  Whether
   that will take place this fall or whether it will take
   place next year is anyone's guess -- probably next year.
             But if one thinks, Norm, as you were saying,
   about the broadcaster's long-term self-interest in the
   context of the new Telecommunications Act, where you now
    have one regulatory framework encompassing broadcasting,
    cable, and telephone, the broadcasters can position
    themselves as the democracy channels, the pro-democracy
              We all know that our system is in deep trouble
    politically, that money is corrupting the system big-
    time.  It is a bipartisan corruption.  This is not
    Democrats or Republicans.  The system has totally spun out
    of control.
              And if the broadcasters -- and 55 percent of all
    the money spent in Federal campaigns goes to buying back
    the public's air waves, our time.  If the broadcasters can
    step up and take a leadership role here, not in solving
    but in contributing to the solution of the mess that our
    electoral system is in, and thereby really serving the
    public interest, convenience, and necessity big-time, I

   think this is a long-range win-win or the broadcasters.
             And positioning themselves vis-a-vis their long-
   term competition there's just a lot to gain here, and
   looking at it not in terms of, oh, gosh, I'm going to lose
   the advertising revenue, which is minuscule, I mean,
   during elections, compared to the big picture, but
   fulfilling their public interest obligations, there's just
   a tremendous opportunity here.
             MR. MOONVES:  Anybody else?  Yes, Jim.
              MR. GOODMON:  I'm supportive of this notion.  I
    want to make sure that we're talking about program time,
    not giving commercials, and that when we talk about
    program time the candidate must appear.  I mean, there are
    two or three things here that I think really will help
              The program time -- I think I did 3 hours.  60
    days before the election, 5 minutes a day is 300 minutes. 
    That's -- okay, 5 hours, 4 or 5 hours of time we're
    talking about, even if we do the 5 minutes.
              But the point is, the candidate must appear in
    this free time, and there are two other things I want to
    suggest, and one is that if we're going to have the lowest
    unit rate, if there's going to be a preferable rate for
    political advertising, that should only be for political
    advertising in which the candidate appears.

             This is for the candidate to be on the air, not
   for a third party attack, and it's not just the candidate
   comes on at the end and says, paid for by, but that for 50
   or 75 percent of the spot the candidate must appear, if
   there's a lowest unit rate involved, some preferable rate
   for political candidates.
             And then the other thing that I think would
   really help is, stations can already decide whether or not
   to take issue advertising.  We can turn that down and say,
    we don't want it, or we can take it.
              The abuse with the soft money and the third
    party advertising comes in when they talk about candidates
    and political parties in a nonpolitical way, so my
    suggestion is that issue advertising 60 days before the
    election cannot contain the name of a candidate or a
    political party, and that will stop the soft money, and
    that will stop that issue advertising stuff.
              Those are the three things I think we have got
    to work on, but the issue advertising is what is
    distorting the marketplace, and that is money spent by
    third parties "nonpolitically" to talk about candidates
    and political parties.
              So if we say you do issue advertising, third
    party advertising, you can talk about medicare, but you
    don't say, call Senator Jones because he disagrees with

   us, or call Senator Jones and tell him what you think. 
   That is an obvious attempt to get votes for or against
   that candidate.
             If you say you can't talk about a candidates,
   you can't talk about political parties 60 days before
   election, we don't have a soft money problem.
             MR. CRUZ:  I think in making our appeal to
   Congress for a quid pro quo of some sort is something we
   can offer up as a forum.  I agree with that concept and
    endorse that idea.  Perhaps the lowest unit rate might be
    also the other attractive thing for Congress to take
              There is a cable company in Los Angeles that
    announced that for this coming fall campaign in the Los
    Angeles area they were going to offer free air time to all
    politicians, local, State, and Federal, for a 1-minute
    spot.  They must be on it.  There would be no editing, and
    they would all have to answer the same questions
    pertaining to their particular race that they were
    involved in.
              And the reason why they did it -- I've forgotten
    the name of the cable company in the Los Angeles area
    that's done it, but apparently the reason why they did it,
    it was their effort of showing that this whole area of
    campaign finance reform and the problems that political

   money, soft and otherwise, have done to the democracy and
   to the democratic process of our country.
             So it was their effort at doing that, so I
   think, you know, ventures like this, I think if we can
   take some stances in that direction, not necessarily in
   that simple way, but I mean, in maybe the lowest unit rate
   reform or modification might be the solution to put the
   onus on Congress to act.
             MR. LA CAMERA:  Just to go back to this concept
    of the 5 minutes per day, we spent a good amount of time
    on that.  Everyone seems comfortable.
              MR. MOONVES:  I think we have consensus that as
    long as that's part of a larger campaign, you know, and
    once again, Newt, I wouldn't mind, when Barry gets back,
    if you and Barry could work on some language about what we
    would like to present to Congress in terms of that.  This
    would be part of it.
              I think if that, in fact, happens, I think
    there's a consensus on the 5-minutes as written here.  Any
    comments on that?  Bill.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  I'm still puzzled -- you know, you
    want this voluntary 5 minutes, but why don't we tie that
    to the lowest unit rate.  We aren't going to get it done
    in October this year, obviously.
              But I mean, the biggest problem for the lowest

   unit rate is -- it doesn't cost us a lot of money.  We
   don't know where we are, and when we get done we box it
   all up, tape the box up, and then hope nobody ever comes
   in, because we make a good faith effort and we still don't
   understand it.
             MR. MOONVES:  We address that on page 9, the
             MR. DUHAMEL:  But I'm saying why don't you tie
   it to the 5 minutes, the voluntary 5 minutes a night.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  It's hard to do that, Bill,
    because the 5 minutes we're talking about here is
    completely under the control of the broadcasters to
    determine candidates in races.
              There are obviously going to be a lot of
    candidates in races who aren't included in that, so I
    don't think we can raise the rates without something in
    return for the broader mass of candidates.
              And that's where, if you work out an exchange in
    terms of some provision of additional time at market
    rates, you can get rid of the lowest unit rate, all that
    uncertainty, all the headaches, and a system which as we
    move towards digital is increasingly going to become
    completely meaningless.
              And frankly it's going to become
    counterproductive, too, because one of the difficulties we

   have here with so-called issue advertising is that there
   you have groups who pay market rates, and the more they go
   in and want to do that, the more incentive there is for
   broadcasters to find ways out of offering time at a
             So there are reasons to try and work an exchange
   there, but it doesn't tie to 5 minutes, which we hope in
   addition to, by the way -- and I think we ought to mention
   here the extraordinary innovations that other broadcasters
    are doing.
              What Harold has put on the table for us from
    Hubbard, and all the things that are being done there, is
    just a terrific set of ideas, what Belo has done with It's
    Your Time, and Hearst-Argyle has done, and Jim has done on
    his own with his station, and it's multiplied in a lot of
    different places.
              But there is an advantage to finding a formula,
    which is what the 5-minute 30-day does.  That is not a
    terribly onerous thing.  That doesn't necessarily involve
    a minute of commercial time, that can provide a much
    broader range of innovative ways of giving candidates a
    voice here.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  But I was thinking you'd get more
    acceptance if you could get rid of that lowest unit rate. 
    You'd have broadcasters saying, just to get rid of that

   uncertainty and mess, let me go do it.  That's what I was
   thinking.  I was trying to get this thing adopted quicker.
             MS. SOHN:  The problem with that connection,
   Bill, though is, if it's voluntary, okay, you'd be
   repealing the lowest unit rate for everybody, regardless
   of whether they sign on to the voluntary or not.  You
   can't repeal a law as to some people -- I guess you could. 
   Congress could say, well, if we do this voluntary thing
   then you don't have to do this lowest unit rate.  That
    would be a conundrum that's not going to happen.
              So that's the problem.  If we want to talk
    about, I'd like to raise it at some point, what was in
    Jim's thing, some minimum mandated free time, then we
    could talk about tying it to the lowest unit rate, but if
    it's just voluntary I don't know how you could do it in a
    way that works.
              MR. MOONVES:  It is apples and oranges.
              Also in the 5-minute thing the stations can
    choose exactly which race, which candidates, which issues
    they want to deal with, so I think it's nearly impossible
    to tie the two together.
              Yes, Newt.
              MR. MINOW:  For the record, I know I'm a
    minority of one -- actually, a minority of two.  Oh,
    you'll be surprised when I tell you who the other one

   is -- when I believe that you do not have a constitutional
   right to buy broadcast time even if you're a candidate,
   and I believe we should not have the purchase and sale of
   time for political candidates.
             Eddie Fritts, the head of the NAB, proposed that
   in exchange for a certain amount of what he called free
   time, that there should be a promise that the candidates
   would not purchase any time.
             I happen to agree with him, and although I know
    nobody else will agree with us, I just want for the record
    to say that's where I would come out, because I believe
    that candidates will simply purchase more and more and
    more time, and they'll have attack ads and everything
    else, and we won't get rid of this corruption of the
    democratic system.
              MR. RUIZ:  That's my point.  If you cannot make
    attack ads, if you can't somehow control the amount of
    time a candidate can buy, what are we solving?  I don't
    care how much time you give them.
              MR. CRUZ:  My suggestion is, political time that
    gets the lowest unit rate is only for candidates'
    appearances.  If we make candidates appear, then you don't
    have attack ads.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  You still have attack ads.  You
    just wouldn't have it at the lowest rates.

             MR. CRUZ:  Right.  It would be out of the
   political -- candidates don't do the attacking.  That's
   all I'm saying.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  The answer to what you're saying,
   Jose, is, we're dealing with a situation where there is no
   solution.  You have trade-offs here.  There is a First
   Amendment that guarantees and demands robust debate and
   speech.  There is nothing you can do to control the
   content of that, nothing we should do to control the
              What you can do is try to provide a structure
    and an atmosphere where you can give opportunities for
    candidates who otherwise would not be able to get a
    message across, and incentives to get a less negative
    message across, and you can move that trade-off a little
    bit more in a positive direction.  We have an opportunity
    to do that now, and as much as we can, we should.
              MS. SOHN:  Also the other thing besides the
    First Amendment, you also have the reasonable access law,
    which also is problematic, which guarantees reasonable
    access to Federal candidates, so if you ban selling time
    to them, I agree with you in principle, but I just think
    you have a very, very difficult row to hoe legally, but --
              I'd like to sort of flip that around, because

   some stations, and this was very, very salient in
   California and also in Virginia, have adopted basically
   blanket bans on selling time to down-ticket candidates, to
   State candidates, and I'd like to see us perhaps maybe as
   part of the voluntary work, that we mandate, have such a
   prohibition on a blanket ban on selling time or giving
   time to local and State candidates.
             Because I think, you know, Federal candidates
   get plenty of time, and in fact your proposal is mostly
    based on Federal candidates, candidates for Congress and
    Presidential, but it's the local and State candidates that
    aren't able to get that time.
              MR. CRUMP:  The reason for that is, you still
    have a thing called equal time, and we have to provide
    that.  When you sell for one you have to provide for the
    other, and you get into these situations, there's not
    enough time in the day to take care of everybody that
    wants to come in and go and do, and it has to be equal all
    the way through.
              MS. SOHN:  But what candidates that you elect
    are going to make the decisions that you really care about
    in your every day life?  Your Congressman, rarely.  It's
    usually the city council member or the Governor.
              You know, in Virginia they stopped selling time
    to gubernatorial candidates, an incredibly heated race.

             I mean, again you don't have to sell them
   time -- in fact, there is no reasonable access,
   unfortunately, for State candidates.  That's why you can
   have these bans in the first place.  But to have this
   blanket ban and say we'll never sell you time -- it's one
   thing to say, okay, we're not going to sell you time every
   night.  That's unreasonable.
             It's another thing to say, we're never going to
   sell a down-ticket candidate, anybody lower than the
    gubernatorial race.  We're not going to sell any State,
    any local, city council, we're not going to sell.  That's
    the other side of that coin.
              MR. MOONVES:  How would you determine -- in
    other words, X amount of time that could be sold at your
              MS. SOHN:  You can't just say, I will not sell
    to any State or local candidate, a blanket ban on any
    State and locals.  Yes, well, the dog catcher is running
    unopposed, obviously, you know, it would be very
    reasonable for you to say -- 
              MR. MOONVES:  There's a blanket ban?
              MS. SOHN:  Yes.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  In several instances there were
    announcements of blanket bans, and I've become convinced
    through our discussions that you can't require reasonable

   access for all candidates for all levels, because there
   just isn't time for it, but it is perfectly appropriate to
   say that blanket bans are wrong.
             Let me just add, one of the very strong pluses,
   I believe, for the 5-minute suggestion is that you leave
   it open to stations to pick those races which are not in
   every, or even most instances going to solely be Federal
             They are much more likely, in fact, to include a
    mix of State and local as well over that 30 days to give
    access for candidate discourse, so you can actually create
    a better opportunity with that to get that appropriate
    blend, and every station would then choose which races
    that station believed were the most significant ones and
    provide some opening time.
              MR. MOONVES:  Anything further?
              MR. RUIZ:  We cannot ban paid advertising, but
    we could make certain requirements for the content, the
    way the content is delivered, is that correct?
              MS. SOHN:  No, I don't think so.
              MR. RUIZ:  We can require that they appear?
              MR. LA CAMERA:  If it's the lowest unit rate,
    there can be a requirement that the candidate appear.
              MR. MOONVES:  He's saying they can, but Gigi,
    who's an attorney, is shaking her head vehemently.

             MS. SOHN:  On that I think you probably could,
   but Jim was talking about banning issue ads saying things
   like they can't say the politicians name.  That may be
             MR. GOODMON:  Issue advertising, no one has the
   right to have issue ads run.  It's up to the station, and
   the station could edit it in any way they wanted.  The
   station could have any rules they want about issue
   advertising.  I'm suggesting they should if they want to
    get away from the issue ads distorting the process.
              Stations can say no.  There are plenty of
    stations that don't take issue advertising at all.
              MS. SOHN:  Right, understood.  I would propose
    increased sponsorship identification as opposed to your
              I think having bigger sponsor ID paid for and
    realistic sponsor ID, as opposed to paid for by North
    Carolinians who like good things.  That's really lousy
    sponsor identification, but it's with clearly North
    Carolinians for what we're really talking about.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Gigi, on the reasonable access,
    how do you intervene in the content of the Federal
    candidate's spot?  I didn't think we could in any way.
              MS. SOHN:  You can't.  He's talking about issue

             MR. MOONVES:  You're saying lowest unit rate, a
   candidate cannot say something bad.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  You can't in any way dictate what
   the content of those spots should be, but in the process
   of providing incentives, just as you can't have mandatory
   spending limits under Buckley v. Valeo, but you can have a
   voluntary system where you get an incentive if you limit
             You can have a situation where you get an
    incentive if you appear in your own spot, as opposed to
    something else.  That theoretically can be done.
              But of course, even in that area we have to be
    very careful.  It's a very slippery slope that you get on
    when you try to have an impact on the content, which we're
    probably better off not doing.
              MR. MINOW:  Just a word about the First
    Amendment in this area, because I think it gets very
              If you are arguing a case in the United States
    Supreme Court, you are allocated a certain amount of time
    to make your case, usually 30 minutes each side.  The
    people who are arguing that the First Amendment means that
    money is speech, and speech is money, should try to go to
    the Supreme Court one day and say, I don't want just 30
    minutes to argue my side, I want an hour.  Here's a check.

   I'll purchase a half-hour to argue for an additional 30
   minutes.  The Supreme Court would throw you out -- 
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, wait, how big is the check?
             MR. MINOW:  -- even though it is a public forum.
             My point is, speech is not money, and money is
   not speech, and access to television can be provided a
   certain amount of time with no interference with what the
   candidate says to comply with the direct democratic
    process reasonable access.
              I know I am alone in this, but some day we will
    come to the point where we will say selling time on
    television for politics is not required under our
    Constitution, and it is a bad thing to do for maintaining
    the kind of Government and kind of campaigns we want.
              That's the end of my speech.  I just want that
    on the record.
              MR. BENTON:  Let me just pick up on this,
    because this is really new thinking, and it's courageous
    thinking, and I'm just wondering how Newt, especially in
    line with Les's challenge to you and Barry to come with
    some wording, how we can at least seriously get that idea
    on the table for further discussion.
              Because it may not be the flat-out
    recommendation of the committee, but it seems to me that

   one of the functions of our report could be to get a
   serious idea such as you have posited out for serious
   discussion, and I would certainly applaud our so doing.
             It may not be possible.  There are lots of nay-
   sayers.  You're going to have the whole vested interest of
   the political consultants against you, et cetera, et
   cetera, and the challenging incumbents arguments about
   it's the only way to successfully challenge incumbents.
             There's arguments on all sides of this issue, as
    we all know, but I think to get this point you made, since
    we live in an imperfect world and these are trade-offs, in
    effect, to think about what we've lost by allowing this to
    happen, and getting this in the report in a serious way so
    this will stimulate further discussion about this idea of
    yours and Eddie Fritts, and if Eddie Fritts will really
    join you on this seriously, I mean, I think it's very
    provocative, and why not get this laid out in a serious
    way for further discussion.
              Isn't that what our report is supposed to do? 
    We are supposed to recommend ideas for the policy-makers
    and for further discussion.  We can't legislate anything. 
    We can't administratively rule it, but I mean, I think
    this would be very constructive.  Why not?
              MR. MINOW:  Well, I will, as part of this, write
    a dissenting or concurring or whatever, statement on it

   for anybody who wants to join, but I know it's not a view
   that will meet with large support.
             MS. CHARREN:  I was going to say that something
   like this could be an opinion or op ed piece.  Certainly
   Newt can get op ed pieces in the paper, and not part of
   the report per se.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  I think if Newt wants to put it
   in in a strong way as an opinion, it ought to be there.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  You may get more support
    than you think.
              MR. MOONVES:  So we're in agreement.  We're
    going to propose this as part of our larger finance
    campaign reform situation.  Any further comment about the
    5 minutes?
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  I have a question on this. 
    It's actually more a point of clarification on the
              On page 8, the final paragraph, the third
    sentence says, for a modest commitment of time during a
    brief period every 2 years.  Were you talking about
    Federal elections when you were referring to that?  I
    thought that this 5-minute period was for any kind of
    election.  Am I misreading that?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I think the initial cut here was
    for Federal elections which encompass a very broad range

   of most State elections, but certainly not all.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  You just may want to make it
   consistent with the last sentence in the second paragraph
   that talks about candidates and races, Federal, State, and
             MS. SCOTT:  Some elections are -- 
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Every 6 months.
             MS. SCOTT:  Or in the spring or in the fall.
             MR. MOONVES:  I think we ought to leave the
    language open, however.  I don't think broadcasters will
    want to do it every 6 months.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  I'm not saying, say every 6
    months.  You may just want to dilute that whole sentence. 
    It may be just easier to take it out.
              MR. MOONVES:  Yes, Gigi.
              MS. SOHN:  Tell me if this is the appropriate
    time.  I do want to raise the issue -- actually Bill sort
    of raised it for me by talking about the unlikelihood of
    Congress passing real campaign finance reform, and perhaps
    because of that reality we should consider making a
    recommendation to the FCC that they require some minimal
    amount of time.
              I think we should do it, for the reasons Bill
    stated, for the reasons stated in my proposal.  I think
    it's good for democracy.  I think it sets a floor, and I'd

   just be interested in hearing what other people have to
   say about it.
             MR. GOODMON:  Here was what I was trying to say. 
   If you agree there is some public affairs programming
   obligation, then what I was suggesting, that at certain
   times of year, this would be that.
             I mean, it's not the public affairs programming
   and this, that as part of the -- this would just say that
   as part of the commitment for public affairs programming,
    this 5-minute political would be done as part of that, not
    in addition to, but it would be part of the mandates.
              MS. SOHN:  I understand that.  The critical
    thing in my proposal is that, again, it doesn't need to be
    one way or the other.  It could be the 5 minutes, it could
    be programming that's exempt from equal time, it could be
    mini debates, it could be a time bank.
              I don't think we should necessarily tell the FCC
    what they should do, but the question that I raise to the
    committee is, is this something we should recommend, is
    this something that's good for democracy?
              Do we really think our -- I think the
    congressional recommendation is a very good one, and I
    wholeheartedly support it, but is it really going to go
              MR. MOONVES:  I want to address two points, and

   I disagree with you in two different ways, Gigi, with due
             Once again, as I said before, if we want to make
   proposals that the broadcaster will throw right back at
   Congress and we will get nowhere with that, that will
             Number 2, if we can in fact effect a true
   campaign finance reform, this committee will have done so
   much more than the rest of these things, which are
    recommendations that are going to go to the FCC, it's
    going to go to Congress, it's all going to be very nice.
              But if, in fact, we can have some part in
    pushing them over the top, that could be so significant in
    terms of, you know, you talk about democracy.  That really
    could affect democracy, and if we leave it both ways,
    you're going to lose your effectiveness.  That's my
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I might also add I'm very hopeful
    that a large number of broadcasters will take on
    themselves the 5-minute idea soon and experiment with it
    as a part of this.
              We hope that experimentation will lead to all
    kinds of innovative ways of, in this situation
    broadcasters have an incentive to put on interesting
    things during that time to keep their viewers, and we may

   find very innovative ways of using a minute or two or
   three that can provide great access.
             So that doesn't have to wait for the if-come-
   maybe of comprehensive campaign reform.  It could come and
   should come and I hope will come very soon.
             MR. DUHAMEL:  Doesn't the equal time provision
   still have to be waived?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  That obviously has to be done by
   Congress, but even without that, without that you are
    going to lose in some cases opportunities, because clearly
    incumbents will turn down opportunities just so they can
    keep challengers off the air, so we'll have to live with
    that obstacle.
              But in the meantime, broadcasters can still
    reach out and find, no doubt, lots of races that are of
    great significance to their communities and find
    innovative ways of taking in a 5-minute period each night
    through mini debates, interviews, providing time to the
    candidates, and other things, ways of getting that
    discourse out there for their communities and of giving
    candidates opportunities they wouldn't have had otherwise.
              MS. SOHN:  I just wanted to get back -- since
    nobody seems to have anything to say about the FCC
    recommendation, I will just tuck my head in and go away. 
    I feel strongly about it, but let's move on.

             On the State ban, the ban on State and local
   candidates, that's something you would want to include?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  I see no reason not to put in
   language against bans on advertising.  I don't think we
   can put in a requirement for reasonable access for
   everybody, but overall bans, that certainly, I believe, is
   very much worthwhile.
             MR. GOODMON:  You never say you have an overall
   ban.  It's just if the sheriff's candidates come in, you
    say you're not going to do the sheriff.  You're not going
    to publish this ahead of time.
              MS. SOHN:  Believe it...some of your colleagues
    have been quite bold in that regard, Jim.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  But increasingly in the last
    campaign they have been saying that.
              MR. GOODMON:  But after you get asked it, you
    say you do, but you don't want to announce a policy.  You
    don't know what's going to happen with the air time.
              MR. MOONVES:  There's no reason why we can't put
    a recommendation in.
              MR. CRUMP:  You see, when you get down to it,
    you may not have a requirement, a Federal requirement for
    equal time, but you feel very strongly that if you get
    into this you talk about leaving yourself wide open for
    all sorts of problems and bad publicity because you sold

   this guy but now you have to sell to his opponent.
             So when you look at this, you usually look at
   how am I going to be able to satisfy everybody that comes
   into this particular race.  You just don't.  You just open
   the door for problems.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  This, I think, we can dispose of
   very, very quickly.  We know that we had that testimony
   from the Working Group on Natural Disaster Systems of the
   Federal Government.
              There are clearly tremendous opportunities
    within the digital framework to provide very sophisticated
    early warning alerts to people about natural disasters. 
    It seems very clear that this takes the tiniest portion of
    the spectrum.  It's the equivalent of a human hair across
    a super highway.
              But it is worthwhile for us, as they have
    recommended, to write in that the capability to broadcast
    basic early warning systems is a public interest
    obligation, working with emergency specialists to make
    sure the most effective way to use the bandwidth is
              And I would suggest, even though it also goes
    beyond our narrow mandate and our responsibilities, that
    in this area, as looking ahead to our discussion of closed
    captioning and video description, that we put in a

   recommendation to set manufacturers and other equipment
   manufacturers that they build in the capability for these
   things looking ahead, rather than have to rely on the much
   more expensive and inefficient retrofitting.
             MR. DUHAMEL:  Norm, didn't the FCC just allocate
   24 mH of bandwidth for public safety?  Would that be the
   place to do that on their bandwidth?  I thought that was
   in the last month or two.
             MR. MOONVES:  Not that I'm aware of.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  That's why I'm thinking, if
    there's already something allocated -- 
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, there's space allocated --
    that's for other things.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  I thought that was public safety.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I think that's for things like
    911 calls and ambulance services, communication over
    secure bandwidths for the police, and other forces.  It's
    not the same thing as having available when there's a
    tornado coming, that every station says there's a tornado
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Because we have it on the EAS
    right now.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We're talking about taking
    advantage of new and sophisticated technologies and what's
    not going to be an additional use of bandwidth

   particularly, just making sure that it's there.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Actually you gave me a
   perfect lead-in to the last one I wanted to mention, so I
   want to do that now.  I just want to support what you just
   said, which is to make a recommendation to basically make
   it easier for broadcasters to apply new closed captioning
   technology and video description technologies to make
   recommendations to manufacturers to incorporate in the
   design of their sets the capability for carrying out these
              That's my last recommendation.  I will mention
    it first.  You have actually all at some point -- 
              MR. DUHAMEL:  You'd also have to add in the
    producers, to put the description in.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  For the producers of the
    programming?  That would be fine for me.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  If they don't do it, it doesn't do
    any good.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Well, that's a whole
    different issue.  You're talking about requiring video
    description, and I'm not really going to get into that. 
    I'm talking about providing a capability to transmit video
    description once its provided by producers.
              Last April and then again last May I submitted
    to the committee a proposal for the obligations for

   individuals with disabilities, and basically this is just
   to reiterate what I already submitted.
             I know that the NTIA has been playing around
   with some of the language and, as I understand it, there's
   a series of five or six recommendations, the last of which
   is the equipment one that I just mentioned.
             The first one is for broadcasters as well to
   take advantage, full advantage of the new digital closed
   captioning technologies, and I'm not sure how you want to
    handle this.  Shall I just go through all of them?
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Did this come out in the packet?
    This is not in the package.
              MR. MOONVES:  Karen, if you could distinguish
    from what is currently the practice or in use.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We will discuss it, and then we
    will get language out and write it into language.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Okay.  If you remember the
    testimony presented on closed captioning, one of the
    things that was shown was that digital technology can
    enable people to -- caption viewers -- to be able to
    control the size of the captions on their television sets,
    possibly the location of the captions.  This
    recommendation would basically be just saying to
    broadcasters, take full advantage of the new digital
    closed captioning technologies when transmitting

   programming containing such closed captioning.
             The second recommendation would be that during
   the transition from analog to digital television that
   broadcasters ensure the captioning of both analog and
   digital programs.  Let me just add that this is all taken
   with the understanding that this will not change in any
   way the closed caption requirements that are in place at
   the FCC.  And it does not supplement those requirements in
   any way -- at least not this.  The voluntary code gets
    into that a little bit, but this is really just with the
    understanding that those requirements already exist.
              There is an Act that was passed in 1990, called
    the Television Decoder Circuity Act, that required that
    new television technologies, including digital television,
    be capable of transmitting closed captions.  So,
    basically, the second recommendation just says that during
    the transition, make sure that the captions pass through.
              As a corollary to that, I want to add that
    Frank's suggestion -- and everybody's suggestion here --
    that we require -- incorporate must-carry obligations,
    that those must-carry obligations should also ensure that
    the closed captioning be transmitted along with the
    programming that must be carried.
              Okay, the third item talks generally about the
    ancillary and supplementary services using a portion of

   the digital spectrum, and just recommends that in
   providing these additional services that the actual
   provision of these services does not impinge upon the
   bandwidth that is currently set aside for captioning. 
   Again, not creating any new obligations, just ensuring
   that the existing requirements for captioning to pass
   through continue to be passed through.
             The next item talks about the delivery of
   services in addition to programming.  And it gets at what
    Charles had mentioned before, which is the transmission of
    data and other -- the transmission of digital streams of
    information.  Because digital technologies will be so
    flexible, broadcasters should offer text options for
    material that are presented orally and audio options for
    material otherwise presented visually.
              Basically, this is just kind of a catch-all,
    saying that where there are other services, additional
    services provided through digital technologies, that
    efforts should be made to make those accessible to people
    with disabilities.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Passing the digital through, that
    is probably not a problem.  Making it oral, somebody has
    got to do that.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  That is adding at least another

   several people as a requirement.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Yes, I agree.  It is not
   something that is going to happen by itself.  There has to
   be an effort made to make the information accessible.
             MR. DUHAMEL:  Well, I don't think that is just a
   blanket deal that I accept.  I do not know about everybody
   else, but that is an additional cost item.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  It may be.
             MR. DUHAMEL:  It is one thing, the closed
    captioning, and saying that you are passing the data
    stream through and that you can read it.  That, I don't
    think, is the problem.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Well, I do not know whether
    you want to discuss this now.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Yes, I think we should.  I wish
    you would have provided us a copy of this beforehand,
    Karen.  I have never seen this.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Well, I learned that I was
    going to be doing this when I arrived today.  So this is a
    surprise to me, as well.
              Now, there is a draft that is available that
    Karen worked on and some other people at NTIA.  But I do
    not know whether it is still in the working, whether we
    want to --
              MR. MOONVES:  Now, Karen, is this the only thing

   that is new, that is not currently provided for, that will
   in fact goes beyond existing performance.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  That is probably the only
   thing in here -- well, in a sense, some of the other
   things are new.  This is probably -- let me finish the
   last one, just to show you what I am saying.  The last one
   basically talks about video description, and says that the
   committee recommends that broadcasters allocate sufficient
   audio bandwidth.
              Well, that is new.  Because that has not been
    done either.  It asks broadcasters to take advantage of
    new digital closed captioning technologies.  That is new. 
    So it is not really the only one that is new, it is just a
    little bit different than the other ones.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  The two of us did not have time,
    frankly, to go through and issue our own recommendation in
    this regard.  So what we wanted to do was to pull out
    whatever was out there and have a discussion of it.  And
    then we will turn to language, since we have gone through
    and ironed out these issues, that we were going to
    incorporate into our recommendations.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  And actually I will say that
    this is not new to the committee.  This was presented in a
    document that I distributed on at least two occasions
    before.  So while I am presenting it now again, it is not

             MR. DUHAMEL:  Except for I don't remember the
   digital stream being on that.
             MR. MOONVES:  Well, once again, Karen, an
   important part is how are these things worded, how we word
   these things.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right.
             MR. MOONVES:  In terms of the video description,
   you are saying use the current technology.  Are you saying
    that is mandatory?  Is it voluntary?  I know you would
    like to make it mandatory, but I don't think it will work
    right now.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  I think that some of these
    do need to be mandatory.  Passing through captions during
    the transition from analog to digital is one that is easy
    to make mandatory.  Requiring that broadcasters ensure the
    pass-through where ancillary and supplementary services
    are provided could be mandatory.
              MR. MOONVES:  They are basically extensions on
    what currently exists.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  They are extensions,
    exactly.  But they are clarifications.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  They are protecting the existing
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right.  The same for the

   must-carry.  I guess there is a question as to whether the
   committee wants to say that -- I mean asking broadcasters
   to take full advantage of new digital closed captioning
   technology, it is kind of hard I think to make that
   mandatory.  It is more of a recommendation, please do
   this.  There has to be some flexibility built into that,
   because there will be different technologies out there.
             MR. MOONVES:  I think that language is rather
   unclear.  I think it can be in the form of a
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right.  Well, it is an
    ultimate recommendation.
              MR. MOONVES:  But it is rather muddy.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  The video description,
    recommending that broadcasters allocate sufficient audio
    bandwidth for the transmission and delivery of video
    descriptions, and to develop a consistent and reliable
    audio standard so that the blind and visually impaired
    viewers can benefit fully from broadcast programming; that
    is the way it is drafted now.
              Again, I think that that is a recommendation.  I
    would love to see it become a minimum requirement.  But I
    think there has to be -- because it is not yet developed,
    there has to be some flexibility built into that.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.  Let me suggest that what

   may work here is a requirement that one set aside the
   audio bandwidth, which is going to be a minimal amount of
   bandwidth, to take advantage of it, it seems to me is
   perfectly appropriate.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right, and it is a minuscule
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  We might, in addition, urge
   broadcasters wherever possible to apply these technologies
   and make them available on their programming.  And then I
    think we should not mandate that they be universally
    applied.  I think it would also be appropriate for us to
    recommend that whatever revenues we bring in for public
    interest purposes that as they are allocated for these
    various purposes, one of the things that should be on that
    list would be providing funds to supplement the
    dissemination of video description.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Yes.  And actually I was
    going to add to that.  Because since that is one of the
    concepts that has been created since I put together my
    original proposal, I would also like to see a portion of
    those fees go for closed captioning of exempt programming
    that affects local community and political discourse. 
    Because unfortunately, as I mentioned in the past, that is
    excluded from the closed captioning regulations.  So
    PSA's, local political candidate ads, political debates,

   that would be yet another recommendation.
             MR. DUHAMEL:  It is hard to do when it is live,
   closed captioning them live.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Closed captioning is
   frequently done live.  It is not at all difficult.
             MR. MOONVES:  Yes.  If you go into a bar at a
   football game, they often do it.  That is live.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  It is called real-time
   captioning.  And it uses live stenographers.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Yes, but that is an expensive
    deal.  In South Dakota, we estimate a million dollars a
    year for live captioning.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Live captioning is cheaper
    than prerecorded captioning.
              MR. MOONVES:  Bill, the recommendation is that
    it comes out of other funds.  It is not going to come out
    of the broadcaster's pocket.  It is going to come out of
    these other funds.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  It is not cheaper in the small
    station to do it.  Closed captioning is much cheaper,
    because it comes off the prompter.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  It depends on where you are
    doing it.  But live captioning can be cheaper if it is
    done by remote interpreters who are sitting in their home
    and providing the stenography via a phone live.

             MR. ORNSTEIN:  If we build in a recommendation
   that funds that we hope will be -- the large pool of funds
   available for public interest purposes, that these be on
   the list of things that ought to be perfectly appropriate. 
   I would guess also, Karen, given what is happening with
   technology, aren't we moving to a time where probably by
   the time we get digital out there, computers will be able
   to do this with voice recognition software.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  That is exactly right.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  And so we are not going to be
    talking about it as being the same thing.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  That is right.  That is
    where we are headed.  I mean speech recognition at this
    rate, hopefully in the next few years, is going to be used
    extensively, especially for live newscasts.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  Yes, because that would go just
    the other way.  Live newscasts or political debate, they
    could put it back in as the closed captioning.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right.  And that is all I am
    talking about.  I am not talking about open captioning, I
    am talking about closed captioning.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  But if that is workable to
    everybody, that we simply urge -- that we set aside the
    audio bandwidth, we urge that it be spread out as much as
    possible, and we recommend that expansion of the use of

   this technology for both video and audio for other kinds
   of programming be on the list of things that are there
   with the use of those funds.  Does that reach
   acceptability with everybody?
             MR. MOONVES:  Does anybody have a problem with
   that?  A comment?
             MR. RUIZ:  This would be required of all
             MR. MOONVES:  Yes.
              MS. SOHN:  Are you comfortable with that?  I am
    not really.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Well, you were just talking
    about that one aspect.  You are talking about using some
    of the fees for PSA's and other political candidates and
    political issues.  Yes, I think that that is, at this
    point, what we can get.
              MR. MOONVES:  You are not going to get mandatory
    video description right now.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  I will be honest with you. 
    My original proposal, part of what I included in here was
    that -- England already has legislated requirements for
    video description.  And they are fairly minimal
    requirements, given that captioning is in this country. 
    But basically the video describes 10 percent of all their
    programs over the next 10 years.  And I recommended that

   we recommended that that be instituted here.  And I would
   love to see that.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  In the spirit of pragmatic give
   and take which is infusing our committee across the
   board --
             MR. MOONVES:  We are going to recommend that
   they do more than 10 percent.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Right.  There are two
   drawbacks.  One is what you just said.  And given what has
    been undertaken here, I did not think that I would get it
    through.  And the other is that maybe it is too low. 
    Maybe we can go for more.
              But I do think that it would be very, very
    helpful for this committee to recognize video description,
    because it is still in its birth.
              MR. MOONVES:  I think you are 100 percent right.
              MS. CHARREN:  It is very exciting.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  It is being done by public
    television stations.  And it is very successful.
              MS. CHARREN:  WGBH started it, and it is a very
    exciting thing to watch.
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  But to date it is only
    public television stations that carry some programming
    with video description.  And the biggest problem now is
    that it is competing for space on the SAP channel, the

   second audio programming channel.  And so it just has not
   taken off.  That is simply not going to be an issue in the
   digital age.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  We just need to make sure that it
   is set aside for whatever bandwidth is required for these
   things, and that the manufacturers create the
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  That is right.
             Now, I am hesitant to raise this, but I am going
    to raise it because I promised this person that I would. 
    And I think that you have been contacted by this person
    also.  So I just have to go ahead and do this.  There is a
    person from the National Association of Radio Reading
    Services that has been contacting me.  And perhaps this is
    something small enough that we can just put this through.
              He has asked -- let me give you some background. 
    And this is short.  Radio reading services throughout the
    country basically provide the reading of newspapers,
    periodicals and books.  And they provide it over
    subcarriers on public FM radio stations.  But the
    transmission over the subcarrier is being threatened by
    other interests that want to lease the space that is
    currently being used by the radio reading services.
              Also there has been some problem with the
    transmission of this information on analog audio

   subcarriers because there has been a lot of interference. 
   This entity, the National Association of Radio Reading
   Services, has requested that we recommend -- he put down
   "mandate" -- at least 60 kilobits of each DTV signal to
   deliver the radio reading services material.
             The reason I am presenting it is because I have
   been asked to present it.  And also, is it so minuscule
   that it is something that we could recommend, along with
   the emergency access?
              Take a deep breath, Les.
              MS. SOHN:  How much of the DTV signal?
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  He had asked for 60 kilobits
    of each signal.
              MR. DUHAMEL:  What is that?
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  I do not know what that is.
              MR. CRUMP:  When we get to the point here, we
    wonder why the NAB gets upset.  I mean we just go on and
    on and on and on.
              MR. MOONVES:  Karen, are we going to do
    something on local theater next?
              MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  No.
              MR. MOONVES:  It is radio.  It is radio.  That
    is not our charge.
              MS. CHARREN:  And we are not doing radio.  There
    is a lot of things we could say about radio, but we are

   not doing radio.
             MS. PELTZ STRAUSS:  Well, I think what this
   person's point is -- and this will be my last sentence on
   this issue -- is that there is an opportunity here to
   provide these services to blind people.  And since it is
   such an enormous amount of bandwidth, they see this as a
   possible way of getting through the information.
             If you think that this is not the forum, then I
   am going to drop it now.  But I had to bring it up.
              MR. MOONVES:  Any other comments?
              (No response.)
              MR. MOONVES:  Okay.  Jose Luis, would you like
    to talk about -- oh, wait, yes, go ahead.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  This is obviously an area which
    does not bring unanimity to us, but it is one in which
    people feel quite strongly on both sides.  And the basic
    point here I think is that we should confront first the
    question of whether the model of public interest
    obligations that has developed over the years since all of
    this began works well as it stands, is something that we
    should just take and move to the digital era, or whether
    over the long run, given that we are going to see dramatic
    changes in technology that are going to drive changes in
    the way in which we communicate -- some of the issues in
    which we have been discussing, like whether if you have

   six channels or eight channels or 10 channels the same
   public interest obligations that apply equally to all of
   them or in different ways -- that a model that brings it
   much greater flexibility, including a flexibility to take
   resources and allocate them in different ways across
   communities to satisfy different community needs, and to
   respond to the need for flexibility would be a better one.
             We have had some discussion of a variety of
   different models.  And of course out in the world we see
    models -- and the application of different models now
    applied -- in a whole host of places.  In the area of
    pollution, we have moved from command and control
    regulation more and more towards a kind of marketplace
    model, with effluent taxes and credits, and the trading of
    such things.  That is really the basis in which, if there
    ever is an agreement on global warming, it will come
    about.  And we certainly see it working in other places as
              And a lot of people out there have been trying
    to step back and rethink the whole nature of the public
    interest and broadcasting into the future.  We had a whole
    series of models presented to us through the Aspen
    Institute independent working group.  And clearly the one
    that keeps coming back -- with different variations -- is
    one that was suggested many years ago by Henry Geller,

   basically.  And that is what has been called, for
   shorthand, pay or play.
             And it really is to provide the options that you
   can continue to do what the existing or future regimen of
   obligations provides or pay through some formula to
   discharge many of those obligations.  Not obviously
   statutory ones, not obviously things like closed
   captioning, but those other obligations.
             MR. MOONVES:  Closed captioning and children's
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  And then use those revenues for
    public interest purposes appropriately.  What Henry has
    also suggested is that if you decided to move in that
    direction, to pay, that you would have an expedited
    license renewal process as well.
              So I don't think we probably should in our
    report get into great detail over the specifics of any
    particular model, but recommending that looking down at
    the road at this fast-paced and changing world, a
    different model, a flexible one like pay or play is
    appropriate as the direction in which we thought we ought
    to go.
              So let's open that up to discussion.
              MR. DILLER:  I would agree.  I just think the
    concept of pay or play is a bad idea.  It is bad business. 

   And I think we talked about minimum standards, guidelines,
   to meet your public interest obligations.  And I don't
   think there should be a kind of having a second stand-in
   for those obligations.  And I also think that I would
   worry about what you would pay.  Where would this money
   go?  And what would actually happen to it?
             If in fact there is a relationship between
   having a license that you obtain for nothing, which has
   minimum standards attached to it for public interest
    responsibilities, you should simply meet them and shut up. 
    So I think pay or play is a foul concept.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  Norm, you have heard from me on
    this concept before.  And to quote from your document, on
    page five, you discuss high standards of public service
    that most stations follow and that represent the ideals
    and historic traditions of the industry -- that
    phraseology, to me, is mutually exclusive from any concept
    of pay or play.
              MS. SOHN:  I am glad to be foul.  I think our
    whole deliberations over the year really demonstrate the
    pay or play concept is a really good idea.  And it is an
    idea whose time has come.  If you had asked me last
    October whether I would agree to something like this, I
    would have said absolutely not.
              But when we have resistance from broadcasters to

   setting the most minimum standards, it says to me that
   there is some portion -- nobody sitting around this table,
   I will reiterate again -- some portion of broadcasters
   that do not want to do public interest programming.  And
   if they are forced to do it, they will do a crummy job. 
   So why not give them the option of paying it away and
   giving it to somebody who will do a good job?
             I just think it is an idea -- you know, Barry,
   if all broadcasters were like you, I would agree with you
    in a heartbeat.  But they are not.  And the debate we have
    been having over the last year demonstrates to me that,
    let's pay somebody else to do it.  I think it should be a
    fee tied to gross receipts from the advertising support
    services.  If you do not want to go into that kind of
    detail, that is fine.  But I think we need to get it out
    here.  And, frankly, I think it is the most important
    concept that we could throw in the air.
              The idea is we have got to look at a new
    approach.  And I think this is a good one.
              MS. SCOTT:  I remain to be sold by either side.
              MS. SOHN:  But the great thing about this is you
    have a choice.  If you want to be the broadcaster that
    takes public interest responsibility seriously, do it, you
    do not have to pay.  But if you are going to do home
    shopping and you are going to do stuff that just does not

   even vaguely -- no, no, no --
             MS. SOHN:  If anybody has a fork, I am going to
   eat my foot right now.
             MS. SOHN:  And I know you are changing away from
             MR. DILLER:  First of all, I think it is bad
   usage of the airwaves.  And we are as quickly as we can
    converting out of it.  But these stations, even while they
    do home shopping, which can be argued how much it is done
    well, it certainly is a service for the public.  And I
    would not be at all defensive about it.
              But these stations meet their minimum
    requirements of public services programming.  Take home
    shopping off the air and replace it with a lot of the
    programming you spoke of earlier that is sitting on
    various people's shelves that is of good quality, either
    educational for kids, et cetera, et cetera.
              In other words, what I am saying is even home
    shopping, which allows people to ghettoize the whole
    concept, even that does minimum standards for getting its
    license.  I do not know how you quitclaim that.
              MS. CHARREN:  What about the idea that if we
    would just talking about a one-for-one switch, then what

   you say, Paul, I agree with.  You know, broadcasters are
   broadcasters, and that serving the public interest is
   something they have attempted to live with for years.  But
   we are talking about a different landscape, with six
   channels, where there is one, at least when there is
             And doesn't that change the sense of what can
   happen on those six channels that could increase options
   for the public without really serving the public
    adequately with the kinds of things that we want to
    mandate, and that there are other ways to deal with some
    of those channels, in contrast to what we called the
    primary channel before?  Doesn't that change the ball game
    a little bit?
              MR. LA CAMERA:  It changes the ball game for
    every consideration we have had in this document.  I mean
    it is a very different world and environment than it was
    when you and I first started working together a quarter of
    a century ago.  But that does not undermine or negate the
    basic principles and idealism which I still believe are at
    the root of what we do.  And that is why I have such
    difficulty embracing the concept that you can, as in the
    Civil War, buy your way out of it.
              I just have been around and done this too long
    to evolve into that mind set.

             MR. ORNSTEIN:  I am sensitive to that.  And of
   course we had the same thing with the pollution issue.  It
   is a question of what moral tone you set, in part, against
   what works most efficiently to achieve the goals.  And it
   is difficult.  And it is particularly difficult in a
   changing world of broadcasting, where a lot of the new
   broadcasters coming in do not start with a deep-seated
   sense of public trusteeship.  What do you do to avoid
   losing a lot of that?
              But you have other questions here, too.  Let me
    address a couple that Barry has raised.  Clearly the key
    to this is what happens to the money.  And if the money
    goes down the toilet or is used inefficiently, then you
    have lost something very valuable for nothing in return. 
    And that is certainly very important.
              But you have another question here.  Most of
    what we have in terms of -- I mean, you know, you can
    build some flexibility in the minimum standards.  And we
    are not just talking about minimum standards, we are also
    talking about other obligations that exist now without
    mandatory minimum standards.  Mostly it is a
    one-size-fits-all phenomenon.
              It is everybody required to do pretty much the
    same thing.  And that means a tremendous inefficiency
    across the board.

             MR. DILLER:  That is why there should be
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  You have got to build in as much
   flexibility as possible.  One way to build in flexibility
   is at least for some of these things, if instead of doing
   them you pay, and then you can use those resources to
   allocate most efficiently to create in fact a better
             MR. DILLER:  It is impractical.  You are slicing
    the salami in too many ways.  I will do this.  I will give
    $1.75 because I would rather that than this.  I will put
    that over here.  What you should do, as you say, is you
    should have real flexibility in how to meet the minimum
    requirements -- hopefully exceed them, and be judged on
              MS. CHARREN:  What about one of the channels for
    the public interest?  That is sort of clear.
              MR. DILLER:  Again, the question is what do you
    do with it?  I mean what do you actually, in real,
    practical, pragmatic terms, what do you put on it?
              MS. CHARREN:  Well, you could say the same thing
    about the mandatory standards.
              MR. DILLER:  No.  Because if you have -- for
    instance, what you want to do, because you have got news
    resources, La Camera's news resources, he wants to put on

   24 hours of news because he thinks it is a real public
   service to do so.  That is fine.
             MS. CHARREN:  He can still do that.  He does not
   have to choose the public interest station.
             MR. DILLER:  What I am saying is that if you are
   saying one of the areas of flexibility to meet your
   requirements would be that, fine, who cares.  The issue is
   flexibility, so that people use their talents and
   abilities and resources in ways that actually contribute
    something, rather than things that are written down on a
    rigid piece of paper that may not produce the same
    valuable result.
              MS. CHARREN:  And one of the actions is taking
    that public interest station and giving it away, and
    relieving yourself of some other obligations.  No?
              MR. MINOW:  Remember that line in the movie,
    what we got here is a failure to communicate?  Take the
    first sentence that Barry said at the beginning.  He said
    if a broadcaster meets the minimum public service
    standards -- that is the if.  The issue is what about the
    broadcasters who do not?
              MR. DILLER:  Take their license away.
              MR. MINOW:  Take their license away?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  That may be more impractical.
              MS. CHARREN:  Yes, right.

             MR. MINOW:  But that is the question.  If the
   broadcasters -- and you heard from many of them here this
   morning -- we do not want any minimum public service
   standards.  We just want to play.  We do not want to pay. 
   We just want to play.  What do you with them?
             MR. DILLER:  Well, it is an absurd concept.
             MR. MINOW:  I agree with you.
             MR. DILLER:  How are you ever going to be able
   to maintain, on any level of equity, that you are going to
    get a license for nothing, and that is it, period, do
    whatever you want?
              MR. MINOW:  I agree with you.
              MR. DILLER:  So since that is absurd, you have
    to put in its place something.  And there seems to be
    general agreement on what would make up a body of minimum
    standards.  If somebody will not meet the minimum
    standards, and there is a process for going through it to
    determine that, then they cannot have their license.  Why
    should that be such an impossible thing to have as a
    functional, practical process?
              And what do you replace it with if in fact you
    find them or you have them pay penalties for not doing A
    or D or Q or Z?  That does not make any sense.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes, Frank.
              MR. BLYTHE:  I had a conversation with an

   employee of a station in Lincoln one day.  He was telling
   me that they were just recently going through an ownership
   change.  And a company that is not even in the broadcast
   field is buying the station.  And the word is out that
   everything is going to be pretty much the bottom line, and
   a lot of budgets are being cut, particularly in the area
   of public affairs programming and community outreach
   programming and staff for that kind of thing.  Which just
   indicates to me that -- you know, in this whole process of
    things that are happening in the industry -- that the new
    ownership may or may not be in touch with their
              It is just one of the small reasons why I
    support the pay or play concept, because it is just
    another option, and I think part of the flexibility we
    have been talking about here.  There are going to be
    stations out there that really do not have that much care
    about what their image is or what their service is in the
    community.  And whatever group that number is -- and I am
    not sure what they are; I know we asked for some
    information on that -- but it just seems to me that this
    fits the concept.
              And also it is one of the few I guess new
    approaches to a revenue stream for educational
    broadcasting that we have not really figured out.  Well,

   we are proposing all these educational channels, but what
   is going to support that kind of activity in terms of
   programming and services in that arena, whether it is
   public broadcasting, PBS or just educational channels in
             So I think the pay or play concept is a valid
   one to make a recommendation on in this report.
             MR. CRUZ:  I think the uncertainty I guess of
   this particular proposal, this new approach to public
    interest obligations, the uncertainty lies in the realm
    that we do not know, we cannot forecast, four or five
    years down the road, if a given network has four or five
    other channels that they are using for highly successful
    money-making operations that do not even call for any
    public interest obligations in that realm.  Let me just be
              Let's say that a station were used solely for
    soap operas, sunup to sundown, and it became an enormous
    hit.  I am just speaking hypothetically.  Around the
    clock.  And there was no other opportunity for that
    particular channel of that particular network to meet any
    public interest obligations.  Is that an opportunity for a
    pay or play, and say because we are very successful with
    this soap channel --
              MR. GOODMON:  Why do you say the soap channel

   cannot run PSAs, do public service programming, allow
   candidates to appear, why do you say the soap channel
   cannot do that?  I mean every station can do that.  MTV
   has public affairs.  I mean the religious channels have
   public affairs programming and PSAs.  I do not know why we
   are ruling that out.  I do not know why you are saying
   they cannot do that.
             MR. CRUZ:  No, I am just saying -- no, that is
   why my point is of the uncertainty that we do not know,
    four or five years down the road from now, ABC or NBC or
    somebody else, CBS, may say, gee, there is one channel
    that we would like -- it is so successful, with nothing
    but football around the clock, classics and reruns of
    Superbowls and whatever, plus other stuff, that we are not
    going to have time.
              MR. MOONVES:  Frank, the argument is, at
    half-time, you could put on a PSA of that football game.
              MR. DILLER:  There is no program format that I
    know of that would an antisocial channel.
              MR. DILLER:  Other than that, there is no
    program format that I know of that would not normally run
    a minimum set of public service obligations.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We have got 22 of those already. 

             MR. ORNSTEIN:  But nobody is suggesting that
   they would be precluded from doing this.  The idea here is
   that if you had an all-soap channel, you could, if you
   wanted, put on PSAs, do political discourse and the like. 
   But if you did not, you could pay what one would hope
   would be a significant amount of money that could then be
   channeled into public service.
             MR. MOONVES:  How much?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, I can tell you what Henry
    Geller has suggested.  Which is what, 2 percent of
    revenues, plus 1 percent transfer fees.  It is 3 percent.
              MR. DILLER:  If you think about it, that is an
    absurd concept, 2 percent of this, 1 percent of this.  I
    mean that really makes -- you know, is that really the
    value of public service?  Is that the value of your
    license?  Is that how you quantify the value of your
    license that you are getting for free?  In return, you are
    quantifying it to 2 percent of X?  You do not even know
    what X is.  I mean it is just a loony idea.
              MR. CRUMP:  One of the concepts that has made
    television -- and going back to radio when it first got
    started -- work so that we would be successful in what we
    did was the involvement of the audience.  That is why
    television is so successful today.  That is what the
    political candidates do not want to give up their

   advertising.  Because we talk to people in their homes,
   face to face, live, in color, here we are.  DTV is going
   to make it look even more realistic.
             All right, so you have got a soap channel,
   Frank.  And here it is.  You are missing a wonderful
   opportunity here to try to tie these people closer to you,
   by putting on things that are aimed specifically at that
   demographic group.  They are probably going to be mainly
   female.  And so you have the opportunity here to talk to
    them.  That is what we have.  That is our demo.  That is
    what we go for.
              And so you have the opportunity to give them
    public service as far as medical situations are concerned,
    as far as what their interests would be, whether it be a
    business interest or whether it be a home interest.  And
    all you are doing at this point, if you are really good at
    what you do -- in our business, we think -- is, to some
    extent, exploiting what you have got, but you are
    exploiting it in the right way because you are making them
    want to come back and you are making them think that you
    are more important in their lives in what they do on a
    daily basis.
              MS. CHARREN:  Divorce counseling for soap
              MR. DILLER:  Battered wives.

             MR. BENTON:  In fact, I think this is why it was
   so interesting when in the early briefing -- I think it
   was NAB or a NAB-related lawyer -- was reviewing the
   public interest in broadcasting history, left out the
   single most important case in public interest in
   broadcasting, which was the WLBT case.  Which was, Barry,
   the one time in my recollection that the FCC actually did
   revoke the license because of the racist programming,
   which was antisocial programming, in Jackson, Mississippi.
              So that has only happened once in history.  So
    the problem of holding broadcasters accountable at the end
    of the day and taking their licenses away in actual fact
    has only, to my knowledge, happened once.  You have got
    now the much longer renewal cycle, the nine years, all
    these problems.  So this is not a totally crazy idea.  And
    I think that the issue that Newt has raised, which is what
    if -- for those broadcasters that do not meet these
    minimum standards that hopefully we will be able to
    develop as a quid pro quo for must-carry as we discussed
    this morning, for those broadcasters that do not meet
    these minimum standards, what happens?
              And that is the root, I think, of Norm's --
              MR. DILLER:  Auction the spectrum.  Simply
    auction the spectrum.  If that is your attitude, auction
    the whole spectrum, and let it go at that.  Because you

   cannot drive the line through the middle of it.
             If you say on one side that nobody is going to
   hold anybody to account for getting the free license and
   doing the quid pro quo necessary, the only other
   alternative is auction the spectrum, and let everybody do
   what they want.  In which case you do not have free
   broadcasting.  In which case the whole tent collapses.
             But if you are not willing to go through any
   process, if you are not willing to have minimum standards
    and if you are not willing to go through any process
    whatsoever to determine whether or not they are met, the
    whole thing is a charade.  And then I will switch course.
              MR. CRUMP:  Well, let's remind ourselves,
    Charles is correct, that we only had one license taken
    away.  But I would remind you that time and again,
    unfortunately -- and it embarrasses me as a broadcaster to
    remind you of this -- that there have been many, many
    times when stations were cited and their licenses were
    about to be taken away because of all sorts of problems
    that they had engendered and caused themselves, and what
    the FCC did was step in and have them correct them within
    the given limit of time or else those licenses would have
    been taken.
              And in most instances, at least to my knowledge,
    it was a change of life situation for the owners, because

   they suddenly thought, oh, my God, I really got caught and
   here we go, and things did change.  So there has been some
   enforcement far beyond the one jerking of the license.
             MR. YEE:  The challenge of a license and
   litigation, it is a prolonged, protracted affairs.  I mean
   I am from the Bay area, and one of their second stations
   was challenged for a long, long time.  And to watch that
   process, and then it was given to another group, and to
   see that totally undercapitalized, under-used because of
    the funding problems, I think it just -- you know, we need
    to come up with different ways of challenging our own
              And I think the flexibility of the pay or
    play -- it could be a Faustian deal, I agree with you on
    that -- but this can help to address some of the concerns
    about where is the content going to be coming from.  And I
    think this is the way of trying it out.  If it does not
    work, then I would definitely go along with some of the
    other recommendations of making the stations more
    accountable.  But we have to find a way of trying to get
    off from where we are to try something new. 
              MR. MOONVES:  I think we have heard from just
    about everybody on this panel on this issue.  And clearly
    there is a real division.  I think this may be an issue
    where there will be two diverse sides written up, because

   I don't feel like there is a consensus either way here.
             MR. BENTON:  Les, can I add another separate
   point, but it fits into this deregulatory framework
   section of your paper.  In my letter to you, my fourth
   point was the suggestion of an ongoing review mechanism. 
   I said here very briefly, finally, we should recommend
   that an ongoing leadership group, such as our committee,
   be established to monitor and report annually to the
   President, Congress and the general public on the digital
    television broadcasters' performance on their public
    interest obligations, with the understanding -- as Norm
    has stated -- on, quote, the digital age --
              MR. MOONVES:  I will not be on that committee. 
    Charles, feel free.
              MR. BENTON:  -- the digital age requires
    flexibility by regulators and broadcasters alike.  I am
    not stating what the mechanism should be.
              MR. MOONVES:  No, the mechanism is revocation of
    your license.  That is a fairly strong -- it will put you
    out of business.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Charles is suggesting that we
    should have a recommendation for some kind of review
    process to assess what is happening in the digital area.
              MR. MOONVES:  Oh, I see.

             MR. BENTON:  Right.  And we should.
             MR. MOONVES:  Yes.  Okay, that is a good point.
             MR. BENTON:  That is the point.
             MS. SOHN:  And I recommended that the FCC do
   that.  Well, that the FCC review and modify their public
   interest obligations.  I think you are talking about more
   of an oversight and some kind of empirical evidence --
   broadcasters are doing a good job, broadcasters are not
   doing a good job -- that is not what I had in mind.  You
    know, maybe they can be sort of combined in that regard.
              MR. BENTON:  Well, we are trying to set
    standards.  We are trying to help move the process
    forward.  And we are talking about the public interest
    obligations.  But at the end of the day, we are going to
    go out of business, and it is performance that really
    counts -- what actually happens -- and then who is
    evaluating what happens.
              So you were mentioning the news organization
    earlier -- the News Council -- I do not know what the
    mechanism is, but it seems to me that an ongoing
    mechanism, independent mechanism, of review, to look at
    the performance, vis-a-vis the obligations -- this is very
    important.  Otherwise, you know -- and this is so -- that
    is the reason I raise it.  And I think it should be added. 
    That is my whole point.

             MR. MOONVES:  On this issue, as I said, I think
   Norm and I will discuss later on -- we will approach some
   of you to write up the various viewpoints on this.  And we
   very likely will have two different reports on this issue. 
   That is my guess.
             MR. BENTON:  Yes.  My final quick point is
   your -- going back just for a moment to the political
   discourse, pages 7 through --
             MR. MOONVES:  We are past there.  We are on to
    the next.
              MR. BENTON:  No, I understand that.  Pages 7
    through 10 of your memo.  It has a lot of wonderful ideas,
    none of which I am opposed to in principle, but all of
    which we cannot do.  How do we determine the priorities
    here?  We have not focused on what the priorities are
    here.  Because there are a lot of wonderful ideas here. 
    None of which I am opposed to in principle.  And I just
    wanted to raise the issue of how do we deal with -- are
    there any of these points that are raised on pages 7
    through 10 that anyone disagrees with strongly in
    principle?  Because, if so, I have not heard it.
              Therefore, if that is the case, how do we sort
    out the priorities?  What are the thoughts on this?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I am not sure that we will sort
    out priorities here.  I think what we wanted to do was to

   put out, first of all, our larger point about political
             MR. BENTON:  Right, a wonderful four pages.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  And set out several areas which
   should be done or could be done.  That is going to have to
   be left to the political process.
             MR. MOONVES:  The operative word was
   "flexibility" once again, different options on the menu,
   pending campaign finance reform, tied to that.
              MS. CHARREN:  Is there some way to write that so
    that it looks like options instead of just paragraphs?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Sure.
              MS. CHARREN:  You know what I mean, you know,
    bullets or something, so that even though we do not
    recommend one over the other, at least we know what we are
    talking about.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              MR. MINOW:  If you have got a couple of minutes
    for me to give you a narrative of what happened on the one
    television station license that was taken away and why?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              MR. MINOW:  When I was chairman of the FCC in
    the early sixties, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt called me one
              She said, why aren't you doing something about

   Reverend L.B.T. Smith?  I said, I'm sorry, Mrs. Roosevelt,
   I do not know what that is.  She said, well, he wrote you
   a letter and you didn't respond.  I said, tell me about
   it, Mrs. Roosevelt.  She said, well, he's a black
   candidate, a minister, in Jackson, Mississippi, who is
   running for Congress against the incumbent, John Bell
   Williams.  There is no discussion at all on the television
   station about the election.  So finally he raised the
   money and he went to the station and he said he wanted to
    buy a little time.  And they said, come back next week. 
    He came back next week, they said, come back next week. 
    This went on for six weeks.
              Finally, Mrs. Roosevelt said, the election is
    next week.  So I checked in the files of the FCC and sure
    enough there was this complaint somewhere in the basement. 
    I said, what is this all about?  And they said, well, the
    station says they are not going to sell anybody any time
    or cover the election.
              And I said, I don't think that is going to
    happen.  So we called the station.  He got on the air.  He
    lost the election.  John Bell Williams, who was the number
    two senior Democrat on my committee that supervised me
    gave me hell.  But eventually the license was taken away.
              Now, that was a long time ago.  So I say to you,
    Barry, it happens.  But the FCC itself is at fault here,

   through the years, for not policing the territory.
             MR. DILLER:  I agree with that, and I have said
   it publicly for some time now.
             MR. MINOW:  So I think it is interesting to get
   a context and history of why and what happened.  And that
   is the story of WLBT.
             MS. SOHN:  I will just be very brief.  Charles
   mentioned the eight-year license renewal.  That is one
   thing that makes that kind of enforcement even more
    difficult, Newt.  But another thing that has not been
    mentioned is what Congress also did in the 1996
    Telecommunications Act, and that is institute what is
    called two-step renewal.  So, basically, unless you have
    shown the FCC that you have engaged in a pattern of bad
    behavior, you get automatic license renewal.  So I think
    that makes it even more difficult and bolsters the case
    for pay or play.
              MR. DILLER:  And it bolsters the case for an
    invigorated FCC review of these issues.  That is what it
    bolsters.  Because it is impossible, I think, to argue
    that you should have must-carry status unless you link it
    to minimum standards and you link minimum standards to the
    fact that they are generously upheld by the license
    holder.  And unless you do it, you have got no chance to
    protect the circularness of free broadcasting.

             That is why I think it is so dangerous to get
   into paying in some concept of I won't do this so I'll pay
   you that.
             MS. CHARREN:  If you are going to do it that
   way, which is theoretically the way it has worked for
   analog for the last 40 years, there have been a whole lot
   of public service components that have been missing from
   the service of enough broadcasters, so it feels like it is
   missing across the board, except often with public
    television.  You are not going to have an FCC that really
    monitors that aspect of serving the public with a variety
    of different kinds of things.
              How do you deal with the fact that across the
    board broadcasters can still be meeting those minimum
    guidelines and not serving the needs of a public in a
    digital age?  Whereas when I thought about what was coming
    with all these channels, I thought finally we have the
    opportunity to provide enough choices and enough diversity
    and enough of what is missing to serve the public in the
    digital age.  And I thought that -- it was in that context
    that I thought that pay or play made sense.
              I understand what you are saying.  But it seemed
    to me that that made likely the filling the holes of what
    is not there.  And I just cannot see the same rules
    applying and it working any better for certain aspects of

   the public interest than it has worked in the past. 
   Assuming we get the FCC off its -- you know, paying
             MR. LA CAMERA:  I still fail to see the logical
   connection between pay and play and a breakdown in the
   oversight function within the system itself.
             MS. CHARREN:  It is not an oversight function.
             MR. LA CAMERA:  It is an oversight function.
             MS. CHARREN:  But how can you say --
              MR. LA CAMERA:  License renewal was an oversight
    function that occurred every three years --
              MS. CHARREN:  But how can you say you have to
    provide programming to meet the kinds of needs that you
    were talking about?
              MR. DILLER:  But then you are arguing about the
    minimum standards not being maximum enough.  And that is a
    whole other discussion.  The question is, what are the
    minimum standards that everybody can agree on are the
    minimum standards?  Some will do more.  Nobody can do
    less.  I mean that is just the nature of things.
              MS. CHARREN:  But I think legislatively it is
    easier to think of giving the money to somebody and
    letting them take care of the problem than to start making
    rules in a constitutional democracy about what you have to

             MR. LA CAMERA:  We have spent all day talking
   about rules and regulations and now, suddenly, we are at
   the end and you decide that maybe they are not such a good
   idea and we will buy our way out.  I still do not
   understand the logic of it.
             MS. CHARREN:  I don't think anybody is saying
             MR. LA CAMERA:  The issue of the oversight --
   and Barry raised it and Chairman Minow did and I think
    Frank did too -- first of all, for the record, there were
    two other stations that lost their license.
              MR. DILLER:  KHJ.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  One in the early 1970s and one
    in the early 1980s, uniquely, both in Boston, both major
    network affiliates.  But this disclosure of public
    interest is I think --
              MR. DILLER:  Certainly the General Tire.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  WHDH lost it on multimedia
    ownership, and then an ex parte contact with the
    then-chairman of the Federal Communication Commission.
              MR. DILLER:  Mr. O'Neil.
              MR. LA CAMERA:  And then WNAC-TV, which was the
    RKO General, lost their license for fraudulent business
              MR. DILLER:  Right.

             MS. CHARREN:  That was just an expensive lunch.
             MR. LA CAMERA:  But in any event, this component
   of the report that deals with disclosure of public
   interest activities by broadcasters -- that is why I
   thought that was an important step back to reestablishing
   some degree of oversight in the performance of television
   stations, and a much more idealistic and principled way of
   doing than resorting to pay or play.  And that is again
    the root of my strong feelings, and I think Barry's and I
    think James' as well.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  This cuts across all kinds of
    lines, very interestingly.  And we can perhaps make a
    contribution here by having a vigorous debate on the pages
    of our report.
              MR. MOONVES:  Correct.  All right.  Are we done
    with pay and/or play?
              Jose Luis Ruiz put a report in front of us this
    morning.  And if you would like to go over the report and
    what you would like -- you feel should be entered into our
    larger report, why don't we get into that right now.
              MR. RUIZ:  Okay, just very briefly.
              And I agree with you, Barry.  I just think that
    we have tried to make so many compromises to make this
    palatable to everybody that maybe we have lost the real

   teeth of what we were trying to do.
             Well, basically, as I state in here, I support
   funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to
   help PBS make the transition into the digital era.  As far
   as a trust without any accountability, I have real fears,
   and it is not something I could support.  I think, once
   again, they are wheeling in the educational Trojan Horse,
   but it is really funds, a trust, to fund the whole system. 
   And I think it is very hard to defend the whole system.
              I think there are some problems in it.  And it
    is an opportunity to make it more accountable to the
    American public, to the taxpayer.  And if it is willing to
    do that, then wholeheartedly I would support that trust
    for them.  And I understand the difficulty of going to
    Congress every year.  And I understand the vulnerability
    of it.
              But at the same time, there is a lot of house
    cleaning that has to be done with Public Broadcasting. 
    When a program like Maya Lin is not carried by a station
    because the station manager does not feel it has Asians in
    its demographics, I think there is something wrong with
    that, something morally wrong with that.  Maya Lin is a
    great American sculptor.  The fact that she happens to be
    of Chinese ancestry has nothing to do with her.
              When you look at their prime time schedule and

   you see the lack of minority voices and ideas and concepts
   and products, there are problems there.  If they are going
   to use taxpayer dollars, I think they have an obligation
   to include all of the American public.  And if they are
   willing to sign that contract, let's move forward.
             I do not know if you just want me to go through
   it or you want to talk about it point by point?
             MR. MOONVES:  On the point that you just made, I
   think it would be more helpful if you presented how you
    would like this to be incorporated.  Earlier on we talked
    about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and their
    ability to get funds, and you wanted it to be more open. 
    In other words, these recommendations, I know they deal
    with diversity.  How would you like us to incorporate them
    into our document?
              MR. RUIZ:  Well, my feeling is if you are going
    to propose this group supporting the trust fund, I am just
    saying I cannot do that.  So you are not going to get a
              And the reason why you will not get me to do
    that I am explaining to you.
              MR. MOONVES:  Even with the language that we
    talked about earlier?  Earlier we talked about language
    that incorporated Public Broadcasting.  We took out "only"
    and "first."  And we talked about their ability to open up

   and offer other opportunities, too.
             MR. RUIZ:  Pertaining to the analog and other
   things, I can support that.
             MR. MOONVES:  Right.
             MR. RUIZ:  To a trust fund?  No.
             MS. SOHN:  Are we really advocating a trust fund
   for CPB?  I think we are advocating a trust fund for many
   different systems.
             MR. RUIZ:  No, I read it that you are advocating
    for a trust fund.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  In our discussion of the
    education channel, we started by saying it would be
    desirable to have a trust fund.
              MS. SOHN:  Right.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  What if we said in there that we
    hope that in the process -- if Congress is able to pull
    together this trust fund, that Public Broadcasting show
    sensitivity to all the diverse interests of its publics?
              MR. RUIZ:  No.  Because in every one of their
    appropriations, Congress has put a lot of different
    language in there.  And I think it has to be a real
    contract as to what are you going to do with it and how is
    it going to be spent, and how is it going to affect these
    very societies you serve.
              Without that, I cannot.  Because this is not

   something that has come up in the last year or two.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Okay.  Well, what may be more
   appropriate in this area, then, is a powerful dissent in
   terms of that concept.
             MR. MOONVES:  Under the education area?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.  Or just simply a dissent
   that says I don't favor setting up a trust fund for Public
   Broadcasting unless the following is done.
             MS. CHARREN:  But this trust fund is for Public
    Broadcasting, right?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              MS. CHARREN:  Not for the extra channel?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Right.
              MR. MOONVES:  Do you have another recommendation
    of where this money should go?
              MR. RUIZ:  The trust fund?
              MR. MOONVES:  Yes.
              MR. RUIZ:  No.  I would support a trust fund
    if -- CPB, I assume, is going to be the recipient -- will
    sign a contract with Congress as to how it is going to use
    it.  And Congress will police that.  And they will come
    back and say, okay, we are going to spend so much in this
    area, so much in that area and so much over here.  And
    this is how we are going to improve and streamline our
    system.  And if they go ahead and do that, that is fine.

             MS. CHARREN:  I would oppose that.
             MR. RUIZ:  That is fine.
             MS. CHARREN:  I would oppose that because when
   Congress opens its mouth about Public Broadcasting, it
   very often makes my hair stand on end.
             MR. MOONVES:  I think we have established that
   Jose Luis is going to write a dissenting letter. 
             MS. CHARREN:  Yes.  All right.  And I accept
   that.  But I do not want -- well, good.
              MR. MOONVES:  Unless there is some language that
    we would come back to you with that you would find
    acceptable.  But that may not be the case.
              MS. SOHN:  What area is he talking about?  I am
    kind of confused.  I agree with you in principle that we
    should not necessarily give Public Broadcasting money
    without some accountability.  But I am not quite sure -- I
    am really vague of what areas you are talking about.
              MR. RUIZ:  I will give you examples.  And I
    think Frank is absolutely right when he sits there and
    says it is very difficult for us to have to go to Congress
    every year to get funding.  Well, it is very difficult for
    ITVS to have to go CPB every year.  Is ITVS going to be
    written into this language and their funding continued for
    the independent producing community?  Is the minority

             I spell it out in here, some points.  Is the
   minority consortia money going to be just as guaranteed as
   they are asking for their money to be guaranteed?
             So if they are performing some services now,
   will these services continue?  Or will they get their
   trust and stop funding the ITVS, stop funding the minority
   consortia, stop funding minority producers?
             See, without any guarantees of services and
   continued services, and growth in services, why should
    they be given something without telling us what they are
    going to do with it?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Frank, how do you respond to that
    last point?
              MR. CRUZ:  What I think Jose Luis is getting at,
    I think he wants to make sure that if the recommendation
    is that there be an adequate and permanent source of
    funding in the form of a trust fund for Public
    Broadcasting, if I read him correctly, he is in essence
    saying that he would like some specificity to that trust
    fund that certain kinds of either culturally diverse or
    other kinds of programming be covered, or be tied to that
    kind of funding.  That is basically what he is saying.
              MR. CRUZ:  And it is specifically, not just --
    the June 4th document that I submitted of the
    recommendations to the advisory committee, on page five --

   I do not know if any of you have it; I have it in my
   file -- but it talks about what the trust fund would do
   for the digital future -- a variety of different things --
   but it says the best way to guarantee and advance the
   public interest issues of digital spectrum is to ensure
   long-term financial security in Public Broadcasting.
             It goes on to say:  The fund would support
   educational programs for multi-tasked channels, high
   definition cultural diversity programming, data services,
    and new children's initiatives, new services for
    previously underserved audiences, and local public service
              And then it goes on to spell out other kinds of
    things.  But I think Jose Luis is trying to -- I think is
    asking for specificity of certain kinds of programs be
    tied to that trust fund.
              MR. RUIZ:  And I think also, Frank, that the
    independent community fought very hard to create the ITVS. 
    Minority communities have fought very hard to create the
    minority consortia.  I want to make sure that when the
    tide comes in that all the ships are going to rise, and
    that those institutions will continue to live, to prosper
    and to serve.  They are not even mentioned.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  What if in recommending a trust
    fund we suggest that some share of funds be set aside --

   of the revenues that would come in that trust fund -- be
   set aside -- or the expenditures -- to go to independent
   producers and minority producers?  How does that sound?
             MS. CHARREN:  I think that is nice.
             MR. CRUZ:  I think that is what we agreed upon
   earlier today.
             MR. MOONVES:  Yes, we did.  We agreed on that
   almost exactly, and other opportunities within that.
             MR. RUIZ:  Very specifically.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  So we will specifically say
    independent producers and minority programmers.
              MR. RUIZ:  And I will help write up something.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Fine.
              MR. RUIZ:  In education, I think we have covered
              MR. MOONVES:  Okay.
              MR. RUIZ:  In the multiplexing and the minority
    entrepreneur, I do not know if we are going to have time,
    but I can try to present a paper on ways of -- I would
    like to present a draft, so that other broadcasters can
    see it first -- on ways of incorporating opportunities for
    minority entrepreneurs to get into the broadcasting
    business.  And I think if you are going to multiplex, it
    seems to me that somewhere in there, there is going to be
    an opportunity that never existed before.

             And it is going to be a lot less than what we
   historically have known, of them trying to have to buy a
   station.  But it is an avenue I think that could lead to
   that eventually.  If they are good at what they do and
   they are able to grow, I would assume that eventually they
   are going to be in a position that they can be a serious
   player and actually go after stations -- if the stations
   are still around and have not folded because it costs so
              MR. MOONVES:  As you probably know, one of the
    main agendas of the new chairman of the FCC is exactly
    that.  And he is doing I think everything he can to aid
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  There is a time problem here,
    Jose Luis.  But why don't you try and write up some
    language in this area that kind of fits within the
    framework of what we have all pretty much agreed to in
    multiplexing, but that expands it to include minorities. 
    It is something that would have to be done within a couple
    of weeks.  And if you want, do it right away, circulate it
    among some of your colleagues in the community, and then
    get it to us within a couple of weeks so that we can
    figure out how we can incorporate it in a way that builds
    upon our consensus.
              MR. RUIZ:  Can I ask, before I leave, though,

   have any of the broadcasters here at this table given that
   any thought up to now?  Is there somebody who has already
   looked into those things, that you could go to?
             MR. CRUZ:  I don't think it has been raised.
             MR. CRUMP:  We think that just straight DTV is
   going to eat it up.
             MR. MOONVES:  We have met with certain people. 
   I know of the Rupert Murdoch proposal.  We have thought of
   similar proposals.  Are you aware of that proposal?  It is
    giving $150 million in exchange for 49 percent ownership,
    if the FCC will eliminate the 35 percent rule.  It is
    discussed all the time.
              There was a former system they had in place
    which ended up people were getting around it right and
    left.  So, sure, it is something we talk about all the
              MR. RUIZ:  That is the tax incentives?
              MR. MOONVES:  We would be very interested in
    hearing what you have to say about it, and ideas for that.
              MR. CRUZ:  I submitted a letter -- sorry, I do
    not know if you are done.  Go ahead.
              MR. RUIZ:  I am done.
              MS. SOHN:  I think your suggestion here on
    multiplexing is not that far from what I suggested be
    added to the menu today.  I think you could play with my

   language and have it written in five minutes.
             MR. MOONVES:  The more we can incorporate all of
   these things that we did in the body, the better off. 
   They are a couple of areas, obviously, that are going to
   be dissenting reports.  But the more that we can come to
   consensus and incorporate within the body, I think better
   off and more effective we will be.  So that would be
             MR. CRUZ:  My last submission that I sent to the
    two of you, dated September the 4th I think, goes to some
    of that area of concern.  And I indicate also that the
    topic had not been raised, but it points to the -- I think
    that we have an enormous opportunity here to take a
    leadership role, as a committee, to encourage I think two
    things:  women and minority ownership that should be
    fostered and broadcasters should be encouraged to employ
    more women and minorities so that they can move up that
    chain of command.
              So I think those, to me, are very crucial.  The
    myriad of opportunities that are going to pop up in terms
    of jobs and the fear of the concentration of the ownership
    of the media I think will just lessen the chances of women
    and minorities being involved in entrepreneurship,
    ownership opportunities.  So the best that we can do to
    encourage and foster that kind of a philosophy as a

   position on our behalf I think would go a long ways.
             MR. MOONVES:  I don't think anybody has a
   problem with that.  I think that is probably a very good
   idea to incorporate a recommendation on those issues
   within the paper.
             MR. RUIZ:  I would also recommend something
   based on how local stations, commercial stations, can get
   involved with the local PBS stations.  For example, I do
   not know if you know that Public Broadcasting has three
    services that it offers.  Many of the stations are in
    smaller markets, especially rural ones, do not have the
    financial wherewithal to buy the Mercedes/Cadillac version
    of the system.  Therefore, they do not get the best Public
    Broadcasting programming.
              Wouldn't it be wonderful in a pay for play type
    situation where the commercial station would help the
    Public Broadcasting station buy the best of the services,
    therefore bringing the best of Public Broadcasting to that
    community?  Because that Public Broadcasting station alone
    does not have the resources to buy that programming.  And
    that is a good way to work pay for play in that situation.
              MR. MOONVES:  I think that could be
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We are talking about whatever
    funding would be used for those purposes.

             MR. MOONVES:  I think now is the time we can
   open it up for public questions and comments.  Anybody? 
   Please come up to the microphone and state your name and
             MR. CARTER-DONAHUE:  My name is Hugh
   Carter-Donahue.  And I am from the Annenberg Public Policy
   Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
             And my comments are to address some of the
   issues that surfaced this afternoon concerning the
    education section, the multiplexing section, and the pay
    or play conundrum at issue.  We have been doing some work
    on digital TV policy.  And our idea is to promote and
    encourage you to recommend to the Commission serious
    consideration of reserving some of the analog spectrum
    that is to be returned in 2006 for a public broadcasting
    network that would not necessarily be the same as the
    existing PBS.
              And the concept is that the new emerging public
    broadcasting network would be comprised of a certain
    portion of the spectrum that is to be returned in 2006,
    when the 85 percent saturation may or may not come. 
    First, as a clear signal to the broadcast community that
    the Commission should be serious about actually having the
    spectrum returned.  Because there is dubiety in many
    circles that it will never be returned.

             And, secondly, in setting this aside for
   educational uses and for public interest uses that would
   substantially be locally produced and could be LPTV
   signals or small or digital channels that would provide
   news and diversity and address serious concerns of
             The other portion of the analog spectrum that
   would be returned would then be auctioned off, and the
   funds from that could then create the fund.
              Now, at this point, your charge, as I understand
    it from the executive order, is to address the Commission. 
    And the funds that would be generated from the eventual
    sale of any spectrum are simply to go into the Treasury. 
    They are not to be set into any special fund.
              So it would be an opportunity for this
    Commission to ask the FCC, or to make a recommendation to
    consider this, as a way to promote localism and diversity. 
    And the technology that would enable this to take place is
    a technology that bears the name of a digital drop-in. 
    And there is spectrum that can be made available in the
    allocation that table was specified in the sixth order, I
    believe, for such uses.
              So the recommendation is basically to try and
    employ this notion as a structural incentive that elides
    some of these very thorny and difficult first amendment

   issues, but provides a mechanism that enables the
   technology to evolve in such a way that the local
   interests and diversity can be promoted.
             And I realize that the Commission, after many
   months of work, is probably going to be focusing really on
   the final polishing of a document.  That is certainly the
   drift of the conversation that I hear today.  And I am
   standing up now and speaking now in order to at least
   bring this concept to you as a recommendation that we at
    the Annenberg Public Policy Center would ask you to
    consider to the Commission as part of saying that the
    technology is evolving, let's not foreclose it; this can
    be a way to avoid unnecessary resistance on the part of
    incumbents to what is essentially an ideal that everyone
    really is for.
              And given the constraints on you folks for your
    deadline, we will at some point in the very near future be
    submitting written documents to provide a little more
    detail and a little more specificity to what I am trying
    to outline in rather broad brush strokes now.
              And on this basis, I mean the great slam, the
    great slam of course of Thoreau, when it came to the
    railroad and the telegraph, was that Maine had very little
    to say to Texas, and he couldn't imagine that Texas would
    have anything to say to Maine.  But the virtue of this

   idea is that it really would provide a mechanism for Texas
   and Maine to talk and to share things rather inexpensively
   and rather nicely, and go a long way to providing some
   public interest programming.
             And I would be happy to respond to any questions
   anyone would have about it.
             Thank you.
             MR. MOONVES:  Thank you.
              MR. HATCH:  Hi, David Hatch, with Electronic
    Media Magazine.
              I just have a few questions.  I wanted to
    clarify a couple of things.  First of all, if a voluntary
    code of conduct and minimum standards were proposed, do
    you have a sense as to which public interest obligations
    would be included under each category?  And forgive me if
    you went over it.  During parts of this meeting I was out.
              MR. MOONVES:  We are still working on it.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  We are working on it.  You will
    get some broad sense from the documents that we have out
    there that we have put into our discussion.  But they are
    not anywhere near final.
              MR. HATCH:  So, in other words, you don't know
    what the breakdown would be as to the obligations under
    the voluntary code and the obligations under minimum

             MR. MOONVES:  Not yet.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  No.  We are going to have a
   little working group that is going to strike an
   appropriate balance there.  But based on a number of
   documents that we have already put together, including Jim
   Goodmon's draft, earlier drafts of discussions that we
   have had of the code.  But there is nothing final.
             MR. HATCH:  Also, how would minimum standards
    fit with your proposal that there be a two-year moratorium
    on obligations imposed so that digital broadcasters could
    explore marketplace options?  If you impose that
    moratorium, would they then be still subject to those
    minimum standards, or not, for those two years?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  That is a moratorium on fees for
    the use of multiplex channels, not on standards.
              MR. HATCH:  And one other question.  This
    committee will likely propose public interest commitments
    for things like children's programming, public service
    announcements and many other areas that impact behavior
    and learning.  I was wondering if you feel that there
    is -- for the co-chairmen -- if you feel that there is any
    concern that the mission of this committee has been
    undermined in any way by the moral problems of the

             MR. MOONVES:  No.
             MR. HATCH:  Do you want to elaborate on that?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Not at all.
             MR. MOONVES:  No.  That is my answer.
             MR. MOONVES:  That's my answer, and I'm sticking
   to it.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  It has nothing to do with
    anything that we've been doing.
              MR. MOONVES:  Not at all.
              MS. CHARREN:  What about the electronic media,
    are they having any problems?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  It is true, it is a very good
    question as to whether the operations of the press corps
    have been undermined in any way by their coverage of the
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  But we may see another commission
    that can deal with those knotty issues, not to mention the
    moral problems that have been exhibited in the press
    corps.  Yes, thank you.
              MR. MOONVES:  All right.  Any final statements
    from anybody in the group?  Anybody that has not had a

   chance to say something, that they would like to say?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  We will, in a very expeditious
   fashion, communicate with you.  And let's talk for a
   couple of minutes about timetable here.
             Our next meeting will be on the 26th, and
   reserve as well the half day on the 27th, of October.  We
   hope we will not need all of that time.
             What I would like to do is we will all go to
   work now, trying to incorporate all of these comments,
    first of all, into the framework that we have, add the
    things that we have been talking about here.  We will get
    these subgroups moving.  And I hope that you will move
    very expeditiously.
              Yes, Peggy?
              MS. CHARREN:  Is there any sense you have of --
    given that we are meeting, and let's assume it goes
    well -- when you think the report might be done?
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Let me get to that.  My goal
    here -- tell me if you agree, Les -- is that by about
    October 1,  that we could have a draft of each of these
    areas together, combined with the introductory sections of
    the report, so that it would encompass basically a
    complete first draft of a report.  And in the meantime,
    those of you who believe that you are going to be writing
    additional views, concurring opinions or the like, may

   want to start working on drafts of those, obviously
   contingent on what else emerges here.
             Then we will get that out to you, I hope around
   that time, and hope for very quick feedback.  And then we
   will move, in the process of the next couple of weeks, to
   work things out so that we can end up with a completed
   draft that we would try to get to you at least a week in
   advance, if not more, of the October 26th meeting.
             Now, as I said, I expect that what we are going
    to have in this report is a solid core, that seems to have
    emerged from our meeting, of areas where we have a large
    and indeed surprising consensus.  There will be one or two
    areas here, clearly, where we are going to have some
    significant dissent that will probably be reflected in a
    majority and a minority viewpoint, or it may very well
    be -- I mean I am not sure where we will end up on the pay
    or play.
              MR. MOONVES:  The pay or play seemed pretty
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  It may be basically a
    point/counterpoint kind of thing.
              Then I expect we will have a section with
    additional views.  That may be large or may not be large. 
    But that is open to members to decide what they want to
    do.  The focus, obviously, is going to be much more on the

   core where we agree and in overwhelming numbers,
   universally or pretty close to that.
             If we can then bring that to our meeting on the
   26th, we may find that we can move that through very
   quickly and give ourselves a lot more free time to do
   other things.  We will then move to turning whatever we
   have there -- if we have to do some additional drafting or
   if members decide they need a little bit of time to add
   their own views in, we will allow a little time -- but we
    would then move towards, as best we can, an expedited
    production schedule, and hope that we can have a report in
    finished form some time in December -- early December I
    would hope.
              And then we will work with the Vice President's
    office for a time, and we would make a formal presentation
    of our recommendations.
              MR. MOONVES:  On December 24th.
              MS. CHARREN:  Hanukkah.  A Hanukkah present.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  On the eighth day of Hanukkah,
              MS. SOHN:  I want to ask our FACA expert, if I
    am writing a concurrence or the center, whatever you want
    to call it, and I want other people to join in with me, do
    people have -- I mean it would be a huge mess if we had

   people with similar opinions all writing separate
   statements as opposed to one person -- what am I permitted
   to do under those circumstances?
             MS. EDWARDS:  Well, as you know, FACA has some
   exceptions.  And I think the key one that would apply here
   is the exception that allows members to confer if they are
   drafting a position paper.  And this applies in sort of
   the broader recommendation context, as well.
             This is why, when you had your original
    proposal, Gigi, you could talk to Jim Yee or others.  The
    problem here is to make sure that the recommendations that
    the committee produces have been fully discussed in an
    open forum and they are deliberated in an open forum.
              If you are writing an individual statement and
    you want Harold to join with you, you can confer with
    Harold to make sure that that happens.  That is a position
    paper.  That is not the committee's recommendations.  And
    we can talk about that more in terms of applying it.
              I realize that sound really simple now.  Often,
    when you get down to the nitty-gritty, it gets more
    difficult.  But I am happy to talk more about that with
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Well, I eagerly await the
    Crump-Sohn joint position paper.

             MR. LA CAMERA:  Well, we can talk about
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Jose.
             MR. RUIZ:  When we receive the draft, can we
   receive a diskette of it?  If you want us to be able to
   look at it and do some line changes or something like that
   and get back to you right away, that would really expedite
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  I would think that the easiest
    fashion for most of us is to E-mail, so that you can put
    it right on your computer.  But maybe we can have some
    options available to members, depending on what works the
              MS. EDWARDS:  Right.  I would assume that there
    would be some members who prefer to sort of take out their
    green or red pen and go to work.  If there are some
    members that want to have this in an electronic format, I
    think we can do it.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Recognize that, too, when we get
    you a draft, we are trying to reach language in most of
    these cases that can reach our broad consensus.  So if
    there are things that absolutely are bottom-line for you,
    let us know that.  Otherwise try and be as flexible and
    understanding as you can of the fact that we are trying to

   accommodate lots of people that get mostly to the gist of
             And we will try and do whatever we can to
   incorporate those views.  In some cases it may be that if
   there is language in a particular case that you just are
   not happy with, you can then express your views in a
   concurring or an additional way.  So just be open to that.
             MS. SOHN:  Well, I would urge the removal of a
   lot of the anti-government language.  I don't think I was
    the only one who was uncomfortable with that language. 
    There are a couple of sentences.  We do not need to have
    any anti-broadcaster or any anti-government language in
    there, and still have a consensus report.  That is the
    place to start.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Understood.
              MR. MINOW:  You mentioned early December; what
    is the date that you have asked for the end of our
              MS. EDWARDS:  We have not proposed a date to the
    White House.
              MR. MINOW:  You did not propose it.
              MS. EDWARDS:  And we were hoping that they will
    come back to us with a date.  And Les and Norm will work
    with them.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.

             MR. MOONVES:  Early December, sometime.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
             MS. CHARREN:  December 15th.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  We do not want to get into a
   situation where, once again, just because of production
   problems or other things, that we have to rush at the
   final minute.  And so we are going to try and work with
   them to make sure we have got enough flexibility, while
   trying to do it as quickly as we possibly can.
              And I must say, I believe we come out of this in
    extraordinarily good shape.  There is work to do, but that
    work involves less trying to build bridges across very
    long open gulfs and much more expanding in some places and
    making sure that we can accommodate some very legitimate
    questions that have been raised, without losing the gist
    of what we are trying to do.
              So it is going to take a little time to do that,
    but it is not an insurmountable or even difficult
    political problem in most cases.  So we ought to be able
    to work within whatever time frame works for them, as
              MR. CRUZ:  Norm, some of us have not met David
    Bollier.  Would you mind introducing him to us? 
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Absolutely.
              MR. CRUZ:  And what are the ways of contacting

   him?  Or should we still go through Karen?
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  I think we probably do not want,
   at this point, to have all individual members contacting
   David, or we will never get it done.
             MR. CRUZ:  Okay.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  So we will get drafts to you, and
   then you can work through Karen and work through us, and
   we will make sure that we work with David, who is sitting
   there in the front row and who, as you know, has a long
    and distinguished record of writing different things in
    these areas for groups in some cases even more disparate
    than ours.
              Do we have any other housekeeping things, Karen?
              MS. EDWARDS:  I was just going to mention, I
    think what we will try to do is to get to you in much more
    expedited fashion than is required by law or than we have
    done in the past the minutes of this meeting.  I think
    that could be quite helpful.
              MR. ORNSTEIN:  Yes.
              MS. EDWARDS:  I think what I would want from you
    in return is everybody seems to be traveling very much
    between now and the beginning of October.  And it does not
    make sense for us to really push and try to get this done
    if you do not get it.  So if you know that you are going
    to be out of your office or unreachable or want us to send

   it to a different address or fax, please let us know.
             MR. ORNSTEIN:  Great point.
             Okay.  I want to thank you all for your
   attendance at what has been a very interesting and I
   believe extremely productive meeting.  Thank you.
             MR. MOONVES:  Thank you.
             (Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the meeting was

(Click here to view the morning session)