Clay Whitehead interview on MetroMedia, June 1, 1973

Bob Hughes: A conversation with Clay Whitehead. This is Bob Hughes, MetroMedia News in Washington. We're talking with Dr. Clay Whitehead, the director of the Office of Telecommunications Policy, the man who was often called President Nixon's specialist on broadcast policy. Dr. Whitehead, it's nice to have you with us. At the moment you are involved in a rather stiff controversy over public broadcasting. Can you start off by telling us how this all started? Dr. Whitehead: It all started approximately a year ago when we began to look at possibilities for longer range financing for the corporation. The corporation is the vehicle whereby the government contributors its share, the Federal government contributes its share to public television. It was originally intended to be funded on a long range basis, but there was no agreement as to what that should be. So it's been funded on a year to year basis. We began to look at longer range approaches, and in doing so recognized that there were problems with public television. And that the way in which the government provided its share of the money would have an influence. So we began to ask, "Where is public television going and how should the government be providing its funding?" Bob Hughes: You're involved now with, I imagine, making some recommendations to the president regarding financing for public broadcasting. Can you tell how that's going to go? Dr. Whitehead: No, I can't yet. We have been working very closely and very intensively with people from all sides of public television. Local station managers, people involved in producing programs, and of course people from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We've also been talking with people in the Congress. What we're trying to do is find some approach to this funding that will satisfy all of the various important objectives, and at the same time get enough support so that we'll all be in general agreement. Bob Hughes: What role do you see public broadcasting playing in the general media mix available in the country? Dr. Whitehead: Public television, public broadcasting was intended to be an alternative to what we have available on our commercial broadcasting system. By its very nature, the commercial broadcasting system plays to the mass audience. Somewhat different in radio where there are enough outlets where you can afford to specialize somewhat. But in television where the costs are so high, the number of television stations in any community are so low, there are only three networks, each program, so that big middle ground of tastes and interests. Public television was designed to provide an alternative. It was not to be a better commercial network, but rather was to provide educational programming, cultural programming, drama, fine arts, public affairs that would not typical be presented on commercial radio or on commercial television. Bob Hughes: Isn't that generally what it's doing now, and isn't that what you object to from the centralized point of view of its programming? Dr. Whitehead: No, I don't think that's what it's doing now. It's headed in the direction of doing much the same thing that the commercial networks do, but trying to do it with a little more class. There is a very high orientation towards high class entertainment programming, a very large component of public affairs programming. Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with public television doing these things. But when they begin to be so concerned with the ratings, so concerned with being a balanced network, providing the kinds of ... basically the same kinds of things that the commercial networks are, then we have to ask the question, do we really want them to go in that direction? And I think the answer is no. Bob Hughes: What types of programs are you thinking of when you talk about high class entertainment types of programs? Dr. Whitehead: Well, I don't want to get into the business of naming particular programs because everyone has a different standard of taste there. But I think it is clear that the public broadcasting network is headed in the direction of programming that is generally entertainment or public affairs oriented and will try to attract a large audience. We're simply saying they ought to go for the more specialized programming, go a little more towards education, that type of thing. Also, we're concerned that there has not been enough concern to the interests of the local stations. Now, the corporation was not set up to run the whole public broadcasting system in this country. It was set up to provide the central focus for that programming that had to be done at the national level. But the voice of the local stations just wasn't being heard. Many of them are much more interested in education or instruction. They felt, and I think rightly, that they were not having enough say in what kinds of programming was being done at the national level. So we felt that something needed to be done to help restore the balance between the local stations and the central programming organization. Bob Hughes: You object then to the central programming concept, the network that just feeds things down the line? Dr. Whitehead: We don't object to it, but we think it should be kept in balance. We think there should be some of that, but that there ought to be a strong component of the local programming as well with a strong say by the local stations in what gets done at the national level. We're concerned by a drift that we see, that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is dominating the local stations, is making all the decisions, is soaking up all of the money, and that's just not a balance. Bob Hughes: So then you don't want to abolish the network concept in favor of complete local autonomy? Dr. Whitehead: No, not at all. We're looking for a balance. In fact, we would like to see the networking concept expanded, several networks pumping out several programs so that the local station can pick and choose, put together whatever kinds of evening schedules that would be of most interest in its community. Bob Hughes: In an interview which was broadcast on public radio, you said that you didn't think public broadcaster should get involved in public affairs and news. What do you mean by public affairs and news? Dr. Whitehead: No, I don't think that ... It's certainly not what I intended, in any event. I think it's perfectly legitimate for public television to get into public affairs and news. On the other hand, I think you have to recognize, as I was saying earlier, that the commercial stations, the commercial networks, do provide quite a bit of news. They do provide quite a bit of public affairs programming. Maybe not as much as some people would like, but nonetheless, it is there. Maybe not in as much depth as people would like. So one of the things that immediately jumps to mind is that public television might do public affairs in depth, because that's not available from the commercial networks. On the other hand, there is a real question as to whether federal funds should be used for programming that is highly controversial politically. There is nothing to preclude that now. It's simply a question of what the public broadcasting corporation people feel they want to do. But, I think we all have to recognize that if any organization, be it CPB or whoever, gets involved in doing that kind of programming, they are going to invite political attention. The press is going to pay attention to them. The Congress is going to pay attention to them. And it's going to become a subject of some controversy. So there is a danger when your money is coming from the Federal government, that getting into this kind of thing can involve you in controversy that you would just as soon not be involved in. So there is, in short, a real danger that excessive involvement in public affairs programming is going to make this thing to political, not in the partisan sense, but just in the nature of the political process, that it may be very hard for us to get through the increases in financing for public television that we would like to see, to get going some of the fine kinds of drama, culture, education, other kinds of programming, that we would all like to see. Bob Hughes: You're advocating the avoidance of controversy. And I take it that's on a purely pragmatic basis. Dr. Whitehead: No, I'm not advocating the avoidance of controversy. I'm just simply saying that it's a fact of life in our society that anyone who engages in controversy is going to receive controversy. You have a free press in this country. People look for that kind of thing. Most journalists are looking for controversy because it's interesting. It's exciting. It points out different points of view. So when public television engages in this, they're going to attract attention. They're going to attract attention about what is their power? Are they using it wisely? Are they using it in a balanced way? And I think most Congressmen are going to be concerned about how public money is being used in that way. I'm just saying that if they're going to engage in that, particularly with public funds, then they're going to have to accept the fact that people are going to be paying attention to what they're doing. It's not a criticism. It's not an intimidation. It's just simply a fact of life. And it's not partisan. It's just merely the nature of a free society. Bob Hughes: Nonetheless, I think a survey of broadcast journalism such as it is would probably show that anything that is well done in the news or public affairs area is by that very fact controversial. How do you reconcile that? How do you get involved in news and public affairs and yet how do you avoid being controversial? Dr. Whitehead: I don't think everything in the public affairs area is controversial. But I would agree that in that area of national political concern, most things that are done well are going to be controversial. And all I'm saying is that the people in the public broadcasting system have to recognize that, and recognize that when they do it, they're going to be controversial. Bob Hughes: You also are quoted as saying that the commercial networks are doing quite a good job in news and public affairs. Could you be more specific in that area? Could you name some names of networks and programs that you think are quite good? Dr. Whitehead: Well, I'd rather not do that. I'd rather just say that they provide a rather significant amount of news and public affairs programming. Most of the issues of concern in our society are covered. Everyone has their point of view about how well they're covered and in what way they're covered. But just in terms of quantity and availability, I think there's quite a bit of it there. Bob Hughes: How about the program, "The Selling of the Pentagon"? That's very controversial and some people would argue whether or not that was quite good. What are your thoughts on that? Dr. Whitehead: Well, there are two questions, and the first I prefer not to address, which is, was it a good, balanced program? The other question is, should CBS or any network or any station be allowed to put on a program of that nature? If they are allowed to, which of course, they should be, to what extent should the government oversee their journalistic function and have some regulatory control over their journalistic function? And I think the answer is very little and probably none at all. One of the things we accept in this country when we accept a free press, is that they are responsible for their own mistakes. And while the government should not be involved in telling them what they can and cannot say, on the other hand, that points up the converse, which is the freedom begets responsibility. The press is going to have to pay diligent attention to being responsible, to being fair, to being objective. Bob Hughes: What would have been your reaction, and what do you think would have been the reaction of Congress if that program had appeared instead of on CBS, a commercial network, on PBS, Public Broadcasting System? Dr. Whitehead: I think those people who were upset at what they perceived to be a lack of objectivity, a lack of journalistic care, would have been doubly upset, because we expect better things. We expect more balance. We expect more objectivity from public television. In fact, it's written in the law, that each station and its coverage of these things has to be balanced and objective. We don't even write that into the law for commercial stations. Bob Hughes: How much of a hold does Congress have on funds for public broadcasting at this point? Dr. Whitehead: Well, Congress controls that share that is given from the Federal government. It's important to realize that public television has been funded without any contribution from the Federal government for a long time. From private sources and foundations and state governments and so forth. We are now about three years into the Federal government contributing its share, and the Congress controls that. We feel very strongly that it should continue to be basically privately financed ... publicly financed, if you will. And that does not mean that the large share has to come through the Federal government. Bob Hughes: Considering the fact that public funds are involved in public broadcasting, do you think public broadcasters and the news and public affairs area can expect the same guarantees of freedom of the press that other broadcasters think they should enjoy? Dr. Whitehead: I think they probably can. Again, though, you come back to the question of answerability and the provision of funds. Public television is certainly entitled to those kinds of First Amendment freedoms. But on the other hand, no one is obligated to give them money. Bob Hughes: You're listening to a conversation with Dr. Clay Whitehead. This is Bob Hughes, MetroMedia News in Washington. This program coming to you on MetroMedia radio. When people talk about public broadcasting in this country, the inevitable comparison is made to CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Network, and the BBC, the world renowned British national service. Do you think public broadcasting in this country should follow that model? Dr. Whitehead: No, not at all. In most other countries, Canada and Britain, among others, television is largely a government run, government supported activity. We have chose to go another way, and I think very wisely, particularly for this country. We believe that communications and mass media ought to be in the private sector. They ought to be privately run and not controlled and not even influenced by the Federal government. So that I think the model of a BBC, providing a highly centralized programming source, telling the people what they ought to hear, what they ought to know, what they ought to be exposed to, is contrary to our traditions in this country. Bob Hughes: It's a father interesting article in the Columbia Journalism Review ... I have a copy here ... in which the author compares the programming that is available on BBC versus the programming that is available on public broadcasting here in this country. And it's a rather incredible overbalance. BBC does a nightly hour news wrap up and public broadcasting is hard pressed to put on even one show a week of this nature. Is there a problem here? Dr. Whitehead: No, because as we just said, the public television system in this country should not be modeled after the BBC. The television viewer has available a nightly news wrap up usually on several television stations. He can pick and choose. He has usually at least an hour or news earlier in the evening. He has news all day long. He has news on the radio. Public television, again, is to provide those things that we don't typically get on commercial radio and television. Bob Hughes: How do you deal with the typical American viewer, who in survey after survey says "Yes, we want more culture on television. We want to see live performances of symphonies and dramas. We want in depth searching literate and scholarly public affairs programs"? And yet when those programs are put on, they trail in the ratings very badly. Dr. Whitehead: Well, I think a lot of people are simply saying they would like to have this available for those few times they would like to watch it. And then there are some people who really would like to watch it and really would watch it. But by and large, television, any mass entertainment, any mass medium, is going to be heavily oriented towards entertainment. Take a look at the paperback book industry. Go down to the drug store and look at the book rack. You'll see the large, large bulk of it is devoted to material that isn't exactly what you'd call cultural or literary. But the people who do want Shakespeare in paperback can get it. The people who do want in depth reporting on public affairs or history or something, can usually find that at the paperback book stand. That is really the kind of thing I think we're looking to provide to the television viewer. Now, the commercial networks are heavily oriented towards the entertainment, the entertainment of the mass audience. Public television is going to have to be kind of the high class section, if you will. And that means they by and large are not going to get the audience. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just important to have the availability, even if not a lot of people watch it. Bob Hughes: You're saying something very interesting here. It doesn't matter if they don't have the mass audience. Dr. Whitehead: That's right. If they had the mass audience, then they'd be doing the same kinds of things the networks are doing, unless the networks are incredible dumb, which I doubt. Bob Hughes: In this area of public broadcasting, some of your comments have aroused the suspicions and some of the fears of broadcasters that the Nixon administration is trying to clamp down on broadcasters and their activities. I take it this is not your intent. Dr. Whitehead: No, not at all. We're trying to create an environment of more freedom for the broadcaster to serve his community as he thinks best. And we recognize, of course, that the government has a responsibility to regulate this industry, but it should not do so in such a detailed way that it's telling the broadcaster what he should program and what he should not program. Rather, we should try to create the regulatory environment so that he will go out and serve his public. Bob Hughes: In fact, you have some other thoughts about the regulation of commercial broadcast radio stations that are interesting to commercial broadcasters, but as far as I know, have not received much public attention. Could you recount those for us? Dr. Whitehead: Yes. We think that the situation in regulation to radio ... that the regulations have, in many ways, overlived their usefulness. We apply a tremendous amount of red tape regulation to radio, some of it coming from the FCC, much of it being forced on them by the courts. And we just wonder if maybe a lot of that hasn't become counterproductive, if maybe the public on the whole wouldn't be better served if there were less of that. Now, there's no real way to answer that except to try it. So what we have proposed is to go into several markets, several areas of the country and try and experiment. Remove as much of that red tape, as much of that regulation as we think is prudent and that is consistent with the law. See what happens. See if the broadcaster responds to that kind of thing with more innovative programming, different kinds of things. See if he responds with responsibility. See if we can develop a strong free press, strong free media approach in those areas. If that happens, then we have the basis for going ahead and removing some of the controls from radio generally. If the contrary is true, then we've learned that we were wrong and that we do need a lot of centralized regulation from Washington to keep radio on its toes. But I kind of doubt that that would be the case. Bob Hughes: There is some thought in the broadcasting industry now that radio stations need not be licensed beyond having some Federal agency to make sure that they don't broadcast on one another's frequencies. Do you go that far? Dr. Whitehead: I wouldn't go that far at this time, but I think we could move very close to that at some time in the future. You know, we don't regulate newspapers, but on the other hand, every community has more radio stations than it has newspapers. If the theory of regulation is the limited number of stations, then maybe we ought to be regulating newspapers. Let me hasten that, and I say that in jest, because I think that that should not be the case. But if we don't regulate newspapers, if we believe in the system of private enterprise in this country, if we believe in the common sense ability of the American people to judge what they're hearing and what they want to hear and make selection, then I think we have every right to expect that that could work as well in radio as it does in the print media. Bob Hughes: How do you feel about some of the things the Federal Communications Commission has foisted upon the broadcast industry? I think here specifically of their infamous order last spring regarding so called drug lyrics in broadcasting, and order which was put out and then rather quickly and with sort of a great deal of embarrassment, retracted to an extent by the Commission. Dr. Whitehead: Well, I think that order was misunderstood. The FCC was simply trying to say to the broadcaster that you should avoid the encouragement of drug use. There's certainly nothing wrong with the FCC saying that. But it does raise the point that when the FCC tries to enforce that kind of thing, pass it as a rule, that it raises all kinds of unfortunate connotations and lots of questions. And I think they had no choice but to clarify it and withdraw it in the way they did. It's the typical problem of a government regulatory agency. You're expected to have a solution for everything. So there's drug abuse, and if there's songs about drug abuse, then you ought to get the songs off and therefore the government agency ought to do something about it. This kind of thing cascades, the courts particularly enforce a kind of logic on the regulatory agencies, it forces them into all kinds of steps like this, and after you had 20 or 30 years of that, you have an incredible amount of very detailed regulation, and what relationship at all bears to what's going on is sometimes hard to see. It's hard to lay all at the doorstep of the people in the regulatory agency. Bob Hughes: This area that you deal with, telecommunications policy, is a rather broad one. How did you get involved in it? Dr. Whitehead: I got involved in it because when I joined the administration I came on as a special assistant to the president on the White House staff, and one of my responsibilities was the communications area. After this new office was set up, I was chosen to run it. Bob Hughes: What is your background that would lead you into a field like this? Dr. Whitehead: Well, I actually do have a little electronics training, although that was a very long time ago. I suppose my more pertinent training is a study of economics and political science and management. And a general concern, both in school and later doing research out at the RAND Corporation for how public policy is formulated at some of these very complex areas. It's quite a challenge to take something as complex as this and try to isolate out what are the important issues for public policy and deal with them in a responsible way? So that is really the background that got me into this, I suppose. Bob Hughes: You were described in a recent article about you in the Washington Post as a problem solver. What are the big problems in the communications industry that you're interested in now? Dr. Whitehead: Where do I start and how much time do I have? We're concerned in the broadcasting area with problems of enforcing fairness on broadcasting, the problems of licensing broadcasting and the growing instability there, the challenges that are threatening to erode much of the stability of the licensing process, and the economics of broadcasting. Bob Hughes: This is a case where a group will come in a challenge a station's license? Dr. Whitehead: That's right. Licenses have to be renewed every three years, so the station owner is just kind of fair game for anybody, be he responsible or irresponsible, who wants to come in and tell the FCC to take it away. That's a very costly kind of thing, can be a very debilitating kind of thing if it gets out of hand. We're concerned with the growth of cable television. How do we get it growing, bring it to as many people as possible? At the same time, make sure that its potential as a new medium is realized, and still at the same time to make sure that it doesn't erode the economics of our over the air television, so that we'll continue to have the kind of television service we have now, but let cable add on to that rather than tear it away. We're concerned with public television, which we've been discussions. We're concerned with regulation of the common carrier industry, the telephone company. How can we make sure that the telephone company provides the service it should be providing and can raise the capital it needs to do that and still keep the rates as low as possible for the rate payer. That's quite a challenging problem. We're concerned with international communications. This is growing at the rate of some 30 to 40% a year, just mushrooming. And we have some real problems in dealing with the communication entities abroad, most of whom are government agencies. We run it as a private sector activity, and that causes some problems. Finally, we're concerned with the Federal government's whole use of electronic communications, and it's use of the radio spectrum. The government spends over five billions a year on this activity. A lot of it for defense. So you can see that it's very important, very important that we have communications in the height of a national emergency. And very important that that five billion dollars doesn't get any larger than it absolutely has to. Bob Hughes: I wanted to ask you a question about something that you just mentioned, and that is the telephone company. Recently the FCC decided that it was not big enough or not powerful enough or not well financed enough to conduct an investigation of the telephone company. What are your thoughts on that? It seems incredible. Dr. Whitehead: Well, it's not as bad as it sounds. What they were really saying is that they were not prepared and did not have the finances to conduct the second phase hearing in a rate investigation that they're having. There certainly should be hearings like that from time to time, because they provide a valuable forum for public discussion. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that the FCC is not regulating the telephone company and doing it reasonably effectively. They have what they call the continuing surveillance process, and every year on a more or less informal basis, the telephone companies' costs and rates are reviewed and are regulated. And that is probably more accurate from a technical economic standpoint than a big hearing. A big hearing lasts so long, takes so long that it's out of date before it's over. So it's not as though the public is being short changed in the sense of regulation. Bob Hughes: In the two or so minutes that we have left, I'd like to ask you about the coming political year and the broadcaster's role in it. A lot of broadcasters feel that they could better cover the national political scene in an election year if they could be relieved of the necessity to provide every candidate equal time. Do you agree with this position? Dr. Whitehead: Well, I think it's true that it would be easier for them to do. Bob Hughes: Would it be wise? Dr. Whitehead: I'd rather think it wouldn't be wise. I think that it just gives the broadcaster too much power, and as along as he is a government licensee, I think it's a reasonable kind of restriction. Bob Hughes: Some broadcasters contend, though, that if they give let's say the Democratic nominee time on the air to present his viewpoint, then they have to give the Mickey Mouse socialist, leftist, rightist, conservative, whatever it is party that may represent two people. And you know, you may have somebody like Pat Paulsen or this bureaucratic candidate who's supposedly running. Dr. Whitehead: Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't criticize the cost of television advertising, and then make it impossible for the people who really need the time to get it. I think if you're going to allow time to be given, you have to make sure that it can be given to the people who can't afford to buy it. And the equal time rule is a reasonable way of doing that. If you get rid of that, you discriminate against the very people you probably want to help. Bob Hughes: We've been talking with Dr. Clay Whitehead, director of the Office of Telecommunications Policy. This is Bob Hughes in Washington. Thank you for listening.