In the Matter of:	     	     )  
			               )
EN BANC HEARING ON THE PUBLIC )
INTEREST OBLIGATIONS OF TV 	)
BROADCAST LICENSES			)
























Pages:	1 through 251

Place:	Washington, D.C.

Date:		October 16, 2000

	Before the
	FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
	Washington, D.C.  20554

In the Matter of:	)  
		               	)
EN BANC HEARING ON THE PUBLIC )
INTEREST OBLIGATIONS OF TV 	)
BROADCAST LICENSES	)
			
			Federal Communications
 			Commission
			445 Twelfth Street, N.W.
			Washington, D.C.  

			Monday,
			October 16, 2000

		The parties met, pursuant to the notice of the 

Commission at 9:12 a.m.

		APPEARANCES:
		
		On Behalf of the FCC:
				
		WILLIAM KENNARD, CHAIRPERSON
		SUSAN NESS, COMMISSIONER
		HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, COMMISSIONER
		GLORIA TRISTANI, COMMISSIONER
		MICHAEL K. POWELL, COMMISSIONER

		Panelists:

		JAMES P. STEYER
		ANNE SWEENEY
		KATHRYN MONTGOMERY
		SUSAN ALTMAN
		PATRICIA NUGENT
		PATTI MILLER
		VICKY RIDEOUT
		NADINE STROSSEN
		ROBERT CORN-REVERE
		DALE KUNKEL
		JOANNE CANTOR
		HENRY JENKINS
		ROBERT PETERS
		PAUL SCHROEDER
		SISTER MARY PARKS

		APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

		Panelists (Continued):
	
		PAUL TAYLOR
		JAMES GOODMAN
		JAMIN RASKIN
		PAUL LaCAMERA
		HENRY GELLER








































	P R O C E E D I N G S
	(9:12 a.m.)
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Good morning and welcome to 
this hearing of the Federal Communications Commission on the 
public interest obligations of television broadcast 
licensees.  Television is the most powerful, ubiquitous 
medium in the history of the world.  Seventy-five percent of 
Americans watch local broadcast television.  Children spend 
on average three hours in front of the television set every 
single day.
		Clearly, television is a medium that we all have 
to care about because it is one that shapes our lives.  It 
shapes our outlooks.  It shapes what our children learn.  
And we have to be concerned about the images that are 
bombarding our homes and our families every single day.
		Since I have been at the Commission in this 
particular job, I have received lots of input from parents 
from all over the country.  When I travel outside of 
Washington, invariably people will come up to me and ask me 
what are you doing about television.  And frankly, in recent 
years, there has been increasing concern in our country 
about what parents are seeing on television.  There is an 
increasing concern about the coarsening of broadcast 
standards, more language and inappropriate images in prime 
time, more violence, more sex.
		And when I am in Washington, I often get lots of 
e-mails from parents from around the country.  And they ask 
me, well, what are you doing about television?  How can we 
protect our families from some of the images we don't want 
our children to see?  
		And I have had the opportunity to bring some of 
these concerns to leaders of the broadcast industry.  And I 
relay some of these issues that I hear.  And frankly, a lot 
of the answers that I get are not very satisfying.  I am 
hearing a lot of finger-pointing.  Well, it's not our 
problem.  Don't make us the whipping boy.  It's not our 
fault.  Blame the cable television industry.  Blame the gun 
industry.  Blame the lack of enforcement on drug control.
		But frankly, those answers are not satisfying to 
parents and they are certainly not satisfying to me because 
the fact is that television is different today.  There is a 
question of standards.  There are fewer PSAs.  There is less 
involvement between broadcasters and their communities.  And 
part of that is a result of regulatory changes by this 
Agency, the great movement of deregulation in the late '70s 
and early '80s.
		But the fact remains that many, many people around 
the country are concerned about television today.  And the 
fact also remains that when the television industry decides 
that they are going to make a change for the better in our 
country, it can do remarkable things.  
		Many of you remember the tremendous PSA campaigns 
that this industry has embarked on over the past couple of 
decades.  Remember "Buckle Up for Safety" and "Only You Can 
Prevent Forest Fires" and the anti-drug abuse campaigns.  
These things really do change America.  
		And the television industry certainly has a 
responsibility when it comes to making sure that all 
Americans feel that they have a place in this society.  I am 
talking about the image of minorities on television today, 
an issue that I am particularly concerned about.
		I remember in my own life very vividly when in the 
1960s "Eye Spy" was the first network television show that 
starred an African American in a prime-time role.  And that 
was a huge deal in the African American community.  And, of 
course, since that time, we have made a lot of progress.  
There are many more starring roles of African Americans and 
other minorities.
		But there is still in our country a sense of 
unease among many minority communities that we are not being 
represented on television in positive roles and we are not 
seeing the kinds of positive role models that we want our 
children to see.  Indeed, we are having a very, very 
important debate in this country between the civil rights 
community and the networks to try to remedy that particular 
problem.
		Now, the reason why we are having this hearing 
today is because the FCC has a crucial role in responding to 
many of these concerns around the country.  Broadcasters are 
public trustees as many broadcasters like to point out to me 
in my discussions with them.  But there is a concern at 
least on my part, and I know a number of people with the 
Commission around the country, that nobody really knows what 
that means.  What does it mean to be a public trustee of the 
Agency, a public trustee of the nation's airwaves?
		Well, I believe it is important that we give some 
context to what that means and define it a little better 
because I think, frankly, we have lost a little focus on 
what it means.  I talk to many broadcasters.  And many times 
they say, well, it means whatever we say it means.  We are 
serving the public interest, can't you see.
		And I know many of them make these arguments with 
the best of intentions.  And they are well meaning.  And 
they do good things in their communities.  And I commend 
them for it.
		But frankly, being a public trustee is not just 
what the industry says it should mean.  It should mean 
something that we can collectively agree on in constructive 
dialogue between industry and the public advocates and the 
FCC.  And that is what this hearing is all about today.  I 
know one thing.  Being a public trustee certainly doesn't 
mean that you just get free spectrum anymore.  It must mean 
more than that.
		Well, today I am pleased that we have a lot of 
very fine panelists who are going to present on these very 
important issues.  And we have a very packed agenda today.  
We are going to hear about a lot of issues.  Hopefully at 
the end of the day, we will have a much better understanding 
of at least what many people -- how many people would define 
what it means to be a public trustee of the airwaves.
		I certainly have been fairly vocal on this issue. 
 And I have supported a voluntary code of conduct for 
broadcasters.  I have urged broadcasters to be more 
aggressive in supporting the V-chip so that parents can be 
empowered to screen out some of the harmful images that 
flood into their homes and living rooms.
		And we have a number of issues that we want to 
cover today.  And in closing, I want to thank my colleagues 
because what I found in this job is that everyone here has  
slightly different issues that they would like to emphasize. 
 And so it was a challenge to pull together a panel that 
would accommodate everybody's concerns.
		Some folks are more passionate about affirmative 
messages for children on the airwaves.  Others are more 
concerned about screening out the harmful images of sex and 
violence.  And I think it is fair to say that some of my 
colleagues are skeptical about doing anything in this area 
and are outspoken about that.
		But I wanted to commend my colleagues for 
participating and providing input.  And I think the 
panelists that you will hear today reflect the diverse 
viewpoints of the Agency before you.
		Just a couple of housekeeping matters.  We have a 
new technology here at the FCC we are going to use today.  
We have the time clock for the first time.  And it is an 
effort to make sure that everybody stays within their 
allotted time.  
		Each panelist will have five minutes to make his 
or her initial presentation.  The time remaining will be 
indicated by the lights on the podium.  The light will be 
green for four minutes, yellow for one minute and then red 
when the speaker has exceeded five minutes.  And I have been 
told to enforce this aggressively.
		After each panel, we will have a period for 
question and answer from the bench.  And time permitting, we 
are also going to try to allow people from the general 
public to ask questions of the panelists, as well.  And we 
have some microphones on the aisles for that purpose.
		Well, with that, I will pass the gavel to my 
colleague, Commissioner Ness, and look forward to a very 
productive day today.  Commissioner Ness.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Thank you very much.  First of 
all, I would like to welcome all of the panelists who have 
come today to talk about what the role of broadcasting 
society is all about.  We are going to be examining all day 
the public interest obligations of broadcasters, 
particularly as we painstakingly enter the digital world.
		Members of Congress, the public and others have 
increasingly decried the rapidly declining standards of 
broadcast television, especially the impact that it is 
having on our children.  And they have focused attention on 
the pledge that broadcasters have taken to serve in the 
public interest.  We have gotten loads of letters and e-
mails on this topic.
		A couple of years ago, the Clinton-Gore 
administration convened a panel to examine those 
responsibilities.  There have been a hoard of studies that 
have been done.  The Kaiser Family Foundation, among others, 
has contributed greatly to our understanding of what the 
effect of all of these bombarding messages is on our 
children.
		And as Congress noted, the FCC provides an 
invaluable forum, an invaluable opportunity for us as a 
national community to examine these issues and to try to 
come up with some sense of where we as a national community 
are as far as the broadcast medium is concerned.  
		So today, we are going to be examining how 
broadcasters are fulfilling their responsibilities.  We are 
going to be reviewing how effective our rules and guidelines 
are to ensure that there is, for example, ample educational 
and informational children's programming available on 
commercial television.  And we are going to be assessing 
what steps we can take to ensure that the public is well 
served.
		The first panel, how do we ensure the goals of the 
1990 Children's Television Act are realized?  There, I am 
going to be very interested in seeing whether there is 
quality educational programming that is now being provided 
on the commercial spectrum; whether our rules which we 
revised in 1996 which empower parents to help sort through 
the offerings on television, whether or not this is 
effective to allow parents to know what programs are 
educational and informational so that they could assemble 
their children to watch; whether -- so these are some of the 
issues that I hope that we can explore in the first panel.
		For the second panel, how can we as a national 
community address the tidal wave of gratuitous sex and 
violence on television today, especially during the hours 
that children are in the audience?  And there, I hope that 
we will have an opportunity to see what is being done as far 
as a voluntarily code of conduct for broadcasters is 
concerned.  It seems to me that this is a very good way for 
broadcasters to address the situation themselves, we as a 
national community again.  
		The third panel looking at the special role of 
television in our society as we go into a digital 
environment.  What -- how can this digital medium be best 
used to serve in the public interest?  
		I would like to close my opening comments by 
revisiting something that I said at the time of the 
Littleton massacre back in 1999.  At that time, I noted that 
in recent days, the images of violence have become the focus 
of a nationwide attention and debate.  The massacre has led 
many to raise questions about the role of media, electronic 
games and the Internet and portraying violence in a way that 
desensitizes our children and perhaps contributes to such 
violence.
		We see the tragedy of Columbine High and ask 
ourselves how can we provide a safe and sane environment for 
our children.  How can we deal with the pervasive and 
gratuitous violence?  Sacrificing our beloved First 
Amendment is not the answer.
		Rather, as parents, each of us must assume 
personal responsibility in helping our children make choices 
about the programming and movies that they watch and the 
games they play.  And as program creators, broadcasters, 
cable operators and corporate leaders must assume personal 
responsibility as members of a national community and take 
the interests of that community at heart.
		If everyone involved in the programming food chain 
would ask is this a program that I would want my children to 
watch, would I give it my personal seal of approval, and 
then acted based upon the answers to those questions, I 
would expect that we would see meaningful changes in what is 
out there today.  
		With the right tools, information and feedback, 
parents and industry can work together to make a difference. 
 And that is, for me, what the substance of today's 
discussion is all about.  Thank you very much.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Commissioner Ness.  
Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.  I, too, want to welcome the many experts we have 
before us today.  And I want to thank my colleagues.  Mr. 
Chairman, I know that you and Commissioner Ness and 
Commissioner Tristani feel very strongly about many of the 
issues before us today and as do all of us.
		Commissioner Tristani has particularly led the 
efforts on focus on children.  She mentions this at many 
different hearings.  Parenting is not easy in America.  The 
images and messages that confront our children are 
disturbing, images that make parents cringe, messages of any 
and all types.  And I am just talking about the checkout 
counter at your local grocery store.
		You see it everywhere, store windows at department 
stores, magazines, news stories in newspapers.  The internet 
is full of anything and everything both good and shall we 
say not so good.  
		Access to these images and messages is ubiquitous 
in America.  You will find them at your local public library 
without any restrictions.  You will find them at your local 
school library.  You will find them in your school 
classrooms.  You will find them at the malls.  You will find 
them in stores.  You will find them anywhere your children 
are, any hour of the day.  And I have yet to even mention 
television.
		There is a sense among many that there is 
something wrong in America with our society.  There is 
licentious behavior, permissive attitudes, callous 
indifference.  There are childhoods lost.  There are 
children growing up much too soon.  Some parents wish that 
we could go back a generation or more when there was less 
fear about what information was available.  But we cannot go 
back.  We must deal with the problems that we have today.
		But who should decide?  There are two broad 
choices.  One is the government can issue new regulations, 
can sensor a content, can use the public bully pulpit to 
inhibit speech or alternatively the problems our society 
faces can be solved by individuals through parenting, 
through local organizations complaining about the content, 
by going to schools and libraries and saying we don't want 
these magazines here, we don't want this content here, this 
is the information we want our children to have access to 
and nothing more.
		There are deeds of paternalism and judgement that 
go on every day in America.  And these deeds are done by 
individuals, parents telling their children this is right 
and this is wrong because it is the deed point of the parent 
or the guardian in saying this is where we will go and this 
is where we will not go.
		Many say that the problem lies with broadcasters, 
that what we need is greater public interest obligations on 
broadcasters.  To the extent broadcasters ever had any 
inescapable influence on the American public, those days are 
long gone.  Broadcasters account for an ever increasingly 
small portion of the viewership of the American audience, of 
those who even watch television.  And many to date turn to 
the internet or to other sources of information.
		Moreover, the FCC already has standards for 
indecency in television.  How much further can we go?  All 
FCC licensees are public trustees.  All FCC licensees have 
public interest obligations, not just in the broadcast area. 
 You can take a cell. phone.  The company that provides the 
service has hundreds, if not thousands of FCC licenses.  
What sort of speech goes on on these phones?  Who knows.
		But we don't put additional public interest 
obligation on the carriers who provide this service, the 
licenses many of which will receive for free.  Of the 
hundreds of thousands of FCC licenses, only a handful were 
ever really paid for.  And yet a lot of attention focuses 
narrowly on broadcasters.  
		I think there has to be another answer.  And I 
think the answer ultimately is what makes America great, 
what makes America different.  And part of that goes back to 
the First Amendment.  We in America must be a light unto the 
world.  We must say at all times we are individuals and we 
are powerful in governments.  
		Our problems are ultimately solved by individuals. 
 But the government is here to help and we will help to the 
extent we can.  But that help must not involve censorship.  
It must not involve propaganda.  It must not involve 
regulation that serves no purpose.  
		These are the crutches of other countries around 
the world.  They use censorship and propaganda daily.  And 
when their people topple those governments as they have 
recently done in Serbia, the first thing they do is they go 
and they take over the broadcast station and they say never 
again.
		We must be better in America.  We must rely on the 
First Amendment to say today and at all times that 
individuals are greater than their government, that the 
government trusts the people and does not distrust them to 
the extent they say we will restrict what happens, what 
information you have.  It is for individuals to restrict 
that information.  And ultimately, that is how we must go.  
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Commissioner. 
Commissioner Powell.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I 
am pleased to be here today.  I think it is useful to 
provide a public forum to discuss the range of issues that 
are presented by television today.  Certainly, in this year, 
television is a much more rich and complex medium than it 
has ever been.  It can be found over many more mediums and 
distribution vehicles than ever before.
		And certainly while there has been a growth in 
some of the darker sides of the images and information that 
we and our children see, there has also been an 
extraordinary explosion of quality and entertainment and 
information of value.  And I think it is important to 
provide a public forum to explore the benefits and 
blessings, as well as the dark sides of those issues.
		It is also important, however, to provide in the 
context of a hearing a struggle with the historic tension 
between the public trustee model and the limitations of that 
model as afforded by both the statute and the First 
Amendment.  And this has always been a complex and difficult 
task.  And I think we should be as committed to exploring 
lessons within its boundaries, as well.
		I would like to emphasize what I am willing to 
entertain and what I am not.  I am particularly reluctant, 
very reluctant to ever aim our regulatory arrows at content 
itself.  The statute itself says that censorship is not 
permitted and it is not our charge.  
		In reviewing recently a discussion in the Gore 
Commission report about the parameters of the Agency's 
authority, I noted a quote from the Supreme Court case of 
Columbia v. The DNC which reminded us of our limits.  And I 
just thought I would read that quote.  
		"The FCC's oversight responsibilities do not grant 
it the power to ordain any particular type of programming 
that must be offered by broadcast stations.  For although 
the Commission may inquire of licensees what they have done 
to determine the needs of the community they propose to 
serve, the Commission may not impose upon them its private 
notions of what the public ought to hear."
		And following this Commission principle, there is 
Constitutional principle the Commission has long been 
careful not to interfere with the editorial judgements of 
broadcasters.  And I hope today doesn't signal a turn in 
that direction, as I don't think that it does.
		What I do believe is legitimate and I think an 
appropriate area of inquiry is looking for ways to improve 
and enhance the power of consumers to make the choices that 
they wish to make in a free society.  It is one of the 
reasons I think efforts like labeling, disclosure of 
content, V-chip and other such measures are legitimate uses 
of the government-private partnership in an attempt to 
empower consumers to make those choices.
		But I do need to say something further about the 
limits of that in the First Amendment.  In your speech this 
week, Mr. Chairman, you talked about the importance of 
driving the DTV transition.  And while I might take issue 
with some specifics, I applaud you for trying to improve the 
pace of that intention.
		I do have concerns, however, when we suggest that 
television serves principally to enhance democracy.  It 
seems to me when the framers talked about minting democracy, 
the only discussion they had about the role of the media 
that existed at the time was to agree to which they were 
limited to power of government's ability to interfere with 
it, not government's ability to promote speech.
		And I think as Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth, what 
is most interesting about the Serbian collapse this week is 
that they tore down the state-owned television station, the 
station that attempted to push onto its citizens the message 
that government preferred.
		This is a difficult issue because while 
broadcasters pursue their financial interests, that is often 
synonymous with what the public wants to see.  And the 
challenge of the public interest standard is how much can 
the government push toward showing more images that 
consumers might not elect themselves to witness.  And I 
think we have to be very careful in that area.
		While our democracy is glorious and certainly much 
more benevolent than the dictatorships that we see around 
the world, it is no more pernicious for the state to try to 
attempt to funnel or coerce free citizens to watch and 
listen to the favorite broadcasters we select.  In fact, in 
my opinion, in a free democracy founded on individual 
choice, it may be even more pernicious.
		So I look forward to hearing with those parameters 
in place.  And I applaud the Chairman for holding the 
hearing.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Commissioner.  
Commissioner Tristani.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
I have spoken before about the pressing need to give 
substantive meaning to the public interest and to ascertain 
whether broadcasters are fulfilling their obligations to the 
American people.
		I have also asked this Commission to hold a 
hearing devoted solely to the effect of violent and sexual 
programming on our nation's children.  In that way, I should 
welcome today's en banc hearing.  I am reluctantly here, 
however, because of the following.
		First, the limited time allotted to many issues 
that we are to cover today does not do justice to the 
importance of these issues to the American citizenry.  For 
example, the lack of political discourse over the people's 
airwaves merits a separate hearing of its own.
		Second, and with all due respect to our esteemed 
panelists, I am concerned that today's hearing, like too 
many of our public proceedings, is a carefully scripted one 
and that I am here to watch a play which I know by heart.
		Third, and my principal concern, is that the issue 
of the effect of violent and sexual programming on our 
nation's children is getting short shrift.  We didn't devote 
perhaps two hours, one during our traditional lunch hour, to 
a subject that is increasingly preoccupying our nation's 
leaders, our nation's doctors and health experts, and our 
nation's families and parents.  
		Even our colleagues at the Federal Trade 
Commission have become engaged in this issue, devoting more 
than a year and a half to a comprehensive study with 
startling results.  Senators McCain, Liebermann, Bade and 
Brownbeck carefully outlines these concerns in their letter 
to this Commission dated May 25th, 2000.  In that letter, 
they asked, among other things, that (1) the Commission 
comment on the advisability of resurrecting an industry-
adopted code of conduct and (2) that the Commission review 
and re-articulate the indecency standard.
		These questions would ideally be the framework of 
a single hearing devoted solely to the subject.  It would be 
ideal, as well, to have a panel or two devoted to fact-
finding on the effects of violent and sexual programming on 
our children.  I note in this context that the U.S. Senate 
Commerce Committee recently found a directly causal 
connection between violence watched and violence in real 
life.
		That this subject is one that weighs heavily on 
our nation's parents and families is demonstrated by the 
approximately 30,000 petitions that you see on the table 
next to me here to my left and what I am presenting today to 
the Commission.  The petitions were gathered by a Puerto 
Rican group called Attente.  And "attente", by the way, 
means stop.
		The petitioners are in Spanish and I will read the 
English translation.  And this is as sample petition.  They 
are addressed to the FCC Mass Media Bureau and also to 
sponsors of indecent programs.  And it reads:  "Dear Sirs, 
I, a Puerto Rican, believe that the following programs on 
television and radio threaten our society's mental and 
emotional health and particularly our children's mental and 
emotional health because these programs have a high level of 
vulgar sexual and moral obscene and violent content."
		"In addition, these programs threaten to shatter 
our values as Puerto Ricans and Christians.  Also, these 
programs are aired in open violation of FCC statutes and 
rules which prohibit the airing of these types of programs 
before 10:00 p.m. in the evening."
		The petition goes on to mention three radio 
programs and then it mentions specifically three television 
programs.  The first one is "Notodiadimis" which is aired on 
WKET Telemundo Channel 2, Mondays 8:30 to 10:00 p.m., and 
"Show de Ringamund" which is aired on WAPA Televi Central 
Channel 4, Tuesdays 9:00 to 10:00 p.m., and "Super Show de 
Mecano" on WLII Tele Unce which airs daily, 6:00 to 7:00 
p.m.
		The petition then goes on to state, "I demand and 
expect prompt action from you, members of the FCC.  We will 
also be waiting for a response from the sponsors of these 
programs.  Cordially and in anticipation of your response", 
then there is a line for the name, the date, the address and 
for the signature and for the telephone number of those who 
sign.
		The American citizens from Puerto Rico who signed 
these petitions are crying out for action.  I respectfully 
submit these petitions for inclusion in the FCC record.  I 
respectfully ask my fellow Commissioners that they ponder 
what answer we can give to the grievances of these 30,000 
citizens.  
		As to the subject of indecent broadcasting, I also 
ask my colleagues whether we will consider adopting a 
procedure that facilitates rather than frustrates proper 
review of our citizens' complaints.  Access to the courts is 
a hallmark of American juris prudence.  Access is ensured by 
simple lotus crete.  
		Why should the FCC process be more difficult?  It 
should not be more difficult for an American to file a 
complaint for indecency with the FCC than a complaint for 
slanting.  
		In sum, as I stated before, we are giving short 
shrift to the issue of the effects of violent and sexual 
programming on our nations children.  In doing so, we fail 
our obligations to our fellow Americans and we fail in our 
duty to protect and safeguard our children.  
		The noxious effects of violence and sex over the 
airwaves on young, developing and impressionable minds is a 
health hazard that we should face head on with determination 
and conviction.  None of us would hesitate to act if our 
children were being physically violated.  But too many of us 
fail to act when our children's minds are violated.
		I am, again, reminded of the words of Albert 
Camut, and I paraphrase, "Perhaps we cannot prevent this 
world from being a world in which children suffer.  But we 
can reduce the number of suffering children.  And if those 
who have the power to make a difference don't help, who else 
in the world can help us do this?"  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Commissioner.  I 
will ask now that our first panel come forth.  Now, in 
addition to asking that you adhere strictly to our new 
little box up here, I am also going to ask that you 
introduce yourself for the record and give us a brief 
statement of who you are and what your affiliation is.  So 
let's begin with our first panelist, Mr. James P. Steyer, 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of J.P. Kids.
		MR. STEYER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Good 
morning.  I am Jim Steyer.  I am the Chairman and CEO of 
J.P. Kids which is a kids' media company that produces 
television and internet programming here in the U.S.  I am 
also founder of Children Now.  My colleague, Patti Miller, 
will testify later.
		And I have been watching the kids' programming and 
broadcasting issues really for almost a decade now.  And 
when the FCC came forward in adopting the regulations under 
the Children's Television Act, I think all of us who care 
about high quality kids' programming really felt that that 
was a positive step forward.
		Now, having run a successful kids' television 
company over the past four years, I would like to give you 
my impression of seeing it from the industry side.  First 
and foremost, I think that the use of the bully pulpit by 
the FCC and by Congress has really had an effect because I 
think the broadcasters of all shapes and sizes recognize the 
need now to do better by kids.
		Now, having said that, I think that the results 
overall have been mixed.  And it really depends network by 
network, station by station.  Some broadcasters have taken 
the regulations and their obligations to serve kids quite 
seriously.  Others have not and have basically provided a 
modicum of inoffensive programming which they can slap an 
educational label on.
		So I would say that the bottom line in terms of 
the impact of the regulations are that they have undoubtedly 
had an overall positive effect by putting this issue 
squarely on the agenda for broadcasters, making it an 
important issue for them to pay attention to.  But then it 
has really been up to the leadership at various stations and 
broadcast networks.
		For example, Ms. Sweeney who is sitting to my left 
oversees Disney ABC Cable Network.  She is not under Disney 
Channel under FCC mandate.  But they and Nickelodeon, for 
example, a cable channel also not under FCC mandate, provide 
the best educational programming other than what is on PBS 
that Pat Regent down there is responsible for. 
		So I would say that the regulations are important. 
 I think that there could be much stronger enforcement of 
them.  I think that there are certain networks who are not -
- who are just paying lip service to this.  And I think that 
they have been at least provided a positive move in that 
direction, but no tremendous results yet for reasons that I 
would like to speak to.
		I run an independent production company here in 
the United States.  And we were really built in order to 
create high quality programming and content for kids.  That 
is really the mission of the company, to blend the best in 
entertainment and education on behalf of kids.  And the two 
major factors that we have run into, we try to empower 
people in this country.
		We were giving consumers the choice that they want 
and the higher quality programming that they want, are 
really market driven.  And they are in two ways.  The first 
is because of the rapid vertical integration of the media 
industry combined with the appeal of Finn Sein, it is very 
difficult for independent producers to exist in this current 
economic structure.  
		And second, because other countries such as Canada 
and the western European industrial nations all support and 
subsidize high quality programming for kids and the U.S. 
does not do that, U.S. producers are at a disadvantage.  Let 
me give you some examples of both of those.  
		In the -- if you take a look, for example, at 
kids' programming on the broadcast networks, if you looked 
at NBC which has a "teen block", virtually all of that 
programming is produced in-house by an NBC subsidiary.  I 
will personally tell you that most of that programming 
barely passes what you meant by educational and 
informational programming.  But it is all produced in-house.
		And even companies like the Children's Television 
Workshop, now known as Sesame Workshop, or J.P. Kids, which 
we are on a mission to produce high quality programming, run 
into the simple economic reality that vertically integrated 
media companies in general, not without exception, but in 
general would rather put on their own in-house produced 
programs than those produced by outside producers.  Again, 
there are examples like Ms. Sweeney's operation which are 
partnered in very good ways with independent programmers.  
But I think it is an area of real concern for the Commission 
and one which I urge you to turn your attention to.
		The second is the fact that because of subsidies, 
Canadian and European broadcasters have been able to -- 
producers -- to produce the greatest majority of kids' 
programming on U.S. networks including PBS.  Even PBS, which 
was clearly committed to educational programming, has now 
given most of the Saturday morning programming up to a 
Canadian company, Novana.  And it is basically because of 
economic reasons.
		So I would urge you in this era of digital -- this 
new digital era where large sums of money could be 
appropriated to produce higher quality and subsidized high 
quality programming and give consumers and families a choice 
they want, that you look at the Canadian model, that you 
look at the European models and urge that we here in the 
U.S. adopt similar models to promote what we all care about 
which is far better programming for kids and families here 
in the United States.  Thank you very much.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Jim.  You have made 
your classmates in the Stanford class of '78 very proud 
today.  Thank you.  Anne Sweeney.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Good morning, Commissioner.  Thank 
you for inviting me to join you today.  I am the President 
of the ABC Cable Networks Group and Disney Channels 
worldwide.  I also have creative oversight of Disney's One 
Saturday Morning on the ABC Television Network. 
		We believe the best kids' programs are those where 
entertainment and education converge into a seamless 
experience.  That is what makes quality TV engage in 
programming that stimulates a kid's imagination and opens 
his or her mind to new ideas and perspectives.  To produce 
high quality kids' programming, we found that it is best to 
start out with a broad consensus of viewpoints, of parents, 
caregivers, educational experts and a deep understanding of 
and commitment to children and child development.
		The goal is to develop programming that is safe 
and wholesome for children, that teaches kids how to relate 
to others and how to think critically.  And that helps kids 
formulate strategies for negotiating in an evermore complex 
world.  
		The potential that digital television provides for 
service to children and families is enormous.  And we are 
exploring these avenues by developing not only quality 
children's programming that has a substantive educational 
base, but also web extensions for the children's programming 
that involves parents and children in deeper communication 
and learning.  
		This multi-media approach is part of our thinking 
and our planning for the future.  Clearly, there is no 
cookie-cutter formula for creating quality kids programming. 
 We do, however, always start at the same place, with the 
kids, their parents and their caregivers.  
		Understanding children's developmental needs is at 
the core of quality children's programming.  And we work 
with a number of child development experts to create high 
quality programs that are engaging and relevant to our 
audience.
		Let's use pre-school as an example.  In the early 
pre-school years, children are developing physical skills 
like walking or learning to hold a crayon for drawing.  As 
they move into the middle of this range, social skills like 
sharing, taking turns or working in a group become 
increasingly more important.
		Throughout these years, language skills, thinking 
skills and artistic skills are being developed.  Clearly, 
the family environment and pre-school play a critical role 
in stimulating kids' development in these areas.  Playhouse 
Disney airing every day on Disney Channel reaches over 67 
million homes in the U.S.  This block, dubbed Learning 
Powered by Imagination, provides 49 hours of quality pre-
school programs for pre-schoolers seven days a week.
		We based our programming strategy on a whole child 
curriculum developed for us by educators and developmental 
psychologists from Harvard Project Zero, Education for the 
Twenty-first Century and New York City's Bank Street College 
of Education.  Among others, this curriculum focuses on 
multiple areas of child development including areas as 
diverse as physical, emotional, cognitive, social and 
creative development.
		P.B.N.J. Otter, for example, emphasizes meta-
cognitive development or thinking about thinking with young 
characters who introduce language for talking about thinking 
and who model problem-solving behaviors.  Every episode 
emphasizes how exciting it is to have brainstorms and how 
playing make believe are all part of using your noodle.  And 
if we had the room, I would happily demonstrate the noodle 
dance.  But I am afraid we don't have the time or the space 
today.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  We will make time for that.
		(Laughter.)
		MS. SWEENEY:  Would you?  Only if you join me.
		(Laughter.)
		MS. SWEENEY:  The learning value of television is 
not restricted though to pre-school, but extends to school-
age children and young teens.  Taking a look at these kids, 
these years are characterized by a broadening of kids' 
worlds to include not only their families, but peers, their 
schools, their communities and the world at large.
		At about seven or eight years old, kids transition 
from a world of fantasy to one in which the real world plays 
an increasingly larger role.  The focus for school-age kids 
is on making friends, doing well at school, mastering 
hobbies, skills and sports.  It is a time of excitement and 
uncertainty as kids undergo a range of new experiences and 
emotions and take on more responsibility for themselves and 
within their families.
		For this age group, we have created Disney's One 
Saturday Morning which airs weekly on ABC.  Working with 
educational consultants, programs in the blocks are designed 
to empower kids, foster self-expression and to sensitize 
them to the world around them.  
		For example, Disney's "Recess" is a collection of 
animated stories about a group of fourth graders who attend 
a suburban public school.  While friends for years, they are 
all ethnically and gender diverse.  They provide role models 
for viewers who may be struggling with problems common to 
this age group.
		Zoog Disney on Disney Channel is also created 
specifically for middle-age kids and young teens.  At Zoog 
Disney, we found reality programming to be an effective 
tool.  "Bug Juice", a reality series, follows the adventures 
of kids at summer camp and deals with becoming increasingly 
independent, setting personal goals and developing 
competence and skills.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Ms. Sweeney, if you would just 
wrap up, please.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Okay.  Thank you.  I wanted to say 
something wonderful about "The Famous Jett Jackson" that was 
produced by J.P. Kids for us.  But that is included in my 
written remarks.
		Well, I just wanted to wrap up by saying that 
parents today were raised with educational television.  And 
they readily acknowledge the role that we play in 
stimulating their kids' imaginations and curiosity.  And 
they expect TV to help promote their children's learning and 
growth.
		We believe that television can play a critical 
role in opening up the minds of their children and 
adolescents.  TV serves, as we know, both as a mirror and a 
window, reflecting kids' lives and experiences and opening 
their view to wider perspectives and broader horizons.  
Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.  Ms. 
Montgomery.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Dr. Montgomery, excuse me.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  Thank you.  Good morning.  My 
name is Kathryn Montgomery.  And I am President of the 
Center for Media Education.  Since I co-founded CME almost 
ten years ago, we have worked with a broad coalition of 
child advocacy, health, consumer and other groups to promote 
a wide range of policies.  And our goal has always been to 
promote a more democratic media system that will serve the 
needs of all Americans, particularly children and youth.
		CME was joined by a number of groups including the 
National PTO, the National Education Association and the 
American Psychological Association in filing our comments in 
the FCC's notice of inquiry on digital television earlier 
this year.  And I want to thank the Commission for taking 
our recommendations seriously and formalizing many of them 
into this notice of proposed rule-making.
		But I speak today not only as an advocate, but 
also as an educator and a scholar of media history, a 
history that I think is worth revisiting as we consider 
issues facing us today.  The allocation of valuable 
spectrums to these broadcasters has parallels in the late 
'40s and early '50s when there was intense competition for 
potentially lucrative television licenses in communities 
across the country.
		And as Professors Barry Cole and Mile Edinger 
wrote in their 1978 History of the FCC:  Reluctant 
Regulators, "Many broadcasters and most television stations 
got their stations" -- "and most television licensees got 
their stations in the first place by following the old R. 
Pej slogan, 'Promise her anything.'  Applicants vied to see 
who could promise the most uplifting and enlightening 
programs.  Each vowed to educate the community's children, 
provide local, live church service for shut-ins and offer 
hours to develop the talents of local artists and actors.  
Drama, sure.  Shakespeare and O'Neil.  Comedy, Aristophanes. 
 Commercials, only if we can squeeze them in between the 
city council meetings and the help for handicapped veterans 
show."
		As the authors note, however, as soon as the 
regulatory spotlight faded and broadcasters had secured 
their piece of the spectrum, most of these same stations 
simply reneged on their promises.  By the end of the TV's 
first decade, many of the promised public interest 
programming had either never materialized or had vanished 
from the schedule.  This failure of broadcasters to live up 
to their promises prompted one of your predecessors, Mr. 
Chairman, to pin that infamous and sticky label, "Vast 
wasteland", on the new medium.
		Now that we are entering the digital age, 
broadcasters have again traded on their public trustee 
status to demand and receive from the government extremely 
valuable spectrum, promising to deliver quality, high 
definition television programming and digital services to 
benefit the public.
		To date, many broadcasters have not yet delivered 
on that promise.  Yet they know they are sitting on valuable 
digital property.  As the Commission is well aware, digital 
television is a rapidly developing medium which will 
eventually become the standard way U.S. citizens receive 
their television and very likely internet service, as well.
		As today's issue of the industry standard 
predicts, by 2004, 30 million U.S. households will use 
interactive TV services.  In 2005, interactive TV should 
generate 25 billion dollars in revenue from advertising, 
commerce and subscription fees.
		With its engaging and interactive properties, 
digital television is likely to have a more profound impact 
on how children grow and learn what they value and 
ultimately who they become than any medium that has come 
before.  And children are embracing digital medium with 
great enthusiasm.  As skilled multi-taskers, children are 
already using television and the internet simultaneously.
		As one market researcher recently said, and I am 
paraphrasing, "Children are not just adopting digital media, 
they are internalizing it."  Therefore, it is critically 
important that we build into the foundations of the new 
media system a policy framework for serving children that 
can help guide the development of the new digital media 
culture.
		Let me quickly underscore, I believe digital 
television has enormous positive potential.  And our policy 
agenda must do more than just protect them from harmful 
content.  I have been actively involved in the V-chip.  I 
support it.  I share everyone's concerns.  But it would be 
unfortunate if the debate over the next generation of 
television focused solely on how we as parents can block out 
what is offensive or violent to our children.
		So we have three policy bills.  I will be very 
brief.  They are detailed in our earlier comments and will 
be developed in more detail in our formal comments for the 
NPRM.  
		First, the additional spectrum awarded to 
broadcasters for DTV dramatically expands their options for 
delivery programs and services and for generating profits.  
It is essentially that we set forth clear, quantifiable 
processing guidelines for how DTV broadcasters use these 
enhanced capabilities to serve children's educational and 
informational needs.
		Secondly, digital technology is ushering in an 
entirely new set of interactive advertising, marketing and 
data collection practices.  They are dramatically different 
and more disturbing from those in our conventional 
television.  We need effective protections for children 
against abuses by marketers.
		And, finally, digital broadcasters must do more to 
support a quality, civic media culture, one that will serve 
children not just as consumers, but also as citizens.  With 
voter participation among young people at a record low, the 
public should be demanding that broadcasters contribute to a 
healthier democratic process.
		I support my colleague, Paul Tailor, and the 
Alliance for Better Campaigns in urging the FCC to develop 
new rules that require TV stations to provide free time to 
political candidates.  I believe there is a lot at stake at 
this particular historical moment.  The choices you make now 
can help create a more democratic media system for the 
twenty-first century and enable us to harness the power of 
the new digital media as a positive force in the lives of 
children and families.  
		But if the Commission fails to establish an 
effective policy framework for digital television, then the 
woman who sits in your seat as Chair of the FCC in 2010 may 
be forced to declare the digital media landscape a vast 
wasteland.  I urge you not to let that happen.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Doctor.  Maybe 
sooner than 2010.  Ms. Altman.  Let's hope.
		MS. ALTMAN:  Hello.  I am Susan Altman, the 
Producer of "It's Academic."  Despite the number of new 
entertainment options available to children today, broadcast 
television still plays a primary role.  And the FCC 
regulations requiring substantive programming for children 
has been of critical importance in seeing that there is 
quality television available for this age group.
		Some broadcasters have decried these regulations 
saying that such programs get low ratings and the children 
aren't watching them.  Well, I can only say that perhaps 
their programs just aren't good enough and perhaps they are 
not using the medium to the full extent of its capabilities.
		The program we produce, "It's Academic", is now in 
its fortieth season on NBC-4 in Washington, D.C.  And it is 
usually first in its time slot both in the regular season 
and during reruns.  And the program is also produced with 
local schools in Baltimore and Pittsburgh, Raleigh, 
Charlottesville.  
		Part of its success is due to the unique 
relationship that we have forged with the educational 
community.  Each year, hundreds of students from public, 
parochial, private, suburban and inner-city schools 
participate in the program.  The competition is intense and 
students come out in force to root for their teams with 
bands and cheerleaders and fans, many with their faces 
painted in school colors.
		The agilation normally reserved for athletic heros 
is extended to students who represent their schools on the 
program.  And elementary and middle school students watch 
the program and look forward to the day when they can appear 
on the show.  
		The chance to appear on television is still 
exciting for thousands of youngsters and older people, too, 
judging by the folks who wave at the camera at various 
events.  And competition is one of the great motivators.  By 
combining the two, television and competition, we are able 
to support the efforts of the schools to inspire children 
academically.  In fact, school systems in Washington and 
Baltimore metropolitan areas have made "It's Academic" clubs 
official extra-curricular activities. 
		Many of the -- almost every weekend, one of the 
clubs will hold an academic tournament to which they invite 
other schools in the area and thus extending the benefits of 
academic competition to far more students than can appear on 
our show.  And many of these tournaments directly reflect 
the "It's Academic" program.
		If the show were not on the air, such activities 
would lose much of their status and probably wither away.  
In Washington and Baltimore, we have a community-minded 
sponsor, Giant Food, that keeps the show on the air.  And 
elsewhere, you find broadcasters who take their 
responsibilities to the community seriously.
		But more and more, we are seeing broadcasters for 
whom the bottom line is everything.  And that is not good.  
Television is too powerful a medium and has too strong an 
impact, especially on our young people, to exist in a 
laissez faire atmosphere.  
		It is precisely because youngsters today are 
bombarded by all kinds of material from movies, TV, cable, 
radio, the internet, material that many parents feel 
helpless to intercept, that the FCC should take a strong 
stand in those areas where it has authority.  That stand 
must emphasize the responsibility of broadcasters to act in 
"the best interest of the community."  And surely that 
responsibility includes a demand for quality children's 
programming on all levels.  
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much, Ms. 
Altman.  My wife and I had a debate a few months ago about 
whether or not the questions on "It's Academic" are really 
getting harder or whether we are just losing brain cells.  
So I would love to talk to you about that maybe after the 
final -- Ms. Miller.
		MS. MILLER:  Good morning.  My name is Patty 
Miller.  I am the Director of the Children in the Media 
Program at Children Now, a national, nonpartisan children's 
advocacy organization headquartered in California.  Our 
President, Lois Salsbury, was supposed to testify this 
morning but due to illness is unable to be here.  So I am 
stepping in on her behalf.
		The challenge before the Commission, the broadcast 
industry and advocates alike is to create a media 
environment for children in the digital age that is worthy 
of our society.  An immediate environment worthy of our 
society primarily must include all children.  
		We need to ensure that children see programming in 
a digital era that is inclusive and reflects the 
increasingly diverse world in which they live.  Today's 
children will be the first generation to come of an age when 
racial minorities will be the numeric majority.  Healthy 
growth and development requires that all of our nation's 
children have the opportunity to see themselves positively 
portrayed without being subjected to racial and gender 
stereotypes.
		In 1998, Children Now conducted the first national 
poll of American youth which explored the perceptions of 
race and class in the media.  Our study, A Different World, 
found that children of all races recognized the power of the 
medium to limit aspirations and to reinforce stereotypes.  
As one African American boy told us, "People are inspired by 
what they see on television.  If they don't see themselves 
on TV, they want to be someone else."
		According to our research, across all races, 
children agree it is important to see people of their own 
race on television because 1) it tells children that people 
of their race are important, 2) it makes children of that 
race feel included, and 3) it provides role models.
		Three-quarters of kids that we polled said 
categorically that there are not enough Latino and Asian 
characters on television.  And they are right.  In 1999, 
Children Now conducted a contents study called Fall Colors 
which examined diversity in all prime time shows across the 
six networks.  We found that Latinos and Asians were 
virtually invisible, comprising three percent and two 
percent, respectively, of the total prime time population.
	Native Americans fared worse, barely reaching a 
percentage point.  
		And while African Americans were more visible, too 
often that meant they were compartmentalized into sit-coms. 
 Our children deserve programming across digital television 
from EI programming to prime time which satisfies their 
desire for inclusivity and accurately reflects the diversity 
of their lives.  And for more information about the range of 
the work we have done on racial and gender stereotypes, I 
invite you to take a look at our full testimony that we 
filed.
		In a new digital era, we have the opportunity 
consider rules, innovations and partnerships to create a 
media environment worthy of our society.  This summer, 
Children Now held a convening at Stanford University for top 
TV in the media industry leaders called "Supporting Children 
in the Digital Village."  The discussion focused on how to 
provide content for kids, content that is education, 
diverse, fun, interactive and age appropriate.
		Interestingly, much of the discussion from the 
industry focused on the fact that the marketplace alone may 
not be enough to ensure good content for children.  Industry 
leaders were receptive to the notion that content that is 
good for children and content that parents want may require 
government and industry to work together to develop 
potential public-private partnerships.
		And in addition to exploring potential 
partnerships to maximize opportunities for children, we also 
need to ensure that current rules are applied in the best 
possible way to ensure there is a floor for good children's 
programming.  
		Last March, Children Now, along with People for 
Better TV, submitted comments to the FCC outlining our 
recommendations for how to apply the Children's Television 
Act to digital TV.  We are very pleased that the Commission 
has announced it will proceed to a rule-making to best serve 
the needs of America's children.
		As part of Children Now's comments to the FCC, we 
suggested the idea of a proportional rule which came about 
from discussions of several leading academics and children 
in the media.  In a digital era with the ability to 
multicast, Children Now proposes that EI programming -- the 
hours of EI programming be proportional to the number of 
hours broadcasters are broadcasting overall.  
		In the next several weeks, we will be talking to 
academics to further refine our proposal based upon the 
questions that the Commission raised in the NPRM.  And we 
hope that the Commission will seriously consider this 
recommendation.
		Finally, to be sure that digital television 
creates a media environment worthy of our society, we must 
take advantage of the new technology.  The technology of 
digital television provides great opportunity to enhance 
diversity.  With digital broadcasters' ability to multicast, 
local stations have the opportunity to provide more locally 
produced content.  With the ability to air several channels 
at once, broadcasters no longer have to worry that their 
programs be all things to all people.  They can target the 
various channels to specific audiences.
		Local broadcasters could produce their own EI 
programs and focus on the demographics of children in a 
particular community.  So there could be different 
children's programs that speak to specific racial and ethnic 
groups in our local community.  
		Finally, I just want to say again that our 
children deserve programming across digital TV from EI 
programming to prime time which satisfies their desire for 
inclusivity and accurately reflects the diversity of their 
lives.  Our future will depend on children's ability to 
develop positive racial identities and an appreciation of 
diversity.  And the media can play a strong role in 
achieving those goals.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Well said.  Thank you very 
much.  Ms. Nugent.
		MS. NUGENT:  My name is Patricia Nugent.  I am the 
Senior Director of Children's Programming at PBS.  And I 
want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, and the entire 
Commission for your strong record of support for public 
television.  I was eager to appear before you today because 
providing nonviolent and educational programming for 
children is a core element of our mission.
		As the Commission considers how the public 
interest may best be served by broadcasters in the digital 
age, I would respectfully suggest that public television 
would be at the center of your thinking.  
		After all, in an increasingly competitive media 
marketplace dominated by a handful of global corporations, 
only public television can and will devote its creativity 
and resources to providing noncommercial educational 
children's content free of charge to a universal American 
audience.
		PBS stations currently aired a six-children series 
that are watched by more two to five-year-olds than any 
other programs on television.  We have focused on pre-
schoolers because we believe that success in school begins 
early.  As Fred, Mr. Rogers, says, "No one can learn until 
they are ready to learn."  Yet one in three five-year-olds 
arrives in school unprepared for kindergarten.
		Each PBS kid series is developed to achieve 
specific curriculum goals and is accompanied by on-line 
educational resources, workshops that teach parents how to 
connect television to reading, free books for children who 
otherwise wouldn't own them, and a magazine in English and 
Spanish.
		Each major series is accompanied by entertaining 
and wholesome websites that enables kids to dig deeper into 
their favorite programs, learning and having fun at the same 
time.  In addition, PBS is a number one television resource 
for schools with 12 of the top 15 shows cited by teachers as 
best for classroom use.
		The federally-funded, ready-to-learn program also 
provides major support for a ground-breaking new series that 
premiered on PBS in April called "Between the Lions."  One 
of the most important television programs for young children 
since "Sesame Street", "Between the Lions" presents an early 
reading -- excuse me, presents an early reading curriculum 
created by the nation's top literacy experts.  And the 
results are astounding.
		An independent study by the University of Kansas 
found that watching just four weeks of the series helped 
kindergartners significantly raise their reading skills and 
scores.  "Between the Lions" has taken television to a 
completely new level and reveals a promise of children's 
programming that is truly committed to raising educational 
achievement.
		Anticipating the digital future, PBS in 1999 
launched a 24-hour, noncommercial digital channel called PBS 
Kids comprised entirely of nonviolent and educational 
programs for children.  The channel is currently available 
through 32 local PBS stations in 24 states which is more 
than six million households nationwide.
		PBS is also the first to test interactive digital 
programming for children with an enhanced version of its 
unique wildlife series Zoboomafoo in 1999.  When outside 
authorities look at children's programming, they invariably 
like what they see on PBS stations.
		And as influential, a 1999 survey of television -- 
children's television, the Annenburg Public Policy Center of 
the University of Pennsylvania found that PBS presented the 
highest quality and most educational programs on television. 
 The survey reported that PBS children's programs had no 
violence, no problematic language and the most ethnic and 
gender diversity of its characters.
		While we are proud of our record, we know there is 
still much more to be done.  We have in our pipeline several 
new series designed with educational interactivity that 
capitalizes upon the convergence of television and the 
internet.  We would also like to bring enhanced educational 
television to our entire PBS kids' schedule as well as the 
PBS kids' channel.
		This fall, we have trials underway with a number 
of leading cable operators in selective markets to explore 
enhanced TV programming concepts.  We deliver all these 
unique and important services for children with a small 
fraction of the resources available to other television 
enterprises.  
		Our current funding sources will never enable us 
to seize our digital opportunities and achieve the valuable 
public service goals I have described.  For the American 
people to receive the full promise of digital technology, 
the Federal Government should expand its historic 
partnership with public television.  
		I would like to share one more idea for your 
consideration.  We recommend the development of a new fund 
of public television to stimulate the creation of digital 
content for children's programs and related on-line and 
broad band services.  PBS would employ these funds to give 
our children's programs a full complement of interactive 
learning experiences on television, the internet and new 
distribution platforms such as broad band and wireless 
devices.
		Consistent with our fundamental commitment to 
universal access, we would ensure that these features were 
available to people from low income households, those whose 
primary language is not English and persons with 
disabilities.  We can provide the content to bridge the 
digital divide.
		In closing, I applaud the Commission's commitment 
to ensuring that public airwaves serve the public interest 
and look forward to working closely with you to implement 
this vital national priority in the future.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much, Ms. 
Nugent.  Now we will have a few minutes for questioning from 
the Commissioners.  And then if time permitting, we will 
also invite some questions from the floor.  Thank you all 
for those presentations.  They were all very concise and 
very, very useful to us. 
		And one theme that seemed to sort of run through 
all of your testimonies is that there is a need for some 
government involvement in this area.  Jim, you talked about 
the Canadian model and the need for a Federal Government 
subsidy.  And Ms. Nugent and Ms. Miller talked about 
private-public partnerships.  
		Ms. Altman, of course, you have one of the most 
successful local children's shows.  But you have a long time 
sponsor in Giant Foods that has been with you consistently. 
 And Ms. Sweeney, you have -- coming from the cable 
industry, you have somewhat of a different economic model 
than the broadcasters.
		I believe that one reason why Congress passed the 
Children's Television Act of 1990 is because they recognized 
that there is a market failure when it comes to providing 
affirmative educational programming for our kids.  I think 
that is pretty clear from the legislation and certainly from 
our implementing rules.
		I guess my question for this panel of experts is 
are there shows out there that are both serving the 
educational and informational needs of kids, but also 
successful in the marketplace?  Is there a business model 
for this type of programming?  Jim?
		MR. STEYER:  I do think there is, Mr. Chairman.  
But it is very, very tough.  And I think that what you are 
hearing from industry, as well as from the public sector, is 
that there isn't -- that a blend of traditional business 
models -- I mean, I run a for-profit media company.  It is a 
very difficult business in a vertically integrated world 
where the competition from Canada, Europe and elsewhere have 
up to 50 percent of the budgets of their high quality 
programs subsidized by the Canadian government or the French 
government or other governments.  
		So I think there very definitely is a solution out 
there which is a blend of traditional private marketplace 
solutions that emphasize commercially successful programming 
with curriculum and educational elements built in, but which 
receives support from -- in the same way that basically 
every other western industrialized nation does it.  
		And I think that it would be great for this 
Commission to follow -- to expand even upon what PBS is 
asking for and look at this in a more broad way.  That is -- 
that doesn't run into issues of censorship that you raised, 
Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth, or issue of restricting 
content.  This is enhancing choice and giving opportunities 
to American families, to parents and kids for quality 
programming.  
		And I think that a pure marketplace solution alone 
will not suffice.  There aren't that many Anne Sweeneys out 
there.  And I think that a blend of this is really what can 
happen and that this should be the next major leadership 
role I think for the Commission in this regard.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Anyone else?
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  Well, I would just like to say 
that I believe that the Children's Television Act and 
particularly the processing guideline, the three-hour 
processing guideline has had an overall impact on the 
marketplace that may even reach beyond broadcasting in that 
it has raised the level of debate about the need for quality 
educational programming.
		And there are programs on broadcast television -- 
and I think Ms. Sweeney has provided examples -- that are 
doing well in the marketplace.  And as you indicated 
earlier, your so-called FCC-friendly shows -- which is a 
term I don't like to use, but I find myself using -- I do 
better with terms like being carried by television stations, 
television affiliates than some of your other programming.
		You know, my hope is that the standards that we 
create for serving educational and informational needs of 
children will actually have an impact that goes far beyond 
broadcast television.  However, I would like to add that for 
digital television which has, I repeat, gotten additional 
spectrum driven on its public trustee status, we should be 
asking for more.
		And we should be asking for digital broadcasters 
to use that special capability that broadcast television has 
to enhance children's educational and informational needs.  
And that may go beyond programming.  It should include 
serving schools perhaps, providing program into schools and 
connecting others.  There are many things that digital 
broadcasters could do if they want to continue to be public 
trustees to really enhance and support children's 
educational needs in this digital era.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Just to clarify something that Dr. 
Montgomery mentioned and Jim, as well, referencing the FCC-
friendly programming, that ABC One Saturday Morning is 
running a two-hour block that is supplied by the ABC 
television network.  It clears an average of 93 percent of 
the country unlike the programming that is produced without 
-- that is not FCC-friendly, although it is very friendly, 
which clears somewhere in the neighborhood of 79 to 82 
percent.
		I think there is another component that we haven't 
spoken to.  We have talked about business models.  What we 
haven't spoken about is creativity.  And, you know, moving 
forward, we have to realize that kids are already embracing 
an interactive future.  They are there.  There isn't a space 
between the television set and computer for them.
		So as we work with producers going forward and 
recognize the educational needs of kids, I believe we need 
to be aware of the many creative avenues that we have to 
pursue as broadcasters and as cable-casters.  
		The Walt Disney Company provides opportunities to 
30 individual creative companies in the course of a given 
week to provide programming to the ABC television network, 
to Disney Channel and to Toon Disney.  I think going 
forward, that needs to be both a focus and a component in 
looking at all the structures.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.  Just to get a 
little bit more specific on my question, what I am really 
looking for, are there examples of children's educational 
and informational programming on the air today that is 
profitable?  And you may have suggested that with the 
clearances of your Saturday morning block.  
		But when you look across sort of the spectrum of 
children's television programming today and you go to these 
meetings -- and I am not asking you to be revealing any 
proprietary information here, but is there a sense among the 
executives that are producing this programming that it is 
going to make money?
		MS. ALTMAN:  Well, sure.  I mean, "It's Academic" 
makes money.  We are a profit-making company.  The problem 
isn't that broadcasters don't think these programs can earn 
money.  It is that they think that other programming can 
earn more.  And that is where we really run into a problem.
		Yes, there are plenty of community-minded 
broadcasters out there who feel that in addition to making 
money, they also have other responsibilities.  And they act 
on it.  But there is tremendous -- as the competition with 
cable increases and with the internet increases, there is 
tremendous pressure on these people to produce economically. 
 And usually, that means going to the highest kind of 
program manager.  
		It could be an infomercial.  It doesn't matter as 
long as it pays.  So it is not that we can't produce 
economically.  We can.  But there is a perception out there 
that other things can earn a lot more at a lower cost.  And 
sometimes that is right and there is nothing much we can do 
about that.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.
		MS. SWEENEY:  So there is -- if you don't make a 
value judgement saying that we want certain kinds of 
programming on there, whether or not they are -- you know, 
the fact that -- I don't want to say we are a zircon around 
a bunch of diamonds economically.  But basically, other 
things -- we can do it.  We can do it.  But we do need an 
incentive.  Look, people are charitable, too.  But it 
doesn't hurt that the tax code gives them a deduction when 
they contribute to various charities.  And that is what we 
are talking about.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.  I should give my 
colleagues an opportunity to get in here.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  When we drafted the guidelines 
and rules for the Children's Television Act in 1996, we 
emphasized empowering parents to work together with 
broadcasters to ensure that there is quality educational 
programming that is available, that they know when that 
programming is aired so they will have an opportunity to get 
their children perhaps sitting together to watch.
		And we have seen that roll-out with varying 
degrees of success.  One of the issues that I have been 
concerned about is ensuring that parents know when there is 
educational and informational programming available because 
it seems to me that if there are more eyeballs watching, 
little ones and big ones alike, society is going to get more 
Giant folks and others to sponsor these programs and, 
therefore, create a better financial model for flourishing 
such -- for the fluorishment of such programs.
		One of the questions I would like to have answered 
is to what extent have you been working with parents, 
teacher groups and the like to get the word out about the 
existence of educational and informational programming?  
Anyone can pick up on this.
		MS. NUGENT:  At PBS, we are, indeed, very much 
aware that parents and children need to watch television 
together.  And that enhances the educational experience for 
kids.  And also, we want people to know that it is fun.  
Kids enjoy watching and parents enjoy watching the 
programming.  
		But specifically, we have our website speaking to 
parents and offering them information on our curriculum and 
educational goals and with our ready-to -- free ready-to-
learn service creating a site specific to parents to help 
them know more about the programming and what is being done 
in terms of PBS and working with parents.
		In addition to that, at the local level into 
community outreach, we have PBS stations that work at the 
community level to help parents, educators and people in 
schools know what information is available in terms of our 
programming and how the educational experience of the 
programming can be enhanced through print materials and 
through the grant.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Anyone else want to respond on 
that?
		MS. SWEENEY:  Yes.  We have two interesting 
examples in our company.  One is Playhouse Disney which is 
targeted to pre-schoolers where we absolutely target 
mothers, fathers and caregivers and alert them to the 
educational value of the programming and how to find the 
programming.  
		It is a little bit different for us with middle-
age kids, the kids that we are reaching with Zoog Disney and 
One Saturday Morning.  In that case, we have to go to where 
the kids are.  And if our intent is to build eyeballs and to 
bring them to the television set, it is incumbent upon us to 
use every single avenue afforded to us by the Walt Disney 
Company, as well as outside media.
		So when it comes to the middle-age kids, we are 
utilizing everything from our own airwaves to paid media 
across a number of websites and other television networks.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  And I would like to say that 
public broadcasting I think does a very good job of reaching 
out to audiences and the communities.  And unfortunately, 
not enough commercial broadcasters do that.  I think that 
they could take the initiative.  We have done so on the part 
of the nonprofit community to create room for broadcasters, 
some community viewings and some of our work we have done in 
Maryland and out in California.  But that is very -- a great 
responsibility for a nonprofit to do.
		And I think broadcasters should take more 
initiative to reach out to the community, to bring parents 
in, to bring educators in, to talk about quality programming 
for children.  There is much more they could do in that 
area.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  It seems to me that there 
ought to be a way to get broadcasters in a community to work 
with parents or teacher groups or with some food chain such 
as the Giant Food to publish inexpensively a list of all of 
the educational programming available for children in the 
course of a week and have it distributed at the checkout 
counters as a freebie flier for parents so they will know 
when the programming takes place.  Is there any reason why 
something like that could not occur inexpensively?
		MS. ALTMAN:  Well, we do pretty good because we 
work with the schools, for example.  All the schools get a 
schedule, a poster that is made up by Giant Food so that 
they know the listing of all the games.  And, of course, we 
provide photographs of the team to yearbooks and so forth.  
And we also will provide material.  There will be PTA "It's 
Academic" Nights will students will compete against teachers 
and so forth.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  That's terrific.  But that is 
just one program.
		MS. ALTMAN:  I understand.  And that is my point. 
 It is just one program.  And we really can only do it on 
that basis.  It becomes -- I think -- you have a listing.  I 
mean, you can always have a listing and you can providing.  
But you've got to listen to what --
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  But for the most part, 
newspapers don't really make it very clear what is 
educational and informational programming.  The TV Guides 
don't really make it abundantly clear.  
		I have been trying for the last couple of years, 
for example, to get the weekly listings to have a separate 
box that we have separate advertising where all of the 
educational and informational programming for that week can 
be listed so a parent can look down real quick, figure out 
what the age group that is targeted is and ensure that they 
have an opportunity to watch with their children.
		MR. STEYER:  Commissioner Ness?
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Yes?
		MR. STEYER:  I am a parent of three kids and I am 
in the industry.  And I would say you are exactly right.  It 
doesn't happen except for PBS.  And it is -- again, it is 
all about economics.  It really is.  There are two ways to 
do it.  The Commission could require that local broadcast 
stations do that and that they could air on some basis the 
announcements about what are the educational and 
informational programming that they are offering.  
		You could either require that or you could provide 
some sort of incentive to do that like some form of tax 
credit or otherwise.  It is really -- it really comes down 
to that simple a choice because most stations don't have the 
full-time community service representatives out there doing 
those things.  
		It really comes down -- almost everything that 
relates to kids' programming, it ends up being a question of 
economics and whether or not the resources are -- you either 
require it from every station or you need to provide some 
sort of -- and that is why I keep coming up with the 
Canadian model, because it is a proven successful model of 
tax credits where people will then put the resources that 
are necessary to inform parents to create programming, et 
cetera.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  That the television industry of 
reaching out to schools to promote prime time docu-dramas 
and TV movies or so forth that are of historical interest or 
for any other reason they want to promote, they put money 
into that.  And they do it all the time.  
		I would argue, and I may seem like a cynic here, 
but I would argue that for some of the broadcasters, they 
have because of the quality of the educational programs they 
have produced, they have created a decent center for making 
that information known to parents because often when I am 
talking about these programs to parent groups, they say 
that's educational?  And I almost feel apologetic because I 
say, you know, we tried.  
		You know, we have been trying to make it better 
and the law permits a wide range of content.  And we can't 
intrude any further and we don't think it is appropriate for 
us to.  But parents do have a role to play there.  
		Broadcasters have over -- even though they have 
point people, contact people who are supposed to deal with 
children's shows, they are not being very proactive in this 
area.  And I agree with Jim.  I think there is more the 
Commission could do to prod them a little bit.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  I would love to hear from the 
networks if they could respond back as to why they couldn't 
get together and have a list published and perhaps 
distributed in each community so that parents do know what 
the educational --
		MR. STEYER:  They could, Commissioner Ness.  They 
could.  And Dr. Montgomery is right.  And Anne would be 
proud to list what is on ABC One Saturday Morning.  And she 
could give you the curriculum on every program as well as 
probably most of the programs on the Disney Channel.  
		But I can assure you that there are other networks 
who we all know who would never want to do that for the 
exact reasons that Kathy just said which is they are putting 
up programs that if you told me as a parent that these are 
educational, I would be hard pressed to believe that.  And I 
think that either the Commission has to act or then the 
other alternative which I think makes sense in the big 
picture is --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Can I follow up on that?  
Can anyone here do an estimate on the proportion of 
educational programming that is really educational?  What 
are we talking about here?
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  I don't know if I can give 
figures.  But I would refer you to the Annenburg report, the 
most recent Annenburg report which I don't have with me for 
figures.  But they created categories --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  What were they just for --
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  Minimally educational is a range, 
you know.  And I would say it is a pretty large proportion, 
probably at least half, that are questionably educational.  
And, in fact, part of the problem is that the statute says 
it can serve emotional and -- I know this by heart and I 
have forgotten it -- emotional and, you know, either 
intellectual or cognitive or emotional-social.  That's 
right.
		And it is easier to create the programming that 
serves the emotional and social needs.  And that is how we 
got into the problem with "The Jetsons", which I wasn't 
going to bring up here.  But that is how they got by or 
thought they were going to get by with putting "The Jetsons" 
on and saying it was teaching children what life would be 
like in the year 2000 which we are now in.  But, you know, 
unfortunately, far too many of the programs are in that kind 
of very "iffy" category.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Yes, I -- "Jetsons" aside, I don't 
agree that it is easier to produce shows that respond more 
to the social and emotional growth of children.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  I don't think it should be.  I am 
saying that is the argument that is often made.
		MS. SWEENEY:  No, it isn't easier.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  No, I think it is important to 
understand that when you are targeting kids as ABC is who 
are between the ages of six and 11, these are very relevant 
and contemporary issues to this age group.  And the fact 
that ABC has taken the step and the Walt Disney Company has 
made the investment in producing shows and new shows that 
address the issues that kids are facing I think is very 
significant.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Let me follow up.  And I 
have got to go to my subject.  And first of all, I want to 
thank all of you for your good testimony and for your good 
efforts in producing, those of you that do produce 
programming, and the care and you are able to get it to the 
American people and the advocates that have their good 
things to say.
		By the way, Children Now, I have looked at your 
studies with too much pain about the negative stereotyping 
or lack of images.  Particularly, I am Latino, so a lack of 
images for Latino children.  And unfortunately, since you 
produced those studies, things haven't changed at all in any 
real meaningful way.
		But I have to tell you that I get a lot of e-mail. 
 I get a lot of letters.  And as you see, I got 30,000 
petitions last week.  And I can count maybe on one or two 
hands e-mails from parents saying give us more educational 
programming, not that that isn't important.  But what I hear 
from parents is empower us in some way to stop this barrage 
of inappropriate programming for our kids.  
		So I want to ask each and every one of you do you 
think resurrecting a broadcasters code of conduct would be 
helpful?  And you can start, Mr. Steyer.
		MR. STEYER:  I actually -- I saw the Chairman's 
remarks earlier this week, too, about a voluntary code of 
conduct.  And I am all for that.  I think that, for example, 
we used to devote a law about the family hour.  And one 
thing I have learned, by the way, as a creator of kids' 
programming and having left my advocacy spurs in the closet, 
is that in fact many of the programs you are most concerned 
about or people are most concerned about are not kids' 
programs.  
		They are actually adult programs that are airing 
at inappropriate times.  That is really a problem.  You 
know, I've got kids who are -- my oldest is seven years old. 
 Well, if she is watching television after 8:00 p.m. in the 
evening or even just about any time, there is stuff that is 
on.
		It is rarely kids' programming.  It is usually 
adult programming which has no sorts of guidelines.  And I 
do think that's where voluntary codes of conduct come into 
play.  So, yes, I would urge you to do that.  And I would 
also say to you, Commissioner Tristani, that your concerns 
in this regard -- and I know the next panel will also 
address issues of violence and sexuality, et cetera -- are 
really important.  
		But the Commission should view them at some point 
distinct from the issues we are talking about here which is 
promoting better quality and more high quality kids' 
programming.  But, yes, I would certainly support voluntary 
codes of conduct all the way.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Ms. Sweeney?
		MS. SWEENEY:  It has been my experience that any 
time rules are written or codes of conduct have been drawn 
up that people find ways around them.  And I believe it is 
incumbent upon each of us as producers of children's 
programming, producers of programming overall to act 
responsibly.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  I recently met with some network 
servers and practices executives who went through a great 
deal of detail to tell me about their policies for ensuring 
quality in children's programming and in other programming 
and adhering to the television ratings because I serve on 
the monitoring board for the TV ratings system.
		And I asked them, gee, those are very interesting. 
 Why don't you publish those?  And they said, oh, well, we 
don't want to do that because then somebody might hold us to 
them and, you know, we put ourselves into a very vulnerable 
position.  And I think, again, that is part of the problem.
		I do think it is a good idea to have broadcasters 
come up with a code of conduct.  They had one before.  You 
know, the problem with it was that people didn't adhere to 
it.  I used to hold it up to my classes and then read from a 
TV Guide.  And it got a lot of laughs.  You know, we will 
not do this, we won't do this, and we will always do.  And 
then I would read descriptions of programs.
		So I am a little bit skeptical that it would work. 
 But I do think that there needs to be a continuing debate 
about the quality of our media culture.  And certainly, much 
more needs to be done by all members of the media industry 
to raise that level of quality and this issue will not go 
away.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Ms. Altman.
		MS. ALTMAN:  Well, I agree.  I do think there 
needs to be a code of conduct.  A parent should not have to 
stand guard constantly over a TV set to make sure that 
nothing objectionable is on it for a child.  There his no 
reason why the programming that pushes the limits can't be 
on later in the evening.  Eight o'clock is too early.  
		And the fact is you are not getting complaints 
about just one or two programs where maybe somebody's 
judgement went off a little bit.  You are getting complaints 
-- or at least I know we get complaints -- that program 
after program after program is inappropriate for younger 
children.  And not only for younger children, for 12 and 13-
year-olds.
		As the medium changes -- well, let me say one 
thing.  When -- this is off television, but on radio.  At 
one time, music was targeted just toward adults.  Then when 
you -- now music stations are targeted toward 13-year-olds 
and 12-year-olds often.  And the kind of music content, 
lyric content that used to be targeted just toward adults is 
now aimed at young children.  The medium has changed.  But 
the content hasn't changed or it has been targeted at 
another age group.
		This is the same thing.  The content -- adult 
content is okay at certain times or on certain channels.  
But to sit there and say you have a family hour when people 
feel they have to stand guard over their set and not allow 
their children to watch certain things and have this happen 
repeatedly is a major problem.  And without a standard, you 
see what you get.  
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Ms. Miller.
		MS. MILLER:  Children Now would definitely support 
a voluntary code of conduct.  I think it just serves as a 
reminder to broadcasters that they are a public servant and 
that they are acting and they should be acting in the 
public's best interest.  
		However, I don't think that a voluntary code of 
conduct should take the place of rules.  And I think 30 
years of history on the Children's Television Act 
demonstrates one's certainty.  Without stringent rules and 
regulations, broadcasters are not going to act in the public 
interest of kids or of anyone else.  So I think, yes, I 
think it is a good reminder to broadcasters.  But I don't 
think that alone is going to solve an issue.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Ms. Nugent?
		MS. NUGENT:  Certainly, it sounds like a fine idea 
for further discussion.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Nothing else from our 
broadcaster?
		MS. NUGENT:  I am a person of few words.  I will 
let my contents speak for me.  
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Thank you.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Mr. Chairman?
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Yes, Commissioner Powell.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  First, I want to make a few 
commendations.  I watch a lot of TV and I watch more 
children's TV than I should.  But nobody does it better than 
PBS.  And nobody does it better than, candidly, the Disney 
Channel and particularly with full featured movies that are 
hard to find for kids that feature values and messages.  And 
we are big fans of "The Mall" and big fans of "Jett 
Jackson", by the way, as well.  
		And I would also echo the point that Ms. Sweeney 
made about values and the social issues, struggling with 
your kids.  To be honest as a parent, I am less looking for 
my TV to replace his sixth grade teacher and more for it to 
reinforce the values that I care about.  I think that should 
never be discounted as secondary to brilliant programs like 
"Sesame Street" which I think much better in the pre-school 
years than they do when kids start to grapple with the more 
sort of complex issues of childhood on a social and 
emotional front.  
		But that's -- one of the things I am intrigued by 
is we keep talking about the importance of government 
intervention which may be fair points in certain contexts.  
Certainly, to some degree, PBS is a subsidized medium, not 
unlike some of your descriptions of Canadian.  
		And I think one of the reasons they do as well as 
they do is that they have a very different alignment of 
interests and focus.  This is one of the reasons I think our 
country should be fully supportive and behind many of the 
things they do.  We recognize that we change and realigned 
the incentives so that those things would be valuable.
		But even the programs that Mr. Steyer admitted 
were the finest, interestingly enough, are on mediums that 
don't have these obligations.  And that is what I am 
intrigued by.  Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, Wham, 
Boomerang, Discovery Kids, the lists are getting longer and 
longer.  And interestingly enough, more and more of those 
programs are finding their way into other mediums.  
		And so one of the questions I kind of wanted to 
explore -- particularly maybe, Ms. Sweeney, this is more 
your question than anyone else's -- what is the business 
thinking in the choice to put a kids' programming, say, on 
cable instead of broadcast, for example, which you have the 
freedom to choose to some degree?  And I think relatedly, 
what are you seeing in the marketing in terms of the pattern 
of children?
		For example, when I was a kid, Saturday morning 
all you did was get up to watch TV.  We waited for that day 
all week.  My kids never talk to me with that hair thing.  
You're too busy.  But now, I've got to tell you, my 
communities, kids get up and go to soccer.  And they get up 
and run all day around in mini-vans.  And Saturday is not a 
television day to a large measure, just in my own limited 
experience.  I am sort of intrigued by that.  
		And other things that I find challenging with 
broadcasting is to some extent, it is struggling with the 
zero sum gain.  I think Ms. Altman mentioned it is not that 
it is not profitable.  There is things that are more 
profitable.  And when you have a limited pie, those things 
are tending to win.
		One of the things I have been intrigued by this 
movement to cable is that a whole channel gets dedicated.  
You know, a whole genre gets dedicated to the kids and it 
allows it to sort of have the volume and interest.  And so I 
am going to just throw that out to see what the panel thinks 
about that because I do see a lot of quality programming 
coming into the market.  But I see most of it coming into 
subscription-based medium.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Well, speaking for the Walt Disney 
Company, which is an unusual company in many ways because it 
really was founded on the needs, the desires and the 
creativity of kids and families.  So starting there, the 
decision, our decision to put a show on One Saturday Morning 
or on Disney Channel is really based on how those two 
services for kids have been set up and who they are 
positioned to reach.
		In the case of One Saturday Morning, it is 
specifically targeted to meet the needs of kids six to 11 
years old.  Disney Channel because it is 24/7 as opposed to 
One Saturday which is obviously once a week is designed to 
cover a wide array of age groups.  
		There really isn't any great financial decision 
that is made.  It is really a creative decision.  Recess is 
targeted to those six to 11-year-olds.  Disney Channel's 
take on six to 11-year-olds is really to reach them with 
reality programming like "Bug Juice" or "Totally Circus" or, 
you know, other programs like the movies you mentioned.
		You know, as far as the marketing, you make a 
terrific point.  Growing up, I was lucky if my mother let me 
get to the television set on Saturday morning because 
usually the piano was first.  But we didn't have all the 
choices.  We had three broadcast networks.  We had an array 
of lessons.  But we didn't have the extra-curricular 
activities that kids enjoy today.
		So really to Commissioner Ness' earlier point 
about how to market and how to reach, we really have to go 
to where kids are.  We really have to dig deeper.  We really 
have to market harder and we need to think harder.  And I 
think the most important factor is we really need to be 
smart about where they live, what they watch and why they 
are watching.
		And that is why when we promote One Saturday 
Morning, we are promoting it on the Disney Channel.  We are 
promoting it on Team Disney.  We are promoting it across the 
ABC Television Network.  We are running spots and 
"Millionaire" because we know -- it reminds me of "It's 
Academic."  And, you know, I watch my daughter and husband 
play "Millionaire" together and see who can get the 
furthest.  And God bless her, she crossed the $125,000.00 
mark the other week.  Unfortunately, she can't go on the 
air.  But --
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  I was going to say that's 
not hard to do.  But I won't.
		MS. SWEENEY:  For me it is.  But you do make a 
good point.  And I think we are in an unusual situation.  
You have given the number of platforms we have internally to 
promote and help kids find the programming on One Saturday 
Morning or on the Disney Channel.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Yes, Commissioner Powell?
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  If I could just -- go ahead. 
 Then I wanted to follow up with Ms. Sweeney on that.  But 
isn't there a basic difference in economics that 
Commissioner Powell was getting at.  In other words, if the 
number of kids watching One Saturday Morning was the same as 
what is -- the number of kids that are watching the Disney 
Channel, wouldn't that be deemed insufficient?  I mean, it 
seems to me that in the cable model, the men are casting.  
And so success is defined somewhat differently than in the 
broadcasting over the network where we have a much broader 
audience-reaching potential.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Well, we have two very different 
businesses there.  
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Right.
		MS. SWEENEY:  Disney Channel does not carry third-
party advertising.  It relies on fees paid by cable 
operators.  Whereas One Saturday Morning relies totally on 
third-party advertising.  It really does come down to choice 
-- creative choices that you make.  A Disney Channel may 
commission a series that is as expensive as a series that 
runs on One Saturday Morning.  But those choices have to be 
balanced against other choices that we make across other day 
parts.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Jim?
		MR. STEYER:  Yes, Commissioner.  I would like to 
respond even more to what you were saying, Commissioner 
Powell.  One thing I think that is really clear to me having 
a run a media company now for four years is that leadership 
is -- this is going to sound obvious, but leadership is 
critical.  
		I mean, you have the Anne Sweeney at Disney 
Channel and you have Herb Scanlon and his team at 
Nickelodeon, these guys.  Their companies are rated in a kid 
tradition.  They are committed to it.  Anne commissions 
curriculum for every single series we do with these guys.  
It is very serious.  It obviously reflects a commitment on 
their part.  And if she said their company has attritioned 
that plus they have an ability and in many cases do produce 
them in-house at Walt Disney Television Animation if it is 
animation or in Nickelodeon's case, they also have their own 
animation studio.
		If you move to the networks though and if you take 
ABC out of the equation because of both the leadership and 
the fact that they have Walt Disney Television Animation -- 
and remember, you all just approved the Viacom-CBS merger 
which means basically that Nickelodeon is going to program 
CBS Kids Block.  You are going to see Nickelodeon programs 
now on CBS because there is an economy of scale to do that.
		If you look at the other networks that don't have 
that, you don't have the same level of leadership, quite 
frankly.  And they are looking for the cheapest possible way 
to meet some relatively unclear mandate to them on what FCC-
friendly programming is.  That is how they look at it.  And 
so they just look for the lowest possible placed alternative 
in most cases I would suggest to you.  
		And the opportunity there is huge because if you 
can provide a high quality program with real educational 
content and -- there are producers like ourselves and Sesame 
Workshop and others who really can do that in an 
economically feasible model for those networks, they will 
run them.  But that is where the rug comes in.  
		That is where I said to you that either the 
leadership doesn't care about that or doesn't want to 
advertise to parents what they are calling educational 
programming or where they turn to Canadian or European 
producers who can through tax incentives and credits 
basically at half of the cost of that program subsidize. 
		And it expensive to produce kids' programming.  On 
an average half hour, it can be, you know, $400,000.00, 
$450,000.00 to do a high quality half hour of animation.  
You run that over 13 episodes, that is a five million dollar 
commitment.  And you've got to -- that financing has to come 
from somewhere.  
		At places like Disney, they have such a strong 
tradition of in-house capability and an ability to work with 
folks like us that they can do it.  But outside of those 
two, I think we need to see -- we need economic models 
perhaps that need to be revisited.  
		And Ms. Miller said something earlier that I think 
this Commission should at least take notice of now in this 
regard which is the same is happening on the internet.  We 
all know how much the internet and the new digital medium 
can be a tremendously beneficial one for kids.  But you are 
running into some of the exact same economic issues there.
		And I would strongly urge this Commission to take 
a look at those issues, as well, because if we want that 
medium to be as educational and as enriching for kids as it 
can be, we are going to have to look at the economics of 
that medium and encourage the opportunity to produce high 
quality on that medium just as we need to do that in the 
television medium, as well.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  I just want to sum up on my 
question.  I think you raised good points and I think I can 
be the first to agree that leadership is important.  But 
also, my kids never heard of Anne Sweeney and they never 
heard of Scanlon.  They watch Nickelodeon and Disney because 
they are good.  And it is interesting that whenever you look 
at these weekly ratings, you know, once you get past WWF 
Wresting, you get quickly to Nickelodeon.
		And back to the Chairman's set of inquiry, we 
should be looking at where there is success.  And it is very 
interesting to me that we see success.  I think we do see 
success in a number of the mediums.  It would be interesting 
to start to consider what aspects of those business models 
and financial incentives promote those programming because I 
think, you know, even Disney does a wonderful job, but they 
don't do it out of charitable reasons.  I would never expect 
them to.  And so I just think there is a lot of room to mine 
there.
		I also wanted to say something about Commissioner 
Ness' questions about information.  It didn't get mentioned 
in the discussion which seems to me it should.  One of the 
things that is really entering the market place that I think 
might be a very valuable addition to this is the rise of 
programming guide technology.  
		I have been considering, you know, different 
options, for example, recently about dish TV or cable.  And 
one of the things that I find most appealing is the ability 
to have a much richer experience in the amount of 
information about a program in advance.  
		A lot of these new interactive guides are allowing 
the potential for pre-selection of programming, for example, 
a kids button on the remote control that allows it to be 
only the channels that you have selected based on the 
information content.  I think there is a lot that can be 
done with the use of technology.  And digital spectrum even 
over the air will have some of that potential that I hope 
gets realized.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Mr. Chairman, can I 
respond to that?
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Commissioner Tristani.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I just wanted to follow up 
on a quick question I have for Mr. Steyer, but also note 
something that about 25 percent of American households still 
don't have cable.  And a lot of those households are 
minority.  They are Latinos.  They are African Americans.  
And for those households and those families, the only option 
out there is public television and the broadcasters.  And we 
cannot forget that.  And I am not sure that that statistic 
is going to change overnight because I believe it has been 
pretty steady.  So I wanted to note that.
		I also wanted to ask -- and I really don't know 
this.  But you said it costs about $400,000.00 per program 
for children's programming on average.  What does that 
compare, if you know, with adult programming for a new 
series per program?
		MR. STEYER:  Remember, that is per episode.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Per episode.
		MR. STEYER:  Wouldn't you agree, Anne?
		MS. SWEENEY:  And there is a range, too.
		MR. STEYER:  There is a range depending on whether 
it is animation or live action.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  But is it any different?  
I am just curious, if you know.  And maybe Ms. Sweeney could 
answer that.
		MS. SWEENEY:  It is almost impossible to compare. 
 You could produce animation anywhere, as Jim said, from 
$500,000.00 an episode to a million.  And --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  So --
		MS. SWEENEY:  -- a show -- a reality show on 
network may be of a comparable budget.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Okay.  So you can't give 
me any comparison.
		MS. SWEENEY:  No, there really isn't one.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Okay.  Can anyone?  Maybe 
PBS?  
		MS. NUGENT:  I am not familiar with the specifics 
of it.
		MS. ALTMAN:  Well, animation is going to be 
expensive no matter how you label it.  I think, you know, 
the question is more in terms of non-animation cost of an 
average sit-com or drama series as opposed to some kind of 
children's show.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I guess I was trying to 
get at -- and I honestly don't know whether it is more 
expensive to produce children's programming, or at least new 
children's programming than adult programming.  
		MS. ALTMAN:  No, no.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Thank you.
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  Can I just add the other 
important thing is that children's programming is becoming a 
very important target market because children have increased 
spending power.  And that is likely to continue.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  We are going to have to wrap 
this panel up.  Commissioner Ness will have the last 
question.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  I just had one more question. 
 We note about both in the statute and in the rules 
providing for broadcasters or station licensees to fulfill 
their obligations by contributing to programs that are aired 
on another station within the market.  This presumably was 
focused in part on enabling educational television to get 
additional funding to provide more quality programming, not 
exclusively so.
		The question that I have related to a proposal 
that Henry Geller had made in a season -- he's in the 
audience he will be testifying later about in lieu of having 
each broadcaster air three hours of programming that it may 
or may not really desire to air.  Instead, maybe limit the 
amount of that requirement.  But rather contribute two 
percent -- I forget what you had proposed Henry -- but two 
percent of their revenues to public broadcast so that public 
broadcast can fulfil that mission for the public on 
broadcast television.
		Would any of you like to comment on that as a 
proposal?
		DR. MONTGOMERY:  Yes, I would.  When it was 
originally proposed when the Commission was considering the 
current rules that were put in place in 1996, we were -- we 
opposed pay or play which is really what you are talking 
about here.  And the main reason we opposed it was our 
concern that the pay would be too small and the play really 
would not exist and we would end up with kids being short 
changed, that is, with public television, you know, being 
given the pennies that really would not help them create 
programming.
		I think in the digital era, we are reconsidering 
that position.  And I think that should be one of the 
options.  We are proposing that there be a number of options 
to digital broadcasting to serve children's educational and 
informational needs.
		I want to underscore, I think public television is 
extremely important and we need to find ways to give it the 
funding that it requires in order to serve children's needs. 
 Non-commercial content and services are going to be much 
more important in this era of highly commercialized media 
that would be pervasive in children's lives.
		So if it can be done in a way that is really 
meaningful and that would be a fair exchange and that would 
increase the amount and the quality of programming and 
services available to children in a non-commercial platform 
on public broadcasting and digital television, I think it 
would be a good idea.  And I speak on behalf of my 
organization only.  This is something we are talking to the 
rest of our coalition about.  So that is my opinion.
		MS. MILLER:  I would like to echo Kathy's 
comments.  Children Now actually proposed a pay or play in 
our comments to the FCC.  And we recommended that with 
several hesitations, again, the things that Kathy is 
mentioning about the idea of commercial broadcasters not 
paying out enough to make it really meaningful.  In the end, 
you have a dearth of programming or quality that is not 
really good.
		On the flip side, the idea that it could create a 
lot of different choice and a lot more programming is a good 
thing.  And it is something that we recommend with 
hesitations and are also going to be doing some more work 
talking to academics about how we think such a proposal 
could best serve kids.
		MR. STEYER:  Well, Commissioner Ness, the bottom 
line for me would be it is clear that you need reforms of 
subsidizing high quality content, educational content for 
kids, non-commercial and even quality commercial content for 
kids and that we must study that.  The Commission can play a 
great role in that.
		In the meantime, however, while that is being done 
-- and hopefully we are coming up with new solutions and new 
resources in that regard -- I would keep the Commission's 
role that they have done through the Children's Television 
Act and the regs. which I think overall continues to serve a 
beneficial purpose.  So I would go pay and play.  
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Jim.  That will have 
to be the last word.  This has been a terrific panel.  Thank 
you all very much for coming here and presenting to us 
today.  We will take a ten-minute break and reconvene at 
11:15.  We are running a little bit behind schedule.  So 
everybody needs to be back here promptly at 11:15.  Thank 
you.
		(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  We will begin our second panel 
of the morning now.  This is a panel that will focus on 
protecting children from the effects of sexually explicit or 
violent programming.  For those panelists who were not here 
for the earlier panel, we have asked all the panelists to 
keep their remarks to five minutes.  There is a time clock 
here.  It will be green for four minutes, yellow for one 
minute and when it goes on red, please sum up your comments.
		Also, please introduce yourself and your 
affiliation.  We will begin with Vicky Rideout.
		MS. RIDEOUT:  Thank you.  Good morning.  My name 
is Victoria Rideout and I am Vice President at the Kaiser 
Family Foundation.  It is great to be here with you today.  
And I have been asked to provide information from several 
recent studies by the foundation in response primarily to 
two questions.  
		First, what is known about the amount and nature 
of sexual content on television?  And in 1999, the 
Foundation worked with my colleague, Professor Kunkel, 
further down the panel here to design a comprehensive 
analysis of sexual content on television.  And the study 
analyzed a representative sample of both broadcast and cable 
TV, covering all genres other than newscasts, sports and 
children's programs.
		The results indicate that more than half of all 
shows on television today include sexual content.  In other 
words, if you turn on the TV, whatever the time of day, 
whatever channel you are watching, whatever type of program, 
the odds are about one in two that you will be watching a 
show with some kind of sex.
		If you narrow the focus to those shows that are 
most widely watched, those that occur on network television, 
broadcast networks and in the prime time hours, the odds of 
encountering sexual content are higher.  More than two out 
of three prime time shows in the major networks include 
sexual content.
		Some of it is mild in nature and some of it is 
more advanced.  And our study found that about seven percent 
of all shows included a depiction of sexual intercourse, 
either actually depicted or strongly implied.  
		A second question I have been asked to discuss is 
whether sexual content on television has an impact on those 
in the viewing audience.  One thing we know is that 
television is an important source of information for young 
people about sex.  Sixty percent of young teens say they get 
a lot of information about sexuality and sexual health.  
They get ideas about how to talk about sexual issues.  They 
get information about sexually transmitted diseases, about 
birth control, about pregnancy, about relationships from 
television.
		School, friends, parents and TV, that is basically 
how teens today would rank their sources of information 
about sex.  But what kind of information and ideas about sex 
are young people getting from TV?  One thing we know is that 
most shows on TV with sexual content don't even attempt to 
send any kind of a broader message.  In the study I 
mentioned earlier, we found that only about one in ten shows 
with sexual content include any reference to issues such as 
abstinence, birth control, condoms or the possible emotional 
or health-related consequences of sexual behavior.
		But when health information is incorporated into 
popular shows, TV can significantly increase public 
awareness.  For example, the Foundation conducted a study 
among the viewers of the NBC drama, "ER", before and after 
an episode in which a date rape victim takes emergency 
contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy as a result 
of her rape.  And the percent of viewers who were aware of 
the existence of emergency contraception increased from 50 
percent before the episode aired to 67 percent in the week 
after the episode aired.
		And when we asked folks where did you learn about 
this issue, 20 percent of them volunteered that they had 
seen it on ER.  In the public health world, that is a very 
significant impact.
		We also know that young people can be informed 
through public service announcements on television.  On MTV 
and BET, for example, PSAs on sexual health are broadcasted 
frequently in day parts when the audience is actually 
watching.  And as a result, nearly a million viewers have 
called the hotline used in those ads to get more 
information.
		When the Foundation conducted a follow-up survey 
with those callers, a third of the ones who were under 18 
said that they had talked to a parent for the first time 
about a sexual health issue as a result of the information 
that they had received.  And nearly one in five said they 
had been to a doctor to be tested for HIV or another STD as 
a result of the information that was part of that public 
service campaign.  Again, in the public health world, this 
is a very powerful impact.
		So in addition to exploring whether depictions of 
sex on television can have a negative impact on youth, we 
would also encourage the Commission to explore a companion 
question.  Can the television industry as part of its public 
interest obligations contribute in a positive way to raising 
awareness about important sexual issues and can do so in a 
way that is consistent with freedom of speech and with its 
mandate to entertain?  And the answer to these questions is 
clear.  Yes, it can.
		Public service advertising that occurs at times of 
day when the targeted audience is tuned in can be a very 
effective public education tool.  Recent evidence indicates 
that the amount of time available to PSAs has been 
decreasing and that most of it occurs well after the 
midnight hour.  We hope that Chairman Kennard's recent focus 
on public service announcements as a key component of 
broadcasters' public interest obligations will receive the 
Commission's close consideration.  With that, I will 
conclude my remarks.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.  Ms. 
Strossen.
		MS. STROSSEN:  Thank you very much, Chairman 
Kennard.  My name is Nadine Strossen.  I am the President of 
the American Civil Liberties Union.  And I am a Professor of 
Law at New York Law School where I specialize in 
Constitutional law.  I certainly share Commissioner 
Tristani's frustration at the short amount of time we have 
for such a broad and important topic.  
		And I just want to say at the outset that I 
listened with great interest to the opening remarks of the 
Chairman and all of the other Commissioners.  And I would 
love to have the chance to engage in colloquy with all of 
you, perhaps during the question and answer session during 
the very important points you made there, as well as all of 
the questions you enumerated for us.
		However, I am going to abide by the new 
technological form of censorship that we have with us today. 
 Speaking of which, seriously, of course, as the head of the 
American Civil Liberties Union, I am profoundly concerned 
about the First Amendment issues that are raised by even 
indirect forms of government regulation on the broadcast 
media.
		And beyond the First Amendment concerns though -- 
and I do have to emphasize, the First Amendment rights at 
issue here are not only those of adults, but also those of 
minors.  I am proud that the ACLU has long advocated minors' 
rights to access information including the very valuable 
kind of sexually oriented information on the broadcast that 
 we have just heard about from the previous speaker, Vicky 
Rideout.
		But there are other rights concerned here, too.  
And I want to say at the outset that our view is that all of 
them are jeopardized by any move to restrict the kind of 
content that is being singled out here.  Among other things, 
the right, as well as the responsibility, of parents to 
shape the education and upbringing and values of their own 
children.  That is as profoundly important Constitutional 
right which not only the ACLU, but far more importantly, the 
United States Supreme Court recognizes and one that we feel 
would be undermined by too much government intervention 
here.
		Last but very, very far from least, of course, is 
the right to physical safety, freedom from violence to avoid 
the kind of massacres at Columbine that Commissioner Ness, 
among others, talked about.  And here, you know, many people 
feel that we have to engage in a trade-off, on the one hand, 
freedom of speech, on the hand, freedom from that kind of 
horrible, physical violence.
		Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. 
 We need not engage in that kind of trade-off.  And one of 
our concerns about the focusing on the media, some would say 
the scapegoating of violent and sexual imagery on the media 
is what a diversion it is from what many experts consider to 
be far more profound causes of violence and inappropriate 
sexual content and far more effective needs for redressing 
that violence and preventing that violence.
		And here, let me not quote the ACLU.  It wouldn't 
surprise you that we would oppose restrictions on the media. 
 But it might surprise you that in discussions that I have 
had with Ernie Allen, the Chair or the Executive Director of 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children who 
has agreed with the ACLU that stigmatizing the media, 
focusing efforts on stopping what images children can see on 
the media is at best an ineffective way of protecting actual 
children from actual violence.  
		At worst, it is counter-productive because it 
diverts us from what social scientists and other experts 
have said are far more effective constructive needs of 
dealing with not only the violent imagery that is so 
prevalent in the media, in television as we have heard.  
		But as Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth said in his 
opening remarks, violence is ubiquitous not only in other 
media, but in real life.  And we have to concentrate on 
preparing our nation's young citizens to deal with 
effectively the images of violence, some appropriate, that 
they are going to see on TV screens and some inevitable that 
they are going to see in real life, on the streets of our 
cities unfortunately.
		Therefore, all of us have to exercise our 
responsibility as parents and as educators to instill 
critical dealing skills in our young people to empower them, 
to empower the parents to help them and not, in fact, to 
usurp the parental role through over-intrusive government 
actions. 
		Let me just conclude, as I see the yellow light is 
on, by saying I think it is quite foresightuous that this 
important hearing is taking place today in the same city, on 
the same day as the Million Family March.  As I am fond of 
saying, the ACLU is a pro-family organization.  We just 
don't believe that big brother is an appropriate member of 
the traditional American family.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.  Mr. Corn-
Revere.
		MR. CORN-REVERE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
Commissioners.  My name is Robert Corn-Revere.  I am a 
Partner at Hogan and Hartson and an Adjunct Professor of Law 
at Catholic University.  I am also a former staff member of 
the Commission.  And so it is good to be back and this time 
speaking and writing in my own name.
		The testimony today represents my personal views. 
 I am not testifying on behalf of any client or any other 
group.  The prepared statement that you have in front of you 
actually reflects a discussion of broader First Amendment 
issues.  When I was first invited to testify, it was with 
the understanding there would be a panel on those broader 
issues.  
		So I will touch on that briefly and then talk 
about the specific content areas on this panel.  As the FCC 
contemplates new or expanded public interest requirements 
for broadcasters, it should keep in mind that the current 
latitude it currently has to regulate broadcast content is 
really a limited exception to traditional First Amendment 
analysis.
		If any of the content-based regulations that are 
often proposed for broadcasters were considered for a minute 
being applied to other media, they would be instantly stuck 
down in being unconstitutional.  New requirements for 
broadcasters, therefore, would place added stress on this 
analysis and I think would be likely to lead to a 
Constitutional challenge.  
		Spectrum scarcity upon which this lesser degree of 
Constitutional protection is generally based is really no 
longer a viable theory, something that I discussed more in 
my prepared remarks.  Beyond that, the social compact theory 
that the government may demand content controls in exchange 
for giving spectrum I think is no more valid.
		When Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote of a 
marketplace of ideas, I don't think he was suggesting that 
the government could be the purchaser or the media companies 
could be the sellers of Constitutional guarantees.  Beyond 
that, the Supreme Court has held that federal subsidies for 
public broadcasting to not empower the government to 
restrict the editorial freedom of those licensees.  I think 
the same principle applies here whether you are talking 
about a "subsidy of spectrum" or a subsidy of taxpayer 
dollars.  
		Specifically with respect to the content issues 
that are being discussed in this panel, I think that the 
same thing would be true in terms of the Constitutional 
analysis.  Regulating violence in the media is a far more 
complex issue than is being presented generally in 
Washington policy debates.  And so I commend the Commission 
for raising this issue today.  I particularly commend the 
Commission for bringing balance to testimony that so often 
is missing in Congressional hearings on this subject.
		Now, while there isn't time to get into a specific 
discussion of the Constitutional issues involved in 
regulating violent content on television, I think that it is 
useful to point to an excellent Law Review article that I 
would commend to the Commission.  I would ask that it be 
made part of the record by Chief Judge Harry Edwards of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit, called, "Regulating Violence on Television."  It 
was published in 1995.
		In that article, Judge Edward took the available 
social science data on violence and analyzed it in light of 
First Amendment concerns.  They reached the conclusion that, 
"When it comes to televised violence, we cannot imagine how 
regulators can distinguish between harmless and harmful 
violent speech.  We can find no proposal that overcomes the 
lack of supporting data."
		They added, "We cannot imagine how a regulator 
might fix rules designed to ferret out gratuitous violence 
without running the risk of wholesale censorship of 
television programming."  Now, I raise this in part because 
this article came up in earlier testimony at the Senate 
Commerce Committee on the violence safe harbor bill about a 
year ago.  And one of the other witnesses who was a social 
science expert responded that Judge Edwards has no business 
opining on social science issues.  After all, he is merely a 
lawyer.  He is really not equipped to understand these 
issues.
		And I guess it reminded me most of the line from 
Dr. Peter Vankman, Bill Murray's character in 
"Ghostbusters", when he said, "Back off, man.  I am a 
scientist."  I think these issues are fully understandable 
for those of us who are not social scientists.  I only have 
a master's degree in social science.  I think I can 
understand these issues.  And I think others can, as well.
		The other issue I would like to touch on is the 
overall question of what is increasingly being lumped under 
the general topic of inappropriate content.  Last May, an 
organization called the Parents Television Council released 
the results of what it called a study which purported to 
show that offensive content on television had increased 
since the advent of the V-chip.  It listed 25 shows that it 
considered to be the biggest offenders.  
		Now, of these programs, nearly half had won or had 
been nominated for Emmy awards.  They were the highest rated 
programs on television.  And as a matter of fact, their list 
sounded much like a roll call of the best in television.  
The worst offenders according to this list included "The X 
Files", "NYPD", "ER", "Homocide", "Frasier", "Friends", and 
it goes on and on.
		The reason I mention this is particularly in light 
of the testimony of Ms. Rideout when she says that "ER" 
provided valuable information about sexual content, about 
sexual information.  And yet if the exercise becomes simply 
trying to police the airwaves for mentions of "inappropriate 
content", I think we may be missing the ball and censoring 
or at least threatening to censor what is the best of 
television.	
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Mr. Corn-Revere.  
Mr. Kunkel.
		DR. KUNKEL:  My name is Dr. Dale Kunkel, the 
University of California, Santa Barbara.  I am a social 
scientist.  But since I am here talking about law and policy 
as a social scientist, I am happy to receive Mr. Corn-Revere 
and all others in the legal profession talking about social 
science.  
		I am one of several researchers who led the 
National Television Violence Study, or the NTVS, a three-
year project sponsored by the NCTA that examined the 
depiction of violent behavior across more than 8,000 
programs.  I have also completed a major study funded by the 
Kaiser Family Foundation that assessed the accuracy of the 
V-chip ratings applied to programs of other television 
industry.
		In my remarks today, I will briefly summarize key 
findings from each of these two studies.  The NTVS project 
represents the largest investigation of media violence yet 
produced by the scientific community, involving more than a 
dozen of the nation's leading media researchers from four 
universities.  The central element of the project is a 
content analysis of the nature and extent of violence on 
television.
		Over a three-year period, from 1994 to 1997, we 
systematically examined the content on 23 of the most 
frequently viewed channels on TV.  In our research, we did 
not simply count up all violent actions as most previous 
studies had done.  But rather, we carefully analyzed the 
context surrounding it.
		The presence or absence of different contextual 
features has been shown to either increase or diminish the 
likelihood of harmful effects from children's exposure to TV 
violence.  By tracking the pattern of contextual features 
associated with most violence on television, our research 
allows us to evaluate the risk of harm from children's 
exposure to different types of violent material.
		At the end of the three-year NTVS study, we 
reached several key conclusions.  First, violence is 
widespread across the television landscape.  Turn on a 
television set, pick a channel at random.  The odds are 
about six out of ten that the program you encounter will 
include some form of violence.  An average week of 
programming on 23 channels contains more than 6,000 violent 
interactions.  More than half of the violent shows contain 
lethal acts and one in four of the programs with violence 
depict the use of a gun.  
		Second, most violence on television is presented 
in a manner that increases its risk of harmful effects on 
child viewers.  More specifically, most violence follows a 
highly formulated pattern that is both sanitized and 
glamorized.  By sanitized, we mean that portrayals fail to 
show realistic harm to victims.  Immediate pain and 
suffering by victims of violence is included in less than 
half of all scenes of violence.
		More than a third of violent interactions depict 
unrealistically mild harm to victims, grossly understating 
the severity of injury that would accrue from such actions 
in the real world.  In sum, most depictions sanitize 
violence by making it appear to be much less painful and 
less harmful than it really is.  And by glamorized, we mean 
that violence is performed by attractive role models who are 
often justified for acting aggressively and who suffer no 
remorse, criticism or penalty for their violent behavior.
		Third, the overall presentation of violence on TV 
has remained remarkably stable over time.  I have submitted 
a table of data that reports findings from three recent TV 
seasons which illustrates the tremendous consistency across 
virtually all of our measures.  That consistency clearly 
implies that the portrayal of violence is highly stable and 
formulaic.  And unfortunately, this formula of presenting 
violence as glamorized and sanitized is one that actually 
increases the risk of harmful effects for children.
		At the conclusion of the NTVS study, the Kaiser 
Family Foundation commissioned another project to -- or a 
project to evaluate the accuracy of the ratings applied to 
programs by the television industry's V-chip system.  This 
study provides us with two key conclusions, the first of 
which is actually good news.
		In general, the age-based ratings for most general 
audience programs are applied in accurate fashion.  Although 
the TV-NA rating is almost never used, the study indicates 
that programs with the strongest and most troubling violence 
tend to receive a TV-14 rating and that TV-G programs 
generally contain little or no violence, just as the rating 
system indicates.  Clearly, this represents a good faith 
effort on the part of the industry to apply age-based 
ratings accurately to their programs.  
		But the second point is not good news.  Content 
descripters are not being applied to the vast majority of 
shows that contain violence.  The TV industry agreed to add 
content descripters in response to public concern that the 
original age-based rating system did not provide adequate 
information for parents.  Several content descripters, 
including a V for labeling violent programs, were added to 
the system.
		The V-chip study found that the vast majority of 
programs which contained violence did not receive a V 
rating.  While 21 percent of programs with violent material 
did display a V, 79 percent did not.  Now, you might ask, 
are the programs that lack this V rating really the ones 
that feature an isolated scene of violence of some limited 
form of violence.  But the answer is no.  
		Our study indicates that these -- we found 318 
programs in one week that did not get the V rating.  They 
averaged five scenes of violence with a moderate level of 
intensity.  This means a parent who would choose to block 
out programs with a V rating who might reasonably assume 
they are screening out this violent material would be making 
a serious mistake in using the system in this way.
		To conclude,it is well established by a compelling 
body of scientific research that TV violence poses a risk of 
harmful effects to children.  The NTVS project demonstrates 
that most TV programs contain violence and importantly that 
most violence is presented in a fashion that increases its 
risk of harmful effects.
		The most recent attempt to address this concern is 
the V-chip technology.  But the findings from the Kaiser 
Foundation study finds a serious threat to the utility of 
the V-chip.  If violent programs are not accurately labeled, 
then even the most pro-active, well-intentioned efforts of 
parents who use the V-chip device cannot effectively reduce 
children's exposure to TV violence.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Dr. Kunkel.  Dr. 
Cantor.
		DR. CANTOR:  Thank you.  My name is Joanne Cantor. 
 And I have been doing research on the impact of television 
on children at the University of Wisconsin for more than 26 
years, focusing on the consequences of exposure to media 
violence and the impact of television and movie ratings.  I 
have also written a book titled, Mommy, I'm Scared, that 
helps parents help their children cope with our violent 
media culture.
		I presented many of these arguments in greater 
detail at the recent American Psychological Association 
Convention.  That speech, including reference to the 
original research that I mentioned, is available on my 
website, www.joannecantor.com, for anyone who wants further 
detail.
		I know you have already heard the standard 
arguments about media violence research.  It is true that 
the meta analyses that combine all the relevant studies make 
a clear case that viewing media violence is a significant 
contributor for violent behavior.  But rather than focus on 
criminal violence, I want to highlight certain results that 
show psychological harm in a more immediate fashion.  I will 
give three examples of the types of harm I am talking about.
		First, children often imitate what they see on 
television.  And this imitation is not limited to playful, 
harmless behavior.  For example, a national survey of Israel 
middle schools confirmed that when World Wrestling 
Federation was introduced in the mid-'90s, it led to a 
national epidemic of serious playground injuries including 
broken bones and concussions because children, even those 
who knew that what they were seeing was not real, imitated 
the violence they saw. 
		Second, exposure to media violence increases 
hostility levels, not just immediately after viewing, but 
for a substantial period of time thereafter.  And these 
increases in hostility can make an otherwise neutral 
interaction seem like a provocation.  For example, one study 
showed increasingly hostile interpersonal interactions even 
a day after viewing intensely violent movies.
		Third, a growing research literature shows that 
exposure to media violence often induces intense fears which 
can produce nightmares and interfere with a healthy night's 
sleep.  For example, a recent study in pediatrics reported a 
positive association between television viewing and sleep 
disturbances among elementary school children.  Indeed, nine 
percent of parents said that TV had caused their child to 
have nightmares at least once a week.
		Other research shows that stumbling into the wrong 
program or movie on television can induce debilitating 
anxieties that last for months and even years.  Incidently, 
the recent uproar over the Nike ad shown during the 
Olympics, the one that depicted a young woman being attacked 
in her bathroom by a chainsaw-wielding lunatic, demonstrates 
how vulnerable young children are to gory and grotesque 
images, even very brief ones.  
		It is important to recognize that the remedy for 
these harms is not censorship, but public information.  Just 
as parents need information about nutrition and labels that 
indicate the contents of what their children eat, they need 
an honest appraisal of the risks to their children's mental 
health that are posed by different programs.  It should then 
be up to the parents to judge their child will imitate the 
violence, become increasingly hostile or be unable to sleep 
after viewing.
		If these are effects parents want to avoid, they 
should be able to decide whether they prefer to limit their 
child's exposure or to work with their child to counteract 
the effects.  Parents can't make these decisions if they 
don't get this information.  The risks are not being 
communicated fairly by the media.  At best, the picture is 
confusing.
		What is more, although parents have already one 
potentially valuable parenting tools, TV ratings and the V-
chip, they aren't hearing about them.  Broadcasters claim to 
be promoting the rating system.  But the proof is in the 
results.  
		According to a recent Annenburg study, fewer 
parents are now aware that we have a TV rating system, 50 
percent, than knew about TV ratings in 1997, 70 percent.  
And a woefully small percent know how to interpret the 
ratings.  I have yet to meet a parent who knows what the D 
in the rating system refers to.  And I wonder how many 
people here do.
		Of course, broadcasters should be urged to program 
in a responsible fashion.  But even if they decided to 
broadcast only quality programs at the level of "Shindler's 
List" or "Saving Private Ryan", parents would still need to 
know the content and risks in advance.  This is because 
children of different ages are affected differently by the 
same media images.  We know from research that young 
children are apt to miss the intended meaning of a program. 
 A masterpiece that would edify a teenager might very well 
traumatize a younger child for months.
		Clearly, censorship is not the answer.  But 
information is.  And in addition to information about 
programs, parents need more predictability in the content of 
commercials.  Children tuning into family-appropriate shows 
like the World Series or the Olympics should not have gory 
and grotesque images from advertising inflicted upon them.
		Lots of people say it is the parents' 
responsibility to raise their children.  And as the mother 
of an 11-year-old son, I agree.  But in order for us to do a 
good job of parenting, we need three things:  unbiased 
information about the risks and benefits of media exposure; 
understandable, timely information about what is in a 
program; and an assurance that our children won't be 
ambushed by horrifying images and inappropriately placed 
ads.  These actions should be at the top of the list of 
broadcasts' obligations to children.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much, Dr. 
Cantor.  Dr. Jenkins.
		DR. JENKINS:  Mr. Chairman, I am Henry Jenkins, 
the Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at 
MIT.  For the past 17 years, I have made the study of 
American popular culture the central focus of my teaching 
and research.  
		Many of the others testifying here come from 
traditions of experimental or quantitative research in the 
so-called media facts.  I represent a different tradition in 
media studies that employs more qualitative methods 
including those derived from anthropology, history and 
literary analysis.  
		My research addresses the meanings that get 
attached to cultural symbols and the way that people in 
specific social and cultural contexts interact with media.  
I come here neither as an apologist for the media industry, 
nor as an advocate for media reform, but as a concerned 
citizen who cares about both the quality of our culture and 
the protection, of course, of civil liberties.  
		So often this gets framed as the free expression 
right of broadcasters against the public interest.  And I 
feel rather strongly as a father that I have a public -- 
there is a public interest of my right to determine what 
culture my son consumes based on my values and not someone 
else's.  
		And then I have a compelling public interest in 
making choices that allow me to deal with complex subject 
matter, not simply predigested form, and that my son has 
certain rights as an adolescent to carve out a cultural 
space for himself by which he explores his identity and his 
values.  
		And one of the things that struck me since 
Columbine has been a tendency to use protecting children as 
a code word for, in fact, regulating adolescents.  And I 
think most of us might agree that we need to set different 
standards that are appropriate for teens versus children.  
And we need to be careful as we go forward that we are not 
infringing on the rights of teens in the name of protecting 
smaller children.
		Despite the cultural rhetoric that has come out of 
Washington since Columbine, cultural works are not 
carcinogens.  Cultural works are complex and contradictory. 
 They are open to many different interpretations, subject to 
various unanticipated use.  Popular culture's complex 
relationship with its consumers cannot be reduced to simple 
variables or tested through live experiments without regard 
to larger cultural context.
		Quantitative research needs to be read not in 
isolation, but in relationship with more qualitative 
approaches.  Out of respect to many of the noted researchers 
on the panel, I should make clear that my concern is not 
when media research affects research per se, but really the 
way in which media research gets mobilized by activists in 
the context of public policy debate.
		The best media effects researchers qualify their 
findings and few argue for a direct causal link between 
consuming media images and performing violence.  A more 
careful analysis would read violent programs as one cultural 
influence among many, thus, having different degrees of 
impact upon different children and is not sufficient in and 
of themselves to inspire an otherwise well-adjusted child to 
engage in acts of violence.
		Media activists often strip aside those careful 
qualifications, claiming the computer games are murder 
simulators, that media violence darkens children's minds or 
pollutes their heart.  Media activists are often 
indifferent, for example, to even crudest distinctions 
between developmental stages, taking studies made about 
young children as if they applied to everyone under the age 
of 18.  The result is a caricature of the media effects 
research which allegedly underlines their recommendation.
		They often are made without regard to the context 
in which the events occur in stories or their emotional 
tone.  Often we are told to depict something is to advocate 
it.  To advocate it is to cause it as often the focus is on 
localized images and not the range of stories we as a 
culture tell about violence or what they mean to the people 
who consume them.  And often, the focus is on measurable 
biological responses, and not on the conscious activity of 
media consumers as they make sense of what they have seen.
		Humanistic research paints a very different 
picture.  First, media consumption is thought to be 
something active, something we do, not something passive 
that happens to us.  Media technologies are tools and we can 
use them in a variety of different ways, some constructive, 
some destructive.
		Second, media consumption is a process.  We work 
on media content over a long period of time.  Immediate 
emotional reactions are only a part of what we need to 
understand if you want to predict real world consequences in 
media consumption.
		Third, different consumers react to the same media 
content in fundamentally different ways as it is fit to 
their larger understanding of the world.  And so the 
universal claims offer a fundamentally inadequate account of 
media's social and cultural impact.
		Fourth, media consumption is more often creative 
than imitative.  All of us construct our own personal 
mythologies from contents made available to us through mass 
media.  And we are drawn toward images and stories that are 
personally meaningful to us because they match the way we 
see the world.  We use them as vehicles for better or for 
worse to explore who we are, what we want, what we value and 
how we relate to other people.  And we explore the broader 
range of ideas and experiences through our fantasies than we 
would care to act upon reality.
		Finally, media representations are read against 
our perception of the world that is built up through 
countless direct experiences.  Media content is more likely 
to reinforce than fundamentally alter our existing prejudice 
and predispositions.  
		Let me cut to the quick and say what I think could 
be done in this area.  I support much of what was said in 
the last panel about a proactive desire to create diversity. 
 I would be opposed to regulation that restricted content.  
		I think there are three areas that we need to work 
on.  One is a broader composition of government 
investigations into media violence.  We need to include 
qualitative humanistic scholars, anthropologists, critics, 
experts on play in the mix as we begin to deal with these 
questions.  And they need to be there along side media 
effects.  In Europe, in Australia, mixed panels have been 
put forward and develop more subtle solutions.  And I think 
that is a really important thing to do.
		Secondly, and I would agree with Joanne Cantor, 
education, education for kids who need to be taught to be 
critical, ethical and creative users of media, and education 
for parents who need to be given information that allows 
them to make meaningful choices.  And that information has 
to include not just a blunt reading, but some values that 
determine what that rating is set by.  
		I often find that the ratings communicates 
privilege, some values over others as a parent who cares 
about homophobia, for example.  When I watch a sit-com that 
deals in a caring relationship between a lesbian couple that 
has a higher rating than a sit-com that makes random jokes 
about heterosexual infidelity, it is troubling to me.  
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Please wrap up, Dr. Jenkins.
		DR. JENKINS:  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  Mr. Peters.
		MR. PETERS:  My name is Robert Peters.  I am 
President of Morality in Media.  On October 7th, my wife and 
I saw, "Remember the Titans", a film based on the experience 
of a high school football team forced to integrate in 1971.
		I remember as a child listening to college 
football and running out to play football in the yard, 
street or park.  I remember in high school watching 
professional football players on TV and then trying to 
imitate them during practice in high school football games. 
 I also remembering the rewarding experience of playing on a 
racially integrated football team in college.
		As I walked out of the theater after seeing 
"Remember the Titans", I wanted to hug every African 
American I saw.  Hugging aside, the film was a powerful 
reminder that racial reconciliation ought to be a high 
priority on everyone's list.  
		But as I walked home, I wondered how I would have 
felt if I were still 16 and if "Titans" were a violent film 
glamorizing the behavior of an integrated group of high 
school football players who fight a local drug problem by 
beating up drug dealers.  Being an aggressive person by 
nature, I might have felt like joining in.  
		There are, of course, reasons why most kids 
wouldn't.  They know right from wrong.  They love and 
respect their parents.  They don't want to go to prison.  
They aren't emotionally troubled, angry at the world.  They 
don't have to prove how tough they are.  They've got better 
things to do. 
		But it doesn't take a social scientist to realize 
that many teens can rattle off a list of good reasons why 
they shouldn't join a gang of vigilantes.  They are the 
vulnerable ones.  As my wife and I talked about "Titans", we 
were glad it didn't portray athletes cursing, having sex and 
abusing alcohol and drugs.  
		Of course, if such behaviors were portrayed 
negatively as bigotry was in "Titans", kids would presumably 
benefit from the lesson.  "Shindler's List" was shown in 
public schools and on prime time broadcast TV because 
educators and the media believed it would have a positive 
influence on youth.  
		The media then tells us that there is no proof 
that entertainment glamorizing and promoting anti-social 
behaviors influences youth.  But if it does, they add, it is 
up to parents, not the media or government, to address the 
problem.  I am not trying to get parents off the hook.  They 
are in great measure responsible for how their kids behave.
		But it is no secret there are other influences on 
children.  I will spare you my written comments on that 
testimony.  I would be voting for Hillary.  But to some 
extent, I think it takes a village to raise a child.  
Included in that village are broadcasters which should be 
doing all in their power to reduce the risks that children 
would be harmed by programming.  If they had done so, we 
wouldn't all be here this morning.
		That brings me to the role of government.  While I 
agree that government can't protect children from all sexual 
and violent content, I also reject the notion that the First 
Amendment prevents government from enacting effective laws 
to help protect children from such conduct.  
		One existing law that could at least help is the 
broadcast indecency law.  I won't add further on my written 
comments, but it is a law that isn't being enforced against 
television stations.  And it would help.  It wouldn't solve 
the whole problem, but it would help.
		There is, again, talk about enacting federal laws 
to regulate children's access to violent entertainment.  Not 
surprisingly, the media is again waiving the banner of the 
First Amendment, asserting with its typical pomp that the 
Constitution protects the right of media to pour graphic, 
gratuitous violence down the throats of children as long as 
it is theoretically possible for parents or angels I guess 
to shield them without government's help.
		I understand that the media have legitimate 
concerns about government attempts to regulate violence.  
Certainly, the definitional issue probably being the 
preeminent one.  But unlike some Supreme Court Justices, I 
think there is a real difference for Constitutional purposes 
between a law that bans speech that government disapproves 
of and a law regulating children's access to smut or graphic 
violence which incidently burdens, but does not block adult 
access to that speech.  
		And quickly jumping over, in written comments that 
we submitted earlier in this proceeding, we asserted that 
the V-chip is not the whole answer to this problem.  I 
certainly agree it is part of the answer.  I would comment 
that to my knowledge, virtually -- it may be true that most 
violent programs are accurately rated.  
		But to my knowledge, virtually every prime time 
program, certainly a large number are rated either G or PG 
which means that according to the industry, ever adult sit-
com on TV is okay for certainly kids other than seven and 
eight-year-olds.  And if that is the way -- if appropriate -
- if a parent blocks out the -- you know, if she wants to 
block out some of these sit-coms, she would wind up -- he or 
she, I should say, would wind up blocking virtually every 
program on prime time television.  
		If you go up to PG-14 or TV-14, you virtually 
block no prime time TV programs.  How are you going to use a 
V-chip when almost all of the prime time adult-oriented sit-
coms are rated G or PG which means according to the 
industry, they are okay for kids?  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Mr. Peters.  I'll 
get my hug from you later.  Thank you all for the 
presentations that you made today.  There are a lot of 
divergent and very interesting views presented.  And I want 
to ask each of the panelists one question that I will think 
help this agency focus attention on what actions we should 
or could take in this area.
		We are going to ask each of you if you could 
single out one thing that this agency could do, the most 
significant thing, the most important thing that this agency 
could do to combat the relationship between violence and sex 
and the outcomes in our society.  And, obviously, the 
premise of my question is that I do believe that there -- 
certainly with respect to violence, that there is an 
incremental negative impact of television violence on our 
society and particularly with our kids.
		So I would like each of you to answer that 
question.  Just give me one thing if you had one shot.  And 
I know for Ms. Strossen and Mr. Corn-Revere, this might be a 
difficult question for you to answer.  But let's start with 
Ms. Rideout.
		MS. RIDEOUT:  Well, I should preface my remarks by 
saying the role that the Foundation takes in all of this is 
to be the agency that helps provide the data and information 
and research that you policy-makers need and find helpful as 
you consider these questions rather than to take particular 
positions on issues.
		But I guess I would say that where our research 
seems to point is in two direction.  It is, first of all, in 
doing more to empower parents with information and tools, to 
make their own decisions as to how they want to monitor 
their children's media consumption and secondly, to probably 
consider measures you can take to increase the amount of 
positive educational and informational programming that is 
available, whether it is public service announcements, other 
long-term, long-form public informational types of 
programming or actual content themselves.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.  Ms. Strossen.
		MS. STROSSEN:  Thank you for that provocative 
question, Mr. Chairman.  I do have some constructive 
suggestions, although first I have to decent from what I 
think is the premise in your question that the relationship 
between violence and sex in the media is -- on the media and 
real-world outcomes, number one, is substantial.  And I will 
defer social scientists who have, indeed, questioned that 
including most recently in the FTC report that came out a 
couple of weeks ago.  The FTC was very careful to stress the 
kind of ambiguity and complexity that we heard from Mr. 
Jenkins.  Secondly --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Ms. Strossen --
		MS. STROSSEN:  I'm sorry?
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  -- have you read that 
report?
		MS. STROSSEN:  Yes, I have.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  You have?
		MS. STROSSEN:  Yes.  And I have read the 
appendices --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Do you recall whether they 
actually studied that?
		MS. STROSSEN:  They had a review which was --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  But did they undertake any 
new research on that as far as --
		MS. STROSSEN:  Absolutely not on --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  -- they were recording the 
same kind of studies that their study --
		MS. STROSSEN:  No, it was not the focus of their 
study.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  That's all I wanted to 
know.
		MS. STROSSEN:  But they -- but I think it is 
important because it is so often misstated as these same 
meta studies are referred to as if everybody agrees that 
they show a clear and simple causal connection.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I will save a question for 
later.
		MS. STROSSEN:  Okay.  And, secondly, I think it is 
important to emphasize that some of the real world outcomes, 
if we are going to accept a causal connection, then I think 
we also have to accept the sum of the causal connections 
would be with positive real world outcomes such as Ms. 
Rideout described, more information that will help people to 
lead sexually more healthy lives and to counteract violence 
in a positive way.
		So I agree with the suggestions she made.  In 
addition to encouraging broadcasters to include serious, 
valuable discussions of -- in treatments of violence and sex 
-- and we have heard many examples from "ER" to "Shindler's 
List."  And by the way, "Shindler's List" should get every 
single rating.  Right?  It's got violence and sex and 
language and indecency.  And yet I don't think any of us 
would want to deny a parent the choice to have a child of a 
certain age and maturity see that in a certain context.
		That leads to my next point which is the blunt 
instrument of the V-chip cannot be enough information for 
any conscientious parent.  And obviously --
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Actually, I just asked one 
thing that we can do --
		MS. STROSSEN:  Yes.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  -- not that we shouldn't do.
		MS. STROSSEN:  Yes.  Well, I am saying you can 
encourage the serious treatment of -- and the programming of 
materials such as "Shindler's List", such as "ER", despite 
the fact that they would be getting these seemingly negative 
ratings.  I think in terms of the technology, as I 
understand it, the move toward digital broadcasting would 
make it possible to go beyond the necessarily over-
simplified.  
		I think we have a lack of meaningful information 
from those four letters, to provide much more descriptive 
and analytical information including reviews with respect to 
not only those categories, but other kinds of criteria such 
as Dr. Jenkins suggested.  
		Other parents might be interested in racism or 
sexism or, you know, anti-religious views.  To really 
amplify the amount of information that is easily accessible 
over the screen so that a parent can make a more informed 
choice.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Corn-
Revere.
		MR. CORN-REVERE:  Thank you.  I knew I was going 
to be getting difficult questions today.  So I'm glad that 
Jackson, my eight-year-old son, gave me his lucky rock to 
keep in my pocket while I was testifying.  And you 
anticipated my answer or, as you anticipated, non-answer.  I 
really don't think there is anything that the Commission can 
legitimately do to regulate what I consider to be a matter 
of taste.
		Often, this debate is framed as one of regulating 
things that are harmful to kids.  And yet I think what 
really this comes down to in many cases is a matter of 
taste.  And nothing better illustrates this than Mr. Peters' 
testimony from a few minutes ago when he was talking about 
the uplifting nature of "Remember the Titans" where he said 
that it presented such good messages.  But what if it had 
presented harmful messages and it promoted, you know, kids 
going out and doing terrible things and being violent and 
all of that?
		I think just as much needs to cross our minds if 
"Remember the Titans" encourages our kids to go out and 
become football players.  And would we consider that to be 
something beneficial, or go out and play soccer.  As a 
matter of fact, if you are just talking about indices of 
harm, in 1997, according to the National Safety Council, 
there were 14 deaths among high school and middle school 
football players and more 300,000 -- 360,000 football-
related injuries.  
		And it is not just the chance that kids 
participating in activity may have mishaps.  There are 
darker influences, as well.  The National Association of 
Sports Officials says that sports violence during and after 
games is spiraling out of control, so much to the extent 
that they have started offering hospitalization insurance to 
sports officials.  Several times a week every week, there 
are reports that police need to be called to sporting events 
because people have been encouraged to go out and engage in 
these activities.  
		So it really is a question of a broader cultural 
issue, as Professor Jenkins has said, how do people respond 
to various things.  I generally agree, sports is a healthy 
thing.  But if we are simply talking about being presented 
with something that may cause harm, this is a clear example 
of that.  And yet, there are no hearings on whether or not 
we are going to continue to have Monday night football.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  So we should do nothing. 
 Dr. Kunkel.
		DR. KUNKEL:  If it is not too presumptuous, I 
would like to tell you one thing I think you shouldn't do 
and one thing that you should.  My first comment that you 
shouldn't do is trying to follow up very briefly on some of 
the remarks that I think question the legitimacy of concern 
about media violence.
		I am not concerned that the Federal Trade 
Commission in their report did not issue a definitive 
statement about the impact of media violence.  It wasn't 
their job.  I am willing to stand by the summary of a 
quarter century of media effects research that has been 
summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. 
Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, 
the American Medical Association, the American Psychological 
Association, all of which very clearly conclude media 
violence contributes to real world violence and aggression.
		It doesn't cause -- no one can pinpoint the cause 
of any civil act of human behavior.  Did someone who 
committed a shooting in a school do so because of media 
violence?  Did they do it because of their parents?  Did 
they do it because of their peers?  There is no one single 
cause.  And so it is a straw man to ask the question does 
media violence cause in this fashion real world violence.
		So one thing you shouldn't do is to contribute to 
the over-simplification of an issue and ask us some of these 
straw man questions.  What I would recommend you should do, 
that I think the Commission can do is to encourage -- and I 
will leave it to your discretion of the strength of the hand 
-- but to encourage more accurate labeling of violent 
programs.  
		I think more than one member of Congress has said 
that the current system takes the V out of the V-chip.  That 
is to say that the age-based ratings do not allow the 
identification of violence because they are labeling 
programs for sex and violence and language and other issues.
		That is why -- and there was such dissatisfaction 
with the original system introduced by the industry.  That 
is why that the child advocates and public and parent 
organizations lobbied and were successful in getting the 
television industry to amend the V-chip ratings to add 
content descripters.
		The best data available today suggests those 
content descripters are not being used.  And frankly, if a 
parent were to use them, I think it would be a terrible 
outcome because you would think you are screening violence 
when, in fact, you are not.  Under the current system, a 
parent cannot screen for violence.  If V labeling was 
applied accurately, they could.  And then the V-chip would 
have greater utility.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.  Dr. Cantor.
		DR. CANTOR:  Yes.  If there is a way to encourage 
through incentives or whatever way you can do this in your 
overview, better information for parents ranging from, as 
Dale said, better ratings and information about programs and 
also coverage of the issue -- the coverage -- the news 
coverage of this issue by the television industry is very 
biased by economic factors.  
		Not only in general, but if you look at the 
coverage of any controversy, there are networks that don't 
have an economic stake in a particular movie or program are 
the ones that cover it.  And the ones that are being 
criticized don't.  I mean, it is as simple as that.  If 
there is a way of promoting fair public service 
announcements which say here are the risks to some children; 
you as a parent should know about this and make your own 
decisions whether to shield or counteract the effects, those 
are the kind of -- that's the kind of information that we 
need not always saying, well, you can't prove the Columbine 
massacre was caused by this particular movie; therefore, 
there is no impact.
		I agree with Henry, it is a very complex situation 
and parents need to get this information so that they can 
make the best judgements about what the effect is going to 
be on their own child or build in parenting that helps 
children cope with this.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Dr. Jenkins.
		DR. JENKINS:  I share some of the skepticism 
raised about the premise of the question and including the 
premise the government is the best place to deal with this 
problem.  But let me say two things -- two areas which I 
think the FCC could be constructive in in terms of this.  
		The first of these I think is in broadening the 
conversation about this question, to include a broader range 
of scholarship when we have government investigations of the 
question of media violence.  I think it is very important 
that you have the qualitative as well as quantitative 
research at the table.
		As it happens, I -- as a former student at the 
University of Wisconsin, I have enormous respect and 
personal affection for Joanne Cantor who was a faculty 
member in my program.  We disagree on some things.  But I 
think if we sat down together and talked about this 
question, we might come up with better conclusions than our 
context where we are both given five minutes in a polarizing 
climate that pushes us further apart.  And I think it is 
important to have conversations right now about those 
questions.
		The second is by using the FCC to lend moral 
support to the importance of media, literacy and education 
in K through 12.  It is far too late for us to be talking 
about this.  But it is too important not to, to say that 
kids need to be taught to creatively, critically and 
ethically engage in materials of media culture.  And through 
our program at MIT, we are trying to develop some national 
guidelines on curriculum in the area of media literacy that 
reflects the changing media environment.
		And we would love to see organizations like this 
one stand up and say schools should be involved in this 
process of preparing kids to deal with the complexity of the 
current media environment.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Doctor.  Mr. Peters.
		MR. PETERS:  The first thing would be to enforce 
the broadcast indecency law against television stations 
which would not solve the whole problem.  But I think it 
would uplift the moral tone of television significantly.  
The second thing, on the violence question, I am aware of 
two cases, Supreme Court cases, that have addressed violent 
entertainment exposure to children, a 1948 case, Winters 
versus New York and Interstate Circuit versus City of Dallas 
in 1968.
		In both cases, the Courts said that they would -- 
made it clear I think that they weren't saying that 
government doesn't have the power to regulate children's 
access to violence.  They knocked both laws down on the 
basis of vagueness.  And I think that obviously their 
biggest problem -- if one believes that there is some power 
in government to regulate violence to protect children, the 
question becomes what types of violence.
		One suggestion in specific would be to have a two-
year study by the FCC with some monitoring of its own and 
receiving complaints and then issue quarterly reports 
expressing opinions or identifying programs that the 
Commission is troubled with in terms of the time they are 
aired or perhaps broadcast versus HBO, et cetera.  
		And as my -- the previous speaker suggested, get 
feedback on those programs with the hopes of trying to come 
up with some intelligent guidelines that would certainly 
guide the industry.  Let them know what the public expects 
and if necessary, hopefully, would provide the basis of 
legal standards.  
		And I would -- as a closing point, I am sure that 
I was mildly very pleasantly surprised when I read the 
guidelines that the industry itself came up with as a result 
of Senator Simon's antitrust exemption.  I think there are a 
couple of holes in their guidelines that are big enough to 
drive a truck through.  
		But I tell you, industry did a marvelous job of 
setting forth the difference between the types of violence 
that it thinks can cause the harm to kids.  I mean, they 
have given the Commission and the industry itself a good 
working point.  But I think if there is going to be any 
government regulation to hurdle of what types of violence 
are going to be regulated, certainly the goal is not to get 
rid of all of violence.  
		And I would add that if society comes down as hard 
on football as Mr. Corn-Revere has, I am sure that we will 
all be back here with hearings on the effects.  But I think 
most Americans believe that with all the problems sports 
have, they have more positive influence on young people than 
negative.  And that is why we put up with some pretty 
shocking things at times.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I want to thank all of the 
panelists for your candid, provocative, analytical thoughts 
today.  And I appreciate the different vantage points that 
we are addressing here and that is another reason I would 
have liked to have more time to explain these issues.  
		I would have liked to have heard from a doctor, 
maybe a pediatrician who could talk to us first-hand about 
the different influences in children and how they act, maybe 
from a child psychiatrist or a psychologist.  And not that 
all your views aren't good.  But I would have liked to have 
heard from the real health experts.  I think that would have 
been a very good and necessary point or perspective to have 
today to add to your group perspective.
		I also would have liked to have heard from an 
average parent.  I know it would be hard to find one, let's 
say, you chose one.  But it would be good to have a parent 
or maybe a couple of parents sitting at the table here 
telling us what troubles them.
		With all that, a couple of things comes to mind.  
First of all, on the first one that says, of course, it is a 
parent's responsibility first and foremost and not only 
responsibility, but right to monitor and watch and care for 
the children.  
		In the perfect world, if we could have parents 
carefully monitoring and watching at all times, we might not 
have to be here because they might say, well, maybe we 
shouldn't have televisions in the house at all or maybe they 
would be there all the time sitting with their children 
making sure that there aren't any harmful or inappropriate 
programming addressed to them.
		So I agree with everyone that is sitting here that 
the first and foremost thing you can do is get more 
information to the parents, more information, more accurate 
information.  I hear that too much, that a lot of the 
ratings are not accurate.  So that's no good.
		Frankly, there is another problem that no one has 
addressed here, is that not everybody is rating.  Most 
everyone is rating, but not everybody is rating and not 
everything is rated.  So that is a whole other subject.  So 
you might think I've got this V-chip, I am going to block X 
and a lot of stuff that you don't want your children to see 
is going to come through.
		So more information, more empowerment, more tools 
for attempting to deal with this great new world.  But let 
me ask about this because I have a seven-year-old who is 
very young for his age.  I also have a 19-year-old teenage 
daughter.  And their ability to deal with the world is very 
different.  
		And I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist.  
But I am told -- and I have been a mother -- that it may be 
very hard to give a seven-year-old and under or an eight-
year-old and under any kind of -- or the critical views 
skills that we all talk about to be able to discern and be 
better viewers.
		So I ask you that because at the end of the day 
while most parents want to do a good job, a lot of parents 
can't be home because they are working a job or two or are 
the only parent to be there doing the job.  And then there 
are some parents who just don't care.  So what do you do 
about the children of those parents, but also the children 
of the best parents who are at those ages where they just 
don't have the skills because their minds are still forming? 
 They are impressionable.
		And I really want to direct that in particular to 
Professor Kunkel and Dr. Cantor, if I got that right, 
because I know you have dealt with these issues.
		DR. KUNKEL:  Well, first let me say that I am a 
huge support of the value of media literacy.  And the point 
that I think you are addressing here is the age-related 
differences children's cognitive abilities develop over 
time.  And there are, indeed, limits to what one can convey 
or accomplish with a very young child.  
		Below the age of somewhere between six and eight, 
children do not differentiate well between fantasy and 
reality in television content.  It is a complex issue.  
There are different ways of defining fantasy-reality.  But 
prior to the age where they can discriminate well, they 
believe that everything on television is real.  Very young 
children think that commercials are on to give actors a 
break and that it is all happening in real-time and so 
forth.
		And so given that our concern about the effects of 
media violence is focused most seriously on young children 
and given that there are limits to what can be accomplished 
with media literacy with young children.  I think that is 
why I at least for one am not willing to look at that as the 
ultimate solution or the panacea here.  But I think that we 
do need to pursue initiatives to make sure the industry or 
to encourage the industry to present violence more 
responsibly and to give parents as many tools as possible to 
supervise their children.
		DR. CANTOR:  Okay.  I will follow up on that.  I 
agree with what Professor Kunkel said.  In terms of younger 
children, you have to be very careful because it is very 
hard to un-do an effect on a young child, much harder 
because they can't use their reasoning skills.  They can -- 
you can talk until you are blue in the face, as I say, about 
it is not real.  It doesn't mean that much to a young child.
		So for a -- so that is why I think parental 
education is so important.  If parents knew that their kids 
are going to respond that intensely to what they see on 
television, they wouldn't leave their child home alone in 
front of the television set.  Now -- but it is hard to get 
this information out and everybody knows that a TV is a 
babysitter that works very well at a certain level.
		I think to the question of -- and I agree, above 
this age, you know, you can begin media literacy, but don't 
depend on it.  As far as older kids, I think media literacy 
is the place to go in parental education.  But talking about 
-- you were talking about the parents of the kids that don't 
care.  
		And a lot of people say, you know, I happen to be 
the only person I know in the world that has the V-chip.  A 
lot of parents say the people who have the V-chip are not 
the ones who need it.  It is everybody else's kids.  Well, I 
would say that is -- you have to help the -- if you are 
preaching to the choir, help the choir first to get a handle 
on what they can do to help their kids.  
		And then have the choir sing louder and louder 
because just as we had to start with a very small group of 
parents who used seatbelts and then moved it out so that 
people were -- people who didn't usually care about these 
things came to learn about it, I think we have to start 
helping the parents who already concerned do a better job by 
giving them tools and then get that message out further as 
the parents who use these tools and information, find 
positive results.  
		So I think we can only start with -- I don't think 
we can tell these parents how to raise their children who 
don't appreciate the consequences.  But we can work toward 
educating them so that they will see it, as well. 
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  But what do we do about 
the parents who for whatever reasons don't care or can't or 
won't react to this?
		DR. CANTOR:  I don't know anything we can do 
except continue to try and work on them and also work 
through the schools and teachers and get teacher training 
and that sort of thing so that kids might be getting better 
information and skills through schools if they don't get 
them through home.  I mean, there is only -- there are only 
so many things we can -- we can only encourage parents to --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Raising that and 
resurrecting a broadcaster code of conduct is not a bad idea 
or --
		DR. CANTOR:  Oh, no.  I don't think it is a bad 
idea.  I think broadcasters should be encouraged to behave 
responsibly.  I don't think they should be encouraged to 
make only bland programming.  And I -- you know, I also 
would like to stress the point that even great programming 
can be harmful psychologically to kids who are too young to 
see it or who don't see it with a parent and just stumble 
into it.
		And I think one of the extra responsibilities, one 
of the reasons why broadcasters get targeted more often 
than, let's say, people who do magazines or even video games 
that kids buy is that broadcasting comes into our homes 
automatically.  And we have to -- if you want to see the 
political debates, we have to have a television.  
		So if we want to see the political debates, we get 
a lot of programming automatically into our homes that we 
would never choose if we were choosing it one thing at a 
time.  And that is why they should be -- I would hope the 
broadcasters had an extra responsibility because of this 
automatic entry into our homes, to provide information and 
tools that would help parents do a better job of parenting.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  Well, this is 
really an educational panel.  I have learned a lot, as well 
as with the last panel.  Commissioner Tristani, you 
mentioned you wished there was a parent or two on the panel. 
 Well, I think many of us feel we are parents.  We described 
your situation.  
		When I discussed with my wife last night this 
panel, the reaction was swift and strong and I got an earful 
about the problems about she has and other parents may have 
about content of all sorts, not just on television.  The 
petitions that Commissioner Tristani have collected is --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Excuse me, Harold.  Can I 
just clarify that?  I didn't collect them.  They were sent 
to me.  And actually, they were sent to the FCC in my care.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  The petitions on 
the table next to Commissioner Tristani are from some very 
frustrated people.  I come at this from a -- I would like to 
repeat the question that Chairman Kennard raised, but I 
would like to pose it a slightly different way, maybe 
reflecting your perspective, to ask each panelist to 
describe one thing not that this agency can do to protect 
the children of America, but what can parents do independent 
of what this agency does.  And it doesn't have to be in the 
broadcast context.  
		But Commissioner Tristani is exactly right.  Every 
day we get lots of e-mails.  And I would have to say the 
vast majority are about some content-related issue.  And I 
strongly believe that this is at some point not the role of 
government, not the role of the First Amendment.  
		But there is a crying need out there.  There is a 
lot of anger.  And I would be very interested in ideas that 
the panel might have of what parents can do on their own.  
Maybe it is go to work with the supermarket and say would 
you please take those magazines out of the checkout counter, 
which I must say are more invasive and come -- you go to the 
store to buy wholesome things.  And then you go to the 
checkout counter and you are bombarded with images and ideas 
that are things you try to keep your children's eyes away 
from.
		MS. RIDEOUT:  Well, I would be happy to take a 
crack at answering that.  I mean, one tool that parents have 
obviously at their disposal is the V-chip.  And it is 
interesting, the V-chip to me is the only piece of media 
technology that I can think of that has absolutely no vested 
interest behind it.  There is no one with a stake in its 
success.  There his no one with an interest in marketing it 
or informing parents about it.
		It is, in fact, an orphan technology.  And the 
result is that, you know, about 40 percent of parents have 
never even heard of the V-chip.  And even among those who 
have heard of it, very small minorities understand either 
how shows are rated, what kinds of shows are rated, what the 
ratings mean.
		In one of the Kaiser Foundation studies, we found 
that only 17 percent of parents with children under ten 
could name one of the two ratings that are specifically 
designed for children's programs.  Only four percent of them 
knew what the FV stood for, which stands for fantasy 
violence for those who might not know.  But it is the only 
labeling for young children that has -- gives you any 
indication of the presence of violence in the programming.  
Only four percent of the parents with young children knew 
what that meant.  And, in fact, a lot of them thought it 
meant family viewing.
		So, obviously, more information in that -- parents 
would need more information in that regard I think to even 
have the V-chip be a realistic option for them as to 
something that they could use.  I mean, another thing is we 
hear from parents time and again that they are very, very 
concerned about the impact of both sex and violence on 
television on their children.  However, some of the studies 
the Foundation has done indicate that for those parents, 
there may be more that they can do within their own homes in 
terms of monitoring what their children are watching.
		In one of our studies called "Kids in Media at the 
New Millennium", we found that television was on most of the 
time in 42 percent of children's homes, just on most of the 
time.  For kids eight and older, two-thirds of them say 
television is usually on during meals.  Two-thirds of them 
are allowed to have a television in their bedroom.  More 
than 60 percent of them say there are no rules in their 
family as to how much television they can watch, what kinds 
of television they can watch.  And 95 percent of the time 
that they were watching TV, they were doing so without a 
parent there.
		So I would say if parents are deeply concerned, 
they could get the televisions out of their children's 
bedrooms.  They could turn the television off sometimes, 
especially during meals.  They could watch with their 
children so they have a better idea.  There is lots of -- 
you know, a better idea of what their kids are seeing.
		There is lots of reasons that Commissioner 
Tristani mentioned that parents may have a difficult time 
with this thing.  They may not be home.  They may have other 
demands on their time and so on.  But those are some steps 
that some parents could take.
		MS. STROSSEN:  I welcome the expansive nature of 
the question, Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth.  And maybe I am 
interpreting too broadly.  But if the concerns are what many 
people feel is an adverse consequence, and some of my fellow 
panelists have said, adverse consequences of media violence, 
number one, increase violence against young people.  We want 
to protect our young people's physical safety.  And, number 
two, we want to decrease their sense of fearfulness which 
many people also attribute to media violence.  
		First, in terms of safety, far more young people 
are endangered in automobiles and die in automobiles.  The 
seatbelts were referred to, drinking and driving by young 
people.  That should be a high priority.
		In terms of fearfulness, here I am also going to 
get to I believe in criticizing the media.  And I do believe 
in encouraging them to do more of one thing and less of 
another.  I think they should put on more positive 
programming.  I think in terms of the news coverage of 
violence and crime is out of all proportion to reality.  
Obviously, any degree of violence or crime in the schools or 
anywhere else is too much.
		But I don't think there has been enough publicity 
about the steadily and dramatically decreasing rates of 
crime that we have in our society including the public 
schools.  So I think that the sensationalizing of those 
tragic incidents that occur does a disservice to the extent 
they make all people in our society including our young 
people over-estimate how likely it is that they are going to 
become a victim of violence outside the home when most of 
them were more than the victims of violence in their own 
homes and in the streets.
		When we get to the role of the media themselves, I 
think that the last point that Vicky made is an extremely 
important one.  That parents should play the active role 
throughout their kids' interaction with every kid of medium. 
 And I see you shaking your head, Commissioner Tristani.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I am not shaking -- I 
understand.
		MS. STROSSEN:  I mean, because there are some 
parents who don't do that, obviously.  And that is a larger 
problem that goes far beyond media.  It goes to nutrition 
and health and everything.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  My point was not only are 
there some parents that won't do that.  Most parents are too 
busy to do that.
		MS. STROSSEN:  Exactly.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  That is a reality of 
modern life which we can't predict.
		MS. STROSSEN:  Yes.  And so maybe the solution is 
even a much broader one then is within the mandate of this 
Commission.  It may have to do with providing child support. 
 And I don't even want to get into that.  But that may be 
the underlying root of the problem here.
		I think it is very important as we talk about 
newer media that tend to spur people's fears and concerns, 
to put it in historical context and to recognize that, you 
know, with every new medium, parents have been very 
concerned.  
		And I think that responses that work for comic 
books and that work for books should also work for 
television which is not censorship, not prohibition, not 
restriction, but affirmative encouragement, steering kids 
toward materials that are particularly useful for them.  
That is what the American Library Association has done with 
every medium.  It is now doing it with the internet.  It did 
it in the past with books.  
		The code that the ALA subscribes to is that 
everything should be open to kids on every medium, including 
video games and some that are the least popular in public 
perception.  But we should affirmatively encourage kids to 
seek out those sites and those shows that professional 
educators and experts including those with the public health 
background say are really positive for kids.
		And that is what I was trying to get to when I 
talked about the limits of the V-chip.  I think if this 
Commission could encourage the use of the expanding spectrum 
space to come up with something that I would call the choice 
chip that gave parents the full range of information on the 
screen that they can get when they go to a library and go to 
the children's section of the library.  Now, these are 
materials that are particularly recommended for kids.  And 
here are the detailed reasons why and the reviews.  That 
would be positive.
		MR. CORN-REVERE:  I also appreciate the spirit of 
the question, Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth.  As the father 
of four children ranging in age from 12, or almost 13, to 
five, this is a very significant issue in our household.  So 
it is not a question of whether or not something can be done 
versus nothing that can be done.  It is really a question of 
who should be taking action.
		And as parents, I think our obligation is first to 
speak to our children and to be involved in the choices that 
they make, to be aware of what they may watch, what they may 
come across and to make choices that are individualized to 
each child.
		Commissioner Tristani, I noticed you mentioned 
that you thought your seven-year-old was young for his age. 
 And I understand that concern as I think of my own kids and 
have to try and decide for each of them what may be 
appropriate or what may not be.  It is one of the most 
difficult things that I do in life, is trying to make sure 
that those choices are appropriate.
		So I think it is important for parents to be 
involved with that and to set limits.  And for that reason, 
I am big believer in media literacy.  I think it is a 
woefully neglected area.  So that people really don't have a 
real awareness of what they may be witnessing.  And that is 
one of the things that we try and do at home.
		What do you do about the households where you 
don't have as caring an environment or where parents are too 
busy?  It does create some difficult issues.  Whether or not 
that is the occasion for government regulation is a more 
complicated question and something that I think we have to 
approach with an awareness that two-thirds of American 
households don't have children in them according to Census 
Bureau statistics.  And so it makes it difficult to create a 
rule that fits the needs of everybody.  
		DR. KUNKEL:  It is a cliche to say take 
responsibility.  But I will say that because you asked for 
the best advice.  The thing that I might add that is unique 
is that most of the attention that is devoted to a parent's 
responsibility in this realm is focused in the communication 
process between in this case television programming and the 
viewer.  It is focused on the receiving end of that 
communication process.  How can I limit what my child sees? 
 How can I co-view with my child to perhaps help shape and 
interpret the meaning that they will make of the content 
they are watching?
		Parents know that or most parents know that.  And 
there is a lot of effort to share that information on 
helping those -- that end of the equation.  But what I would 
recommend to parents is that they also take more proactive 
responsibility at the source end of the communication 
process.  And that is to convene information back to the 
industry about how they feel about programming.
		There, of course, are some examples where that has 
worked successfully.  Professor Cantor talked about the Nike 
ad that aired and many people complained about that.  It was 
taken off immediately.  We don't see many examples of that.
		And I am very clear that most parents feel 
powerless, that they feel that they are just the lone voice 
and that they cannot accomplish a meaningful input on the 
process of what content goes out over the airwaves.  Thank 
goodness for citizen activist groups like CME and others 
that provide some channeled role to channel parents' voices. 
 But I would encourage parents to attend to both sides of 
that equation, source and receiver.
		DR. CANTOR:  I agree with Professor Kunkel.  And, 
in fact, I do a lot of speaking at parent groups and other 
groups that want to know what they can do.  And what I say 
is, well, television and other media are making too much 
money on programming that is potentially harmful to some 
kids.  
		But parents even if they cut back a little bit, 
there is going to be enough of it that the parents are never 
going ever be able to say, okay, well, now I don't have to 
worry about it.    And even if they have the V-chip, they 
have to worry about it.  
		So what I say to parents is know what your kids 
are viewing.  You can't take anything for granted.  Watch 
with them and talk to them about it.  Look at the other 
perspective.  I've been doing research on getting kids to 
look at the same media violence from a different perspective 
and it has an opposite effect.
		Also, get them on your side in the sense that if 
you are authoritarian and say I am the boss here, this is 
what we watch, this is what we don't watch without any 
reasoning behind it, without going through and saying what 
are some of the negative effects on other kids that you 
would like to modify, you are going to get them running to 
their neighbor's house.  And that is not going to be a good 
solution, running to the neighbor's house to watch it there.
		If you can get them to internalize some of the 
values that you have that extend to what they choose to 
watch on television, that is the best you can do because 
they may be out of your control pretty soon.  And this is a 
part of growing up.  And I agree about speaking up, speak up 
locally as well as nationally.  
		I got a program moved in Maury Povich's show which 
was showing live on television the results of paternity 
tests so that little kids learned on his show he is the 
father, not he is your father.  That was on right before 
"Pokemon" in my locality.  So that kids who tuned in two 
minutes early for "Pokemon" saw "Maury."
		I called up and said this was not -- this just 
couldn't be because "Pokemon" was so popular with the five 
to ten-year-olds.  And they said, well, at the end of the 
month, we are going to look at what the labels are like and 
then maybe visit this.  And I said I don't think I can wait 
until the end of the month.  I am going to write a letter to 
the editor of the local paper and I will send you a copy so 
you will be ready to -- when it comes out, you can respond 
to it.  I said this very politely.
		Well, they called me back and moved that show 
within ten days.  And I think if we use -- and they have 
also told me that most -- that if they don't hear from 
parents, they think everything is okay.  And I agree, a lot 
of parents don't call up because they think there is nothing 
to be done about it.  
		But particularly if a broadcaster pushes the 
envelope a little further than we though the should and 
nobody calls, then they say, okay, we can do that again.  So 
it is really important to speak out directly and also make a 
public statement in your local paper.  And you might get 
more action.
		DR. JENKINS:  As a father of a 19-year-old, I do 
take very seriously the parents' responsibility in this 
area.  And let me describe a little bit of what we did in 
our household to deal with this question, knowing what I 
know about the culture around media.
		Starting at about the age of three or four, we sat 
down and were telling a bedtime story to my son.  We had my 
son tell us bedtime stories which we typed into the 
computer, we made into books that he illustrated them.  And 
we sent them to parents and grandparents as Christmas gifts 
and as gifts on other major holidays.  That made it special. 
 We used a space where we talked together about the things 
that mattered to my son.  And he was encouraged to 
creatively rework the contents of the environment around 
him.
		Now, in that space, a lot of stuff about 
television came up including stuff that was on television 
when I wasn't watching.  It was an early warning of things 
that my son might have seen that was traumatic or disturbing 
or that challenged the values that I had as a father.  It 
gave me a space every evening where we could talk together 
about the values of the media and where I could encourage 
him to think of himself as an active, creative and ethical 
user of media and not simply someone passively absorbing the 
messages the media sent over the airwaves.
		I talk to many parents who will go to Little 
League games even though they hate baseball or listen to 
off-key performances of Suza even though, obviously, that is 
not necessarily that pleasurable because it is important to 
the kid.  Well, I think we as parents have an obligation to 
be attentive to the popular culture our kids consume, not 
because we like it or not, but because it is important to 
the kid and our relationship to it.
		And out of that relationship I built with my son, 
he is here with me today.  He is a student at George 
Washington studying in media and creative writing.  We still 
talk regularly about the content of media and popular 
culture and the values that it portrays.  And I think we 
have a relationship.
		Secondly, I think as parents, we can use the 
resources of digital media to trade notes back and forth 
with each other.  I don't think ratings provide enough 
information for me because their values are very different 
in the assumptions they are making than mine are.  I think a 
medium that allows us to really talk both negatively about 
popular culture we don't want our kids taught and even more 
importantly, positively about forms of culture we want other 
parents to be aware of is something we should foster.
		And I would love to see a merge out of these 
debates, a kind of organization, a public organization, 
neither commercial nor governmental, that does for the 
cultural sphere what the League of Women Voters does for 
democracy; that is, provide a space for people to talk about 
issues, to compare information and to allow us to make 
informed choices about the culture that our children 
achieve.  And I think in the digital age, we have got to 
find a way that we can do that.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Very interesting.  Thank you.  
And Mr. Peters.
		MR. PETERS:  Since I'm not a parent, I won't try 
to give advice.  But if my mother were alive, she would tell 
you learn to pray and get all your -- and ask all your 
friends to pray because oftentimes that is the only thing 
you will be able to do.
		But I would like to make a couple of comments on 
what the broadcasters can do very quickly.  And one of them 
is to time channeling.  I mean, we don't think that time 
channeling is the whole answer.  I mean, you can't be 
putting on the Playboy Channel after 10:00 we don't think.  
We don't care what, you know, some people thing.  But we 
don't think.  But it is a big part of the answer.
		I just -- my -- I don't watch much commercial 
prime time TV.  But my wife kind of hooked me into watching 
re-runs.  And "Seinfeld" happened to be -- they run at 11:00 
p.m. in New York City.  And I can understand why people like 
the program.  It is tremendously funny.  And to me, the only 
consistently objectionable thing about it is that every 
second or third week, somebody is in bed with somebody new. 
 And, of course, it is a morals-free environment.
		Well, I'm not trying to ban "Seinfeld" from 
television or even broadcast.  I would assert it is not a 
suitable program for prime time TV when virtually every kid 
is still up.  It is a late evening program.
		And if the industry would just learn that there 
are times and places for things and -- one other thing -- 
and I am going to stop.  But that as the world of channels 
grows, there will become -- there becomes less and less 
excuse to put certain types of programming in a medium you 
know you are going to reach virtually every kid that watches 
television.
		I mean, I am not the expert on this high 
definition television.  But I understand it can break off 
into new channels.  Well, if that is true, then some of 
these channels ought to be subscription.  Let adults choose 
to bring them into their home.  It is a compromise.  But 
that is part of the answer to this problem.  It is not 
either-or.  It is not do nothing, leave them all in the 
parents' care.  That is not the solution.
		And the industry itself could solve this problem 
if it were willing to do it and maybe take a bit of a bite 
in the pocketbook for the short term while the American 
public learned that during certain hours of the TV evening 
or in certain mediums, you weren't going to have every 
adult-oriented comedy showing.  But they would still be on 
television.  So I will stop with that.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.  Commissioner Ness.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Thank you.  First, I want to 
thank everyone who has testified on this panel.  I 
appreciate your comments.  Second, particularly, I want to 
thank those of you who have been engaged in providing 
studies and to really examine these issues.  Kaiser 
Foundation in particular has really provided us with some 
terrific information to chew on.  Dale, I know you have been 
doing this for a kazillion years.  Joanne, the same.
		Second, I endorse and highlight what several of 
you have said with respect to critical viewing skills, media 
literacy.  Extraordinarily important.  I know NCTO and 
others have put out materials for schools and for families 
that have been particularly good at helping to educate 
children to provide them with the tools necessary to view 
programming, particularly when parents are not sitting there 
at the same time.
		Third, we talked extensively about what is the 
role of government in this exercise.  And one of the biggest 
roles of government I believe is to provide a public forum 
as we are doing today of the discussion of these extremely 
important issues.  
		And I would like to suggest, once again, that it 
is -- we are not talking about government subsuming 
broadcasters.  What we are talking about is broadcasters, 
not only do they have First Amendment rights.  Of course, 
they have First Amendment rights.  I am not questioning the 
ability to provide this programming.
		But let's not use "Shindler's List" as a shield 
for justifying anything and everything that is on the air 
that is gratuitous violence, that is gratuitous sex.  It 
should be broadcasters using their rights as -- in a way 
that is responsible with serving the public.  Once again, if 
broadcasters could simply look at what they are showing -- 
are they proud of what they are showing?  Do they feel that 
this is making a public contribution to society?
		We spend very little time on this earth.  And it 
would be nice to be able to use that time wisely to benefit 
our communities.  And that includes entertainment.  
Entertainment is extraordinarily important for society.
		But once again, if broadcasters could simply ask 
for each program that is put on the air, is this something 
that I as a broadcaster am proud of or is it something that, 
frankly, I just assume my family not watch.  Given that, I 
think that would go a long way towards helping all of us to 
address a lot of the issues that are facing society today.
		And not to fingerpoint either because we can -- we 
do spend an awful lot of time discerning if this is a direct 
causal effect or it doesn't have a direct causal effect or 
the like.  But once again, is there something positive that 
can be out there?  And Ms. Strossen also pointed out that it 
is great when you do have some positive things that are on 
the air.  And if there are ways of encouraging that using 
the bully pulpit, that goes a long way.
		And, Dale, your comment with respect -- I believe 
it was your comment with respect to parents conveying 
information back to the broadcasters.  It is critical that 
if parents believe that what they are seeing is 
inappropriate, is a deterioration of the values of society, 
whatever it might be, if that information is communicated 
back to the broadcaster, back to the advertiser, that that 
will help to engender this public discourse that is so vital 
to achieving what we would like to see.  And that is our 
holding the quality of programming that is available to us 
over our free, over-the-air system.
		And in that context, I would also point out, we 
have talked a lot about what children see with respect to 
sex, with respect to violence.  There has also been a 
tremendous increase in just degrading of humanity on 
television.  I happen to be -- I think we all have been 
receiving in all of our e-mails about a program that was 
aired recently on -- one program on Howard Stern that was 
particularly degrading of women.  
		And I just -- without going into the details of 
that program, once again, we need to think about what are 
the messages that we are communicating in society and is 
there a way of just improving that public discourse.  So I 
want to thank everyone.
		I do want to ask one quick question.  And we have 
just about run out of time.  And I want to give my colleague 
an opportunity, also, to ask some questions.  Is there any -
- do you think that there would be any value to a larger 
code of conduct on the part of broadcasters or is that just 
guiding mere words on a sheet of paper with absolutely no 
room for any meaning?
		MS. RIDEOUT:  Well, one thing that I would say in 
that regard -- and this goes back to the question about what 
parents can do -- is one thing parents can do is remember 
that these are their airwaves.  And they can inform 
themselves about what they think broadcasters' obligations 
should be in exchange for their free use of these airwaves. 
 And they can support elected officials who share that 
perspective and contact the Federal Communications 
Commission with their perspective on that.
		And just another related point on the issue of 
parents is that in forums like this, it seems to me we 
always end up -- there always is a tendency to look to 
somebody who isn't in the room to talk about what that 
entity can do.  In this instance, parents.  In other 
instances, gun manufacturers, you know, video games, et 
cetera.
		And I just think one rule of thumb for all of us 
when we are engaging this issue is to focus on what those of 
us in the room can do in a positive way.  And in this 
instance, you raise one of those options which is the 
voluntary code of conduct.  And that is something we just 
don't have a policy position on.  But I would encourage 
parents to recall these are their airwaves, to inform 
themselves about that issue and have that reflected in their 
choices of elected officials.
		MS. STROSSEN:  And if it is truly voluntary, it 
might just be empty rhetoric.  If it is labeled as voluntary 
but has behind it an implicit threat, you don't do it 
yourselves, then the government will do it to you, 
obviously, that raises First Amendment problems.  
		But I think the most important point by far is the 
one that was just made by Ms. Rideout and was also made by a 
couple of the other speakers earlier on, that parents under-
estimate -- parents and non-parents for that matter, 
citizens, under-estimate the economic power that they have.
		The mass media are nothing if not responsive to 
economic pressures that can be brought by citizens who 
mobilize to voice their complaints either directly or by 
threatening their sponsors to withdraw their sponsorship.  
That's a democratic way to influence our media that is 
completely consistent with freedom of speech.  Indeed, it is 
an exercise of our First Amendment rights.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Anyone else?
		DR. KUNKEL:  Yes, but my point is that there are 
codes and then there are codes.  The NAB code that was 
abandoned in 1982 was very proactively monitored and 
enforced by efforts of the industry.  In contrast, there is 
a different self-regulatory code that is maintained by the 
Council of Better Business Bureaus and enforced by the 
Children's Advertising Review Unit.  This establishes 
standards for advertising directed to children.
		For all of the television ads directed to children 
around the country, I believe they have a staff of two or 
three people that engage in no proactive monitoring or 
enforcement.  They do respond to all complaints they 
receive.  However, because virtually no one in the country 
knows there is a self-regulatory code, they receive no 
complaints.
		So my point is that there are codes and there are 
codes.  A code that was widely recognized and adhered to I 
think would be a value.
		DR. CANTOR:  I think a code that was publicized, 
whether it was regulated or not, would have a positive 
effect because it would cause discussion.  It would make 
perhaps hypocracy more apparent.  It would just -- even 
empty rhetoric is something that people can focus on or when 
they have a complaint about something, they can compare it 
to the code.
		And so the reason I am really angry about this is 
it is against your own code.  So I don't necessarily think 
it will -- people will create a code and then follow it 
right away.  But anything that allows the industry to 
recognize, even to say -- make lip service to its 
responsibility beyond profits I think would be great for the 
public interest in this argument.
		DR. JENKINS:  I think the industry has enormous 
responsibilities in this area.  I'm not sure whether a code 
is the best way to form those responsibilities.  But I 
think, first of all, we need to figure out what the appeal 
of violent entertainment is.  There has been a lot of 
discussion of effects, but not a lot of explanation of why 
teens are drawn to this kind of material.  As I look through 
research and understand the appeal, we may discover it has 
less to do with blood thirstiness and more to do with the 
fact that it expresses a world view or a sense of anxiety or 
a sense of angst about being a teen that could be expressed 
creatively through other channels.
		I think also we need to think about creativity.  
And we have been -- our program has been intervening in the 
area of video game violence by doing workshops with game 
designers to teach them about story telling, to teach them 
about character and narrative, to talk about other ways of 
achieving emotional impact that don't depend on gratuitous 
violence.  
		And I think that is a constructive intervention 
between the academic community and the industry to foster 
creativity rather than simply slavish adherence to any set 
of rules which is necessarily not going to be exact for 
every circumstance.
		MR. PETERS:  And that would be that the code is a 
result of interaction between the industry and the public.  
It would be much more likely to be a sound code than if the 
industry just goes back and concocts something that more 
often than not would be designed to protect its own 
interest.  But if the industry were willing to sit down with 
a cross-section of people and try to hammer out some 
guidelines for programming in various channels, my guess is 
that there would be some workable compromises.
		Would it make television perfect?  No.  Would 
everybody be happy?  No.  But it would be a whole lot better 
than it is today.  But that's what I think it would take.  
They would have to listen and everybody would have to do 
some giving and taking on it.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Commissioner Powell, did you 
have anything?
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Yes, I am going to try to be 
brief because I know we are out of time.  And I will not ask 
a question and ask each of you to respond to it in the 
interest of time and try to just do it as a summary.  If you 
want to respond, you can, or don't.
		First of all, I think I want to nominate Mr. 
Jenkins for parent of year.  That is one of the more 
creative activities I have ever heard of.  And I am going to 
attempt to try it if I can make those boys sit long enough 
to do so.  
		Which also raises the question -- I will just make 
a brief comment about parenting.  One of the challenges of 
setting rules about TV and saying turn it off is they may 
want you to entertain them.  And that is a challenge.  And 
then I think that I see in a lot of households that people 
don't do that because it means then they look at you and 
expect you to do something to provide activity and 
entertainment for them which some parents have trouble 
doing.
		Nonetheless, the point I really wanted to 
emphasize that he mentioned about parenting is -- which I 
find struggling with an 11-year-old who responds heavily to 
pop culture, blocking them off is to lose them.  I have 
learned this very quickly, that I have to sit down and watch 
and understand what he is responding to and understand the 
meanings he sees in them or he will shut me out.
		This stuff is too prevalent in society for me to 
pretend that I have the ability to keep him cloistered from 
it.  The number of times we say you can't watch a movie, he 
says, oh, I saw that movie.  And I say where on earth did 
you -- down at Ricky's house.  It is amazing the degree to 
which I can't control his environment.  And I don't think 
that is anything we or anyone else is going to be able to 
change.  So learning to find these meanings that we relate 
to is important.
		I would just summarize by, one, really 
complimenting the panel for staying in the area of 
understanding that these are complexities, ambiguities and 
subtleties that are not susceptible to easy and quick 
solutions or even single solutions, whether they be from a 
Constitutional matter or from a social research matter.  And 
I think that is really important.
		I think part of the problem I find is when you 
start talking about how to define it or put meaning to it, 
you immediately are intertwining different sets of values, 
different judgements about morals and biases that we as a 
diverse nation do not uniformly share.  
		I am shocked the degree to which I have friends 
who I have the highest respect for who think programs that I 
wouldn't want my children anywhere near are absolutely 
appropriate and don't want to hear anybody talking to them 
about why they shouldn't watch WWF Wrestling.  Indeed, sit 
down and watch it with them.  I can't explain that.  But I 
understand that in my democracy, I am supposed to preserve 
that -- their right to do so.
		The other thing I would say about the effects 
literature which I find intriguing, I clerked for Judge 
Edwards who wrote that article.  So I want to say one thing 
about it.  He embarked on it believing that he would find an 
answer to do it.  I will point out to you, I was a clerk 
when he formulated his idea, he believed --
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Which means you wrote the 
article.
		MR. PETERS:  No, I didn't.  I got out of there 
just in time.  
		(Laughter.)
		But it was interesting to me because it was a 
journey in search of finding that solution and ultimately he 
didn't.  And one of the reasons that he didn't was the point 
that when you get to the effort of trying to define and 
infuse these things with some values, you really run into a 
problem.  
		I don't know why -- we talk about glamorization 
and sanitization.  Well, you know, when I was a kid, John 
Wayne and the Green Berets and the plethora of westerns and 
Road Runner did all the same thing.  They glamorized and 
they sanitized.  We have aspects of violence and aggressive 
that we value as a society.  That makes us even harder.
		What is a just war?  How do I explain the presence 
of the most powerful military on earth and this willingness 
to use it?  How do I explain when you should hit someone 
rather than let them pick on your little sister?  How should 
I explain what it means to defend my home and my property 
against intrusion?  These things are -- you know, how do you 
explain the violence and aggressiveness in sports that we 
revere?  All of these things I think make these issues very 
complex, subtle and dangerous.
		And I think the caution that I want to emphasize 
that I think all of you all did in your own way is that 
there is -- the cause and effect thing is the wrong 
question.  And I think Dr. Kunkel said it right.  It is a 
contributing factor.  But the reason we have to be cognizant 
of that is it is also meaning there is no grand solution 
just for this problem that will have the kind of impact that 
we are talking about.
		It is not about letting parents off the hook.  But 
it is understanding that parents will make different value 
judgements than we might.  To me, it is not about it is all 
the parents or it is all the government.  But when you get 
into an area where someone is going to have to make a value 
judgement about their kids, to me that is the parent.  
Whether they are willing or not to exercise that, at some 
point, I think that is sort of the price of democracy.  But 
I won't ask any questions because I am hungry.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  we will take another ten 
minutes because Commissioner Tristani wanted to ask another 
question.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  No.  And I don't need ten 
minutes.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  And if anyone else wants 
to chime in.  First of all, I want to agree with -- and I 
stated this myself before -- something which Professor 
Kunkel first brought up and was echoed and Ms. Strossen 
brought up, that there is no more powerful tool for parents 
than contacting the broadcasters and their sponsors and 
saying this is not something we like.  
		It works.  It is very effective.  I think parents 
and families are not aware of how effective that is.  And 
that is a message I give constantly and I give to a lot of 
the groups that have come personally to complain to me about 
programming they think is inappropriate.  
		And at this moment, I would like to recognize 
either Ms. Santine who is here in the back of the room from 
Puerto Rico who belongs not from the group that presented 
these petitions, but from another group in Puerto Rico who 
is concerned about these issues.  I have again and again 
counseled them that aside from contacting their government 
which is their right, that they should contact the 
broadcasters because economic tools are the most powerful 
tools.  So I wanted to highlight that.
		A lot of our discussion today -- and I think it 
has been a very good discussion, although I would like to 
have a prolonged one and some other players -- has focused -
- most of it has focused on violence.  And I think there is 
much more research on the effects of violence on our 
children.  But a concern that I have read about and I am 
concerned about and a lot of parents are concerned about is 
the effect of sexual material.
		And one issue that I think was picked up in maybe 
your -- one of the Kaiser studies, it has been picked up by 
others, is concern about the effect of sexual programming in 
contributing to the ever-increasing sexual assertion of our 
young teenage girls at younger ages.  They are not only 
becoming aware about sex, but engaging in sex at younger and 
younger ages.  And I know there is not a lot of evidence on 
that.  
		But are you -- are any of you -- and I am sure you 
must be concerned about this -- that it might be a 
contributing factor?  And what can we do about that?  And I 
would like you to address that first, Ms. Rideout.
		MS. RIDEOUT:  Sure.  Well, we do know from the 
body of research on television's effects overall that 
television and culture more broadly helps shapes young 
people's attitudes, knowledge and behavior across a wide 
variety of issues.  When it comes to sex, we know that media 
affects knowledge.  And we know that it is a source of ideas 
for young people as to what is the norm, what are other 
people doing, what are expectations, what is the norm for 
gender relations and gender roles and so on.
		Quantitative studies on direct causality that you 
are speaking of are even rarer for effects on sexual 
behavior than for violence.  In fact, we have quite a few in 
violence, but not many on sex.  The National Institutes of 
Health have just funded a number of research projects in 
that realm that should help close that gap. 
		We certainly know that there can be a positive 
impact from programming such as public service advertising 
and also from -- in the content of specific shows.  And one 
final thing I just wanted to say is as you consider the 
array of options before you, there is a voluntary code of 
conduct in the television industry today.  
		Broadcasters are making voluntary decisions as to 
what they think is appropriate or is not appropriate to put 
on the air every single time they decide to show something. 
 And the results, the content that we have on television is 
the result of those voluntary decisions.
		MS. STROSSEN:  I would just like to say that I was 
fascinated recently to read their very comprehensive survey 
about parents' attitudes about sexual education and sex 
information.  And contrary to some stereotypes and 
preconceptions, it showed that the vast majority of parents 
are hungry for their kids to get more information about sex 
including over the media.
		I think the assumption is that they are going to 
be sexual beings anyway.  I don't want to give them --
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Ms. Strossen --
		MS. STROSSEN:  Yes, yes.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  -- and this is meant for 
everyone because I did want to explain in my question.  But 
my concern is not about having good information which gives 
you the good health information, but is maybe casual 
treatment without talking about consequences like pregnancy 
for one.  And I know our pregnancy rate is down somewhat, 
but not very much.  And at least -- and, again, in Latino 
populations, it is very high and continues to be very high 
in many states.
		So it is that casual treatment.  Again, I wish we 
had a doctor here because they could talk about it is not a 
good health risk for young girls to be having babies or -- 
and that is just one aspect of it.  There are the diseases. 
 And I don't want to get into that.  
		So my concern is not that it shouldn't be on, but 
the casual treatment.  And, again, I know there is not a lot 
of empirical evidence.  But I wanted to know if you have any 
concerns about that.
		MS. STROSSEN:  I would just have to say -- to echo 
what Bob Corn-Revere said earlier about violence about this 
being such a matter of values and so subjective.  That has 
got to be even more true when it comes to sex.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Dr. Cantor.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  One more comment and we will 
have to close up.
		DR. CANTOR:  In response to what both of you have 
just said, you gave a lot of examples of different ways that 
violence might be depicted.  And it is -- you are saying it 
is too simplified just to say this is violence and it is 
bad.  And we are talking here about how sex might be 
depicted or talked about that might either be casual or 
really unhelpful.  
		And what I want to say before this is over is what 
the D stands for in the rating system.  A lot of people 
don't know.  The D stands for sexual dialogue and innuendo. 
 And this would be -- it would be very valuable if people 
knew what that meant and also could depend on the V.  
		And as a parent, what that says to me is there is 
this type of content there.  I ought to look at it to see if 
it is going to be the kind of uplifting, helpful discussion 
of these two issues or something that I want to at least 
give the opposite side of the question to my child after he 
has seen it.
		So pointing these things out is a good way not to 
say this is automatically bad for your child, but there is a 
kind of content here that could be tricky and you ought to 
look at it more carefully and then decide whether this is 
exactly the message your child wants to want or if you want 
to make a counter-message.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  If you could just indulge me 
with a closing comment based on what you just said.  There 
has been a lot of discussion today about the role of the 
industry voluntarily educating parents and empowering 
parents and what not.  And, of course, your message talked a 
lot about the responsibility, the personal corporate 
responsibility of broadcast executives who make these 
decisions about what goes out on the air.
		And the three years that I have been in this job, 
I have had a number of conversations with those people, the 
executives who create this programming and put it on the 
air.  And I have asked many of them point blank why do you 
do this, why do you put this programming on the air when you 
know it is not good for a lot of kids and while you probably 
wouldn't want your own kids to watch it.
		And many of them have been quite candid with me in 
talking about the increasing competitive pressures that the 
broadcast industry is under these days.  It is not a simple 
world anymore where you have three over-the-air networks and 
you are basically guaranteed a certain share of the prime 
time audience.  It is much more competitive.
		And I don't think that we can rely on the 
corporate responsibility of broadcasters to always do the 
right thing.  First of all, there is a lot more of them out 
there now making these decisions and putting programming on 
the air.  And it is just not -- it is not just broadcasting 
either.  It is they are feeling the pressure from cable and 
DVS and now the Internet.
		So I want to come back to the V-chip.  Vicky, you 
said that it is an orphan technology.  Why is that?  I 
remember when V-chip legislation was being advocated on 
Capitol Hill in the 1996 Act.  And, frankly, there was a lot 
of resistance from the broadcast industry.  I notice a lot 
of representatives from broadcast industry are here today.
		And I wanted to send this message to you all 
because in the wake of the recent hearings in the Senate 
commerce committee after the FTC report on violence, a lot 
of broadcast executives said the first time I have ever 
heard them say this, well, we have the V-chip.  We can use 
the V-chip.  We here all endorse the V-chip.  Joanne Cantor 
talked about PSAs and seatbelts.  If you can embrace 
seatbelts as a PSA campaign, why not the V-chip?
		Commissioner Tristani has done valiant work to try 
to get the broadcast industry more focused on an education 
campaign for the V-chip.  And I think the industry could do 
a lot more in this regard.  Why not incorporate the V-chip 
in some of your entertainment programming as you had the 
example used with "ER" and sex education?  Why not 
incorporate in some of your entertainment programming and 
get the word out.
		Commissioner Powell talked about EPGs as far as 
the next evolution of the way people use television.  Well, 
how are we going to incorporate V-chip-like technology into 
the EPGs and will this industry, the broadcast industry, 
really embrace that technology to empower parents to screen 
out some of the stuff that we don't want our kids to hear.  
Well, thank you for indulging me that final comment before 
lunch.  Let's reconvene again at 2:15.
		(Whereupon at 1:15 p.m., the hearing was recessed 
to reconvene at 2:20 p.m., this same day.)
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  I believe we are ready to get 
started.  Welcome to the third and final panel on today's 
hearings on the public interest obligations of television 
licensees.  Before we begin our third panel, I wanted to 
mention that I just received testimony submitted in the 
record in this proceeding from Senator Sam Brownbeck who has 
been very interested in the issues that we have been 
discussing today.  I wanted to note that it will be entered 
into the record, of course, and to thank the Senator for his 
participation in our hearing and on these issues in general.
		We are ready to proceed with the third panel which 
will address in a fairly general fashion the way that 
digital technology can be used to better serve our 
communities.  And for those of those panelists who were not 
here earlier today, just to go over the ground rules here.
		We will ask each panelist to take five minutes to 
make an initial opening statement.  There are -- there is a 
-- there are lights here.  The green light will go on for 
four minutes.  The yellow light will tell you that there is 
a minute left.  And then when the red light goes on, your 
time is up.
		We will also try to reserve some time at the end 
of the panel for discussion among the Commissioners and the 
panelists.  And also, I have been trying to get some time 
for questions from the general public.  But we have not done 
too well on that.  So we will try yet again for the third 
panel.  So thank you all for being here.  And we will begin 
with our first panelist, the esteemed Henry Geller.
		MR. GELLER:  I like the adjective.  Thank you for 
this opportunity to address this -- the Commission on this 
problem.  What I would like to focus on is what I believe to 
be the best resolution of the broadcast regulatory matter in 
the digital era.  I am going to do that even though at the 
end, I am recommending a legislative action by you rather 
than an administrative action.
		Your present regulatory scheme is a public trustee 
one.  You are all familiar with it, very familiar that 
system short-term licensees that are committed to serving 
the public interest of being a fiduciary trustee for their 
community.  The Supreme Court in Red Lion said that it is 
based on many more people than are broadcast in our 
available frequency.  The government could have divided up 
the broadcast day, week, month, whatever.  And instead of 
that, it puts one entity on.  And he has to be a fiduciary 
for all those the government is keeping off.
		That -- the constitutionality was sustained in Red 
Lion.  And in the cases in the '90s like Turner, Run and 
others, the Supreme Court again said that this constitutes 
our broadcasters' prudence.  Even though it had been much 
criticized forming the exception, this is what we are 
following.
		Now, very quickly, I don't think there is much use 
in the FCC discussing the validity of the public trustee 
scheme.  You can't change or declare it unconstitutional.  
Only a Court, the Supreme Court can.  And there doesn't seem 
to be very much use in your discussing whether you are going 
to follow the public trustee scheme.  You have to follow 
what Congress has told you to do.
		And in the 1996 Act, it said that remains the 
governing standard.  But you are the expert agency.  And you 
can make legislative recommendation.  And what I would urge 
you to do is to tell Congress it is time to scrap the public 
trustee scheme.  And you would then treat broadcasting the 
way you treat cable.  Cable pays up to five percent of its 
gross revenues for use of the public streets.  And here, you 
would take some modest spectrum fee, two, three, whatever 
percent.  You would take it and you would give it to public 
broadcasting.
		There is still a need for high quality, public 
service programming.  The -- as you heard in this morning's 
panel, the public broadcast system is dedicated to doing 
just that.  The commercial system, some do, some don't.  But 
it is under fierce competitive pressure and it is growing.  
And, again, you heard that this morning.
		By proceeding in this fashion, by doing this, you 
would take broadcasting and level the playing field.  It 
would be the same as the other new electronic media like 
cable.  And you would also remove First Amendment strains.  
And finally, you would be giving up behavior content 
regulation which is very difficult in this First Amendment 
field, particularly at the margins.  And in place of that, 
you would be adopting a structure that works for what you 
want which is this high quality public service programming.
		And what I recommend is that your legislated 
program would focus on a very easy step I think, a modest 
step for Congress to begin with.  And that is in your 
children's television field that was the concern of this 
first panel.  It is a crucial field because child by child, 
we do grow our nation.  
		And if you look at what is happening in the 
digital era, you can have multi-channel broadcasting.  You 
could have one channel that does pre-school, school-aged, 
adult literacy, teacher training.  The public system is 
eager to do that, has plans to do it.  It just need adequate 
funding.  It does take a considerable amount of money.
		The commercial system is never going to do that.  
And you shouldn't expect it to do that.  And so what I would 
propose is relieve the broadcasters of their obligation in 
303(B) to put on -- to serve the education needs of children 
including the Kolb requirement.  And in place of that, take 
one percent of the gross revenues of the local station.  
That would give you 250 million dollars.  And I believe that 
with that, the public interest would greatly be promoted.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  That is your summation.
		MR. GELLER:  My time is up.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  Thank you.  We will get 
back to that, I'm sure, Henry.  Mr. LaCamera.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My name 
is Paul LaCamera and I am the General Manager of WCVB TV 
which is the ABC affiliate in Boston, part of the national 
Hearst Argile Television Group.  Thank you for this 
opportunity to appear on behalf of our studio and on behalf 
of Hearst Argile Television and what is certainly a bit of a 
stretch, on behalf of the local television broadcasters 
represented by the National Association of Broadcasters.
		I imagine that NAB asked me to represent its 
constituency because WCVB is somewhat representative of the 
tradition and imperative of localism and local television 
service in America.  WCVB is a very successful television 
station by most traditional measures.  It is also a station 
which deeply believes in the concept of localism and whose 
hallmark has always been ambitious local service.
		WCVB is also a station of firsts.  And I would 
cite but two examples which I know are of great interest and 
import to this body.  On the technology front, WCVB in 
October 1998 was the first station in New England and one of 
the first in the nation to launch digital broadcasting.  We 
have taken this transition quite seriously and have had some 
initial, although understandably limited successes.
		On the content side, for the purpose of today's 
discussion on the local service side, WCVB was the first 
station in the country to commit to the airing of the 
minimum of five minutes nightly of so-called candidate 
center discourse in the 30 days leading up to an election.  
We specifically undertook this over the 30 days of January, 
prior to the February 1st New Hampshire presidential 
primary.
		WCVB's experiment was widely monitored and broadly 
documented.  Without straying into too many specifics, 
suffice it to say that it was an exhilarating, rewarding and 
at the same time, an enormously frustrating experience for 
us.  However, it felt like the right thing to do.  And in 
the end, it proved to be such.
		In fact, it was so successful, WCVB is currently 
in the midst of a similar commitment in these 30 days 
leading up to the November 7th election.  Our station's 
parent group, Hearst Argile Television, has extended this 
pledge to each of its 24 stations as part of its larger 
Commitment 2000 Project which has as its goal the 
enhancement of public participation in the electoral 
process.
		And as we know, the WCVB and Hearst Argile models 
are now being replicated across the local television 
industry including the important CBS and NBC-owned station 
groups.  And many other stations across the country are 
devoting time in a variety of ways and formats to coverage 
of the issues of the campaign.
		As we learned, the five-minute concept tests more 
than a station's commitment.  It challenges its creativity, 
as well.  In New Hampshire, we face the obstacle of the lack 
of accessibility and the lack of cooperation of two of the 
four principle candidates.  
		This current political season in Massachusetts, we 
tested by the absence of a single meaningful race beyond the 
presidential contest.  And even attaching the descriptive 
contest to the presidential race in Massachusetts is a bit 
of a stretch.  Our senior Senator was up for re-election, 
along, of course, with all of our ten Congressional 
Representatives.  Most do not have challengers and the few 
that do are facing extreme fringe candidates at best.
		However, we are doing our best to register 
citizens of Massachusetts, encourage them to vote on 
November 7th even in the absence of contested local races 
and to inform them as best we can of the issues at hand.  It 
is interesting to add that not a single political 
advertisement has appeared this fall on a Boston television 
station.
		And I would suggest this has not necessarily been 
idea for Massachusetts voters.  Voters were advertising as 
part of the mix a key player in the rigger of the contest 
and of the debate.  Last Wednesday, in fact, the Boston 
Globe editorial described a situation in Massachusetts in a 
sense, that George Bush and Al Gore are running for the 
presidency of some foreign country.
		The perception is not far from the truth in spite 
of the best efforts of Boston television and of the Boston 
press to bring the candidates and the campaign to the 
forefront of public attention.  
		The first Presidential debate did occur in our 
city.  And the Boston television stations did a superb job 
in framing this historic event, particularly with special 
programs that aired in prime time prior to the 9:00 p.m. 
start of the debate.  WCVB's next special undertaking is a 
commercial-free, half hour debate at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, 
October 30th when our Governor and our State President of 
Massachusetts will debate in our studio a referendum 
question on the November 7th ballot which would lower the 
state tax rate from 5.9 to five percent.
		While Massachusetts may not have a need for a 
political race, it does have some of the most critical 
referenda issues our state's voters have ever been asked to 
consider.  These are the issues in the political arena being 
replicated throughout the Hearst Argile Group and across 
every market and local television station in America, some 
in more vicious ways than others.
		Importantly, the undertakings I have described are 
not an anomaly and certainly not unique to WCVB, to Boston 
or to Hearst Argile.  In these election outreach activities 
are but one small albeit current example of the broader way 
of public service provided by local television stations in 
America.  I know that the NAB has tried to document and 
quantify these efforts and actually derived a stunning 
figure of more than eight billion dollars annually in public 
service.
		With that figure so large that it almost loses its 
meaning, I can assure you that the public work of our 
station and of our group and that of every local television 
station in this country has great meaning.  I am always 
struck by and proud of the public service announcements, 
national telethons, community projects, fund-raisers of 
every stripe, disaster relief efforts and almost 
indescribable variety and volume of pro bono work conducted 
by local stations.
		I have always operated WCVB with the assumption 
that our station is a community institution in the best 
sense of that term and with all the attendant obligations.  
I also firmly believe that a great majority of my 
counterparts believe this, as well, and operate their 
respective stations with a high sense by dealings in 
community purpose.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.  Jim 
Goodman, thank you for being here.  I don't know where 
Professor Raskin is.  So we will just go ahead with your 
statement.
		MR. GOODMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Three 
things.  1) Thank you for the digital spectrum and thank you 
for this digital transition.  It is great technology and it 
will really make us better local broadcasters.  Now, I am -- 
having said that, I have a couple of things on my mind.
		One is we need some help to get this transition 
going.  And the second part is preserving the concept of 
localism.  The reason we have 1,600 television stations is 
they are to serve the local community.  How do we preserve 
this concept of localism as we move off into the digital 
beyond?  So we need some help in getting this transition 
done.  And how do we preserve localism?
		I am sure that you have read the Gore Commission 
report.  I read it again this weekend and decided we did a 
whole lot better than I thought we did when we finished.  
But the concept -- I commend that to you because the concept 
out of the Gore Commission is that there should be 1) -- we 
are talking about public interest standards now for digital 
broadcasters in the future.
		There should be 1) a voluntary code.  We need to 
get back to the voluntary code.  That is a very important 
part of it.  And 2) there should be minimum public interest 
standards for broadcasters.  I mean, that is in the statute. 
That is part of the law.  And there should be minimum public 
interest standards for broadcasters.
		We -- there were some suggested standards in the 
Gore Commission report.  Some were in the body of the 
report.  The actual committee that I worked on, the Minimum 
Public Standards, didn't make the main report.  It is sort 
of an appendix to it.  But I wish you would really look at 
that. 
		The idea behind that is localism, that every 
station should be required to do local public affairs 
programming, local public service announcements to have and 
ascertain a process and when it gets feedback from the 
community in terms of what it should do and, very 
importantly -- and this is in the Gore Commission report and 
I hope you will look at it -- there is a really good 
quarterly report. 
		The truth is we don't really know how everybody is 
doing with -- I mean, there is -- there are many fine 
broadcasters.  As a matter of fact, I think most 
broadcasters are fine.  I am talking about the future.  The 
truth is there is no way to know what broadcasters are doing 
under the current reporting system.  And there is a very 
good quarterly report in the Gore Commission that I hope you 
all will look at.
		So report to the community, ascertainment and then 
do local public affairs programming and local public service 
announcements.  We did add to that the window before the 
elections, 30 days before the elections, since the stations 
are required to do local public service announcements and 
local public affairs programming, that some of that time be 
turned over to candidates in the window before the election.
		I mean, a very minimal -- I think we mentioned a 
couple of hours a week of local public affairs programming, 
a certain number of PSAs.  The basis there really is local 
programming.  Close captioning is going to be great in 
digital.  We can do a whole lot of things.  Let me just 
mention three other things to wrap it up here.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Jim, why are you so excited 
about digital?
		MR. GOODMAN:  We went on the air in '96.  We have 
broadcasted high definition since then.  We have done multi-
casting.  We have done data-casting.  We would be 
interested, Mr. Chairman, to know that on our Fox digital 
station, we carried both the Fox network and the debate, 
same station at the same time.  That is not what you wanted, 
but it is closing in on it.
		In terms of multi-casting, we do regular 
programming.  We also do news about floods in eastern North 
Carolina.  We broadcast data, IP data to computers about 
closings according to the floods.  This -- we can do -- 
imagination is the only limitation with this digital 
spectrum.  We need to get this transition going.  You know, 
we must carry the digital tuner.  There should be a 
requirement that all stations do some HD.  
		We've got to move this transition along, but we 
can be much better local broadcasters.  And I really believe 
that we should have minimal public interest standards that 
relate to localism which is the reason we are here, which is 
to serve the local community.
		The only problem I had -- we had -- CBS -- I've 
got a yellow light.  CBS was doing four basketball games, 
the opening round of the March Madness.  One of the games 
was a Duke game.  I said that is the only game we need to 
take.  It is the only important game.  We took all four.  So 
I lost out of that one.  But we carried four games at one 
time in March Madness.
		So we can do anything.  This is great for 
broadcasting and great for localism.  And we tried to laid 
this out so this -- we are not telling people what to do, 
what to program, what the content is we should -- but we are 
serving it should be at the local area.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.  And thank 
you for your participation on the Gore Commission.  We 
really appreciate that.  Mr. Taylor.
		MR. TAYLOR:  Thank you.  My name is Paul Taylor.  
I am the Executive Director of the Alliance for Better 
Campaigns.  It is a nonprofit group that has been 
encouraging broadcasters to provide more area time for 
viewers to seeing their candidates discuss issues in the 
closing weeks of the campaign season.  
		Thank you to the whole Commission for holding this 
very important hearing.  And in particular, I wanted to 
thank Commissioner Tristani and Chairman Kennard, both of 
whom, Commissioner Tristani at an event we had in June and 
Chairman Kennard last week up in New York, what I thought 
were very eloquent comments on this subject.
		You don't have to delve too deeply, Mr. Chairman, 
into your remarks to see you are a little bit frustrated 
with the broadcast industry in the area of meeting its 
public interest obligations.  I share that frustration.  And 
let me explain why.  
		Our group has spent the better part of the last 
year, year and a half encouraging the broadcast industry to 
respond to the recommendation of the so-called Gore 
Commission on which both Paul LaCamera and Jim Goodman so 
ably served in the area of candidate-centered discourse.
		And I just want to just go briefly back over the 
history here.  This recommendation, five minutes a night, a 
voluntary standard, five minutes a night, 30 nights out from 
the night of the election, was an effort to break a long-
standing impasse on the difficult issue of free air time for 
candidates.  It was crafted by broadcasters and public 
interest advocates alike.  And it represented a good faith 
compromise between those who support mandates and those who 
oppose them.
		And it was also kind of a challenge to the 
industry.  It said, look, here is a voluntary standard which 
you yourself helped craft.  It has got lots of flexibility 
built into it.  It has got a minimalist target, five minutes 
a night.  Let's see what you can do with it.
		Well, we are now most of the way through the first 
general election that has been held since the standard was 
put on table.  And the record has not been very good.  
During the primary season with a few notable exceptions -- 
and Paul LaCamera described the best of them I believe and 
Jim Goodman's station also had an excellent record during 
the primaries.
		But by and large, the industry ignored this 
proposal.  We work with researchers from the University of 
Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania.  
They found that the typical local station devoted just 39 
seconds as night to candidate discourse in the month 
preceding their relevant primary.  And the national networks 
devoted 36 seconds a night in the month preceding the Super 
Tuesday Primary which was close to kind of a national 
election. 
		Now we are in the 30-day window preceding November 
7th.  And we find that out of the roughly 1,300 local 
commercial stations in the country, by our count, 93 of them 
or about seven percent of the industry has indicated that 
they will even try to meet that standard this fall.  Most of 
these are local stations owned by the half dozen or so 
station groups that have committed at the corporate level, 
CBS, NBC, Script, Hearst Argile and Capital.
		I commend them for taking this step.  But I can't 
help but wonder where is the other 93 percent.  It is not 
only that they haven't taken up this challenge.  They have, 
in fact, been cutting back on election coverage and coverage 
particularly at issue across a variety of fronts.  The 
coverage of the Presidential race, for example, by the 
network nightly news is down by one-third from 1988, the 
last time we had an open seat Presidential campaign despite 
the fact this by most accounting is the most competitive 
Presidential race we have seen in a generation.
		There were 22 televised debates during -- that 
were held during the primary season this year, 22.  Of 
those, only two aired on a broadcast network, neither of 
those two in prime time.  Just two weeks ago for the first 
time in our history, two of our four major national networks 
chose not to broadcast live a general election Presidential 
debate.
		And in addition, the opening nights of the 30-
night window occurred last Monday and Tuesday.  And we took 
a look at the network-affiliated local stations in the five 
largest cities in the country, New York, L.A., Chicago, 
Philadelphia and San Francisco.  
		We found on the first two nights of the window, 
the first two week nights of the window that these top 15 
stations, the NBC, CBS and ABC stations in those five 
cities, aired on average just 45 seconds a night of 
candidate discourse.  This despite the fact that of those 15 
stations, nine of them are owned by NBC and CBS which have 
made this commitment at the corporate level.  
		So what we are really seeing based on these early 
returns -- I hesitate to make too much of this because it is 
just an opening few nights, but based on the early returns 
what we are seeing here in terms of the response to the 
voluntary standard is not much intake by the vast majority 
of the industry and little beyond lip service with a few 
notable exceptions -- and most of them, in fact, are sitting 
to my left -- from the rest.
		I believe given this very unfortunate response to 
their promising proposal, I think it is time to push for a 
mandate.  I agree with Chairman Kennard that such a mandate 
-- the first place to look for such a mandate is Congress.  
And ideally, it would be part of their broader campaign 
finance legislation.  
		But I would go a step further because there is a 
long and unhappy history of this issue in Congress.  And the 
bottom line is that the interest of incumbent members of 
Congress and the interest of incumbent broadcasters are for 
this not to happen.  
		So I think that both of them want to preserve a 
status quo that protects incumbents, starves challengers, 
enriches broadcasters and impoverishes our democracy.  It is 
a status quo where if you want to communicate to the voters 
on broadcast television, you have to pay your way on.
		Let me just close by urging the FCC regardless of 
whatever Congress does or doesn't do in this area, to move 
towards considering a free air-time mandate.  Here at the 
FCC, make it a part of the condition of a broadcaster 
receiving a license.  I believe it is constitutional.  We 
and 20 other groups submitted in response to your public 
inquiry notice an argument that it is constitutional.  I 
believe it is within your authority to do so.  And I would 
urge you to move forward with all deliberate speed.  Thank 
you much.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much, Mr. 
Taylor.  Sister Mary Parks.
		SISTER PARKS:  Good afternoon.  My name is Mary 
Parks.  I am a Sister of St. Joseph, committed to the 
Communications Ministry in Central Pennsylvania in the 
Diocese of Allentown and Johnstown for the Catholic Church. 
 Our diocese is about 115,000 Catholics in eight counties in 
west central Pennsylvania.  
		I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with 
you today because I believe that under the current 
regulatory structure, free access to the public airwaves 
does not really exist anymore.  And that concerns me a great 
deal.  
		I would like to begin my story today by telling 
you a little bit about my beginning in television.  My first 
job after I graduated from college in 1973 was teaching 
Romper Room which was a children's television program in 
those days.  And anybody over 30 might remember.  Every 
morning for two years, I taught as a live on-air personality 
on WJAC TV in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.  And many area 
youngsters had the opportunity to be part of that program on 
TV.  We graduated a class every two weeks.
		The program was syndicated on paper so that it 
could be localized all over the country.  And during those 
years from 1974 to 1975, my station did a tremendous amount 
of public service programming and free public service 
announcements.  After teaching English for a few years, I 
returned to television in 1978 at the same station in 
Johnstown, 30 miles from where I grew up as a beep 
announcer, as a program host for public service programs, as 
a weather host.  
		Every week day, WJAC TV gave -- and this is every 
week day -- 15 minutes of public service programming time to 
worthwhile community interests right after our main news.  
People could see area religious leaders on "Religion Today." 
 Alma Kramer hosted "Seniors Today", with a variety of 
interesting topics for older people in our community.  We 
had a program for farmers, by farmers, called "Extension 
Six."  I learned a lot, believe me.
		And during prime time once a week during the 
school year, we ran a half hour program called scholastic 
quiz which allowed area high schools to send their best and 
their brightest to compete academically, answering questions 
on every subject from history to science to math.  But the 
most coverage television provides for education is the 
expanded sports reporting we get on high school football 
during the 11:00 p.m. Friday news shows.
		Under the stipulations of our union contract in 
those days, a large portion of our station identifications 
and commercials were read live.  And because of that, I was 
more aware than I would ordinarily have been about the 
number of public service announcements we did because I was 
reading quite a few of them during every shift.
		And when Sears was slow at the television station 
and paid commercials were few, we did tons of PSAs.  Today, 
news stations fill those available time slots with 
commercial material.  They type their local news 
incessantly.  Some of the promotions are general in nature. 
 Others are specific to news programs of the day.
		And when we used to do commercial updates in our 
news during the 1980s -- I read ten years of news, too.  But 
those updates were news reporting.  We were telling people 
the news, not just teasing what we were going to tell them 
later.  Now stations never give the whole story during those 
updates.  They just entice viewers.  And clearly, the 
industry deems this promotional barrage an imperative as 
stations are battling for the Laurel Ives in these rating 
wars.
		During the 1980s when I worked exclusively in the 
news department at WJAC, I could see the changes happening. 
 In my opinion, we were doing more promotional and less 
reporting as the decade went on.  My decade in news ended 
when I entered my religious community in 1990.  But during 
the ten years that I was reporting news, I watched free 
programming disappear at our station.  And now I am in the 
position to understand more fully what that means.  
		I became the Secretary for Communications to the 
Bishop Joseph in 1998.  And I am back in my old stomping 
grounds where people remember me from my days on television. 
 I have many friends that still work on local television 
stations.  And I enjoy my relations with them.  
		And in spite of having a strong home field 
advantage, I am unable to get any of our public service 
announcements on the air free.  I have been told that other 
than slots in the middle of the night, free time no longer 
exists.  Maybe some groups are still getting PSAs.  But I 
cannot say that I have personally seen any of them on the 
four network affiliates in our market.
		And we ended up having to buy time for the first 
time in history at the diocese to get our jubilee and 
conciliation spots on the air.  We spent $6,000.00 after my 
Communications Advisory Committee recommended that it was 
better to do that than not have them there at all.
		Things aren't any better on the radio front.  And 
for the first time this past year, we had to buy time on the 
radio, too.  And we spent $2,000.00 doing that.  I really am 
reluctant about that though because I believe this is air 
time which should be given to the community.  And it no 
longer exists.
		I don't have time to tell you the whole story.  
But suffice it to say that I am very grateful for the 
opportunity to speak with you about this today.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much, Sister.  
Mr. Paul Schroeder.
		MR. SCHROEDER:  Hi, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you for 
the opportunity.  My name is Paul Schroeder.  I am Vice 
President of the American Foundation for the Blind for 
Governmental Relations and President of the Alliance for 
Public Technology.  
		I want to first commend your in particular, Mr. 
Chairman, and your colleagues for your bold action last July 
in approving a report and order on video description.  That 
action which I think took some real courage and certainly a 
great deal of effort is going to bring television much 
closer to millions of Americans who are blind or visually 
impaired who have been missing out for good or evil, I admit 
listening to today's discussion, on the benefits of 
television programming.
		I also want to commend you for the closed 
captioning rule on digital TV receivers.  It, of course, 
continues the fine record of work in that area that has been 
built by this Commission.
		I have a couple of points that I would like to add 
that I think we have an opportunity in the digital 
television proceeding to build on that record.  I also want 
to add some points of a third area regarding access to 
ancillary services that are likely to come about in the 
digital television environment.
		One of the biggest challenges in the video 
description area, as you may remember from putting that 
report and order together, is the limited space on which 
video descriptions can currently be broadcast.  These are 
audio descriptions or narrative tracts that are added to ta 
television program that give a blind or visually impaired 
viewer information about what is happening in the visual 
elements of that program.
		In the analog standard, of course, the only way to 
deliver those is under something called the secondary audio 
program channel.  The beauty of the digital television 
space, of course, is there is lots of spectrum available and 
there are lots of audio channels available on that spectrum. 
 We think the time is right now to ensure that part of that 
spectrum is reserved for video description.
		I know that the Commission is holding off on 
requiring video description in the digital television market 
for the moment.  I suspect that the experience that we will 
all have under the report and order you have already put 
forth will tell us that this is a good idea and you will, in 
fact, want to move it into the digital environment.  
		Let's make sure that the band width is available 
to do that now so that we are not going to have to try to 
force video description into the marketplace of competition 
for that audio channel space which, as you can imagine, is 
going to fill up quite quickly, I have no doubt.
		Two other areas in video description that I think 
need attention.  Part of the problem, also, of the secondary 
audio program channel is the fact that either many receivers 
either don't get it or it is difficult for a blind viewer to 
enact that button.  
		We need to make sure that that gets rectified in 
the digital environment to ensure that -- first of all, that 
digital receivers receiving equipment can decode the audio 
tracts for video description and mix those with the main 
audio program and, secondly, that the receivers are easy to 
use and that the -- at least the video description component 
of that technology is, in fact, easy to access by a person 
who is blind or visually impaired.  But, obviously, it goes 
without saying, we will ask the Commission to phase in video 
description into the digital television environment.
		In the closed captioning area, I think there are 
some provisions that need to be addressed and affirmed.  In 
the first place, it would be important to affirm that 
multicast programs which are available in DTV, all of those 
programs, of course, should be closed captioned.
		Secondly, it would be important to look at the 
investments that are now being made to build up toward 
digital television.  It seems also an appropriate time to 
invest in real-time captioning so that, in fact, we can 
bring news and emergency information to individuals who are 
deaf or hard of hearing in a real-time way.
		Last, of course, if there is going to be public 
interest requirements for locally produced programming, that 
programming should be made available via closed captions.  
There are some provisions in the current rule which could 
cause trouble in this area with exemptions.  Also, if there 
is going to be requirements for political programming and 
political candidates information, that information should 
also, obviously, be closed captioned.  There are some 
exemptions that could affect that.
		In the area of ancillary services, we have a 
history of inaccessible communications technologies that 
face people with disabilities.  And you all have been doing 
a great deal of work to try to address those 
retrospectively.  Why not do that now at the beginning, at 
the dawn of this age?  Electronic program guides, education-
enhanced information, all of these services that will be 
available need to be made accessible.
		Last, I would say that DTV and the internet will 
draw closer together.  There is no question.  And I think 
the Commission needs to look at how to make the internet-
based services that are going to be an important component 
of the digital television environment accessible to people 
with disabilities. 
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much, Paul.  We 
appreciate your testimony.  I want to go back to the 
testimony of Henry Geller which I always love hearing Henry 
Geller speak.  In fact, as I was listening to you, I was 
harkening back to the first time I heard you speak when I 
was a second-year law student at Yale and you were a guest 
lecturer.  And I will never forget that you not only rattled 
off the case names of many cases that I now know about, but 
also gave the pinpoint cites.  I notice that you have gotten 
out of that practice, Henry.  I really kind of miss it.  But 
--
		MR. GELLER:  It doesn't get you anywhere.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  But I'm always intrigued by 
your notion that we should replace the public trustee 
concept, in effect, with a spectrum fee.  But one of the 
things that has always troubled me about it is that we still 
do live in a world where most people get their news and 
information from television.  And most people still rely on 
their local broadcast stations or networks -- locally 
affiliated networks to get the information.
		And so what is the -- there are some significant 
trade-offs there that I am sure that you have thought about. 
 If you are suggesting that we in effect scrap the public 
trustee model and take -- convert this into a spectrum fee, 
what do you tell the people who are still going to rely on 
commercial television, that your model won't work and it is 
always counter to marketing incentives so are we just going 
to give up?
		MR. GELLER:  It isn't trade off.  But the two 
areas I think of the greatest importance, one is children's 
television programming.  I have covered that already.  And I 
think you would be better off in relying on the commercial 
one.  I recognize the contribution made by very good 
broadcasters such as sitting at this table.  But the fact is 
on children you would -- I think would be far ahead of it if 
instead of starving public broadcasting and reduce starve 
with a dollar per capita, whereas Canada is $32.00 and Great 
Britain is $38.00.  There we will gain.  
		When you get to the other area you mention, it is 
the area of informing people, of informing them about news, 
about emergencies, about all kinds of things.  And I would 
urge to you that the broadcaster would continue to do what 
he does now even if you de-regulate him.  
		They provide news because it is essential to them. 
 It is a lead-in to the evening television.  It is a money-
maker for them.  They are not going to abandon news.  You 
have no requirement on news.  You have a requirement for 
issue-oriented programming.  You never said how much.  But 
you are getting tons of news.
		If the FCC disappeared tomorrow, they would not 
affect in any way what is going on except in the children's 
area, the three-hour requirement, some ownership rules.  But 
there what the broadcaster is doing, those who are very 
good, have deep roots in their community and you help defile 
what they are doing.  But the other ones are doing very 
little and nothing is happening to them.
		You don't have any notion of what is going on 
because you get a post card except in the children's area.  
And what I am saying to you is I think even far ahead in the 
area of informing the electorate, if you de-regulated and as 
part of campaign reform done by Congress, not by the 
Commission, you cannot do campaign finance reform.  It is 
very complex, all kinds of detail.
		But if it were done by them so that they were 
full-time, you would get two enormous contributions to the 
public interest, in education and in the political 
broadcasting.  You would be contributing to and educated and 
informed electorate.  And I think that there is much 
international interest to do that and move ahead.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Well, Henry, short of 
Congressional action in this area, what do you suggest that 
we do?
		MR. GELLER:  I -- you can't do it.  It has to be 
Congressional action.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Well, I understand that.  But 
if our Congress does not act --
		MR. GELLER:  Well, I wouldn't give it that.  But 
all I am saying to you is no agency except one rule kick-
back in 1978 has ever urged us in the government.  That was 
me.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Welcome back.
		MR. GELLER:  But what I would think is though that 
you ought to -- if you had recommended it, it would have 
carried greater weight from that one schmuck back then.  I 
recommend that you look at it and put it before you for 
study and my discussion.  If you don't do it, then I think 
you are back to what Jim Goodman has told you already here. 
 We are operating with the present system.  
		You don't know how much money-chaining there will 
be.  And you don't know what is going to happen in 
ancillary.  You have to make guesses.  But even under the 
present system, what has to be emphasized is localism.  Not 
how do you reform people on national issues.  There is so 
much out there that goes on now.  I think it is localism.  
		And you said it well.  And I think, therefore, 
there ought to be some minimum standard.  I hate to be going 
back over the past.  But it is the future if Congress 
doesn't act, also.  At that point, you need a minimum 
standard.
		You have a renewal staff.  When the renewals come 
in, what are they to do if somebody has one percent 
informational area locally?  Do they claim?  Do they deny?  
Two percent, three?  I think that the broadcasters are 
entitled to know what the safe haven is for minimal and so 
is the public and so is your renewal staff.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you, Henry.  Professor 
Raskin has arrived.  And is the traffic pretty bad out 
there?
		PROFESSOR RASKIN:  Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.  I've 
got a million excuses for being late.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Well, we don't want to hear 
those.  Why don't you just go right into your testimony.  
We'll just take five minutes.
		PROFESSOR RASKIN:  Sure.  I'll just pick up on the 
last dialogue.  From the broadest theoretical perspective, 
it is obviously important to distinguish what the market 
provides to consumers and then what the market provides to 
citizens.  And there is no doubt that the market arguably 
works for providing consumers what they want.  
		But it certainly doesn't work for providing 
citizens with what they need in order to be effective 
participants and members of the democratic community which 
in the American Constitutional regime requires participation 
at different levels, at the local level, at the state level 
and the national level.  
		I would agree with the proposition that we have a 
lot of information about what is going on at the national 
level, but much less in terms of what is taking place at the 
state and local level.  And there I think it becomes 
important in order to preserve community involvement and 
participation to have a meaningful requirement of some 
minimal coverage of local news and local activities and 
opportunities for local involvement and participation.
		Then I think that some thought should be given to 
and some emphasis should be given to requirements of -- or 
at least hortatory requirements or advisory requirements 
about the importance of public debate.  And we are 
witnessing from the Presidential debates how televised 
public discussion can mobilize and catalyze public 
involvement and public participation.  And the same thing 
can take place at the state and local level.
		I would favor requirements and regulatory 
guidelines that would emphasize the maximum possible 
participation of different views rather than the artificial 
constriction and manipulation of electoral contest to see 
that only certain views be represented.  And that would be I 
would think within the public interest mandate of the FCC.
		But generally, you know, I think that we are 
moving into an area where entertainment could very much 
marginalize and sideline public debate, discourse and 
communication and discussion at the local and state level.  
And at the FCC, at least until Congress acts in the way you 
suggested, really should be in the forefront of trying to 
push the broadcasters to play that public interest role.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.  Mr. 
Taylor, you have been a very effective advocate on this 
political discourse issue for some time now.  And oftentimes 
when we hear this issue discussed, in fact, when I have 
advocated it myself, I often encounter a barrage of 
questions:  Well, it is too complicated and this can't 
really be implemented and the political process is too 
complex with different jurisdictions, different parties and 
what not.
		I have read some of your proposals on this that 
are very elegant in their simplicity and very workable.  And 
I wondered if you could just tell us for a moment how you 
think a free time requirement could work and how it could be 
implemented with minimal complexity.
		MR. TAYLOR:  There are a couple of objectives we 
are trying to accomplish with some free air-time regime.  
One of them is to reduce the cost of politicals.  The 
largest single driver of the run-away cost of politics is 
the cost of air time.  Another it seems to me is to better 
inform the public.  And in the spirit of the public interest 
obligation, I think that is what we have appropriately 
focused on.
		If you had -- the difficulty -- the complication 
is that there is a big difference between a local 
broadcaster let us say in the city of New York where you 
have 30 or so Congressional districts within your viewing 
area and in the city of Boise or Albuquerque where you only 
have one.  So how do you do all of that and how do you keep 
a simple base for the candidate and for the broadcaster and 
how do you serve the public?
		One way to go might be some sort of voucher 
system.  You create a broadcast bank of time.  Every station 
contributes to the bank on some formula based on its gross 
revenue.  And then vouchers are handed out to qualifying 
candidate and perhaps to the political parties.  And they 
spend -- this is like play money and you can only spend on a 
broadcast station.
		And if you want -- if you, the candidate, want to 
advertise in New York and pay ten or 20 or 30 times the rate 
that your fellow candidate may pay for Albuquerque, that is 
your choice.  And it will only go so far.  And you could do 
the same thing with political parties.  That would tend to 
level out the burdens on broadcasters.  So that would be one 
way to go.
		Another way to go is the way that the Commission 
has gone with air time for children's educational 
programming, is you create a broad requirement, in the case 
of children's television programming, three hours a week and 
adhere to broad guidelines.  And it becomes a part of your -
- to re-qualify for the license, you have to show us you 
have done it.  
		It seems to me that this is the area that the 
five-minute a night recommendation tends to push you in.  
And whether five minutes a night is the right way to go or 
whether you want some other broader guideline -- and this 
would be something that I think the FCC would want to look 
at.  But the notion is every time an election season comes 
around, there is something on the ballot whether it is -- 
and sometimes the most important thing to the viewer may be 
the Senate race, may be the governors race, may be a ballot 
initiative.
		So you build a model that allows for all of the 
flexibility that any common sense person would want, allows 
for people like Jim Goodman and Paul LaCamera to make the 
journalistic and public interest judgement.  You hear the 
menu of races going on in our market this season.  Here is 
what we are going to focus on.
		And the other thing I would raise is that with Jim 
Goodman and Paul LaCamera, you really do have two models 
that are very different.  I think they both very much serve 
a public interest.  But what Jim Goodman's station has done 
with the air time under the five-minute a night standard has 
been to say to candidates, in his case I think for governor 
and lieutenant governor and other state-run offices, we are 
going to give you two-minute slots and you can record what 
you want to say and we are going to show them on some 
routine and your opponents and on and on like this for the 
30 nights preceding -- the 30 days and nights preceding the 
election.
		Paul LaCamera has gone to a more journalistic 
model where he wanted to invite candidates in.  He had some 
frustration getting them all in.  But he wants a mix of 
interviews.  He did some footage or whatever the candidate 
was saying on the stump speech.  He has his journalists 
framing some of the issues.
		My notion there in very much the spirit of the 
Gore Commission recommendation is let 1,000 formats bloom.  
It is not perhaps for any one body to dictate what is the 
best way to do it.  And here I think the values and virtues 
of localism would very much come into play.
		But it does seem to me that the lesson of this 
past year, the very disquieting lesson is if you just do it 
as a voluntary standard and rely on the industry to use its 
journalistic and public interest instinct, then 
unfortunately the Jim Goodmans and the Paul LaCameras of the 
world will turn out to be very much the exception.  
		The rule is in industry that it is walking away 
from informing the public because it has concluded from 
bottom-line interest the public isn't that interested, it 
doesn't get good ratings.  
		And it has also concluded, quite frankly, that the 
air time that he wants to be involved with when it comes to 
politics is the air time that sells.  It will sell a billion 
dollars worth of air time according to Wall Street 
estimates, the television industry, this year.  It will sell 
more political spots than fast food spots.
		And I think one of the reasons why we have lost 
some of our audience for politics is the American public 
gets bombarded by the ads.  And that is the face of politics 
in the concluding weeks.  And I think it turns out to be a 
disincentive to participation.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Excellent.  Thank you very 
much.  And I would like to invite my colleagues to ask 
questions at this time.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I have a question.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Gloria?
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I want to first of all 
thank every one of you for being here today.  And as I 
listened, Sister, I listened to you with particular 
attention.  And I was troubled by what I heard you relate.  
Back, I don't know, 20 years ago, the broadcasters in your 
community were doing certain things, serving the local 
communities.  And it appears now that they have given up on 
that for whatever reasons.
		I was also very happy to hear that, Paul LaCamera 
and James Goodman, you are really serving their communities. 
 But I keep hearing you are the exception and not the rule. 
 And, Mr. Goodman, you pointed out, too, there ought to be 
some minimal public interest obligation standards aimed at 
localism, aimed at the station in whatever way, fulfilling 
those local requirements.
		You also said there ought to be some kind of 
ascertainment process.  Could you elaborate?  Because it 
sounds like what you are proposing or what you are believing 
could help Sister Parks' community perhaps be better served.
		MR. GOODMAN:  Well, the concept is there should be 
an ascertainment process in which the station talks to the 
community and -- to understand issues and problems and talks 
to community groups and reports on that -- and reports on 
that process.  I mean, it is part of the quarterly report 
that we are talking about.  
		And then the station would be required -- I know 
that is a bad word -- but would be required to run -- would 
be required to do a certain amount of local public affairs 
programming.  The station could decide on the topic, who is 
on it, when it runs.  We did suggest that some should run in 
prime time.
		And then the station would -- the station would 
also be required to run local public service announcements 
as part of this localism mandate.  I am trying to get in the 
middle of on my right is the founder of greedy.com and on my 
left is probably the best station operator in the country.  
And I am trying to say there certainly is a way to talk 
about this.
		If we have a code, that the industry really needs, 
and we have minimum standards that require local -- some 
local programming, then I think we can take care of what 
everybody wants to do, public affairs.  Part of our public 
affairs programming could be turned over to political.  And 
I did -- there are a couple of things I wanted to mention 
about that.  
		In our case, we are not giving people free 
commercial time.  We are not saying give us your commercial 
and we will run it.  We are saying here is two minutes and 
we want you to talk about -- we pick some of the issues and 
they -- we say we want you to talk about the university bond 
issue.  The other thing we did that I thought was 
interesting was we said you can't talk about the opposition.
		This is not -- this is what is your position on 
this issue.  And I will say, I was telling Paul, we have 
never had the positive -- of anything we have done, and we 
have done a bunch over the years, we have never had as much 
positive comment as we have had from putting the candidates 
on to talk about their positions on issues.  
		And that could be easily done if we have a public 
affairs requirement.  It just becomes part of the public 
affairs requirement 30 days before the election.  It would 
have to be a special time that we would set aside.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Anybody else like to 
comment on that?  Mr. Geller?
		MR. GELLER:  I just wanted to say that in October 
of 1993, the common cause filed a petition that was along 
the lines of the second route that Paul Taylor gave great 
discretion to the licensee.  It was a five-minute fix in 
prime time, but said that the licensee has complete 
discretion what races he wants to choose or -- I just think 
it is crazy to have all the focus on the national one.  That 
is covered so well.
		There are a lot of local races that are important 
to the community.  The candidates don't have the money to 
get on television.  But it would be solely within the 
discretion of the licensee.  If he wanted to do the 
Presidential, he could add to that.
		And I would recommend -- it has been pending since 
October of 1993.  And I would recommend you look at it.  It 
is very simple.  And it sets out why it is constitutional 
and why it is within the FCC's authority.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  What is the docket number, 
Henry?
		MR. GELLER:  It was filed by a witness at a 
meeting.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Mr. LaCamera?
		MR. LaCAMERA:  May I add something?  Thank you.  I 
would just like to follow up on what Paul Taylor had to say 
about the five-minute concept.  And since we were the first 
ones to test it, there is a learning curve.  And I think we 
should be very encouraged by the number of stations and 
station groups that have committed to it.  Although as Paul 
reported, some of them may be off to a small start.
		And while we went into this with the best of 
intentions last January in New Hampshire, we found that we 
had the full participation of Mr. Gore and Mr. McCain and no 
participate from Mr. Bush or Mr. Bradley.  And so we had, 
again, the best of intentions.  
		And the five minutes was going to be the minimum, 
the threshold of what we were to do each evening.  On some 
evenings we fell short.  And then when Paul and we, 
ourselves, went back retrospectively and documented what we 
did, we wound up averaging about four and a half minutes a 
night.
		So it's not -- none of this is idealistic by any 
means.  And the whole concept of free political time, please 
understand that broadcasters realize the role we are playing 
in political advertising and want to be part of whatever 
comprehensive campaign reform occurs in the years ahead.  
But for right now to come up with some sort of plan or 
system of free political time, our experience is that that 
is best defined by 60 minutes, unfettered minutes on the 
Oprah Winfrey program.  
		Campaigns are enormously cynical and controlling 
about how they want to appear, particularly on local 
television stations.  And it adds great complexity to it 
when it undermines whatever idealism there is in that basic 
concept.  Thank you.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  Thank you, Mr. 
Chair.  I had a question I would particularly like to 
address to Mr. Goodman and Mr. LaCamera.  Both of you are 
with companies that have FCC licenses.  There are hundreds 
of thousands of FCC licenses, each of which has a public 
interest obligation under the statute.
		Suppose in some hypothetical world, the Commission 
were to tell all FCC licensees that they have as part of 
their public interest obligation an obligation to tell the 
communities in which they operate, whether it is a small 
area or nationwide, to provide some information about 
political campaigns.  
		Suppose every time I turned on a cell. phone, I 
heard the message, "Remember the date November 7th", or, 
"Remember to register to vote."  I randomly would receive a 
political message from one of the political candidates.
	Suppose my Part 15 device would chirp the message, 
"Remember the date November 7th."  
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  It sounds like a great idea to 
me.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  Suppose cable 
operators who have FCC licenses had to provide five minutes 
a night of free air time.  Suppose your local telephone 
company that has 214 permits had to begin every call with a 
message.  Suppose the IICs that have 214 agreements had to 
do this, as well.  And you, as well, did.
		Let's take a little twist to my little 
hypothetical.  Let's suppose we removed all the obligations 
of everybody except the broadcasters.  We told the cable 
operators, well, you don't have to.  We told the satellite 
carriers, well, you don't have to.  Told the cell. phone 
operators you don't have to.  Told the industry users you 
don't have to.  And said only the broadcasters have to 
burden -- have to bear the burden of providing free 
political air time.  How would you feel about that?
		MR. LaCAMERA:  I suppose what you are doing is in 
some way arguing our case.  Jim and I come from an industry 
with a special distinguished legacy of 15 years of public 
service which we take very seriously.  Where Jim and I 
differ is Jim as advocated, as you've heard, a return to the 
formalities of the past.  I look upon this as a more 
contemporary twenty-first century situation and still 
believe that we continue to serve and should do that on a 
volunteer basis at our discretion and hopefully with a sense 
of idealism that marks the operation of most television 
stations.
		So I don't particularly see the analogy.  And I 
may be handicapped by I think 30 years in the industry.  
Jim?
		MR. GOODMAN:  I think that would be fine.  As a 
matter of fact, I think that is the way it should be.  I 
mean, I -- we have local television stations for a reason.  
And that is to provide news and information and 
entertainment and programming to the local community.  That 
is why we have them.  That is what we are supposed to do.
		And I have no -- I think, as Mr. Geller, said that 
the public deserves to know what is expected of us.  The 
public should be able to measure our performance.  It is a 
public license.  And I think we deserve to know what that is 
because I can follow the rules.  It is pretty tough to say 
serve the public interest if you don't know what that is.  
So I don't put -- I guess I -- 
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  Do you think that 
other licensees don't have public interest obligations?
		MR. GOODMAN:  To provide news and public affairs 
and all -- no.  I mean, I don't -- no.  The phone company, 
no.  They don't have -- no, I don't.  I mean, I'm not -- but 
I can't -- that's -- I am just giving you my view as a 
broadcaster which is that we have local stations for one 
reason.  We would have huge stations that cover everything. 
 But we don't.  We have stations in all these markets, 
especially doing local programming.  There should be a 
minimal requirement that we do a certain amount of this. 
		I think this is key to maintaining local 
broadcasting in the future.  Now, I am trying -- we are 
going to a new technology and we are in a new century.  But 
that doesn't mean the local community is not important.  
That doesn't mean that sort of the base value of what 
broadcasting is put together for shouldn't be there.  
		I have read everything you have written about 
this.  And I am with you -- I am almost with you except it 
doesn't make any sense to me to put together a local system 
of broadcasting, tell those broadcasters they are supposed 
to serve the public interest and then not tell them what 
that is or the public which really -- she would like an -- 
the Sister would like an opportunity to know whether the 
local broadcasters in her community are playing -- doing 
what they are supposed to do.  And I'm not -- I don't -- my 
lawyer told me not to argue with you.
		(Laughter.)
		And I am not going to do it.  I am going to quit 
because you are going to run me out of here.  
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  You are doing fine. 
 Just keep on going.  You are doing fine.
		MR. GOODMAN:  No, I'm not because I know what you 
are -- I know -- but that's -- I'm -- on the one hand, I 
believe we are the first to do -- by definition, we are the 
first to do all those things.  We are going to be high 
definition.  There's the whole thing, January 1, five hours 
a day, all high definition news.  
		You can't push -- I'm not going to say we are not 
leaders in technology.  But that doesn't mean that I don't 
think this value business we've got here about localism and 
local service is not pertinent, it's not relevant.  It is 
more relevant than it has ever been because of all of the 
other channels.  And so I'm not --
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you very much.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  I am not suggesting 
that it isn't.  And I am just -- I am puzzled and, frankly, 
I am surprised that you all would see that this is an 
obligation that you alone have to shoulder and the rest of 
the world gets a free pass.
		PROFESSOR RASKIN:  Can I take a shot at this?  It 
strikes me that the answer has to do with the character of 
the medium and the nature of the forum that has been 
created.  It would be somewhat surprising to pick up your 
cell. phone and have a recorded message saying, "Don't 
forget to vote.  Don't forget to vote."  But then again, the 
reason that we get telephones and engage in telephone 
technology is so that we can call the people that we want to 
talk to and they can call us.
		So it goes back to the underlying purposes of 
having broadcast television, broadcast radio.  And I think 
if you go back to the original statutory purposes, it was 
precisely to create a sense of public community and 
discourse to be able to talk about public issues.  And I 
think, you know, as you eloquently pointed out, that role is 
every more urgently needed by the public for broadcasters.
		That is, it is not a diminishing obligation.  It 
is one that grows in importance as we become more of a 
nationalized market.  In a certain sense, the whole idea of 
a coherent local community depends upon local broadcasters 
maintaining their determination to cover local news, to have 
local community proceedings, counter proceedings, municipal 
proceedings put on the air and to have the opportunities for 
people to comment and discuss and debate them.
		COMMISSIONER FURCHTGOTT-ROTH:  Well, thank you 
very much.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Commissioner Ness.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Yes.  Continuing this debate a 
little bit, certainly the satellite DBS providers have a 
four percent set-aside for public interest programming, for 
educational programming.  And the cable folks have a five 
percent franchise fee typically in most jurisdictions, plus 
they have set-aside pay channels for public education and 
governmental use.
		There is an E911 requirement.  And the PCS 
providers have had to pay for their spectrum fairly 
substantially in order to be able to provide the service 
that they provide for the public.  There is universal 
service requirements on telephone companies including 
carrier of last resort requirements where they have to 
string wires into the far reaches of this country in order 
to be able to provide service.  
		There is hopefully minimum standards of service 
requirements for many of these carriers, as well, to ensure 
that the messages do get through from customer to customer.	
	So each licensee has certain obligations that exist 
essentially commenting on what you just said, Professor 
Raskin, that it is commensurate with the type of service 
that they are providing to the public.
		Broadcast has an enormous value to this country.  
It has been -- it has provided an incredible service year 
after year after year, day after day after day.  One 
particularly focused on the local communities.  And I have 
known many, many broadcasters over the course of the last 
two decades who have an extraordinary sense of commitment to 
the markets.  A sense of idealism still exists among many.
		That having been said, I would like to pursue a 
little bit further what Mr. Goodman has suggested.  One of 
the notions that he thought would be appropriate and the 
Gore Commission thought would be appropriate was willing to 
ascertain to the process.  And I was wondering if Mr. 
LaCamera could comment on that concept.
		It used to be there.  It has kind of gone by the 
wayside.  Was it useful?  Where did it go wrong?  Is there 
something that, once again, broadcasters can focus on in 
service of the local community.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  It became an exercise.  And I will 
share an anecdote and a very true one with you.  Congressman 
Buddy Frank, who is a brilliant, very colorful figure, the 
last time I interviewed him under the formal ascertainment 
process.  He conducted the interview and swung his chair 
around with his back to me, and he said, "This is an 
expression of my protest against this exercise."  And I 
think that is somewhat representative of how many people 
felt about the process.
		There is no doubt that it was always a learning 
experience.  You always learn something from everybody you 
talk to.  But, again, any worthy broadcaster -- and you 
talked through morning and we have talked through this 
afternoon's session, there is no doubt that some people are 
operating at the minimum.  
		And that is indefensible.  But I don't know 
whether you correct that.  And I don't believe we should 
correct that by a return to the past and imposing procedures 
and regulations that really are very much outdated in 
today's abundant media environment, an enormously changed 
and different competitive environment.
		I mean, at one time when Jim and I thrived 
probably in this business, we were part of an oligopoly.  
There was ABC, CBS and NBC.  And now it is so enormously 
vastly different, particularly in a city like Boston which 
is a heavily wired city.  Cable penetration, as Commissioner 
Tristani suggested this morning, is often a function of 
economics.  
		Boston is a very high end, prosperous, well 
educated city.  The internet usage is enormous.  And it is 
really a good witness to tremendous erosion of viewership in 
the marketplace.  So it is very different today operating a 
television station.  But that is not to say, to embrace your 
words, that the idealism and tradition, which has always 
been a guiding principle of most television stations in this 
country, should be abandoned.
		And the issue is, and I believe that it is much 
more appropriate in today's environment that that be one 
conducted on a voluntary basis, a market basis.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Can I just ask, was that -
- because I don't know that much about the ascertainment 
process.  I came here three years ago.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Right.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  But was it always this 
kind of pointless exercise for the air or --
		MR. LaCAMERA:  No.  Like I said, it was always a 
learning exercise.  But hopefully in today's increased 
informational age that people who are running television 
stations and operating on the department letterhead logo 
television stations have those ties and involvement and 
knowledge of the community.  
		We set up a formal appointment, go out and meet an 
array -- representative array of so-called community leaders 
from political leaders to people who headed pro bono groups 
to community activists.  And as I said, it was always a 
learning experience.  But it was an artificial exercise.
		And I think both parties recognized that.  And, 
again, a good broadcaster, which I deeply believe are most 
broadcasters, it is not necessary today.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Having been on the other 
side of that exercise as a community activist for about a 
decade and earlier on in my adult life, I know that 
broadcasters use to come out and talk to the Commission for 
Women or the Charter Review Commission, both which I 
chaired.  And there was a good exchange of information.
		Today, we have in my example a county which has a 
population in excess of 550,000 people.  But the 
broadcasters in this metropolitan area do not county 
executive races.  They don't even at the time -- perhaps 
this has changed -- but they did not even accept political 
advertising from county executive races because there were a 
number of different jurisdictions in the area.  And the 
concern was the proliferation.  
		But how can one address a situation where a county 
of that size, for example, has virtually no discourse on its 
commercial television stations even during the course of a 
campaign?
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Well, again, groups this morning 
discussed the impact of disenfranchised parents contacting a 
television station, meeting with them and whatever.  I mean, 
I think those avenues of accessibility are always open.  And 
even what we think is the enlightened city and an 
enlightened television market of Boston, that happens all 
the time and continues to happen.
		It was interesting.  I was reading in some NAB 
materials.  And they try to document the good works of 
broadcasters and do a wonderful job.  And when you see it 
combined -- and, I mean, it is overwhelming impressive.  But 
I read about one station that did a 30 minute documentary in 
prime time on attempting to butcher the Americans with 
Disabilities Act.  Again, as enlightened as I consider to be 
our television station, that thought process would not have 
occurred to me or any of my mangers.
		And, again, so it is that kind of input that 
people should feel comfortable going -- and it frequently 
happens.  I mean, we are involved, you know, in a large 
social justice issue in our city because those are the 
people knocking at our doors.  And I was very sad to hear 
Sister's story.  
		First of all, my roots are Sisters of St. Joseph. 
 And I knew that I wouldn't be sitting on this panel with a 
Sister of St. Joseph who had worked ten years in 
broadcasting.  I would have never gotten on that shuttle.
		But, again, she is obviously describing a station 
that is operating perhaps at the minimum.  And that is very 
sad to hear.  But, again, I don't think you address that by 
looking at the whole --
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  But how do we address that?
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Mr. Goodman.
		MR. GOODMAN:  I shouldn't have used the word, 
"ascertainment."  I really dated myself.  What we actually 
called it in our report, what I think -- community outreach. 
 And we didn't suggest we go back to meetings and all that. 
 We said that the station would regularly promote the fact 
that it wanted input either by mail or electronic mail and 
that in its quarterly report on its programming, it would 
talk about how that conversation that developed affected the 
programming that they did.
		So we were not suggesting ascertainment as we know 
or the rules of ascertainment.  We are just saying that the 
community outreach notion is an important one.  In put from 
the public.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  And certainly, as cable 
systems engage in clustering where they cover a metropolitan 
area, there is more and more activity on cable systems that 
addresses some of the local issues then sometimes I find on 
the local television stations.  That ended up being perhaps 
giving up of your birthright.  And that is a frightening for 
broadcasters.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Those are cases that are 
complementing or supplementing our birthright.  I mean, 
cable does have the ability to provide niche programming.  
And all of us have our special interests.  And cable can 
often serve it better.  But in terms of serving the 
community as a whole in dealing with the -- you know, the 
most pronounced public policy issues of that community, I 
still believe broadcasters do a pretty good job at it.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  And certainly, James -- Jim, 
your approach where you have a multiplicity of channels on 
the digital is one way of addressing --
		MR. GOODMAN:  All of those.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  -- the different communities.
		MR. GOODMAN:  But your question was what do we do 
about that.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Yes.
		MR. GOODMAN:  I can't say give me the license and 
trust me.  I mean, there is no circle of logic there.  I 
mean, I -- there are certainly many fine -- and I am talking 
about the future now.  I am talking about the future.  We 
are going forward with the digital stations.  And the 
concept of minimum standards so that the public knows what 
is required of us and we know what is required of us is to 
me a very logical sort of approach to what we are trying to 
do.
		Now, Paul is worried.  I am worried.  The NAB is 
worried.  Everybody is worried that, okay, Jim -- and they 
have said this to me, okay, Jim, well, these standards, that 
makes a lot of sense.  But this is just going to open the 
door.  We are going to get started in this ever-spiraling -- 
it is one hour a week now and the next Commission it will be 
three hours.  If we ever get into this, we are cooked.  
There is no end to it.  
		There has been some suggestion that Congress ought 
to do this.  But -- and even with that fear that by getting 
started on this we are a run away train, it is very logical 
to me that the public should know and we should know the 
minimum requirements for satisfying the public interest.  I 
cannot logically argue against that. 
		It doesn't have anything to do with how 
broadcasters are operating now.  It has to do with how we 
are going to run this place, these things in the future.  So 
that is my answer to what we are going to do it, minimal 
standards to give the broadcasters an unbelievable 
flexibility to operate within the parameter of local 
programming.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Is this something that could 
be subsumed within a voluntary code?
		MR. GOODMAN:  We could certainly have 
recommendations of a voluntary code.  
		MR. LaCAMERA:  I mean, for the record, and I 
presume the NAB witness here, the NAB has both antitrust and 
constitutional concerns about the --
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Assuming the antitrust issues 
could be addressed.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  I supported it publicly as a member 
of the Gore Commission and remain enthused about the 
concept.
		COMMISSIONER NESS:  Mr. Chairman, I believe Sister 
Parks has wanted to chime in here.
		SISTER PARKS:  I don't know.  Is it appropriate to 
do that?
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Yes, please.
		SISTER PARKS:  I just wanted to say that if you 
could claim the two gentlemen over here, we would be a lot 
better off.  And Mr. LaCamera is way too modest.  As a 
member of UNDA which is a professional Catholic 
communications group, how many years in a row have you been 
the best broadcasting station in the United States by our 
terms?
		MR. LaCAMERA:  You are right.  I had Sisters of 
St. Joseph.
		SISTER PARKS:  Well, thank you.  I will take the 
credit.  But could I just say that, you know, if there was 
that much competition for what he does, his station wouldn't 
be winning year after year after year after year.  He is way 
too modest.  We need a lot more broadcasters like the 
gentlemen sitting at this table.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  I think what we are hearing is 
that these gentlemen are the exceptions and not the rule.  I 
mean, that's what I heard.  That is what I heard from --
		MR. LaCAMERA:  It is not the case at all, Mr. 
Chairman.
		MR. GOODMAN:  My view is we don't know.  How do we 
know?  There is no reporting requirements.  I mean, we know 
stations are doing great things.  But, I mean, we don't know 
how much -- there aren't any reporting requirements.  That 
is why one of the first things we said was list -- let's 
come up with sort of a quarterly report and let's -- so the 
truth is we don't know.  
		But we do -- we don't know factually.  We do know 
that there is a whole lot of good things done by 
broadcasters.  But -- yes.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Wonderful things.
		MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Admirable.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Well, for the record, one of 
the --
		MR. GOODMAN:  Entertainment though.  When you hear 
Paul start with his stuff, you get to wondering a little 
bit.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Just for the record, I wanted 
to note that there is a pending proceeding proposing 
enhanced disclosure requirements of just this sort of local 
originated programming so that we can get a better handle on 
what broadcasters are doing in their local markets.
		MR. GOODMAN:  I think Paul wrote that for the Gore 
Commission, didn't he?  Do you want to --
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Yes.  I mean, again, Jim is so 
generous in many ways and certainly doesn't represent the 
thinking of the vast majority of broadcasters.  And I am 
probably in the middle, more moderate ground.  Then, of 
course, you have a large group of strict constructionists 
who are very concerned about First Amendment.  
		And I am, as well.  But as I, again, said in my 
companion submission to the Gore Commission report, I deeply 
believe that broadcasters still have an enviable record of 
public service.  And I don't think there should be any 
hesitation to document that.
		MR. TAYLOR:  Can I make one quick comment on 
disclosure?
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Yes.
		MR. TAYLOR:  It is a first cousin of what we have 
been talking about.  But it is disclosure of revenue from 
political advertising.  Some years ago, the FCC imposed a 
regulation on all stations that it keep a so-called public 
file of all the ad revenue it received from political 
candidates.  We think this is a useful tool.  We think the 
reasons for it are very sound.  When you have political 
advertisers on your local stations, you, the public, deserve 
to be able to know and go and find out how much they cost, 
who is paying for them, et cetera.
		These rules were crafted in an era where the only 
advertisers in political campaigns were the candidates 
themselves.  That era doesn't exist any more.  And now we 
have political campaigns -- a lot of political campaigns 
where it is Candidate Jones and Candidate Smith are not the 
two biggest advertisers in their own race.  It is their 
respective political parties and it is the issue advocacy 
groups.
		And I would think on the disclosure front, I would 
urge you to consider a more robust disclosure for the public 
file when it comes to political advertising so you would 
have a clearer picture of how much money is moving into the 
broadcasting industry.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Thank you.  Commissioner 
Powell.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  I want to turn to the issue 
on the ads.  You said you don't question the logic.  Let me 
make a separate challenge.  Sometimes minimal standards 
codify minimum behavior.  That is, that, you know, oh, throw 
me on the briar patch.  That is, if there are minimal 
standards, there won't be necessarily the pressures to 
produce higher levels of local oriented programming or more 
interested programming.
		It seems to me -- I would agree with the point Mr. 
Geller made which is I don't think anybody needs to be 
beating local television stations into local news in most 
markets.  I think there is competitive and economic reasons 
why those programmings are provided.
		Sometimes what I get concerned about, about 
pictures about minimal standards, is they do then make that 
the minimum that in some oligopolistic way everyone sticks 
to it.  One of the things I think -- I think Mr. Geller's 
proposal deserves some very serious consideration for a 
number of reasons.  Number one, it starts to harmonize the 
treatment across multiple mediums that we know are competing 
for the same entertainment, kind of consumers or products.
		It seems to me that it allows you to create a 
format for the subsidization of true market failures.  And 
by removing this special status, it requires people to 
compete quite aggressively and to differentiate themselves. 
 And these programmers might produce a lot better than the 
government would be able to bring itself constrained by the 
First Amendment to minimum standards.
		So I guess I throw that open for your response.  
But particularly, I am curious as to what broadcasters' 
responses are to a proposal like that and why it is 
appropriate or inappropriate.  And then I will follow up.  I 
have a question for Professor Raskin.
		MR. GOODMAN:  There are broadcasters that do their 
-- I have -- you know, I have concentrated on public affairs 
and public service announcements.  I have concentrated on 
those.  But there are television stations that don't do any 
local news.  I mean, I think there are a group of stations 
that do much more than these minimum requirements that we 
have as a -- because of who they are and what they think and 
what they are supposed to do.
		I also think there are stations that don't do any 
of it.  And we are working on the -- we are working on at 
least establishing as a floor that this business is about 
localism.  And if you want this license, then you need to do 
some local programming.  I think the stations that for all 
kinds of reasons want to do more will do more as a sort of a 
business issue.  
		And I was -- what did I think of Mr. Geller's 
suggestion.  It sounded like to me he was giving up on us.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Or saying you are not 
special.
		MR. GOODMAN:  Yes.  Well, I think he thinks we are 
special.  And I think he believes in localism.  And I think 
he believes we have gotten to the point that since there are 
no requirements and the public interest notion is not 
defined, then let's go ahead and get some money and fund 
public television.  I mean, that's -- but that's -- I can't 
-- how is that, Mr. Geller?
		MR. GELLER:  I have given up.  I agree with that. 
 But I want to tell you why.  The Commission in '81 and '84 
said just send a postcard in.  We are going to rely on the 
public.  The public is out shopping at malls and does not go 
into stations and won't go over the list and file a petition 
to deny.
		I don't know how many petitions to deny we've 
gotten.  If you did get them, you would be embarrassed by 
them because if there was a very small amount of local 
public service, you never told the broadcaster what he had 
to do.  He is in the dark because everything is so mushy.  
And in the Greater Boston case in 444 Fed. 2nd --
		(Laughter.)
		-- the Court said that many standards ought to be 
-- the discretion to deal with removal ought to be contained 
by some standards.  But I really do come back to that it is 
very difficult to handle this area.  We are in a First 
Amendment area where it gets very sensitive.  
		Reed Hunt when he did the three hours of meetings, 
he said that "Inside NBA" doesn't qualify.  And he now named 
the two educational psychologists that said it did.  I don't 
know how you handle this area at all.  It is a social 
purpose.  I am now just sticking with one example, the 
educational one.
		You can cite social purpose.  If you cite that the 
"Little Mermaid" teaches girls how to be leaders, what are 
you going to do with that?  And you can go on and on that 
way.  And all I was suggesting is that what you want is high 
quality public service programming.  The government can't do 
quality.  It is subjective.  It would violate the First 
Amendment.
		And, therefore, I suggested that if you take them 
out and you give it to somebody who does want to do it, then 
you don't have to worry what they do, what is the quality.  
We know what public broadcasting will do.  And finally, I do 
come back to what Commissioner Powell has said.  There has 
been an explosion here.  
		You have cable in about 68 percent.  You have DBS 
in ten percent and growing or however much.  But you have 
almost 80 percent now getting digital, multi-channel 
programming.  We have the internet coming along and the 
video screen will come get the broad band.
		And it seems to me that the Congress failed in the 
'96 Act.  It did something right about the common carrier 
area.  But it just kept a 70-year-old thing going back to 
1927, even though it is in the twenty-first century.  And it 
makes no sense to single out broadcasting for this very 
difficult behavioral content regulation that is ineffectual.
		I'll petition to deny coming in.  The emperor has 
no clothes here.  And I think you ought to move on.  And 
that is what that was about.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Mr. LaCamera?
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Well, obviously, I couldn't 
disagree more on several fronts.  First of all, you used the 
term, "special", Commissioner.  And for better or for worse, 
many Americans have if not most Americans now receive their 
local television.  I am sure that is not what you would 
encourage for your sons and what I encourage for my sons.  
But as long as that is the case, we are going to take this 
seriously.
		Secondly, the issues of -- that were discussed 
this morning and this afternoon about spectrum fees or pay 
or play, it is not something that most broadcasters have 
been interested in whatsoever.  I mean, I think the last 
time in Boston that a group bought their way out of their 
public obligations was in the Civil War.  They paid off 
people they fight for.  We have no interest in paying off 
people to perform our public obligations for us, as well.
		So, again, I know on these issues that, you know, 
sometimes when I have had the opportunity to represent our 
industry -- people say Boston is different.  WCVB is 
different.  Hearst Argile is different.  But you continue to 
expand that.  I sincerely also believe that I, more than 
Jim, represent most broadcasters in this country in these 
beliefs.
		MR. GELLER:  In ten seconds, I just want to say I 
don't believe in play or pay.  I don't want them to play.  I 
want them to pay.  That's it.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Commissioner Powell, did you 
have any other questions?
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Well, it was less a question 
than an ask for an expansion.  Professor Raskin, you sort of 
talked about -- you quickly rushed over a phrase in which 
you thought that there was a danger of entertainment 
diverting interests from civic discourse which I thought was 
an astute observation, particularly your distinction between 
consumers and citizens which I think really gets to the rub 
because part of the problem with the rampant criticism 
about, oh, financial interests instead of public interests 
first is if that is really an initially exclusive choice.  
Because, one, I don't understand if you have always pursued 
a commercial broadcasting industry.
		And one of the things that financial interests 
means is the maximization of eyeballs by virtue of the fact 
that the content is given away from free in essence.  So the 
money is made by maximizing people watching it which it is 
sort of the way I think this area gets most touchy.  Because 
it is not about what consumers are watching or choose to 
watch.  It is about what we would sort of -- to use a dirty 
word -- prefer they watch or at least maximize their options 
or at least some lesser version of funneling their 
interests. 
		That then gets to what you were touching on.  What 
I find challenging about that, which I think is a fair 
construct -- what I find challenging about it is with the 
explosion that Henry Geller just talked about, the 
competition for diversion is enormous and certainly not 
limited to broadcasting.  And I am sort of intrigued by the 
notion that on the Presidential debate day, I guess we 
should close Blockbuster video, we should deny people access 
to books.  
		How were you suggesting that this trend which I 
think you have rightly identified about entertainment of 
what the consumers may choose over civic mindedness and is 
that -- is there really a place for that in communication 
policy?
		PROFESSOR RASKIN:  Well, I think there has got to 
be because if there is not in communications policy, it is 
hard to see where we do deal with it.  
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  And education policy, civic 
minded, you know.
		PROFESSOR RASKIN:  Well, I think it is all of a 
piece.  I mean, there is an important symbolic and 
expressive dimension to what you do in this field.  I mean, 
if you say either there is no meaningful public interest 
requirements that we are going to be able to lay down 
guidelines for, we are not -- we were going to police them, 
essentially what we are saying is that we will leave it to 
either the dwindling band of broadcasters who really believe 
in a public citizenship ethic or we are just going to let 
the market decide.
		But I guess the point I am trying to make is the 
one that you referenced which is that there is a difference 
between the project marketplace, the realm of economics and 
the realm of politics.  And it is true that precisely 
because of the kind of broadcasting we have developed as 
well as other cultural trends, people are much more prone to 
view themselves as consumers and to want to be passive 
spectators of television and then active consumers.  People 
go out and buy things.
		And I think the government is not an innocent 
bystander here to say, well, if people want the consumers -- 
or the consumers if they want to be citizens, we will let 
them be citizens.  I think the government specifically 
addresses this.  You have to structure meaningful 
opportunities for people to be citizens and to take your 
role seriously as making sure that there are opportunities 
for real civic education and involvement to go on.
		And the reason that I link this to the question of 
critical debates and candidate forums are that if those are 
done in the right way and, that is, that they are open to 
all candidates or different political parties and 
persuasions, there is a lot more public interest and a lot 
more engagement with them.  
		To the extent that they seem more like rehearsed 
spectacles where all the important issues have already been 
decided.  And it is a control format and discussion.  And 
people do tune out and they would rather watch mud wrestling 
or what have you.  So that is why I think it is important to 
profess the importance of democratic pluralism at the same 
time that we say that there has got to be an obligation to 
cover local, state and national.  
		I guess the last point on this is that Tokeville 
said that the spirit of freedom in the United States draws 
in local community.  That is the opportunity where people 
actually have the occasion to taste freedom and what it 
means to see fellow citizens engaged in a common public 
enterprise and to be seen by other citizens engaging in 
common public enterprise.
		And if we let that go, we literally could lose 
what it means to have public space as public spaces get 
bought up and privatized in different facets.  So the 
obligation you have here is tremendously important on both 
the mere material level and also at the symbolic and 
expressive level, as well.
		COMMISSIONER POWELL:  Just two quick points.  
Thank you.  I mean, I thought that was very insightful.  But 
the tension that I find as a public policy maker is -- 
another form of our citizenry is the right not to do those 
things you suggest.  I would never suggest that an American 
citizen is not free to disengage if he or she chooses.  And 
the government won't otherwise chorus that participation.
		I'm saying Tokeville himself predicted the demise 
of America many centuries ago because it is believed that we 
value too highly individual choice of freedom.  And that 
individualism would destroy the public.  Thank goodness it 
didn't happen.  
		But I just throw that out as part of the tensions 
we deal with in this area, is -- and I am deeply concerned 
about it.  Paul Taylor and others have really highlighted 
the concerns that this has for a functioning democracy.  On 
the other hand, sort of up to the limits of one's right not 
to if they choose.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  I wanted to come back to 
Paul Schroeder who had a comment he wanted to make.
		MR. SCHROEDER:  Thanks.  I feel like we have 
missed out on something here.  We have been talking about 
those who are privileged to use the public space.  But we 
haven't been talking about the whole public that it seems to 
me they are obliged to serve.  
		And this whole business of community outreach, I 
think many of us in the disability community would be 
thrilled if a broadcaster would ever come and talk to us and 
get our views on what is important.  And many are starting 
to do that which is commendable.  And I don't fault Paul's 
station for not thinking of doing the ADA.  
		But maybe if there were some EEO rules that talked 
about diversity and seeking and recruiting people with 
disabilities, there might be folks on staff who would remind 
you of that kind of commitment.  And maybe if there was some 
form of community outreach where we were talking to other 
organizations, there might be folks who would bring that to 
your attention because it is not the kind of thing that 
Frank or somebody who hasn't been challenged by disability 
is going to think of probably on their own.
		I would say this.  You've got in a couple of 
months the fifth anniversary of the Telecom Act.  How about 
doing something a little different and taking a documentary 
on access provisions for people with disabilities, that act? 
 I know you are going to do something on where the money 
went.  And everybody is going to do that.  But how about 
looking at something that doesn't get covered sufficiently?
		And I would turn I guess Commissioner Furchtgott-
Roth's analogy not on its head, but back a little bit and 
say what if all of that information he talked about came to 
you in a language that isn't yours and could only be made 
available if you could find somebody to translate it?  Or 
what if every other word were obscured?  Or what if it was 
mimed over your cell. phone?  That would be useful.
		That is the kind of challenge that people with 
disabilities face.  We have talked a lot here this afternoon 
about whether the Commission can effect the content and the 
nature of programming that is provided.  And I don't have a 
dog in that fight I guess.  But -- directly for my purposes 
today.  
		But I do think the Commission has a very key role 
to play in setting expectations for consumers and for in 
this purposes broadcasters in the digital environment.  And 
that is to make sure that whatever they are doing, whatever 
content they choose to provide and however they choose to 
provide it -- we haven't talked a whole lot about what this 
digital television space is going to look like today.  But 
it is not going to be the same, obviously, as what people 
confront now on their television dials.
		So however that information is provided across 
these digital channels, high definition channels, extra 
audio channels, data channels, however that is provided, we 
have to make sure that the whole public is served by that 
information.  I haven't heard a word about that today 
unfortunately.  And I am not faulting.  I guess that is why 
I got to be on this panel, so that I would make sure that it 
got raised.
		But I do hope that the Commission will take this 
opportunity to set clear expectations.  We have heard from 
the broadcasters here that they need to know what they are. 
 The consumers, including consumers with disabilities, have 
a right to know what is expected, too.  And I think at the 
dawn of this digital age is the time to set these 
expectations, not two or three years later once things are 
set in stone and then we are trying to dismantle some of it.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  I couldn't agree with you more. 
 If there are any questions -- more questions for the panel.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I have --
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Okay.  Let's go to Commissioner 
Tristani.  And I really want to open the mikes and get some 
opportunity for people to ask questions of the panel from 
the floor.  So if you could -- if you have questions out 
there, please be thinking of them.  And Commissioner 
Tristani, why don't you go ahead.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Yes.  I had a follow-up 
question for Mr. Taylor and actually for others on the 
panel.  Paul, you mentioned that the disclosure -- I don't 
know if you want to call it requirement -- but that being 
the public file, the amount spent on campaigns by candidates 
has been a good thing.  And I've got to agree with you.  It 
has got to be good for the public to be informed who is 
paying for these ads.
		And you mentioned it would be a good thing if now 
the public might be informed what are the groups that paid 
for that.  Do you have any figures on who much money is 
actually coming in from candidates versus groups?  And then 
for others, I would like you to comment on whether you think 
could be a good thing to have these requirements apply to 
all the money that is spent on the electoral process.
		MR. TAYLOR:  Commissioner Tristani, we don't have 
hard figures because there is no place they are collected.  
So it is a frustration.  We can make some estimates on the 
Annenburg Public Policy Center, for example, has tracked 
these so-called issue groups that have done a lot of 
advertising around campaigns and estimates that the spending 
is in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars on television 
ads this year.  But that is just an estimate.  And it is not 
based on any hard data.
		But just to stay with this point, I mean, I think 
it very much feeds in to the very eloquent statement that 
Professor Raskin made and the broadcasters here on how 
precious the public square is.  And I, too, am in awe of 
Henry Geller.  But I, like the broadcasters, disagree with 
him on having given up.
		There is a marketplace rationale for singling out 
the broadcasters.  In addition to the democratic rationale, 
in addition to 70 years of constitutional history here, here 
we are in the year 2000, this extraordinary medium-rich 
environment we all recognize is happening before us, the 
typical candidate will spend between 80 and 90 cents out of 
every dollar on a local broadcast station.  We are talking 
about candidates for President down to dog catcher.  
		That in this extraordinary media-rich environment, 
that is where the overwhelming percentage of the money goes 
because the candidate understands the unique power of 
broadcast television because it is based in the community, 
because it is in 99 percent of people's households, because 
it comes over the air for free.  
		So that has become the arena for the most powerful 
communication in our campaigns.  And when Paul LaCamera says 
his problem is he has no races to cover this year, one of 
the reasons is we don't have very many competitive races for 
Congress or any other office because we have created this 
pay-to-play model.  
		You want to talk in the most important medium of 
communication, you have to raise a million bucks if you are 
running for Congress or $500,000.00 if you are running for 
state senate.  And a lot of people can't hit that threshold. 
 So it is a very incumbent-friendly system we have evolved 
into.
		One of the reasons why it is so difficult to 
change the law is because the incumbents are the ones who 
write the law.  But I do believe that the market is telling 
us something very important here which is that broadcast 
television remains uniquely powerful in the realm of 
political discourse.  And if you want to look for places to 
get better and more robust information than just what you 
get from the 30-second spot -- and doing away with it 
doesn't disadvantage people without any money -- you've got 
to a little broadcast television.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Anybody else want to 
comment on that?
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Well, as far as enhancing your 
reporting system, I don't think any broadcasters would 
object to that if it would be helpful to the process.  What 
you should know is aside from a few groups like Paul's, most 
people who are interested in what is in their public files 
are their campaigns.  And they visit them every day to see 
what the other candidate is spending.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  I know that.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  It is intriguing to watch.
		COMMISSIONER TRISTANI:  Having been in a campaign 
myself in my past.
		MR. LaCAMERA:  Right.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  Yes?
		MR. GOODMAN:  If I may just make -- and this is a 
little off the subject.  The issue is how obtuse my views 
are compared to the typical broadcaster's views.  And while 
I think Paul thinks I am a little out of touch, but in a 
different position, I really do view my -- what I have 
suggested as in between greedy.com and the best operator in 
the country.
		And I can't -- this needs to make sense now.  
We've got to stop singing things that don't connect.  These 
licenses -- that is not in my license.  It is the public's 
license.  I am just holding onto it.  You all represent the 
public.  Don't represent me.
		The public deserves to know what is expected of us 
even if it is nothing.  And I cannot say give me the 
license, don't give me any minimum qualifications, and don't 
charge me anything.  Now, I can't connect that as a 
reasonable position to take.  So I am trying to get in the 
middle.  I mean, I am trying to say voluntary code real 
important, minimum standards a way that gets the public 
access to the airwaves.  And we can move along in this.
		Really, the great news is the digital future is so 
exciting.  I mean, things are not bad.  Things are good.  
Let's get this -- get everybody together and come up with a 
reasonable way of defining our obligations and roll.
		CHAIRMAN KENNARD:  It sounds like a very 
reasonable position to me.  And with that, I would like to 
invite anyone up to the microphones who would -- if anyone 
has any questions for the panel.  If not, unless there are 
additional questions from the bench, I would like to thank 
you all for what was a very, very robust discussion.  
		I appreciate -- I particularly appreciate the 
testimony of the two broadcasters who came here today.  I 
know it is sometimes not easy to -- especially for you, Mr. 
Goodman, to come forward and speak your mind like you did.  
And I really appreciate your candor.  And all the rest of 
you did a fabulous job.  Thank you all very, very much for 
being here.  So we are adjourned.  Thank you.
		(Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m. on Monday, October 16, 
2000, the hearing in the above-entitled matter was 
adjourned.)
//
//
//
//
//
//
/

	REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE



CASE TITLE:	En Banc Hearing on the Public Interest
		Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees

HEARING DATE:	October 16, 2000

LOCATION:		Washington, D.C.

	I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 
are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes 
reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the 
Federal Communications Commission.

Date:   _10-16-00_           _____________________________
                              Gabriel Thomas
                              Official Reporter
                              Heritage Reporting Corporation
                              1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
                              Washington, D.C. 20005-4018


	TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE


	I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 
were fully and accurately transcribed from the tapes and 
notes provided by the above named reporter in the above case 
before the Federal Communications Commission.

Date:   _10-26-00_            ______________________________
                              Bonnie Niemann
                              Official Transcriber 
                              Heritage Reporting Corporation


	PROOFREADER'S CERTIFICATE

	I hereby certify that the transcript of the 
proceedings and evidence in the above referenced case that 
was held before the Federal Communications Commission was 
proofread on the date specified below.

Date:   _10-26-00_            ______________________________
                              Lorenzo Jones
                              Official Proofreader
                              Heritage Reporting Corporation
 

 
 
	UNITED STATES
	FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION






	HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
	Official Reporters
	1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600
	Washington, D.C.  20005-4018
	(202) 628-4888
	hrc@concentric.net
	251

	Heritage Reporting Corporation
	(202) 628-4888


	Heritage Reporting Corporation
	(202) 628-4888