Date

0-7639

EEEEE EE EEEE EEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEL

1293 00682 12

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A History of the Concept

of Public Broadcasting: 1967-1980

presented by

Lawrence E. Beery

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Mdegree inTe] ecommum' cati on

May 14, 1987

 

Major professor

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

MSU

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

 

LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

Slat/m2, 6357
ES?!
7 '3 r
a. / ,Q,
, 37 3
n3 0 7 1994
37.131,- $1b1

 

 

“ r—

A HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT
OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING: 1967 to 1980

By

Lawrence Eli Beery

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunication

1987

ABSTRACT

A HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT
OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING
1967-1980
By

Lawrence Eli Beery

Public Broadcasting is a generic term for a growing
number of public telecommunication services, but what does
it mean?

It is a paradoxical term for an elusive concept. It
can be defined, but the more precise the definition, the
more broad the concept.

A historical review of the period 1967-80 provides con-
text for the evolution of the term Public Broadcasting. The
primary focus is a l3-year era between the two major
Carnegie Corporation sponsored studies of the public broad-
cast movement in the United States. A prologue provides an
overview of the movement to the 1967 report.

Eighteen enduring characteristics defining of the con-
cept were identified, excluding a review of legal, academic
and popular definitions.

The study is historical research with parallel analysis
of certain key public policies involving problem definition
and enlightenment. It has been written for policymakers and

communication students.

This thesis is dedicated to my wife, Linda, and my two sons,
Nicholas and E11

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0

PART I--PROLOGUE

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING

MOVEMENT TO THE FIRST CARNEGIE COMMISSION

AND THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACT OF 1967 .

PART II

PUBLIC BROADCASTING AS ILL-DEFINED

BY THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACT OF

1967. SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATIONS

TO THE 1980 CARNEGIE REPORT . . . . . . .

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 . . .

The Altered Course. . . . . . . . . . . .

The Meaning of "Noncommercial". . . . . .

Federal Regulations Defining the

Purpose of Noncommercial Educational

Broadcast Stations. . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Regulations Which Promote Special

Problems For Noncommercial Educational or

Public Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . .
EditorialiZing O O O O O O O 0 O O O
Ascertainment of Community Needs . .
Political Programming. . . . . . . .
Controversial Issue Programming. . .
Fiscal and Policy Control. . . . . .

Chronic Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Centralism and Localism. . . . . . .

iv

Page

20
2O
22
28

31

32
32
3A
36
37
39
40
AO

Funding and Political Insulation . .

Structure. .

Instructional Media.

Selected Interpretations and
Recommendations Regarding the

Future of Public Broadcasting .

The Second Carnegie Commission
Report on the Future of Public
Broadcasting .

The Follow-up Report

The Grand Alliance

Educational Telecommunications and

Other Perspectives

PART III-—CONCLUSION AS DISCUSSED

AND TREATED IN PART II.

PART IV--EPILOGUE

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER

POLICY RESEARCH .
LITERATURE CITED.

IN PART

Page
42
48
51

5A

57

59
61

62

67

71
73

INTRODUCTION

Public Broadcasting is a paradoxical term for an elu-
sive concept. It can be defined, but the more precise the
definition, the more broad the concept.

This hypothesis is a product of research that
addressed the elementary but legitimate question: What is
Public Broadcasting?

It also points the direction of this study, which is
essentially a history of Public Broadcasting between
1967-80, the years of two major studies of the public
system.

The purpose of the research was to identify distinc-
tive properties or enduring characteristics of Public
Broadcasting as the concept evolved between the 1967 study:

Public Television: A Program for Action (Carnegie I), and

 

the 1979 effort: A Public Trust (Carnegie II). Both stu-

 

dies were sponsored by the New York-based Carnegie
Corporation.

Carnegie I first defined the term and concept of
Public Television. That definition was then amended by
common reference to Public Broadcasting to include radio
broadcasting. Twelve years later, Carnegie II used the

term Public Broadcasting throughout its study, but

introduced the term Public Telecommunications to embrace
evolving communication technologies.

A review of scientific, legal, popular and academic
literature reveals that Public Broadcasting remains the
generic term for certain public telecommunication activi-
ties. And, the continued use of the term begs the elemen-
tary question of what it means.

An understanding of what Public Broadcasting is, based
on its historical deveIOpment, is of value to communication
students and to policy and lawmakers who may need a frame
of reference for the term.

To that end, this is primarily a historical document.
It is also a limited policy research effort.

It is historical in method, as defined and developed
by Kerlinger, because such research is important to the
formulation of public policy. Historical research, he
said, has great value because it is necessary to know and
understand trends of the past in order to gain perspective
on present and future directions.1

This research also recognizes the observation of
Barzun and Graff that facts never speak for themselves;
they need context, which is carried by words, which are
composed and edited by the writer. The historians also
note that history is not only a story of what happened, but

1Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral
Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston),

p. 701.

also of the substance of what happened.2

The limited policy focus of this document, which is
also termed a parallel analysis, is one of problem defini-
tion. It serves an enlightenment function designed to help
policymakers and students understand what Public
Broadcasting is or is a product of. The rationale for the
policy emphasis is explained by Majchizak, who said not all
social problems are defined either precisely or
appropriately enough to permit a search for causes and solu-
tions.3

In that context, Public Broadcasting is not a social
problem, although underfunding or overregulation of the
system could be construed to be.

Policy issues raised by a review of the historical
period 1967-80 will be noted in a brief epilogue. That
discussion will be limited to a simple enumeration of topics
and questions that could spark further research regarding
Public Broadcasting.

The "distinctive properties" or "characteristics" of
Public Broadcasting-to be identified will vary from legisla-
tive terminology to multi-dimensional concepts, but all
will be fundamental and enduring aspects of a movement that

2Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff, The Modern

Researcher, 3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
Inc., 1977), pp. LEO-LE2.

 

3Ann Machhrzak, Methods For Policy Research,
(California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 198A), p. 16.

evolved into Public Broadcasting. In that sense, the
characteristics are defining elemenents. Considered as a
collective concept, the characteristics form a constitutive
definition of Public Broadcasting. A constitutive defini—
tion defines a term by substituting other words or concepts

for it, according to researchers Wimmier and Dominick.“

The fundamental limitation to this study is that it is
not a comprehensive history of Public Broadcasting from
1967-80; it is a selected history.

There are already several chronologies of the history
of the public system, legislative histories, and research
focusing on educational or instructional broadcasting.

This research provides a history of the concept of
Public Broadcasting that is expressed in the historical
contexts of events or developments that reveal enduring and
defining aspects of the public system, as it was known
through 1980.

It begins with a prologue that provides an historical
overview of the public broadcasting movement to 1967 and
Carnegie I, and continues with definitions, interpretations
and issues through 1980 and Carnegie II. A brief epilogue
that focuses on further policy research topics follows the
conclusion.

“Roger D. Wimmer and Joseph R. Dominick, Mass Media

Research, An Introduction, 2nd ed. (California: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1983), p. 11.

 

The thesis has been drawn from extended research by
the author and was reduced to its present text as a result

of discussion with the thesis director.

PROLOGUE

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING MOVEMENT
TO THE FIRST CARNEGIE COMMISSION
AND THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACT OF 1967

The term "public broadcasting" did not have specific
meaning or even general recognition in the United States
until after the 1967 publication of the report and recom-

mendations of the Carnegie Commission on educational tele-

vision, Public Television: A Program For Action, and the

 

passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Prior to
that legislation, and between 1922 and 1967, develOpments
in the educational radio, educational television, and in
the visual instruction movements culminated in the orga-
nized effort to secure federal support for broadcast
programming that would be largely "alternative" in nature
to what was then being broadcast by the licensed commercial
radio and television stations.

Defining public broadcasting prior to the 1967 Act
requires a review of specific events and relationships
which develOped between 1922 and 1967. The review will
provide context to the 1967 Act and will point out philo-
s0phical and structural origins of a movement which became

Public Broadcasting.

Laissez-faire development of the broadcast industry in
the United States allowed commercial interests to success-
fully initiate broadcast stations in the AM and FM (radio),
VHF and UHF (television) respective frequencies before the
educational interests of the country.

The licensing system for allocation of broadcast fre-
quencies to radio and television station applicants under
laissez-faire conditions was managed by a government admi-
nistrative agency (first the Federal Radio Commission,
later the Federal Communication Commission).

Through the authority of administrative law, given by
Congress in the Communication Act of 193A and related sta—
tutes, the FCC had wide discretionary power to encourage
the deve10pment of the nation's communications services
under the mandate of "public interest, convenience, and
necessity."

The role of the federal government in the development
of educational broadcasting is substantial. The FCC, the
Office of Education of the Health, Education, and Welfare
Department, as well as various acts of Congress, contri-
buted significantly to the develOpment of educational
broadcasting.

The FCC gave identity to a loose federation of educa-
tional broadcasters when it defined the term "noncommercial
educational broadcasting station" in 1938. In subsequent

rulings, the FCC recognized the importance of the potential

II, almost all were connected with American land grant
colleges and state universities. They succeeded because
they were fulfilling a well-defined need: each was
integrated into an ongoing educational program. Radio, a
historian claimed, was regarded as an obvious means of
delivering education (much of it funded by the Morrill Act
of 1862 and the 1887 Hatch Act) to rural areas.6

At the same time the pioneering university broad-
casters were experimenting with and utilizing radio broad-
casting as a teaching aid, a parallel education movement
was evolving that would later extend the uses of radio and
television as supplements to the schools' established
curriculum: audiovisual education.

According to one historical review, beginning with
lantern slides and stereographs in the 1880's, "visual
instruction" developed by 1910 to where some schools had
begun to adopt films for instructional use, and by 1913
Thomas Edison predicted that it would be possible to teach
every branch of human knowledge with the motion picture;
by the 1920's old theatrical films, advertising films,
government films, welfare films, and health films were
being integrated into classroom activities and the concept

6Robert J. Blakely, To Serve the Public Interest:
Educational Broadcasting in the United States, with a

Forward by McGeorge Bundy (New York: Syracuse University
Press, 1979), p. 53.

of visual aids was growing.7

To briefly summarize, the educational broadcasting
movement seemed concerned with the over-the-air broad-
casting to schools and the general public; the audiovisual
movement concentrated on classroom use of a variety of
audio and visual media.

By the mid-1950's the popularity of television had
prompted a variety of groups to apply for educational tele—
vision station licenses: universities, community cor-
porations, state agencies and school boards. This variety
of station management is important to this study in that it
marks the beginning of direct citizen participation in the
development of community television broadcast services.

The role of the federal government's substantial
involvement in the deve10pment of broadcast services has
already been noted. This involvement is particularly well
illustrated in the Jan. 26, 1938 Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) adoption of the rules governing noncommer-
cial educational radio standards. Each of these stations
was required to furnish a nonprofit and noncommercial ser-
vice. In addition to the new rules, the FCC allocated 25
channels between “1,000 and 42,000 kilohertz for the

7Paul Saettler, A History of Instructional

Technology (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1968), p.

10

exclusive use of this new class of stations.8

For the first time in United States history, then,
there was a federal agency-defined group of noncommercial
broadcasters with their own frequency allocation.

Along with this recognition by the federal government
came the burden of responsibility to develop noncommercial
educational broadcasting in the United States. The educa-
tional broadcasters had competed with commercial interests
to gain special consideration at the federal level and pre-
vailed.

Coupled with the educational broadcasters' original
vision of radio broadcasting's potential to supplement
curriculum and augument community education, and the philo-
sophical and practical success of the land grant college
and university extension service broadcasts to rural
society, the federally-defined classifications of noncom-
mercial educational broadcast stations represent the ele—
mentary and substantive aspects of our pre-1967 definition
of public broadcasting.

Following the emergence of television as a medium in
1948, educational broadcasters began to form associations
(for example, the National Association of Educational
Broadcasters; the Joint Committee on Educational

8Federal Register, III, 36A, Jan. 26, 1938. The
term noncommercial educational broadcasting station meant
"a high frequency broadcasting station licensed to an orga-
nized nonprofit educational agency for the advancement of

its educational work and for the transmission of educa-
tional and entertainment programs to the general public."

 

11

Television, which represented seven national educational

organizations; National Citizens Committee of Educational
Television, etc.) and struggled to unify in order to ini—
tiate favorable rule making before the FCC. Part of the

unification process was to fashion a definition of them-

selves.

In 1949, 22 directors or managers of educational sta-
tions and an equal number of advisors, public represen-
tatives and foreign guests met at the University of
Illinois to think solely and systematically about the
mission and strategy of educational broadcasting in the
United States. This seminar became the first of the
Allerton House Seminars, and in its final report,

Educational Broadcasting: Its Aims and Responsibilities,

 

educational broadcasting was defined to include AM and FM
radio, television, and facsimile (transmission of images by
slow-scan TV), and expressed the notion that educational
broadcasting in a democracy was an essential part and a
supplement necessary to both education and public com-
munication.9

One effort to initiate legislation occured in 1951 and
involved the reservation of television channels for non-
commercial stations. The action followed an increase

demand for television licenses after WW I and after FCC

9B1akely, To Serve the Public Interest: Educational
Broadcasting in the United States, p. 10.

 

 

12

authorities elected to "freeze" license applications
pending a revision of frequency standards. Hearings on
reserving educational channels resumed Oct. 12, 1950, and
the organizations appeared to make their case.10

To prove that educational broadcasters had the ability
to improve upon commercial programming, a good example of
what commercial stations were broadcasting needed to be
collected; a content analysis of a major market. Out of
the JCET strategy meeting of December 30, 1950 came the
decision to survey TV programming then being offered in New
York City, the nation's largest metrOpolitan area.11

The educational television phase of the FCC hearings
lasted from November 1950 to January 1951. Seventy-six
witnesses (71 supporters of the educators and 5 opponents)
filled 2,600 pages of records.12

The Third Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making,
issued by the FCC in early 1951, set aside 209 channels for
noncommercial use. These were tentative proposals, but a

10Federal Register, XV, 6049. Cited by George H.

Gibson Public Television: The Role of the Federal
Government, 1912-76 (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977),

p. 72.

 

llJCET Minutes, March 22—23, 1951, p. 46 (NAEB
Washington Office). Cited by Robert A. Carlson in "1951: A
Pivotal Year for ETV " Educational Broadcasting Review
(December 1967): p. 47.

 

12Federal Communications Commission, Official
Report of Proceedings, In the Matter of: Amendment of
Section 3.606 of the Commissions Rules and Regulations,
Docket 8736 et a1. (Washington, D.C.; Ward and Paul,
1950-51), pp- 15743-18337.

13

year later on April 14, 1952, the FCC issued its Sixth
Report and Order, which ended the "freeze" on television
license applications and provided a new Table of
Assignments. Noncommercial television allocations totaled
242 (80 VHF and 162 UHF); an increase over the original
preposal. The educational broadcasters had won their
struggle for television channel reservation.

Another effort came in 1962 with the goal to gain
federal support to build new stations through the
Educational Television Facilities Act (Public Law 87-447),
which was the first direct federal aid to noncommercial
broadcasting. (Indirect aid had come with the 1958
National Defense Education Act, a matching dollar program
to promote the purchase of educational equipment.)

In 1962, the educational broadcasting movement unified
again during two national conferences on long-range
funding. That effort led to the formation of the 1967
Carnegie Commission.

These struggles indicate another defining element of
public broadcasting prior to Carnegie I and the Public
Broadcasting Act of 1967; the ability (for at least a short
period) to unify, and with assistance from interested out—
side parties, initiate successful rule making before the
regulatory agency (FCC) which had the authority to make
decisions that affected its structure and/or services.

The Carnegie Commission's 1967 report on educational

television, Public Television: A Program for Action was the

 

14

result of the perception of many ETV leaders that although
their broadcasting stations were growing in number
(particularly in the UHF range) and becoming diverse with
programming for over the air broadcasts as well as with
audiovisual delivery systems, a long-range financial plan
for educational television had to be develOped.

C. Scott Fletcher, who became director of Educational
Television Division (ETS) of the National Association of
Educational Broadcasters (NAEB), said in early 1964: "We
must take immediate action to investigate the financial
structure that supports all aspects of educational televi-
sion station activities, and we must move toward develop-
ment of a plan for financial stability."13

By this time, "all aspects" included activities
regarding local stations, potential state and regional net-
works, communication satellites, instructional television
libraries, instructional television fixed service,1“ the
increasing relationship between educational institutions
and the federal government, and finally, with new tech-
nology involving video recorders and random-access

13Senate, Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, Hearings on S205, 87 Congress, lst Session.

1“Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) was
the brain child of the FCC, and it involved setting up a
system for transmitting to a small number of preselected or
fixed receivers rather than to the community at large.
Such a system, it was believed, would relieve the antici-
pated demand for most broadcast channels than were

available. Gibson, Public Broadcasting; The Role of the
Federal Government 1912-76, p. 90.

 

15

retrieval systems.15

Clearly, educational broadcasting's potential and its
complexity was increasing with each year. The major factor
limiting its growth and experimentation with public ser—
vices was financial weakness.

Recognizing this, the First National Conference on
Long-Range Financing of ETV, was organized and held during
December, 1964, in Washington, D.C. According to one
historian, more than 260 people attended representing edu-
cational stations in the country.16

The activity at the conference led to the formulation
of eight mandates; one of which suggested that, "Immediate
attention should be given to the appointment of a presiden-
tial commission to make recommendations for educational
television development, after intensive study of a year

15Random-access retrieval systems consists of a
number of individual learning stations--each furnished with
a chair, small desk, TV monitor, headsets,
intercommunication system, and other ancillary materials
(audio recorder, typewriter, slide projector, etc.). As
the student needs information, or a particular program, it
is fed to him through one of the Open channels in the

system. Wood and Wylie, Education Telecommunications, p.
63.

16Report of the First National Conference on Long-
Range Financing of ETV, p. 34. Cited by John E. Burke, in
"The Public Broadcasting Act of l967--Part I: Historical
Origins and the Carnegie Commission," Education
Broadcasting Review vol. 6, no. 2 (April 1972): p. 113.
(It is also important to note that the conference was par-
tially financed by a $65,000 grant from the U.S. Office of
Education.

 

 

 

16

or more.17

That proposed commission develOped into the 1966
Carnegie Commission on Educational Television; a commission
privately financed through a $500,000 grant from the
Carnegie Corporation of New York, and was presidentially
endorsed.

The commission published its findings and recommen-

dations in the 1967 report: Public Television: A Program

 

for Action, the Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie

Commission on Educational Television. It defined the

 

structure of educational television. In 1966, according to
the report, there were 124 educational television stations
on the air. These included: 21 school stations, 27 state
stations, 35 university stations, and 41 community sta-
tions. The stations, it said, were owned and Operated by
nonprofit organizations, carried no advertising, and
received most of their programming from the National
Educational Television (NET) organization.

The Commission separated educational television
programming into two parts: (1) Instructional Television,
directed to individuals in the general context of formal
education and (2) Public Television, which was directed at
the general community.

The Carnegie Commission also made the following com-

ment regarding broadcast television programming (in

17Report of the First National Conference on Long-
Range Financing of ETV, pp. 11-22.

 

17

general, in the United States in 1966).

All television, commercial television included, provi-
des news, entertainment, and instruction; all television
teaches about places, peOple, animals, politics, crime,
science. Yet the differences are clear. Commercial
Television seeks to capture the large audience; it relies
mainly upon the desire to relax and to be entertained.
Instructional Television lies at the Opposite end Of the
scale; it calls upon the instinct to work, build, learn,
and improve and asks the viewer to take on responsiblities
in return for a later reward. Public Television, to which
the Commission has devoted its major attention, includes
all that is of human interest and importance which is not
arranged for formal instruction.18

 

 

 

 

The preceding paragraph contains a major element of
our pre-1967 definition of public broadcasting; the notion
that instructional and public television are not the same
as commercial television and that they are "alternative"
services tO commercial television programming.

The Commission, is should be noted, did not include an
explanation Of why it deleted educational radio broad-
casting from its discussion regarding the future of
educational broadcasting. Apparently, the focus of the
research was television, and perhaps this was a reflection
Of the Obsession of the new medium by the American public.

Prior to the publication of the Carnegie Report, a
Second National Conference on Long-Range Financing Of ETV
was organized and held March 5-7, 1967. Based on inter—
views with those attending the conference, one historian

18Public Television: A Program For Action, The
Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on
Educational Television, COpyright by Carnegie Corporation

Of New York, (New York: Harper & Kow, Publishers, 1967), pp.
21-220

 

18

said the purpose was to review and react to the report and
to make recommendations for further action. The major
rationale and importance Of the conference was the forming
Of a consensus among the educational broadcasters on the
recommendations Of Carnegie I, so that any legislature pro—
posals created as a result Of the Commission's recommen-
dations would have a legitimate basis.19

In summary, a concept Of Public Broadcasting prior to
1967 must include the following defining characteristics: a
loose federation Of educational broadcast stations and
instructional audiovisual associations that slowly deve-
loped the ability to unify and to successfully Obtain
"special consideration" status from an administrative
government agency; that had a common vision of the impor-
tance and potential of telecommunication services to
American society; that incrementally developed a structure
with links to federal, state, and local government; and
which were the recipient of strong support from all levels
of society, and particularly from a few dedicated indivi-
duals and foundations.

This federation of educational broadcasting stations
grew to number 124 by 1967 and was "nonprofit" and
"noncommercial" in nature. These terms develOped through
the FCC rule making process of establishing a special class
Of licenses and were reinforced through the Facilities Act

and through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

19

In addition to these characteristics, the pre-l967
definition must include the 1949 self-definition that
suggests educational broadcasting in a democracy was essen-

tial part and necessary supplement to education and public

communication.

PART III

PUBLIC BROADCASTING AS ILL-DEFINED
BY THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACT

OF 1967. SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATIONS
TO THE 1980 CARNEGIE REPORT

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

It is generally recognized that the Public Broadcast-
ing Act Of 1967 (Public Law 90-129, 81 Congress, an amend-
ment to the Communications Act Of 1934) was the most
significant noncommercial broadcast legislation in the
history of public broadcasting. One author suggested that
the 1967 Act marked the beginning Of Public Broadcasting's
modern history.20

The legislation was a compromise between House and
Senate bills and was signed into law Nov. 7, 1967, only

eight months after introduction. The 1967 Act was thus
signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson the same year and
with the same session Of Congress that initially reviewed
the Carnegie Commission's 1967 report. Johnson was a
strong supporter of legislation that advanced education and
even suggested a "great network Of knowledge" was

2OSteve Millard, "The Story of Public
Broadcasting," Broadcasting, November 8, 1971, p. 30.

 

2O

21

desirable for the country.21

The Public Broadcasting Act Of 1967 contained three
parts. Part I extended the Educational Television
Facilities Act Of 1962 (a three year, $38 million dollar
package). Part II established the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (a nonprofit publicly chartered corporation).
Part III authorized $500,000 dollars for a comprehensive
study Of instructional television and radio to determine
how much and to what extent federal aid should be allocated
to develop it.

The 1967 Act amended the Communications Act Of 1934 in
several ways which are relevant to a search for defining
characteristics Of Public Broadcasting. First, it enun-
ciated a Congressional Declaration of Policy regarding the
federal government's firm commitment to supporting noncom-
mercial educational radio and television broadcasting,
including the use Of such media for instructional purposes.

Secondly, in addition to this commitment, Part IV,
Subpart C, Section 397 of the Communications Act, as
amended, provided some relevant definitions:

Section 397

(5) The term "nonprofit" as applied to any foundation,
corporation, or association, means a foundation, cor—
poration, or association, no part Of the net earnings Of
which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit Of any
private shareholder or individual.

(7) The term "noncommercial educational broadcast sta-

tion" means a television or radio broadcast station, which
(A) under the rules and regulations Of the Federal

21Congressional Record, CXIII, 29320,29382,30198.

 

22

Communications Commission in effect on the date Of enact-
ment of the Public Broadcasting Act Of 1967, is eligible to
be licensed or is licensed by the Commission as a noncom-
mercial educational radio or television broadcast station
and which is owned and Operated by a public agency or
nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association
or (B) is owned and Operated by a municipality and which
transmits only noncommercial programs for educational pur-
poses.

(9) The term "educational television or radio
programs" means programs which are primarily designed for
educational or cultural purposes.

It is also important to note that Section 399 Of the
'34 Act, as amended at the time, stated that no noncommer-
cial educational broadcasting station could engage in edi-
torializing or support or approve any candidate for
political office (these issues will be addressed later).

Finally, it should be noted that the term "public
broadcasting" did not appear in the language of any statute
beyond the title Of the '67 Act. The source of this term
brings the discussion back to the strategy meetings of the
1967 Carnegie Commission, which will be addressed in the
next section.

At this point, public broadcasting had not been
legislatively defined as a specific term, only in terms of

"noncommercial educational broadcasting."

The Altered Course

 

The Public Broadcasting Act Of 1967 is significant for
another reason beyond the Official support of the federal
government for noncommercial educational broadcasting, the

formation Of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the

22

23

extension of the Facilities Act, the authorization to study
instructional media, the ambiguous legislative terms, the
failure to allow editorializing, or the failure to provide
long-term funding for the new Corporation. The 1967 Act
was significant because it may have altered the philOSOphi-
cal course Of educational broadcasting development.

The name Of the 1967 Act is, to some degree, symbolic
of the way Congress embraced the conclusions and recommen-
dations Of the Carnegie Commission; not be agreeing with
every specific recommendation, but with the philOSOphical
orientation Of the Carnegie Commission that perceived the
mission Of noncommercial educational broadcasting in
American society to be an "alternative" program service to
the established commercial stations.

The first sentence of its report states: "A well-
financed and well-directed system, substantially larger and
far more pervasive and effective than that which now exists
in the United States, must be brought into being if the
full needs of the American public are to be served."22
This was a central conclusion, and all Of its recommen-
dations were designed accordingly. The commission further
explained:

If we were to sum up our prOposal with all the brevity
at our command, we would say that what we recommend is

freedom. We seek freedom from the constraints, however
necessary in their context, Of commercial television. We

22Public Television: A Program for Action, The
Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on
Educational Television, p. 3.

 

23

24

seek for eduational television freedom from the pressures
Of inadequate funds. We seek for the artist, the tech-
nician, the journalist, the scholar, and the public servant
freedom to create, freedom to innovate, freedom to be heard
in this far-reaching medium. We seek for the citizen
freedom to View, to see programs that the present system,
by its incompleteness, denies him.

The notion Of an "alternative system" to commercial
broadcasting was clearly established. In doing so, the
commission coined the term "Public Television" to
distinguish between its main tOpic and Instructional
Television and Commercial Television.

Why the term "Public Television" was used is subject
tO some debate. Commission members admitted that the name
troubled them from the beginning, and that it sounded too
forbidding; it called to mind the schoolroom and the lec-
ture hall; and many individuals would be frightened away

from educational channels.2’-l The commission, on the third

23A strong rebuttal to the coining Of the term
"public broadcasting," and to this statement specifically
is made by Robert J. Blakely in his book, To Serve the
Public Interest: Educational Broadcasting in the United
States, pp. 170-178. He says, "What is missing in this
eloquent summary? The producer, the educator, and the
'public servant' are all considered. But missing is the
explicit inclusion Of the citizen's freedom to do more than
'tO view, to see programs'. Missing is his freedom to
learn by practicing the government Of his affairs, private
and public, by his own use of 'this most far-reaching
medium'." The Carnegie report does not include the concept
of television as the peOple's instrument to present
grievances, to be heard and seen, to explain, to express,
to use television as a means of communication in action to
pursue the most serious personal and social goals. He also
agreed that the term "public television" was "a name
without a concept." This latter View taken from Les Brown,
Television: The Business Behind the Box, (New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1971) p. 319.

2"Ibid., p. 15.

25

page Of its report, said it intended to deal with
educational programming directed toward the general public.
It would propose further study Of instructional television
in formal education settings.

However, the second Carnegie Commission, A public
Eggs; (1979), states: "A new term, Public Television, was
introduced tO dramatize the emphasis on programming for
general enrichment and information as well as for classroom
instruction."25

Wood and Wylie point out another reason or rationale
for the term "Public Television." They suggest that
because the Carnegie Corporation had earlier in the cen-
tury almost single-handedly guaranteed the establishment
Of the concept Of free public libraries around the
country, that it was Obvious that the analogy between free
public libraries and free public television was to be
emphasized by the adoption of the term.26

Finally, Burke points out that there were three major
policy problems that the 1967 Carnegie Commission had to
deal with: instructional broadcasting, networking versus
local broadcasting, and the government's role in the
financing of public television. His research showed that

the exclusion Of instructional broadcasting from the

 

25A Public Trust: The Report Of the Carnegie
Commission on the Future Of Public Broadcasting, 1979,

P. 35.

26Donald D. WOOd, and Donald G. Wylie, Educational
Telecommunications, (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,

Inc., 197778p.65.

 

 

26

Commission's final report was a decision that was made
early in the develOpment Of the project. Two reasons were
given for this: (1) the educators on the commission felt
strongly that the instructional aspect of broadcasting
needed re-examination because it had thus far not proven
itself, and (2) the commission felt that the task Of
dealing with both "instructional" and "public" television,
as they defined them, would prove to be tOO great a
project.27

Clearly, it can be seen that the develOpment Of an
"alternative" broadcast network was greatly aided by the
emphasis given tO the general interest programming part of
educational broadcasting by the 1967 Carnegie Commission.

The goal of that Carnegie Commission seems tO have
been to get an approved educational broadcast system in
Operation in the United States, and the enactment Of
legislation to authorize government support Of educational
broadcasting.

Achievement of these goals through the passage Of the
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 may have led to an altered
evolutionary course for noncommercial educational broad-
casting in the United States. As we have seen, the incre-
mental steps though which noncommercial education
broadcasting develOped were made up of FCC rulings and
Congressional actions, and were taken to develop the

27Report Of the Second National Conference on Long-
Range Financing Of ETV. Cited by Burke, Part II, p. 184.

27

potential educational aspects Of noncommercial
broadcasting--not to develOp a media of mass com-
munications. Historically then, the emphasis had not been
on the development Of an alternative service to commercial
broadcasters, now was there a drive to establish a large
national structure beyond that necessary to interconnect
the stations.

The two national conferences on the long—range
financing Of educational broadcasting showed that the com-
mon drive was to get more money for educational stations,
perhaps federal money.

Therefore, following the passage Of the 1967 Act, the
chronic or enduring problems of what was recognized as
Public Television began to emerge. The public system had a
name, but no identity. Douglas Cater, who worked as
President Johnson's assistant on the passage of the Public
Broadcasting Act Of 1967, remarked in 1972:

In retrospect, we were overly Optimistic to believe
that public broadcasting in the U.S. would find its own
identity. TOO little account was taken, by the Killian
(Carnegie) Commission, the White House, or Congress, Of the
frailties of the system we were seeking to nurture. It was
hardly a system at all, but rather a variety of broad-
casting arrangements bearing a common name and yet widely
differing in structure, ginancing, concept of role, and
degree of independence.2

These differences have, Of course, led to a variety of

interpretations Of what public broadcasting was or what it

 

28Douglas Cater, "Public TV: What hOpe for
progress? The politics of public TV," Columbia Journalism

Review, July/August 1972, p. 10.

28
should have been.

The Meaning Of "Non commercial"

As indicated earlier, the term "public broadcasting"
does not appear, beyond the title Of the Public
Broadcasting Act Of 1967, in any of the legislative history
Of the Communications Act Of 1934. Branscomb suggests
that: "Policymakers have deliberately declined to define
public or noncommercial broadcasting functions very eXpli-
citly for fear Of Opening the Pandora's box Of programming
control-~an issue fraught with First Amendment concerns and
connotations."29

For whatever reason, the term was not legislatively
defined. The only source for one was the 1967 Carnegie
Commission; a definition which excluded instructional
broadcasting and public radio.

However, there were several definitions to come out Of
the Public Broadcasting Act Of 1967 which have already been
shown: nonprofit, noncommercial educational broadcast sta-
tions, and educational television or radio programs.

The term "nonprofit" was explicitly defined. The
terms "noncommercial" and "educational" were Open to
interpretation. The attorney also suggested that while it

29Anne N. Branscomb, "A Crisis Of Identity:
Reflections on the Future Of Public Broadcasting," in The

Future Of Public Broadcasting, ed. by Douglas Cater (New
York: Praeger Publishers, 1976), p. 9.

29

seemed clear that the noncommercial educational stations
were not to Operate at a profit or program explicit adver-
tising messages, "substantial inroads toward commercialism
have been made in the attribution of support from commer-
cial sources, in the solicitation of funds on the air for
the support Of the station, and in the carriage of
nostalgia programming containing commercial
announcements.30

Regarding commercial credits, 47 CFR 73.621 (d) note 1
provided at that time that: "the person or organization
furnishing or producing the program, or providing funds for
its production, shall be identified by name only." Efforts
within the Public Broadcasting Service by 1980 sought an
FCC ruling allowing the use of corporate logos along with
name announcements before sponsored programs; the idea was
to encourage program sponsorship and increase quality
programming.31 James Lopes, president Of KCET (TV) Los
Angeles, announced that he was going beyond corporate
underwriting and was considering having his station sell
time for commercials that would be "institutional in
nature." The announcement, he admitted, was made in

reaction to a proposed 25 percent budget cut by the Ronald

30Ibid., p. 13.

31"PBS proposal to allow corporate logos gets first
OK," Broadcasting, (November 3, 1980) p. 71.

 

30

Reagan administration.33

Solicitation of contributions for the station's own
benefit was permitted by law to a limited degree. 47 CFR
73.621 note 4 stated that "credit announcements during
'auction' broadcasts may identify particular products or
services, but shall not include promotion Of such products
or services beyond that necessary for the specific auction
purpose." The "auction" this ruling applied to was the
popular form Of money raising for community owned stations
where consumer products and services, which have been
donated to the station, were sold to call-in bidders. The
amendment allowing auctions certainly weakened the prohibi—
tion of commercial uses of stations by noncommercial educa-
tional broadcasters.

The final inroad toward commercialization of noncom-
mercial stations was in the area of nostalgia programming
containing commercial matter. An FCC informal ruling,
WBJC-FM, no FCC. 2d 936 (1973), permitted the use of old
commercials whenever the program concerns radio history or
whenever the Old commercials were an integral part of the
nostalgia appeal of the program. The commercials were also
acceptable if they were for products or services which were
not longer available to the public.

33Branscomb, "A Crisis of Identity: Reflections on
the Future Of Public Braodcasting," p. 10.

31

Federal Regulations Defining the
Purpose Of Noncommercial
Educational Broadcast Stations

 

 

 

Federal Communication Commision regulations are
another source of enduring characteristics or elements Of
noncommercial educational broadcasting that will help
establish a more complete definition Of post-1967 public
broadcasting.

During 1967-80, Title 47 CFR 73.621 governed the
licensing of television channels. It states, in part:

(a)... noncommercial educational broadcast stations
will be licensed only to nonprofit educational organiza-
tions upon showing that the proposed stations will be used
primarily to serve the educational needs Of the community;
for the advancement of educational programs; and to furnish
a nonprofit and noncommercial television broadcast service.

(b) Noncommercial educational television broadcast
stations may transmit educational, cultural and enter-
taining programs, and programs designed for use by schools
and school systems in connection with regular school cour-
ses, as well as routine and administrative material per-
taining thereto.

Branscomb suggests that it is clear the FCC
Commissioners had an overriding concern that the reserved
television channels be used for educational purposes. She
also believed it was apparent that something more than
strictly educational and instructional programming was con-
templated and quotes former Commissioner Hennock as saying
educational stations could:

...supply a beneficial compelent to commercial tele-
casting. Providing for greater diversity in television
programming, then will be particularly attractive to the
many specialized and minority interests in the community,

cultural as well as educational, which tend to be bypassed
by commercial broadcasters speaking in terms of mass

32

audiences.33

This notion is supported by the FCC's Sixth Report and
Order (17 FR 3909, 1952) hearings on the reservation of
noncommercial channels. The FCC stated that it had taken
into consideration evidence of the potential of educational
television both for in-school and adult education, and as
an alternative to commercial programming.
Federal Regulations Which Promote

Special Problems For Noncommercial
Educational or Public Broadcasting

 

 

Federal regulations and agency rules present confusing
issues to those determined to define or trace the concept
of Public Broadcasting in terms Of post-1967 Communication
Act developments. To that end, five areas will be
discussed briefly: editorializing, ascertainment Of com-
munity needs, political programming, controversial issue

programming and fiscal and policy control.

Editorializing

As stated earlier, Section 399 Of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, declared that: "NO noncommercial
educational broadcasting station may engage in edi-
torializing or may support or Oppose any candidate for
political Office."

Burke, in his historical/chronological account of the
events leading to the passage of the Public Broadcasting

33Branscomb, "A Crisis Of Identity: Reflections
on the Future of Public Broadcasting," p. 10. ‘

32

audiences.33

This notion is supported by the FCC's Sixth Report and
Order (17 FR 3909, 1952) hearings on the reservation of
noncommercial channels. The FCC stated that it had taken
into consideration evidence of the potential of educational
television both for in—school and adult education, and as
an alternative to commercial programming.
Federal Regulations Which Promote

Special Problems For Noncommercial
Educational or Public Broadcasting

 

 

 

Federal regulations and agency rules present confusing
issues to those determined tO define or trace the concept
of Public Broadcasting in terms Of post-1967 Communication
Act develOpments. TO that end, five areas will be
discussed briefly: editorializing, ascertainment Of com-
munity needs, political programming, controversial issue

programming and fiscal and policy control.

Editorializing

As stated earlier, Section 399 Of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, declared that: "NO noncommercial
educational broadcasting station may engage in edi-
torializing or may support or Oppose any candidate for
political Office."

Burke, in his historical/chronological account Of the
events leading to the passage of the Public Broadcasting

33Branscomb, "A Crisis of Identity: Reflections
on the Future of Public Broadcasting," p. 10. -

33

Act Of 1967, concluded in an Observtion about the Act
itself, that the anti-editorializing part of the legisla-
tion was a basic "flaw" that weakened the Act.34
Going further, Washington attorney Daniel TOOhey
suggested that Section 399 was probably unconstitutional.
He said the original purpose of the section was to "prevent
Congress from creating a monster (public broadcasting) that
might someday turn on its creator. Therefore, to achieve
its own self-protective ends, Congress simply legislated
away a significant part of educational broadcasters' right
Of free Speech.35
Ten years later, on Oct. 6, 1977, in an apparent

effort to right a possible wrong, the Office Of the White
House Press Secretary released a message from President
Jimmy Carter to Congress. Known as H.R. 9620, the message
was a series Of prOposals designed to "strengthen our
Public Broadcasting System and to insulate it from politi-
cal manipulation." One Of the specific proposals of the
bill was to encourage journalistic independence Of the
public broadcasters by permitting them to editorialize and
tO participate in the free marketplace Of ideas.36

3“Burke, "The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967--Part
III, pp. 265-266.

35Daniel W. TOOhey, "Section 399: The Constitution
Giveth and Congress Taketh Away," Educational Broadcasting
Review 6 (February 1972): p. 36.

36President Jimmy Carter, in a message to Congress,

released October 6, 1977, by the White House Press
Secretary, p. 7.

34

Carter's bill was not accepted, and the legislation
that passed, Public Law 950567 (HR 12605), represented a
compromise between the goals set out for the public broad-
casting system by President Carter and an alternative
drafted in Congress.37

Senator Harrison Schmidt, R-N.M. is reported tO have
said regarding editorializing for public stations, "This is
a completely inappropriate authority for public broad-
casting, and we shall do everything we can to assure that

the House position does not prevail."38

Ascertainment of Community Needs

The Communications Act Of 1934 (Public Law 416, 73rd
Congress), as amended, is the statute through which
Congress exercises its jurisdiction over interstate com-
munication by wire or radio. The statute also created the
Federal Communications Commission as an administrative
agency to regulate communication by wire or radio in the
public convenience, interest, and necessity. In this capa-
city (during the 1967-80 period) the FCC licensed broadcast
stations for three-year periods, after which time the
broadcaster applied for a license renewal.

Because Of this procedure and because of the licensing
period, the stations were actually "public trustees"; the

37Congressional Quarterly, vol. XXXIV 1978, p. 492.

This legislation became the Public Telecommunications
Financing Act of 1978.

38Ibid., pg. 995.

35

government allowed successful applicants to own a station,

but it entrusted a portion Of the electromagnetic spectrum

to use for the trustee's business, which had tO be Operated
in the "public interest".

After the FCC published the Ascertainment Primer (27
FCC 2d 650, 682) in 1971, commercial broadcasters followed
a suggested procedure when applying for an initial license,
or a renewal: (l) interviewing of community leaders by sta-
tion management; (2) a general survey of the public in the
geographical area served by the station; (3) a statement of
need ascertained by the two surveys; and (4) a statement Of
programming designed to serve those needs.

In the early 1976, the FCC adOpted ascertainment
requirements for noncommercial educational or public broad-
casting stations, and their procedure became similar to
commercial stations.

The fascinating point to this particular discussion
involves an alleged conflict between the ascertainment
requirements for noncommercial educational or public broad-
casting stations and the Carnegie Commission's interpreta-
tion of the mission of public television as an
"alternative" service to the commercial programming in the
United States. Branscomb explains:

Actually, the entire concept of alternative
programming is in conflict with the basic requirement that
all licenses Operate as public trustees. Indeed, if the
commercial licenses were meeting all the needs of the
community, then there would be no need for alternative

programming. Furthermore, if a noncommercial educational
license is "a public trustee," then these licenses should

36

be required to ascertain the problems, needs and interests
of all of the citizens in the community and to design this
programming service to serve all of those ascertained
needs.

Political Programming

There may be another conflict which contributes to
some confusion regarding regulations covering political
programming for noncommercial educational or public broad-
casting stations.

The Campaign Communications Reform Act Of 1971 amended
Section 312(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 and
authorized the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses "for
willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access or
to permit purchase of reasonable amounts Of time for the
use of a broadcast station by a legally qualified candidate
for federal elective office on behalf Of his candidacy."
The Act required that commercial licenses made time
available at their lowest unit rate. Since noncommercial
stations did not have advertising rates, the FCC permitted
a charge by noncommercial stations for production services
but not for time.

The possible conflict arises because the Campaign
Reform Act required noncommercial educational or public
broadcasters to not fail, if asked, to provide time or
reasonable access for federal candidates, but Internal

39Branscomb, "A Crisis of Identity: Reflections
on the Future Of Public Broadcasting," p. 19.

37

Revenue tax regulations (Section 4945) prohibited nonprofit
educational or public noncommercial broadcast stations from
participating or intervening in any political campaign on
behalf Of any candidate for public Office.

TOOhey, Marks, and Lutzker commended on this dilemma
and suggested that because tax regulations (between
1967-80) permitted charitable organizations to analyze,
study, research, and disseminate legislation so long as the
organization did not advocate or campaign for the attain-
ment of any particular legislation or attempt tO influence
passage or defeat, and because Section 399 Of the 1934
Communications Act prohibited noncommercial educational or
public broadcasters from either endorsing or Opposing a
particular candidate, "it is likely that the interpretation
finally given the Internal Revenue Code will be compatible
with the Objectives of the Federal Elections Campaign Act
or 1971."40

Controversial Issue Programming

There may also be ambiguity in federal statutes that
hinder a clear definition Of public broadcasting following
the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

This conflict or confusion is in the area of contro-
versial issue programming by noncommercial educational or

”ODaniel W. TOOhey, Richard D. Marks, and Arnold P.

Lutzker, Legal Problems in Broadcasting: Identification and

Analysis Of Selection Issues (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska, 1974), p. 152.

 

38

public broadcasting stations. The statutes involved are
Sections 315(a) which stated in part, "Nothing... shall be
construed as relieving broadcasters... from the Obligation
imposed upon them under this (1934) Act (as ammended) tO
Operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable
Opportunity for the discussion Of conflicting views on
issues Of public importance." Section 396(g)(l)(A) was
intended to insure that the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which was not a broadcast licensee and there-
fore not subject to FCC jurisdiction, would use public
funds to promote programming that was consistent with the
philosophy Of the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine (13 FCC 1246) Of 1949 and later
the Fairness Primer (29 Fed. Reg. 10415) Of 1964 were
attempts tO clarify the handling Of editorials and contro—
versial issues Of public importance by American broad-
casters.

The problem was that "Objectivity" and "balance" were
terms that were highly ambiguous in Section 396, and the
phrase "programs or series Of programs" could be broadly
interpreted.

It would seem that noncommercial educational or public
broadcasts, while they were required by law tO be fair and
present balanced programming, had very ambiguous but strict
guidelines to follow. While commercial broadcasters had the
FCC's efforts to clarify the Fairness Doctrine, the CPB had

little clarification.

39

Fiscal and Policy Control

During the 1967-80 historical period, three major
entities beyond Congress and the present exercised substan-
tial fiscal and policy control over noncommercial educa-
tional or public broadcasting: (l) the broadcast
licensees--through their diversity in ownership, structure,
and philosophical orientation. (2) The Federal
Communication Commission--through its specific licensing
authority and its broad authority to provide for an
integrated communications system for the nation (see
Section 1 Communications Act of 1934, as amended). NO
other federal agency was given specific regulatory
authority over noncommercial licenses. (3) The Corporation
for Public Broadcasting—-The Public Broadcasting Act Of
1967 created the CPB as a funding agency designed to
receive funds from Congress and tO dispense them to other
entities to develop and to promote programming sources.

Limited control and influence also was influenced by:
Public Broadcasting Service--The CPB, within its authority
under Section 396(g) (1) (B) Of the Communications Act Of
1934, as amended to develOp a system of interconnection to
be used for the distribution Of eduational television or
radio programs, developed the Public Broadcasting Service.
National Public RadiO--which developed a program produc-
tion, distribution and interconnection system for noncom-

mercial educational radio states.

40

The point Of enumerating these three is to provide
contrast to the 1967 Carnegie report that envisioned a
single agency (CPB) that would retain policy and fiscal

control.”l

Chronic Problems

 

There appears to be several chronic problems or issues
that continually resurface in discussions Of noncommercial
educational or public broadcasting. This thesis cannot
provide extensive historical background into these
problems/issues, but it can generally outline them as they
are definitional aspects to noncommercial educational or
Public Broadcasting following the Carnegie I report and
passage Of the Public Broadcasting Act Of 1967. The four
problems/issues to be reviewed include: localism and
centralism, federal funding and political insulation,

structure, and instructional media.

Centralism and Localism

The Carnegie I report suggested that local stations
would have three primary sources of programming: from
national production centers, key stations, and their own
local productions."E2

The stations would be interconnected, and the local

stations would have the Option Of either immediately

41Public Television: A Program For Action, p. 3.

“21bid., p. 5.

41

rebroadcasting programs, delaying their broadcast, or not
broadcast them at all. The Commission's report indicated
that localism was the heart of the proposal, and that like
a good newspaper, "the local stations will reflect the
entire nation and the world, while maintaining a firm grasp
upon the nature and the needs Of the peOple it serves."u3

At that time, a new agency in the executive branch was
created called the Office Of Telecommuncation Policy
(OTP). Congress authorized OTP to oversee the use of
broadcasting channels assigned to federal government use
and to advise the president on electronic communications,
including cable television and domestic satellites. Clay
T. Whitehead was its director, and during a 1971 speech to
the National Association of Educational Broadcasters he
said that the CPB was tOO much of a "centralizing authori—
ty" for public broadcasting, that it was contrary to the
1967 Public Broadcasting Act's emphasis on localism, and
that long-range funding was in the distant future if public
broadcasting remained structured as it was.44

Whitehead may have been reacting to the public affairs
programming produced nationally through CPB and delivered
tO local stations (by PBS) for rebroadcast. His notion was

that such centrally produced programming was eroding local

“31bid., p. 87.

““Slay T. Whitehead, "Local Autonomy and the Fourth
Network: Striking a Balance," Educational Broadcasting
Review 5, No. 6 (December 1971).

42

service to American citizens. He called PBS an emergent
"centralized, national network."

Millard points out, however, that centralization and
national networking are not the same thing.
"Centralization is a way Of Operating, a structure; it was
clearly unacceptable to those who framed public broad-
casting's charger. National service, on the other hand,
defines a kind of reach and impact; it is absolutely fun-
damental to the goals those who initiated this new medium

hoped it would reach."“5

Funding and Political Insulation

Money has always been an important, if not critical,
factor Of public broadcasting, noncommercial educational
broadcasting or instructional broadcasting. Earlier in the
thesis, it was briefly noted that early radio laboratories
had trouble existing because in some cases they had no real
sources Of income. The early collective efforts Of the
noncommercial educational broadcasters led to the organiza-
tion Of the National Conferences on Long-Range Funding,
which led to the Carnegie Commission that prOposed federal
aid for public broadcasters. Before that, there were the
specifically directed funds provided by the federal govern-
ment through the Facilities Act and by the Ford Foundation
and others. In addition to being nonprofit, the stations

“5Steve Millard, "The Story or Public
Broadcasting," p. 36.

43

were noncommercial; they were not revenue generating
enterprises.

Douglas Cater, in 1972, expressed his conclusion
regarding the chronic money problem: "One fact Of life
seems to me fundamental: the political predicament Of
public broadcasting is inextricably tied up with its econo-
mic plight."‘l6 He then went on tO discuss a progress
report by Wilbur Schramm and Lyle Nelson Of Stanford which
showed that the average public broadcasting station was, in
1971, worse Off financially than before the 1967 Public
Broadcasting Act was passed and federal support granted.

The essence Of the issues regarding funding and poli-
tical insulation for noncommercial educational or public
broadcasting was how much control the federal government
would develop over the system if it provided Operational
funding.

It might have been natural that the 1967 Carnegie com-
missioners feared that sponsorship might lead to control,
and therefore decided to ask Congress to fund public broad-
casting through an excise tax on television receivers sold
in the United States, rather than receive funds on a year-
tO-year Congressional apprOpriation. TO provide political
insulation, the 1967 Commission also recommended the for-
mation Of a federally chartered, nonprofit, nongovernmental
corporation empowered to receive and disburse governmental

“6Steve Millard, "The Story or Public
Broadcasting," p. 36.

44

and private funds to develOp programming.‘‘7

The Public Broadcasting Act Of 1967 approved the
creation of the proposed corporation, and it became known
as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Act
did not approve the excise tax idea for revenue gathering
and the CBP was funded by annual appropriations. The
public system, therefore, gained part Of its national
structure, but did not avoid the Congressional review prO-
cess or escape the effects Of world politics.

President Johnson, who can be given a great deal Of
credit for aiding the passage Of the 1967 Act, could not
keep his promise to support the corporation and propose
long-term financing for the public system, perhaps because
the United States' entanglement in the Vietnam War and its
escalating costs. However, noting the need to study the
matter further, he prOposed short-term funding in a message
to Congress.“8

Later, Richard Nixon's administration was reported to
have intimidated public broadcasting through the actions of
Clay Whitehead and the OTP Office. In 1972, Nixon vetoed a
bill authorizing an appropriation for the CPB Of $155
million for two years ($65 million for 1973 and $90 million

for 1974). The reason for the veto was his perception that

 

“7Public Television: A Program for Action, pp. 8
and 36.

“8Public Papers Of the Presidents Of the United
States. Lyndon Johnson 1968-69, B001 1, document 54.

45

the public broadcasting system was no longer really serving
the local stations; it was tOO centralized. He then asked
Congress for a one-year extension of $455 million.’49

As a result of the veto, and because of the political
and financial pressure placed on the public system at this
time, the Station Program COOperative SPC was created.
Also created was CPB's Task Force on Long-Range Funding of
Public Broadcasting. This task force took the administra-
tion's feelings into consideration and came up with a five-
year plan.50

Nixon, dismayed over the fact the Senate Watergate
hearings were carried in prime time by the public system,
and its announcement of intentions to broadcast any
impeachment hearings should the president go on trial, let
the draft legislation go unattended.5l

Only after efforts by Senator Magnuson, Clay
Whitehead, White House Chief of Staff Alexander M. Haig,
Jr., and other aides did Nixon announce he would support
long—range funding legislation.52

In August 1974, when Nixon resigned and Gerald R. Ford

became president, two bills had still not been acted upon.

 

49Blakely, TO Serve The Public Interest: Education-
al Broadcasting in the United States, p. 205.

50Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Report Of
the Task Force on LongeRange Financing Of Public Broad-
casting (Washington, D.C.: 1973).

51New York Times, Jan. 10 and 16, 1974.

 

52New York Times, July 17 and 21, 1974.

46

One was the Public Broadcasting Financing Act of 1974
(Senate bill 3825, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session), which sup-
ported the notion Of multi-year apprOpriations for public
broadcasters. The bill allowed them to plan years in
advance, and at the same time provided insulation from
government interference through reactions to programming
decisions.

The other bill was the Telecommunications Facilities
Act (Senate bill 93-4223), which extended the Educational
Broadcasting Facilities Act for five years and authorized
demonstrations of health, education, and social services
programs transmitted by cable and domestic satellite.

In 1975, President Ford submitted to Congress a White
House bill (Senate bill 94-893) on financing public broad-
casting. On New Years Eve, 1975, he signed into law the
Public Broadcasting Financing Act Of 1975 (Public Law
94-192). Advance funding was awarded: $78 million for
1976, then $103 million for 1977, $107,150,000 for 1978,
and $120.2 million for 1979.

A few months later, the Educational Broadcasting
Facilities and Telecommunications Demonstration Act Of 1976
(Public Law 94-309) was passed. Through that legislation,
Congress authorized $30 million in 1977 for the broad-
casting facilities matching program and $1 million for the
nonbroadcast demonstration program.

There was little complaint regarding the 1976

Facilities and Telecommunication Act. There were, however,

47

several points raised about the 1975 Public Broadcasting
Financing Act. Blakely reports five limitations or
drawbacks to the legislation. First, the final act did not
preserve the very important feature of combined five-year
authorization and appropriation; appropriations were to be
provided in separate legislation. Secondly, by requiring
CPB to submit an annual report to the president, and by
requiring separate appropriation, Congress was treated CPB
as a government agency, which the 1967 Public Broadcasting
Act specified it should not be. Third, the act was not
really long-range (funding), just mid-range. Fourth, even
if appropriations equalled authorizations, the amounts pro-
vided were well below the documented needs Of the public
broadcasting system. And fifth, to receive maximum
appropriations the system would have to raise money in
advance from nonfederal sources at a $1 to $2.50 formula,
which the public system could find hard to meet.53

Other Observers felt the public system needed
reappraisal. When James R. Killian, Jr. resigned from the
CPB board in 1975, he promoted the idea that another
Carnegie-type study of public broadcasting was needed. The
idea was advanced by others and the next year the Carnegie
Corporation was approached with the idea. They, in turn,
set up a task force to study the possible directions for

53Blakely, To Serve the Public Interest: Educa-
tional Broadcasting in the United States, p. 210.

 

 

48

such a second commission. In June, after the task force
report was studied, the corporation announced the formation
Of the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public
Broadcasting.54

The second Carnegie Commission issued its report in
1979 but failed to initiate any legislation. The
Commission issued a supplementary report in July 1980 which
advanced a plan for a public cable network. That report
generally received a cool reaction and, again, initiated no
legislation. These two reports will be discussed in detail
in a following section.

Finally, money problems and politics continued to be a
'priority issue with public broadcasters. The Feb. 16,

1981, issue Of Broadcasting magazine reported that the new

 

Reagan administration was considering a 25-percent reduc-
tion in the CPB budget for fiscal 1982, and perhaps further

reductions after that.

Structure

The total number Of noncommercial educational or
public broadcasting stations licensed in the United States
in 1978 was 280. Twenty-six percent of them were licensed
to community organizations, 27 percent were university
owned, 40 percent owned by a state authority, and seven

5“A Public Trust: The Report of the Carnegie
Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting, p. 3.

49

percent licensed to local authorities.55

As noted before, this federation of broadcast stations
was brought together through collective efforts which
culminated in their obtaining "special status" before the
FCC, which created a special class of stations called
"noncommercial educational" stations.

The effort to obtain federal support led to the
passage Of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. The Act was
essentially legislative enactment of the recommendations of
the 1967 Carnegie Report, with some exceptions.

Following the passage of the 1967 Act, a structure of
educational or public broadcasting began to emerge.

The 1967 Act established the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, a fifteen member nongovernmental and nonpro-
fit corporation which had the general responsibility to
diversity and expand programming production, develop
systems of station interconnection, and expand the system
of stations. It received and distributed federal and pri-
vate money to meet those goals, primarily through a variety
of types of grants: Program production grants for general
interest programs that merit national distribution and to
support specific programs of regional or local interest;
Program develOpment grants to stations that need funds to
plan, research, and/or produce pilot programs for a

proposed series; Community Service Grants to stations

551bid., p. 329.

50

to be used for purposes of their own choosing; Station
Program Grants given to stations to increase the number of
programs they can purchase through the Station Program
Cooperative; PBS interconnection grants to PBS to pay for
expenses for interconnection; National Public Radio inter-
connection and programming grants to public radio; Minority
training grants; Research grants; COOperative Grants for
the Arts; and Task force and project funding for long-range
planning and policy reports.56

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) managed the
distribution of programs over a delivery system furnished
to CPB. It was a representative organization of the public
television stations, was governed by two boards (one of
managers of public stations and the other lay members of
the local stations, was governed by two boards (one of
managers of public stations and the other lay members of
the local stations' boards) and it has its own staff. It
received funds from the CPB and Operated under contract to
it.57

This national structure encompassed state (state uni-
versity and state Department of Education) networks,
regional public networks, and of course, the particular
local structure of each station.

56Wood and Wylie, Educational Telecommunications,

pp. 101-102.

57Public Broadcasting Service Factsheet, undated
memo, circulated July 1974. Cited by Wood and Wylie.

 

51

The structure also incorporates an interconnection

system through the use of satellite technology in addition

to the standard ground delivery system.

Instructional Media

Following the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act
of 1967 and the subsequent acknowledgement that the term
"public broadcasting" excluded "instructional broadcasting"
and "commercial broadcasting," and following the consensus
that the general mission of the new public broadcasting
system was to provide an "alternative" programming service
outside the immediate focus of the leaders (both legisla-
tive and CPB) of the public broadcasting movement, the
instructional media movement stalled.

However, one of the recommendations of the first
Carnegie Commission was to continue study to improve
instructional television.58

One of the three parts of the Public Broadcasting Act
of 1967 was an authorization of $500,000 for a comprehen-
sive study of instructional television. The six—point
finished report, presented to Congress in 1970, failed to

generate any legislation.59

58Public Television: A Program for Action, p. 3.

59To Improve Learning: A Report to the President
and Congress of the United States, Commission on
Instructional Technology, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March 1970.

52

With the new terms and categories of programming of
the 1967 Carnegie Commission, and the emphasis on
"alternative" "public broadcasting" programs, the instruc-
tional educational aspect of "public broadcasting"
(education programming not arranged for formal instruction)
began to diminish. Wood and Wylie traced the demise of the
sequential series programs which built upon one another and

thus enabled the program to get into great detail regarding

a specific t°P10°6O By 1975, there were very few of these
programs broadcast to the general public.

It might have been that the continued emphasis of
public broadcasting on cultural and public affairs
programming caused some ill-feelings among the legislati-
vely defined federation of noncommercial educational
broadcasters.

The Congressional Declaration of Policy regarding
public broadcasting state, in part, in Section 396(a)(1) of
the Communication Act of 1934, as amended by the Public
Broadcasting Act of 1967 "that is in the public interest to
encourage the growth and development of noncommercial edu-
cational radio and television broadcasting, including the
use of such media for instructional purposes;..."

To meet this goal, the CPB in 1974 authorized a study
of the role of CPB in the relationship between public

broadcasting and education. The task force, an advisory

60Wood and Wylie, Educational Telecommunications,

 

p. 117.

53

council to CPB, submitted its report to CPB in 1975; it
included eleven basic recommendations based on the general
premise the the CPB should become involved in formal
education.61

Reactions were cool toward the recommendations because
many educators did not perceive that CPB was the
appropriate agency to resolve the complex problems of
developing strong instructional programming, even though it
was legally empowered to do 50.62

Coupled with the fact that CPB philosophically was not
instructionally oriented, and the recommendations were not
a program for action which allowed room for alternatives or
amendments, there was little instructional broadcast deve-
lopment on a national scale between 1967—80.

61Public Broadcasting and Education: A Report to

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from the Advisopy

Council of National Organizations. (Washington D.C., March
1975) , pp. 6-90

62James A. Fellows, "Public Broadcasting and
Education: Much Ado About Everything," Public Telecommuni-
cations Review, July/Auigust, 1967, p. 6}

54

Selected Interpretations and Recommendations
Regarding the Future of Public Broadcasting

Certainly an important defining characteristic of the
term "public broadcasting" (following the passage of the
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and subsequent interpreta-
tions of the term to 1980) has been the interjection of the
word "telecommunication" in interpretations and defintions.

The word telecommunication is derived from the Greek,
tele, meaning far off or at a distance. Communication is
derived from the Latin, communicare, which means to make
common, or held in common. Conjoined, in English form, the
term meanz to Operate or communicate across or at a
distance. 3 Generally, the term is applied to the near
instantaneous or high-speed exchange of information from
one point to another, from one point to several points; or
from several points to one point and possibly from several
points to several other points.64

This section of the thesis will explore the use and
meaning of this term in legislation and in reports
regarding the future of Public Broadcasting (or noncommer—
cial educational broadcasting).
The Public Telecommunications Act of 1978
(PL95-567)HR12605

The Act contained three parts: Title I--Construction
and Planning of Facilities; Title II--Telecommunications

Demonstrations; and Title III——Corporation for Public

 

63Eric Partridge, Origins: A Short Etymological
Dictionary of Modern English, (New York: Greenwich House,
1983), pp. 112 and 834.

 

61‘T. Muth, J. Reagan, J. Sexton, and V. Skelton,
"Telecommunications in the U.S.: A Historical Sketch,"
paper assembled for use in TC-l20: Telecommunication in the
U.S., Department of Telecommunication, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan. (Mimeographed), 1976.

55

Broadcasting.

For the facilities program, the Act authorized
appropriations of $40 million for each of the fiscal years
1979, 1980, and 1981. The Act also transferred the program
from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the
Department of Commerce. Eligibility for grants under the
program were extended to include nonprofit services.

The Act authorized $1 million annually for fiscal
years 1979-81 for nonbroadcast public telecommunications
demonstration projects, in which public broadcasters were
to experiment with new technologies and services.

Finally, Title III authorized $180 million for fiscal
1981, $200 million for 1982, and $220 million for 1983 for
the CPB. It also required the public system to raise $2
for every $1 in federal funds that it received (down from
$2.50). Other sections required the public broadcast
system to institute a uniform system of accounting.

The 1978 Act is relevant to our discussion not only
because it was the last noncommercial educational or public
broadcast legislation passed during out 1967-80 review
period, but because with the authorizations came
Congressional language that broadended the scope of reSpon-
siblity of the CPB. It also contained provisions that
sought to promote the achievement of large social goals
that went beyond educational services.

The develOpment was seen by Blakely to reflect the

trend in government thinking away from traditional

56

over-the-air broadcasting to what was known as the "wired
nation" concept where everyone was "linked" by wire or
satellite techology.65

It also marks a change of legislative emphasis. The
Educational Facilities and Telecommunications Act of 1976
authorized $30 million for facilities and only $1 million
for the nonbroadcast demonstrations the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) were most interested
in.66

This emphasis on nonbroadcast services and facilities
can be seen in other parts of the 1978 Act: Eligibility
for grants under the facilities program is extended to
nonprofit educational and cultural organizations primarily
engaged in public telecommunications, and Title III
broadens the sc0pe of CPB responsibility to include public
telecommunications technology, entities and services.

The 1978 Act defines "Public Telecommunications faci-
lities" to be "apparatus necessary for production, inter-
connection, captioning, broadcast, or other distribution of
programming, including but not limited to..." cable,
cassettes, discs and others.

"Public Telecommunications entity" means "any
enterprise which is (A) a public broadcast station or a

65Blakely, To Serve the Public Interest: Education-
al Broadcasting in the United States, p. 2197

66House of Representatives, Report 94-772, 92nd
Congress, lst Session.

57

noncommercial telecommunications entity; and (B) dissemina-
tes public telecommunications services to the public."

"Noncommercial telecommunications entity" means any
enterprise which "(A) is owned and Operated by a State, a
public agency, or a nonprofit private foundation, cor-
poration, or association; and (B) has been organized pri-
marily for the purpose of disseminating audio or video
noncommercial educational and cultural programs to the
public by means other than a primary television or radio
broadcast station..."

"Public telecommunication services" means, in addition
to broadcast programs, "related noncommercial instructional
or informational material that may be transmitted by means
of electronic communications."

These definitions are very important to defining non-
commercial educational or public broadcasting following the
passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The signi—
ficance lies in the fact that the term "Public
Telecommunication entity" encompasses "Public
Telecommunications services," which includes both
"Instructional" and "Public" broadcast services as envi-
sioned and defined by the first Carnegie Commission prior
to the passage of the 1967 Act.

The Second Carnegie Commission Report
on the Future of Public Broadcasting

 

 

In 1979, the Carnegie Corporation issued its second

report on public broadcasting--A Public Trust: The Report

 

58

of the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public

Broadcasting. It reported public broadcasting's financial,

 

organizational and creative structure to be fundamentally
flawed. It also generally encompassed the concept of public
broadcasting as an alternative service by stating, "The
outcome of the institution of public broadcasting can best
be understood as a social dividend of technology, a benefit

fulfilling needs that cannot be met by commercial needs."67
Carnegie 11 recommended the replacement of CPB with

the Public Telecommunications Trust, a very powerful
national authority, whose responsibilities would be to
insulate progamming decisions from government interference,
administer activities to improve public service, and to
disperse federal funds.

The Program Service Endorsement, it said, could be
another statutory organization and would underwrite a broad
range of television and radio productions and explore new
applications of telecommunications technology.

The amount of federal funding for public broadcasting
would have to be increased substantially, it added, with
general revenues as the principal source, and the
establishment of a fee on licensed uses of the electro-
magnetic Spectrum, to help offset the necessary increase of

funds.

 

67A Public Trust: The Report of the Carnegie Com-
mission on the Future of Public Broadcasting, p. 11.

59

In addition, the report outlined the goal of iden-
tifying what television and radio could teach best, and
then developing programming to maximize that capability.

Finally, the 1979 Carnegie Commission perceived public
broadcasting of the future to be: noncommercial, indepen—
dent, telecommunicational, formally and informally educa-
tional: with a strong editorial purpose, and with constant
attempts to set standards of excellence and to define a
pattern of programming unattainable in commercial
broadcasting.68
The Follow—up Report
to the Second Carnegie Commission Report

In mid-summer, 1980, the Carnegie Corporation
published Keeping PACE With The New Television: Public
Television and Changing Technology.

This report recommended that the public broadcast
system, through the CPB, establish a new, national, nonpro-
fit pay cable television network for performing arts,
culture, and entertainment (PACE). The report claimed that
the satellite-delivered network would be consistent with
the legislative directives of the 1967 Public Broadcasting
Act and that it would be self-supporting by the

mid-l980's.69

68Ibid., pp. 25—32.

69Sheila Mahoney, Nick DeMartino, and Robert
Stengel, Keeping PACE With The New Television: Public
Television and Changing Technology, p. 45.

60

One of the six objectives in prOposing the pay cable
network was to structure a nonbroadcast service that
improved the chance of survival and success of the primary
broadcast service. Another objective was to devise a
financial and organizational structure capable of
withstanding the rigors of the marketplace, while main-
taining the integrity of public television's noncommercial
mission.

The authors believed that the network would be a major
bridge for public broadcasting into the new technology of
the future. They also believed that CPB was the most logi-
cal vehicle to launch such a network because its nonprofit
status would provide the necessary context for develOpment,
in addition to making it consistent with statutes regarding
"public telecommunication entities," which it would become,
according to legal definitions of the 1978 Act.70

Finally, the authors predicted that commercial
interests would not immediately establish an arts pay cable
channel because of the perception that there was not a
large enough audience, nationally, to support a cultural
pay cable channel.

However, the report was released in mid-summer 1980,
and by October, Stanley Marcus reported that the demand for
cultural programming was growing. By December, Detroit

Free Press columnist Mike Duffy reported the existence

70Ibid., pp. xi-10 and 39.

61

or development of several cultural/arts cable channels.71

It should also be noted that this third Carnegie
Report also embraced the notion of public broadcasting as
an "alternative" programming service to established commer-
cial fare. In regard to public broadcasting starting the
new network they said:

The most compelling reason for this partnership has to
do with public television's fundamental mission: it came
into being to satisfy a void in the marketplace that com-
mercial television had abandoned. PACE must come into
being as a noncommercial cable service--perhaps only one of
many--but a significant and influential new element in the
industry.72
The Grand Alliance

In reaction to the PACE proposal, Lawrence Grossman,
then president of PBS, suggested the formation of a grand
alliance between public television and the U.S. performing
arts a cultural institutions that would result in increased
cultural programming.

This "alliance," he said, would be supported by the
formation of a new corporation and the sale of its stock to

performing arts and cultural institutions, public TV

subscribers, and to school districts.73

 

71See: Marcus, "The Viewers Verdict--SO Far For
Cable TV," and Duffy, "Can Public TV Stop The Bleeding?"
in bibliography.

72Mahoney, DeMartino, and Stengel, Keeping PACE
With the New Television: Public Television and Changing
Technology, p. 45.

 

 

73Broadcasting 99 (September 29, 2980): p. 33.

 

62

Although the CPB was unable to issue any shares of
stock under Section 396(f)(1) of the Communications Act of
1934, PBS, an arm of CPB, might have been able to do so.

Grossman, in announcing his plan, did not indicate if
the new corporation could seek tax exempt status. Under
Revenue Rule 64-175, 1964-1 (Part I) C.B. 185, a cor-
poration organized for the purpose of promoting dramatic
arts qualified for exemption as an educational organiza-
tion.

Other rulings applied to other programming areas, but
the 1980 IRS regulations would have probably allowed exempt
status to the "educational" service corportion.

It is important to note that telecommunication services

of a nonbroadcast nature are not a part of Grossman's plan.

Educational Telecommunications and Other Perspectives

In 1977, Wood and Wylie published their book,
Educational Telecommunications. In the first few pages
they define several terms: Educational Telecommunications,
Public Broadcasting, Inustructional Telecommuniations, and
Educational TV.

This was done for two reasons, they said. First, tra-
ditional definitions of the terms were misleading, ambi-
guous and Open to too much interpretation. Secondly,
telecommunication technology had develOped beyond the teré
minology of "television" and "radio." Most importantly,

they said, if readers were to understand what was being

63

said, both author and reader would be required to begin
with the same definitions and thus the same frame of
reference. Their overriding definition was Educational
Telecommunications, followed by sub-definitions:

Educational Telecommuniations (ETC), noncommercial
television and audio transmissions of purposeful, broadly
educational, communications--whether for Specific classroom
Objectives or for general enligtenment.

Public Broadcasting is all that is of human interest
and importance which is not at the moment appropriate or
available for support by advertising, and which is not
arranged for formal instruction.

 

Instructional Telecommunications (ITC) means direct
instructional uses of television and related electronic
media for specific teaching/learning applications in any
formal educational or training institutional situation.

Educational TV (ETV) means a sequential, organized
series of presentations having a specific body of contest,
usually designed primarily for noncredit viewing at home
but often viewed additionally in the classroom.

 

The authors claimed their definitions had a tendency
to reinforce the concept that there were few clear distinc-
tions and classifications among the various types of educa—
tional telecommunication applications in the United States.

They sum up their feeling regarding the future of the
traditional noncommercial educational broadcasting with
this statement:

The peculiar place that noncommercial medica holds in
America's educational system is still ambiguous and perhaps
a reflection of America's pluralism. Many questions have
yet to be answered about the role of informal adult
education in society, the purposes of formal schooling in
our institutions, the general cultural needs of our citi—
zens, and the overall issue of the role of free media in
our unique political system. Until these issues are
resolved, the roles of public broadcasting and instruc-
tional media never can be determined with any degree of

64

finality.74

Editor Glen Robinson in 1978 expressed disappointment
that public broadcasting had been neither innovative enough
nor enough to admit that it had a role in education, or in
providing public services.

He cautioned that, "at the point where public broad-
casting found itself replicating the work of other social
service agencies, it will have outlived its usefulness."
However, he also warned that the failure to innovate with
new services meant to wither away with the notion of alter—
native programming.75

Robinson also noted that the failure of public broad—
casters to embrace new telecommunication services was
largely the result of instititional bias; they were a pro-
duct of the philoSOphy of "broadcasting" and were not ser-
vice oriented in the new telecommunication perSpective.

One other perspective is worth noting. Branscomb, a
communication attorney, reached the conclusion that the
problem with defining Public Broadcasting was that the pro-

cess "begins as philosophy, but finds its expression in

 

7“Wood and Wylie, Educational Telecommunications,
pp. 5-6 and 340.

 

75Glen 0. Robinson, Communications for the Future:
An Overview of the Policy Perspectives for the 1980's, ed.
Glen 0. Robinson, with a forward by Joseph Slates, (New
York: Praeger Publishers, 1978), p. 491.

65

the law."76

In summary, a concept of Public Broadcasting after
1967 must begin with an understanding that efforts to
secure long-term financing resulted in a narrowed perspec-
tive of public programming. Public Broadcasting
programming was not apprOpriate for advertising sponsorship
and was not apprOpriate for formal instruction; it was to
be alternative to commercial fare and formal instruction.

The 1967 Act may have altered the philoSOphical course
Of educational broadcasting develOpment. Because formal
educational programming was just develOping, it was con-
sidered by some decision makers to not have proved itself.
It was considered a possible legislative liability.

The incremental steps through which noncommercial
education broadcasting develOped were made up of FCC rulings
and congressional actions, and were taken to develop the
potential educational aspects of noncommercial broad-
casting, not to develOp a media of mass communications.

Recommendations based on a study of instructional or
educational broadcasting that were financed by the Act were
ignored.

The Public Telecommunications Act of 1978 attempted to
redirect develOpment in new educational telecommunication

demonstrations, and Carnegie II's sublimentary report

 

76Anne Branscomb, "A Crisis of Identity: Public
Broadcasting and the Law, Public Telecommunication Review,
February, 1975-

66

addressed new technologies.

However, the concept of public broadcasting as an
alternative mass media service has prevailed, causing chro-
nic problems as the differences between commercial and non-
commercial broadcasting evaporate with communication

industry deregulation, case law, and FCC rulings.

CONCLUSION AS DISCUSS IN PART I
AND TREATED IN PART II

Complexity leads to confusion in defining Public
Broadcasting after 1967. Indeed, one almost has to define
the term by date, historical perspective, or by personal
interpretation. Clearly, the term did not refer to the
same services in 1920 as it did in 1967, or in 1980.

The purpose of this research was to identify distinc—
tive properties or enduring characteristics of "public
broadcasting" between 1967-80, as the concept evolved be-
tween Carnegie I and II. It was a search for a definition
of the concept.

This could easily be accomplished by simply stating
the definition of "public television" as prOposed by the
first Carnegie Commission. This "alternative" definition,
however, would be too traditional or limiting in its pro-
jection of what the public system was, or what its various
service were during that period, or even today.

The fact is, in 1980 there was no universally accepted
definition of Public Broadcasting that completely explained
what it was. Some individuals, and to some extent the
federal government, referred to this public service as

"noncommercial educational broadcasting." Others used the

67

68

terms defined by the first Carnegie Commission:
"Commercial, Public and Instructional Broadcasting." In
1978, Congress began to use the term "Public
Telecommunications," and two years before Carnegie II, Wood
and Wylie defined the public system as "Educational
Telecommunications," which related defintions of: Public
Broadcasting, Instructional Broadcasting, and Educational
TV."

Beyond the Carnegie, legislative and academic defini-
tions of Public Broadcasting, this research identified
through historic review certain enduring prOperties or
characteristics of the public broadcast movement after
1967. In brief, they include:

(1) Ambiguous legislative terminology; (2) The general
consensus to an "alternative" broadcast service to commer-
cial fare; (3) Confusion over the meaning of "alternative";
(4) Confusion as to what "noncommercial" means; (5) An ina-
bility to editorialize; (6-7) No long-range funding plan,
but Congressional authorizations and appropriations; (8)
Confusion regarding Operating as a "public trustee" with
the same requirements of commercial stations regarding
controversial issues and political decisions; (10-14)
Substantial disagreement over issues of
centralism/localism, structure, instructional media, and
funding with political insulation; (15) The interjection of
the term "telecommunication" in interpretations and in

legislation regarding the public system, as an

69

acknowledgement of new communication technologies; (16) A
system composed of four basic types of licensees, each
having their own particular interpretation of what they
are, what they need, and what they are going to do in the
future; (17) A diminishing ability of the system to ini-
tiate legislative plans or build a consensus to a plan; and
(18) the persistent threat or possibility of budget cuts by
Congress or presidential administrations.

These enduring characteristics provide an awkward
anchor to any definition or concept of Public Broadcasting.
While they are ever present, the characteristics are dyna-
mic in nature and are incrementally changing.

An accurate frame of reference, then, to what Public
Broadcasting is, must include at least these essential ele-
ments, along with an understanding of their dynamism and
evolution in American society.

Because of that necessarily collective perspective,
Public Broadcasting is an elusive concept.

It is also a paradoxical term because an accurate and
precise definition requires a very broad view, instead of a
limited and narrow boundry of consideration.

The paradox exists because as a concept, Public
Broadcasting must carry with it the 18 enduring
characteristics--its defining "baggage."

In addition, one must conclude that specific defini-
tions of Public Broadcasting or subdefinitions (i.e. Wood

and Wylie) may not stand the test of time because of the

 

70

changing meaning of some of its defining characteristics,
particularly "noncommercial" or "alternative service."

The term Public Broadcasting, then, might best be used
as an umbrella concept for specific telecommunication ser-
vices, and best understood by analogy.

For example, the following original simple analogy is
proposed to provide a frame of reference for the concept of
Public Broadcasting as in evolved between 1967-80.

The umbrella concept of Public Broadcasting is like
leaves on a thriving tree. Limbs are the 18 identified
defining issues/characteristics. Main branches are the
evolving telecommunication services: public noncommercial
faire, educational-sequencial, and instructional learning.
The trunk is law. Roots are phiIOSOphical anchors that
rationalize the need for a public communication system.

The sap, the life blood of the tree, is the human element:
the system's leaders, support foundations and corporations,
lawmakers, and society.

Consider such a tree growing and changing in an
American democratic setting, buffeted by winds of tech-
nology.

EPILOGUE

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER
POLICY RESEARCH

Majchizak defines policy research as the process of
conducting research on, or analysis of, a fundamental
social problem in order to provide policymakers with
pragmatic, action-oriented recommendations for alleviating
the problem.77

This historical study intends to draw abstractions
from public policy documents, as explained in the the
introduction. It serves an enlightenment function only,
but suggests many research questions and policy topics,
including:

(1) A classic policy study would be to explain why
Carnegie I lead to specific legislation and Carnegie II did
not.

(2) Noncommercial stations are becoming more commer-
cial. Trace that development.

(3) In light of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, define the

limitations of "nonprofit" and "tax exempt status" for

77Ann Marjchrzak, Methods for Policy Research, p.

 

12.

71

72

Public Telecommuniation services.

(4) Similar to number 2; the differences between com-
mercial and noncommercial stations is blurring. Explain
the legal rationale behind the changes.

(5) Why did policymakers reject (in 1967) an excise
tax to support the public system?

(6) What alternative financing options for Public
Telecommunication services have been reviewed by Congress
since 1980?

(7) Trace direct presidential influence in Public
Broadcasting develOpment.

(8) Trace the editorializing activities (or lack of)
of noncommercial television and/or radio stations.

(9) Survey Public Broadcasting station managers for
consensus areas of concern.

(10) Analyze technological advances in UHF frequency
manipulation.

(ll) Explore the rationale for the public system's

existence.

LITERATURE CITED

A Public Trust: The Report of the Carnegie Commission on
the Future of Public Broadcasting. New York: Bantam
Books, 1979.

 

Barzun, Jacques, and Graff, Henry F. The Modern
Researcher. 3rd edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, Inc., 1977.

 

 

Blakely, Robert J. To Serve the Pulic Interest:
Educational Broadcasting in the United States.
Forward by McGeorge Bundy. New York: Syracuse
University Press, 1979.

 

Branscomb, Anne W. "A Crisis of Identity: Reflections on
the Future of Public Broadcasting." in The Future
of Public Broadcasting. Edited by Dougas Cater.
New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.

 

Broadcasting. "PBS proposal to allow corporate logos gets
first OK." (Nov. 3, 1980).

 

Broadcasting. "Commercials may be answer to public broad-
casting cuts, says KCET's LOpes."100 (Feb. 9, 1981).

 

Broadcasting99 (Sept. 29, 1980), p. 33.

 

Brown, Les. Television: The Business Behind the Box.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.

 

Burke, John E. "The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967--
Part I: Historical Origins and the Carnegie
Commission." Educational Broadcasting Review 6
(April 1972): 105-119.

Burke, John E. "The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967--
Part II: The Carnegie Commission Report, Development
of Legislation, and the Second National Conference
on Long-Range Financing." Educational Broadcasting
Review 6 (June 1972): 178-192.

Burke, John E. "The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967-~Part

III: Congressional Action and Final Passage." Educa-
tional Broadcasting Review 6 (August 1972): 251-2 .

73

74

Carlson, Robert A. "1951: A Pivotal Year for ETV."
Educational Broadcasting Review, December 1967,
pp. 147-5“.

Carter, Jimmy. Message to Congress. Released by the White
House Press Secretary October 6, 1977.

 

Cater, Douglas. "Public TV: What HOpe for Progress? The
Politics of Public TV." Columbia Journalism Review,
July/August 1972.

 

Commission on Instructional Technology. To Improve
Learning: A Report to the President and Congress
of the United States. Washington. D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March 1970.

 

 

Congressional Record. CXIII.29320.29382.30198.
Congressional Quarterly. Vol. XXXIV1978.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Report of the Task
Force on Long-Range Financing of Public Broadcasting.

Duffy, Mike. "Can Public TV stOp the Bleeding?" Detroit
Free Press, 10 December 1980, sec. 0, p. 7.

 

Federal Communications Commission, Official Report of
Proceedings, In the Matter of: Amendment of Section
3.606 of the Commission Rules and Regulations,

Docket 8736 et a1. 7(Washington D.C.: Ward and Paul,
1950-51), pp. 15743-18337. Cited by George H. Gibson,
Public Broadcasting: The Role of the Federal
Government 1912-76 (New York: Praeger Publishers,
19777 p. 7E.

 

 

 

Federal Communications Commission. Offical Report of
Proceedings; In the Matter of Amendment of Section
3:606 of the Commissions Rules and Regulations,
Docket 8736 et a1. Washington D.C.: Ward and Paul,
1950-51.

 

Federal Communications Commission. Report of Proposed
Allocations, January 15, 1945 mimeographed (1945).
Cited by George H. Gibson, Public Television:

The Role of the Federal Government 1912-76, p. 54. New
York: Praeger Publishers, 1977.

 

 

Federal Register. III, 364, Jan. 26, 1938.

Federal Register. XV, 6049.

74

75

Fellows, James A. "Public Broadcasting and Education: Much
Ado About Everything." Public Telecommunications
Review July-August, 1967.

 

Gibson, George H. Public Broadcasting: The Role of the
Federal Government 1912—76. New York: Praeger

 

House of Representatives. Hearings on HR8031, 87 Congress,
2d Session.

 

House of Representatives. Report 94-772. 92nd Congress.
lst Session.

JCET Minutes, larch 22-23, 1951, p. 46, NAEB Washington
Office.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research
2d. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,

1973-

 

MacLatchy, Josephine H., ed. Education on the Air: Second
Yearbook of the Institute for Education by Radio.
Columbus: Ohio State University, 1931.

 

Mahoney, Shelia: DeMartino, Nick; and Stengel, Robert.
Keeping PACE With The New Television: Public
Television and Changing Technology. New York: VNU
Books International, 1980.

 

Marjchrzak, Ann. Methods For Policy Research. California:
SAGE Publications, Inc., 1974.

 

Marcus, Stanley. "The Viewers Verdict--So Far on Cable
TV." Panorama, October 1980, pp. 42-45.

Millard, Steve. "The Story of Public Broadcasting."
Broadcasting (November 8, 1971): pp. 30-36.

Muth, T.; Reagan, J.; Sexton, J.; and Shelton, V.
"Telecommunication in the U.S. Department of
Telecommunication, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan. (mimeographed), 1976.

New York Times. Jan. 10 and 16, 1974.

 

New York Times. July 17 and 21, 1974.

' Public Broadcasting and Education: A Report to the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting from the Advisory
Council of National Organizations. Washington, D.C.,
March, 1975-

76

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States.
Lyndon B. Johnson 1968-69y Book I. Document 54.

Public Television: A Program For Action, The Report and
Recommendations Of the Carnegie Commission on
Educational Television. Copyright by Carnegie
Corporation of New York. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1967.

 

Rivers, William L., and Nyham, Michael J. Aspen Notebook
on Government and the Media. Praeger Publishers,
1973.

 

Robinson, Glen 0. "Communications for the Future: An
Overview of the Policy Agenda." Communications For
Tomorrow: Policy Perspectives for the 1980's. ed. Glen
0. Robinson with a forward by Joseph Slater. New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1978.

 

Saettler, Paul. A History of Instructional Technology.
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1968.

Senate. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Hearings on $205.87 Congress. lst Session.

Toohey, Daniel W. "Section 399: The Constitution Giveth
and Congress Taketh Away." Educational Broadcasting
Review 6 (February 1972): 32-39.

Toohey, Daniel W.; Marks, Richard D.; and Lutzker, Arnold
P. Legal Problems in Broadcasting: Identification and
Analysis of Selected Issues. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska, 1974.

U.S. Congress. Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XXXIV.

 

Whitehead, Clay T. "Local Autonomy and the Fourth Network:
Striking a Balance." Educational Broadcasting Review
5 NO. 6 (December, 1971).

Wimmer, Roger D., and Dominick, Joseph R. Mass Media
Research: An Introduction. 2nd ed. California:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1983.

 

 

Wood, Donald N., and Wylie, Donald G. Educational
Telecommunications. Delmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Co., Inc., 1977.

 

 

nrcurcnw srnr: UNIV. Lrannnres
EEIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
31293006821320