Remarks by Commissioner James H. Quello
                                    
                Federal Communications Commission, U.S.A.
                                    
                               Before the
                Commission on Radio and Television Policy
                   Broadcaster Autonomy and the State
                         St. Petersburg, Russia
                                    
                           September 12, 1994




JEFFERSON RE-VISITED -- PRESS FREEDOMS -- PRESS RESPONSIBILITIES


     I was intrigued with the slogan "I love my country, but I fear my
government."
     
     Graffiti in Russia?  No.
     
     Imprints on American T-shirts?  Yes.

     It is hardly a slogan you expect in a democracy -- a government elected
and supposedly controlled by the people.

     The slogan has varied implications -- fear of government intrusions on
basic human or civil rights -- or fear of government mandates affecting freedom
of the press and speech.

     Generally, in America, the slogan is popular with First Amendment
absolutists to warn against government restrictions on journalistic freedom of
speech and freedom of the press.

     The founding fathers of the United States in proclaiming independence
from a tyrannical dictatorship wisely instituted press and speech freedoms to
give citizens the right to criticize or protest government actions.  First
Amendment freedoms were conferred to provide citizens a check against
potential government abuses, not to provide government a check against critical
press reports.
     Today in America, we have full press freedom for the printed press, but
some government restrictions on the electronic press of TV and radio. 
Government regulation or press restrictions on broadcasting were originally
deemed necessary because of the scarcity of spectrum allocated by
government.  Government allocation and regulations were initially essential to
prevent interference and then further deemed necessary to assure that public
interest would be served.  Stations were and are licensed by the government to
serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity."

     However, Congressional and regulatory First Amendment constraint in the
name of serving the public interest are increasingly subject to Court scrutiny
and criticism.  Scarcity is becoming much less a factor in the multi-channel,
multi-faceted communications world of today with TV, cable, DBS and VCRs. 
And diversity is assured by the vast variety of available programs.

     In fact, a Supreme Court ruling this summer sent a strong message to the
FCC on regulating program content.  The Court stated:

     The FCC's oversight responsibilities do not grant it the power to
     ordain any particular type of programming that must be offered by
     broadcast stations.  The Commission may not impose upon them
     its private notions of what the public ought to hear.

However, recent Court decisions have supported regulatory time constraints to
protect children from indecent material.

     The possible remaining logic for continued government controls might be
-- Should a medium as influential and pervasive as television be permitted to be
controlled by unelected business executives?  Can powerful corporate
commercial combinations of computers, TV, cable, phone, radio, newspapers
and magazines whose primary motive is necessarily profit for stockholders and
corporate officers be trusted to truly serve the overall public interest?  Is the
need for public approval for sales success and corporate growth a sufficient
motivator for serving the public interest?  Is there a need for some sort of
nationwide citizen survey or referendum on public attitudes or approval of TV? 
I'm not sure, for example, how TV with what many say is an overdose of brutal
violence and glamorized sexplicit dramatization would fare in a wide public
referendum from all segments of society.  The established rating systems
indicate there is a large audience, but the ratings are more quantitative than
qualitative.  Is this large audience an appreciative or disapprovingly one?  On
the other hand, today, the public has a wide range of multi-channel
programming to tune in or tune out.
     There is a convincing counter-argument to objections about TV news and
public affairs controlled by profit motivated communications corporations or
highly paid newscasters.  Should the most influential and powerful electronic
media be controlled by government officials whose primary goal is necessarily
to be re-elected and to propagate themselves in office?  Most thinking citizens
today like Thomas Jefferson in 1787, would be affected by the "fear my
government" syndrome and opt for press freedoms.

     Our founding fathers recognized the importance of an independent Fourth
Estate to serve as a check on the powers of government when they adopted the
First Amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the
freedoms of speech or of the press . . . ."

     Now two hundred years later, the First Amendment itself must not
become the rationale for the government to check the powers of the press and
to regulate speech.

     Let's revisit Thomas Jefferson and gain a historic perspective on press
freedom and criticism.

     Thomas Jefferson, of course, was a great champion of press freedom at a
critical time in our nation's history.  He wrote in 1787 the following:

     The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the
     very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me
     to decide whether we should have a government without
     newspapers, or newspapers without government, I should not
     hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

     Nevertheless, Jefferson, himself, was an ardent critic of the press.  In
1807, he wrote:

     Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as
     this.  Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 
     2d, Probabilities.  3d, Possibilities.  4th, Lies.  The first chapter
     would be very short.

     Some years later, a disillusioned Mr. Jefferson had apparently abandoned
any hope that the press could be salvaged.  He told a friend:

     I do not take a single newspaper, not read one a month, and I feel
     myself infinitely the happier for it.

     The press in Jefferson's day took great delight in doing what the press
has always done:  biting the hand that feeds it.  The press so values its
independence that it happily denounces friend and enemy alike and then seeks
refuge in Mr. Jefferson's First Amendment.  Jefferson believed that abuse of a
free press was self-correcting as he wrote to friends in Hartford:

     Conscious that there was not a truth on earth which I feared should
     be known, I have lent myself willingly on the subject of a great
     experiment, which was to prove that an administration, conducting
     itself with integrity and common understanding, cannot be battered
     down, even by the falsehoods of a licentious press . . . 

     I have never therefore even contradicted the thousands of
     calumnies so industriously propagated against myself.  But the fact
     being once established, that the press is impotent when it
     abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its
     strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth.

     Freedom of the press, like all freedoms under our form of government, is
conferred by the people.  That carries with it the obvious notion that it can be
taken away by the people.  To the extent that the American people perceive that
the press, especially the electronic press, is pursuing its self interest to the
detriment of the public interest, the press has reason for concern.

     Freedom of the press confers upon reporters the freedom to be wrong so
long as it is not done with "malice" -- a very subjective, difficult standard -- and,
in the case of broadcasters, so long as there is no evidence of deliberate news
distortion.  However, editors, publishers and broadcast executives have the
responsibility to make sure reporters are not wrong too often or to such an
egregious degree that they are an embarrassment to their organization or
profession.  In my view, broadcast owners, executives and managers should
more and more assume the role of publisher or even editor-in-chief.

     The major impact of television and radio today on the American way of
life is in news and news analysis, not in entertainment programs.  I have said it
before, and now more than ever, broadcasting is most respected and
remembered for its hours of exceptional journalism.

     The greatest benefit most Americans derive from broadcasting is
information.  This potential for molding public opinion poses an enormous
responsibility and challenge.  It calls for more top management training and
involvement in that most vitally important aspect of broadcast business -- news. 
Top management must emphasize truth and responsibility in news and public
affairs reporting over individual or corporate quests for ratings, money and
power.

     It is clear that television is the most influential and pervasive form of the
press.  In recent years, surveys have consistently shown that more Americans
turn to television for news than to any other medium.  This must be regarded as
a "two-edged sword" by those who have careers in television news.  It is
obviously flattering to be the press of choice and to exercise the greatest
impact on a majority of Americans.  That popularity, however, carries with it a
public awareness of a role that requires the highest standards of
professionalism.  That public awareness may also contribute to the unique
government regulations that apply to electronic journalism.  Television has
chosen to focus a spotlight on some of the nation's most prominent figures and
institutions, and often the glare from that spotlight has been harsh and
decidedly unflattering.  To the extent that television has exposed real flaws in
those individuals and institutions, it has performed a function for which
journalism is uniquely suited.  To the extent, however, that television has
trivialized officials and institutions which are important to the fabric of our
society, it has performed a public disservice and it caters to those who would
retain and even tighten the straightjacket on electronic journalism.

     Jefferson believed that abuse of the First Amendment by the press is self-
correcting and that there will always be citizens who will call the press to
account for its excesses.  I can hardly disagree with Jefferson on this topic, but
I wonder about the manner in which any needed corrections might come about. 
Is it possible that the press in general, and the electronic press in particular,
might become so powerful and so arrogant that the public would approve, or
acquiesce in, a remedy that goes far beyond merely correcting the problem?  I
hope not.

     It has been suggested that the proper role of the press is to be an
adversary of government.  I believe that this is a simplistic and troublesome
philosophy.  The proper role of the press is to seek the truth and to inform.  The
press must present facts in a timely manner and in a context that is calculated
to educate the populace in the most truthful, complete manner possible.

     I urge -- just as some recent self-criticism by the press suggests -- that
the media re-examine its attitudes, its manners and -- most importantly -- its
tendency to act primarily as an "adversary."  I believe it more appropriate for the
press to assume the role of watchdog rather than attack dog.
  
     We must particularly avoid adversarial press at a time of national
commitment for a just cause.  We must never repeat the Vietnam experience of
a press with a frantic zeal to discredit the government of our own country and
undermine national will and morale.  Press responsibility and reasonable
constraints are particularly needed in military actions where dictators with
absolute press control have a psychological propaganda advantage over any
democracy.

     Overall, it ought to be clear that "adversarial" excesses by the media will
destroy its most valuable asset -- its credibility.  Without that credibility, they
will have also lost their most fundamental value to society.  I further suggest
that the media seriously reconsider the time honored journalistic concepts of
"fairness," "objectivity," and yes, a little "humility."  As Jack Webb was fond of
saying on his TV show, "Just give us the facts."  I think the public echoes that
view.  There are some egregious cases where an adversarial position is
justified.  For example, Watergate involved a massive government cover-up of
illegal activities.  Without adversarial investigative reporting, the truth would not
have been disclosed.  But remember most stories are not Watergate.

     A free press is vital to a democratic form of government because the
policies of such a government are formed ultimately by the people.  An
uninformed or a misinformed electorate can result in dangerous policies and ill-
advised actions.  A press that cannot or will not perform its informational role
under the highest standards of public trust does not deserve public support. 
That, I believe, is what Jefferson was telling us over two centuries ago and I
believe it applies today.

     The message for Russia?  It would be presumptuous of me to recommend
types of press freedom for a new powerful, independent democracy like Russia. 
Press and human freedoms are complex subjects with many ramifications.

     For example, Russia today does not have a free enterprise advertising
based economy to support development and growth of media enterprises.  With
government involvement in the initiation and construction of media facilities
comes the added temptation of government control.

     However, if Jefferson were reincarnated today in Russia as Jeffeltsin or
Jeffersonev, he would again opt for full press freedom for a new democracy.  He
would stress that freedom requires a keenly developed sense of public
responsibility.
     If in doubt, he would err on the side of freedom of speech and the press
and let public approval or disapproval determine the success or failure.  This
would represent true democracy at work -- not the perfect system but still the
best for its citizens.

     In closing what I wish for America and Russia is what every democracy
hopes to achieve -- a decent effective government in a free socially progressive
information rich nation with justice and opportunity for all.

                                    ###