To take a very careful look at where and what kinds of positions are needed and in what kinds of responsibilities, that is what we need to do.

Senator HARTKE. Aren't you spending a lot of time on the question of blackouts of athletic events?

Mr. ROBINSON. I couldn't say as far as manpower resources. I would be mildly surprised if we were spending very much time. Senator HARTKE. Is that true, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WILEY. Senator Hartke, there was rulemaking initiated in February 1972, relative to cable blackouts. It has been my position that that rulemaking should be brought to a conclusion. That has been the basic understanding which I have been operating under this year, to set a deadline, a meeting schedule date for the Commission and simply face up to it and decide it. That is the way we are going to operate as long as I am running the Commsision.

Senator HARTKE. That does not require new law.

Mr. WILEY. I am not suggesting it does.

Senator HARTKE. There is a great drive on at the present time that the cause of the complaints about the Government is the overregulation of industry. I am trying to find out just where there is the exact overregulation that you are talking about. So far we have decided the clear channel situation was not overregulation, the blackout of sporting events is not a question of overregulation, multiple ownership is not overregulation."

Mr. WILEY. Television is one area in which we have had overregulation. Small market radio, we have had too much regulation. We are engaging in a process of reregulation. We are taking a look at the regulations we have had for the last 30 years and determine whether they still meet our regulatory objectives, are they as simple as they can be and direct as they can be?

I think that is good government.

Senator HARTKE. That is the Commission's responsibility, isn't it? Mr. WILEY. Well, yes.

Senator HARTKE. Let me ask you about the children's questions. Can you give me your definition of advertising to children? Mr. WILEY. My definition of advertising to children?

Senator HARTKE. Yes.

Mr. WILEY. I suppose what you are talking about is commercial messages during children's programing.

Senator HARTKE. Is that your definition?

Mr. WILEY. I think that would suffice. Children's programs are programs specifically designed for children.

Senator HARTKE. Do you mean programs where children comprise the majority of the audience?

Mr. WILEY. These are programs produced and designed with children in mind.

Senator HARTKE. What about where children are watching other programs which are not designed for children?

Mr. WILEY. Children watch all hours of the broadcast day. Unfortunately, they sometimes watch too late in the evenings, but children do watch television throughout the course of the day. I don't consider all those programs to be children's programs simply because we have a viewing ratio of children in the audience.

Programs for children are specifically designed with children in mind.

Senator HARTKE. The FCC recently issued decisions involving children's policy, prime-time access, and sex and violence, is that right?

Mr. WILEY. Yes.

Senator HARTKE. So far you have gone only into the children's programs, right?

Mr. WILEY. The family viewing principle dealt with time periods rather than specific programs. The prime-time access rule did include a specific exemption for programs specifically designed for children.

Senator HARTKE. The influence on the children is different depending upon the time of the day they watch it?

Mr. WILEY. No, but I think obviously we cannot have all television directed to the fifth grade mind. There has to be some opportunity for television to do some sensitive controversial themes. We have attempted to give some assistance to concerned parents who want to monitor in an intelligent manner the children's viewing habits? Senator HARTKE. What about the commercials?

Mr. WILEY. Well, I think that a lot of us feel that realistically we must have commercials to support the programs. If there were no commercials, the programing would be cheapened, would be diminished, and would disappear. I don't think that would be in the public interest. I have tried to suggest to the industry that they should not have a higher level of commercials in the children's programing than they have in the evening programing, and I think that is in the public interest. I don't think we should have overcommercialization of children. I also think we should be concerned in the manner in which we are advertising to children, the kinds of commercials we put on, whether or not we have commercial practices like wholesaling or other practices which tend to deceive the child or play upon his particular vulnerabilities.

The industry has taken some actions in these areas.

Senator HARTKE. When do the children watch most, during the hours devoted to children's programs?

Mr. WILEY. It depends on whether you are talking about total percentage of the audience.

Senator HARTKE. What difference does it make if it is the total percentage of the audience? If there are 8 million children watching at both 5 o'clock and at 8 o'clock, what difference does it make if the industry has decided not to regulate any of those commercials as they relate to children at 8 o'clock?

In other words, you have an abdication of any responsibility toward children after 6 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. WILEY. The industry has self-regulation standards.

Senator HARTKE. And these are a failure. You have to admit that, right?

Mr. WILEY. No. I don't believe that.

Senator HARTKE. Do you have a children's division now?

Mr. WILEY. We have a broadcast bureau which has some specialists.

Senator HARTKE. How many specialists are there in the children's area dealing with this problem?

Mr. WILEY. We have had a children's task force over the years including a number of people within and without the broadcast bureau. Right now the whole problem is assigned to the Rules and Standards Division.

We have two working on this now.

Senator HARTKE. Two people working on this problem affecting the future of our Nation. Do these two people monitor the programs! Mr. WILEY. Senator Hartke, I don't think picking out the number of people is a fair assessment in the forcefulness of the position. Senator HARTKE. I think you have taken a nonforceful position. I think there has been nothing done in this field. I don't expect you to agree with that.

Mr. WILEY. The fact that we put out a policy statement and report. the fact that we worked forcefully with the industry to try to get the commercial standards reduced, the fact that we will have family viewing and the fact we were upheld on access prime-time programing for children bespeaks the Commission's interest and effec tiveness in this area.

Senator HARTKE. I think it is ineffective.

Senator PASTORE. Any further questions?
Senator HARTKE. No.

Senator PASTORE. Will the Commission step aside? We have other witnesses. I hope you would remain for a short while at least to hear what the others have to say. Mr. Marshall and Mr. McCuller, are you both here?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCCULLER. Yes, sir.

Senator PASTORE. You gentlemen and ladies, you can sit along here. This is fine.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF PLURIA MARSHALL; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES MCCULLER, NATIONAL BLACK MEDIA COALITION

Mr. MCCULLER. Senator Pastore, members of the committee, our testimony is joint testimony. I will cover the following points: The overview, citizen participation, the license renewals, and recommendations.

Mr. Marshall will cover equal employment opportunity compliance and public broadcasting.

Senator PASTORE. Will you pardon me?

Will the members of the Commission please take seats along this table here so that you can hear everything that goes on?

You may proceed.

Mr. MCCULLER. Thank you.

The National Black Media Coalition is an organization representing 61 local groups in 50 cities throughout the country who are working to improve the service provided to black citizens in their communities by the broadcasting and cable industries. We work with local stations, participate in regulatory proceedings at the FCC, and

have testified before this committee and its House counterpart on previous occasions.

Yesterday this committee heard Chairman Wiley's testimony on the accomplishments of the FCC over the past year. Commission reports have been issued on the fairness doctrine, cross ownership and prime-time access. The chairman personally met with broadcast representatives to work out a voluntary compromise on children's television advertising and sex and violence. The Commission has responded to the cries of broadcasters over the renewal morass by simplifying the renewal for radio and by exempting at least onethird of this country's stations from ascertainment requirements. It has also, after 2 years, come up with a compromise between cable and television interests in the area of pay cable regulation. And finally, with amazing speed, the Commission came to a decision on the complicated question of A.T. & T.'s rate hike.

The FCC is known for delays and footdragging. Its action in so many vital areas in so short a time may appear a great administrative accomplishment. But most of the Commission's newly adopted policies are industry-formulated or protective of the industry. The fairness doctrine no longer applies to product advertising, leaving the consumer vulnerable to manufacturers' propaganda. The Commission's cross-ownership rulemaking did virtually nothing to open up the broadcast industry to more diverse ownership, especially by minority groups. In the area of children's television and sex and violence, the Commission struck deals with the industry behind doors that were closed to the public. We are left with ineffectual self-regulation that, because it involves no official FCC action, cannot be challenged in the courts.

As far as renewals are concerned, the Commission has announced it will exempt all radio stations in markets under 10,000 in population from ascertainment requirements, despite the fact that every radio renewal application that has ever been designated for hearing on an ascertainment issue has been filed by a station located in these small markets. Moreover, since large numbers of Southern blacks live in rural communities, the Commission's exemption effectively means that white-owned stations will ignore black needs to an even greater extent than they do today.

In cable, the Commission has decided to provide relief to the industry by proposing to roll back the 1977 deadline for compliance with Commission rules that provide for public access, two-way capacity and other public services. Clearly this relief for cable was necessitated by the Commission's refusal, in its effort to protect broadcast interests, to allow the cable industry to reap the profits of pay cable programing. Thus, public access to cable was traded off for protection of broadcast profits.

Likewise, the Commission has refused to consider means of funding cable access channels and has, in fact, discouraged franchise contributions to facilitate such access. It has failed to institute any proceedings to deal with the problem of privacy and two-way capacity, and has decided not to deal with cable-television crossownership, presumably until that form of concentration becomes so abusive that the Commission can claim, as it has in the newspaper

television context, that diversification of ownership will be too disruptive.

NBMC is deeply troubled by the pro-industry results of the various actions the Commission has taken over the past year. But even more disturbing to us is something this committee has yet to hear aboutwhat the Commission has failed or refused to accomplish-reforms aimed at public, rather than industry interests.

In the 5 years since its adoption of equal employment opportunity rules, the Commission has apparently made little or no progress toward the institution of formal equal employment opportunity guidelines. Since the United Church of Christ case, which recognized the value of citizen participation in Commission processes, it has done nothing to insure adequate citizen participation in rulemakings and other Commission proceedings. And despite the fact that broadcasters have been given a license renewal break, citizens groups have not been presented with more effective alternatives to the unsatisfactory petition to deny procedure.

The problem has not been a lack of creative citizen proposals. Innumerable proposed rulemakings, requests for inquiry, formal objections, creative pleadings, and finally, prayers for special relief, have lain dormant while the Commission apparently attended to what it considered more pressing matters. Most of these proposals have received no Commission attention. They lie buried within Commission files, completely ignored.

These various proposals are not naive solutions to complicated problems, as some might suggest. They do not call for massive reorganization of the Commission or the commercial broadcast system. They are well thought out, viable, and short-term solutions to problems which have plagued the Commission for years and which particularly affect citizens groups.

A prime example of the Commission's attitude toward creative citizen proposals designed to facilitate citizen input and combat discrimination in the broadcast industry is its action on a rulemaking proposal filed by the National Black Media Coalition in November 1973 that is, no action at all. NBMC, exasperated over the Commission's lack of initiative in the areas which most acutely affect citizen and consumer groups, submitted an extensive petition for "Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry" that called for modification of the Commission's rules and policies in at least eight vital areas. The petition also included proposal model regulations. But NBMC's primary concern was to get the Commission moving.

Nearly 2 years have passed since the original petition was submitted, and to date none of the proposals has even been embodied in a notice of inquiry or notice of proposed rulemaking. To our knowledge, the NBMC petition was unopposed. Yet it has been ignored by the Commission.

The NBMC experience is not a lone instance of Commission footdragging. Rather, it is typical.

Since this committee has heard extensively from the FCC about all the wonderful things it has accomplished over the past year, we think it would be instructive for the members to hear about some of the things it has yet to accomplish. While the Commission