When 'The Morning After' Looks Even Worse

California Primary Leaves More Questions Than Answers
Yesterday I wrote about the Associated Press report, the evening before the big California primary, that Hillary Clinton had already won the Democratic Party's nomination for president. See "Searching for the Media's Soul," June 7, 2016.

I expressly noted that it was not intended as yet another assertion of anti-Bernie media bias. Nor did I suggest there were any dirty tricks involved. It was simply an analysis of the journalistic errors on the part of those who ordered and created the AP story, and the lemming like lapping up and repetition of the story by the AP's clients. It was kind of like the rush to war in Iraq, after the unquestioning acceptance of the Administration's assertion regarding "weapons of mass destruction."

I noted the report was wrong to include Hillary's superdelegate support, given that asking them their "preference" at this time is little more than a polling exercise, since they can't vote until July 25. The report's mention of number of primary votes received, or primaries "won," were irrelevant since it is pledged delegates that count. And, if Clinton's delegates from what the AP called her "decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico" had been included in the report's analysis, those numbers were clearly inappropriately used since the votes had not yet been even counted.

I suffer no illusions that anyone, let alone from the media, is going to pursue this incident with as much, let alone greater, depth.

But for the record, I'd like to at least put the following on the table.

First, note the probable impact of the AP's eleventh hour bombshell the day before the California primary.

Polls at that time indicated the California primary was a toss up, a statistical tie. "Heading into the last big primary day, California's contest looks like a virtual toss-up with Hillary Clinton up two points on Bernie Sanders, 49 percent to 47 percent, as Sanders has closed a double-digit gap there in recent weeks." Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus, Jennifer De Pinto, Sarah Dutton, "Poll: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders down to the wire in California," CBS NEWS June 5, 2016.

"It’s hard to know how much the news may depress turnout, but it has easily been the closest contest in a big state, at least in the pre-election polls. . . . [T]he polls are close enough that he could win." Nate Cohn, "Race Appears Over for Bernie Sanders, but California Still Offers Drama," The New York Times (online), June 6, 2016.

In other words, not only is Bernie virtually tied with Hillary, he has been gaining on her, he has the momentum, he's continuing to draw crowds measured in the thousands, there's a real possibility he might get more votes that she will.

And the results of that primary, we discover this morning? With 94% of the precincts reporting, it turns out that Clinton has a 13% gap over Sanders (56.0% to 43.1%; 1,841,285 to 1,416,742 votes). "California Primary Results," The New York Times (online), June 8, 2016.

Was there a relationship between the AP story the day before the primary, and the results the next day? As the Washington Post put it, "Tuesday’s primaries were somewhat anticlimactic, given the AP’s tally Monday of Clinton’s support among superdelegates — the elected officials and other party elites whose convention votes are not bound by the primary results in their states. The AP count showed her reaching 2,383 pledged delegates and superdelegates, the exact number she needs to clinch the nomination." Anne Gearan, Robert Costa and John Wagner, "Clinton Celebrates Victory, Declaring: 'We've Reached a Milestone,'" Washington Post (online), June 8, 2016.

And see, "Although Tuesday had promised to be a watershed moment in the nation’s political history, it proved anticlimactic after The A.P. reported Monday night that Mrs. Clinton had secured enough delegates to clinch the party’s nomination. . . . Sanders advisers were on edge over the declaration that Mrs. Clinton had locked up the nomination, worried that it would depress voter turnout in California. And Mr. Sanders told NBC on Tuesday evening that he was “upset” and “disappointed” that The A.P. had made its call based on a survey of superdelegates, party officials who can shift their allegiances as late as the convention." Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin, "Hillary Clinton Wins California, Boosting Claim to Nomination," The New York Times (online), June 7, 2016.

And, Matt Pearce, "'It Was Just Chaos': Broken Machines, Incomplete Voter Rolls Leave Some Wondering Whether Their Ballots Will Count," Los Angeles Times (online), June 7, 2016

Of course, polls have been inaccurate predictors before. But this seems a particularly great disparity.

Was it merely a coincidence that the AP survey of superdelegates ended up with precisely the number -- 2,383 -- that Clinton need to be nominated? It almost seems like someone kept looking until they reached that number and then stopped and published the story.

What role did Clinton campaign staff, or supporters, have in encouraging the AP to make these inquiries? Did they prepare just enough delegates and then pass their names to the AP group?

See, "On 6 June 2016, the Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton had 'clinched' the Democratic nomination. Shortly thereafter, a Twitter user published a video about an e-mail sent by the Clinton campaign . . . The video showed the e-mail on the screen; when the [Twitter] user clicked to save the embedded graphic, she claimed that it then showed the following filename: a.hrc.onl/imageman/2016_Q2-Email/20160605_hfa_graphic/secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png. The graphic was hosted on what appeared to be a Clinton campaign 'intranet' inaccessible to the general public and probably used to host campaign-related content. According to the video, the graphic appears to have been created on 4 June 2016, two days before to the AP's pre-primary call . . . It is true that the Twitter video's claims checked out." Jeff Zarronandia, "Clinton Campaign 'Secret Win' Controversy; After the AP called the Democratic presidential nomination for Hillary Clinton on 6 June 2016, social media users questioned a campaign graphic that appeared to be dated 4 June 2016," Snopes.com (a typical Snopes-balanced account, which notes that this does not definitally prove the Clinton campaign's early influence in the AP's story and decision to publish on June 6).

Who at the AP was behind this effort and why? When and why was the decision made to (a) include superdelegates in the count, knowing that they don't vote until July 25, and (b) release the story the night before the big California primary?

I don't have, let alone argue for, answers. And probably no one else will even ask the questions.

But for me, from the perspective of today, the morning after looks even worse than the day before.

# # #

Searching for the Media's Soul

When Wishing Can Make It So

"We have searched our souls. We must use this responsibility very carefully. Some day in our time, because of this technological and journalistic ability [to predict election outcomes and prematurely declare winners], all the polls in the United States -- in the 50 states -- will close at one time."

-- Fred W. Friendly, President, CBS News, 1964
[Robert Bendiner, "The Danger of Declaring Winners by Computer; Quickie 'Results' Could Sway the Election," Life Magazine, September 18, 1964, pp. 125, 133]

Last evening (June 6) the Associated Press sent out a story asserting that Hillary Clinton was now the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Hope Yen, Stephen Ohlemacher, Lisa Lerer and Caterine Lucey, "AP Count: Clinton Has Delegates to Win Nomination," Associated Press, June 6, 2016. The AP's account was picked up by everything from The New York Times, to National Public Radio, to local papers around the country. As the Los Angeles Times headlined, Chris Megerian, "Hillary Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination in Historic First," Los Angeles Times (online), June 7, 2016, continuing with the lead sentence: "Hillary Clinton has secured enough delegates to claim the Democratic presidential nomination, the Associated Press said Monday night . . .."

As the AP reported, "The former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday with a decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates."

This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.

And that's without even addressing what to all appearances has been an anti-Bernie Sanders orientation on the part of some media organizations and reporters since the beginning of this presidential campaign.

(Full disclosure: I have been, and remain, a Bernie Sanders supporter who has fought against the Democratic Party's transformation over the past 25 years into a 21st Century equivalent of the 1960s and '70s Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon. Gallup reported last January that 42% of Americans identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, and 26% as Republicans. Given these numbers, why would the Democratic Party elite not want to make a bona fide effort to serve, energize and thereby retain, its original, natural base of the poor, working poor, and working class -- with whose support they could win every election from city councils to the White House?

In fairness to the thousands of professional, independent journalists who recognize the importance and responsibility associated with their role, as the bumper sticker has it, “The 'liberal media' are only as liberal as their conservative owners permit them to be." Having said that, however, it does seem fair to note that the media seems to have had a preference for Hillary over Bernie -- a subject I have addressed before: "Why Won't Media Give Bernie a Break?" March 23, 2016; "Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment," February 3, 2016; "Why Nobody 'Wins' the Iowa Caucus," February 1, 2016.)

So, putting aside the pro and con arguments about a media Bernie Sanders bias, what's the problem?

For starters, the Democratic Party's nomination requires a candidate receive the affirmative votes of 2383 delegates. As of last evening, Clinton had 1812 pledged delegates -- those who had been chosen in caucuses, primaries and conventions, and are required to vote for her on the first ballot.

Second, the votes in that "decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico" (the delegates from which were apparently counted among her 1812) had not even been counted Monday. Puerto Rican officials stayed up late Sunday night counting ballots, only got through about half of them, and decided to take Monday off. ("It will be a little while longer before final vote totals are known in Puerto Rico's Democratic presidential primary, because the U.S. territory's election commission workers took the day off on Monday." Danica Coto, "Vote Count Stalls in Puerto Rico as Officials Take Day Off," Associated Press, June 6, 2016.) That assertion of a "decisive victory" was based on projections from the votes that had been counted. And as we've all seen from numerous elections over the years, the actual, future, final result is not really known until all the votes have been counted. Nor would the 60 Puerto Rican delegates, even if she ends up with all of them, be enough to bring her to the necessary 2383.

Third, the AP "Clinton Clinches Democratic Nomination" story contains a single sentence with a number of errors: "Indeed, Clinton's victory is broadly decisive. She leads Sanders by more than 3 million cast votes, by 291 pledged delegates and by 523 superdelegates. She won 29 caucuses and primaries to his 21 victories."

(1) "She leads by more than 3 million cast votes." (a) Clinton did comparatively better in primaries than caucuses; Sanders did comparatively better in caucuses than primaries. (In my Johnson County, Iowa, precinct, there were over 500 who caucused for Bernie, and about 90 for Hillary.) Since the number of primary voters are reported (and apparent from the total votes) and the numbers of caucus attendees are known only to those attending a given caucus, and "cast votes" excludes Bernie's caucus "voters," it's not surprising that Hillary would appear to have the larger number. (b) Votes, "cast" or otherwise, are irrelevant in this process. It's delegates that matter. Clinton apparently has 291 more than Sanders -- though not enough to say she's already "clinched" it. It will be the same story in the general election next November; the total, national popular vote is not irrelevant, but neither is it decisive. It's the Electoral College vote that picks the president. Just ask Al Gore who had 543,895 more votes than George Bush in 2000 (50,999,897 to 50,456,002) and yet watched President Bush take the oath of office.

(2) "She won 29 caucuses and primaries." A presidential candidate in a general election can be said to have "won" a state (meaning the votes of its electors in the Electoral College), because it is a "winner-take-all" election. Whoever gets a majority, or plurality, of a given state's popular votes usually gets all of that state's electoral votes. But most of the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses were not winner take all; they resulted in a proportional allocation of delegates. You can say, if you want to, that whoever got the most delegates "won" that state -- as the media has persisted in doing -- but it is meaningless in terms of who gets the ultimate nomination. It is only meaningful because the media (and Hillary Clinton) say it has meaning.

Fourth, "superdelegates." Superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention are elected officials (all Governors, U.S. House and Senate members) who belong to the Democratic Party along with Party leaders.

(1) As the costs of campaigning have risen over the years, these are the very individuals who have become most dependent upon the contributions of the nation's richest donors, corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street banks, Big Pharma and Oil, and their secret and public PACs. They may hate to ask for money as much or more than the donors hate to have to give it. But they are all in a tight symbiotic relationship from which divorce is impossible, and all of whose futures and fortunes turn on successfully protecting their circled wagons. So at the outset, there is a real question as to whether this Party Establishment's choke hold on the pledged delegates' choice should even exist for a political party that calls itself "Democratic."

(2) But even if Establishment-superdelegate veto power was appropriate for the Democratic Party, the Party's rules provide that, unlike pledged delegates (whose "votes" are essentially cast early in the primary season), the superdelegates can, by definition and rule, have no more than a "leaning" -- for this day and time only -- prior to the time they cast their first "vote" at the Convention itself. Until then, they are free to change their minds, and leanings, as often as they choose and changing conditions warrant. No matter what the pressures may be from the Clinton campaign, the Party Establishment, and perhaps even the Associated Press, it is inappropriate to designate Clinton as the nominee until the superdelegates have actually cast their votes -- on July 25.

(3) Stuff happens. This is June 7. The Convention is July 25. That's 49 days of political time -- the equivalent of a light year in space. As those of us following this presidential primary have observed, and as Rachel Maddow has relied upon for a daily show, unexpected events, from the trivial to the blockbuster lie along the path to victory like Improvised Explosive Devices along the roads in Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton (and Trump) have some of the highest unfavorable poll ratings ever seen. Bernie has one of (if not the) highest positive ratings. Most (all?) polls show him running well ahead of Hillary in a head-to-head match up with Trump. We still don't know if Hillary will be indicted, or what more Trump will uncover and throw at her and how that will affect her standing. She (or Bernie) could have a sudden, serious health problem. Twenty percent of Sanders' supporters say if she's the nominee they'll vote for Trump. Bernie has had both the largest, and the most enthusiastic crowds. Considering where he's come from, his strength has been awesome. He's not just talked about, but demonstrated and used, a funding mechanism that eliminates the need for PACs. There aren't enough members of the Democratic Party to elect Hillary. Bernie has strong appeal with independents, newly-registered and young voters -- needed to build a future Party. When it comes to the crunch, if it looks like Hillary can't win, and that Bernie can, the Party Establishment may still decide they'd rather go down to defeat with her than win with Sanders. But it is not inconceivable that a majority of superdelegates might then decide to switch.

Fifth, media corruption of the electoral process. CBS News President, Fred Friendly (and then-CBS President Frank Stanton) were broadcasters of the old school during the 1960s and '70s when I was serving as an FCC commissioner. They, and their general counsel, Dick Salant, were not always on the same page with me. But what I admired then, and even more so now, was their sense of public obligation, and responsibility, for their use of "the public's airwaves."

The Fred Friendly quote, with which this blog essay begins, is an example. They were dealing with mainframe computers that could handle big data, in rapid time, and make much more accurate predictions, sooner, of an election's outcome. Choose the right precincts and do enough exit polling during the day (or vote counting immediately after their polls close) and the final statewide result could be anticipated relatively accurately, and broadcast, before one's competitors. Unfortunately, if done before the polls closed, there was the possible consequence of potential late voters choosing to stay home rather than make the effort to cast a pointless vote.

Given trans-continental television programming networks (CBS' Edward R. Murrow had the first simultaneous coast-to-coast broadcast November 18, 1951) an even more serious problem emerged in presidential elections. With four (actually more) U.S. time zones (when it's 8:00 p.m. in New York, it's 5:00 p.m. in California), if early projections of Central and Eastern time states' results indicate the ultimate winner, all west coast evening voters may be deprived of a meaningful incentive to vote.

The point is that back then there were some with the journalistic ethics, and sense of public responsibility, to be concerned about the media's potential interference with the actual process of voting. They agonized over it. They proposed potential solutions: have voting end and polls close at the very same moment all across America, say, 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 9:00 p.m. Central Time, 8:00 p.m. Mountain Time, and 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

We all know the expression, "Wishing doesn't make it so." But the power of today's media is such that media owners, and their journalists, who wish for Hillary's nomination, can make it so. Last night's AP assertions, the their viral distribution and acceptance by the rest of the media, are but one example.

Today's media not only don't propose solutions, they don't even see the problem. They see nothing wrong with proclaiming the nomination process is over -- the very evening before the day of what are arguably (at this point in this campaign's history) the six most significant primaries of the season insofar as the Sanders-Clinton contest is concerned. This would be serious enough if Clinton already had the 2383 pledged delegates. Why discourage letting the primaries run their course, and give everyone a chance to vote? But that they were willing to do this with an inaccurate and misleading analysis is shameful and depressing.

In Fred Friendly's day CBS' executives were honestly able to say "we have searched our souls" regarding their ethical and legal obligations -- because they still had souls to search. Today neither they nor we can search their souls, for there are none to be found.

# # #

Nicholas Johnson's Mike Wallace Memories

May 2, 2012, 7:50 p.m.Mike Wallace: May 9, 1918 – April 7, 2012
"I can't let the life, and now death, of Mike Wallace go without comment," Tim Weiner, "Mike Wallace, CBS Pioneer of 60 Minutes, Dies at 93," New York Times, April 9, 2012, p. A1; see also "Mike Wallace (journalist)," Wikipedia.org. (Photo credit: Wikimedia commons)

Mike Wallace was both a significant part of my television viewing experience since the 1950s, and of my professional experience during the 1960s and 1970s -- during which at least two interviews have been recalled. Excerpts from the transcript of our exchanges during my "Face the Nation" guest appearance on September 14, 1969, and my legal assistant, Tracy Westen's memory of a Mike Wallace interview in my FCC office, are reproduced below.

CBS, I can now confess almost 40 years after leaving the FCC, was kind of my favorite family network. It featured Dad in its Peabody Award-Winning interview show, "The Search." In fact, I think it was that program that convinced Dad -- after I'd left for college -- to buy a TV set; apparently that experience finally brought him to the insight that there might be at least some programs worth watching on television.

Like many Americans, I was a fan of CBS' Edward R. Murrow, and his then-partner Fred Friendly -- whom I came to know when Fred served as CBS News President, professor at Columbia University, and at the Ford Foundation. "Harvest of Shame" (about migrant workers) and their presentation of Senator Joseph McCarthy (that played a major role in his downfall) are both major milestones in American broadcasting, history.

My sister, Kate, got an early start on her broadcasting career. While in high school her proposal for a "Teen Talk" radio program won a local contest, and gained her the role of its host on local radio station KXIC-AM, where she also hosted the "Breakfast Club." She created two TV shows for WMT-TV in Cedar Rapids: "It's Fun to Find Out" (a science program for kids) and "Hobby Hunt" (either while still in high school or during summers when in college). After college, in Europe, she fed stories to NBC's "Monitor" radio program, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (where she worked with a TV predecessor to CBS' "60 Minutes," "This Hour Has Seven Days").

She began at CBS with, among other assignments, Mike Wallace's radio program, "Mike Wallace at Large." She ultimately worked for CBS Television News for a few years, including Walter Cronkite's "CBS Evening News," where she continued occasional assignments with Mike Wallace.

I found watching the in-studio creation of Cronkite's Evening News -- with directors barking orders, and film (as it then was) arriving, and being processed, only minutes before the show, more exciting than any sports match. As improbable as it seemed during the countdown to air, somehow it always came together. And to my delight Cronkite extended a standing offer to come by anytime I was in New York, or they were doing the show from Washington, at the CBS offices just a block or two down the street from the FCC building.

My next door neighbor and one of my best friends at the time, Bob Pierpoint, had been one of "Murrow's boys," and was then working as the CBS White House correspondent. Although I never met Murrow, I do remember a dinner party at Bob's that Murrow's widow, Janet, attended.

In the midst of Washington's lobbying pressure, and good old boys' use of raw power as an alternative to rational persuasion, I used to say, sarcastically and dramatically to make the point, that most industries had at least one CEO who had attended college and has some sense of the public interest. When Maritime Administrator my memory is that Mærsk McKinney Møller and Jakob Isbrandtsen (of Isbrandtsen Lines) helped show the way to ship operations without government subsidy, and that my interests in cutting down port costs (often 90% of the cost of trans-ocean shipping), as well as the subsequent rail and truck costs, were substantially accelerated by Malcolm McLean, a former trucking company owner, who created Sea-Land and the containerization revolution I was advocating.

Anyhow, in broadcasting the one network CEO who was head and shoulders above the rest was CBS' Frank Stanton, often chosen (wisely) by the other broadcasters to be their spokesperson -- and who, among other things, got the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which had no congressional appropriation) off the ground with his own $1 million contribution. (Among group station owners it was Don McGannon, of Westinghouse, who led the way by removing cigarette commercials, and creating his own "family viewing hour," before being ordered to do so.)

When CBS started "60 Minutes," it got off to a slow start. In fact, the network was considering canceling the program almost before it got off the ground. I had been encouraging broadcasters to provide more substantive programming in general, and supported "60 Minutes" in particular. I can't recall the format it took – whether it was a speech, article, or just a conversation – but I do recall encouraging the network to stick with it, confident as I was that if they'd give the program a chance it would ultimately build an audience. Reflecting back, it turned out to be one of, if not the, longest running programs in television history.

When news of Mike Wallace's death reached him, one of my brilliant, creative, charming and personable former FCC legal assistants, Tracy Westen, emailed me the following:

I saw the news this morning that Mike Wallace just died, which is certainly a shame, but it reminded me of a story involving you . . ..I remember the time Wallace interviewed you in your office (probably some time in 1970). He already had a reputation as a fearsome interviewer, so we were all a little apprehensive. His crew came in and set up a one-camera setup, with the camera focused on you in your desk chair. The interview proceeded; he asked tough questions; your answers were great.Then they reversed the camera to get reaction shots of Wallace, shooting over your shoulder. They said just "make conversation" while Wallace nodded, as if he were listening to your answers. (Was that a form of news staging?)Then, you started asking Wallace tough questions. I don't remember what you said, so I'll make it up, it was something like this:"Isn't it true, Mike, that you're really just a corporate shill for CBS, and that your news stories are just designed to sell your sponsor's products?" (Something like that.) Poor Mike, he had to sit there, and nod, as though he was listening to one of your answers -- but the hilarious part was that you were forcing him to "agree" (nod in assent) to all your critical questions.He left shortly after that, seemed a bit disgruntled, but, as I recall, gave you a good interview when it aired.I still remember that and will always associate it with Mike Wallace, and your undaunted wit in the face of a notoriously tough reporter.

There are a number of stories regarding the "Face the Nation" program from which the transcript excerpts of my exchanges with Mike Wallace are reproduced below.

One of the producers of the program, whom I had met but never dated, told me the following amusing story. Apparently someone with CBS in New York wanted to use as a backdrop on the "Face the Nation" set in Washington a large graphic including my face, and made a very early call to the Washington producer. Assuming she and I had a relationship of some sort, he asked her, "Does Nick Johnson still have his mustache?" (It was subsequently featured on the cover of the Rolling Stone.) Flummoxed, irritated at being awakened and at her caller's assumption, she told me she replied, "Just a minute, I'll roll over and look."

We received in my FCC office something like 7000 letters regarding the program. The network informed me that they got more mail for that particular "Face the Nation" than for any other.

This was especially noteworthy, since I had noticed TV Guide listed the program for the wrong time. Thus, anyone who watched it saw it by accident. Indeed, one woman wrote me how pleased she was to have caught it. She was dusting her TV set when it accidentally went on, and there I was.

When I commented about this to one of the show's producers, she explained, "What you have to realize, Nick, is that you're not paranoid; you have real enemies." So I did.

So here are the excerpts from that program that involve the exchanges between Mike Wallace and myself (plus an opening and closing with CBS moderator, George Herman). (The third reporter was Richard Burgheim, of Time magazine.)

FACE THE NATION
CBS Television and Radio Networks
Sunday, September 14, 1969 -- 12:30-1:00 PM EDT
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Herman: Commissioner Johnson, you are noted for some very critical views about the television industry. Your organization, the Federal Communications Commission, is far older than television. It presided over the birth and growth of the industry. It licensed and regulated the television stations. If there is something wrong with television, what is wrong with the FCC?

Commissioner Johnson: I think the FCC suffers from the problems that confront many of what we call sub-governments in Washington DC: the virtual domination of its day-to-day activities by the very industries that it is supposed to regulate. The political power of the broadcasting industry is, in my judgment, unsurpassed by that of any other industry in America today. * * *

Mr. Herman: Commissioner Johnson, if the FCC is dominated by the industry, is there something wrong with the members of the FCC, or is it the setup?

Commissioner Johnson: No, I think it's a not uncommon phenomenon in this town. The concept of a sub-government Is very important to an understanding of how its decisions are really made in Washington. In most areas of decision-making, the power is really outside the domain of Congress or the president. It rests with a very small group of individuals who have an economic interest in the outcome. This would apply to areas of subsidy, of government contracts, with bestowal of monopoly rights as in broadcasting, setting of rates; any matter of that kind that involves tremendous economic interests.

And in that area of decision-making, generally the decisions are dominated by a group made up of the trade magazines; the trade associations; that segment of the Washington bar which represents the industry involved; the principal spokesman for the industry, those from the major companies making up the industry; the government agency that is involved in dispensing the economic largess; and the subcommittees and staff within Congress that is responsible for this area.

And this group tends to enjoy a symbiotic relationship: the members of the various components of the sub-government end up working for one another at one time or another. And, it's a long, long way from democratic control of political decision-making.* * *

Mr. Wallace: You were persuaded to stay, and now Dean Burch, who worked for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 campaign, Dean Burch, it is said, is going to be the new chairman of the FCC. And Nick Johnson, those who know him best say, is very unhappy about that. Why?

Commissioner Johnson: Well, I would make every effort to assume the best about any new appointee to the FCC, and endeavor to work well with him to the extent possible.

Mr. Wallace: But what's wrong with the Burch appointment, if indeed it comes, Commissioner Johnson?

Commissioner Johnson: Well, I wouldn't really comment on that. The president hasn't nominated anyone yet, and I'm not sure it would be appropriate then for me to comment on it. I think that the thing that everyone will be watching on whomever president Nixon does ultimately decide to choose, is once again, just how far the political power of the broadcasting industry has gone. Surely, President Nixon is very much aware of the kinds of problems that president Eisenhower got into during the 1950s with his FCC and the ex-party scandals at that time. He's very mindful of the, really, the outrage on the part of many Americans at the seeming business domination of the regulatory commissions. So that, if he ends up making appointments that principally serve the interests of the broadcasting industry, I think we can assume that he is doing so knowingly and fully mindful of the tremendous political price that he will pay for such an appointment, and that he is presumably doing so only because of a tremendous political power that this industry does have, not only over Congress but over the presidency itself.

For he is, after all, in the same position of any other elected official. The only way he can reach his constituency, the only way any elected official can reach his constituency, is by knocking on the broadcaster’s door and begging him for a little time. It is the broadcaster, after all, who controls what information the American people will receive, what candidates they will be permitted to view and to hear from, what issues they will be permitted to know about. And every elected official is very mindful of this power. The question is, to what extent is it also a power applicable to the presidency itself. And as I say, I think that will be tested as these appointments come up.* * *

Mr. Wallace: Have you never helped out, Commissioner, been consulted by or offered encouragement to any specific group that was trying to replace the current licensee of any station across the country?

Commissioner Johnson: In my judgment, it would be inappropriate for a Commissioner to, I don't know what your words were, but to represent in the way a lawyer might, any party before the commission during a hearing. We have express rules on this, and once a case is set, it's up to the parties to get counsel and take care of themselves. Prior to that time, my door is open as is that of other Commissioners. I try to answer my mail and answer my phone calls and see people who request an opportunity to visit with me. I talk with representatives of the broadcasting industry and the telephone company; I talk with representatives of public groups. I try to see as broad a cross spectrum of those people who want to see me at times when it is appropriate and it is possible.

Mr. Wallace: My words were "helped out, been consulted by or offered encouragement to" any specific group. In other words, did you help any group? For instance, at KRON-TV; did you talk – people are trying to get their license. Or KNBC in Los Angeles, or WMAL-TV here in Washington. There are specific groups that are trying to get those licenses. Have you offered any encouragement to or specific help to any of those groups at any time?

Commissioner Johnson: I think the fair answer to your question is no, to the extent that you are asking have I done anything more than I would have done or have done in the past for industry representatives or any other American citizen, and the answer to that clearly is no, I have not.* * *

Mr. Wallace: Would you like to see the FCC regulate or somebody regulate the prices that are paid for political broadcasts?

Commissioner Johnson: Well, that rather assumes, Mr. Wallace, that a price ought to be paid. In my judgment it is absolutely preposterous that in an industry that is earning, many stations well in excess of 100% return on depreciated capital investment, an industry that is using public property, the airwaves, an industry that is permitted to make private profit from the use of public property only in exchange for the use of that public property in the public interest, an industry that has an obligation to put on some public service programming and is doing very little of it, for that industry to hold up the elected public officials and make them pay to get time from public property in order to permit the people of this country to hear from their elected officials, it's – you know, the rationing of the time and then charging for them, it's kind of like a criminal stealing a woman's wedding band after he's raped her, you know. * * * [D]uring election time, I think this one-third of the time ought to be devoted to a discussion of public issues and candidates, yes.

Mr. Wallace: By both networks and local stations?

Commissioner Johnson: Yes. Now, you raised the question of what about the splinter parties. This has been adequately handled by every other civilized nation in the world. It's not impossible of solution here. In Great Britain, the proportion given to splinter candidates is roughly apportioned in terms of their vote. Broadcasters in this country complain that because of the equal time rule they are compelled to give all candidates time, and if only we'd suspend the equal time rule, they'd be willing to give more free time. The fact of the matter is that well over fifty percent of the broadcasters, as many as two-thirds in many areas, have not given free time when there were only two candidates.* * *

Mr. Wallace: Let's get to censorship, if we may, Commissioner. Recently you wrote – you said virtually the same thing again here today – you wrote in TV Guide that network officials are “keeping off the television screens anything,” your word, "they find inconsistent with their corporate profits or their personal philosophies." And you talk about "corporate tampering with the product of honest and capable journalists." "Sometimes," you say, "there is a deliberate alteration of content." Do you at genuinely believe that?

Commissioner Johnson: Yes, I genuinely believe that.

Mr. Wallace: What you're saying really, is that –

Commissioner Johnson: As do most former network newscasters who bothered to write books about the matter genuinely believe it. Edward R. Murrow said that the final and most crucial decisions in network news are made by top corporate management.

Mr. Wallace: Well, now, wait –

Commissioner Johnson: Fred friendly, who was former president of CBS news, said very much the same thing in Due To Circumstances Beyond Our Control. Robin McNeal, who was with NBC, in his book, People Machines, documented very much the same story. These are not imaginings of mine, Mr. Wallace. My only source of information, necessarily, is from those who are now in this business and are willing to talk, not for attribution, or those who have been in the business in the past and have written books about it.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Commissioner, you say, again, "Network officials keep off the screen anything they find inconsistent with their corporate profits or personal philosophies." You wrote it in TV Guide, next week's TV Guide. And I believe you have a copy of Dick Salant, who is the president of CBS News, his statement says, "in the eleven years I was corporate officer and the six years I've been president of CBS news, to my knowledge," and he is not an unknowledgeable man I think you'll agree, "there is no issue, no topic, no story that CBS News has ever been forbidden or instructed, directly or indirectly, to cover or not to cover by corporate management." Now –

Commissioner Johnson: Well, are you familiar with the inner-office memorandum that was published in Variety from CBS management to the news department on how coverage of the New York Yankees, a ball club owned by CBS, was to be handled by the news department?

Mr. Wallace: Candidly, I am not. But the word "anything"? And let's say that you were right one percent or five percent –

Commissioner Johnson: Edward R. Murrow said it. He said look at prime time television. He said 8:00 to 11:00; I think you could extend that time a little bit. He said, see how much you see there of relevance to what is going on in our society today. He quoted Stonewall Jackson as saying, "When the war breaks out, you draw your sword and throw away your scabbard." And here is television, rusting in its scabbard.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Johnson –

Commissioner Johnson: It's a sign of crisis.

Mr. Wallace: – aside from the New York Yankees, what are the issues that you think are in – have not been covered on television, on CBS news? How many times have George Herman or I, for instance, on CBS news, because I don't want to talk about the – been instructed to tamper with our product? You know what you're calling us when you say that?

Commissioner Johnson: I didn't call you anything. If you read the article carefully, you will see that I said that I would far rather leave the judgment as to what is going to be in America's marketplace of ideas to the creative writers and performers and journalists in this business, individuals from all sections of the United States, than to leave these decisions to committees of frightened financiers in New York City. * * *I would much rather, Mr. Wallace, that you were making those decisions on your own. I would much rather that you were deciding, Mr. Wallace, how much time in the evening schedule of CBS was going to be devoted to something that matters.

Mr. Wallace: You're not talking about timing in your article, Mr. Johnson; you're saying –

Commissioner Johnson: I am talking about time. I'm saying that one of the ways that you censor is by putting on so much tasteless gruel, by keeping America asleep, when important issues need to be discussed, when the people need to have information, and they watch television. Notice that – I think it was a week and a half before the ABM Senate vote, a Gallup poll revealed that sixty percent of the American people had either never heard of the ABM or didn't know enough about it to have a position on the issue.

Mr. Wallace: Commissioner –

Commissioner Johnson: I think it's rather interesting, if I can finish this point, that sixty percent of the American people also tell Elmer Roper that they get most of their information and opinion from television. Now, whether this happened to be the same sixty percent that was watching television that didn't know enough about the ABM to form an issue on it or not, I don't know. But I do know that the American people are woefully uninformed if they are dependent solely upon television news. Walter Cronkite said as much. And if you cannot find authority in Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly, who was Dick Salant’s predecessor, and Walter Cronkite, who’s now anchoring your evening news show, I don't know what authorities I can cite to you, although I can find them from other networks as well. The ABC executive who says we censor ourselves was also quoted in the pages of TV Guide.

Mr. Wallace: . . . You say, "Network officials are keeping off the television screens anything they find inconsistent with their corporate profits or personal philosophies." Now, those are your words.

Commissioner Johnson: Well, this was in part based upon CBS's experience with the Smothers Brothers, where I think it's demonstrable, in that instance, that they were not acting in terms of corporate profit, because the shareholders of CBS have suffered as a result of the cancellation of the Smothers Brother's Show. That was nothing but personal predilection.* * *

Mr. Herman: . . . In your article you complained about several different things that we've kept off the air. Information about cigarettes, cyclomates, black lung –

Commissioner Johnson: You want to talk about cigarettes?

Mr. Herman: I just want to say that I've done several stories on the air on each of those things, and I'm a little troubled to find in the twenty seconds we have left what I did wrong.

Commissioner Johnson: Well, I'll be happy to discuss the cigarette story with you in gruesome detail. There is a prime example of this industry's effort to take all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States the argument that they have the constitutional right to keep from the American people information about the health hazards of cigarettes. The only reason those anti-smoking spots are on the air is because they were ordered to be put on the air by the FCC over the protests of the broadcast industry.

# # #
Addendum, May 4: After writing this, I listened to a repeat of Diane Rehm's interview of Dan Rather. He’s just published a book, Rather Outspoken. He describes what happened, even to CBS News, after the years when I was complaining about corporate control of the networks in the 1960-70s (see "Face the Nation" excerpts, above), and after Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film, “Network.” Rather's take is, on the whole, not only totally confirming of what Chayefsky and I had predicted, described and complained about 30-40 years earlier, it also explains how concentration of control of mass media led to an acceleration of the abuses. See also, "Dan Rather," New York Times Topics; "Dan Rather," Wikipedia.org; and Dan Rather Reports on Facebook.