Mr. LISHMAN. In the case of the TV owned and operated stations, do you have different policies for different stations?

Mr. STANTON. No, sir. I take it you are addressing yourself to news. Mr. LISHMAN. To news and the more general subjects.

For example, as I understand it, there was 2 hours of filming of this alleged pot party and there was a showing only of 28 minutes on the telecast. When we attempted by subpena to get the outages, we were informed that they had been destroyed on or about November 1, 1967. Following receipt of that information, we contacted your various O. & O. stations throughout the country and we find that they generally keep the outages.

Was this an exceptional situation here?

Mr. STANTON. Not at all. In fact, I believe you will find that at each of the stations there are some things that are kept and some things that are not kept. I was not aware of the fact that we have a full library of everything we have ever taken in any one of our stations. We have a different policy, I might say, as far as CBS News is concerned in New York. But at the stations, we have never laid down any policy that they keep all of the outages. We do insist that there be a complete record of everything that goes on the air.

Mr. LISHMAN. Isn't it generally true in television broadcasting that the practice is to keep outages where you have a controversial news item?

Mr. STANTON. You would have to put that question, sir, to someone other than me, because I have no firsthand knowledge of that answer. Mr. LISHMAN. Is there someone in your organization that could answer that question?

Mr. STANTON. Perhaps one of my colleagues here. I will turn to Mr. Wood, who is head of our stations division, and see what he can contribute.

Mr. WOOD. Like Dr. Stanton, I would have no firsthand knowledge of that subject. There will be subsequent witnesses here who, I am sure, can provide that specific information to you.

Mr. STANTON. I would just like to say, Mr. Lishman, if we kept all the film that we exposed, we would have vaults the size of this room. Mr. LISHMAN. I am not asking about the keeping of all the film you expose. I am asking about the retention of film concerning the admittedly controversial subject which has been presented as news. Mr. STANTON. We did keep that film, Mr. Lishman, because we submitted it to you. We kept what was on the air, but we did not keep the outages.

Mr. LISHMAN. But isn't it customary, in order to be able to defend themselves against charges of lack of objectivity, for stations to retain the outages and thereby be able to demonstrate that in the editing processes there had been no bias or slanting of the news?

Mr. STANTON. No, sir; it is not customary.

Mr. LISHMAN. Do you mind if I refer to come telephonic reports we received from some of your wholly owned stations?

According to WCBS-TV, New York, such outages are maintained for at least 3 months.

According to WCAU-TV, such outages are retained for 2 to 3 weeks. According to KNOX, St. Louis, it is retained for 1 week, but never destroyed in less time.

As I pointed out, you people apparently destroyed this on the very day of the broadcast.

În KNXT, Los Angeles, the outages must remain permanently according to a CBS News directive which guides their disposition policy.

Mr. BROWN. Will the gentleman yield?

I am not sure I understand the word "outages," you are using. The CHAIRMAN. It is the part edited out and not put on the air. Mr. BROWN. My question is: Are you referring to the part that is edited out or that is put on the air as the part that is retained? Mr. LISHMAN. The part edited out.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have information on the part that is put on the air?

Mr. LISHMAN. That has been retained and a copy of it is in the committee's possession.

Mr. BROWN. I don't mean in this specific instance. I am asking with reference to the responses you received from the individual stations.

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Lishman if he could give us either now or later the names of the individuals with whom he talked?

Mr. BROWN. Let me pursue my question, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not interested in that at all, Mr. Brown. All we are interested in is this film and as to what happened to the part that was edited out, and as to whether other stations did the same thing, destroyed them. These were destroyed on that day, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. The question I am asking is whether Mr. Lishman's information refers to the retention of film, merely to the outages or also to news film generally.

The CHAIRMAN. No; we didn't even ask the question.

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Lishman, there is a special consideration here, and I think this is a question that you should properly put to the men who were directly associated with this broadcast. Because of the position that we took-and when I say "we," I am talking now about our news people in Chicago-in relation to the people who were interviewed, to give them protection, it would seem to me that we were responsible for making certain any outages were not in any way in a position where someone could get his hands on them and use them. You gentlemen have appeared on film, I am sure, where there have been slips or where something was done wrong, and those outages would not be something that we would keep that could be embarrassing to the individuals who made the slips, for example.

In a sense, what we are saying here is: Does a reporter keep his notebook and then compare the notes in his notebook with the piece he put in print? We stand by what we had on the air and that is the thing I think we should be judged on, and not what is on the cutting room floor. Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman yield for further pursuit of the concern I have in trying to understand this?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. BROWN. I am trying to determine whether you maintain all news films that are aired as a matter of course, and, if so, how long?

Mr. STANTON. We do not keep all news film that has ever been aired. We keep a transcript of all the audio material. We do not keep all the visual material.

Mr. BROWN. Coming to the main point of my question, my concern is this: Mr. Lishman's question related to the retention of outages of a controversial nature. It seems to me that in the nature of news, anything that is worthy of being on news is of some controversial nature. I can't understand this subtlety of whether you ought to keep something that is controversial that was on the news or something that isn't controversial that was the news, and which is controversial and which isn't controversial.

Mr. STANTON. What is controversial today may not be controversial tomorrow, and vice versa.

Mr. BROWN. Exactly. I would like to know how you decide what is controversial, where you retain the film or audio part that was aired, and what ought to be retained in clippings that don't get on the air.

Mr. STANTON. The determination of keeping the film does not hinge on whether it is controversial. It hinges on whether we think it may have some historical value.

Mr. BROWN. That is exactly what I was interested in. In other words, you don't retain it on the basis of its controversial nature.

In response to the question of whether you retain outages that are controversial the answer relates to whether or not they would be used at some later date or re-used, rather than the nature of the controversy that might flow from their being aired or not aired in the first place? Is that correct?

Mr. STANTON. I believe I agree with you and my answer is yes on that, if I understood fully what you said. But to go back to what Mr. Lishman asked me, I think the question concerns WBBM-TV's policy about outages in general, because it is that particular station that I think we should consider.

We have never issued any guidelines as to whether outages should be kept or not kept. We do insist that there be a record of what was on the air, because that, it seems to us, is the test of our conduct.

Mr. BROWN. As a matter of course, if the outages were usable in some other context or could be put together in another program they might be retained-but I gather they would not necessarily be retained simply because the program that was aired might be controversial. Is that correct?

Mr. STANTON. That is correct.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN Mr. Lishman will finish the questioning before we have any more questions. I want him to get through. I know you gentlemen have to get away.

Mr. Lishman, continue until you finish your questions.

Mr. LISHMAN. Dr. Stanton, did you see the program "Pot Party at a University"?

Mr. STANTON. I did.

Mr. LISHMAN When?

Mr. STANTON. I can look up the date in my records. I asked to see it as soon as I heard it was on the air. I cannot give you the exact time. Mr. LISHMAN. Did you have any discussions with anyone concerning the telecast of this program prior to November 1?

Mr. STANTON. I did not. My first knowledge of it was the wire that I reported a minute ago, the news wire.

Mr. LISHMAN. In connection with the investigations that were made by CBS, are there any written reports of such investigations?

Mr. STANTON. I think, Mr. Lishman, you have copies of all those reports.

Mr. LISHMAN. The internal investigations made by the local station manager; is that in writing?

Mr. STANTON. This is a question, sir, that I think should be put to the local manager. I had no knowledge of that, I am sorry to say. Mr. LISHMAN. Are the reports that we received from you all the reports on the investigations you have received?

Mr. STANTON. I think this is a question I would like to have answered by our counsel, because I cannot of my own knowledge answer that question.

The CHAIRMAN. Would he answer the question, for the record?

Mr. MINOW. I would say we have given the committee and the Commission everything except that which we believe to be in the lawyerclient confidential privilege.

Mr. LISHMAN. I would like to have the record note at this point that in the opinion of counsel the return of the subpena on CBS has not been fully complied with.

Mr. MINOW. Can you specify wherein?

Mr. LISHMAN. We would like to have specified what communications you say enjoy the privilege of an attorney-client relationship and whether that attorney-client relationship claim extends to House counsel as well as to outside counsel.

(The following communication was subsequently submitted:) LEIBMAN, WILLIAMS, BENNETT, BAIRD AND MINOW,

Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,

Chicago, Ill., July 3, 1968.

Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN STAGGERS: In your letter of May 15 you asked that we specify those communications described in the Subcommittee's subpoena of April 18, 1968, which are considered to be within the attorney-client privilege. On June 3, 1968, Mr. DeFranco responded to a part of your letter. This is in further response with respect to the other part of your letter.

Members of the CBS Law Department and members of our firm have been continuously involved in this matter since Northwestern University raised a question about the program. During the ensuing months certain documents have been prepared by or at the specific request of counsel. Such documents are (a) communications between counsel and employees of CBS, (b) communications among counsel, and (c) memoranda prepared by counsel for their own files. The purpose of such communications and memoranda was to enable counsel to advise the corporation of its legal rights and obligations and to prepare for pending and contemplated proceedings arising from the program.

We have reviewed the documents in question and have advised our client that such documents are within the attorney-client privilege and/or constitute the work product of counsel.

Very truly yours,

NEWTON N. MINOW.

Mr. LISHMAN. We wish to inquire further of some of the witnesses who told our investigators on November 17 that they would have to get clearance from the home office in New York before they could see the outages. Yet, you have told us that they were destroyed on November 1. Those outages were called for in the subpena. This is a very serious matter.

Mr. MINOW. Our witnesses are here and that question can be put to them.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. LISHMAN. I have one final question for Dr. Stanton: Do ratings play any part in news programing?

Mr. STANTON. No sir.

Mr. LISHMAN. Do you obtain special surveys as to a particular news program?

Mr. STANTON. We may from time to time.

Mr. LISHMAN. Of what use are they?

Mr. STANTON. Frequently, we are asked about the circulation of a particular broadcast, and I think it is incumbent upon management to know what kind of reactions the public is having to news broadcasts of a special nature.

Mr. LISHMAN. Are you familiar with the fact that in connection with this particular program "Pot Party at a University," you obtained, or WBBM-TV obtained, from ARB a special survey to measure the viewing audience in this particular time slot?

Mr. STANTON. I am not.

Mr. LISHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this material which we obtained by subpena from the Control Data Corp. incorporated in the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The document referred to follows:)

Mr. S. ARNOLD SMITH,

CONTROL DATA CORP., Rockville, Md., May 6, 1968.

Staff Attorney, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SMITH: Returned herewith is all the material available as demanded under the House of Representatives subpoena issued by the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and served on the American Research Bureau, Inc., on May 1, 1968. There was no written request by Station WBBM-TV for a special rating. The order for the service was taken over the telephone.

Two special surveys run coincide with the dates and times set forth in the subpoena. On November 2, 1967, ARB ran one survey from 10:00-10:30 P.M. and another from 10:30-11:00 P.M. These reports constitute all the data supplied WBBM-TV pursuant to their request for a special survey for the dates and times set forth in the subpoena, to the best of our knowledge and belief. Please acknowledge receipt of the demanded material. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

F. SHERWOOD LEWIS, Attorney.