AUDIENCE ESTIMATES BASED ON SAMPLING OF THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AND SUBURBAN TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Mr. LISHMAN. Of course, it is assumed that no participant in this program requested the special survey.

Mr. STANTON. I have no knowledge of that at all. I do not even know who the participants were.

Mr. LISHMAN. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions from the committee?

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have several.

I would like to direct this question to Mr. Stanton, if I could.

Mr. Stanton, I am advised that investigators from this subcommittee visited the station on the 17th of November and requested the outages. Yet, I am advised today, and at other times, that the outages were destroyed on the 1st of November.

Can you tell us, Dr. Stanton, when those outages were, in fact, destroyed?

Mr. STANTON. I cannot. But there are witnesses in this room, Mr. Dingell, who can answer that question.

Mr. DINGELL. I am sure there are.

I propose next this question: You advise that you saw some comments on the wire services regarding the fact that Northwestern University was raising questions about the staging of the "Pot Party" and certain other matters which caused you to make an inquiry into the question of the presentation of the "Pot Party."

Did you make any such inquiry which would involve a viewing by yourself or any person employed by the network of the outages? Mr. STANTON. No. The outages, sir; would have nothing to do with determining the question of whether it was staged.

Mr. DINGELL. Wouldn't the outages reveal rather clearly other matters which might determine the validity and actuality of the programing which was, in fact, presented on the air?

Mr. STANTON. I am sorry, but I do not follow your question.

Mr. DINGELL. Did you make any scrutiny of the programing involved in the "Pot Party" as a result of the notices received by you through the wire services?

Mr. STANTON. I have already said twice that I did.

Mr. DINGELL. Did that involve any scrutiny of the outages?

Mr. STANTON. No. I make my judgment on the basis of what the public sees, not what is on the floor.

Mr. DINGELL. You were advised that there was some controversy involving the programing, were you not, at least in the minds of persons who were raising questions?

Mr. STANTON. That was the sense of my investigation; yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Didn't this prompt a scrutiny of the outages as well as the programing, to ascertain this?

Mr. STANTON. It did not.

Mr. DINGELL. Doesn't it occur to you that a scrutiny of the outages might have given some evidence as to the bona fideness of the programing?

Mr. STANTON. If you can specify what those might be.

Mr. DINGELL. I don't think it is really necessary.

When you are making a scrutiny of programing, aren't you necessarily compelled to look not only at the portion of the program that appeared on the air but the portions of the program that were on the cutting room floor or in the library of the station?

Mr. STANTON. I make the judgment, sir, on the basis of what is on the air.

Mr. DINGELL. Let's just suppose

Mr. STANTON. In this particular instance, what I caused to have happen went way beyond looking at what was on the air. I wanted to be sure that we had as much information as we could get from our own people about how the broadcast was done.

Mr. DINGELL. Don't the outages constitute pretty good evidence of what was done?

Mr. STANTON. I must be missing something here because I do not know what you can get out of an outage.

Mr. DINGELL. The question, Doctor, is really a very simple one. If you are making a investigation, doesn't the scrutiny of the outages also give you good information as to the validity and bona fideness of the program that did appear on the air?

Mr. STANTON. I can only reiterate

Mr. DINGELL. I don't wish to engage in argument with you, but let's put it this way: Would you make the categorical statement to this committee that the outages would not reveal anything with regard to the bona fides of programing that did appear on the air?

Mr. STANTON. I think it would be reckless to say that nothing could come out of looking at outages. But I come back to the main question. If the charge was that it was staged

Mr. DINGELL. Doctor, I want to make one thing very clear to you. I am not charging anything. I am just trying to find out what the facts are. I want that to be very clear in your mind. If you have any other feelings at this time, I wish you would feel free to say them, so that we can discuss those matters.

Mr. STANTON. I don't know why you are so sensitive about this. I did not say you were charging me.

Mr. DINGELL. It appears to me that you are sensitive. I think we can inquire into these matters without questions being raised as to my sensitivity. I assure you I have none.

Mr. STANTON. I can say the same thing to you.

Mr. DINGELL. Very well. Let's proceed in that vein.

You don't feel that there is anything sufficiently worrisome in the information you received over the wire that would cause you to have scrutinized the outages. Is that your position?

Mr. STANTON. That is correct.

Mr. DINGELL. And you don't feel that the outages would have revealed anything that would have indicated to you whether or not the program was

Mr. STANTON. Now you are going back on the same question I answered twice before.

Mr. DINGELL. I wanted an answer.

Mr. STANTON. You have the answer.

Mr. DINGELL. I have the feeling I haven't gotten an answer. I may be in error.

Now, what about the information requested by the FCC? Has that been submitted to this committee?

Mr. STANTON. You will have to ask another witness that.

Mr. DINGELL. All right.

Had you made any scrutiny of the position of WBBM with regard to its ratings, either in news or in general programing, previous to the presentation of the "Pot Party"?

Mr. STANTON. Yes.

Mr. DINGELL. What was the position of WBBM with regard to its ratings previous to the staging of "Pot Party"?

Mr. STANTON. I have no firsthand knowledge of that.

Mr. DINGELL. Isn't this a matter that you watch with some care? Mr. STANTON. I watch it on a quarterly basis. I did not look at these figures before this broadcast.

Mr. DINGELL. I see. Could you advise us, if you please, of WBBM's ratings previous to the "Pot Party" and subsequent thereto? Mr. STANTON. If you will be more specific.

Mr. DINGELL. I am just asking you. I will accept such information as you submit to the committee.

Mr. STANTON. We will prepare a memorandum for you, certainly.
Mr. DINGELL. Just try to submit some information on this point.
What were the ratings before the "Pot Party"? Were they high?
Mr. STANTON. I do not have that information.

Mr. DINGELL. Will you submit that to the committee?
Mr. STANTON. Without any question.

(The information requested follows:)

ARB CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA RATINGS 1-WBBM-TV, 1967

1 A metropolitan area rating according to both ARB and NSI is the percentage of metropolitan area television households estimated to have been reached by each reported station during the reported time period. The ratings here shown are an average of the reported Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday ratings during each reported period. A reported period does not necessarily encompass a calendar month.

2 On Oct. 5, 1967, "The Big News" 10 p.m. broadcast began at approximately 10:24 p.m.

3 On Nov. 2, 1967, "The Big News" broadcast began at approximately 10:17 p.m. since the movie "Days of Wine and Roses" did not end until approximately that time. "The Big News" also did not begin until approximately 10:13 p.m. on Nov. 23.

6 p.m. news on Dec. 15, 1967, pre-empted by Republican Party response to President Johnson.

1 Footnote Nos. 1 through 4 relating to ARB Chicago metropolitan area ratings are equally applicable to this chart.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. May I ask this one thing, Dr. Stanton, which has been raised in the discussions?

I wish you would describe your procedures.

A complaint has been made that possibly the network, itself, does not supervise sufficiently its stations to demonstrate responsibility,

Do you understand what I mean by that? Do you supervise your stations so that you are a good licensee?

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Springer, I believe we are in a little bit of a bind here on nomenclature.

As far as affiliates are concerned, we have absolutely nothing to do with affiliates in terms of any part of their programing. But our company-owned stations, and I think that is what you are referring

to

Mr. SPRINGER. I am talking about wholly owned and operated. You are, in effect, a licensee.

Mr. STANTON. Absolutely.

Mr. SPRINGER. I am talking about the relation of the licensee, where there is more than one station. I don't know whether supervision is the correct word or not but it is the only word I can think of to convey what I mean.

Can you give us some idea of how you do supervise or control your stations so that you are a good licensee?

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Springer, we try to develop broad policies for the conduct of our stations. We try to get the best professional managers we can get. We try to get the best professional news heads that we can get. The day-to-day operations, the day-to-day implementation of those policies, are in the hands of the managers and the news heads in this particular situation.

Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to nail this down in 5 minutes, if I

can.

How often do either you or your operating vice president, whoever he may be, of CBS, meet, we will say, with Mr. Wood and Mr. Schneider to go over policy?

Mr. STANTON. If you are talking about the meetings of these two men or one or the other of them with the general managers of the stations, I think we ought to let either Mr. Schneider or Mr. Wood answer that.

Mr. SPRINGER. All right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I would say that Mr. Wood and I-I want to establish a relationship here. All broadcasting at CBS is my responsibility. Mr. Wood is in charge of the five owned television stations.

Mr. Wood and I communicate daily, and by daily I mean 7 days a week, not 5. I join Mr. Wood, I would say, as much as six to eight times a year in meeting with the general managers of the owned television stations. Mr. Wood can speak subsequently as to how many additional times per year he might join with the five station managers as a group, or he might further delineate the numbers of individual meetings that he has, either at the station location, in New York, or at other places where groups of broadcasters might be gathered together.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now, you have six or eight times you meet to establish policy.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I do six or eight times a year. Mr. Wood more.

Mr. SPRINGER. Then how many times would you talk with Mr. Wood as station manager of WBBM.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am not the station manager of WBBM.

On that question, I would have to ask Mr. Wood or the station manager of WBBM how many times they talk.