and the Commission adopted a formal order designating an inquiry with subpena power to get this information.

Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman yield?

What specific controversy or what specific difference of opinion do you refer to?

Mr. RAY. The principal one, sir, was the allegation first by Northwestern University in a certain form that this affair had been staged, that CBS personnel had taken part in screening the sites where this pot party was to be held, that the party had not taken place on the campus at all, among other things.

CBS personnel, Mr. Missett, Mr. Ferrante, the news director, and Mr. Kenefick, the manager of WBBM-TV, all flatly denied all of these allegations. We then went around during our investigation in Chicago and talked to, we believe, all but one of the students who took part in this pot party. We talked to police officials in Evanston. We talked to university officials. We talked to everyone who might conceivably have any information on the subject. It developed that there was a flat contradiction between what one group of people said and what the CBS people said, so that we thought that the only way the Commission might get a resolution was by a formal inquiry.

Mr. LISHMAN. Mr. Ray, I would like to call your attention to testimony received here in open session, transcript page 347, where Congressman Rogers was interrogating Mr. Case, the sound man for WBBM, at this party. Mr. Case testified that he had witnessed the purchase of marihuana by Mr. Missett from one of the participants. He had signed a statement which was submitted to FCC by CBS. Mr. Rogers asked if he had told the FCC about Mr. Missett's purchase of the marihuana, and Mr. Case said:

No, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. Is there any reason why you didn't?

Mr. CASE. They never asked.

Mr. ROGERS. I think they asked you for a statement of what happened, didn't they?

Mr. CASE. They asked me questions and I answered the questions, and they wrote it up into a statement and I signed it.

Mr. ROGERS. But you didn't mention this sale of marihuana at all to the FCC? Mr. CASE. In my statement to the FCC it was in the form of questions and answers, and I answered questions and that question was never asked.

This again illustrates the, shall we say, unusual nature of having thirdhand information screened by a battery of lawyers before you get it.

Mr. RAY. That is true. We would much have preferred to have interviewed these people ourselves.

Mr. LISHMAN. To my mind inasmuch as there was the commission of a crime here, it would seem to be vital that the participants-that the people who were actually at the party-should be interrogated directly and not via the legal staff of CBS.

Mr. RAY. They would have been as soon as our inquiry-if our inquiry ever gets underway they will be.

Mr. ROGERS. May I interrupt if the gentleman would yield? When your investigators were there January 23 to, I believe you said, 31Mr. RAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS (continuing). Were they aware that your investigators were to be there? Was the station aware?

Mr. RAY. No; they were not aware that they were to be there. Under these circumstances we quite frequently do not tell the licensee that the people are coming.

Mr. ROGERS. When did you first make a request to interview Jack Missett?

Mr. RAY. I can't give you that date, Congressman. I do not have this. It was after the men got to Chicago. What they did, the procedure roughly followed here was as soon as they got there, they went out on the campus. They talked to Evanston police. They talked to the students that Evanston police told us that they believed were the participants in this party. They talked to university officials.

Then, having gotten the preliminary information, they went into WBBM and began talking to them. So that, let's see. Perhaps I can give you some dates here.

For example, Mr. Missett was not interviewed until January 29, although they got to Chicago on the 23d.

Mr. ROGERS. Had there been any discussions with the television station that investigators were in town and wanted to see some of the people?

Mr. RAY. I don't know when they first told them.

Mr. ROGERS. Your records don't reveal any contact?

Mr. RAY. The investigators themselves probably would know that, but I cannot tell you offhand, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. The investigators are not here, as I understand.

Mr. RAY. They are both out of town on other investigations. Our procedure normally in this case would be to first get as much information from independent sources as possible and then go into the

station.

Mr. ROGERS. So the only person interviewed in, from January 23 to January 31 was Jack Missett, the station manager, and the news director?

Mr. RAY. The station manager, the news director and Missett were all interviewed, yes.

Mr. ROGERS. Did you make any inquiry for the crew people?

Mr. RAY. Yes, our people asked to interview them and were informed that they were in southern Illinois jumping from town to town every day and would not be back for some little time. Whatever the period of time specified was longer than we could afford to devote to that phase of the inquiry. So that they were not back by the time our people returned to Washington.

Mr. ROGERS. You don't know what date they did come back?
Mr. RAY. I do not.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LISHMAN. Are you familiar with the fact that WBBM-TV refused to let representatives from Northwestern University preview the "Pot Party" in the first place?

Mr. RAY. I was informed this by Northwestern University people, yes.

Mr. LISHMAN. Are you also aware of the fact that at least one television editor on a Chicago newspaper was allowed the privilege of a preview?

Mr. RAY. That is what I was told by Northwestern University people.

Mr. LISHMAN. Do you know whether there is any policy of the FCC respecting the right of Northwestern University under these circumstances to insist on having an opportunity of a preview?

Mr. RAY. There is no such policy that I am aware of, sir. If you began introducing such a requirement, you would get into all kinds of situations.

Mr. LISHMAN. I am not advocating this. I am just inquiring if there is one.

Mr. RAY. No, there is none that I am aware of.

Mr. LISHMAN. Are you aware of the fact that this particular pot party had an impact on the rating of WBBM-TV for the particular time slot concerned?

Mr. RAY. I read the transcript of your hearing of, I believe, May 10, and I noted according to that testimony that after the first day's broadcast they stated that they had ordered a special one-night coincidental for the second night of the broadcast; yes.

Mr. LISHMAN. Did you check to ascertain what the impact was on the rating?

Mr. RAY. No, we have not.

Mr. LISHMAN. Would it surprise you to know that there was a shift of 18 rating points in favor of WBBM-TV, this station?

Mr. RAY. It would not surprise me in view of all the controversy and publicity that arose as a result of this thing.

Mr. LISHMAN. Would it surprise you to know that, whereas they had been 10 points below their nearest competing news competitor, that they rose eight points above it, apparently as a result of this pot party program?

Mr. RAY. I can conceive its happening, yes.

Mr. LISHMAN. But you haven't checked it?

Mr. RAY. No, sir.

Mr. LISHMAN. For your information we have, and we have the ARB ratings source sheet, and at a proper time you may look at it.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point it would be appropriate to ask: Did your investigators at any time discuss or did anyone at the FCC, to your knowledge, ever discuss the question of the entire program, the entire filming from which the program “Pot Party" was taken?

Mr. RAY. You mean discuss the outtakes?

Mr. DINGELL. The outtakes.

Mr. RAY. No, they did not discuss this. It was our plan to subpena them during a formal inquiry. I believe Mr. Stirmer will tell you that he notified CBS before the formal inquiry that we wished to make them a part of the inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. When was that notification given?

Mr. RAY. Mr. Stirmer would have to tell you that, sir. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. At this time I would like to insert into the record a résumé of the ratings as a result of this episode, before and after. They may be put in the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

"POT PARTY AT A UNIVERSITY"-ITS IMPACT UPON WBBM-TV's RATINGS

BROADCAST ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1967, IN 10/10:30
"BIG NEWS" PROGRAM

1. For the period September 27-October 24, 1967 ratings for the Thursday 10/11 PM period for WBBM-TV and its competitors were:

Source: ARB Television Audience Report, Chicago Television Audience Estimates, survey period Sept. 27 through Oct. 24, 1967, pp. 32 and 34.

2. ARB special telephone survey for the same hour (10/11 PM) on Thursday, November, 2, 1967 (when the "Pot Party" program was aired) showed:

Source: ARB audience estimates based on sampling of Chicago metropolitan and suburban telephone directories, prepared for WBBM-TV, Chicago, III., on Nov. 2, 1967.

This survey revealed that:

1. WBBM-TV overcame its 8-9 rating point deficit in the 10/10:30 period and took a decisive lead of 10 points over its nearest competitor (WMAQ), owned by NBC, a competitive jump of 18 rating points.

2. WBBM-TV overcame its 11 rating point deficit in the 10:30/11:00 period and took a decisive lead of 7 points over its nearest competitor, WMAQ,-a competitive jump of 18 rating points.

3. For the period November 1-November 28, 1967, effects of the "Pot Party," broadcast Thursdays during this rating period, were evident:

Source: ARB Television Audience Report, Chicago Television Audience Estimates, survey period Nov. 1 through 28 1967, pp. 32 and 34.

This survey revealed that:

1. WBBM-TV, which in the previous rating period was 8-9 rating points behind its nearest competitor closed the rating point gap to 4 points in the 10/10:15 time period and 5 points in the 10:15/10:30 quarter hour.

2. WBBM-TV improved its 10:30/10:45 and 10:45/11:00 rating position by 8 and 7 rating points respectively.

4. In this connection it is significant that following this spectacular rating surge of the "Big News" program, it was lengthened from 11⁄2 hour to one hour in March, 1963.

JUNE 13, 1968.

STAFF, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS.

Note. For purposes of above surveys, each rating point was equivalent to 77,151 persons. (Total TV Households in Chicago Metropolitan area were 2,204,300 and each rating point equaled 1% of that total. There are an average of 3.5 persons per TV Household.) All figures estimated.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would stand aside for the time being, sir, we would like to have Mr. Gilbert, if Mr. Gilbert is present, come forward.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in these proceedings is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. GILBERT. Í do.

TESTIMONY OF A. G. GILBERT, FCC FIELD ENGINEER, IN CHARGE OF DISTRICT 7, MIAMI, FLA.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gilbert, what is your position with the FCC? Mr. GILBERT. I am the engineer in charge of district 7, in Miami, Fla. Mr. LISHMAN. Did you receive instructions from Washington to contact the young man who was allegedly a participant in the "Pot Party at a University"?

Mr. GILBERT. I did.

Mr. LISHMAN. And did you first try to contact him in Miami? Mr. GILBERT. Yes, I did.

Mr. LISHMAN. You did not find him there?

Mr. GILBERT. I did not.

Mr. LISHMAN. Then did you subsequently find him in Nassau?
Mr. GILBERT. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. LISHMAN. Would you describe the conversation you had with this young man?

Mr. GILBERT. When I found him in Nassau, it was at a beach, and we sat down at a table and I gave him this list of questions that had been given to me by the Commission, mailed to me by the Commission.

He read the list partially and declined to sign it and stated at that time that I have to recollect. This was a rather disjointed conversation-stated that if and when a hearing was held or something to that effect, that if his name was kept confidential, or if the hearing was closed, that he would testify. In essence his objection to signing the list appeared to be the embarrassment it would cause his parents. Mr. LISHMAN. Was there any mention made of having to issue a subpena to get him to testify?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes. He mentioned something about he didn't have to testify, or they couldn't subpena him, and I pointed out the fact that I had a different impression about the subpena, if he was in the continental limits of the United States it was entirely possible that he could be subpenaed in the hearing for testimony.

Mr. LISHMAN. Was there any conversation about the fact that this young man was a radio-TV film major at Northwestern University? Mr. GILBERT. He mentioned the fact that he was interested in television or radio.

Mr. LISHMAN. And is it correct that after he had refused to sign the list of questions that you told him that if he ever tried to get a license as a radio or television broadcaster it would have to be approved by the FCC and conceivably he would have great difficulty in obtaining this; that if he signed the questions, he would be considered a friendly witness?

Mr. GILBERT. That is not correct. The answer is no. No threats were made at all or inducements made to get him to sign. I was told if he