police, and does it also give that licensee the right of having one of its employees go in to commit a crime under the guise of gathering news for the public? I want that answered by the FCC. And I want to know if it is in the public interest to allow a station to maintain a license and allow its employees to break the law against public policy in the State and in this Nation without some action being taken by the FCC. Thank you. Mr. KENEFICK. May I make an observation, Mr. Rogers? Mr. KENEFICK. May I make an observation? Mr. ROGERS. Yes; you may. Mr. KENEFICK. I would say this, that Mr. Brown and Mr. Moss earlier this afternoon-Mr. Spector's testimony suggested that perhaps some committee of the Congress should indeed look into this whole business of marihuana smoking among students and/or professors at universities in the United States. Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Well, excuse me. Go ahead and finish. Mr. KENEFICK. I would say this, that I would support that kind of action quite vigorously. Further, if out of our interchange over the past 2 days, that hearing would indeed result, I would think that our behavior in this instance was worth it. Mr. ROGERS. Let me say this, that the Congress was well aware of this problem before we ever conducted this hearing Mr. KENEFICK. I am aware of that. Mr. ROGERS (continuing). That this has been going on, many investigations going on. This committee itself has conducted hearings into the problem as well as other committees into the problem of marihuana in the colleges and everywhere, so that this is not new, nor did you bring this about, as much as I would like to give you credit for it. Mr. KENEFICK. I understand. If this were the catalyst, I should say, that would result in some meaningful program or action. Mr. ROGERS. I wish I could claim that it might be, but I inform you that the Congress has already begun that. Let me say that what I am concerned with is the lack of proper functioning of the Federal Communications Commission in allowing the licensees to carry on activity of this nature, which is, in effect, the breaking of the law, which I don't think this Congress ever intended any licensee of any broadcast spectrum to commit. Nor should they be renewed if such activity takes place. Thank you. Mr. Moss. Thank you, gentlemen. You are now excused. The committee will adjourn. The further schedule will be announced at a later date. Mr. MINOW. Mr. Chairman, we had requested earlier that we might make a comment or two, and we were advised to wait until the end. I would like to ask Mr. Jencks, who is general counsel of CBS, if you would permit a few minutes, to comment on some of the events of the day. Mr. Moss. That would be an extraordinary procedure. I have not seen a copy of your comments. Mr. MINOW. We don't have a copy. There is no copy. Mr. Moss. I have not summoned you or Mr. Jencks, nor has the committee, as witnesses before us. To the extent that you have testified, you have done so voluntarily. Mr. MINOW. All of us have voluntarily, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. I don't believe that at this time the committee is prepared to receive that statement. This is not the end of this inquiry. It is the end of this session and only that. Mr. MINOW. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest to you that one place where you and I agree is the public's right to know. We have asked for this public hearing, and we would like to be heard. Mr. Moss. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m. the committee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) DECEPTIVE PROGRAMING PRACTICES MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, pursuant to House Resolution 168, agreed to February 27, 1967, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Today we resume our hearings into the television program "Pot Party at a University," telecast by station WBBM-TV, Chicago, on November 1, 2, and 3, 1967. I will not repeat the opening statement made at the hearings on May 9, 1968. I will, however, reiterate, the four principal purposes of these hearings are: First, to ascertain whether WBBM-TV has violated the Communications Act of 1934. Second, to ascertain whether WBBM-TV also has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. Third, to ascertain whether each of these Commissions adequately administered the provisions in their organic statutes which pertained to the facts and circumstances involved in this matter. Fourth, to ascertain whether the pertinent statutes and regulations contain provisions adequate to protect the public interest in the light of the testimony and evidence to be received during the course of these proceedings. We welcome the presence here today of Chairman Hyde of the Federal Communications Commission, his fellow Commission members and members of the Commission staff. The testimony they are about to give will be of great assistance to the committee in accomplishing our four principal purposes. Before receiving testimony, I should like to enjoin all witnesses against stating the names of the participants in the pot party. Until the full committee authorizes the release of these names, and the testimony that some of them gave in executive session, the participants' names should not be mentioned. When it is necessary to refer to any of those individuals, I trust that each member of the subcommittee and each of the witnesses before us will refer to such individual as "a participant." Mr. Hyde, as Chairman, would you come forward? Do you have any statement to make in connection with this matter before we start to ask questions? TESTIMONY OF HON. ROSEL H. HYDE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ROBERT T. BARTLEY, COMMISSIONER; ROBERT E. LEE, COMMISSIONER; JAMES J. WADSWORTH, COMMISSIONER; KENNETH A. COX, COMMISSIONER; AND LEE LOEVINGER, COMMISSIONER; ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY GELLER, GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. HYDE. Chairman Staggers, I do have a brief statement of the procedures of the Commission in respect to this matter. I believe, sir, that it would be helpful to the committee if I could present it for that purpose. The CHAIRMAN. You may present it. Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, at this point would it be appropriate to have all members of the Commission come forward so that they may be at the table at the same time? The CHAIRMAN. I think it might be wise if they would have seats at the table. Mr. DINGELL. Also, Mr. Chairman, there is this matter of administering the oath to all witnesses, and I would assume that it would be appropriate to continue that practice. The CHAIRMAN. Would you gentlemen raise your right hands? 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. HYDE. I do. Mr. BARTLEY. I do. Mr. LEE. I do. Mr. WADSWORTH. I do. Mr. Cox. I do. Mr. LOEVINGER. I do. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer a brief statement on the Commission's policies in the area of your inquiry, and summarize its actions with respect to the case involving station WBBM-TV, Chicago. Members of our staff are present to provide more detailed information regarding the inquiry into the case. I should like to explain at the beginning here that what I propose to give is general policy matters and procedural matters as relates to this matter. I hope to avoid any discussion of the substantive issues regarding WBBM-TV. The application of this station for renewal of licenses is pending before the Commission and action has been deferred because of the inquiry which the Commission is making. We must, of course, maintain our position of objectivity until the matter has been handled in an appropriate adjudicatory manner. The Commission regards the accurate reporting of news as one of the basic responsibilities of a broadcast licensee. It regards deliberate distortion of news or the staging or faking of news events as practices wholly inconsistent with the obligation to operate in the public interest. Whenever the Commission receives a substantial allegation of such conduct, it makes inquiry into the facts underlying the allegation-but I should point out that our investigations may sometimes be limited in scope by lack of sufficient funds and personnel. The Commission receives |