But these individual efforts, however praiseworthy, are also not nearly enough. Until television in all its forms-commercial, educational, public service-makes the necessary commitment toward overcoming its traditional pattern of ignoring people who are black-unless they're disturbing the peace-it will continue to fail the total society. As it seeks to combat racism, it must first purge itself of the racist mote in its own eye.

In the radio field, though there are now scores of stations which reap great profits by beaming their almost exclusively soul record programing into the Nation's black ghettos, few pay much attention to achieving a more balanced diet in order to serve needs other than the terpsichoric-despite the persistence of the popular myth, there are some black people who were not born with an innate compulsion to sing and dance.

Since all of the television stations and networks, and all but a bare few of the radio stations, are white owned and operated, the drastic need for stringent reform in these areas should be self-evident. It would seem imperative, therefore, that any nominee before this committee be required to demonstrate by past proven performance his interest in rectifying this pattern of indifference, exclusion, distortion, and sometimes even open hostility toward people who are black by radio and television broadcasters temporarily granted the use of the publicly owned-meaning black as well as white owned-airwaves.

Yet, to my knowledge, no one has asked Mr. Wells-concerning the radio properties in which he exercised managerial interest prior to his nomination-how many of the employees of those stations in Garden City and Topeka, Kans., Fairfield, Iowa and Joliet, Ill.—how many of these stations employees were nonwhites? I would like to have the committee ask Mr. Wells to supply the exact facts and figures. If, indeed, nonwhites have been employed, in what capacities and in what percentages in relation to white employees? Further, what programing efforts have these stations mounted to particularly reach, involve and represent the black communities in these areas?3 If the answers to these questions merely reflect the industrywide pattern of virtual noninvolvement with nonwhites, then I would have to take the position that Mr. Wells has failed to demonstrate by past proven performance and interest in rectifying this exclusionary pattern, even with stations in which he was an executive. How, then, can he be expected to suddenly generate overnight such an interest which can then be grandiloquently exercised throughout the entire broadcasting industry from a seat on the FCC?

The other nominee has been a practicing lawyer, political leader and an important aid to a major presidential nominee. These are, I am sure, distinguished and significant credits for an FCC nominee. I have yet to hear, however of any reference by Mr. Burch, or about him by anyone else, that he has in anyway demonstrated by past proven performance any interest or involvement whatsoever in rectifying these discriminatory and exclusionary patterns which exist in broadcasting or in any other area of American activity.

Mr. Burch is quoted as having taken great umbrage on October 15 to any suggestion that he, in any way, could be described as "racist," and far be it from me to dispute him here. Still, as the now all too dimly remembered Kerner Report tried to point out, much of the white racism it said characterized the whole of American society in

* Mr. Wells' answers are on p. 71.

a matter not of commission, but of omission. Thus, I would like to have this Senate committee ask Mr. Burch just what positive contribution he has tried to make toward creating more equitable racial justice, whether in broadcasting or in any other field.

Until further affirmative and convincing information is forthcoming concerning Mr. Burch, I would have to take the position that he, too, has failed to demonstrate by past proven performance his suitability for dealing with these vital imperatives as a member and, especially as Chairman, of the Federal Communications Commission.

I am tempted to wonder, as well why neither of these nominees has been asked his views on S. 2004, the bill to amend the Communications Act regarding consideration of applications for renewal of broadcase licenses. This bill, I submit, is of the greatest concern to informed and aware members of the black community. Of 6,297 radio stations in the United States, only seven are owned by blacks-less than one-tenth of 1 percent though the black population is over 12 percent. Of 863 television stations, not a single one has any substantial black ownership. As such, black people's only hope for obtaining a fairer share in these broadcasting franchises lies in legitimate and justified challenges to the renewal of licenses of stations which have long patterns of exclusion, indifference, distortion or hostility to the black community.

I offer for the record a copy of a telegram which was addressed to the chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee from a black businessman, William R. Hudgins, president of the Freedom National Bank in New York City, which very urgently makes this point.

(The telegram follows:)

Senator JOHN O. PASTORE,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C'.:

NEW YORK, N. Y., August 9, 1969.

Senate bill 2004 is matter of grave concern to minority businessmen and the black community. We strongly feel bill will seriously impede possibilities for minority businessmen to secure radio and TV licenses and will only serve to perpetuate and legitimatize existing discriminatory allocation of licenses. Facts indicate only seven black-owned radio stations out of 7,500. No black-owned TV stations. Given limited capital resources and restricted access to credit to credit possibility of purchasing radio/TV license on open market are restricted considering high purchase cost. Thus minority businessmen's only hope for securing license is through competitive applications. No renewal as revocations are rare. We approve S. 2004 and request opportunity to testify before committee. WILLIAM R. HUDGINS, President, Freedom National Bank.

It is the studied conclusion of some observers in the black community, therefore, that passage of S. 2004 would merely freeze the status quo more firmly than ever and make it all but impossible for black people to obtain needed control of broadcast franchises. It would seem not only appropos but essential to hear some expression of opinion from these nominees on the effect and consequence of S. 2004. Yet, neither nominee was asked about this bill at all when he was questioned by this committee. I would like to hear from both nominees on this extremely important matter.1

Still, if all of the foregoing were resolved to some favorable indication, there yet remains the matter of the past history of the FCC

4 The responses of the two nominees appear on pp. 70-73.

itself with relation to black membership or more accurately, with relation to the lack of black membership. In case anyone needs reminding, the clear message emanating from the black community, on all its various levels, is that we insist nowadays upon speaking for ourselves. That we are tired of having spokesmen either white or "Oreo" being appointed for us. That we want direct involvement in affairs which affect us from the bottom to the top-right up there where the basic policy and decisions are shaped and made. Thus, even in the best of circumstances, the nominations of Messrs. Burch and Wells stir on enthusiasm in black breasts. Not until a bona fide black man, sincerely and actively dedicated toward knowledgeably and adequately representing black people as well as whites-sits on the Federal Communications Commission, justice will not have been served.

This cry is not original with me, nor with Absalom Jordan, nor even with Whitney Young, the executive director of the National Urban League. Speaking before the National Association of Broadcasters last March 24 here in Washington, Mr. Young in effect accused the FCC of being hypocritical in its recent belated calls for greater integration in American broadcasting.

We would appreciate it a bit more. if the FCC itself decided to integrate, Mr. Young said. "Up to now we still haven't had a black person to be on the Federal Communications Commission and we would take a little more seriously some of their concern if they did."

Jack Gould, television columnist for the New York Times, commented favorably on Mr. Young's speech on March 30, which is also offered for the record.

Senator PASTORE. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. (The article follows:)

[From the New York Times, Mar. 30, 1969]

THE RIGHT MAN IN THE RIGHT PLACE

TELEVISION

WASHINGTON.-There was something socially eerie about most of last week's convention of the National Association of Broadcasters. The elder statesmen of radio and TV and the next generation of worriers over ratings heard what they wanted to hear about how mean and nasty Governmental regulatory proposals might be, how they were the inspired informers of the multitude, and how they were loved by the public. It was the broken record of countless NAB conventionsdesultory, self-centered and a bore. But the sense of being part of a world unto itself had a special vividness; the year 1969 seemed far away.

Above the din of hospitality suites, however, there arose one voice which penetrated the platitudes. It belonged to Whitney M. Young, Jr., executive director of the National Urban League, who jolted the broadcasters from their convention lethargy with an impromptu speech that was the proverbial breath of fresh air. What may or may not be the acceptance of Mr. Young in the black community is beyond this viewer's competence. But in the oppressive environment of the NAB convention he laid it on the line with a vigor and candor that suggested he may have been the right man in the right place. Mr. Young is not given to the technique of the screaming militant; he twists the stiletto with a subtlety and humor that make businessmen take heed.

Mr. Young's central theme had the virtue of pertinency conceivably even broader than he knew. While arguing for greater participation by blacks in broadcasting, his speech actually embraced all youth regardless of color. In the simplest of words, he noted that the younger generation is no longer impressed by the pompous talk of the establishment and that today's young people are a force

that TV cannot halt-any more than college campuses, schools or housing developments have been able to stop them. Youth, he said, is bringing a set of values to its life and the television medium must readjust its thinking to this fact as an act of self-interest and long-range survival.

Expedient materialism, affluence and suburban coziness were yesterday's dreams according to Mr. Young, and now youth wants a platform and an opportunity to have its moment on the center stage, including, if it wishes, denunciation of the Vietnam war or whatever.

Mr. Young advanced two novel and explicit suggestions: First, that the networks cut off affiliated stations with a pattern of racist programing and, second, that the Federal Communications Commission-the all-white regulatory agencybe integrated to include a black commissioner. A fundamental change in the mores of broadcasting, he said, was not debatable but inevitable. The record of increased black involvement in broadcasting has been only slightly more than tokenism; the broadcasting industry has not exerted itself beyond using occasional spot announcements with blacks or providing a random job here and there, such as a black newscaster to point to with excessive pride.

Mr. Young really was touching upon a volatile issue of greater moment. Television, to be blunt about it, is basically a medium with a mind closed to the swiftly moving currents of tomorrow. The networks and stations have erected an electronic wall around the status quo. The test of a communications medium, especially one dependent on survival through use of air waves that are public property, is a willingness and commitment to make its facilities available to persons other than employes under its direct supervision.

It so happens that there is an abundance of filmmakers, some untried but many with professional track records, who have ideas about the world, the nation and local communities. Their ranks include some of the most gifted craftsmen in Hollywood, weary beyond description of grinding out commercial potboilers and eager to lend their know-how to the depiction of the issues of the moment.

But the harsh fact of television life is that they are totally locked out of the TV medium. The Columbia Broadcasting System and the National Broadcasting Company have a flat rule against news documentaries or TV essays not prepared under their supervision. And the fragmentary leniency of the American Broadcasting Company is only slightly better. National Educational Television and the Public Broadcast Laboratory have somewhat more liberal rules but are inevitably handicapped by limitations of time.

Television takes refuge in the journalistic maxim that the editor, after all, must assume final responsibility for what is offered to the public. But in broadcasting, especially in independent and freelance filmmaking on some of the precise issues of interest to Mr. Young, the policy has been distorted. The obligation of an editor is not only to keep an eye on his own staff, but to provide a continuing avenue for expansion or dissent.

Mr. Young's lively speech was a case in point. He should not have been forced to deliver it before a few hundred broadcasters; it could have been an absorbing documentary deserving of full network circulation. There is not a reason in the world why TV executives should not open prime evening time to "letters to the editor" in a pictorial framework; the point could simply be made that such presentations by others are, in the opinion of the network, deserving of a hearing.

The sorely needed dialogue on current affairs cannot be fully meaningful if the content must be filtered through a handful of executives, be they in commercial or noncommercial TV. The dialogue can only be worthwhile if the door is truly open to a diversity of viewpoints and opinions that either may not have occurred to a network's editor or be alien to his personal philosophy. Reputable newspapers accept articles not because they necessarily agree with them, but because they are part of the passing scene.

In effect, Mr. Young was championing an open TV medium, free of the outmoded and rigid practies of the past. Although relegated to a secondary spot on the NAB convention program, he injected a spark of modernity and timelessness that left all who heard him with much to ponder.

Senator PASTORE. In addition, Mr. Hoving's July 25 letter on behalf of the NCCB Board of Trustees stressed the necessity for the appointment of a black FCC Commissioner.

If, however, there is need for further persuasion, let me refer to Mr. Burch's celebrated former associate, Senator Goldwater, who after having lost 96 percent of the black vote in the 1964 election, told the 1968

Republican National Convention that black people were justifiably disenchanted because "they want a piece of the action."

It seems to me--and the NCCB Board of Trustees concurs-that this noteworthy objective can best be served in this case by one of two actions: the voluntary withdrawal from nomination by either or both nominees, or by this committee and the Senate voting against confirmation of either or both nominees, and by the subsequent nomination and confirmation of at least one black member to the Federal Communications Commission.

With reference to Mr. Hudgins, I realize he is opposed to S. 2004, but we have a telegram here dated October 24, 1969, which reads as follows:

Ignore telegram opposing the appointment of Burch and Wells. Telegram was not authorized by me. My signature was used without my knowledge. William R. Hudgins, President, Freedom National Bank of New York.

(The disavowed telegram follows:)

JOHN PASTORE,

NEW YORK, N. Y., October 23, 1969.

Senate Confirmation Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Deplore confirmation of Burch and Wells to FCC. Black and minority groups underrepresented in broadcastings. Urge appointment of black and other minority members to FCC.

WILLIAM R. HUDGINS, President, Freedom National Bank of New York.

Mr. BRANCH. This is not the same telegram. The telegram I submitted has nothing to do with the nomination of Burch and Wells. Senator PASTORE. I know he is against S. 2004, but I think the record should be clear on that score.

Mr. Hart.

Senator HART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dean, would you react to the question that the chairman asked Mr. Branch. What about the business of rejecting, let us assume, two qualified white nominees in order that perhaps the executive would then follow with a black nominee? How do you feel about that?

Father DRINAN. I think if these two people had a background that they were sensitized to the Negro problem, to the feeling and the profound discontent, I would feel less strongly about it, but in view of the testimony that has been developed by Mr. Branch, it seems to me that if the Senator is serious about bringing interracial peace in this country, there is no alternative.

Senator HART. Mr. Branch, it would not be expected that you would know that in the record there have been addressed to the two nominees questions seeking to determine their attitude on media concentration, and of the one man who has been a licensee, his employment perhaps with respect to minority groups.

Thanks to the chairman of this subcommittee, questions I prepared on this subject have been addressed to them and the replies in writing have been received. Everyone will have to read those replies and make his own judgment with respect to their adequacy.

Mr. BRANCH. I would be very happy to see those, Senator Hart. I hope they will be made public.

Senator PASTORE. They will be made public.