People assigned to American embassies should be encouraged to get out more. Mingle. Go to the universities and the coffee shops and see what's being said. Know what the buzz is about and when it changes.

Once you know that, you can shape your messages accordingly.

4. Don't treat bin Laden as an equal.

Bin Laden has drawn the United States onto battlefields that he has carefully chosen and prepared-the mountains of Afghanistan and the TV sets of Al Jazeera's audience. He sends a tape to Al Jazeera, and after a while we begin to follow him there. He speaks, we react.

This is powerful imagery, and people who are watching Al Jazeera can see it.
Don't follow him. Make him follow you.

And when you do speak of him, don't frame him in terms of being a head of state or a leader. Instead, make it clear that he is a law enforcement issue. Arabs and Muslims respect power, and they respect justice.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Romano.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROMANO, PRODUCER/WRITER

Mr. ROMANO. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is an honor, naturally, to be asked to appear here and to address you on how the entertainment industry might help this Nation with its urgent public diplomacy efforts. We in entertainment, especially those of us in TV, are so often blamed for what is wrong with the country that it is heartening to be asked to offer helpful suggestions.

I believe that we are quintessentially an American industry, and we are also a patriotic one, and I am confident in affirming a great willingness in the creative community of writers, directors, producers to serve our country by helping to communicate who we are and what we are to the world.

All of the good ideas we have begun to hear require calling on this artistic community, and I think that Hollywood really stands ready to answer that call. Ours is a great story, the President said the other night. Let's get it out there. I think there in are numerous ways in which we as professional storytellers can help accomplish that.

No one doubts the tremendous impact that ordinary, first-rate, dramatic television can have. Think of what Roots contributed to this country's sense of its African American citizens and their heritage. Think of what the famous example of the TV movie, The Burning Bed, did in 1984. It was about a battered wife. The day after it aired, literally hundreds of thousands of women came forward and said, this is my life, this is my problem.

Every week on great shows like The Practice or NYPD Blue or ER we deal in dramatic issues, and millions take sustenance when a show such as those takes on issues like alcoholism or AIDS or assisted suicide. Difficult issues in troubled times really are our stock in trade, and these are the skills we bring to bear now in the important cause of democracy in its present crisis.

As everyone has made clear in their comments, the idea that audiences in the Middle East and elsewhere take much of their ideas of who we are from Americans movies and TV, not produced for public diplomacy purposes, is really central here. I think it is a given, especially in closed societies where American visitors and travel to America are rare, that viewers tend to suppose they are getting a look at the reality of American life when they see those shows. Imagine thinking that you were understanding what Amer

ica is like by watching those sort of simple-minded action shows that sell so well abroad like Rush Hour II or Beretta or the primetime soap operas-which I am sure that many of you can affirm are one of the most common products that you will see in the Middle East-Falcon Crest and Dynasty. Whatever their merits or demerits as entertainment, imagine deriving your notion of America from what you see on that screen.

Yet the impact that these images have is arguably greater than any official description of ourselves and of our values that we offer through speeches or state visits. That is fantastically frightening, it seems to me.

What comes through to people in seeing those shows is an impression not of the humanity that we share with them but only of the plenty and prosperity of our lives. That is how they are looking at us-how we dress, what we own, the cars we drive. They see the fruits of our prosperity without seeing the systems of freedom and opportunity that underlie it, that produce it. They see the plenty without connecting it to the freedom. Images of plenty unaccompanied by such an understanding can and does breed envy, especially when that plenty seems fantastic and unattainable from their point of view, and we all know that envy easily turns into darker emotions. So it is terribly important what images we get out there.

Right now, we are entirely dependent on the market system for what they will see abroad. I am talking about television now. We do have Voice of America, but on the television front what they will see abroad is what sells abroad and what they will buy abroad, and it is frequently the lowest common denominator product.

It is in our country's interest to see to it that these programs aren't the only ones presented to viewers worldwide. No one is talking about getting in Hollywood's way in making or selling such shows, but let's make sure they are not all that people see in the new satellite and now cable technology that is spreading, indeed, into the Middle East itself.

In keeping with that need, I support especially Mr. Pattiz's suggestion of a 24-hour television transmission through these new technologies, everywhere in the world with our crisis spots in mind.

There are three kinds of programming that I personally would suggest we fill it with, and fill it we can. In the first place, we could select from the best of already existing shows and movies that our entertainment industry has produced and make sure they are seen abroad, whether or not they are purchased abroad.

Secondly, I think we can create some original programming. I say some because it is expensive, whereas the other doesn't seem to be necessarily terribly expensive, but we can do such dramatic, comedic, and historical presentations that are truly representative of our life.

Thirdly, and I think everyone has been heading in this direction, and this is really the most important imperative of the suggestions, we could and should work with foreign television makers, storytellers, writers, directors, assisting them to craft the kind of shows that will answer the questions their citizens, their audiences, have about America, to see and know America.

Let me take a moment more with each of these three programming areas. As for what we can draw from existing shows or movies, there are many that will and do show America in an inspiring light. By this, I don't mean that they praise America, but rather they give the world a look at us. The truth is on our side. If we only accomplish in the public diplomacy goals that you are talking about the drawing aside of the veil of willful misconstruction or of honest misunderstanding that stands in the way of people seeing what our life is like, if we only let them look at how we really are, we will have done a great deal.

I agree with Mr. Leslie that the crafting of messages is very difficult, or selling our philosophy or freedom can be very difficult, but giving them an honest and true look ought not to be difficult. We do that with our cameras every week with varying degrees of success. So we could cull the best of it-I have already mentioned The Practice, for instance, with its diverse cast, its appetite for controversial themes, its astute portrayal of our system of freedom under law. Think also of how useful it would be, for instance, for the world to see a movie like Steven Spielberg's Amistad, about the slaveship rebellion of 1836 and its legal aftermath.

In showing Amistad, we'd be saying that we are a Nation of people who, like you, like so many abroad have had to struggle to establish a way of life that is just and fair, and that we have fallen on our face a few times, but that underneath there is a system of government and of justice that enables us to right our course.

No image could be more attractive or effective than ones that admit our struggles, even our failings. That would be the case for showing old movies like The Grapes of Wrath or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Admittedly, and this seems to be terribly important, we should show programs that portray America's immigrant and ethnic experience, such as Gary Goldberg's Brooklyn Bridge. Not enough people in America saw that show. But the image of Americans in their transition, I think, is an important way of creating understanding and breaking beyond the Baywatch image of sunny homogeneous beach bunnies.

I think that is an important-that would be a step forward. I think a show like Third Watch, which is about New York policemen and firemen and really a picture of America's working class, would be great to send out there. They are not buying these shows? Give it to them for free. Let them have access to them, even if they are not on their own shopping list. It is, after all, our interest we'd be serving.

In the second category of original programming, consider a series on the Bill of Rights, 10 shows dramatizing each of the first ten amendments. As long as you don't ask writers to present canned views for content, not to dictate content, writers and producers and directors will come forward. The chance to make films that are truthful and telling and say something will be irresistible.

About the most important third way of providing content is that of working with TV makers abroad to create the shows about America that interest them. I think it is here that we will all be most positive. Imagine a broad-based program that invited them here, introducing them not only to the technical tools of our industry, but especially to its free and creative environment.

We all know that just the experience of working together will accomplish the people-to-people diplomacy that we are talking about, to some extent. Imagine if one speculates about possible content, a soap opera about an Arab American family, and show it facing challenges, show it facing prejudice. We aren't telling the truth unless we are showing the struggles.

We would by virtue of that very truthfulness, you see, be saying something that could make an immense difference right now, that there is a system called democracy, under which you can live freely and practice your religion, and at the same time pursue for yourself and your family those advantages of modernity and prosperity which truly are advantages. Good education, decent standards of health, a great chance at life for your son and your daughter. The changes that can be wrought by these ventures, these three programming concepts, will not be worked quickly, but I think their cumulative force would be immense. Thank you. Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Romano. [The prepared statement of Mr. Romano follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ROMANO, PRODUCER/WRITER

Honorable Chairman, honorable members of the committee

It's an honor to be asked to appear before you today, to address how the entertainment industry might assist the nation in its important, its urgent public diplomacy efforts. We in entertainment, and especially in TV, are so often blamed for what's wrong with the country that it's heartening to be called upon to offer helpful suggestions. We are after all a quintessentially American industry. It's my belief that we're a patriotic one, too—and I am confident in affirming a great willingness in the creative community of writers, actors, directors, to serve our country by helping it communicate who we are and what we are as a people to the world at large. "Ours is a great story," the President has said, “Let's get it out there.” I think there are numerous ways in which, as professional storytellers, we can help accomplish that.

Let me begin by reflecting upon the tremendous impact we do have upon people through the stories we tell and the images we make. Fred Fuchs, former president of American Zoetrope, put this most succinctly to me: "The media is the most powerful force for change in the world." To my mind, the essence of that force is not the technology of our media and information age, exhilarating as its capacities are: It's the emotional impact of story itself.

Everyone remembers how much the series "Roots" did, a few decades back, not only to inspire a great pride of heritage in African-Americans, but also to change how their white neighbors looked at them. Later, after the broadcast of the TV movie "The Burning Bed," about a battered wife, it was reported that hundreds of thousands of women came forward seeking help for themselves and their children. They saw their own lives mirrored in that fictional one, and it helped them find the courage and self-esteem to change. Similarly, today, when great dramatic shows such as "ER," or "NYPD Blue," or "The Practice" take on difficult themes, such as assisted suicide or alcoholism or AIDs, people in the millions take sustenance from the tough clarity, the sympathy, the intelligence with which these issues are engaged by Hollywood TV-makers.

In my own experience the power of our stories is essentially intimate. On a show of mine called "Class of '96," we did an episode on campus anti-Semitism, about holocaust-deniers and abusive humor aimed at Jewish students. The subject was not a ratings-getter, and I'm not sure how the advertisers felt, but we thought it was a story worth telling. It was written by a German-American, the director was a woman, and black, and the series was created by me, the grandson of Italian immigrants. Afterwards I received a call from one of our industry's most imposing executives, a man not known for easy displays of emotion. But I'll never forget the sound of his voice, choked with feeling, as he said, “As a Jew, I thank you." Difficult issues in troubled times are our stock in trade. The art of what we do consists in communicating, not mainly information about those issues, which can be found elsewhere— but the emotions involved, the individual lived life. That is where we have our greatest impact, and that's the craft we can bring to bear in the great cause of supporting our democracy in its current crisis.

That foreign audiences take much of their idea of who we are from our movies and TV is a given. Epecially in closed societies where American visitors and travel to America are rare, viewers can suppose they're getting a look at the reality of American life, no matter how outrageous or exaggerated the material is. Imagine trying to get an understanding of America from simple-minded action shows which are so popular everywhere, such as "Rush Hour II," or "Baretta," or from old primetime soap-operas like "Falcon Crest" or "Dynasty." And yet the impact these images have is arguably greater than the official description of ourselves and our values that we offer through speeches or state visits. What comes through to people abroad watching such shows is an impression, not of the humanity that we share with them, but only of the plenty and prosperity of our lives-how we dress, what we own, the cars we drive. They see the fruits of our prosperity without seeing the systems of freedom and opportunity that underlie it, that produce it. They see the plenty without connecting it to the freedom. Now, images of plenty, unaccompanied by understanding, can breed envy, especially when that plenty seems unattainable; and we all know that envy easily turns into darker emotions. So it's terribly important what images we get out there. Right now we are entirely dependent on the market system: What they'll see abroad is what sells abroad-which is often the lowest common-denominator product. And without restricting Hollywood's freedom to sell such shows, I think we can all agree on one thing: it is in our country's interest to see to it that these images aren't the only ones presented to audiences worldwide.

Having affirmed the entertainment industry's ability and willingness to be of help, let me pause here to note something that lies outside our abilities, and that is the creation and production of "propaganda." It's just not something we do well. At our best, our shows tend to show the diversity, complexity, the multi-voiced quality of American life, with its clash of viewpoints: that clash is the sound of a free society, and it's both the truest and the most attractive picture of ourselves we can provide.

What kinds of film and television programming can best promote America's image abroad, the image we'd like people to have? And when I say "the image we'd like them to have," that's equivalent to saying the "true" image, because the truth is very much on our side here. If in our efforts at public diplomacy we succeed only in drawing aside the veils of misrepresentation and of honest cultural misunderstanding that obscure our way of life, then we will have done a good deal.

It seems to me there are three kinds of programming we should seek to make available. In the first place, we should select the best of those already-existing shows and movies that are not being seen abroad. Secondly, I would create original programming-dramatic, comedic, historical—that is truly representative. Thirdlyand this is the most important and most imperative of my suggestions-we could work with foreign storytellers, writers, directors, television makers, assisting them to craft the kinds of shows that will show them what they and their fellow-citizens wish to see and know about America.

Let me take a moment with each of these categories. As for what we could draw from existing shows or movies, there are many that show America in a desireable light-and by this I don't mean that they "praise" America, but rather that they give the world a look at America as it really is, in light of what we value most. For instance, I have already mentioned "The Practice," with its diverse cast, its appetite for controversial themes, its astute portrayal of our system of freedom-under-law. Think also of how useful it would be for the world to see a movie like Steven Spielberg's "Amistad," about a rebellion on a slave ship in 1836 and its legal aftermath. We'd be saying that we're a nation of people who, like so many abroad, have had to struggle to establish a way of life that is just and fair, and that we've fallen on our face a few times, but that underneath there's a system of government and of justice that enables us to right our course. No image could be more attractive or effective than the ones that admit our struggles, even our failings. That would be the case for showing old movies like "The Grapes of Wrath," as well as the noble "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Let us also, and this seems to me terribly important, provide shows that treat America's immigrant and ethnic experience, like "Brooklyn Bridge." Or how about airing episodes of "Third Watch," about New York's firemen and cops? Think of how difficult it would be for America's detractors to claim that racism and prejudice are rampant and unopposed here, if their own people were running home to watch episodes of "Third Watch," half of whose heroic leads are Latino or black. This is crucial: If they're not buying a show like "The Practice," or "ER," let's give it to them for free. It's our own interest we'd be serving. In the category of original programming, consider a series on the Bill of Rights, dramatizing each of the first ten amendments. As long as we don't ask writers to present canned views, if we're content not to dictate content, we will find that writers and producers will themselves will propose such projects. The chance to make