12 years ago the Carnegie Commission on public broadcasting released a report that led to the present structure of public radio and television today it is you're the second report calling for a dramatic Revision in its structure and they are due to e reports from New York to my original attitude was but it was It was directed was the drafted by television people for televisions drafted by public television representatives for public television. It just didn't take account of the peculiar nature of the different Nature Republic radio of the commission is enormously impressed with the advances that have been made and both public radio and especially with the limited resources at its disposal. We felt that there are really delighted with the report. I think it's a marvelous report and who are the three things that can relight. I was most enthusiastic about our first of all no comment earlier remark. I think that they reported that is a good report. I think it's Structure holds up through the Congress that it would really improve the process by which. 12 years have elapsed since the Carnegie Commission on educational television recommended to strengthen system of television stations to be called public television in the intervening years public radio and television have become established as major American institutions this year larger audiences than ever before easily three times the size of those a dozen years ago will tune into a public radio or television station. This is also the year in which stations will be interconnected by satellite beginning another decade of technological change despite such successes public broadcasting continues to be plagued by many of the problems that faced a decade ago as well as new difficulties that have emerged as the system has grown with those words the Carnegie Commission on the future of public broadcasting introduces the reader to a 400-page report. The report is commonly referred to as Carnegie to to separate it from the first Carnegie study done 12 years ago that report preceded the creation of public radio and television. Carnegie to was 18 months and coming fun to totally by the Carnegie Corporation and prepared by a 17-member committee committee included representatives from the fields of Education the media and Private Industry. They met with over 200 people in an effort to assess the strong and weak points of public broadcasting here is a brief outline of their findings the committee reports that while public broadcasting has grown quickly and provides important alternatives to commercial broadcasting. The present system is fundamentally flawed a commission report that it is concerned that public broadcasting be organized in such a way. So that sensitive judgments that was regarding things like programming content can be freely made and creative activity freely carried out without what it calls destructive quarreling over whether the system is subservient to a variety of powerful forces, including the government to provide insulation from such pressures. The Carnegie commission recommends the creation of the public telecommunications trust the trust would be made up of nine members. Appointed by the president of the United States they would serve one nine year term and be responsible for providing protection for the public broadcasting system from what's called inappropriate interference in the area of program making the trust would also be responsible for seeing to it that public broadcasting keeps up with the latest technological developments in addition to creating the Telecommunications trust. They commission also calls for the creation of something called the program Services endowment. The endowment would be a 15-member organization working within the framework of the Telecommunications trust and almond wood in the words of Carnegie to provide a safe place for nurturing creative activity through funding of special project. That might not get funded elsewhere. It would provide artists and journalists with a freedom to take risks the atmosphere in which those risks could be taken will cost money recognizing that Carnegie to calls for an annual budget for American public broadcasting system of 1.2 billion dollars by 1985 half of those Bonds would come from the federal government. The federal support for individual stations would be in direct proportion to amounts raised locally. In other words. They would be matching grants the 1.2 billion dollar proposed budget for 1985 Compares with a 1977 budget of just under 482 million dollars for both radio and television the commission suggests that some of this new money for public radio and television come from a spectrum feed that is a tax on Commercial broadcasters commercial broadcasters wouldn't affect pay for the use of the airwaves the same way corporations pay a fee for mining minerals on public lands and also called for the creation of between 250 and 300 new public radio stations. This would the commission hopes result in improved National coverage for the public radio system in addition the Carnegie Report on Public Broadcasting cause for increased awareness of the educational needs of the listening and viewing audiences and it cost for a greater commitment to equal employment opportunities brought her access by minorities public. Involvement in station governance and more complete Financial disclosure on the part of the stations in the next hour. We will present reaction to the report from representatives of public broadcasting in our area. We will also hear from the president of National Public Radio about how he feels about the report and we'll hear from a member of Congress who may play an important role in determining how much of the kind of you to commission's recommendations are adopted by lawmakers. It is our hope that by presenting such discussion. We will provide some idea of what might be expected from public broadcasting in the coming years particularly if major tenants of Carnegie to are implemented perhaps know phrase in the Carnegie commission report raised more eyebrows than the one that said that public broadcasting in America while it is an essential service is fundamentally flawed Walter Heller former economic adviser to President Kennedy and Johnson and currently professor of Economics at the University of Minnesota was a member of the Carnegie to commission Heller took part in a recent discussion of the report with Bill Coleman president of Katy catv Twin Cities public television Bill Clinton president of Minnesota Public Radio and this reporter our discussion set it around the creation of the program Services endowment proposed by the commission, but we began by asking Professor Heller what kind of you two meant when it said public broadcasting is fundamentally flawed, how to contact the commission is enormously impressed with that have been made public television and the public radio and especially with the limited resources at its disposal a but we felt that there are the organization of the whole public broadcasting structure to open to Has demonstrated all too painfully and they next 10 years. We talked at the financial provision for Public Broadcasting is flawed in the sense that it's much too small that a lot of the problems are both public radio on public television. Publica burden in many ways most distressing and I can't tell you how many of the witnesses when we heard a couple hundred of them before the commission stress this that there has not been enough outlet for the creative talent in this country through either public television Republic brought our public and we try to set up a structure and system of funding in our recommendations. That would provide additional funds overcome the property of the system that would put the organization into a mold that was more resistant to more insulated from political pressures. And finally that the through the through the organization that we suggested to setting up that they that's the program endowment service the creative abilities of people in American drama and American public affairs, and so forth and documentary fraction and reduce our dependence on the British Imports some of what you needed to say or are you going to eat? I guess I'd like to take take that to the last part one bit further in and discuss for a few moments the the the functioning of the workings of a program selection committee or group of people a panel that would would would select programming would decide which programs were at least dispatch tour presented to the network and there was some criticism of that the team to me there was a criticism that said that journalists in the case of news and public affairs. There are the people who should be allowed to choose program since they know best and I wonder if you'd to respond to that criticism here is the program I'm down with service and I think perhaps we should understand that program service. Is it down? Which is designed to be sheltered sort of under the broad umbrella of the public Communications trust and would get its funds through a matching formula rather than getting them directly by Congressional appropriation. Now the thought is that local stations and they would generate programs. But the PSE would be in a position to generate them with what should I say a good deal more Independence and a good deal greater ability to take risks. And that's one thing that's terribly important than getting Innovative programming and also that it would be able to do documentaries and various kinds of public affairs programs. Under the thumb method work all day and occasionally questioning or awful Congress or corn occasionally question. So I don't quite understand the criticism. I'm sure they would have people advising them from the field of Journalism. I'm sure that they would not regard themselves as omniscient to and in that area and therefore I'm a little at a loss to understand the basis for adverse reaction Walter Bill Kling. I just spend some time talking with both television and radio managers about the newly proposed structure and it seems to me that it does really improve but that I was surprised by the criticism that if you have a sort of Blue Ribbon nominating panel picking the trustees for the trust and you have the trust in control of picking the trustees and staff the endowment. But this isn't the proper Democratic process and that really the Congressional oversight out to be involved that the full disclosure out to be involved in terms of those were being nominated for the attorney for the board of the trust. You specifically gone out of your way to take those Provisions out of the current structure and I'd be interested in seeing your reaction to those comments. Well, yeah. Well, it was felt are simply that the one that is the numbers of the trystin of the endowment not to be part of the Telecommunications industry. For the majority of those members, but it was felt that if you had full disclosure that it would qualify and members of the board. So that was a that was the motivation. They're kind of voluntary position. I do see you're very strong reaction to that and number of people saying that they really feel it's going to be necessary to try to change that provision. Yes. Well, is it in terms of the discussions within the commission I want to assure you that particularly as we discussed this whole question of the selection of members of the public. Couldn't. The last time I crossed the last T. You know, we had to just the express our best judgment and recognized that the in the public discussion in the discussion of days in the hole public broadcasting system and in the Congressional process, these things are found to be changed but possibly this full disclosure if that the amount of opposition but that was the only I thought there was to get the absolutely widest selection of most competent people willing to serve on these were terribly important bodies in the governance of the public broadcasting system. I honestly the person I was absolutely delighted with a report. I think it's a marvelous report and two are the three things that really I was most enthusiastic about our first of all the emphasis on the need for imaginative new creative programming because I really think that all the system has made all the system has made enormous progress since 1967. I really don't think it's as far has reached as far as it should and the direction to I've really Blockbuster creative Innovative programming and I think that one of the reasons it hasn't is because of the structure of the system itself and primarily in the area of a program decision-making where we have such a purely Democratic and decentralized system that it's very very difficult to get particularly. I risk taking a decision out of that system. So I'm delighted to see the provision for the endowment but I'm curious about how the endowment would work there is Little in the report itself nor have I been able to really take much clarification as to approximately how many people would you see working in the indominus? How is the endowment work Howard decisions be made about a program grants who would make those decisions views on the matter? I can assure you and I'm delighted to hear that you liked me the concept because I can assure you that help with her hours were spent by the commission on this whole question of what kind of an organization what kind of financing what kind of an approach can capitalize on the tremendous talents and public affairs and education and drama and comedy and so forth that we have at our disposal in this country, but we haven't had much access under this kind of lowest common denominator. Dominator system that has been in operation today 8 now having said that let me try to get a little more specific we did discuss that the very considerable lengths how the how much of a role of a board of the cell would play and how much in terms of for the staff until I knew something was that whoever is the director that organizations go to be the person to have adequate Staffing but that the general policies are going to have to be laid down in very close collaboration with this board. That would be the 4 to 15 people. That would be advising the Public Services. Those are three from public telecommunications the other 12 public telecommunications. And I think this is the kind of thing that we felt hesitant to start a for ordained to try to spell out or send any kind of a fixed pattern and we recognize recognize it as a real problem and felt that the had to work itself out and the course of development program Services you do. So you do see the Borat as a as a policy-making body. Is that correct? Not not a grant-making body not involved in the day-to-day operations or decisions of the staff you feel very strongly that they are not to be involved in the day-to-day decisions that has the general concept of a board. Channel to hear in the Twin Cities that they they're not part and parcel of the day-to-day operations, but they have to be important in setting the general tone and policies. And in this case, it's something as new as best. We talk to patient to take a very active role in setting at policy serve as a sounding board and of course help insulate and protect the director when he or she that we felt was also important that unless you take some risks and risk means sometimes losses and sometimes I think that they owe the organization were the cash bowling in that direction. So we think of it partly we think of the board party is inhalation partly is advisory partly and perhaps most importantly as policy-setting University of Minnesota and member of the Carnegie to commission will return to that discussion of the report between Heller Bill Coben of Katy catv and Bill playing at Minnesota Public Radio later in the program Congressman Lionel van deerlin represents part of Southern California in the US House of Representatives. One of his duties in the house is to chair the communication subcommittee van deerlin is seen as an important figure in the process that now I must be followed if any of the 400-page Carnegie report gets any farther than a library bookshelf van deerlin believes that the public broadcasting system in America has some serious basic problems not all of which can be solved with more money. Sum and substance of the commissioner recommendation is that there's really nothing wrong with public broadcasting that is generous infusion of more public funds would not really Rectify. I'm not sure that that's what this is. So are we considered some vulnerability in the present public broadcasting system, which unless they're dealt with probably mean that the that the it isn't going to improve much. I don't think there's any possibility that within the timeframe set by the commission of the federal government is going to be putting more than a half billion dollars a year in the public broadcasting. I think maybe it's time to free the hands of public broadcasting to develop its own funding sources in a way that have been denied it in the plant. Perhaps they should be permitted to develop a little bit more the approach to getting commercial assistance to go with a contribution to viewers. Do you mean in terms of Grants and that sort of thing from corporations? And I think our legislation will take this direction of providing them to be a little Freer and Going after some of the same money that commercial broadcasters rely upon Congress resolved what appears to be a difference between the or a conflict between on the one hand the vulnerability that you say that public broadcasting is susceptible to buy things as you say prior administrations and the commercial assistance getting involved in in doing a more commercial type programming which would at least in some people's minds involve more pressure from certain interest groups. Well, I wasn't thinking so much of commercial type programming when I said that they should be permitted to develop their sources of funding from the direction of commercial investors a little more what what public broadcasting always must be is the alternative the alternative to what's possible on Turn on radio and television which has its only measure in the rating system. Anytime public broadcasting begins to get ratings that are too high. I think we should be suspicious of whether it's providing that alternative at the same time. I surely hope they develop wide your audience who wants programs of excellent. That doesn't become just another another source for banal programming. What's going to happen to these recommendations? What might we expect to see in the next year or two? I think you've already seen the direction of at the we've taken in the public broadcasting Finance Act of 1978. We keep the authorized by the year 1982 220 million dollars a year or we have reduced the matching basis so that these stations will get $1 for every $2. They raised rather than every two and a half dollars support for Public Broadcasting is stronger in this legislation and it's been it's ever been. I think the federal participation as you know, it's only from the year 1967 or I guess 1969 by the time we got the Carnegie commission report of 1967 implemented and it's been it's been on the rise of financial support has been on. I never sent it in the last fiscal year. I think the amount to appropriated with a hundred and three million dollars in addition to the facilities grants that come from the Department of State. Aw, Congressman one last question. And that is where the subcommittee you chair be doing anything with the Carnegie to report this session of the public hearings that the going to the intended rewrite of the communications Act of 34 as you may know. I was very determined and allow Congress to provide an insulated funding for Public Broadcasting out of a spectrum used to either of us to be imposed on Commercial broadcasters and other commercial users of frequencies. Unfortunately from the OMB, which doesn't like more Highway trust fund type Account it true, of course the strong objection from the commercial broadcasters who I think rather foolishly quite a dish with supporting their competitors, but really the rank of public broadcasting itself has been only lukewarm am responding to this proposal 1. So this will not be a part of the new act but I do hope and I would expect that if we can raise that something like a hundred and fifty million dollars a year through the Spectrum used to be that the Congress will bear this in mind and continuing generous support of public broadcasting Congressman Lionel vanderlin Democratic California and chairman of the House communications subcommittee action by that subcommittee will have a definite effect on how much of the Carnegie report is implemented. The Carnegie Commission on the future of public broadcasting calls for an annual budget of 1.2 billion dollars by 1985 that is nearly triple the current annual budget assuming the Congress grants half that figure and stations are able to raise the matching funds. What will this greatly increased budget mean for Public Broadcasting Tom Keegan is director of administration at Minnesota Public Radio. He has been a good deal of his time lately studying the Carnegie to report you returned earlier this week from Chicago in a meeting of directors and managers of public radio and television stations from the Midwest. They gather to discuss Carnegie to and its ramifications. I asked Keegan to explain some of the implications of a greatly increased budget for individual stations. Essentially what they want to do is give the vast amount of funding directly to the stations both radio and television and allow the stations to form their own National or Regional groups, which would produce programs which would put together group buys of programs from either production centers that existed at one of the Stations of that group were from independent production centers the groups, which would pay for their own lobbying in the Congress for their own representation that sort of thing without having one particular central body like the Public Broadcasting Service on the television side or national public radio on the radio side for which there is such an incredible incentive for everybody to be a member of and use the program service for and then you automatically get representation and other functions that they provide Of course the counterbalance the funding of the station's the commission proposed that an amount equal to half of what the stations would get would go to a program endowment at the federal level which would be significantly insulated and would essentially be the risk money in the system figuring that the stations would be very cautious about what program they purchased would buy things that they knew would work but would be less likely to take risks and programs that they didn't think would they didn't know whether they would fly or not. They didn't know whether they would have enough public acceptance to justify their being broadcast on the airwaves. There was some concern on the part of the Carnegie commission that individual stations might take their share of the money and do their own programming rather than purchase programming that with a supplied to the mermaid available to them from San National level. You get any sense for whether or not the stations might do that in your discussions with people in Chicago? Well, in fact, I wasn't concerned about it. They expected that at least in public radio, which is by far the poor or medium. The end in the medium, which is more able to do their own local production at reasonable cost. They they expected public radio would in fact absorb a great deal of the additional funding that would come to them through this structure. And as one of the staff members there said Take the Money and Run television is less likely to do that because television is so expensive that television stations are almost forced in order to provide anywhere near the 18 hours. Let's say a day that they want to broadcast to provide programming for that. Of time. They have to cooperate with other television stations in order to buy programming radio is much less expensive and it's much easier to Produce radio programs even if they're not any good then it is to produce television programs. So the real concern of this group was not so much on the television side. In fact television in public broadcasting generally very much likes to Carnegie report. The concern on the radio side is if you provide funding directly to the stations at a hot at a very increase level, but don't guarantee. Buy some mechanism that there will be a consistent National program service and allow the stations just to decide on their own with their own checks and dollars was it it will be a national program service will the stations in fact fund a consistent high-quality National program service, or will they instead elect to spend all of their money or a great part of their money on increasing their staff salaries renewing their facilities things like that and because and radio is traditionally been a much poorer medium salaries a much lower facilities are much poor. There is a Carnegie in fact expecting people to take the money and run which means that we could see the end of national public radio as we know it now at least some possibility of that in the sense that I got was there is probably a funding level at which that would not happen. That is if there were if there were sufficient number of federal funds. In fact, everybody was comfortable with the funding level of Carnegie recommended saying at that funding level with that with that amount of money in the system, there would be enough leeway for the stations to say. Yes, we will buy a high-quality National program service, but the people that were there are realists and they know that Congress is just going to automatically follow a funding suggestion of an independent commission like the Carnegie commission and they are concerned that at significantly reduced funding levels that the that stations not by the high-quality National program service that that they would like know that might not be a problem if public radio can be a strong and viable medium without As strong a national program Service as it has but the general impression I get is is that the medium does need a good strong National program service such as provided by national public radio know mpr's Keegan. She's a great need for the continued operation of national public radio. The president of NPR understandably is wary of any proposal that might reduce its influence or do away with it. All together National Public Radio is President Frank mankiewicz. It was great. It was the drafted by television people for television was drafted by public television representatives for public television. It just didn't take account of the peculiar nature of the different Nature Republic radio. Get that made some assumptions that there is something called broadcasting and that therefore the same structure ought to suffice for public radio and public television. But of course as we know they are they are very different. It's just like I mean if it is commercial television had originally become the property of instead of let's say the industrial Giants who ran the radio RCA CBS and the others if it had become the property, let's say of the car manufacturers. Then they would be something today called public auto transportation and and nobody would try to fit the radio. It would if it had become the property of the Milling interest in the Minneapolis. Nobody would be assuming the radio and television where the same thing because they're both are run by the same people commercially. There has been an assumption that they are sort of the same in Carnegie looks like a lot of other people that didn't take the time to study the differences so that their proposals would have some validity if you want to keep the present television structure. I have very little to eat when they try to force radio made of the same structure. Can you give a specific example of how the commission ignored radio in favor of television? What is the price of ignoring integration of misconceiving? Provide for federal funds for example all to go to individual stationed in a formula based on how much money they can raise. Well when you have one radio station in a in a community that has perhaps 50 or 60 signals radio signals with three or four signals, or maybe the competition is not that the initially at least going to be a very equal. Secondly and press more crucially what it fails to take into account is the the structure that was created over the years me Richard Nixon forced to kind of Jerry built localism on the public television system, which makes no sense from a from a programming point of you comes along and says, let's do the same thing with the radio. It would set up another layer. It would create efficiencies and waste on the scale of public television is now trying to come back. It's a step backward for radio. So you don't buy the argument that says that Congress has already asked for 25% for radio programming that was an indication of crops that is inadequate and here comes along and says 10% will do just fine. Closer tonight. That is the proposal people who just don't understand public radio to both that oversee programming and funding would insulate public television and radio from political manipulation. Well in the first place public radio is already insulated mean there is an independent organization that does radio programming. It's called NPR, but we're not the weather side. Our board is not appointed by the president and nobody nobody tries to influences. But in the second place, I think all the talk about insulation and Carnegie devotes a great deal of time and a great deal of the emphasis to it is misplaced. I think it's It's a it's a discussion of people don't know anything about politics. If there isn't anyone in the Carnegie staff or whatever run for sheriff is Sam Rayburn used to say the proposals. I think would have been a great deal different but they're proposing an elaborate structure. That is the height of the week is somewhere five wise man the directors of the national foundation for the Humanities and the Arts in the secretary of the Smithsonian in the librarian of Congress in effect name the directors of this giant Enterprise that's going to operate with public money and they're not going to be required to disclose their finances and they're not held the Senate confirmation, but that's not insulation. That's just a tall tale spinning Nintendo and represents a distrust of the democratic process, which the Congress I'm sure would reject in a minute. When we started this conversation, you said that your attitude had changed somewhat in the past. What makes you say that? Congress is not disposed to undertake a radical reform of public broadcasting. They did it last year miss. The timing is unfortunate two years ago at a time when it was thought that the It would be a need for some restructuring on that Henny Henny new financing. Act was was due. But before they came out with their afford a new financing Act was adopted to make some serious changes in in broadcast to public broadcasting and Congress. I don't think is disposed at all to take that on again in addition to which they certainly no disposition to Triple the funding. I mean, that's an unfortunate. They Carnegie sort of got caught in The Proposition 13 switch. If anything public broadcasting is going to fight very hard to hold the funding. It had no idea that it'll go from 150 million to 550 million is just totally unrealistic. And even the Carnegie people themselves recognize that without the increased funding. The structure is is very destructive Frank mankiewicz, BC Rich McClure disagrees with mankiewicz when he says radio is different from television light comes to fundraising mclear is president of Northern Community radio station. Kaxe in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, McLaren believes machowicz is skepticism toward the Carnegie report reveals an attitude that could be potentially harmful to Public Radio. We can be for a while with television and I think so does Minnesota Public Radio people saying the president's national public radio and I was really shocked because I think radio can and does very successfully compete. Look at the WETA in Washington. I think that's scary acted too quickly and too negatively and at the local level working with negative repercussions of his reaction. And that's very unfortunate station. Like kaxe would dump programming from National Public Radio. You said most of its listeners are in rural areas and programs like NPR's All Things Considered are a major link to the outside world with clear said his initial reaction to Carnegie to was negative. You felt the proposal that federal dollars would have to be matched by cash raised locally would discriminate against small rural stations like the one he had but he says that attitude has changed. That are proposed by Carnegie. Even the fact that real stations won't get as much money because of direct match won't be as detrimental to us because we're going to get enough money and if we get enough money for money food everything with also I looked at the current cpb criteria and frankly isn't much of an incentive for us to raise money because when I go to write a fundraising for northern Minnesota and say well if you give us a complicated formula, and I really can't tell you until the end of the fiscal year. Dollar for every dollar fifty that we raised locally. I think would be a better incentive. We've tested the incentive system of the $10,000 way that we had to raise myself. A lot of our fundraising with foundations of Corporations is based around instead of challenge brand of the credit report if the levels of funding the turnagain vision are not generated operates, we don't have listener support paid. That is Twin Cities or Washington DC or Boston Spaceman. But if the levels of funding indicated by craigie or even less a 2/3 and was trying to give the case it's coming but I think we would greatly benefit by Pharell. And other sections of the credit you plan I feel that we cannot very well. For instance. It's a filleti's in fact in order to complete the radio system much of what needs to be completed is coverage in rural areas including a translator. Please see that the coverage of the entire United States at least. I was very pleased when I talked about new modes of accountability new modes of governance. They gave her three Endorsement really I think of the community Corporation single-purpose Corporation broadcasting as a model for future development of public radio. Both Community Corporation. When I felt that that endorsement was very positive to the other programs for radio to specifically developed a real stations or to provide to fill definitely needs that may be debited Gap that may exist in the matching formula, but they don't have the money for those programs is coming from the week Portsmouth report. And then also I feel that the Amount of money that they allocated the national program to download for radio, which is 18 million dollars isn't adequate for Camden Concrete in Grand Rapids, Minnesota at Sheldon Goldstein agrees with Richmond clear that Carnegie 2 is primarily a discussion piece Goldstein is a professor of speech and Communications at the University of Minnesota. He is also director of the University's media resources Center 12 years ago after the first Carnegie Report on Public Broadcasting came out Goldstein worked at the department of health education and Welfare implementing many of the studies recommendation. He sees Carnegie to as providing a more solid base on which to build a national public broadcasting system, then did Carnegie one and the public broadcasting act that followed it. I think perhaps one of the most significant parts of Carnegie to is that it it it provides a statutory base. 4 what they call the endowment or but what is is really something like a PBS or NPR kind of operation is I think it here you think it is important to note that the public broadcasting act. Look at public broadcasting act. There is no mention of organizations of that type. There is no statutory base for those for NPR or 4 or 4 PBS. They are creations of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And over the years some tensions have developed between the corporation and PBS in particular that really give rise that really I I think had their elderly a lot of reasons. One of the major reasons was this essentially this cluster of issues surrounding who should have control over programming. And if you look at the law that is it possible to interpret the law as saying that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has that responsibility. They're the only entity designated by Congress to exercise control over public broadcasting and that's the way many of the people at cpb at any rate interpreted and that's they were perhaps still are reluctant to give up that responsibility and indeed felt that they they if they did they would they would be acting contrary to the will of Congress on the other hand. You got PBS Which I was running a network making program judgement spelled it was essential that they have control over programming. Well this proposal by Carnegie to which if it ever if it in fact we're to become translated into into law as its proposed would clarify that situation because the endowment is they call it the program endowment would then have a statutory base? It would be a part of the established structure as established by Congress rather than a creation of what they call the trust or what but which is by description at least very similar to cpb Alan Goldstein director of media resources at the University of Minnesota. It will be several years before anyone will be able to say with any certainty whether the recommendations contained in Carnegie to wear useful and effective. We have this morning attempted to provide initial reaction to the reports. We've also tried to give some idea of what might be expected from the field of public broadcasting if major portions of Carnegie to are adopted with the time remaining let's return to the people. We began this program with Bill Coleman president of ktca Television Bill Clinton president of Minnesota Public Radio, and dr. Walter Heller a member of the Carnegie to commission and let's ask them for a summary of their thoughts and feelings on the landmark report of the Carnegie Commission on the future of public broadcasting. We begin with Bill Coleman of ktca. The real question is what to do about all this now. Is that the real question in my mind and also what what the timetable might be and how might these actions really in conjunction with other other things that are happening in the History that is the advance of Technology. How is all of this going to affect us? So there was last fall I public Telecommunications Act. There is now a second Carnegie report. Now. There is a rewrite of the of the of the broadcasting Act of 1934 are there is a rewrite of the rewrite they will be hearing is coming up there is system-wide planning and public television which involve every single manager in the system in terms of taking a look down the road to see what both national and local public television might look like in the in the years ahead and I guess my final comment is with all of this going on simultaneously are going to be many many changes which will be apparent to everyone listening to this program and all viewers of public broadcasting in the future and exactly what this medium is going to look like in 5 years just might be anybody's guess go clean. I continue to be impressed as I talk with the several members now of the Carnegie commission that you really have thoroughly analyzed the existing system and what is needed to improve the system and to bring it to bring the American public that kind of public broadcasting system. They have to have it's one of the few things does Westamerica seem to think we have the best of most things in the world. This is one of the few things we don't have the best of I think the Carnegie report if it can be adopted pretty much as written would bring us that kind of public broadcasting system and it's going to be a major joint effort. I'm afraid of all of those of us in the system at all. Those who use listen to watch the Public Broadcasting Service has to convince the Congress that this plan should be adopted, but I think we've got it A good song for step and I'm going to be anxiously watching for the next steps and Professor Heller looking backwards and looking forward to see incredible opportunities we have with no satellites and with laser beams and so forth to multiply the impact of public television and radio and particularly trying to get commission does not consider its job done all of us. Try to sell the commission's recommendations on the firing line as a case of real follow through and we've been delighted. Of course that President Carter has said that this important contribution the focal point for continuing work by government and by the system, it's gotten a good reception from Congressman vanderlin house Communications Department of Wildlife and I are in the process of putting this commission report together by and large. I think it does hold out the right kind of vision and I think we have a good chance of getting a fair amount of it. Stop that in the course of the next few years. Technical directors for this program has been Tom Keith and David Schneider the music of monteverdi and Scarlatti was performed by Walter Carlos and the well-tempered synthesizer. I'm rich diekman.