Conversation 514-015

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Spread it a little bit.

Spread it.

Oh, yeah.

That's what it is.

Yes.

Okay.

For your time in the house, we thought we'd get you out of it.

He's in the dark.

He's in Washington.

He strikes me every time.

Oh, my God.

I saw that.

He's in the dark.

Oh, God.

This morning, this morning, this morning, that's nice.

It's one of the three of your duties.

Oh, what's that do?

Well, we let you know.

I don't know.

It's not worse than usual.

Yeah.

There's a rocket in the middle of the picture.

He's still talking to us.

He smiles at all of us.

But he has a great time.

He'll take you to the doctor.

He'll take you to the car.

He'll take you to the doctor.

I hesitate to speculate.

They're coordinated to just kind of increase the pressure.

And the fire, the police already had theirs.

Yeah.

There's a fire over there.

These are not the shooter.

The kind of misdemeanor is where we ended up.

I don't know how many bridge standards there are, but it certainly doesn't.

And I know, I saw a picture of a town this morning, huge numbers of cars, you can imagine what's through the damn bridge.

And we all heard, when you ride along, there is the bridge with the boats, you know, there was a traffic backdrop for miles on end in the case.

What do you think of the foundation?

Or it takes a quiz route for all of us to go through the boarding history of New York.

By an unusual route, it's just 18 minutes from Rockefeller Center to the boarding.

Fastest trip ever.

Across the Queensborough Bridge and then the side streets.

Just staying off the Tri-Burl and Grand Central.

And staying off Grand Central.

Well, we have to do this.

There's a lot of teams going around.

All night long, we had half the bridges closed and open to traffic, appearing in the dark.

And some people, just one day out.

We were discussing this before we came in, how New Yorkers respond to this kind of stuff.

So look, our attendance was not down yet.

People came to work.

I think that's great.

Are you hurt?

I'm sorry.

Well, I can say that we, that I wanted to talk to you about it in this room, because we have very serious issues.

Yes, we see that there are things that we can't raise, but I can do it.

I'm sure that we can do this on the business side.

We can raise it with you.

We'll see whether we're all in a whole group, whether we can do it in this case in two places.

There is a lot that we can do.

Let me start with a question that I've been on for a year or so this evening about cable television.

I've had previous conversations that were, and probably this is because of some interesting numbers, that the KCC people are the ones who are most concerned about that.

They think this is going to have enormous effect on the, just enormous effect on

Since I've seen both of the other actors, I have been in Hollywood with most of the other people.

But what is your position on that?

I think probably this is what I can get.

The question that I think both of the others, they see much more prominency in both ways.

But to be sure that this decision, as far as the government was concerned, was one that was very carefully considered, because this was going to happen.

We haven't had a rush.

They have.

We have a rush.

It is a unit of honor.

It will subtract some of the audiences that the television has picked up this summer, and some subtract from our pay-per-view.

So you'll get your attributes on the same CD.

And I think that they were, they were, they were muted.

If you see it over and over again, when the new foreign content now enters the system, which in legal terms, administrative and regulatory terms is not geared for it, there's a great deal of confusion.

and a great deal of delay, and having the system, the regulatory and legal system absorbed, I think that's a period where he's satisfied with the government agencies.

I don't think they know what they're doing about it, but needless to say, nobody else.

That's not what the problem is.

Now, I think we would be calculated against anything that's unfair to CETV as competitive with broadcasting as we have it now.

but part of being able to coexist with us, we think, is the future.

It is a supplementary system, a system which will have frank analysis that deal with the question.

Oh, yes.

Yes, sir.

I want to point out, Mr. President, that I don't think it's a technical or legalistic point.

CACD was born and now largely lives on television programs in which other people have proprietary interests, which are picked up by CACD systems

and disperse it without any economic return for the people who own the programs or created the programs.

That is a contrary question.

And there is something quite inequitable about a business being created as a power site and another business outdated.

I think we're going now through the throes of accommodation and I would expect that in the next two or three years there will be legislation that deals

properly and accurately.

There's a complex situation because the copyright terms

All the programs that were created and then broadcast to be viewed by people in a certain area, sometimes to raise a new vision that a CAGD system may help accomplish the original purpose.

But when it goes beyond that and transports programs two or three hundred miles away, that is eating into the economic structure of business on a very big piece.

There's a load of ATVs riding piggybacks on the C-ATV, which is built up through carrying these free signals, and then there might be a dependent force to withdraw one program

But it's very difficult to assess that.

Of course, another thing I have to think about is that the breakthroughs that take place in your art, who knows what it's going to be you're doing in the future.

I was talking to a good lad yesterday.

I heard a couple of ways to cover the horror of the end of The Genius Kid.

And at the present time, they did fantastic pictures.

Here's an entirely new, where somebody sitting in Washington will be able instantly to look at social media.

John, that's what I was going to say.

Oh, this is only an institutional question.

No.

This is a research question.

I can't explain it to you.

I mean, I keep going with it.

Nobody understands it.

Just saying what's happening.

They're saying that, of course, that is enormously important in terms of something that arms control can see.

Arms control can only be by either of the great powers or any of the three great powers can only agree to if there is some sort of verification.

Now, with regard to the Soviet, Chinese, and international trade systems, they will not allow that verification on the spot, which, of course, could give you some degree of vulnerability.

But anyway,

to have a missile, for example, to show you how important it would be to have it as far as quickly as possible.

You may remember last summer we had a flight with the Soviets, and we were going to ask them to build the missile sites in the canal, and it was an intelligence strike.

Really good, really good.

They said, no, we're not.

The Israelis, who, of course, are the best optologists in the world, they said they were.

Well, three years later, when we got the next set of pictures, they were, they had arrived, they had started three years before.

This thing, the plan, that's what I'm suggesting we go through.

I'm assuming that you had it.

Well, that's my digression.

It seems to me that in your field, who knows what's going to come along.

I mean, it doesn't mean that you're going to look back and say, don't sell your NBC stock.

It doesn't count.

No, you look back 25 years and you're not going to listen to what's happening now.

And so, most futures I know are going to bring something.

And you cannot, you cannot set your base and

Well, that's how we do it, I'll tell you.

If there's a market for it, and if there's even a basis for it, it is going to happen.

If it provides a service that a lot of people want to pay money for.

Well, that's a...

I cannot be right to say that.

We're aware of that.

I suspect that she was present at the meeting.

At the meeting with Clara.

We did have some discussion, all right?

We did.

I think we were very...

I wish we had, sir.

I always say this because of my business orientation.

I'm more biased, more and more biased.

for the system with a very strong application without the influences and the standards of it.

You start down the road.

Once you start down the road, the, uh, uh, the power of the, uh, of, uh, the internal field of, uh, you start down the road, you talk about censorship, repression, and so forth, and the liberty and the direction of that people.

Let me hear your views on it.

How seriously do you think the problem is, or are you concerned about it?

What is it that you have to do?

I don't mean to pre-practice records before they occur.

I indicate only my concern that as you move into this kind of field, with the whole way too far, especially these days, that I would have...

a great deal of, a great deal of, about allowing this to, to move too far, knowing that, knowing that, that inevitably, if you start walking this path, you say, well, that's bad, and then you go on for the whole business is bad, and why do you have advertising at all, and why don't you just go for public stuff, and that's it, and then you're finished.

I mean, I think, good program, but,

Do you want to talk to that one?

Yes, very much so, because you really have testified.

Well, it's worth talking about the position I'm sitting here to be in, what the position of the government is, and so forth.

It's been two months since I saw the CBS people.

They raised me.

Fine.

You really have testified on the thing that, had you asked us what is our one greatest concern, we would have said that, not just the FTC investigation, but what it symbolizes and signifies.

I spread it over all areas of America, not just here.

Your branch here, Congress, and throughout the city, and throughout the country.

And that is the networks that they are successful.

Why don't we have just a general plan that exists that encourages people to, on all levels, perhaps in the Justice Department, in a fairly snaggish community,

All of the many things that are done simply say, let's knock it out of the list.

Let's see the big boys suck.

We think broadcasting systems, which we have now, is the greatest in the world for Americans.

As you said, you go abroad and look at it on television.

You come back home and you get it.

sort of actually see it on the commercial side.

I mean, yes, we have a standard now, and it has a real break from yesterday.

So do Japanese media.

But we have a standard, right?

The greatest broadcasting system for America through the competitive system.

Competition breaks the fault.

Of course, we've got to correct the much-needed.

But throughout the regulatory agencies, there is a sort of failure of that.

Well, and that works with the staff that have a certification.

disappear as soon as he's a product.

We don't need to be in that business.

The networks don't need all the time to take half the way, half the hour we come from and give it to somebody else to see what that does.

We're primetime.

That hasn't been done.

I mean, you're talking about, you're hearing about the situation, and that's easy to, you're not talking about these political problems.

This is the question where, what was this when the play raised, the prime time policy, I don't know, but there's, it says out there that there is, one of the reasons, of course, some, some college shelter was tried, because it's

Apparently, the X for equal time because of the... What is... Nobody can be serious about that.

Oh, yes.

Well, part of the second problem, part of the second problem is very briefly is an FCC rule that says instead of permitting stations to take three and a half hours to network each night, they may take only three hours.

The other half hour must be brought up by the station off from independent producers.

And we think that has resulted in a

in lasting equality programs.

And I think the conservative community will take a couple years to straighten out.

We're not asking you to dis-understand.

That was the motion, Richard.

My position, let me say, I think we are agreeing on everything, but there might be a point in time where that's not going to be.

I have a very strong position on that.

We're incredibly part of the network.

very difficult to push.

They need to make an absolutely compelling case, and I think, Chelsea, you agree they made it through.

As far as my case is concerned, right?

Yes, sir.

I think we're moving in the right direction on that.

Well, tell us what else it's saying.

The FCC has, of course, would have some difficulty reversing the media right away.

Right.

I think people are lying.

I know archaeologists, but they have views, and they're being reasonably liberal, I think, choosing the way.

We want to save a lot of things, but I have a hell of a lot of interest in saving the American movie industry, the French movie industry, or the Italian movie industry.

It was their $50 million film production.

That's the network.

That's how we push it.

We've got to get at that one from the standpoint of the other, that of the spectrum.

I suppose you are rich, the movie studios are.

The two of them made money last year.

That's right.

We're not that rich.

We had a terrible first quarter.

We are not supposed to be involved in that.

gather evidence that leads towards some kind of study of the influence of advertising, television advertising on people.

Not on whether it's done legally, not on whether it's done fairly and properly according to the FTC term, but on the influence on people's minds of television advertising.

Tom, you've been involved in this.

I said, is it whether or not they appeal to

Emotional motivations.

I have a business orientation, which I would have to admit, but what is the action on the other side?

This is simply an inquiry to develop facts to see if television advertising isn't different from all other advertising.

It's more restrictive rules that will have to be applied to television advertising.

For example, they say, well, we have always allowed a certain amount of pottery in the sale of products, and it's part of our American economic system.

In print ads, that's all right.

But in television ads, maybe we've got to do away with the puffer.

Because the network, you have to have a higher... Well, maybe we have to bring it back down so that the only advertising that you can have on television is a simple fact advertising about the product.

And not allow any kind of appeal...

So, uh, we can't make it with commercials, but we're going to look it up.

This is news, though.

Very nuanced areas.

We have sexual-hospital effects.

I sat and talked to some of these people in Boston.

You know, it doesn't get brand names and everything else.

You know, they eventually did.

That's why he had a brand name.

Now the real question, though, is whether, on the other hand,

On the other hand, all of you would agree, I'm sure, that the agenda has to be honest.

There's nothing to do with it.

We have 37 people working full-time to make sure the claims are substantiated, that people look... We work at it very diligently.

We think that's the way to show that.

Who are they, sir?

They don't know what the network is.

They don't know what it is.

They're looking for something.

It's not an inquiry into misleading advertising.

Or advertising, at least not to be based.

But advertising has an emotional appeal rather than a wholly irrational appeal.

Julie, isn't it also nice to say that it makes people buy it and get away with it?

Well, it is nice to hear that.

Well, I was going to talk to Eric, and I said, I don't care about that.

Go ahead, go ahead.

Doesn't, you know, doesn't think that Jerry goes to the states on the 30s and things like that?

Right.

Are you sure he didn't?

Yeah, but now, you know, consider it.

Consider it.

Yeah, sure.

A little time in the morning, many years, and all of a sudden, the mind will change.

It's going to fly off.

If you have things like the flat-out children's court that you got, or the tribes that you were going in, which is really sort of built or made up from people who had that preconceived notion going in and are reporting to you some preconceived notions about that.

Now, we agree, first of all, children's programs need to be improved, and we are trying very hard to do that.

And we are working with Lee Birch, who, you know, is a fireman, and we always agree with what he says.

actions of the commission but we are working with him trying to see what we can do to increase and improve our children's program but that is all these things i was about to say i don't feel i'm making my point very well if you say you are business oriented i think you are i think the kind of plan that exists in our business now is one that you would not personally approve or you're partying and that is a plan that says

Let's see what we can do with that work.

We call it a day.

Well, let's see what we can do to television because it is effective.

And the more successful or effective you are, the more you can take it down, the more work you have left.

In the prime time access rule, which was passed by the right, when you really get down to it, it just throws out the faces.

It said, the system of networking is so efficient, we have to take something away from it and open up

Well, I'm curious thing not to beat the prime time high school protest, because certainly Chairman Birch

The irony of it is, it acted to take us down a peg, as David said.

Actually, it will decline economically under the rule.

The track theory is that the programs that come out will not be as good.

not to bore you with it, but something we've got a great store by, special programs, the programs that come on and interrupt the regular series of programs.

It has a devastating impact on those because it gives you less maneuverability in time.

You'll see it on news specials, you'll see it on press conferences, everything.

It compresses the space in which you can present one time only news events, entertainment shows, which is my area.

sports programs and anything that has a much greater effect on that than the mere arithmetic effect of one half an hour out of three and a half.

Unfortunately, it's the audience that stops.

And that is the broad audience as an entity.

And in our view, the broad audience as an entity really didn't get any consideration as an entity.

The man's brother and I asked you to do anything.

I don't know what you're saying.

But we have a lot of people that you follow.

Yes.

Coming to the, but you work in training.

What do you do here?

It's good to talk to you.

I can see.

You have this internal system.

Yes.

I don't know what you're saying.

I don't know.

great stand to the business and the system to come through an effort to make advertising .

And in this case, particularly television advertising, which has a large impact, a reducing impact, the state across has a large impact, it should be pure relationship, no feels, desires, or wants to do this.

Well, I can see that.

First, good programs cost money, second,

Advertisers don't pay money for the programs unless the advertiser sells products.

Third, if the advertiser is lousy, not emotional, they won't sell the product.

Fourth, they're going to have poor programs.

When you look at that, it's just the reality.

No question.

I understand.

How do they come about this?

What's all this, sir?

Sir, this is a sale.

I sell you the MTC.

Yes, sir.

They're all running down.

This is a consumption.

This doesn't have any Senate bail.

It hires the Senators involved.

This is our Congress.

I don't believe Senator Frank Moss is a part of this.

Senator Frank Moss could be introduced into a bill.

which has some of the same overtones, but I think that was an independent moment.

I think probably in the way back, the origin would be when they put a man on a cigarette, and when those men are moving, the same theory you were expressing.

So you wanted to de-attack and use that to move into something else that they love.

At the reverse point, the chairman of the MTC, he urged him to consider the Revenue Commission, pass a general regulation,

to think about the differential effects that they have on different media.

Regulations in print would be effective.

Intelligent might be very destructive, as you recognize the point.

Now, what the FTC is doing is a reverse of the strategy.

Well, the commission has been considering requiring advertisers who have been found guilty of having misleading advertising to print all of their data.

and all that, and sort of broadcast and all that for the next six months.

A confessional gift that some of the commissioners, FTC has a judge just guilty of misleading and spastic business respect.

You can do that for six months.

Now you can put that in fine print

printed it, you can still have an effective message.

If you put it on television, you might as well not use television at all.

You are sort of using television to confess your sins rather than set a promise.

You've recognized that those articles basically promise how to go about applications that may be made with recognition.

Well, I have not yet applied it.

I know.

What problems do you find in subject speech?

Yes, we are.

thought we should not permit just the person who had money to buy time on the air.

We do not have policy of selling back to anyone who asked for it.

We require that they accept it.

We are required to do what we do.

But we operate on the basis of fairness.

We believe ourselves in what the fairness document of the FCC requires us to do.

making sure that all sides of Congress were covered on the air.

Covered some time, but we covered exactly the same program the next night, exactly the same length.

But in the course of doing that, we get a lot of requests from the Black Caucus.

We get some requests from the Republican group that were organized in opposition to that, and we operate them on a common program, as we did in the Black Caucus.

of common cause, we have a plethora of multi-duplicated requests from the Democratic National Committee to respond to various presidents of the United States.

As the campaign approaches, that will intensify the problem of the FCC, and judging whether or not they are going to get extra time will also intensify time.

Do you want to expand on that problem?

Well, right now, as you probably know, the Commission is under consideration of three separate petitions from the Democratic National Committee.

They are asking the Commission to adopt a rule every time the president appears on television.

folks into the opposing party by who will be given an opportunity to appear.

Shouldn't you just have the rules?

You just have to treat them the same way you treat us in the ground.

Yes, that's what we have always been named.

Now, many different groups have come after us with a variation of the ruling on cigarette curing.

Commission rules some years ago that if we broadcast air-to-air commercials, we have to make free time available for anti-smoking mechanisms.

And all of the ecology groups are coming at us now and saying, if you carry a commercial for automobiles, for automobiles, they pull it to the air, therefore you must give us free time to present our views on how to combat air pollution.

Chevron Gasoline says that it is

helping to clean up the air.

That's the discussion of a controversial issue that you must give us free time.

The President arrogates on this, but the Commission has turned all these people down.

But they've all appealed, of course, appealed to one of the cases that's being argued next week.

So we're kind of sitting in a lot of panacea, seeming to be waiting to see who turns up to court.

But the Commission's proven us.

Who is president from access to the air?

I think it's short and simple, but I think you're different.

I think you do have a problem.

I understand that.

You've always had a problem.

The power and the capacity and the political power.

I reckon with regard to the political power, as long as the president is absolutely...

uh, discipline and use it as either a partisan or a personal, uh, overcome.

As far as that, it's very difficult to make a case that, uh, your equal time has presence.

I mean, otherwise, what are you going to do?

You're going to have a situation where they're going to take responsibility, this is responsibility, that they're not going to take, that they're going to be present against you.

He might get into it as, say, next year, but he has a position where he uses even a press conference to take the time for responding to a question that involves directly an attack by a phone.

And then he responds to it, and then he holds half the time, if I can say that.

I don't think you have a problem with that.

I think you're correct in what you say, as it lies now.

I think that's the way it should be.

But I think, as you say, it's time next year when we have a different kind of problem.

And I think you have a different problem, I would say, if I use the presidential press conference or the presidential

I'm not sure that we will, that it will be as easy for us to reject the treaties of the opposition for time as the campaign goes closer.

Even if we don't talk about it.

It seems to have a problem with the rest of the time in 1964 and everything.

Well, we would certainly expect to do no different right now.

I always wanted to say that, but I haven't had the problem.

When it comes to the regulatory rules that the Commission has adopted, away from Section 315 and away from political, away from campaign partisanship, the Commission required all three networks to give the Democrats another shot because the President appeared on the air five times.

on a different one, which is the Congress.

Instead of the NBC, it was a little more balanced than everybody else, but everybody hoped that at the same time.

And we were going to bring that case up because the guy on the NBC was the Democrats.

They were simply saying that the other side of the issue was strong.

That's right, that's right.

Which is very, very different.

That's right.

Well, I understand what you say.

I understand, Tom.

I would say you have a problem, too, which you personally were.

you're making your own decision.

You have to be aware of the candidate party situation.

Not so much the public side.

At the present time, you have to say the odds are that instead of a strong treaty, you're likely to have four or five candidates that will be able to do this.

The law of 315 is passed.

That's correct.

Without having to give a nine-part decision.

You would have to give a nine-part decision.

As a matter of fact, we would do.

If George Wallace were there, for instance, as a shooter, we would give him some time.

He's very managed, whatever he can.

He's not going to put on a single program or a couple programs.

I guess it's true.

George Wallace directed him.

Others are serious.

Well, you might have two, two major third parties instead of just one.

Even with the repeal of 315, which we were pleased to see restored, which we've always had to see the repeal, I don't think we would put them on nearly to the extent that we would the major parties.

We would put the major parties on.

We would put them on more.

I don't think there would be a time for fairness if you did that.

Yeah, but we will.

This idea, though, of taking on networks.

I would say it's parent-tentative.

They've made the issue a hell of a lot bigger than it would have been.

I'm only informed.

The county is a fat game.

The county is.

Yes, they will be here a while.

But they'll be behind us for a hell of a lot of money.

They've got to spend it on the police.

And they'll say, well, you know, this is nice.

They're irritating me when I'm in front of the cars.

We've got a lot of money.

Okay, just that one, too.

You have, if you're going to free yourself from pollution in these certain areas, then you have to give up some of the powers that come.

One thing I would suggest, and I feel the world is changing, because as long as you're going somewhere on the border, you can bring it.

It's brought to your attention.

I mean, we've talked about it all our lives.

We're all in this discussion now.

We are all in here.

We need to be steady.

uh

It's a question of the use of chemical fertilizers, the use of sprays, all that sort of thing.

It's a question of balance.

Should there be some danger in anything you apply?

The question is, what do you pay in case you don't apply?

Then you go back.

The other one, if you take the pure ecologists and carriers, their arguments to the exchange, then you have us all go back to the jungle.

But we're still talking about that, as you recall, in this first essay.

man was an actress, they were not very affable to be.

Uh, so, uh, we, uh, we, uh, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a,

You tell me, poor gorgeous, if we didn't have some pretty little orchards and those peaches, or apples, or what have you.

I mean, if you've got those, if you've ever seen them, if you've seen America, if you've made those, if you've seen them, if you've made them, it's a magic line.

I got worried about this problem.

Maybe it was not as routine.

A few months ago, I went to my mom's to hear about this.

I went to see if there was a supermarket.

Some little vegetables they had.

So we just don't turn it off.

I would urge you, Tom, don't be afraid.

Don't be afraid in the public interest to fight or to have some of these people come and take you over, Lord.

It's nice to announce that on your staff just as I have on mine.

It's the thing these days, the kids coming out of college and universities and so forth, the system doesn't work at all.

It's rotten.

Everything we've done is bad.

All progress is bad.

No growth.

There's nothing to it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But anyway, whatever the case might be, at this point, I do feel it.

I do feel it.

That's why I do have a shock about the system that we've got to work with.

and there needs to be a little bit of balance in here.

I don't see it all that far along on the program sometimes.

When he talks to me, here's a guy who's totally with me.

He talks to me in American, he talks to me in English, and there's a massive connection.

But here it is, kids' lives versus questions.

And chemicals and DG and the rest of it.

It's true that television can have a moment.

We will have a moment.

We can't have too many.

But I really think people make mistakes when they look at television.

Ruben says television is the transmission of an experience.

So many people come to us.

and say we could only get everybody on television to say this or say that in a certain way, then we would solve the problem.

I think what we can do is reflect the attitudes that exist in the United States, and they change rapidly in the country that they switched from.

Many serious hotheads in one year.

If that, if that ever changed, that really is what they were supposed to do.

I agree with that.

I used to know as a kid...

Even if you still have the money, you don't even want to put that in the bank, do you?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You've come back a long time.

I know you always really have been a great woman, but she goes way back in the days.

I hear it's Arnel Thomas who helped us.

They were excluded from the rights to press and to cover.

That was among the first times that we ever had radio microphones in the covers, live.

As a matter of fact, the television, television, television,

Well, I would like to mention now that we are not indeed biased.

I know that you've left a lot of experiences

You've seen a lot of things on television just like R3.

I think maybe that's the wrong way.

It really is the other way.

And what Pat said may not reflect back to me what we see, what we say on the air.

But I really would like to convince you that we do our best to be fair and objective to everybody.

And I don't know any way of doing it in particular.

That's what we're having to look at what we're doing on the air.

Well, let's just say that we have to do it.

I say that I think it's a, I think the one thing that I think is a mistake is for people who look at that psychology program to judge it.

Because individually it complicates the rest of all that.

I know there's some problems because they don't get banks

Well, we don't like to think of it as kicking around.

We really want to be a part of it.

It makes more sense.

Sometimes we think what used to look like kicking around is purely a reporting fact.

One day he showed a number of negative facts.

Facts negative to his cause.

And I thought that was biased.

I think that is the wrong way to look at it.

And we have proven that as working under these senior staff, probably because they are hired professionals, and we think that they should be regarded as professionals.

This is the deficit for a lawyer's profession.

We make mistakes, and we will always make mistakes, and we make them not out of malice, or with any attempt to fake it one side or another.

But sometimes, just as I meet trade press in the White House, they say, well, as we see, I recognize that you and your colleagues sometimes

Look at what you see on television and don't like it.

But television adheres.

And the fact of the matter is, it's not going away unless the people who want it are really unsuccessful.

And more and more people do indeed depend upon those other newspapers as a source of their news.

And we do the best we can to make them effective and legit and thorough and accurate.

And in some cases, what we do is not done with any intent of favoring you or disfavoring you.

Oh, yes.

I think the main problem is that there has to be a sort of two-way response.

I think the main problem, the main point that I see, the problem that television has is not as great a problem as the newspapers.

Right.

It's supposed to be in the editorial page, and then it's supposed to be in the...

I don't know, they're destroying something in it.

The whole time.

Ours used to say that the trouble with most people is that instead of writing about the Secretary of State, they write something worse than the Secretary of State.

So it is.

It's hard to do that.

In the case of the television, where, of course, you do have, sometimes, you do have commentary, and it's called so-and-so for blacks,

And have another being in the next action percentage of the way that the individual farms will be behind.

Do the judgment on that.

That's what you have to judge on.

It's a very, very responsibility because you look at that 80% of the environment.

You watch your people.

You watch television.

They get their treatment.

That's their story.

Action.

I agree with you.

You feel it's a two-way discussion where we're less public.

The government is like a really improper investment.

And if they man the top and then around it, technically, it's easy for others to go and press it.

And that's popular, I think.

I think it's a good idea.

Can we just make one point about your CPS?

I guess it's a part of that.

Yes.

Sure.

I haven't seen it.

I'm sure it rings to have a show.

Say, could we just mention one point, in reference to your term, when you appear on the outskirts?

When should we go about it?

We sent you away, Ron, and we did it last time, when you told us the President wanted you to appear.

for a press conference on Tuesday and then gave us a couple days to work it out with networks.

It's absolutely the ideal and perfect way for us to do it.

Rather than having a case, a time selected by you or by whoever selected you.

And we're notified because sometimes our problems are

multiplied by a special thing on it.

But we recognize the fact, we recognize the fact that it's difficult for all three of us to get together.

And we recognize it's frustrating for you to try to get out of it together.

Now I think maybe we should just work on our part, but if we could have that grace of a couple of days time to try it together, otherwise we'd always light at nine o'clock.

It doesn't have to be that negative.

To your advantage, one of the powers could be, sometimes, but other times it wasn't the other way around.

I thought, recently, when I went to the university, that all three of your people, all three networks, they were not cutting the movie, or the specials, or whatever it was.

This was not an issue.

I know that.

We have, on occasion, selected 9 o'clock because just the circumstances indicated that we were supposed to be on time because of your various programming.

We're not programming too much for that time, so we've attempted to make it easier on you by selecting a time.

Occasionally, but we've tried to get enough time.

We've tried to get a lot of overuse and save a lot of people from the press conference.

Our reporters are on one side of that.

We will continue to make a fool of you.

We will always do that.

We will do all these concentrations.

And the Navy will be strong.

We do want to cooperate.

We also will not use it.

I will work on the facts.

We already have professors.

Yes.

We probably need an arrest for not going to help you.

Here we go.

You've got a lot to learn, you see.

The inversion.

44.

Let me say, I think you've got two different situations.

So we can talk about that.

I didn't want a campaign to get, in other words, once I had a one-year, two-part campaign to choose a piece that they had nominated, or in that period, you know, to get past that.

Unless it was a news event, the armistice was, you know, which is, you know, our control, which of course it could be, and that would have been a board of teams that did a campaign.

You cannot put on any more than you can put anybody on.

And then we just have to keep on talking to the other side.

Because even though the president goes on and talks about the partisan side of things, it's the presidential party that's doing it.

But for example, you did provide, I thought you said it was the Ben Fisher.

The Ben Fisher, I don't know whether you're interested in that.

In 1966, Johnson had a press conference.

He took me on and took me on in his campaign.

He took me on in his campaign.

You must be there for the last five or the last year or so.

If you give me more time, I want you to.

You've been very kind.

Can I just leave you with one thing?

Let me say one other thing that I think you should know, too.

That you should have in mind.

I assure you that we will not, I will not, I'll be careful.

I know your problem.

Be careful.

The second point is that, however, there is one area where I think you've got to cover, where it's very important.

Which is where you would be so important that you would want to give it to an acquired girl.

And in that case, you're not going to be touching the ball in advance.

Because I don't want to sound too much like a mystery man or a mystery guest.

I'm just going to say something today.

I don't want you to think that we are complaining about Big Pooter, but just on that point, it's not a question of Big Pooter, but we have these certain five-numbered facilities.

There's such a thing as that should occur.

I realize you don't have any jobs.

Yeah, total control of the time.

Yeah.

It should occur during the time of the Apollo splashdown.

What is that?

July 31.

Don't worry about that.

No problem.

No, what I'm getting at is that we need to, we want to be a planter.

Unless I'm a planter person, I wouldn't be able to control it.

And the one thing that we need, though,

I must say, that was just at the very, very highest level.

In the event that there is some kind of service, we can't give much of that.

We cannot give any of that to those who are present.

We can't do that.

Those who might characterize the event, they don't deserve it.

On the other hand, we have one that we've been very fortunate with.

Let's suppose, for example, you had to cover a place where you have this house.

Really, it's a couple of years of a place, somewhere in the matter of hours and somewhere in the matter of months.

Yes, let's take Helsinki.

Helsinki would be a matter of Moscow.

No problem.

Moscow would be a matter of arranging with the Russians.

And that's because of their cooperation.

Because it has to be their equipment.

Rome?

Yes.

And Europe.

Yes.

I don't understand this.

I don't believe the trip has ever been to the same place.

Except on the last trip, I think it was some filter down further down in the ranks that perhaps needed to be.

And I was about to say that I don't know.

I was quite candid when I asked for help last week.

When I said that I had no trips in line at this time, I thought that would be less than candid if I were not to say that if we do the balance of this year, there's a possibility that something would happen.

But I'm sure you won't be able to come out and stuff.

Anything that had happened was meant to be a very important thing.

And if it was important, it would have to happen.

That's what we now do.

We'd have to do it.

But what I meant is that we want to.

And I think what we want to do is

I think Ron has a good sense of the number of days that might require us to do this.

And we have a long history of teaching things like this class because that would be vital that we have a simulation long time ahead for us to do it.

I don't get a lot of gratuitous advice, Mr. President, but I am particularly qualified to give you something.

Yes, sir.

I own the hill area of this chapel and I can send it.

And I suggest you do what I did and play it off the day before the wedding.

Good.

Well, there you go.

You say you're my doctor.

I'm the oldest child.

She's the oldest child.

I'm the only doctor.

So we had a wing date.

You're lucky to be with him.

It is.

You're supposed to go outside.

I'm supposed to go outside.

I don't think most of you use him as the number one.

Yes, we do.

No, he hasn't been wrong on us, but he's been wrong on us.

But I don't respect the life of us.

I don't respect the life of us.

Who else is here?

Well, let's go to the past.

Bill Brock, a number of numbers of Congress.

And you have done nothing to gain something.

But I think, I think the tone has to be set by the President.

And I think it is unfortunate that the tone is that the President's incredible progressions.

And I'm sorry, but if we can't,

That is .

.

No, I don't feel depressed.

I don't think they have to worry those guys.

I see them all the time.

They look completely nervous.

I, uh, we certainly can't help this.

And we, uh, we do it.

Yes, we are.

We expect the chance to do it.

I think we really need it now.

The administration is very, very concerned.

And, as I said,

I was trying to trace this thing, and I was thinking, it's just the nature of the office that could be, that might be the question for all of us, since it generally is, there's not really any political parties that are talking to the administration about it by knocking it down.

So, what I've done is gone.

Now, I understand that, and it is because of this administration,

Although perhaps R.I.U.

would have to agree that the defense, R.I.U.

watching the news, perhaps they'll watch less of the, I don't know, I'm not sure of all of those, perhaps you've been here, less, that's fair enough.

I think that is.

individual rights, individual confidence is a right to be.

That's not what it really is.

I didn't, I didn't cool.

I don't know.

It was a snapback.

I did a great mistake.

Also, I did a great embarrassment.

I was depressed.

So, what I'm really suggesting is that I think you have your situation where no one should, should, no one, if you're gonna be honest, no one can do it.

I'll say that there is not bias in person.

Here, people are, through every press release, going to show up.

The reason that you, as a network, expect these kinds of special responsibilities is because, and you must, also because, as I pointed out, that the fine line, as I said, is the very fine line between the acts for the purpose of allowing the viewer or reader to have his own life, the action for the purpose of supporting the opinion,

already held by the Count here, and it's a very, very responsible thing.

I don't, uh, I don't change it.

I mean, I still pretend.

I will always say what I need to do.

But, uh, aside from the Hilton, to you, the Count, for that sort of thing, you're ignorant.

So, I really expect you to be different.

I want to see you.

I expect that.

I expect you to trust me.

Because, basically, we're ideological differences.

On the other hand,

I don't think we do ourselves any, I don't think there's any service for us to say that we're not incarcerated.

That's not true at all.

What do you say that we have a large responsibility for that as executives of television?

How would you suggest that we would like to do that?

We can't do that, but it's not, it's not.

I was talking to the editor

Publishing is hard.

It's a very conservative newspaper.

It has five types.

So the chair was impressed.

I heard he's got all this great.

I'll tell you, I'll help him.

I'll read the article and so forth.

It says, those sons of bitches will write it.

It doesn't really matter.

I'm going to write it.

I'm going to hear it.

I'm going to put it back.

That's it.

And so what happens is that you've got to expect that bias does show that you've got to expect people to publicize about everything.

But you can't do anything about it.

I don't know.

As far as I'm concerned, I've always said, people say, what am I going to do with this?

I'm not going to be seen.

She's already lying.

I said, yes, but she's not going to get a call.

I called Taylor.

Or she was fired off.

Or it goes on.

Again, it's just most guys can't do anything about it.

They just don't want to pledge.

It's true.

That's the kind of thing I can't do about it.

It's quite a lot of debate.

It's a great experience for me.

Sure.

I'm on the entertainment side.

I have to do this.

And he says, look, it's not your fault.

It's not all that exact.

It's just a fact of life.

The journalists, by nature, have been biased because

their interests, and they're all different from one another.

That's the thing that's funny.

Whatever biases all individuals have biases, which is your kind of shit, that's true.

But, that's more than any bias they ever don't have because they made you go there, they made you go there, went to whatever college they went to, and they're all EVs instead of BSers and all that sort of thing.

I said, what's more important than that is, if we're hiring the right people to do any good at all, more than whatever their biases are, they are trained reporters.

And you wouldn't have all this coming out unless they're all just a bunch of jerks.

They are, foremost, they're disciplines.

You know, professionals, in quotes, they're disciplines, are actually those in training reporters.

And it's just too simplistic for them to say, well, if they're all guys, there's nothing you fellas can do about it because you're basically businessmen or something like that.

And those fellows just run along in your shops and nothing to do about it.

I've never convinced anyone.

I don't think so.

What I've had is that I hear people be, you know, expect too much.

You can call that what you want.

He's very proud of his profession.

And he also knows just why he's doing it.

He's just why he wants to do it.

He doesn't expect it.

We said thanks, no thanks.

And they said I was in here too.

And we had a profession.

They would give the guys through Ruben, as they grew up, through Ruben.

But it's difficult for us to, and we would not want that to end for us, obviously.

I had a conversation like this with the head sheriff of the district, too.

A younger one than the one you had.

I used to catch him.

That's the reason.

He helped work pretty much, very articulately, on his particular point of view, which was, you are biased now against what the government policies are.

And he said, what?

You should not question the actions of the government.

Well, it is in operation.

And I'm just like, well, you're asking us to, you say we've manipulated the fugitive, now you're asking us to manipulate it in the way you'd like.

That is the danger that I advise.

Who is the judge?

How the news should be done.

We have no danger.

Either way, it's not that way.

No, actually, I think what we have to do.

They get the best answers.

I'm extremely sorry that you feel it.

You feel it's always going to be that way.

Well, it was like a cheater.

Well, I'm not discouraged about it.

Because it would be that way, I suppose, in the future with others.

But the point is that it is a God that's in the center.

I just think that's part of our system.

And particularly if you have, particularly if everyone in this office

I think that we have to, in our system, we have to recognize reporters and our individuals can expect, and we cannot expect a reporter to have strong views.

I don't think that they want to shift the world a little bit and say, well, I disagree with the plague thing, but I'm going to write it the other way.

Because you see, the advantage, the reason no president can ever come to mind is that he has the great advantage of now and then saying to certain people, if I didn't, I'd be dead.

If it hadn't been, and I'll put it that way, you see, without Thomas, I wouldn't be here now.

For example, I had to love the people of this country and I had to make up their mind about me.

I don't think we can be under illusions that there is not a very honest bias.

And I'm so good at letting it be that way, but that's going to be...

And there isn't anything for you to do about it.

But maybe you could just be proud of it.

Well, I would like to be proud of what I'm buying.

Then you can go.

Well, hey, I wish you well when you're ready.

You're ready.

Thank you.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Now, let's see, we always give enough results.

We've got a few cranking up before you go.

You've got a complex, all of you.

If you notice, this is the city one.

This is the president.

And just to show you my lack of ISP, this is the first presidential complex that don't have my name on it.

Now, how many of you are golfers?

Well, you're all going to talk about this.

Don Kendall, probably one of your advertisers.

He made these quite nice with the seal and the signature.

These are the same.

Oh.

I checked with Connolly.

You're going to get something.

None of the others.

This is a very nice thing.

It's a little paperweight.

Maybe you can see that.

I used it myself.

I gave one this morning to Bill Friedman.

I'm telling you, Joe.

Well, you didn't do what I said.

I said, no.

I said, this is a small paperweight.

The moment the paper's desk is so thick, this paper won't roll out the day.

I said, I can't do that.

I said, my desk is always covered in paper.

But don't dare to be stoned.

There you are.

That's all I got.

I'm out of here.

Thank you very much.

These are our tickets for the day.

Mark was a good decision.

It's an argument with Nichols.

I hope he's well.

Yeah, he must be out with whiskey, but he said so many whiskeys out there.

I think it was Nichols' time.

Yeah, yeah.

It was the end of it.

Julie and I had lunch about 66 or so, right?

Way back when.

Right, right, right.

I didn't know I'd be here.

I didn't.

This way.

We're supposed to be back over at the bridge.

I don't know why you wouldn't stay here.

Thank you.

What do we want to do here then?