Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Beamer, is it your view that-for example, this is an actual situation that I know of that did exist in a rather large city, where the same interest that owns all of the daily newspapers in that city and also owns a radio station, and became the owner of the television stations, so that every means of communication, cf dissemination of news, was controlled by actually one interest.

Do you think that is a good thing to have exist in this country?. Now, let me say, in fairness, in connection with my brief statement, that they generally divested themselves of, as I recall it, the controlling interest at least of the radio and television stations, but still own a substantial interest, I believe, in both of them. Now, that existed. I know of it.

I have never thought myself, with the tremendous power that one interest could exercise, that it was a good thing.

Mr. BEAMER. Well, in my previous remarks, in my introduction, I covered that.

Mr. O'HARA. I missed those.

Mr. BEAMER. I said I do not believe, and I remarked that I did not believe in monopoly, and I also felt that the Justice Department had sufficient regulatory power today to prevent any such monopoly.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, I know, but after the license has been granted, do you think that this language in a bill like this is going to cover it? Mr. BEAMER. Well, the fact of the matter is, I think I pointed this out, it would depend upon the size of the establishment and the way it was operated. Someone in the business-and you are probably more familiar with this than I am-could show this. There is one particular instance that I do not believe I should mention, because it is pending, and there is another application where the applicant has had no experience in the dissemination and gathering of news. The applicant might be a person who would probably be very interested in political affairs, for instance.

Mr. O'HARA. May I answer my colleague by saying that a lot would depend on who was that controlling interest, and their highmindedness and fairness, and all those things. That would probably make a difference in the operation of such a situation.

Mr. BEAMER. I do not believe that in very many cases we have had too much concern about the newspapers, so far as their policies are concerned. As I said previously, we have not always agreed with all of those policies, but we will still fight for freedom of the press and their right to express themselves.

Mr. O'HARA. I feel as strongly about that as the gentleman does, but, on the other hand, I become a little bit concerned when I do see what has happened as to when one interest controls all of the avenues of dissemination of news, and in one good-sized city. I mean, I am concerned about it, because it might become a very serious question. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Beamer, you spoke of the fact that one news agency was armed with all of the experience and the know-how. How is another news agency going to get that experience, and know-how, if they don't have a chance to get a license to get into the business? Are we going to shut the door to opportunity in this country?

Mr. BEAMER. We are talking about newspaper operations, and they probably have had the opportunity.

Mr. ROGERS. I understand that. When you talk about granting a license, if you don't consider the fact that one of the applicants is a

newspaper for any purpose-just completely wipe that out-then another applicant has a very little chance of moving into that field and getting a license.

Mr. BEAMER. Of course, that is very true of utilities today. There is only one in the community. They are regulated, and we can probably continue under the FCC. The FCC probably has certain regulatory authority they can exercise, and have been exercising, I believe you will find.

Mr. ROGERS. We had a witness here the other day that was complaining about some of the regulations now being exercised by the FCC over the television stations, and they want to get out from under them.

Mr. HARRIS. I think it should not be overlooked that the regulatory authority of the Federal Communications Commission does not go so far as to give them the right of censorship.

Mr. BEAMER. Not if you are talking about censorship. He was talking about monopoly.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Beamer, the second provision of the bill which you read a moment ago, "solely because of any such interest, association, or ownership," do you construe that to mean that the Commission cannot deny an application to a newspaper applicant solely because of such interest, and so forth.

Mr. BEAMER. In other words, they must have other factors if they are going to deny.

Mr. HARRIS. You do construe it to mean that the Commission then could consider the fact that it does have such interest.

Mr. BEAMER. That is correct. It also can consider other factors, whether it is in the public interest that they should or should not have it. I don't think this is going to restrict the FCC at all other than trying to attempt to define the fact that they are in the publishing business or in the gathering and dissemination of news.

Mr. HARRIS. Do I understand you correctly that the Commission may consider, of course, as one of the factors that the applicant is a newspaper applicant, or interested in some other media of information?

Mr. BEAMER. But it should not be used as the sole discrimination. Mr. HARRIS. But it could consider.

Mr. BEAMER. Yes. I do not think it would eliminate that at all, do

you?

Mr. HARRIS. That is the reason I asked the question. The Commission explained to us very carefully last week-I think the gentleman was present at the time-that they have never decided a case except in one instance that they referred to where they had reached an impasse, and there was not anything else to consider. According to them they do not make these decisions solely on the basis of newspaper ownership. The reason I point that up-and I did introduce one of these bills is that should this policy be accepted, how would it change present law? That is the thing I am wondering about.

Mr. BEAMER. It may be necessary, Mr. Chairman, to write this out more specifically if we want to prohibit completely. It would probably indicate to the Federal Communications Commission the intent and desire of the Congress that they should not be stressing it as much as they have in the past.

Mr. HARRIS. I am impressed that more consideration should be given to this language in view of the hearings. I hope the gentleman will give some thought to that.

Mr. BEAMER. I think it is a point well taken. I feel along with you that probably this might not change it enough. The question arises in your mind, and I think in my mind too, should we write this out definitely in black and white that they dare not use the ownership of the particular business as a discriminatory feature.

Frankly, I do not think the bill at the present time will preclude that entirely.

Mr. HARRIS. Just one final question. The gentleman referred to a number of instances a moment ago in his statement. Does the record show that any of those cases were decided on the basis of giving the station to an applicant other than a newspaper applicant, solely on the basis of that interest?

Mr. BEAMER. I am not going to say solely, but I think principally. I think the principal case, the Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, and also the News Sentinel at Fort Wayne-those I thought were two illustrations, perhaps, that people in the community felt that was the reason for the discrimination and the reason for the rejection of their appeal. Mr. HARRIS. I can appreciate how people feel about matters of this kind.

Mr. BEAMER. I mean the parties involved.

Mr. HARRIS. Yes; but does the record show that? I mean, does the decision of the Commission itself or anything else in connection with the opinion show that any such decision was reached solely on the basis of this interest ?

Mr. BEAMER. Of course, the Federal Communications Commission would say that it was not thus solely, because they will probably have some other contributing factors. I believe if the records were studied, they would find that was the principal factor, if not the sole factor.

Mr. HARRIS. I am wondering if that is the record, and what it shows, and if we would be changing the present situation at all with the language that has been proposed here.

Mr. ROGERS. Do the people that got the license feel that way?
Mr. BEAMER. They haven't very good service up there.

Mr. ROGERS. I mean the licensees.

Mr. BEAMER. No; the licensees are very happy, but don't forget the interest of the public is to be served. The public interest would be served a great deal better in the opinion of the people in that particular area if these other concerns would have been given their rights. Mr. ROGERS. But not in the opinion of the licensees?

Mr. BEAMER. No.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Beamer. We are, of course, very familiar with the fact that the gentleman is a very able member of our committee and the Congress, and we appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

Mr. BEAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for permitting me to present it. I should apologize for not giving the complete statemen. I hope each one will read the complete statement. I did it for the sake of saving time of the committee. I know how important time is.

Mr. HARRIS. We appreciate that. I might say that I am sure the gentleman will be interested in knowing that Mr. Cranston Williams,

representing the Newspaper Publishers Association, will be here in the next few days, and will no doubt elaborate further on this problem, and how it should be reached.

Mr. BEAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Heselton, did you have anything further you wanted to bring to the attention of the committee on this particular point at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HESELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. HESELTON. I would like to be heard.

Mr. HARRIS. I might say we have previously arranged to hear another witness, so we would not want to prolong it. You might come back another time.

Mr. HESELTON. I assure you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that I will not take but a few minutes.

Mr. HARRIS. This committee is always glad to have advice from our colleague, another able member of our committee.

Mr. HESELTON. Actually, the only reason I have asked for any time at all is because I was listed as a witness publicly, and I want to make it very clear to the committee that I have no interest in any applicant who has received a license, who has been denied a license, who has a license pending or who may have a license pending at some time in the future. My sole interest is one that was aroused prior to 1952 when we were considering this matter in the full committee.

It is my recollection that when the amendment offered by Mr. Priest was adopted by the full committee, it was adopted with either 2 or 3 dissenting votes in the committee. It is my recollection that it went to the floor, was rather extensively discussed there and was adopted unanimously.

As the chairman of the subcommittee has indicated, it went out on the conference report.

I have been intrigued by this document entitled, "Comments of the Federal Communications Commission," and I commend it to the reading of all of you, because I think it constitutes one of the most evasive specimens of ambiguity that I have ever read.

Mr. HALE. Can you identify that?

Mr. HESELTON. This is the report of the Federal Communications Commission filed on November 9 last year on the bill filed by Mr. Harris, June 22, 1955, and a similar bill by Mr. Beamer on the same date.

Mr. O'HARA. Would my colleague yield on that point? The gentleman would admit that is not a virtue peculiar to the FCC? Mr. HESELTON. By no manner of means.

Nor, may I say, is it peculiar to any administration, I have found. I call your attention to the fact that it is alleged that the language used in the proposal is unusually ambiguous and thus could lend itself to many additional interpretations.

Most of my colleagues are lawyers, as I happen to be, and I think we fully realize that it is perfectly possible when you want to get a result, to engage a very able and clever attorney-no reflection upon our profession-but who can write an opinion that will justify the result we want.

As I understand it, if you read the language of the conference committee report-and I did not draft either of these bills-I do not know. how anybody could have more clearly set forth in the bills what was specified in the conference committee report as the reason why the House amendment was not included in the so-called McFarland law. I think the chairman of the subcommittee placed his finger squarely on the problem that faces this subcommittee, the full committee and the Congress. Is this Commission or any other Commission to be permitted, despite whatever assertions it cares to make, to deny a station license, a renewal, a modification or a transfer, solely-and the key word in my opinion is "solely"-upon the ground that the licensee or the applicant has an interest, association, or ownership in a newspaper. There may be some question in the minds of some people that that is a fact. In the Hearst radio decision in 1951, which preceded the action by this committee, and the action by the House, the words were used

unless there is an overriding consideration, preference should be given to nonnewspaper, nonmultiple owner applicants.

In other words, in my considered judgment the Commission has operated, and is still operating on the theory that an irrebuttable assumption is raised once the question of newspaper ownership enters the case in terms of any comparative disqualification.

The diversification of media principle is a praiseworthy principle. Of course, no one wants monopoly.

I might say parenthetically that I do not know anything about the McClatchy situation in California, to which my colleage, Mr. Hinshaw, has referred. Perhaps the best evidence that I do not know anything about it is that I questioned the Commission on the propriety of the decision when it was clearly set forth that the examiner had spent 48 days hearing all the testimony, and had found actually that McClatchy, was superior in all areas of comparison, save one, and that was the diversification of media. The examiner recommended the award to McClatchy. The Commission, however, reversed that decision and awarded it to the nonnewspaper applicant, and the court in that instance affirmed the Commission's decision.

Here is what the court said, and this points out the problem that confronts us as I see it.

Mr. HALE. Is that the CCA?

Mr. HASELTON. Yes. We have had over the years the protestations of Commissions under all kinds of circumstances that they do not exercise any discrimination against a newspaper applicant or an applicant who has other interests, be they radio, television, or otherwise.

Let me particularly quote with emphasis this language:

Although the examiner's choice of McClatchy as superior in all respects except diversification of control is strongly supported by proof

and I underline those four words

we cannot find that the Commission's decision was arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Gentlemen, what recourse has any applicant who happens to have a newspaper interest, then, in terms of his application before the Commission, in terms of the examiner's decision, or in terms of the