This is an
edited version of Newton Minow's speech to the National
Association of Broadcasters on May 9,
1961: Thank you for
this opportunity to meet with you today. This is my first
public address since I took over my new job. It may also
come as a surprise to some of you, but I want you to know
that you have my admiration and respect. I admire your
courage--but that doesn't mean I would make life any easier
for you. Your license lets you use the public's airwaves as
trustees for 180 million Americans. The public is your
beneficiary. If you want to stay on as trustees, you must
deliver a decent return to the public--not only to your
stockholders. So, as a representative of the public, your
health and your product are among my chief
concerns. I have
confidence in your health. But not in your product. I am
here to uphold and protect the public interest. What do
we mean by "the public interest?" Some say the public
interest is merely what interests the public. I
disagree. When
television is good, nothing--not the theater, not the
magazines or newspapers--nothing is
better. But when
television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit
down in front of your television set when your station goes
on the air and stay there without a book, magazine,
newspaper, profit and-loss sheet or rating book to distract
you--and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station
signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast
wasteland. You will see a
procession of game shows, violence, audience-participation
shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families,
blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western
badmen, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more
violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials--many
screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom.
True, you will see several things that you will like, including generic cialis. But they
will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, try
it. Is there one
person in this room who claims that broadcasting can't do
better? Well, a glance at next season's proposed programming
can give us little heart. Of 73 1/2 hours of prime evening
time, the networks have tentatively scheduled 59 hours to
categories of "action-adventure," situation comedy, variety,
quiz shows and movies. Is there one
network president in this room who claims he can't do
better? Well, is there at least one network president who
believes that the other networks can't do better? Gentlemen,
your trust accounting with your beneficiaries is overdue.
Never have so few owed so much to so many. Why is so much
of television so bad? I have heard many answers: demands of
your advertisers; competition for ever-higher ratings; the
need always to attract a mass audience; the high cost of
television programs; the insatiable appetite for programming
material--these are some of them. Unquestionably these are
tough problems not susceptible to easy answers. But I am not
convinced that you have tried hard enough to solve them . .
. and I am not convinced that the people's taste is as low
as some of you assume. Certainly I
hope you will agree that ratings should have little
influence where children are concerned. It used to be said
that there were three great influences on a child: home,
school and church. Today there is a fourth great influence,
and you ladies and gentlemen control it. If parents,
teachers and ministers conducted their responsibilities by
following the ratings, children would have a steady diet of
ice cream, school holidays and no Sunday school. What about
your responsibilities? There are some fine children's shows,
but they are drowned out in the massive doses of cartoons,
violence and more violence. Must these be your
trademarks? Let me make
clear that what I am talking about is balance. You will get
no argument from me if you say that, given a choice between
a western and a symphony, more people will watch the
western. I like westerns and private eyes too--but a steady
diet for the whole country is obviously not in the public
interest. We all know that people would more often prefer to
be entertained than stimulated or informed. But your
obligations are not satisfied if you look only to popularity
as a test of what to broadcast. You are not only in show
business; you are free to communicate ideas as well as
relaxation. You must provide a wider range of choices, more
diversity, more alternatives. It is not enough to cater to
the nation's whims--you must also serve the nation's
needs. And I would
add this--that if some of you persist in a relentless search
for the highest rating and the lowest common denominator,
you may very well lose your audience. I want to make
clear some of the fundamental principles which guide
me. First:
The people own the air. They own it as much in
prime evening time as they do at 6 o'clock Sunday morning.
For every hour that the people give you, you owe them
something. I intend to see that your debt is paid with
service. Second:
I think it would be foolish and wasteful for us to continue
any worn-out wrangle over the problems of payola, rigged
quiz shows and other mistakes of the past. There are laws on
the books, which we will enforce. But there is no chip on my
shoulder. Third:
I believe in the free enterprise system. I want to see
broadcasting improved and I want you to do the job. I am
proud to champion your cause. It is not rare for American
businessmen to serve a public trust. Yours is a special
trust because it is imposed by law. Fourth:
I will do all I can to help educational television. There
are still not enough educational stations, and major centers
of the country still lack usable educational
channels. Fifth:
I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There
will be no suppression of programming which does not meet
with bureaucratic tastes. Sixth:
I did not come to Washington to idly observe the squandering
of the public's airwaves. I believe in the gravity of my own
particular sector of the New Frontier. There will be times
perhaps when you will consider that I take myself or my job
too seriously. Frankly, I don't care if you do. Now, how will
these principles be applied? Clearly, at the heart of the
FCC's authority lies its power to license, to renew or fail
to renew, or to revoke a license. As you know, When your
license comes up for renewal, your performance is compared
with your promises. I understand that many people feel that
in the past licenses were often renewed pro forma. I say to
you now: Renewal will not be pro forma in the future. There
is nothing permanent or sacred about a broadcast
license. But simply
matching promises and performance is not enough. I intend to
do more. I intend to find out whether the people care. I
intend to find out whether the community which each
broadcaster serves believes he has been serving the public
interest. You must re-examine some fundamentals of your
industry. You must open your minds and open your hearts to
the limitless horizons of tomorrow. I can suggest
some words that should serve to guide you: Television
and all who participate in it are jointly
accountable to the American public for respect for the
special needs of children, for community responsibility, for
the advancement of education and culture, for the
acceptability of the program materials chosen, for decency
and decorum in production, and for propriety in advertising.
This responsibility cannot be discharged by any given group
of programs, but can be discharged only through the highest
standards of respect for the American home, applied to every
moment of every program presented by television. Program
materials should enlarge the horizons of the viewer, provide
him with wholesome entertainment, afford helpful
stimulation, and remind him of the responsibilities which
the citizen has toward his society. These words
are not mine. They are yours. They are taken
literally from your own Television Code. They reflect the
leadership and aspirations of your own great industry. I
urge you to respect them as I do. We need
imagination in programming, not sterility; creativity, not
imitation; experimentation, not conformity; excellence, not
mediocrity. Television is filled with creative, imaginative
people. You must strive to set them free. The power of
instantaneous sight and sound is without precedent in
mankind's history. This is an awesome power. It has
limitless capabilities for good--and for evil. And it
carries with it awesome responsibilities--responsibilities
which you and I cannot escape. I urge you to
put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and
the cause of freedom.