PIAC Legacy Project: Joint Statement of Leslie Moonves and Norman Ornstein, Co-chairs

Many of the issues surrounding public interest obligations and broadcasting have been charged with controversy for decades. The controversy does not disappear with the advent of digital technology; indeed, in many areas, it intensifies. This reality was apparent when President Clinton appointed us as co-chairs of his Advisory Committee on the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters. By choosing a broadcaster and a non-broadcaster, the President hoped to bridge the gaps and come to some broad consensus about the best avenues to serve the public interest in the digital broadcasting age.

The two of us share many values in common, including a strong belief in the historic public trustee role of the broadcasting community. But we also have different perspectives on the appropriate role of Government in the regulation of broadcasting. Our goal throughout our deliberations has been to bridge our own gaps in viewpoint and perspective, while also providing a reasonable and innovative middle ground for the 20 disparate individuals who joined us on the Advisory Committee.

It would have been far easier to divide into two hostile camps, draw up "wish lists" to fit our own views, vote them up or down, and let the fights spill over into the political and policy arena after we went out of business. It would have been easy for Ornstein, because, with more non-broadcasters than broadcasters on the panel, his individual views would probably have been able to prevail. But it would also have been easy for Moonves to retreat to the rhetoric that some broadcasters have used when feeling threatened by Government and be applauded by his most vociferous colleagues as a champion of the industry.

Neither of us believed that position-taking and posturing would advance in any way the important debate that is needed on the public interest in the digital information age. So our focus throughout the past 15 months has been to find areas of consensus. That has frequently been quite difficult. Our deliberations have been often characterized, in diplomatic parlance,by "frank and full" discussions -- meaning, in plain language, contentiousness and sharp differences of opinion. But we applied an inclusive process, providing ample opportunities for each of our members to have input, and trying to accommodate strong individual views.

In the end, for the two of us and the overwhelming majority of the Advisory Committee's members, the desire to reach a broad consensus prevailed. As an Advisory Committee without any line authority, our power, if any, will come from the weight of our ideas and the credibility of our members. Appropriately, we have left many specifics to be worked out in the political and policy arenas -- without, we hope, the baggage that would have accompanied a divided majority/minority report.

As the collection of individual views demonstrates, none of our members would have written this exact report if given unilateral power. That is true for the two of us. Moonves would have preferred a report relying more on volunteerism and cooperation than on Government mandates. Ornstein would have preferred a report with more requirements of broadcasters, especially in the area of free time for political candidates. (Both of us, however, strongly support the notion that, if Congress undertakes to enact comprehensive campaign reform, broadcasters should commit firmly to do their part to reform the role of television in campaigns.) Even if there are areas where the two of us would have taken different paths, we are both satisfied that the recommendations are a reasonable and appropriate balance.

In the individual views, most of our members have indicated their support for the overall report and recommendations, while pointing out the areas where they individually disagree. The disagreements with specific items range from qualified criticism to all-out opposition. But every recommendation we have made enjoys solid support from the bulk of our members. We are pleased that the overwhelming majority of our members, broadcaster and non-broadcaster alike, chose the consensus route. We look forward to joining with them in the debate over these issues that is sure to follow.