Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549 of 755

which he thought was inadequate, was to take the highlights of the testimony in a prime- time report, as against letting it carry on hour after hour in the daytime, when the audience was very small and when it isn't the kind of audience that's interested in that kind of material. Judged against some of the things that have happened today, with C- Span and so forth, it's a little different today.

But we weren't turning our back on coverage. I think we were using the medium as effectively as we could to move the information and to get it to the audience in prime time. I did not participate in the decision that Jack [John A.] Schneider made, who was then head of the broadcast group. As I recall that situation, it involved two things. Not only did Schneider make a judgement that we would not clear time for a live coverage of the hearing. He made that judgement, which offended some of the people in News. Some of the people didn't feel it was worth the kind of dustup that took place.

But the thing that happened just prior to that was that I had reorganized the responsibilities of the senior executive, and made Schneider responsible for the television network, the radio side and news. And Friendly was unhappy about not being able to report right to the top. He chose, in my opinion, the denial of live time for hearings that we couldn't even be sure were going to be worthy of the time, to complain about the reporting procedure at the same time. So it was a mixed situation, and if you give an officer responsibility and you, the first time or virtually the first time he exercises it, undercut him, you've destroyed the whole situation.

I certainly backed Schneider. I thought it was the right decision that he made, and I thought Friendly behaved very badly and told him so and that was that. I think I would do