Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232 of 755

arbitrary in making the distinction between what's real and what isn't real.

We wouldn't allow, for example, any sound to be augmented on a news broadcast, although on entertainment it's perfectly okay, the applause is frequently put into a situation comedy, not by people in the studio, per se, but by technicians who have a soundtrack that they simply cut into the program at the appropriate time.

What they do is one thing, what news does, I think, is entirely different. And if we were to introduce applause on the presentation of a speaker, we could create the impression that he was much more effective than perhaps he was. Or, vice versa, if you could just cut the sound completely, and let it just be dead air, it could give the wrong impression. So I think you have to be very careful in the field of news: that what you see and what you hear is everything that it purports to be. And the mixture of entertainment techniques into the field of news is very dangerous.

This is really a tough -- will become an increasingly difficult standard to observe -- and I'm not sure that it will be observed. But the separation of church and state, so to speak, in broadcasting, is very important to keep news separate from the entertainment side.

But, back to color: the conversion was very rapid in the total scheme of things. The public accepted it. Those people who had black and white sets saw the programs in black and white, and those who had color were thrilled with the hues that came on the screen. I think a lot of the color in the early days was exaggerated. The reds were redder than real life, and the other colors were hyped, in part because, I guess, everybody was so thrilled with the idea of having color that they let it sort of run wild. I think a lot of people wore vivid colors on the