Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419 of 755

public's air waves, and we should give the time.

How much free time?

I think they wanted -- I believe eight hours of prime time. That can be checked, but there was a hearing, in a subcommittee on communications in the Senate Commerce Committee. I thought it was a steal, or a grab, on the part of the politicians. Just to get their hands on time to use as they wanted to use it. I thought was a waste of our time, and I don't mean our operating time, but our time on the air. I thought it was unfair that they weren't asking for eight full pages in the New York Times for free, they wanted our time. They had discovered television, and they knew it was an effective medium for them.

So, I said I wanted to come down and testify against the legislation. I think [J. William] Fullbright introduced it, but I'm not absolutely sure. I went to the hearing. I was scheduled as the first industry witness, in part, I guess, because I was Johnny-One-Note on the debates. By that time I was sort of looked upon as a spokesman for the industry in Washington, certainly the networks, on matters having to do with regulation. I made it a practice, when I was going to be a witness, to sit as far back in the room as possible, to have a chance to see what was going on, not to be right in the front row, because I had seen one occasion where a following witness was sitting in the front row, and the witness said something that wasn't in agreement with the prospective witness who was sitting there. The chairman of the committee said, “Well, So-and-So, how do you feel about this?” And they got into a disagreement between a witness and a prospective witness, and it was not a pleasant thing. So I said, “Never get near the flame, because you might get sucked in at a time when you don't want to be involved.”