【正文】 nterest. Everyone of you serves a munity in which the people would benefit by educational, and religious, instructive and other public service programming. Every one of you serves an area which has local needs as to local elections, controversial issues, local news, local talent. Make a serious, genuine effort to put on that programming. And when you do, you will not be playing brinkmanship with the public interest. Now what I39。s been going on. I want the people if they39。t care if you do. For I am convinced that either one takes this job seriously or one can be seriously taken. Now how will these principles be applied? Clearly at the heart of the FCC39。s of past controversy. To quarrel over the past is to lose the future. Third: I believe in the free enterprise system. I want to 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. If there were a limited number of printing presses in this country, you may be sure that a fair proportion of them would be put to educational use. Educational television has an enormous contribution to make to the future, and I intend to give it a hand along the way. If there is not a nationwide educational television system in this country, it will not be the fault of the FCC. Fifth: I am unalterably opposed to governmental censorship. There will be no suppression of programming which does not meet with bureaucratic tastes. Censorship strikes at the tap root of our free society. Sixth: I did not e to Washington to idly observe the squandering of the public39。 we face together staggering problems。s needs. And I would add this: that if some of you persist in a relentless search for the highest rating and the lowest mon denominator, you may very well lose your audience. Because, to paraphrase a great American who was recently my law partner, the people are wise, wiser than some of the broadcasters and politicians think. As you may have gathered, I would like to see television improved. But how is this to be brought about? By voluntary action by the broadcasters themselves? By direct government intervention? Or how? Let me address myself now to my role not as a viewer but as chairman of the FCC. I could not if I would, chart for you this afternoon in detail all of the actions I contemplate. Instead, I want to make clear some of the fundamental principles which guide me. First: the people own the air. And they own it as much in prime evening time as they do at six o39。s whims。 you are free to municate ideas as well as relaxation. And as Governor Collins said to you yesterday when he encouraged you to editorialize as you know the FCC has now encouraged editorializing for years. We want you to do this。 and the newspapers have not bee one long collection of advice to the lovelorn. Yet newspapers do not even need a license from the government to be in business。s shows, but they are drowned out in the massive doses of cartoons, violence, and more violence. Must these be your trademarks? Search your consciences and see if you cannot offer more to your young beneficiaries whose future you guide so many hours each and every day. Now what about adult programming and ratings? You know, newspaper publishers take popularity ratings too. And the answers are pretty clear: It is almost always the ics, followed by advice to the lovelorn columns. But, ladies and gentlemen, the news is still on the front page of all newspapers。s been their use. Certainly, I hope you will agree that ratings should have little influence where children are concerned. The best estimates indicate that during the hours of 5 to 6 . sixty per cent of your audience is composed of children under twelve. And most young children today, believe it or not, spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. I repeat let that sink in, ladies and gentlemen most young children today spend as much time watching television as they do in the schoolroom. 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 in this room 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? Is there no room on television to teach, to inform, to uplift, to stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children? Is there no room for programs deepening their understanding of children in other lands? Is there no room for a children39。t know. What, then, is wrong with the ratings? It39。s good sense and good taste, and I am not convinced that the people39。 the insatiable appetite for programming material. These are some of the reasons. Unquestionably, these are tough problems not susceptible to easy answers. But I am not convinced that you have tried hard enough to solve them. I do not accept the idea that the present overall programming is aimed accurately at the public taste. The ratings tell us only that some people have their television sets turned on and of that number, so many are tuned to one channel and so many to another. They don39。 the need always to attract a mass audience。ve heard many answers: demands of your advertisers。s proposed programming can give us little heart. Of 73 and 1/2 hours of prime evening time, the works have tentatively scheduled 59 hours of categories of actionadventure