To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1906 Alabama gubernatorial election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1906 Alabama gubernatorial election

← 1902 November 6, 1906 1910 →
Braxton Bragg Comer.jpg
No image.svg
Nominee B. B. Comer Asa E. Stratton
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 61,223 9,981
Percentage 85.48% 13.94%

Alabama gubernatorial election, 1906.svg
County results
Comer:     50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90%
Stratton:      50–60%
Unknown/No Vote:      

Governor before election

William D. Jelks

Elected Governor

B. B. Comer

The 1906 Alabama gubernatorial election took place on November 6, 1906, in order to elect the Governor of Alabama. Democratic incumbent William D. Jelks was term-limited, and could not seek a second consecutive term.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    2 785
  • ✪ Preserving Public Broadcasting at 50 Years
  • ✪ The University of Mississippi Investiture Ceremony for Chancellor Jeffrey S. Vitter
  • ✪ G2Voice Broadcast #067: Learn from the lessons of history, and you won't be damned to repeat them
  • ✪ Dr J Rufus Fears - Story of Freedom - (13 of 18) - Progress and Democracy : Theodore Roosevelt
  • ✪ Geronimo's Story of His Life | Full Audiobook with subtitles | Native American History


>> From the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. >> Dr. Carla Hayden: Good afternoon and thank you for coming and welcome to the Library of Congress. I'm Carla Hayden. The 14th Library of Congress and we're looking -- [ Applause ] Thank you. And we're looking forward to a very, very exciting afternoon celebrating the 50th anniversary of the signing by President Lyndon Johnson of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. And we have four star studded panel s in store for you featuring many great names of public broadcasting both in radio, on radio and in television. And I want to take this opportunity to single out one of our guests here today. His name is Mr. Henry Morgenthau, III. And he said I could tell you this. He is 100 years old. [ Applause ] And he was working at WGBH 50 years ago when the act was passed and his grandfather was Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who was FDR's treasury secretary. And I am proud to say that the Library of Congress has the papers of his grandfather. And so sir, we are truly honored that you are here with us today. Thank you. [ Applause ] Many of you may know that the Library of Congress is the largest and most comprehensive collection of motion pictures, television programs, radio broadcast and sound recordings in the world is honored to host this event with WGBH, Educational Foundation our collaborators in the American Archive of Public Broadcasting or AAPB. The Library received its first public television programs in - and at the Library of Congress I get my centuries mixed up. 1964 from the precursor to PBS, the National Educational Television and Radio Center and incidentally just last month we digitized two of these programs so that they could be more accessible via the Library's website. Now the Library's public broadcasting holdings have grown exponentially since 1964 to include tens of thousands of film, video and audio masters from NET, PBS, NPR, WNET and WETA. And in addition to the thousands of access copies we routinely acquire as copyright deposits from public broadcasting stations and producers across the nation. And as the chief steward of Americas and the World's Record of Knowledge we took to heart the television and video preservation study commissioned 20 years ago by the Library of Congress, which characterized public television as "the richest audio visual source of cultural history in the United States". And so we are proud to join with WGBH to ensure that public television's legacy survives for future generations. Now at this time I'd like to make some news and that's why I'm kind of excited. I want to announce some exciting new acquisitions and projects related to public broadcasting preservation. First of all, and as a Library you don't get to break news that often, so you news people bear with me. I want to thank Mr. Dick Cavett for donating to the Library his collection, ooh I heard a little something going on. [ Applause ] >> Mr. Dick Cavett for donating to the Library of Congress his collection of approximately 2,500 shows from 1968 to 1996, including the 1,000 shows he made for PBS. He interviewed more than 5,000 guests for these shows. And the list is astonishing, and a testament to his ability to draw people not normally seen on late night television, Katherine Hepburn, Alfred Hitchcock, Angela Davis, Marlon Brando. And on one of the more memorable and notorious shows Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer. [ Applause ] And he also featured rock and roll musicians to a degree, pretty unusual for the time including John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, David Bowie, Judy Collins and Joni Mitchell. So, I was pretty excited to announce also that today, the AAPB will launch an amazing new exhibit on its website that will make public television's first coverage of the senate Watergate hearings available - I'm breaking news all over. Television's full coverage of the senate Watergate hearings available online for the very first time. This was one of the - [ Applause ] This was one of the most popular series in public broadcasting history. And the Library of Congress has digitized all of the master videotapes of the coverage we received from WETA in 1989 and with their permission are making them accessible online to anyone in the United States. The broadcast created what Dick Cavett has called Watergate junkies, to refer to himself and others who watched the hearings obsessively. The exhibit was created this summer by a Library of Congress junior fellow, Amanda Ricobec, a history major from Yale who is with us today. Could you please stand up Amanda? [ Applause ] We sent the detailed background essay she wrote to Jim Lehrer, who anchored the coverage with Robert MacNeil. Jim also is here today. And after reading the essay he wrote back "It is as terrific as it is accurate". And two years after hearings MacNeil and Lehrer worked together again on another landmark public broadcasting program. I think you've all heard of it and the rest of it is as they say is history. Jim has commented that without Watergate "there would have been no anything called MacNeil Lehrer". Jim will be on a panel later today and will show a few clips from the Watergate coverage. AABP also is in the process of making available online full interviews conducted for a number of landmark PBS series. Ken Burns' the Civil War, Eyes on the Prize and the definitive series on the Civil Rights Movement, Eyes on the Prize and the American Masters Biography Series and American Experience. So, they are telling me to get off the stage because there is so much more I could tell you about the project, but I've run out of time. So I want to think Ms. Patricia Harrison, President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for their support of the Library of Congress. Unfortunately we're learning that Pat's flight has been delayed and she won't be able to join us this afternoon but could you please give her a hand in absenteeism? [ Applause ] And I'd like to introduce Letitia King, Senior Vice President of Communications for CPB to speak on her behalf. [ Applause ] >> Letitia King: Thank you Dr. Hayden and thank you for your leadership and also for hosting this important gathering at the Library of Congress. I would like to recognize Senator Markey and thank him for his important support, not only for his home town station WGVH but also for his leadership advocating for and helping to sustain a vital public media system for all Americans. [ Applause ] It is largely because of his and others consistent support of public media that we are here today celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Public Broadcasting Act. The 1967 Act articulates a vision of a strong public media service providing access to every American to the highest quality of educational and informational content for free and commercial free. The goal then as is now, to strengthen our civil society through content that would result in educated informed and engaged citizens. The three pillars of a vibrant democracy. From 1967 to 2017 the Act continues to provide us with an evergreen mission and vision for public medias important role in American life. And one that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB is proud to advance. Because the Act created CPB and designated us as the steward of the Federal Appropriation, tasking us with insuring these funds went to public media stations to serve underserved and unserved communities, from our youngest to our oldest citizens. We are directed to utilize technology and innovative ways of connecting to new generations to serve as American's largest classroom to help inspire life-long learning and to invest in journalism that is fact based, in depth and committed to editorial integrity. Today PBS, NPR and nearly 1,500 local public television and radio stations in rural, small town and urban communities across the country are fulfilling the mission and vision of the Public Broadcasting Act. Reaching 99% of an increasingly diverse America with content that continues to be a value long after the initial broadcast or digital presentation. Content that has cultural and historical relevance provides us with insights about the way that we were and about the way we are now as a people, as a civil society, as a democracy. The value of this content is priceless. But it was deteriorating and would no longer be accessible to future generations. That is why following a two year pilot that began in 2009, CPB provided almost $3 million in grants in 2011 to public media stations so they could inventory and protect their station archives. That first step helped to build the foundation for the American archive of Public Broadcasting. But CPB did not do this along and we are appreciative of WGBH, the Library of Congress and many others for their ongoing commitment to this important initiative. So in addition to thanking Dr. Hayden and Senator Markey I want to thank Jon Abbott the President and CEO of WGBH for his leadership. WGBH is an innovative community focused station providing public broadcasting for New England and is also PBS's leading content provider, producer and a major supplier of programming for public radio and digital content nationwide. Jon's leadership has resulted in a strong partnership with the Library of Congress to preserve public media's legacy content through the American Archive of Public Broadcasting. And we are so appreciative of his commitment. Please welcome Jon Abbott. [ Applause ] >> Jon Abbott: What a gathering. What an honor to be with so many of these extraordinary leaders through the history of public broadcasting. Thank you Tish. Let me add my welcome to all of you who have joined us today for this extraordinary meeting, this opportunity to share these panels and these reflections, this history. And my special thanks to Dr. Hayden for hosting us. The Library of Congress is a fitting location to mark this milestone for public media. As many of you know WGBH and the Library came together as Tish mentioned four years ago to form the American Archive of Public Broadcasting to collect the significant historical content created by public television and radio stations over these 50 years. Because of the vision and support of Pat Harrison, CPB and its board the American Archive is preserving the programs that witness our collective history and tell America's stories. More than 100 public television and radio stations across the country from Maine to Guam have shared their content with the archive. The collection now has over 50,000 hours of content and we are adding 25,000 hours every year. And in keeping with the mission of public media the American Archive is available directly to the public with some 23,000 programs in addition to resources available daily for educators and researchers. WGBH is proud to be working in partnership with the Library of Congress to preserve these historic treasures and to make them available for future generations. And I'd like to acknowledge our dedicated American Archive team Sue Canterwicz, Karen Cariani and Casey Davis-Sucoughlin. [ Applause ] And on this anniversary as we celebrate the legislation that created public broadcasting, we note with gratitude the federal government's investment in our work, consistent, persistent and forward looking. For SGBH one individual in particular of course embodies that support and that is our senator Edward Markey. Now he had very much hoped to be with us today and we're sorry he couldn't join us. He has served on the advisory council for the American Archive and has served on the hill for 40 of the public broadcasting, of public broadcasting's 50 years. He knows our work very well and throughout he has been a star work champion of all that we aspire to do for the American people across the country. Our thanks to all of you for being with us here today. I'm very much looking forward to hearing from our extraordinary group of panelists assembled for this occasion. So, I'll turn this back to our host Dr. Carla Hayden who may squeeze in a few more releases of new information. It seemed like she - she only got half-way through her list I think, which is very exciting. Dr. Carla Hayden to begin our proceedings and thank you again to the Library of Congress. [ Applause ] >> Karen Cariani: Unfortunately everybody Carla had to leave, so it's me. You just get me. I'm Karen Cariani, Senior Director of the WGBH Media Archive and the WGBH Project Director for the American Archive of Public Broadcasting. Alan Gevinson, my esteemed colleague is in the back managing our audio/visual materials. He is the special assistant to the Chief of the Library of Audio/Visual Conservation Center, a Culpeper for the Library of Congress and Project Director for the American Archive for the Library of Congress. So, welcome everybody. Thank you so much for being here celebrating our 50th anniversary. Our first panel is about the origins of public broadcasting and we're going to start it off with a clip from Newton Minow, because in many ways we wouldn't be having this event if it wasn't for Newton Minow. He serves on our executive advisory council for the American Archive and this was - he kind of planted the seed for this event in our minds. So, here we are and we're going to roll a clip with Newton Minow. He was the FCC Chairman during 1961 to 1963 and very instrumental in getting the Public Broadcasting Act launched. >> Mr. Chairman hasn't something happened this week speaking about the government and television that has really revolutionized the passing of this bill for educational television? >> Yes, the President this week signed a bill, which for the first time will commit to federal funds for the construction of if you'll pardon the term, educational television stations. And to link these stations together. This will be the first time that it's on a matching basis with states and private institutions. The federal funds, public funds will be committed with this purpose. I think it's a landmark. You know in many countries the government operates broadcasting. We've taken a different course in this country of ours. We said that broadcasting should be in private hands, and the commercial side for private profit. But in the public interest and now we're hoping to develop and build an alternative service for those people who want it. >> Newton Minow: Wish I could be with you in person to welcome you to this important anniversary. But in my 90's it's tough to travel so I'm going to communicate a little history to you this way. What I want to do really is to tell you a couple of stories about history. My involvement really stems 61 years ago. In 1956 during the presidential campaign, my roommate in the campaign travels was Robert Kennedy who had been sent by the Kennedy family to learn about national campaigns. They were looking forward I think to Jack Kennedy becoming a candidate one day. And Bob and I were the same age, so we were often roommates on the travel. We got to Springfield, Illinois and Bob turned to me and he said "You and I have heard the same speech 5,000 times. If we've got time to walk over to Abraham Lincoln's house so I could see it. I've never been in Springfield and then we'll get back in time to catch the plane". I said, "It's only six or seven minutes, let's go". So we went over and saw Lincoln's house and on the way back Bob Kennedy said to me, he said "You know you and I each have young children, families". He said, "When I grew up", Bob said, he said, "I thought there were three great influences on a child. The home, the school and the church". He said, "I realize now raising my own children there's a fourth, and its television". He said, "My kids are on television - watching television, they're fascinated by television. Can't we do something to improve it? Make it more educational and informative for kids"? Well that started a relationship. Then four years later when his brother was elected president the day after the election I got a call saying would I please consider joining the administration. And I really said no, because I couldn't afford it. We had young children, had no money. But they pressed and they knew how interested I was in television and they offered me the job at age 34 of being Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, how could I resist that? We moved to Washington. The FCC had been in a series of scandals. The place was a mess. And my job was to clean it up. The first day I was on the job, the first issue I faced was senate wanted our testimony on a pending bill to use federal funds to help what was then called educational television. My colleagues all said, in other words at that time there were seven commissioners. They all said "No we don't take a position on that". I said, "Wait a minute, our job here is to protect the public interest, certainly this is in the public interest". So by a vote 6:1 with my single descent we testified to the senate. I was the one who said that we were very much for this legislation. And I brought today something that long preceded the public television act of 19 - later - this is the first act. You see President Kennedy; I'm sort of hidden in the background with the senators and congressman. This was passed and the President signed it on May 1, 1962. President John F. Kennedy signing the TV Educational Bill Senate 205 on May 1, 1962. The - I was privileged to do that in person. I realized I had come to the FCC from Chicago where we had WTTW. President Kennedy had come to the White House from Boston, that was WGBH. Little did we know that there was no public television station in Washington DC, the capital of the United States, not in New York City, the largest city in the United States, not in Los Angeles the largest city on the West Coast. There were very few stations. So I felt the first thing we had to do was get more stations and the way we did that was to pass two laws. One was called the All Channel Receiver Act which made television sets have a UHF tuner, which enabled news stations to come on air. The other was to provide some funding for communities to build public television station. So, we launched what later became what is now today the Nationwide system. We also helped public radio which had preceded television in any way we could. I always think that without a station in New York and without a station in Los Angeles, without a station in Washington it would be impossible to build a national system. So, I'm very proud of that. President Kennedy was very proud of it. And later when I left the government, went home to Chicago, I became involved in our local station WTTW, later became Chairman of it. Public broadcasting has grown and developed because it was bipartisan. I tell our board here at WTTW that the most important asset we have is that the word trust. It doesn't show up in a financial statement. But everyone trusts us, everyone trusts PBS, everyone trusts MPR as being honest and fair. And that's why it's so important that now we archive and preserve the great things we've done. We celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Public Television Act. [ Applause ] >> Karen Cariani: So if the first panelist could come up to the stage, that would be great. In that first piece with Eleanor Roosevelt was actually thank you to Henry Morgenthau, it was one of the programs that he produced for WGBH. [ Applause ] Our first panel is about the origins of public broadcasting and our moderator will be Cokie Roberts. Cokie Roberts is a political commentator - >> Don't do all that. >> Karen Cariani: Please, please I have it all written out. Well I'm dying to at least say she was cited by American Women in Radio and Television as one of the 50 greatest women in the history of broadcasting. And in 2008 the Library of Congress named her a living legend, which we totally agree with. [ Applause ] >> Cokie Roberts: Well I am thrilled to be moderating this panel because this is one of the rare times in my life that I'm the kid. I joined NPR 10 years after the Public Broadcasting Act was signed, so I've been there 40 years. And these gents preceded me as - >> Pre-deceased you? >> Cokie Roberts: No, no, no. Not - I didn't say deceased. They were there at the beginning. And so they each have a wonderful story to tell. Ervin Duggan who is immediately to my left was in the White House at the time that the bill was passed. And then has been very active as both an FCC Commissioner and as head of PBS. Nick Johnson was at the FCC and a troublemaker all the time and did PBS programs as well as columns. But was very involved with public broadcasting after he left the FCC. Bill Siemering was really one of the founders of NPR and was the creator of all things considered. And Bill is still at it running developing radio. He would be happy to accept contributions. And so I think we'll just start Ervin with you and tell us what it was like. How did you get the bill passed? >> Ervin Duggan: Well we had Lyndon Johnson who was a master of politics and there is really a hidden story about how this came about. And I hope that someday a historian will delve into what we call the legislative task force. As much as the great society legislation including the Public Broadcasting Act was crafted outside the White House and even outside Washington. The Carnegie Corporation Commission on Public Broadcasting for example, the corporation headed in New York. Johnson decreed and Bill Moyers was I think the point man on this. That the great society legislation should be crafted by these legislative task forces in the universities and the foundations all across the country. This really accomplished two things; it removed the process of drafting policy from the eyes of the press and from the atmosphere of partisan politics. It hid the process somewhat - >> Cokie Roberts: It was secret. >> Ervin Duggan: I would call a benign secrecy. And I don't think the history has ever been written, but if you look at the 15 members of the Carnegie Commission you see the man JC Kellum who headed LBJ's television stations in Texas. You see a Texan Oveta Culp Hobby, you see the President of the United Auto Workers. Why? Because Johnson wanted a tremendous lobbying push and if the chairman of the UAW in Detroit was one of the people who crafted the idea for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That meant that the immense lobbying power then of the United Auto Workers would be behind the bill when it came to the hill. So, all of this was a part of LBJ's legislative genius and as I said earlier I hope someday a historian will delve into these legislative task forces because it seems to me one of the most creative and really praise worthy despite the secrecy, one of the most praise worthy things in that history. And it's all a part of a larger story. Were it not for the dark cloud of Vietnam, I think the LBJ presidency would be remembered as the new deal is remembered, as a flowering of creativity and positive legislation on behalf of the well-being of the American people. I see it - I see the great society chapter, which really ended at about 1967 after the Congress changed its composition in '66. I see it as the concluding chapter of the new deal. Johnson told Bill Moyers on the plane coming back from Dallas that he wanted to do all the things that Franklin had been unable to do. And so there was this tremendous election majority that brought on the coattails into the congress a tremendous working majority and he used that majority to pass Medicare, more than 60 education bills including the great corporation for public broadcasting bill. The other thing and Newton Minow mentioned it was bipartisanship. The commission was made up of Republicans and Democrats. The support on Capitol Hill came from Republicans and Democrats. To this day if you look at the trustees of the stations around the country, when I was traveling for PBS, speak to trustees and fund raising dinners around the country for the stations. It was city arts and business leadership of every metropolitan area in the country made up largely of Republicans. And what they could be counted upon when these periodic outbursts of insanity occur of misguided people wanting to wound, they can't kill, but wanting to wound public broadcasting. These Republican trustees from all over the country get on the phone and say "What are you doing"? >> Cokie Roberts: They're still doing it. >> Erven Duggan: They are. And we can count on that. John, Senator Warner then of the previous Senator Warner from Virginia told me once that the Congress would never kill public broadcasting because it now is the only way that a member of Congress can get on television in his local community. And so I hope that they are inviting their members of Congress to appear frequently. But I went to the White House after the great landslide of '64. A really sort of gopher for Douglas Cader who was in charge of shepherding the corporation for public broadcasting into realty. And our office in the basement of the west wing really became a sort of workshop where the members of the Carnegie Commission first John Gardener of the Carnegie Commission and then Ellen Pfeifer around the conference table in the office. I would like to claim some creative role in this but I really was - I came to the White House having been a green reporter for the Washington Post; so I was a kind of gopher. But I was also a watcher. And what I watched was visionary people doing amazing things and it had a shaping influence. It was a great graduate school of my life. And my boss hated to write speeches and because I had been a newspaper reporter he would shove all the speech writing off to me. And when we passed the legislation and Johnson had to make a speech, signing the bill, I was given the task of writing the speech. And about 48 hours before the speech was locked up and sent into what was called the presidents night reading, John Gardner by now the Secretary of HEW called and he said "We need to extend the vision of this speech beyond broadcasting and talk about all public media". And he didn't even know what that meant at the time, but he suggested language and I want to quote a little bit of it and then I will stop talking. Because it is so prestian and so visionary and so symbolic of all that was going on in that fertile period of our time. Right in the middle of the speech, signing the bill Johnson said these words, "I want to create a great network for knowledge. Not just a broadcast system but one that employs every means of sending and storing information. Think of the lives that this could change. The student in a small college could tap the resources of a great university. The country doctor could get help from a distant laboratory or teaching hospital. A scholar in Atlanta might draw instantly on a library in New York. Now all this is 30 years before the internet. But suddenly the chrysalis is beginning to form. And the creative vision of a network for knowledge. The stations of NPR and PBS have not always been receptive, I'm sorry to say to new technology. They are more on the broadcast technology and a station manager once said to me when we were trying to create, "Every hour that a viewer spends looking at a computer screen is an hour that he is not watching my station". And so there's been a certain hostility. But we know that right there in the womb, when the bill was signed the President of the United States was envisioning something called networks for knowledge. May that increase, may it grow, may the commitment of all public broadcasters to public media flourish in the future. But it was great fun to be in on the beginning though I can't claim anything other than a gopher's role. But what a great thing we did. It is now embedded in the culture. It is a part of American life in the way that Medicare, other great achievements at that time are sewn into the fabric of American life. And heroes of that movement are in this room, may their tribe increase. [ Applause ] >> Cokie Roberts: So Nick, what was the role of the FCC in all of this? >> Nick Johnson: Well I would like to go back a little further. >> Cokie Roberts: Okay. >> Nick Johnson: Since I believe Mr. Morgenthau and I are amongst the more - age of experience you know and so - >> Cokie Roberts: The wise men. >> Nick Johnson: Well not necessarily as we often see, but to go back to the 18th century. Because there are other presidents involved in this besides Lyndon Johnson. With regard to whom I might add an anecdote that he brought me in February of '64 and shortly thereafter a memo went out to all presidential appointees, you may recall this saying "I want you to tell me what you think would be in the best interest of our nation with the area for which you have responsibility". And in my case at that time it was ports and ship building and shipping. He made me Maritime Administrator, just exactly what you would think a boy from Iowa would - the coasts of Iowa. The coasts of Iowa and - should the experience be limited to operating a canoe on the Iowa River but not very successfully. Something that thankfully the commerce committee found fully adequate to justify the appointment. But I think that's another thing to say about Lyndon Johnson. That compared with other presidents perhaps who will go unnamed, that there would actually be that focus on what's in the best national interest. But I want to go back to Madison, who I just learned today is referred to by those who work at the Library of Congress as Jimmy Madison. >> Cokie Roberts: He was Jimmy, spelled J-E-M-M-Y. >> Nick Johnson: Is that right, was it James Madison? >> Cokie Roberts: Jemmy. >> Nick Johnson: I'll be darned. What, did your father tell you that? >> Cokie Roberts: No I write history - >> Nick Johnson: He was a great - they would be so proud of you now and everything you've done. No, I'm serious. Hale and Lindy Boggs, great people. Well anyhow I wanted to go back to Jemmy Madison, however you spell his name. And there is an inscription as you came into this building you may have noticed. And I'm going to link this up with Thomas Jefferson and then ultimately with public broadcasting and try to do it in five minutes or less if that's all right. >> Cokie Roberts: All right. >> Nick Johnson: Yeah, let's less would be better. Less is more. Yeah. And it contains this line "People who mean to be their own governor's must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives". That's Madison's quote. Jefferson and many of you may know this, but when writing his own epitaph chose to be remembered as the father of the University of Virginia and made no mention of the fact that he'd been President of the United States. Now this is very significant I think because what these folks were doing was recognizing and establishing and making efforts to maintain fundamental pillars of democracy. Many of which have always been and continue to be today under attack. One obviously is extending the franchise from originally white male land owners over 21 to where now we even let women vote. >> Cokie Roberts: Took a while. >> Nick Johnson: It did take a long while. And 18 year olds, but then the addition of free public education, a fundamental element and pillar of democracy. And then the idea of independent media protected by the First Amendment. For Jefferson also said famously as you all know and writing Edward Carrington, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter". And then went on in the next sentence to say, "But I should mean that every person should receive those papers and be capable of reading them". Again, tying it to education, subsequently we added the idea of free public libraries where every American could have access to the resources of kings. And indeed, this library was contributed to by Jefferson in 1815 as you probably know. Something that is often not thought about in this context but relates to what John Gardener - incidentally he wrote two wonderful books - he wrote a lot of stuff but that our paperback books, one called Excellence, one called Self-Renewal, which I think are always worth re-reading at least every 20 or 30 years. Because the other thing we did was to establish reduced rates for sending newspapers and books and magazines through the postal system. Subsidizing what was at that time the communications network of the 19th century was the post office. And then we added telegraph and telephone and so on. But that was how it began and as all of you know the early time of radio and I want to tell just one story about Iowa City and then I'm done, is that okay? Yeah, all right. The early days of radio involved numerous, 72 in the very early days, educational institutions that did not only the technological work of creating this box in which little people lived and could talk, but also the programming and the focus on the use of this as an instrument of education. Iowa City, Iowa from whence I come, a city designated by the United Nations as one of three global cities of literature, was created the first educational radio station west of the Mississippi. That was in 1911, all right? So this goes back before 1967, for those who are younger among us here today. In 1971 WSUI became a charter member of NPR, one of the early few. And one of the 90 stations to carry the inaugural broadcast of Bills, All things considered. In 1916 it began transmitting educational content, ultimately including my father's lectures in the 1940's. By the last 1920's, remember this, 1920's they had educational television broadcasting television images of classroom content. A station that would ultimately be one of the founding stations creating Iowa Public Television and thus end the reading for today. [ Applause ] >> Cokie Roberts: Well Bill, that nicely gets us to you. The fact is that we heard all about educational TV and even though radio came before it was something of an afterthought in terms of public broadcasting. And you are the person who changed that. >> Bill Siemering: It was actually Scotch taped at the last minute onto the legislation. >> Cokie Roberts: And radio. It's like the Civil Rights Law putting "and sex" in and changing women's lives forever. But so - >> Nick Johnson: If I can note, I took the position at that time that we ought to forget about television and start with radio. You've got literally 10 times more for your dollar with radio than with television. >> Cokie Roberts: That's still true. >> Nick Johnson: Really, that's right. Build a really strong national political base in support of public radio that would then clammer and demand of Congress Public Television. But to start with Public Television and under fund it, I didn't think was the right political move, Bill. [ Applause ] >> Bill Siemering: Because you're all, or many of you are historians and we've - the history of the university is I'd like to just go back. A couple weeks ago I was out in Madison, Wisconsin celebrating the 100th anniversary of the oldest station in the - the oldest educational station, continuous - >> Nick Johnson: But east of the Mississippi. >> Bill Siemering: That's right. We can arm wrestle about this one. And tracing this back to the university because I think it raises a good point. About 11 years before radio was invented the university president of [Inaudible] at Wisconsin said, "I want the beneficence of the university to be in every home in the state". And it became the motto of the so called Wisconsin idea. The boundaries of the campus are the boundaries of the state. And so that was the idea of extending those resources. And at that time the very first broadcast east of the Mississippi and educational station was information to farmers, weather information, 60% were - 61% literacy rate at that time in Wisconsin. And as just a side bar Cokie mentioned that I have an organization developing radio partners and we're working in Zambia to improve the weather and farming information where the literacy rate is 61%. So, radio continues to be used this way. So anyway, that idea continued and so the beginnings really were there and I started my career in public radio as an engineer in 1952 working my way through the University of Wisconsin. So, that's where I - my roots are there and there was a center for innovation and audio invitation, innovation and so on. They're producing radio plays by David Mamet and Arthur Colpert and so on. Anyway, it was that experience that informed me. I left there and was in Buffalo and developed a store front center broadcast facility in the heart of the black community where 27 hours a week came from that source. So I was, at that time giving voice or helping give voice to folks that had no - there were no people of color really in media at that time. And we had discussions about race on air, what is it like to be an African American in our society. I had done some - >> Cokie Roberts: What year are we in now? >> Bill Siemering: We're in 1964 and 1964. And I did a series on the Iroquois Confederacy, some portraits of that - of that culture, Nation within a Nation. Anyway, so when I was tasked as a member of the founding board to write the mission statement I felt very strongly about radio, that our first meeting with a corporation for public broadcasting. I was on the radio advisory committee. And John Macy said to us, "Well you know, of course, television has to go first". Of course, television always goes first. And I was really always frustrated by this of course, because - so I started a program in Buffalo called "This is radio". This is radio dammit, pay attention. Look what - listen to what radio can do. I'm still saying the same thing in development. Anyway, so the task was to try to, for me, differentiate it from the educational radio, from commercial radio, from PBS that was of course up and running. To capitalize on the strengths of radio as a sound medium, getting out of the studio, telling stories. And to be somewhat aspirational but also practical. So that was what I was trying to do when I wrote the mission statement. If you don't mind I'll just read a few paragraphs of that. National Public Radio will serve the individual. It will promote personal growth. It will regard individual differences with respect and joy, rather than division and hate. It will celebrate the human experiences infinitely varied rather than vacuous [Inaudible]. It will encourage a sense of active, constructive participation rather than apathetic helplessness. The total service should be trustworthy, enhanced intellectual development. Expand knowledge, deepen oral aesthetic enjoyment, increase the pleasure of living in a pluralistic society. And result in a service to listeners, which makes them more responsive informed human beings and intelligent responsible citizens of their communities and the world. And then in the first description of what became of all things considered I said that it would not substitute superficial blindness for genuine diversity of regions, values and cultural and ethnic minorities, which comprise American society. It would speak with many voices and many dialects. The editorial attitude would be that of inquiry, curiosity, concern for the quality of life, critical, problem solving and life loving. The listener should come to rely upon it as a source of information of consequence. That having listened has made a difference in their attitude toward their environment and themselves. And then the concluding paragraph for now, philosophically time is measured by the intensity of experience, waiting for a bus and walking through an art gallery may occupy the same duration of time but not the same time experience. Listeners should feel that the time spent with NPR was among their most rewarding in media contact. National Public Radio will not regard its audience as a market or in terms of its disposable income, but as curious complex individuals who are looking for some understanding, meaning and joy in the human experience. [ Applause ] >> Cokie Roberts: Well so now you have a good sense of how it all began. And since these gentlemen have been broadcasters we're finishing right on time at 3:00, in time for the next panel. Thank you gentlemen very, very much. [ Applause ] >> Henry Becton: Good afternoon everyone, I'm Henry Becton the chairman of the executive advisory council for the American Archive of Public Broadcasting. And when I arrived at WGBH Henry Morgenthau was in his heyday as an executive producer and so he was one of my mentors. And one thing that Carla Hayden didn't have time to tell you is that he still has the urge to create. He's just published a book of his poetry, his first book of poetry. I've got a copy of it there and what she didn't tell you is that this is actually a stop on his book tour today. It is my great pleasure to introduce this next panel and its moderator, Judy Woodruff. One of our very special colleagues in public media. [ Applause ] Judy began her distinguished career at the CBS affiliate in Atlanta. And went on to be White House correspondent for NBC. Was the host of Frontline in its early days, host of inside politics for CNN, guest correspondent for NPR, author of several books and co-founder and chairperson of the International Women's Media Foundation. And along the way has been honored by many distinguished organizations. So, thank you Judy for helping us today and we promise to get you out of here and back ready to prep for the news hour tonight. All yours. >> Judy Woodruff: Henry Bectin, thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Judy Woodruff: Henry Bectin of course being one of the pillars of public media for so many years, Boston and the whole country has so much to thank you for. Thank you Henry. So I'm the lucky one now, because I get to preside over this panel of five mega stars in public media, the Pantheon of News and Public Affairs. Each one of them has played an absolutely essential role in keeping public media, public television and radio at the center of American life. None of them needs an introduction so I'm going to be very brief. Starting with my mentor, the man you just saw in that clip, the former anchor and executive editor of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and before that the co-anchor and executive editor of the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour, the MacNeil Lehrer Report from 1975 until 2011, the face of and the singular driving force behind daily journalism at PBS. All of this following a distinguished career in newspapers, Jim Lehrer. [ Applause ] >> He still needs a haircut obviously. >> Judy Woodruff: Next my boss today. I don't feel any pressure at all up here. The President and CEO of WETA, Washington DC's flagship public television and radio stations since 1989. Before that she served as a member and chair of the board of the corporation of public broadcasting as well as a member of the WETA board following her service on the West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority, Sharon Percy Rockefeller. [ Applause ] >> Judy Woodruff: The executive director and co-founder of Radio Bilingue Inc., the National Latino Public Radio Network. In 1976 he was the moving force of a group of Latino farmworkers, artists, activists and teachers who founded Radio Bilingue in California San Joaquin Valley. Hugo Morales. [ Applause ] Someone who is already been applauded here, the longtime host of the Dick Cavett Show, over five decades. His remarkable career in television has spanned networks from ABC, USA, HBO and of course PBS. He's appeared in movies, TV specials and several Broadway plays, Dick Cavett. [ Applause ] And finally the aforementioned living legend, the woman who moderated the last panel with a mm-mm year background along with me in broadcasting, political commentator for ABC News and of course for NPR contributor to the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour, advisor to the American Archives of Public Broadcasting, Cokie Roberts. [ Applause ] So what we're charged with doing is looking at how news and public affairs came into being and how it evolved in public media. Jim, I'm going to start with you, you were there almost at the beginning. When you came to Washington it was all about Watergate. We saw that clip, what happened? >> Jim Lehrer: Well the Watergate - the Watergate hearings really did - that was the water shed event for news and public affairs on public television. Up to that point the stations and the public was generally divided over whether they even needed any more news and public affairs on television beyond what was already there on commercial television. The Nixon Administration particularly didn't think there was a need for any more news and public affairs on public broadcasting. But the Watergate - the Watergate hearings changed everything. And the reason it changed was because there are several individuals who had the courage to make some really tough decisions. And one of them was not to necessarily broadcast them gavel to gavel because many of the stations would not broadcast it live because they had educational TV on during the day time. But somebody and I was part of the mix of the somebody's, said "Why the hell don't we run them at night? Repeat them at night"? And that was a big, big deal. It was a big decision. And the people who were running PBS were nervous about it so they said, "Let's poll the stations". So but we - we did poll the stations but we polled the stations in a very clever way. We polled the stations with a question that was kind of phrased in such a way "Do you want to be patriotic or do you want to be a jerk" And we still barely won a majority. But as MacNeil said at the time and I quote him almost verbatim, well the option - because it was summertime and PBS didn't have that much to run at night anyway - they had no original programs to run at night anyhow. So he said, "Well all they would run if they didn't run the hearings would be" - how did he put it, English speaking people talking, animals mating, and occasionally English speaking people mating and animals talking. [ Laughter ] So why not replace it with the Watergate hearings? That's why when I said 3:00 a.m., the hearings weren't going on till 3:00 a.m., that was the repeat every night. We would do it live all day but we only had about maybe half the stations were watching it, were broadcasting it. But at night the - and it wouldn't - it was the old story you know, the big stations wouldn't take it, but then they started because the word got out and then suddenly it became a big deal. And the big deal was that it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a role for news and public affairs on public broadcasting because of those hearing and out of that came the news hour and everything else. >> Judy Woodruff: So when you and Robin cooked up the MacNeil - it was MacNeil - Robert MacNeil report and quickly the McNeil Lehrer Report and then - >> Jim Lehrer: It began as I said a million times, it began with the worst title in the history of television, Robert MacNeil Report and I was the Washington Correspondent and then it became -my mother interceded and it became the McNeil Lehrer Report. It was one story a day for 30 minutes when we started and then - that was '75. And then in '83 it went to an hour, became the news hour. >> Judy Woodruff: And that's where I want to bring in Sharon Rockefeller because Sharon you were already active in public broadcasting and you knew what Jim and Robert were trying to do. What were you up against when they tried to go to an hour? >> Sharon Rockefeller: The stations in many senses. I was working - I was familiar with West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority, not on the board at that time because my husband wasn't governor. And that was a gubernatorial appointment. At the time actually I asked for one thing from my husband, "Can I be appointed to the WVEBA" and he said, "Yes". And no one ever thought twice about it, but that was my training. That's where I learned. But the Watergate hearings actually, I watched every single day, all day long. Jay had lost an election by the largest margin in the history of the state in 1972, we had four years in exile in Buckhannon, West Virginia, three hours north of Charleston, three hours south of Pittsburgh. But an hour and a half from the Morgantown West Virginia University Station. So, when the Watergate hearings were on in that, I could not receive the Washington Post by mail until two days after it was published. I started watching full time. My kids were watching Sesame Street. I loved history, Adam's Chronical, Masterpiece, but news and public affairs was my main attraction. It was what we had to offer. We at that point was little old public television and it was the turnaround. I also came on the WETA board at the same time through another vehicle, a friend of mine on the Stanford University Board, which had one woman on the board and I was taking her place. She was the founder of - this is in the 70's, lest we forget. She was the founder of KQED, Caroline Charles, so she said "Where do you live"? I said, "West Virginia", San Francisco, thank you. She said, "Where's that"? She said, "Is that near the Dakotas"? "Is it near the Carolinas". But she knew Mrs. Campbell and she called her immediately and I was 29. She said "You have to talk to this young woman". I didn't know what about. But Mrs. Campbell called me in a very authoritarian way, "You must come to Washington right now", which I did. I've always taken my orders from Elizabeth Campbell. And that's how I got involved with WETA. So I had a very small [Inaudible] and at that point WETA was not as wealthy as it is today. It had a budget of 4 million; now we're at 97 million. But we've clawed our way up. And it's really through news and public affairs. The Watergate hearings put public television on the map and WETA and the News Hour, which came about in 1983 because we thought we should be the first, and that all stations were going to go to one hour of news. In fact, they never did, we did but we won, if you recall Robin and Jim and I went around to visit stations, speak to them and they didn't really want it. We did not want it - >> Jim Lehrer: We divided up - we divided up the 300 and some public television stations and we called every station manager or program manager because Irv's successor as president of PBS said "It's a great idea to go to an hour, but I don't have the power to do it. You're going to have to get the stations to - get the stations to do it". So we physically called them on the phone, and then there was a vote. We won by six votes. To go to an hour and out of 300 and some and that felt like, oh never mind. >> Sharon Rockefeller: All you need is one more than the other guy. >> Jim Lehrer: Democracy won. >> Judy Woodruff: And as they say the rest is history. So, Dick Cavett, while all this was going on in the daily news, daily journalism world, you had a very successful career as an interviewer in commercial television. What was the appeal of public television? >> Dick Cavett: Well I noticed in something about today that among the things that I thought might come up would be the question of why I moved my show from network television to PBS. I was fired. [ Laughter ] I hope that's not too loquacious a way to put it but that's pretty much what happened. So opened the door, paved the way, whatever cliché you prefer. It was a wonderful change with network television. I was of course delighted to get a show. Terrified and very nervous at first. And the trouble there, the kind that would come up on network so-called non-public television so to speak starting on the first day. I thought I had a wonderful show, Present them is my first show to be played about a week later. Mohammad Ali, Gore Vidal and Angela Lansbury did a wonderful talking lively show. And foolish boy from Nebraska that I am, I went backstage to be congratulated by ABC Vice President sort of shepherded the show. And I saw his expression didn't seem appropriate for a show that he loved. I think it was worded "Who the", let's say hell gives a damn, that's a better word "what Mohammad Ali and Gore Vidal think about Vietnam"? Well obviously that had come up. Second brilliant part of his reaction was "We can't really air that as the first show because of that" and "We're going to air it as the second show". And I seem to remember saying "Are you going to be like this all along". And I saw agent Sam Kohn wince over in the corner. And they did. They did that. I did a second show that was nice and we had them both and they aired the second show first. And it got mildly enthusiastic reaction. And then they aired the first show the second night and reviewers were reviewing the whole week, so almost everybody said about the second show, "the Cavett show really found itself on the second show". [ Laughter ] I was sure that - the man who had been waiting backstage for - to congratulate me, got a copy of that [Inaudible]. So that sort of thing happened and then there were other kinds of troubles that I would not have gotten on and didn't on PBS. One involved that lovable old couple; the John Lennon's and they come on. And that was an event and other people were jealous and the reviews were big and the ratings were big. And that was nice, and they even came back. John when I met him a week earlier before the first one said - I said, "Why do you want to do this really? There can't be much you need at this point". And he said, "You have the only half-way intelligent show on television". And I said, "Why would you want to be on a half-way intelligent show"? And he laughed as many of you did and we were friends from that point on. But, on the second show who'd have guessed the agreement had been that we would do one of their songs. And John said, "Why don't we do one of Yoko's songs"? It had the catchy title "Woman is the Nigger of the World". And I thought are they kidding. By God, we did the song and nothing happened. But, before it was aired I was told that it would not be aired, the song, and I complained. And they said, "Well all right, we will air it, but our decision is that you will make a statement beforehand" about the dangers of watching it I guess. I remember one of the - and there were 412 perhaps protests about the song. None of them about the song though, but as one woman put it, about that mealy mouthed speech you made - delivered just before. By delivery sort of encouraged that? So, getting to PBS was going into a green meadow in a way. >> Judy Woodruff: Well I want to hear more about the green meadow, but Cokie I want to come to you because we heard Bill Siemering and I think Ervin Duggan both say words to the effect that they felt that NPR should have had the early head start, early boost that PBS did. Did you feel that when you first went - >> Cokie Roberts: Oh sure. It's still true to some degree. But it turned out to be a blessing I think in the end; Bill could probably talk about this more. That it was kind of a secret at first because at the point when Nixon did go after television and basically the television network committed suicide. The NPR was still there. And there was no necessity to disband it because it wasn't on the radar. And so the ability to just grow and thrive was much easier in that environment. But then the growing and thriving became something quite dramatic and as of today we are listened to by more people than the three you know morning editions listened to by more people than the three network morning shows combined. It is listened to by more people than anything other than Rush Limbaugh and I keep saying you know, Steve Inskeep should get what Rush gets, right? But because of the different in ratings is about a half million people. And so it is wildly successful and really the primary source of news for millions and millions of people around the world. >> Judy Woodruff: And commercial radio has pulled back from that dramatically over the years. >> Cokie Roberts: That's also true. >> Judy Woodruff: Leaving a big opening. So you Hugo Morales, you were paying attention to all this in California. But you and some of your friends decided there was something missing. What did you see? >> Hugo Morales: First of all I was a little - at that time little or no news on radio and that is true today. In Spanish language commercial radio there is no news. I mean that sounds - we still have [Inaudible] those of us who believe in the mission, but it's absent. I mean it's a shocking truth that there is - there is no news in Spanish radio except for [Inaudible]. And when we got started back in '76, let's take the - we got started in 1976, but - we got started on July 4, 1980. But 1980 the population of Latinos in the US was around 15 million which is about 6.5 % of the US population. Now it's 58 million and 185 of the population and 72% of Latinos speak Spanish at home. So, this is not something of the past, you know some of us were young at that time, right? And that we had big dreams. And - but rather something that is very relevant today. And yet there is no news in Spanish language commercial radio. >> Judy Woodruff: Stunning. >> Hugo Morales: It is very, very stunning. It's a story that some of us don't want to perhaps believe but it is true and so back in 1976 when we started organizing or I started organizing Bilingue in Fresno. It's a community that I came to because I was born in Oaxaca, and raised in Sonoma County where the fires were recently. And then went to the Silicon Valley because it was the largest concentration of farm workers in the United States, which is still it, is today. You know it's - in the amount of people that I came in contact with they saw the same thing. All these Chicanos, Mexican Americans, all of them were US born except for me. I was the only immigrant. And all of us were bilingual and educated. We were the first generation of Latinos to be open the doors to higher education. So that contributed a lot to why Radio Bilingue was founded because we saw this degree of limitation of public broadcasting, but not public - just public broadcasting but I mean you know, English language media that we as Latinos, our families could not access just because of the language and so - but it's not just the language. The language and I see everybody here you know there's much more than the language, the culture, the history and the nuances of language. There's a literature, there's a poetry, there's arts, there's all that. And that was absent in terms of - and we as young people thought "Well wow, it seems like our treasures, our community treasures, our hidden treasures", we have so much you know wealth of history. We have so much wealth of art. And so forth in our communities and we should be able to share that and learn from one another. So that's why we establish Radio Bilingue in 1976 [Inaudible] on the air in 1980. >> Judy Woodruff: And it's still going. >> Hugo Morales: And it's still going. And we also believe of course, that public affairs [Inaudible] had to be part of it because what we wanted to do is just like in this situation, we wanted to us, as Chicanos, Mexican Americans and Latinos to tell the story have our own narrative to be inclusive. I mean if you look at for example the prison population today in the United States. You know something like 1% of the in prison population in the US is Latino. So a lot of our communities in need, the highest dropout rates from high schools continue to be Latinos in the United States. And yet you see the figures of how we are significant now in number of - and we'll project it to go even larger. So, that's when we find it rather bleak because we wanted that to happen. So, we've been able to document and follow some of the stories that some of the other media have not. For example there's a case of indigenous woman living in the south who was denied you know, parenting her child at birth because she could not communicate in English or Spanish because she spoke a native language from my home state of Oaxaca. So it's that kind of a case where you some community folks there from I think it was Alabama called our station and told them the story. We broke the story and the news media picked it up and eventually she recovered her child but that's the kind of stories that we covered. Or, right now what's happening is talk about the need, there's a lot of fear among our families about you know deportations. And maybe to those of us in this room it's just another topic but to people who listen to us or listeners it's very, very personal. I mean just I think about a month, a couple months ago we had a call from a mother, from Teresa, California, where we opened the lines and also given information that at that time the opportunity to renew [Inaudible] and she was saying that her son had gone into depression after the election. He knew what was about to happen. And he was a [Inaudible] recipient. And he had quit his college upon after the election. And soon later he quit his job. So the mother was very worried about her son and what was about to happen. So that's the kind of stories and narratives that are [Inaudible]. >> Judy Woodruff: You're touching stories of all American lives and that's what public broadcasting, public media was founded to do. Jim let's talk next for a few minutes about how hard or not it's been to survive as public media as news and public affairs and public media. A lot of competition out there, the news, the commercial news environment has changed so drastically. Why has public media remained, news and public affairs remained as strong as it has do you think? >> Jim Lehrer: Well first of all we - MacNeil and I said at the very beginning and that if people started - if commercial television came along when cable started growing in fact, particularly if they started doing what we're doing we quit doing it. There's no point in our doing what's available elsewhere. We'll go on and do something else. And we had a lot of ideas about the things that we could do, but as we sit here now nobody is doing it right. And in fact there is more - now more than ever they would say the kind of journalism that is practiced on the news hour is more needed now than ever before because journalism on television has had its own growth and its own kinds of changes and those changes have been away from the kind of separation of straight reporting from analysis, from opinion and that sort of thing which is still true of the news hour but not true in some elements of commercial television, particularly cable television. And so the reason for our being, let's cut to the chase, the reason for our being is stronger now than it has ever been. >> Good point. >> Judy Woodruff: I will let that just sit there because I think it's right. [ Applause ] Sharon, as somebody who has to look at this both as you know journalists very well, but you have to think about it as a manager, as an executive. How hard has it been to keep news and public affairs going? And we should add, I mean you - you over see the Ken Burns, it's not just the news hour and Washington Week. It's the Ken Burns Show and many others. >> Sharon Rockefeller: I think what's one of the things that's great about the public television audience is that it's pretty well educated. Above all, it continues to want to learn. So keeping up on a daily basis is important, but putting in context weekly as we do on Washington Week is very important. And history, the arts, science, kids all of the rest means we serve so many different people in so many different ways but our signature is the news and public affairs. It's the hardest to fund and yet our membership money essentially helps subsidize although we raise d a lot for the news hour. We raised a good bit for Washington week, but we never make a profit, let's put it that way. We always reinvest in the product and could spend a lot more than we take in. I think it is our trademark, our signature. We're very proud of it and I think our audience is proud to be associated with what we do. >> Jim Lehrer: But it's always been difficult to keep it funded, always. We never had - we don't even - the word surplus doesn't even - it's not even in our vocabulary. We're always under - way over - either over budget or having to cut back and that's been from day one. And I hate to say this but at the very beginning when we first started which was now 37-38 years ago there was a commercial television guy named Marvin Kalb I ran into him socially. We'd been on the air a year or two at that point and I didn't know Marvin Kalb. And he said, "Well you guys are doing things" - he said "Let me give you a warning" and I said, "Yeah what's that"? He said, "Don't let them give you too much money". And I said, "That's not a problem. But just for the hell of it tell me why"? And he told quick story and he had scads of them. But one in particular nightly news, CBS news, Czechoslovakia has been invaded. He was going to do a minute, a minute and a half thing on and it's going to be a major story. They kept cutting it back, cutting it back, cutting it back, and about a minute before air or two minutes before air they got some great fire footage from downtown Little Rock. Now nobody was hurt in the fire, just great pictures of fires. And they cut his report back to 20 seconds. And he said if they hadn't had the money to buy that fire footage I would have had my minute and a half. So it - and it was - it stuck in my mind because I just told the story again. And - but - and McNeil always said that too. If you get too fat and sassy you'll - you will - you'll do things that you would do - you'll do things that you - that are not required. This way you're limited by - money limits you to do what you must rather than what you just kind of want to do. >> Cokie Roberts: In radio that's really not true because what we're doing is opening bureaus all over the place. And when we're living in a world where what happens in Syntagma Square in Athens affects your 401k then you need to have more international coverage rather than less. And of course more national coverage understanding what's going on in this country. And so really the money goes to those very expensive foreign bureaus which are very, very difficult to do but I would argue essential in this time. And so we need all the money we can get, thank you. >> Jim Lehrer: It's probably a story I shouldn't have told. >> Sherry Rockefeller: Judy the one thing I would say is - sorry to interrupt, that corporations in the early days, we went to AT&T, etc., etc. without huge amounts of money in retrospect. That has diminished drastically but foundations have really upped the ante. And they understand, they're more visionary, they have a lot of money now and it's not we've never had a surplus. But foundations and individuals who support the program. We have, you know you can give as an individual to support the PBS news hour, which was never possible before. But we're doing that in a membership kind of way. >> Did the funding situation effect the work you were able to do, do you think in any way, you? >> Dick Cavett: I recognized my name, but it wasn't - see I like fires. What a story that is. I was never thoughtful or thinking about such things as funding. It's a bad habit sort of frame of mind for me. And I had to be urged every now and then to make a phone call or make an effort, something like that. But I was thinking of shows that I was able to do and people said, "Oh you're going under public television now, that's for intellectuals". I - intellectual is a very dangerous label to have put on you when you're in television whether it's public or the other sort. But I remember appreciating the fact that ABC would have gotten a little nervous when I would have on England's great entertaining performer, actor, philosopher, teacher, John - the great Jonathan Miller - one of the greatest intellectuals in captivity. And would have him on five nights in a row a couple of times and people wanted more. I can imagine trying to do that elsewhere shall we say. So, I really wasn't conscious of funding in ways that probably were harmful to me because I'm sure I might have been able to help with it if I had pitched in in certain ways. >> Judy Woodruff: But did you feel the freedom to do pretty much what you wanted when you were working at PBS? Interview the people you wanted and do the kind of programming you wanted to do? >> Dick Cavett: I did ; yes. I usually just did the kind of program I wanted to do and in the [Inaudible] I got away with it. I'm not aware of any particular gripes of the sort I was used to on ABC. >> Judy Woodruff: Well good, we'll take that. >> Dick Cavett: Am I disgustingly happy? >> Judy Woodruff: I'm going to come back to Hugo because I mean how do you see this picture, question of resources? I mean how much of an issue was it? Are you able to ignore it? I mean how does it affect what you're able to do? >> Hugo Morales: Well first of all I want to say that is really, really important that we maintain that independence of public broadcasting whether it be on radio or television. That's a value that we always have shared in something we have to be militant about. And that is true also for Radio Bilingue, so how do you build not just a station but in this case a network? We have [Inaudible] and we have 60 affiliates. How do you build a network? What are you serving people with literally no disposable income, right? I mean so it's - so part of it is the employees subsidize the service in part, spend the history of public television, public radio at least at the beginning. >> Judy Woodruff: Subsidized how? >> Hugo Morales: Well with salaries for example. For starters, and the other is to be able - to keep those employees, you know that's a real, real challenge for us. But the other is that it's foundations that have - we manage to attract but as the competition for that has grown our share of that has lower for public affairs and for news and for information from the foundation. That's competition for this [Inaudible]. So it's really, really difficult for us. And so I would say that - that for news and information in Spanish [Inaudible] is really, really difficult for us to maintain that. >> Judy Woodruff: So that leads to my last question for all of you. How do you see the future of news? The future of public affairs in radio and television? Do you feel confident about it? I mean I like to feel very confident about it because wherever I go I get - I hear good things about the news hour. But what do you want, what do you hear? >> Cokie Roberts: I think that one of the things that we're learning is that Congress actually likes NPR. And they can't always say it out loud, but the truth is that it gets back to what Nick was saying earlier, they're all - they're on. And it's in all of the districts and it is the source of news. But of course the federal funding is a tiny percentage of NPR money. It's really just for the satellite, but the stations rely on it a lot particularly the small rural stations. And that's an important thing to keep in mind that these are people who really are desperate for this kind of information. And sometimes it's also the only emergency signal, you know? All of that and so I think that the fact of the service is so widespread and diverse and so well listened to by people in all areas of American life that I feel very confident about the future. But I do think it requires resources. >> Sherry Rockefeller: I was going to say that the last two years, the last year and a half have proven more than ever indeed for what we do. It is so complex, depressing too many, hopeful to those who thought they were electing someone who would stand for them. But the country is changing so fast. The political system is practically impossible to understand. We despair of being ungovernable, but who brings some sense and order and rationale to what happened today and this week and this year, plus analysis, plus thoughtful, complex sensitive ideas about what might happen in the future. We are doing that in a way that nobody else is. And if we just stay true to our mission, stick to the straight and narrow I think we've got a great future in news and public affairs. >> I agree 100%. [ Applause ] >> Dick Cavett: I'm sorry, two vaudevillians competing. >> Jim Lehrer: I was just going to say amen and add a couple of lines. The basic need for the Free Press was set up by the founders. And the key to our democratic society is an informed electorate, an informed public. The only device that the founders created by the - through the first amendment was the free press. That's the device for people to get information to cast informed votes and all levels of government. And we are - but we in public broadcasting, but we in journalism, we who facilitate journalism, we who practice it and we who participate in it at any level are part of a democratic process that is particularly critical right now with this explosion of information that's coming out, with the Tsunami of electronic this and that gadget, and all this kind of stuff. This is a critical time and I agree with what Sharon said, we must not lose sight of what our purpose is. And it isn't about making people laugh, it isn't about people making - make them cry. It's about keeping them informed enough to function as informed people in this country, informed citizens. [ Applause ] >> Judy Woodruff: Dick. >> Dick Cavett: I too agree with Sharon on that particularly in this - >> Jim Lehrer: You don't agree with me? >> Dick Cavett: I'll get to you in a second. As we are all living in this sea - what's seeming time of plague certainly there has to be the service that only a public broadcasting can do so well and can continue to be this great garden of thrilling varied wonderful things that are not available elsewhere on television. They're still not beholden and they are - public television is still vital to our lives. It sounds corny but I believe it. [ Applause ] >> Judy Woodruff: If you're not optimistic you can't speak. >> Hugo Morales: I am optimistic and I agree with this distinguished panel. And in terms of Spanish language news and information. I think the need is there for basic information along with news and information to the Latino community and I think the future for Spanish language mediais to be able to communicate that informed, so thank you for the invitation or what the reality is and the need for that because it's so critical and so thank you very, very much. >> Judy Woodruff: So critical, so critical. I just want to - I want to thank all the panelists. But I also want to quickly read a little bit of an an email. We, at the News Hour got yesterday from our colleauge Jeff Brown who had been interviewing inmates at San Quentin Prison for a story they're working on about a pod cast they're producing, which is going ot appear on the News Hour. But what I want to share with you is Jeff wrote all of us to say that several dozen inmates in different partsof the prison, different places from different parts of the country came up to him and the crew while they were there to say "Hey PBS, we don't know what we would do without PBS". But they went on to say how much the program means while Jeff is interviewing an inmate in one cell they can hear the program in the next cell being listened to. So, I just want to say that we are reaching - we reach people in public media in every corner of this country. We're not just in the intellectual capitals and the political capitals and the places of great wealth. We are in parts of the country where people are struggling and trying to get their lives back together. And those are the stories that we will always tell along with all the others, so what an amazing panel. Thank you. >> Jim Lehrer: If they were - some of those inmates were to join their local public broadcasting it would be a wonderful funding - >> Cokie Roberts: I will just tell you one quick story because it's so funny but it gets to the excellent point you just made. At one point when Susan Stanburg was the regular host of all things considered and she took a leave to write a book. A farmer wrote to her and said "My cows won't give milk". [ Laughter ] He was always going into the milking barn and turning on all things considered and they heard Susan and gave milk. And without Susan no milk. So - [ Applause ] >> Karen Cariani: Thank you everybody and thank you to the panels. We're going to take a short break now. However, we hope you will stay to watch some of the clips we've put together to wrap up this previous panel and launch the next panel, which is documentary style and use of archives, which will begin at 4:00. Thank you. So welcome back our next panel is called documentaries, style and the use of archives. And Pat Aufderheide will moderate. Pat is a univeristy professor of communication studies at the school of communicationat American University in Washington DC. She founded the school cneter for media and social impact. Her books include reclaiming fair use, how to balance back in copyright with Peter Yazzie. She coordinates the Fair Use and Free Speech project at the center with Professor Peter Yazzie of the Washington College of Law. Pat, take it away. >> Pat Aufderheide: What a great pleasure it is. I feel like my entire life is passing before me as I look around the crowd. But this - to be on a panel with these people is really extraordinary. Each of the people here has been able to not nearly make great documentary. But create a future for a different kind of documentary then was ever possible on any other kind of television to be made. And each of them has contributed differently to - todoing that and also in some cases supporting each other, which is really - doesn't - I dno't want to know if I'm giving away secrets here, but that doesn't always happen in public television. Anyway, and I've had the pleasure of working with some of these people as well because as Karen mentioned over the last decade Peter Yazzie and I have been working with different organizations to make fair use more available, particularly in archival ways to makers. And public TV broadcasters including some of these people have really been incredibly supportive and early adopters in being able to make better use of material, third party material to tell America's story in so many different ways. I want to start first with Clayborne Carson. So Clayborne Carson is the founder, director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. research and education institute. He was the senior advisor for Eyes on the Prize at a time when no one thought it could be made. I would like to ask each of you starting with Clayborne to talk about what - what - what did you have in mind for these series, each of you have this experience. The series that ended up really providing a template for how to do things in the future for filmmakers and had - really hadn't been done. >> Clayborne Carson: Well to start out one of the things that's so interesting to listen to the previous panel is that you know just yesterday I was lecturing at Stanford to my students who were born well after all this had happened, and I think that they were telling me about a period before I came on the scene. And so I suddenly felt young, younger in the sense that when I was - I got a call from Henry Hampton. And, who should be here I - unfortunately passed away way too early. But he was the visionary of Eyes on the Prize. And I had just accepted an invitation from Coretta Scott King to edit Martin Luther King's papers. So, it wasn't like I was looking for work. I - I realized that this was going to take decades and it has taken decades to edit and publish his papers. But what he was - he talked about his idea for a series. And I think one of the themes that I see running through all the discussions this afternoon is about democratization of information and the interpretation of history. Of the way in which ifyou think back to the days before PBS, before NPR, before the modern documentary style most information about the past came from a few sources. If you saw a documentary it was usually made by a - well they didn't have large scale documentaries made by anything other than large corporations. A lot of them, things like CBS Reports, things like that were done by the commercial networks. And what he was proposing was to do something very radical. And that is to get away from the notion of history as a master narrative told by a handful of people and written in textbooks. And everyone kind of took that as authoritative. One of the first things he said is there's not going to be any what we now call talking heads in Eyes on the Prize. That our job was not to come there and pontificate and the four of us who were the senior advisors were all really young. And I don't think we would have welcomed that role in the first place. But what our job was to go and find how history was made during the 1960's, 50's and 60's and to go to the sources and find those people and let them tell the story of how they made history, not to interpret it. And that was a - >> It was a breakthrough - >> Clayborne Carson: It was a breakthrough because even now when you look at documentaries you see that many of them kind of go back to that notion by having the authoritative historian kind of give this interpretation that's going to guide you through. And - but there's this other story of these ordinary people who make history. And the real joy of doing it was that for us as historians we were in our own work, you know my first book was on the student on violent coordinating committee which was not about King. It was kind of the counter king story. So, I welcome that kind of an approach and I think that has influenced the documentaries that have been made since then, that many of them do take up that maddle of allowing ordinary people to tell the story of making history. >> Pat Aufderheide: And from what you're telling is we'll net - so one characteristic of this is ordinary people telling this story and also in an oral history way. I mean there was so much rich oral history that had not been - that would have escaped us forever that was done. >> Clayborne Carson: And now it's interesting because I could go into my classroom as I did just this week and use those interviews. I rarely use Eyes on the Prize in the classroom, butI use the interviews that we did for Eyes on the Prize. And often that works so much better in the sense of it will like get it to the point where it fits what I want to talk about. I want to talk about Coretta Scott King for example. There's this wonderful interview we did, extended interview with her that maybe we used at most five minutes of it over the Eyes on the Prize. And I find that my students are so drawn to the just seeing her talk about ordinary things, you know what was it like talking to the President of the United States when your husband is in jail and you've never spoken to him before and he calls on the phone, and your young son answers the phone and starts babbling away. And you have to kind of get him off and say the President is there. That kind of story is going to get through and stick in the minds of students far more than simply me giving a lecture about Martin Luther King and going to jail and writing the letter from Birmingham jail. >> Pat Aufderheide: Something else that I think was so important about Eyes on the Prize in terms of standard setting was that I think it was John Else but probably strongly supported by Henry and others really arguing that every single image had to be exactly what you claimed it was. It couldn't be like something that looks sort of like that, which was very common. >> Clayborne Carson: Yeah there was no reconstruction. We had to - and in fact that was when - there's a story actually that kind of illustrates that. We were interviewing Ralph Abernathy about the march on Washington. And he told this wonderful story about coming back after that day at the March. I was there too and [Inaudible] particular meeting when he talked about coming back after all the people had departed. And in the evening seeing the rustling of the - you know the papers and all the leftover things and then he says it was just the most beautiful day of my entire life. And I remember David Garrow kind of saying that it couldn't have happened that way. Why? Because we know where Ralph Abernathy was every moment of that day and so we had this debate about whether to trust his recollection as opposed to our historical reconstruction. And we decided to use it. We said - history might not have happened that way, maybe it should have. >> Pat Aufderheide: Well let me jump to David if you don't mind. Who I - I remember when he was the brash young Australian who was here - >> David Fanning: South African - >> Pat Aufderheide: South African, sorry. Sorry, you know us Americans, what's the difference with other countries. >> David Fanning: We draw the lines. >> Pat Aufderheide: Brash young South African here to bring us a whole new - new format that was possibly too challenging for public television. >> David Fanning: You know I'm a creature of - I'm a baby of public television. I walked into a public television station in 1973 in Huntington Beach as a young filmmaker from South Africa by way of London and the BBC. And I walked in and volunteered. I got my hands on the tools, that camera and that [Inaudible] that were there and began working with Peter McGee at WJBH found me ther ein 1977 and brought me to Boston to start a series called World, which was an international documentary series. And the idea was to do a series about the world as others see it. And it was this wonderful idea. I came to WGBH to find a place that was as extraordinary institution that was dedicated to ideas. And I had never been around anything quite like it. It was also that each of the people that were working in the different genre's from science to history to even Julia Child who was in the back corner of our offices, were doing things because of they cared about the ideas. And it was extraordinary privilege and it is to this day. This amazing privilege that the reason there's a front line is because we were trusted with enough resources for long enough to work it out, to try to figure out how to do the best work. And the privilege of being able to give that resource and to say how you get to spend it and justify it. And if you can't make the best film you could make about this subject, then don't make it. And it was as simple as that. It wasn't me, it was all the talented people that I could go out and feret out and bring to public television. I tried that out with World, we did 60 films. And along the way but there was a moment when I sat in a meeting at the corporation of public broadcasting with a man who must be remembered Louis Freedman was then the head of programming and he walked into it and he said he was inundated with thousands of proposals, and he just couldn't sort through it all and he made a decision to do three big strands. One was going to be drama and it became America Playhouse. The second was childrens and it became Wonder Works and the third was a news and documentary idea. And I walked in with World looking for a little bit of funding to do eight shows for the next season and he made me sit down at his table with a sandwich and figure out what the budget for a 36 week series would look like. And we counted it up to 3 million dollars at the time in 1970 - 1981. And we came up with that figure and said we could probably do it for that much money; and he said "Great I'm going to put out a request for proposals". And he put out proposals to various people including our friends at WET or proposed it and we proposed it and we got the money. And the guarantee was that we would have the money for three years. If we could persuade the stations to match the money progressively over the course of the three years. It was a visionary idea and you left us the freedom to do that. And we made our mistakes and we you know, bumped our heads and we did some good things and we found some smart people and slowly this idea grew. It grew of simply that idea; so to Lewis, to Peter McGee who found me on the beach in Huntington Beach and brought me to Boston, you know are the people I thank for Frontline. That's what made it happen. And it really has been as simple as that and as complicated as that. And - >> Pat Aufderheide: Although Frontline has - it developed almost a brand that you really did put your stamp on a kind of documentary that became a style of making documentaries. >> David Fanning: Well I don't know, you see I think there were lots and lots of different styles of films within them. They were observational films, they were repertorial films, they were investigative films, they were films like you know Marian Marzynski's wonderful six hours called Shtetl and they were extraordinarily different films that came about. And I always thought that we needed to make a series that young and older producers, reporters and filmmakers would look at and say "I can learn from that". And the people who come to me and say "How do you make these films? I'd like to get into documentaries". I say just watch a lot of them and try to deconstruct them and look for the different ones that suit you for who you are and the kind of film you make. Because ultimately these are works of authorship. And if you encourage authors and then encourage them because they do good work by giving them another film to make then you begin to buid a body of work at the time. And Frontline has intiially - Judy was anchoring the series after Jessica Savage in the first season. But there's a certain point we felt like we would sort of take the extra time and we began to use Will Lyman as a voice and we made that strategic decision that you would hear this - there'd be something in the quality of the words or the qualitiy of the story telling would say ah ha that's that different thing. That's that show and so there was a value to that. There are people who qustion that Will is kind of old fashioned and the patriarchy and all kinds of reasons that black people would say we should be using other voices, and we do. But ultimately you needed t have some kind of connective tissue at times that would hold a string through the sets of films. >> Pat Aufderheide: So you're arguing if you could have some of these marking features then you could have a lot more freedom, artistic freedom in other areas. >> David Fanning: Freedom without it, but yet you'd still - there would be something other than an anthology series and the most important thing about it was it was going to be a work of journalism. It wasn't going to be an anthology series made by independent filmmakers who would come to us with films pretty much made and we would do - we would actually initiate and we would subject them to the rigors of an editorial process, which mean that the journalism had to be transparent, we needed to go right into it at any point and be able to understand the source materials inside that film, and that was at the heart of - >> Pat Aufderheide: Margaret Drain, American Experience. >> Margaret Drain: I also wanted to add that there is another binding agent in front line and I think when I came to GBH I discovered this because I had come from CBS where I worked at CBS Reports and then a couple of iterations of magazine shows. And CBS Reports closed and shut down because TV Guide. You remember TV Guide, an artifact of the past, ran a front page story - I mean a cover story saying the documentary is dead. And this was in 1985 I think. >> Pat Aufderheide: That's when documentary was still a bad word. >> Margaret Drain: It was a bad word. So everybody went scurrying and I got a great job offer from WGBH again from Peter McGee who really needs to be mentioned as many times as posisble because he sort of set the standards at WGBH. And they wanted - Peter and Judy Clayton was the original executive producer, wanted to do a history series but the binding agent in the history series was good story telling. It had to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Narrative, narrative, narrative. We even constructed the documentaries and acts which was something that most documentarians had not been doing, you know they - they had on commercial television you had a lot of documentaries that were like NBC White Paper and ABC - I forget what that series was called. And they were surveys. They were mostly surveys from the top down. They weren't stories, they weren't actual stories where you had characters that you could follow and I think that was an element that was emphsized at GBH and in particular I know American Experience because as we were talking before you want to hear from as many people as possible who are as close to the subject as possible and then construct it very carefully to have a story arc. What happened then, what happened next, what happened after that? >> Pat Aufderheide: So you're - let's point out then that public television is - the real innovator of this character driven story model that now is standard expectation for documentary. >> Margaret Drain: Yeah I think so because I mean I don't want to take the credit for it because it was - I didn't invent the narrative style. But it was something that was embraced wholeheartedly by WGBH and they gave all of us the resources to figure it out. Because when you tell -when you're in the process of telling a story you need time to figure out what the story is, who the main characters are, who the secondary characters are, where the at break is, what's going to happen next, how to conclude it and without being - you don't have to tel lthe entire story you know, because everybody used to agonize about what's left out. Well if you did your job properly no one would even notice that you left anything out. They would just - our philosophy was just go narrow and go deep, go narrow and go deep and get characters. But I do want to comment on something you said before about getting first hand witnesses, because I admired that in Henry Hampton's Shop and Eyes on the Prize and I thought it was terrific. We had a challenge because our mandate was to tell all American History you know prior - we had to go back into the 18th century and even the 17th century. And we were terrified. We actually avoided anything that was pre-archival because we didn't know how to deal with it at the beginning. And you can't find witnesses who are - we did a show - one of our first shows was on the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco earthquake. We barely got a couple of people to make an appearance and we - as soon as we found them we shot them immediately, you know and put them in the bank. Because we didn't even know we were going to go ahead with this storoy. But it was a real stretch for us and we had to challenge ourselves to go back into the 19th century and even back into revolutionary period, so we relied on since we're here talking about the archives letters, diaries, first hand accounts that could then be employed in many different ways to recall maybe - maybe it was the Donner party, you know? I mean there's no first hand witnesses in the Donner party. One of our most successful films and what did we rely on? We relied on diaries and letters. >> Pat Aufderheide: So one of the things that is so I think impressive about what both of your series ended up - and all of your work in documentaries did was I think create a sense of trust among the stations. For something that they had dreaded and feared ever since the days of NET which was before there was a PBS. And you know shows like the redliningshow that made Nixon decide he should defund public broadcasting. So you sort of created a sense of quality, dignity, realibility, turnkey and so on. Something else that is actually really interesting to me is that public television and building upon that has been able to actually foster a kind of -and as you descrbied it anthology show for independent voices as well. And impressively I have to say thank you to David Fanning for being so supportive of anthology shows as well as these executive produced journalism series. And Stephen Gong who is here from the Center for Asian American Media, one of the minority consortiua of public - CPB, is also a veteran independent filmmaker and somebody who supports independent filmmakers and has also been involved in creating archives that we can all draw on. So, I'd love to hear you talk a little bit about the filmmaking that goes to fuel the two big anthology series, POV and Independent Lens and just like let me say, board member of ITVS, yes. >> Stephen Gong: Actually ifI could, I'd like to make a reference to the panels we heard earlier because the seeds of the minority consortia independent and diverse filmmakers really goes back to the same era of the great society; so many of these entities were founded in the 70's. And it came out of both civil rights and in many of our cases Hugo Morales touched on this also. The changing - rapidly changing demographics of the country which will start to be recognized even then. The Hart-Celler Act, the Immigration Act was rewritten in 1965 and even though it would take the rest - a generation, it has reshaped America. So in this time period I'm talking about from the 60's till now, the Asia America community went from 1% of the population and now we're 6%, we're over 20 million and the fastest growing. And Hugo mentioned the statistics for the Latino community. S the premise that we all had as this whole enterprise was getting underway was where would these voices of other communities for whom our presence in media over all was an absence or was one of stereotypes. So for Asian Americans you know in entertainment media we are only you know the villains in war movies or we're house boys or we're gangsters in China Town or laundry men. And yet we have this inspiration of the Civil Rights movement to recognize how important it was for us to be able to participate in society. So, the mechanism for us in the minority consortium and the wisdom of the corporatino for public broadcasting was to help insure that there was a pipeline of programming by and about these new minority communities. And we've been doing this between 35 and 40 years all of us, the five members of the organization. One of the things that I - one of the first points that I wanted to make though and response now to your question was that we have learned something deeper in this construct that it was important ot include the perspectives of people of color in telling diverse kinds of stories, be they about history or social issues or even our cultural history. And I think at first we thought we were presenting authentic images that our own communities could recognize. So one piece that's really important is you can't fully participate in the society unless in some ways you see yourself and your story is told in the society. The second poitn I think we came to undersatnd relatively quickly after that was that these stories needed to be for all Americans though and not just for our own communities. The Asian American community would be a good example because we're so diverse and so different in language and cultural backgrounds that in some ways you're an expert and know culture in a sense in this construct of Asia America. But I would say in the recent years and this is where I want to end my thoughts on this, I think we now - where we are today in this quesiton of really who is an American and what is it that makes America great. It's clear that I think in some ways we tood for granted that there was an acceptance. That diversity was an important and a key factor of the American experience. But it is vital that we stand in for this notion of what this country can be and that we're not just about our racial stories. You know diversity is within each of our communities as well. And Ithink that's th elarger piece to reshift the way we all talk about what is our common history. The way we examine things and I think we're still exploring what these different points of view mean and it's a journey we'll all need to be on because we don't have the guide stone of a you know, sort of White European male dominated through line of history. >> Pat Aufderheide: Thank you very much. Does anybody want to jump in before I - >> Clayborne Carson: I think one of the points I'd make is that all of us in some ways are beneficiaries of the technological changes and that have lessoned the cost and the - some would say even the skill level to get it to filmmaking. So, that it has become much, much easier to do what you know like a film like Eyes on the Prize today you could probably do it for much less money, simply because the equipment would b eso much less, the editing euqipment, all of that sort of thing. And I think that looking forward into the future, what I see coming out of African American filmmaking is that proliferation is kind of pulling us in you know, even within the African American community. Now you have gay filmmakers, black filmmakers who might be trying to describe that experience. Ou have so many - so much diversity within each of these communities that one thing I fear is that it's very difficult to get a sense in a - right now for example I've been involved in more than two dozen documentary films about black American life and most of it 20th century. And it seems like the pace of that keeps increasing and I think ther eis that concern, that we're losing a sense of even the commonality of being black, must less being American. And maybe that's good because otherwise you would not have a sense that these communities exist. But in terms of trying to get a sense of it you know for many of my students I teach - in fact I'll be teaching next quarter a course on Black independent film. And I find that maybe one student might have seen some of these fairly famous films, Charles Burnett, people who have really made major contributions. They haven't evne seen early Spike Lee. So it's - they might have seen Malcolm X, but that's it. So I thikn that one of the problems wer're going to have is that there are audiences but it's going to be smaller and smaller rather than larger and larger. >> Pat Aufderheide: Let me actually address the changing market place for documentaries and I'd love to have any of yoru responses. This is a point at which Netflix is busy giving people $450,000 to make [Inaudible] and oops sorry, and is launching entire lines. You've got Vice and Vulture doing instant video journalism. You've got buzz feed explainers apparently educating an entire new generation. And you've got cable channels just stuffed with wall to wall something that looks sort of like maybe documentary. And you have a legacy that's been built up largely through the hard work of public television that is - that honors the notion of documentary as like a really authentic true thing. At the same time you have an enormous proliferation and in - weeping into the marketplace of Netflix, Amazon and so many more. So what's the role now of public television documentary. You know surely not the only game in town. Expensive, oh my God compared to like almost any other kind - source for documentary and relatively slow compared to some of the others, what's the role? No pressure? But if you could provide us the answer - >> David Fanning: It's an enormous challenge. I think one of the great challenges is going to be you know how do you pick your way through all of this stuff and know what's true and what's trustworthy and people maybe won't care about that as much. There's going to be an enormous amount of material that's out there in the world being produced in all these different areas. And it's going to be manipulated and used because this is the most manipulative of media. And it's going to be - and so we're going to have a harder and harder time trying to figure out what we can trust. The trust brand and the trust brand goes to very expensive you know high octane documentaries made with big budgets for HBO, and for Net Flix and others as well. It's very easy to put your hand on the scale in documentaries and to be able to manipulate this medium towards certain points of view. There is nothing easier than to kind of you know, Michael Moore's famous film of Fahrenheit 911 in the sort of - the use - getting Wolfowicz and being able to sorto get those seequences, fish in a barrrel. It's not hard to do, it's very easy to be able to manipulate archival material and to use it in different ways, to lay a voice over it. So we have a deep worry I think behind all of this as to where - as to what lies behind it and where do you have trust? Anything that we can hold onto is to say that we really believe that you can trust us. And the way in which you trust us is the body of work and the way in which we keep doing it and also to make it as transparent as possible. So, we made - for me one of the great err moments in the life of [Inaudible] was 1995, we just done a film on Waco, the inside story. And we'd done all these interviews with major FBI guys who were part of negotiating with Koresh. We even had the audio tapes of the actual negotiations and I kept saying "Can't we put these audio tapes, make a radio show" and somebody said "You can put it on the web". What's that? 1995 we built a - we built a website for Waco, the Inside Story with that archival material. Plus I said, "Well can't we put the whole film on there" and they said, "You can't do that yet". And so thenwe put the interviews up. And all the interviews for these were - and that website exists today. People still actually write to us about that website from '95. And then from then on once we began publishing all of the - edited longer versions of the primary source materials behind the front line, so that last week, second film that ran of Putin's revenge there were 65 interviews there, a body of work that's both historical important - now that's not going ot persuade the average person that's doing it, that there is - that they're going to go off and hunt through the interview material - >> Pat Aufderheide: You made it transparent. >> David Fanning: But you made it completely transparent but in some way that seeps deep intothe culture that we can keep doing this if we raise the bar really high and hold to that bar, then we begin to hold onto who we are and why we remain the only place anywhere in the media culture that does that. And so that's our - >> Pat Aufderheide: Okay so that's your answer. Want to go Margaret? >> Margaret Drain: Yeah what I wanted to say is that you can take that trust too and we all had to learn using new platforms. And it was challenging in many ways because we had been so schooled in the delivery of hour long documentaries or in the case of American Experience six hour long documentaries or four hour documentaries, which were big biographies of presidents. So we had to learn how to use the material on You Tube and we had to learn pod casting and we had to learn all the different platforms, mobile platforms where we could deliver the same kind of content,s horter but the same - we hope carries the same branding and the same scrutiny that goes into an hour long documentary and deliver it to your students who are not going to be watching hour long documentaries. I mean unless somebody leads them to it and shows them what the benefits are and like the range of interest is. >> David Fanning: And they're doing that, we're doing that. We're getting millions of viewers through Facebook. >> Clayborne Carson: We're sitting in an archive that we I think for anydocumentary one of the most important tasks is whatdo you do with all the material that you've brought together, especially the video material. And I think one of the most important decisions for Eyes on the Prize was to put it in an archive where now you can go and watch the entire Coretta King interview or any other interview done during that time. >> Pat Aufderheide: So Steve we're going to run out of time. I want to make sure that we get your answer for the - the answer for trust has been partly transparency, but it's also been partly brand, you know because we are PBS, we are American Experience, we are Frontline. And you're dealing with a different community who are independent filmmakers, in your case specificall Asian American filmmakers, but each consortia does. And in the series they showcase their work, anthologize all of this work which is very, very differnet. How do you address Clay's point about centrifeal universe of information out there? >> Stephen Gong: You know historically our stuff shows up into the system through a variety of ways, not through one particular strand, one brand. Although in recent times in fact, we have a project that's going on in American Experience next May that makes extensive use of archival materials and we're also participating in the archives of public braodcasting, I'm really proud of. But to speak in general of this you know, hundred titles a year that colelctively come from independent sources, through ITVS. We put our stuff on POV that many of you may know about. I - you know I am optimistic moving into the future because this is what we all have to learn how to incorporate many more points of view and many more voices in public broadcasting. And if you stay true to that and it's absolutely mission driven, what we heard earlier. It is the future. And then make use of this incredible education network. I'm going to set up the next panel for you. PBS learning media, which we you know put our materials on and make available to teachers that I feel very confident about the future of this enterprise because there are thousands, tens of thousands of young makers who really want to speak authentic stories that don't necessarily have to be in commercial media and be all about selling a product or titillating people or even in the best sense just to entertain alone. I think ther eare so many issues that we share and public broadcasting, if it stays true to the mission is that singular place. >> Pat Aufderheide: So we're going to - we've got three more minutes and I'd like to be able to use them to talk to the issue you addressed, which is archives. And Clay has told us about - is Eyes on the Prize in PB somewhere? >> Stephen Gong: Yes, at St. Louis. >> Pat Aufderheide: Is [Inaudible], do you want to explain [Inaudible]? >> Stephen Gong: There's many wonderful things, [Inaudible] is an online digital archive of oral histories by the Japanese American community and we have placed a number of our collections, the Lonnie Dane collection when she interviewed hundreds and hundreds of 442 veterans from World War II, the Japanese Americans. We've placed all those interviews on that source. But all of the other kinds of works, they're going to go into the Library of Congress as part of our collections. >> David Fanning: I would just recommend seeing the Putin's Revenge stuff. It was done with Duke and it's got the - so state of the art technology, 65 interviews, they're all video interviews. You can both read it and be able to track the video at the same time. You can reach in and clip a piece out and share it. And it's the most interactive profoundly sort of impressive archive. >> Pat Aufderheide: Fantastic and in terms of APB is there frontline material - >> David Fanning: I think it's due. Karen tells me it's in the pipeline where - we're on the way, the body of work to come in. >> Margaret Drain: I just want to go back a little bit to something Colson had said about the appetite for documentaries. I also am on the board of POV the independent documentary series. And I am astonished every year we have an open call and we get more than 1,000 entries from independent producers. And of those it has to be called to like - we've got 18 slots. So that's every single year and even after the -during the you know, in the middle of the year when there's no entry date you get - they get inundated with phone calls or they tapes or they get you know, links to films that have been produced. So there's something going on, it reminds me of the time I was at CBS and they announced the death of the documentary. I don't think we can say that the documentary is dying. I see quite the opposite. I see this hunger in young people made possible by technology in some cases and also just this kind of incessant fervent curiosity that they have about their world. And they're making these films for practically nothing and some of them are really terrific. So I'm optimistic. >> Clayborne Carson: Two words that have not come up and that are really central in this are intellectual property. And I think that in general scholarship and documentary filmmakers have not been aggressive enough in using fair use. I think that in part, that comes from when particular film that I was involved in when it came to being shown on PBS, PBS required certain kinds of coverage for obvious reasons, legal reasons. And that forced them to go back and in this case, have to take out things. I think at every level intellectual property issues have been crucial. Not so much in terms of cost. But just uncertainty about use. >> Pat Aufderheide: And people all being on the same page about what they regard as acceptable, which is where the best practices have been somewhat helpful. All right, last comments because we have like 15 seconds left, go. >> Thank you. >> Pat Aufderheide: Okay your 15 seconds. >> Margaret Drain: I thank you. [ Applause ] >> Karen Cariani: Thank you everybody. Our next panel is going to begin. We're going to show some clips, which I hope you'll stay seated this time to watch. It's on educational uses of public broadcasting and it will begin - the panel will begin at 5:10, but we're going to start clips right now. >> Our next panel on the educational uses of public broadcasting is the person who during most of my tenure as the head of WGBH held the purse strings, first at PBS and then at CPB because she had the most important programming jobs in those two institutions. Not simultaneously I would say. Jennifer Lawson was the executive vice president of programming and promotion services at PBS. And then was senior vice president for television and digital content at CPB and during a little bit of time between those two she ran the Howard University Public Station, WHUT. Jennifer has received numerous awards and honors for her work in public media. The Hollywood Reporter named her at one point one of the 50 most influential women in entertainment in the world; so Jennifer take it away. >> Jennifer Lawson: Thank you. [ Applause ] Thank you very much. Education is a fundamental element of public broadcasting. Public television was established as educational television first in many places around the country. The E in the call letters of many stations like WETA or KCET in Los Angeles or SCETV in South Carolina references education. And several of the 362 public television stations are licensed to universities such as the one Henry just mentioned WHUT at Howart University or Arizona PBS, which originated at Arizona State Univeristy. Public television together with public non-commercial radio combined to serve as the most consistent and significant place for information learning, for listenrs and viewers of all ages. WE'll discuss public broadcastings educational underpinnings, its legacy and how the preservation of this content creates future opportunities. I have the privilege now of introducing our distinguished panel and we have here Paula Apsell, who is senior executive producer of NOVA and director of the WGBH science unit. NOVA has won every major broadcasting award, including the Emmy, the Peabody, the AAAS, Codley Science Journalism Award and the DuPont Columbia Gold Baton, as well as an Academy Award nomination. Paula has also been personally recognized with numerous individual awards including the Carl Sagan Award given by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. NOVA is a favorite of teachers who make extensive use of its high quality educational materials and its website with popular short foreign videos and though leader columns as one of the most popular on Lloyd Morrisett. Lloyd is a co-creator of Sesame Street and a co-founder of Sesame Workshop, formeraly the Children's Television Workshop which produces Sesame Street. He was board chair of the workshop for 30 years and is now a trustee and chairman emeritus. He is also an experimental psychology scholar, a former vice president of the Carnegie corporation and the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. He was president of the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation from 1969 to 1998. He is currently a trustee of public agenda, a non-partisan, non-profit organization conducting research to inform public policy issues. Kathryn Ostrofsky teaches in the department of history at Angelo State Universitiy in San Angelo, Texas. Kathryn's areas of research and teaching include 20th century US cultural history, sound studies, television studies, the history of race and ethnicity, and the history of media and communications. She is also working to preserve audio visual and paper arvhical sources related to children's television. She has a doctorate in history from the University of Pennsylvania and her oral history of the 1970's through the sounds of Sesame Street has led to numerous speaking engagements and conference presentations. She is under contract with the University of California Pres for a book on this topic. I'd like to start with Lloyd Morrisett and to talk a bit about the origins of Sesame Street. And I know that you were at the Carnegie Foundation and had a very good overview of the state of education in America at that time. And I would just - I think it would be really useful if you would put Sesame Street in the context of those times and tell us a little bit about what led to its creation. >> Lloyd Morrisett: Well for those of you who are expecting Elmo, I'm not Elmo. I think to talk about the origins of Sesame Street you have to recreat in your minds the events of that decade. And I'm going to list them here and I'm going to read the list because I don't want to leave anything out. 1960, television may have given Senator John F. Kennedy the edge he needed to defeat Vice President Nixon in the first televised presidential debate. Kennedy wins the election by a margin of 113,000 votes out of 69 million votes cast. 1961, FCC chairman Newton Minow makes his famous speech declaring that television is a vast wasteland. 1962, 90% of Americans own a television set, ABC begins broadcasting in color. The Federal government funds first funds - the Federal Government funds public broadcasting through the education television facilities act. June of 1962, President Kennedy federalizes Alabama's national guard and orders Governor George Wallace to allow two black students to be enrolled at the university. Just recounting these events I find them very emotional. In January of 1962 Martin Luther King delivers his "I have a Dream" speech. In August more than 200,000 Americans march on Washington in support of Civil Rights. 1964 the 24th Amendment to the Constitution makes US Poll taxes unconstitutional. March 1964 President Johnson declares the war on poverty. He signs an Economic Opportunity Act in August and appoints R. Sargent Shriver to head the new Office of Economic Opportunity. Again in 1964 President Johnson signs the bill enacting Medicare. The Great Society is underway. In August of 1964 Congress approves the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing Presidnet Johnson to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression. December of 1964 President Johnson announes a substantial increase in USA to South Vietnam to restrain mounting infiltration of men and equipment by the Hanoi Regime in support of the Vietcong. In 1965 January in the State of the Union message President Johnson outlines program for the Great society that will eliminate poverty in America. In February Dr. Martin Luther King is arrested in Soma, Alabama. In February also Malcolm X is assassinated. Coincidentally during National Brotherhood week. June of 1965 Congress authorizes the use of ground troops in Vietnam. A complete ground offensive is underway and the Vietcong will collapse in a few weeks said President Johnson's national security advisor, Walt Russell, not months but weeks. 125,000 troops are in Vietnam. In August of that year the Voting Rights Act becomes law. And in August of that year the Carnegie Commission on educational television begins its landmark study of broadcast. In 1967 public broadcasting laboratory airs over national educational television. It is a Sunday night magazine program designed to showcase the relevance and importance of public television. We'll come back to that because that was a much more important historically in public broadcasting then is generally recognized. In March of 1968 President Johnson announces that he will not accept the nomination for another term. His presidency has become another casualty of Vietnam War. Ini 1968 in April Martin Luther King is assassinated. In 1969 regular national public broadcasting television program begins five nights a week. In November of that year Sesame Street goes on the air. Now as you can tell from my emotions this was a very turbulent time. It strongly affected all of us, all of us who were alive then. And it was out of that in part, that Sesame Street was born. We started working on the idea in 1966. And the people that came to us to help Dave Connell for example our executive vice president, Joan Cooney obviously joined me and the original idea. All of us were very affected by the events I've discussed. And so Sesame Street was in part, born out of a belief in Civil Rights that we all had. The fact that it appeared on public television was somewhat of an accident. When we first started to raise money for it in 1966 Doc Howe had become commissioner of Education and he had been formerly president, superintendent of schools in Scarsdale. And he was one of the first people we talked to about it. He - after some deliberation overruled his staff and said that he would find 4 million dollars to help us get on the air. So, with that 4 million dollars plus the million dollars that Carnegie had already put up we had 5 million dollars. Lou Housman was Doc Howe's point person in liasoning between the Office of Education and what was going to become Sesame Workshop. Lou came out of NBC television and he strongly believed that the program should be on commercial television. He said "Where are the people going, they're on commercial television. That's where you have to be". So, we took that advice seriously and I met with NBC, CBS, Lou W Broadcasting and got very nice - a very nice reception but no money. No air time. The program was fully funded but we couldn't understand, I couldn't understand in my naivette why with a fully funded program we couldn't have any air time. Later I realized and I've realized it ever since that the advertising part weren't interested in having those minutes sold that way. They wanted to raise money around the program and they couldn't. So the commercial broadcasters turned us down and just at that point the public broadcasting act had been signed and public broadcasting needed programming. We needed air time, it was a - I won't say it was made in Heaven, but it was certainly made by an accident of history. So, the - the things that made it possible in addition to the ones that I've already cited, are that the people essentially who created the climate to accept the idea of a children's television program were all in their place. John Gardener had been my boss at Carnegie, was a good friend. Doc Howe had also become a friend. Other people who were not directly involved in the origins, but created the climate in Washington that made it possible. Newton Minow was one, he's been a friend the rest of his life for me. Henry Gellar who some of you may remember, was an ardent fan of the publics use of broadcasting and not giving it away free to commercial broadcasters. The other person I'd mention, whose name has already come up is Doug Cater. Doug Cater was Lyndon Johnson's special assistant for education. He shepherded the Public Broadcasting Act through the process of getting it to Congress and he was also a great friend of the kidns of htings that we were trying to do. Joan Cooney had been at NBC and then she had been at channel 13 where she was a commercial - not a commercial, a documentary producer and had three good documentaries to her name. So, essentially not only had the climate of opinion in the country been fertilized I'll say by the events of the 1960's, but the particular people I've mentioend were all interested in the public's use of public facilities and public education. They are what made the idea become possible. I think I'll stop there Jennifer. >> Jennifer Lawson: Terrific. Terrific now thank you. [ Applause ] Paula. Your work exemplifies informal educaiton. You've helped popularize and demystify science and science educaiton and you've given exposure to some scientists that has made them as popular as rock stars, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, I mean you know it's easy to go places and people go "Oh wow Brian Greene, string theory". And so it's - and then you've also shown us women and people of color in the sciences routinely throughout your series. With NOVA what's the origin, how do we get from there to here? >> Paula Apsell: That's good. I first of all just want to say I'm just awed to be setting next to Lloyd because my daughter Natalie is here with me today and I just can see in my mind's eye, this makes me emotional. And she and her sisters little girls woud be sitting on that couch every single day at 4:00, their thumbs in their mouth. A bomb could have gone off in that room and they would not have moved. And what they learned from Sesame Street way beyond the importance of the letters, the lessons about life, about ethics, about morality, about how you treat other people of all different kinds, even if they're not familiar to you, and now as everyone knows I have a grandson. And he watches the science kid and also Sesame Street and the other programs on PBS. So, as well as being a content generator, I'm a recipient of all the good things that PBS does for kids and educationally, and it's just - really it's just overwhelming. I feel so fortunate to be a part of this. Now on to NOVA. So, education is in NOVA's DNA. We've been producing content for teachers and students for as long as we've been on PBS, and that's 44 years which is an eternity in television. And now I have to mention another man that I think is a really great person and that is Michael Lambersino who started NOVA. Michael just had - [ Applause ] Michael just had a really good idea, very simple. His idea was sciecne is not a collection of facts, it's a story and if you tell the story with characters and with visuals then people will watch and they will learn, but they will enjoy. And it will change their opinion about science and make - help them to undersatnd what an important part of our lives and what an important, I would say cultural institution that it is really a thrill to get a better understanding of our world. And Michael always knew that it was very important for NOVA to go to teachers as well, and they should have supplementary materials that would help them use NOVA in the classroom. So for years and years and years we made teachers plans, which had all sorts of suggestions and tips and activities for the classroom. But teaching changes, education changes and technology changes. And nowit began as teachers domain at WGBH went to PBS as PBS learning media. A fabulous digital library, the central hub for all the educational content produced by all the PBS brands and it now reaches more than 2 million educators, which is amazing. And WGBH is the stem lead for PBS LM and NOVA itself has contributed more then 900 resources, mainly video clips, lots of animation and these are all contextualized with teaching standards and discussion questions and background essays and we promote these clips really rigorously to teachers at conferences. We also create new digital content like NOVA labs, which is a platform of science games and interactives that uses real scientific data. And these are actually, they were originally designed for teens to use at home and not as an in school activity, but they turned out to be really popular with teachers, which use them all the time and actually assign them to their students to do as homework. So to date, that platform has engaged nearly more than 4 million unique viewers. And our education lab, and I just find this amazing, is NOVA's most visited page, so I find that amazing. We have an upcoming two hour program on black holes, which is hosted by astrophysicist Janna Levin and to go with that we create an iPad app that invites players to navigate the cosmos by hurling stars at various celestial objects. Kind of like Angry Birds but it's for the universe. But that's - that's our what we call our educational content, whether it's informal or formal but science is for everyone. And so is NOVA, and so of course I love it when people tell me "I went into science or engineering as a result of watching NOVA". But really we want to stoke curiosity and excitement about science in people of all ages. So we have a very rich historic archive that chronicles scientific research over four decades. If you want ot know the origins of genetic engineering or how artificial intelligence got started you know you can really - we've been covering that throughout the 20th century and now 21st century on NOVA and at any given time we have about 100 full length programs available to everyone to watch online on for free. And we also reach out into the community. We've created a coalition of science café's more than 400 of them and we ourselves, every month at WGBH studio, at the Boston Public Library, we hold a science café for anyone who wants to come. And these science café's are usually held at non-traditional settings. They're a chance for people to actually interact with real scientists and it's really kind of amazing to know how many people in their daily life don't get a chance to really meet a scientist and talk to them. And I think that's why people get very wrong ideas about sicentisits and about science. And so - and people really enjoy these settings when they're held. And an example of this is we also of our reaching out into the community is our program school of the future, which actually looked at the issue of educational equity and what kinds of new techniques and technologies can be used to help equalize things. We organzed 293 communtiy screenings at K12 settings, at community organizations and really all over the place. And people came and they really engaged in the discussion of how education can be made better for everyone. And finally and this really touches the point that you made Jennier, we want people from all backgrounds to appreciate the importance of science in our lives and the crucial role that science literacy plays in a democracy. And now CPB with their help, we've been able to develop short form video that explains the science behind many of the stories that are dominating the news cycle. If you - embedded on all of our work is the mmandate that we have on public media to reflect the diversity of all people and experiences in our country. We are 100% committed to increasing diversitiy in front of and behind the camera by actively cultivating both producers and scientists of color. And I really invite you to take a look at any current NOVA and you'll be able ot see what we're doing. But equally important to that, we're actually expanding the scope of the stories we tell, focusing more on the ways that science impacts social jsutice. Our episode last spring Poison Water, about the Flint, Michigan water crisis is an exmaple of that with all its associated digital educational content. I also believe that this really illustrated the importance of education being embedded in a production unit like NOVA. Our education director Ralph Bukay who taught biology in an inner city high school in Philadephia and can really share that experience with all of us. He has a leadership role in our unit and not only does this integration drive many of our initiatives, but the lessons that we learn educational and digital and broadcast go back and forth and they are all enriched by this integration and that helps us better to serve the American people. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Jennier Lawson: Kathryn you've studied children's television and Sesame Street in real depth. And you've learned a lot about the role of the series in educating pre-schoolers but through your work and through the particular angles that you have approached Sesame Street you've learned a lot about our society as well. And could you share some of your observations with us? >> Kathryn Ostrofsky: Yeah I think I'm here to represent the generation that did grow up on PBS and my education of course started with Sesame Street and is continuing with Sesame Street through my graduate school and now in my teaching. I just never stopped watching it. So I've been asked to talk about public broadcasting as history, and that's why I use Sesame Street as a historical source. But so much of public broadcasting of course, can be used as historical sources. And the way that we often think about that is that public broadcasting recorded our past, the public affairs shows, the talk shows, recordings of great performances are now an archive of our history. And that is true, but as a scholar and as a teacher I am more intersted in thinking about the ways that public broadcasting is our history because it is a forum, it is a vehicle, a tool for which we seek to understand our past and our present and shape our future. I think this is a tehme that's been running throughout all the panel this afternoon, the theme of democratization and interactivity. So this happens from both angles, from the producers as well from the audiences. From the producers, the way that they approach their programs and Laird just doesn't report the news, he analyzes it. Dick Cavett doesn't just ask boilerplate questions of celebrities, he engages them in a conversation that can take any turn. Even almost coming to physical blows. Lloyd Morrisett and Jim Gance Cooney did not just television to teach letters and numbers, they designed a program that reflected the cultural sensibilities of the urban minority children that they hoped to serve. And they built the program to be able to evolve and to be responsive to society's changing educational needs and cultural needs. So, all of these progrms are - they're not just series of short conversations or presentations, rather they are decades long conversations between producers and audiences about issues that matter to us. So public broadcasting creates in particualr, creates a really rich record of these discussions of these long conversations because it's funding comes from the government and philanthropic foundations and viewers like you. They producers and stations constantly have to articulate to their audiences and to their funders what they're doing, why they're doing it like that and what impact it's having. It creates a paper trail that is amazing for historians. Because public broadcasting is for the people and it's mobilizing this technology not for advertisers but for the audiences themselves, the audiences, educators, social activities have through the years felt that they could and should make their voices heard in public media as a collaborative effort to improve programs or to use public broadcasting as a tool for broader social change. So they do talk back to their televisions as Nicholas Johnson suggested. So in the case of Sesame Street for instance, the producers and the audiences agreed that the show should provide models for ideal community interactions. But as Lloyd was just talking about there's a lot going on in the 60's and 70's. There's Civil Rights, cultural pride movements proliferating and fragmenting in the 1970's. So, all of these people who are invested in Sesame Street in some way don't agree on what that ideal community should look like or sound like, how those people should behave. So, cast members, staff, parents, critics, advocacy groups like the National Organization of Women and the UCLA Chicano Studies Center had ongoing discussions about characters - how characters should speak, what musical guests to feature, how to represent and celebrate diversity without perpetuating stereotypes. And there was no easy answers and luckily Sesame Street is a variety show so they could sort of experiment with all these things at the same time and see what worked. So - but this engagement with social issues also happens long after the programs first air. And it's - it has become cliché to say that documetnaries bringthe past to life, but they certainly do in my classroom, not just metaphorically but these programs often have the power to continue the traditions that they discuss. The first episode of Eyes on the Prize for example is called Awakenings and it shows how media coverage of the lynchings, lynching of Emmett Till and the sham trial that allowed his murderers to go free led to a published - public consciousness about the conditions of Jim Crowe and inspired Civil Rights actions. Watching the documentary itself is a consciousness raising experience for my students and there is no more powerful demonstration for why so many people risked their lives for Civil Rights. One episode of the American Experience series on Latino Americans covers the 1968 walk outs through which Chicano high school students took control of their education and sought to understand their place - the place of themselves and their families in American history and American society. And for one of my students a couple of years ago she had heard about the walk outs from her mother who had participated in them, but to see those events depicted on national television, in a US history survey class did the same thing for her, it inspired her to take her own education into her own hands and figure out her place in society. So, public television, we're here talking about preservation. Public television and radio need to be preserved not just because they have recorded history, because they continue to be the material that we use every day to engage with our past or our future, shape our future. [ Applause ] >> Jennifer Lawson: I think your comments underscore what has been said too at some of the other panels about the incredible importance of the material, not just during the time that it is broadcast but it's archival value into the future. Before we come back to preservation, I'd like to go back to Lloyd for a quick question that relates to your background in psychology too, and that is that for example a national study recently revealed that 50% of American children under the age of 18 have experienced a traumatic event such as witnessing violent acts or experiencing natural disasters. Last month Sesame Street, Sesame Workshop launched an initiatve to help children cope with these traumatic experiences. And Sesame Street puppets have often in the past been used to help children talk about events like a death in a family or divorce. And when you and Joan were starting Sesame, did you envision this kind of therapeutic role for the series in its early days, or is that something that evolved? >> Lloyd Morrisett: It evolved. The early days question we were tasked with answering can television teach anything? We had to answer that with a positive in order to gain more funding. That was the hard work of it. So initially we concentrated on things that were taught in school, needed to be taught in school, letters and numbers and so on. And could be easily measured; those were the things that we were really trying to look out. And fortunately the study that came out showed that people watched more learned more. With that start and with the confidence that we were going to be able to continue once we got a second season funding, we then began to broaden the curriculum to take into account some of the things that you're talking about. Although the real change probably came much later. The military families project was probably the most imoprtant change in that regard. And now of course as you mentioned traumatic events, abuse, autism would be another example where we would not have been able to do that initially, but as the program evolved we have been able to do more of it. >> Paula Apsell: I'd like to address that issue can public television teach anything; I think it's really an important question and very important for NOVA in a way because part of our - we're always discussing was we were you know 40 years ago and we're still discussing it is our primary function to educate and to entertain. We're always kind of talking about how you blend those two things. But when you think back to your own sceicne classes and how the teacher was always talking aobut things that you couldn't understand what he or she was talking about because you couldn't visualize it. You had absolutely no frame of reference for it. And I think this one of the huge values to PBS learning media and to their whole - their huge stem collectin because it helps - it provides visuals. So when you're talking about a volcano and what's going on in the molten magma under the earth - I mean who really knows what that means when you're a kid and you've never lived near a volcano and you've never seen one. But here you can have an animation and it can be contextualized by your teacher because there are - the archive helps. So I really I just hink in terms of science, visuals are just so important. They also help both kids and everyone take the world from another perspective. The design to show you things that you can't see for yourself and that in a way, expands your world. And that to me, is just really one of the benefits of the educational uses of our material and of the fact that we are fortunate enough to be able to produce these things and have the resources to do so even though it's always a struggle in the first place. >> Jennifer Lawson: And you've had in many cases the nature of your funding on places like the National Science Foundation or the funding that you've received for Sesame Workshop has received is required rigorous evaluation, right? And testing as a part of the proving that it has this educational benefit. >> Paula Apsell: Oh rigorous evaluation. But it's not - now one thing that the National Science Foundation and actually a lot of other funders are going off to is they want you to use your material not just to evaluate it, to see if it's any good but they want it to add to the body of learning of how people learn from the visual media whether they get more out of an hour long documentary, whether they get more out of short form video, what the difference is, what the difference is in their attitudes towards science. So we're really accumulating with some of our projects and we're workign with academics on this because we're not - I mean I'm a TV producers, I couldn't begin to figure out how to do these projects. But to use them to really understand the fundamentals of science learning. And it's very gratifying that our material can be used for that. >> Jennifer Lawson: Now Kathryn you had mentioned to me a little earlier that in addition to the audio/visual materials being so incredibly important that there are other resources like the kind that Paula just mentioned or the notes from the creation of a program that producers might just think as real throw away. That some of that has archival value for scholars like you? >> Kathryn Ostrofsky: Yes. I've been using the Sesame Street's research notes too. I'm struck by the parallels between the studies and the outreach that NOVA and Sesame Street have had. They're also a paper trail for learning about how we learn from media. Learning about what the history of the discipline of psychology or education or whoever is doing these studies is. And they're also fun for me to look at from a humanities perspective, because you do have certain things that you're testing for your show, but that's doesn't mean that's all we can learn from that data; so I go in and read it from a historians point of view and find completely differnet information about for instance cultural differences between the Spanish speaking and English speaking kids about how they're responding to music, which is not what was being tested. It was how there was learning the Spanish language. But there's more information there then is used in your studies, so your studies have broader impact beyond what you're doing with them. >> Jennifer Lawson: And as we talk about these preserving content and materials from public media and these documents, I just also want to mention that we problably haven't represented fully enough the broadest range of public media because there's also culture and the arts. And that there is so much I think, in terms of performac program, cultural programs that are created by producers both at the national and local level. And so I also want to bring that into the discussion as well as public media creating a really, really robust archive of local content. Most public media stations and public radio really do an incredible amount at the local level and so there's a wealth of material and a history of commmunity that's being created there as well. Now we have talked about reaching the youngest viewers and we've also talked about adults in many ways, although I must stay that you're going far beyond adults when I look at slimy, gross science programs that NOVA is a part of. Gross science or some of your other programs that are what makes you vomit is a - so I can - >> Paula Apsell: I mean it's your body, you've got to undersatnd it. >> Jennier Lawson: So I can imagine you attracting a much broader age range but that has been one of the challenges I think tha thas plagued public media for a number of years. And I want to start with you Lloyd and just going back to the question did Sesame Workshop as a children's television workshop, what efforts were made in the sort of earlier years in trying to go beyond preschoolers and to reach the pre-teens and teenagers? >> Lloyd Morrisett: Well as Paula has mentione din producing a television show you have to atract the audience as well as teach them something. And so Sesame Street was designed in the beginning - I need to start that again. The viewing conditions in 1969 are extremely different then they are today. In 1969 typically families had one television set, the family watched together and the parents could act as an intermediary between what was on the television set and what the child learned. You say, "Johnny did you see that A"? or "Johnny take a look at what's coming up next, it's going to be like" and that gets Johnny's attention to something on the set that you want to teach about. Now I think at the - I saw that maybe 90% of adolescents and above have smart phones. Television sets are numerous and often the child at whatever age, two or three even controls the set himself or herself. So the problem of maintaining an audience and know what audience you're really trying to reach is much harder. I don't think we've figured it out yet. But we certianly had the idea from the beginning that the adults had to be atracted to the program as well as the children. >> Paul Apsell: I used to like - 4:00 I was pretty tired. I'd sit there and we'd watch Sesame Street. It appealed to adults as well. I mean I felt like there were two levels that it was operating on. >> Lloyd Morrisett: Laugh in, which some of you may remember was a very important precursor to what we did. We used a lot of the Laugh In techniques in the early shows. >> Jennifer Lawson: I think it very definitely did. The one piece that I remember is I think it was Patti Labelle singing "I love my X, I miss my X" and there's of course the letter X on the screen. But the look in her eyes suggested otherwise. So it definitely seemed as if it was very consciously designed to - >> Lloyd Morrisett: It was, no question of that. The writers particularly enjoyed doing that. They liked to write one liners and kids didn't get it, but the adults did. >> Paula Apsell: In terms of the ages, yes but I mean we all worry in public media about an aging audience. I mean it's like discussed constantly and we're sweating constantly. We try to really figure it out how we can appeal to younger people. One thing we find is that we have a very different audience online. That the audience online is much younger. And so the idea is that the uadience online we do know that they love to watch our shows on their computer. They love short form video, I guess that's the whole thing about the attention span, I don't know. But they also like to watch our short form videos and if we take them off, oh our lawyers are right there. But I have to say in two minutes they're pirated and put on You Tube and you take them down and they go back up. It's like a pop up, whack a mole. It is really amazing, so they really - I think this is a key to us. Young people we know do not have televisions and watch television that much. They watch on their phone, they watch on their computer. The hope is that they will, youngsters do grow up and very often they have families and their life changes and it starts to - and they start to realize the value of public media and they start to join their local station. And I think that there is, maybe I'm just an optimist. But I think if we can keep reaching out to them and hold them close to us by various different forms ofwhat we do, we will migrate them in a direction that many of them will be watching our programs. Maybe that's just optimistic. >> Kathryn Ostrofsky: I think there's an uptapped potential for that middle audience between childrens and adults. Certainly my students, they're adults but they - one of the things that I try to do with the documetnaries that I show in class is to not just show a documentary but do something with it. And there are a few documentaries that tell us something about the historical profession. My freshman are watching A Midwive's Tale because I'm not in class today. And my seniors are wathicng American Experience Documentaries. But I - I - you can use these documentaries to teach about narrative structure, since they use narrative structure we just ehard. You can teach them about media literacy, which I think is really important skill that they are not coming to college with these days, and we need it more than ever. So there are creative ways to use these programs beyond simply the formal education or informal education that they were designed for. >> Lloyd Morrisett: Jennifer you haven't said anything about it but the title Presrving Public Media has two meanings. It means archivally and it also means continuing it. And we do not now have Newt Minow at the FCC. We don't have John Gardener at HEW and I would think that there should be a considerable amount of concern about the enduring health under the current auspices of public media. >> Jennier Lawson: I thought that it was really quite heartening to hear with some of the earlier panels who addressed that. I thought it was really quite heartening to hear their level of optimism about public broadcasting and it's future and it's potential in that way. But I welcome your thoughts about this. >> Paula Apsell: I was going to say one thing is that I think we just talked a minute or so about age. I mean the hope is that the American public will demand the preservaiton of public media. You know we have to have our fans out there. They are our biggest asset, and I think many of you in this room remember under few years ago, decades ago, I don't remember when it was in the 90's when public media was really threatened. And people wrote letters, millions of letters and said no absolutely not, you cannot take this away from us. That is our prservation, that is our guarantee. So the concern I have is yes indeed we want to expand and get younger people. Listen I love my older viewers, keep watching. Oldies but goodies, I love you okay, don't stop waching. People are living longer and longer. So it's great. We do want to get younger people but we also want to get, I know this is near and dear to your heart. We want to get more diversity. Not just because we're ethical people, but also becauase that is our survival, the American demographic is changing and we have to change with it. And my job is to really find ways to - and choose topics that show people sceince belongs to you, not just to me. Listen sicence has been white, we all know that. It's changing it's bringing many more minoritis into it. We used to tear our hair out to try and find minority scientists to put on the screen. Now it's really - you know in some fields it's chalelnging but in many it's really not hard at all That's great. So one way is to really make sure that we have scentists of all different colors and all different backgrounds on the screen. Another way is in the choice of topics that we have to choose topics that take into account people's concerns. And so hopefully this is not something that's going ot be accomplished. We're not going ot expand our percentage of minorities from 9 or 10% to 25% over night. But my hope is that if we do it right, we tell good stories and we'r emuch more inclusive in topic choice and people that people will respond by watching. And you know when we took our show poison water to Flint, and we showed it in Flint. And that ocmmunity, you know we just - it was - the reaction was just so amazing this group of people who were - these people were citizen scientists. They did not wait and rely on scientists to come in and do it for them. They figured out more than the scientists in a lot of the agencies what was going wrong with their pipes. And then to see themselves reflected in a documentary how they had taken a role in their own survival and the survival of their children I think they were really amazed and I think it gave them a different feeling about public media. That it became theirs and you know it's not easy. They're not zillions of topics that you can do it with, but I think it's imperative. >> Jennifer Lawson: I want to come back to Lloyd's really appropriate question about preserving public media for the future. And but before I do that, I want to just also get your thoughts and we have just a quick minute. I want to get your thoughts about beyond the screen. Because we've talked about public broadcasting and we're talking about broadcasting and I know that all of you are aware of public media and you do your work on so many other platforms as well. And I just would welcome your speaking about the importance of public media on those additional platforms. I think that you've spoken to that you know in a very articulate way Paula about what NOVA has been doing. But other thoughts about beyond broadcast? >> Lloyd Morrisett: We now get an enormous number of hits on You Tube where we've provided a lot of clips so that's the reuse of something that's been done before but is a very useful one. >> Kathryn Ostrofsky: Thoughtful curation of the things that are available really helps the professors who are at most colleges and univresities that have a lot of students and not a lot of time to prepare outside of their fields in teaching; so I would say it's extremely important. >> Jennifer Lawson: So the thoughtful curation comes into places like witih PBS learning media. I assume where then there's already the thought given to what age group, what level, what the topic is, all of these - nicely tagged and everything. >> Kathryn Ostrofsky: Yes tagged, properly tagged and if there are any interactive things that can go along with - there used to be an interactive game of pretending you were in the gold rush and taking on a character and seeing if you survived. And it took about two minutes to play and it went along with the documentary for the gold rush. I can't find it anymore. I hope it's there. It may have moved or it may have just been old, and that's of course a problem. >> Paula Apsell: You have to ask the 10 year olds to find it for you, they won't have any problem at all. >> Jennifer Lawson: So as a final question just to come back to this all important point of - of we're at the end of this wonderful day and all of these really very, very rich panels. What about presrving public media for the future? >> Lloyd Morrisett: I would worry most about just not having the budget go up. Costs are going up for everything else and there are a lot of things that budget can be used for and we just keep it the same. So in my view the strategy is slow starvation. >> Paula Apsell: I don't want to starve. As I always say, I'm on the spending side and I like that side. But here is what I worry about, and you just mentioned something I thinkis very important, which is the non broadcast aspect of series like the ones that we do. And I know my documentary friends from the previous panel were really aprpeciate news and all of ours. When we started our website in 1996 we just figured okay, we'll just take the same stuff and we'll put it online and maybe we'll you know, put a few you know, it felt like it was just going to be a free edition to NOVA. Now it's own mouth to feed and it's getting to be a gigantic mouth. And sothe quesiton is and it's so important because it is a way to attract so many people who are not going ot turn on the television set. And I think we certainly find it's much harder to raise money for digital then it is to raise money for broadcast. So I think that's something we really have to figure out and figure out with the foundations and the other funders that have supported public media in the past. Because this is the new world, this is it. >> Kathryn Ostrofsky: Oftentimes academics and broadcasters and archivists live in different worlds, so I think we need more events like this to bring all of us together and that's the first step conversations like the ones we've had today. >> Jennifer Lawson: Thank you. [ Applause ] >> We have one more element to this panel. We're going to let Newt Minow have the last word, but before we do, first of all my thanks to all of you and to you Jennifer for the work on this panel. I hope you have found this afternoon as fascinating as I have, being with these founders of public media and creators of some of the most iconic and imoprtant content in public media. And I'd be remis if I didn't take us back at the very end to the other meaning of the word preserve and to talk just - say a few words abou the American archive of public broadcasting. Although I can't be quite as articulate as Kathryn was. I think, but we - this is really the archive of our times. Not just our national times as you've heard as Jennifer alluded to, but alsothe times of our communities, geographically around the country from coast to coast. And culturally and believe me local commercial broadcasters have not been able to preserve their archives. It's - it has been too expensive for them, you know they had to reuse those tapes or couldn't spend the staff time given news cycles and especially now given news cycles, endless news cycles. So commercial broadcasters really have not, with a few exceptions been able to preserve their archives. It just wasn't their business plan. So it's more important than ever that commercial - that public media preserve its archives and it's also a very critical part of our mission that we make that archive accessible. It's been part of the core mission of public media from the very beginning that we make our work available to everyone, no matter where they are, no matter what their means are, their ability to pay and especially in this universe now where almost everything is behind a paywall in media elsewhere. So I'm very proud of the progress we've been makign through the American Archive of Public Broadcasting to put tehse works up online and make them accessible. I want to - as we close make a special thank oyu again to the two co-heads of the American Archive of Public Broadcasting, Alan Gevinson in the back, his hand is up there for the Library of Congress. [ Applause ] And Karen Cariani from WGBH right in front. [ Applause ] >> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress. Visit us at


Alabama gubernatorial election, 1906[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic B. B. Comer 61,223 85.48
Republican Asa E. Stratton 9,981 13.94
Socialist J. N. Abbott 417 0.58
Total votes 71,621 100.00
Democratic hold


  1. ^ "AL Governor 1906". Our Campaigns. Retrieved October 25, 2016.
This page was last edited on 21 January 2020, at 04:55
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.