Suchergebnisse

The subject which I have chosen is not one that it is possible to discuss adequately, much less exhaust, in a short paper. I believe, however, that it is fast becoming one of the major fundamental problems of democracies. With a world-wide challenge confronting democratic institutions, no one can feel complacent about our political future in the broad sense, and no amount of wishful or traditional thinking will replace serious reconsideration of some aspects of government as we understand it.It might be appropriate to start with a few definitions. It is relatively easy to find a comprehensive definition of the term "public administration." A former president of the United States, some fifty years ago, defined it as "a detailed and systematic execution of public law." Leonard D. White, in his book Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, writes: "In its broadest sense, public administration consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfillment or enforcement of public policy, as declared by the competent authorities."It is not so easy, however, to obtain agreement as to what exactly represents public interest as applied to public administration. In a democracy, the public must reach wide agreement on the duties to be performed by government; or in other words, the objectives of public policy must correspond fairly well with public views concerning the proper functions which should belong to governmental activity. Otherwise the efficient administration of these functions becomes almost a practical impossibility. But the word public is difficult to encompass in a restrictive definition. It is composed of individuals, groups, institutions with different ideals, philosophies, and interests. Consequently, public interest must necessarily represent a working compromise and be subject to continuous redefinition, as need arises, in the process of achieving an often delicate balance among conflicting interests.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), commercial broadcasters, educ'al stations, the educ'al system & the communications arts are all essential in broadcasting, but the rights & duties of the public should be foremost. Today, broadcasting serves only a minority of the active & none of the latent interests of the people & this situation will continue until 'a substantial portion of the public join the broadcasters & the FCC in defining public interest.' The public has given broadcasters a portion of the public domain asking them to protect & cultivate public interest while engaging in open market competition. The code of ethics evolved in daily competition without explicit public guidance is generally satisfactory though it has sometimes degenerated to the view that anything which interests a good portion of the public is salutory. The responsibility of broadcasters for creating & conditioning their audiences is the basis for recognition of the unwritten contract between broadcasters & audiences to exchange specific information, entertainment, etc, for time & attention. The public thus must participate in deciding broadcasting policy in order to assure its contractual rights & to establish the necessity for them. For the audience to participate a soc invention is required which should include (1) mandatory hearings on the renewal of broadcast licenses, & (2) invitation by a broadcaster to representative members of his audiences to discuss the services rendered. The latter would permit the audience participation in setting standards of program quality. The FCC should require higher standards of intelligence & public service from the licensee, compare promises to actual services rendered at the time of renewal, & increase its attempts to inform the public of its activities & its accessibility. By drawing the public more effectively into the area of broadcasting, the development & regulation of service in the public interest can be more readily assured. C. M. Coughenour.