[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    SPEAKING FEES AND JOURNALISTS II

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last month I spoke on this floor about 
the issue of some journalists taking speaking fees for up to $30,000 a 
talk. This practice has become more and more common among the media 
elites in Washington and New York--the power centers of our country.
  Indeed, I am told by industry officials that some of the more noted 
journalists supplement their income by hundreds of thousands of dollars 
a year.
  Let me say that again, Mr. President. Because this shows the 
dimensions and magnitude of the issue.
  According to media officials, some of the more noted journalists 
supplement their incomes by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. 
They do this by speaking to companies and trade associations. And that 
is above and beyond their normal salaries, which sometimes range from a 
few hundred thousand dollars, to a few million.
  For speaking fees alone, Mr. President, that is more than the salary 
of the President of the United States.
  And despite the exorbitant numbers, there is no disclosure. Set aside 
the issue of taking fees for a moment. There is no reasonable 
interpretation for why--with numbers this high--there is no disclosure.
  The public has a right to know who in the world would pay $30,000 for 
a 20-minute speech. Or $20,000. Or even $15,000.
  This state of affairs is what led at least one senior network 
executive--Senior Vice President Richard C. Wald of ABC News--to 
remark, ``A few--of our colleagues, either because of frequency or the 
size of their fees, in fact have a second, high-income job.''
  The issue raises questions concerning the media's credibility. The 
questions are raised within the journalism community itself. If a 
reporter accepts money from an industry that he or she covers, how 
credible should we view their reporting?
  The public has a right to know if this question applies to specific 
journalists who bring them the news. The problem is, because there is 
no disclosure, they cannot get an answer. They cannot find out which 
interests are paying how much money to which reporters.
  The relevant question is, Who would pay such exorbitant sums? And to 
whom? And why?
  Mr. President, I spoke about this issue on this floor on June 29. I 
discussed the issue as I see it, and as seen by many in the journalism 
profession.
  I also discussed how this issue parallels that of honoraria taken by 
Members of Congress. The numbers we are talking about, here, have the 
potential to make criticism by the media of honoraria and PAC money to 
Members of Congress ring hollow.
  But I raise the concern in precisely the same context as that of us 
politicians--that is, how the public perceives us as a profession.
  And that public perception, as I said in my June 29 statement, is 
pretty low. Journalists and politicians are right down there together 
with used car salesmen, in the eyes of the American people.
  The result is that people have become cynical toward their 
Government, as well as those in the news media who cover their 
Government.
  Americans want those who bring them the news to be objective. They 
want them to be effective watchdogs of the governing process.
  Suspicions about special interests, buying influence with, and access 
to, big media stars, diminish the media's effectiveness as watchdogs, 
and increase the public's cynicism.
  The first step to effectively counter the suspicion is to disclose.
  Now, I know the vast majority of journalists do not take speaking 
fees. But the ones who do reach the largest audiences. They are 
generally the TV elites and bureau chiefs of the print media. And so 
the issue is one of enormous import.
  I have not suggested that journalists should not take fees. Far be it 
from me--a Member of the Congress of the United States--to suggest 
someone--anyone--should not take speaking fees.
  But at a minimum, journalists should disclose their fees--just like 
Members of Congress had to when we received speaking fees. We had to 
disclose who provided how much and when. Journalists should disclose 
the same information, in my view, because the public is entitled to 
know.
  Members of Congress have struggled with how to restore credibility 
with the public. One step was to severely curtail our speaking fees, or 
honoraria. It was a response in large part due to prodding journalists. 
They pointed out how the taking of honoraria by Members of Congress can 
be viewed by the public as engaging in possible conflicts of interest.
  We in Congress resisted that proposition. We said that honoraria from 
outside interests does not influence how we act. So why should we not 
take it, we asked?
  Eventually, Congress realized that it was not a matter of integrity. 
It was a matter of perception. And it was members of the press corps 
who usually drove home that point.
  And so Congress finally reformed its rules governing speaking fees. 
Now, we cannot accept fees unless we give them to charity.
  Should not the same media, which helped make Congress aware of its 
perception problems with the public, now make themselves aware of its 
own perception problems?
  If so, it should start with the same minimum standard that Congress 
had--disclosure. Beyond that, each news organization should set its own 
policy for speaking fees. That should properly be the business of each 
company.
  In my June 29 speech, I quoted extensively from the May issue of the 
American Journalism Review. The article notes that many of the 
journalists queried said their speaking fees are none of the public's 
business.
  Mr. President, I beg to differ. It is the public's business. The 
public has a right to know who in the world thinks journalists are 
worth up to $30,000 for one 20-minute speech.
  This is not to question the level of talent of these media elites. 
This is not in dispute. Most agree--they are charming, witty, and 
extremely talented.
  Rather, the real issue is where the money is coming from. Who in the 
world would value 20 minutes of time to the tune of $20,000 and 
$30,000? And most important--why?

  Is it because of their great ability as entertainers? Is it because 
of their great ability as purveyors of information?
  This is what the public has a right to know.
  During the past month, the media has covered extensively the tragic 
O.J. Simpson case. It has been reported that Mr. Simpson has hired the 
best defense lawyers money can buy.
  These defense attorneys make upward of $600 an hour. That is top 
dollar for legal advice. Mr. Clinton's lawyers are even said to command 
about $450 an hour. This is the best legal help in America.
  Yet, that is nothing compared to $30,000 for a 20-minute speech.
  Much has been made, too, of the dizzying salaries these days of major 
league baseball players. Let us take a look.
  The average salary for a major leaguer is $1.2 million a year. He 
plays 162 games per year.
  At $1.2 million, that ballplayer makes $7,407.35 per game. And since 
the average baseball game is about 3 hours, that is $2,469.12 per hour.
  That's a far cry from $30,000 per speech; or, $20,000 per speech; or 
even $15,000 or $10,000.
  The average American worker makes just over $21,000 a year. Imagine 
what he or she thinks when a journalist gets that amount of money for 
just one speech.
  Is it not reasonable to expect he or she would want to know who is 
providing that kind of money, and why? They may, or may not, conclude 
there is influencing or access-buying with those kinds of numbers. But 
at least that worker can make an informed decision.
  Even a Member of Congress, roundly criticized by the media for taking 
speaking fees, was limited to just $2,000 a speech. And there were 
legal limits on the totals, unlike for journalists.
  Remember, these speaking fees are in addition to the hundreds of 
thousands or millions of dollars these journalists already make for 
their salaries.
  Since my statement of June 29, there have been some developments on 
this issue. Since my colleagues have been out of town, I thought I 
would bring them up to date.

  In my June statement, Mr. President, you will remember that I 
mentioned ABC News has a new policy regarding speaking fees. That new 
policy bans fees for its on-camera reporters from trade associations 
and for-profit companies.
  A couple days later--on July 1--an article appeared in the Washington 
Post that quoted from an ABC News memorandum that outlined its new 
policy. That memo was written by the aforementioned Mr. Wald. In it, 
according to the Post article, Mr. Wald says the following:

       It isn't just how big a fee is, it is also who gives it and 
     what it might imply.

  The memo goes on to say:

       Their special interest is obvious, and we have to guard 
     against it.

  And so on the basis of that judgment, ABC tells its on-camera 
reporters, again according to the memo, ``You may not accept a fee from 
a trade association or from a for-profit business.''
  On July 7, another story appeared about speaking fees in a trade 
journal called Communications Daily. It added that:

       ABC News has put [an] end to its star correspondents' 
     receiving speakers' fees from various groups, action that 
     reportedly isn't sitting too well with correspondents.

  The daily also reports, of the other major networks, the following:

       NBC News said it was revamping its conflict and ethics 
     guidelines and would ``directly address the issue of speaking 
     fees.'' CBS News has conflict and ethic guidelines with no 
     blanket rule prohibiting payment for speeches, while CNN 
     permits fees on a case-by-case basis.

  On July 9, the Washington Post advanced the ABC story. It appears 
that a group of media stars at ABC wrote a letter of protest to Mr. 
Wald about the new policy.
  According to the Post, those signing the protest letter include David 
Brinkley, Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, Jeff Greenfield, Brit Hume, and 
Ann Compton.
  The Post story quotes one ABC insider as calling the practice of 
accepting fees ``outrageous.'' For them to look like they are 
compromising themselves takes away the value of what they do as 
professionals.''

  While the article makes clear that the purpose of the letter is to 
protest the new policy, at least one of the signatories appears to be 
calling for tougher measures.
  Mr. Greenfield was asked to comment on the letter. According to the 
Post, Mr. Greenfield said, ``The whole idea of avoiding conflicts of 
interest is exactly right. When you start trying to figure out what is 
and what isn't, it gets really tricky. You can speak to non-profit 
groups--they don't have a legislative agenda,'' he asks? ``They lobby 
all the time. We're just trying to get a policy that makes sense.''
  Mr. President, as journalists continue to come to grips with this 
issue, it seems to me that the necessary first step--one that would be 
seen as a positive step forward--is disclosure.
  Last Sunday, the matter of speaking fees for journalists was 
discussed on CNN's ``Reliable Sources,'' a roundtable forum dealing 
with media ethics and issues. After much discussion, the question of 
disclosure was brought up by former Wall Street Journal correspondent 
Ellen Hume.
  She said: ``I also have always been willing to disclose that, and I 
think there should be a mechanism for disclosing these speaking fees.'' 
Other reporters suggest the same remedy. It is an appropriate first 
step, in my view.
  Mr. President, this is an issue involving big money from special 
interests. It is an issue of perception and credibility. And it is an 
issue of reluctance to disclose relevant data to the public that is in 
their interest.
  The motto of any responsible politician and journalist should be, 
``Mold doesn't grow where the sun shines in.''
  When we get away from that principle, we get in trouble. Disclosure 
would provide the requisite sunshine for getting back on the right 
course.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________