Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

CONTENTS

Pilpel, Mrs. Harriet F., radio-television committee chairman, American
Civil Liberties Union, comment on paper No. 4.

85

sota Law School, presenting paper No. 3-The fairness doctrine, the

law, and policy in its present application_ --

Siepmann, Charles A., professor emeritus, New York University,
comment on paper No. 3...

Stanton, Dr. Frank, president, Columbia Broadcasting System, pre-

senting paper No. 2-The equal time requirements of section 315

of the Communications Act of 1934-

Wasilewski, Vincent T., president, National Association of Broadcasters,
presenting paper No. 6-The effect of the fairness doctrine on the
broadcasting of public controversy.

Biographical sketches of panel members.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Papers presented and comments thereon

Paper No. 1-The role and influence of radio and television in the formation of public opinion: Comparison with newspapers, magazines, and specialized journals of opinion..

Comment..

Paper No. 2-The equal time requirements of section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934_.

Comment

Paper No. 3-The fairness doctrine, the law, and policy in its present application.

Comment..

Paper No. 4-The effect of the fairness doctrine on broadcast news operations

Comment..

Paper No. 5-The effect of section 315 and the fairness doctrine on educational broadcasting....

Comment...

Paper No. 6-The effect of the fairness doctrine on the broadcasting of public controversy

Comment_

Paper No. 7-The fairness doctrine: Its use and application..

Comment..

Paper No. 8-The fairness doctrine, equal time, reply to personal attacks, and the local service obligation; implications of technological change..

Comment..

Additional material submitted for the record by

Columbia Broadcasting System, memorandum regarding advice given by the law department to CBS News concerning proposed documentary on George Wallace...

Federal Communications Commission:

Correspondence concerning compliance of fairness doctrine and
section 315, statement on.......

Handling of fairness_doctrine as distinguished from personal
attack complaints, FCC statement regarding....
King Broadcasting Co., FCC ruling regarding fairness doctrine.
Letter from Donald F. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, Anti-
trust Division, Department of Justice, re Columbia Broadcasting
System, Inc., v. U.S. & F.C.C. (7th Circuit No. 16498); National
Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. & F.C.C. (7th Circuit No. 16499);
Radio Television News Directors Assn. v. U.S. & F.C.C. (7th
Circuit No. 16369) and copy of the motion...
National Broadcasting Company, News Division:

Broadcasting stations and daily newspapers in the five largest
metropolitan areas in the United States...

Commercial broadcast stations on the air, and daily and Sunday
newspapers, in the United States, by States, as of 1965...

Appendixes:

Appendix A-Legislative history of the fairness doctrine, a special sub-
committee staff study, February 1968.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Appendix B-Applicability of the fairness doctrine to cigarette adver-
tising, memorandum opinion and order of the Federal Communica-
tions Commission (FCC 67–1029).
Appendix C-Letter dated February 28, 1968, from Howard Stalnaker,
vice president-general manager, Meredith WOW, Inc., Omaha, Nebr.,
including several recent resolutions re Fairness Doctrine adopted by
the Nebraska Broadcasters Association__.

219

243

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington D.C.

The special subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I would like to make a brief announcement before we get started. Mr. Don McGannon of Westinghouse will not be with us because of a death in the family. We are very sorry for him.

Also, I will have to leave soon, as I have to go to the Rules Committee in a few moments. I will return as soon as possible, however.

We welcome each of you here this morning. It is certainly a distinguished panel.

The business of this subcommittee for the next 2 days will be a consideration of some of the most significant issues in broadcast regulation: The fairness doctrine, the equal time requirements of section 315 of the Communications Act, broadcast editorializing, and the question of personal attacks carried over the airwaves.

The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has the duty and responsibility under section 136 of the Reorganization Act of 1946 to exercise legislative oversight or continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative agencies of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the committee. Communications is one of such subject matters. House Resolution 168, 90th Congress, authorizes this special subcommittee to make investigations and studies concerning communications and the Federal Communications. Act of 1934, as amended.

We are well aware that some of the panelists represent parties in various matters before the courts. I want to emphasize at the outset that our purpose here is not to focus on individual court actions or FCC decisions, except insofar as they bear on the larger issues before us. The format of our exploration of these issues will be that of a panel discussion. I would like to say more about both the issues and our format in a few minutes; but, first, it gives me great pleasure to welcome our distinguished moderator, Dean Barrow, and the panel members who are with us today. In a few minutes, I will ask Dean Barrow to introduce each of the participants to the subcommittee.

We have prepared and distributed to the subcommittee a series of biographical briefs of the participants. This will also be inserted into the record of these proceedings. (See pp. 7-14.)

To observe that we have a "blue ribbon" panel present here today is merely to state the obvious. I want the panel to know that we on this subcommittee are deeply grateful for the contribution you are making in many cases involving considerable personal inconvenience toward the better understanding of these issues. Your presence here today is further proof, if any were actually needed, of the timeliness and importance of these discussions.

We want to make a special welcome to Chairman Hyde, of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your participation in these proceedings and are grateful for it.

A few minutes ago, in alluding to the issues to be discussed in these proceedings, I mentioned four: "Equal Time," the "Fairness Doctrine," "Broadcast Editorializing," and "Personal Attacks."

It does seem to me, however, that we may actually be referring to only two issues. "Equal Time" is one of these. This is the requirement-which has been in the law since the Radio Act of 1927-that when a station allows a legally qualified candidate for public office to make use of its facilities, it must afford equal opportuities for all other such candidates competing for the same office.

There is certainly no need to point out the great significance this requirement takes on during an election year. It has been urged that the strict "equal time" requirement fails to take proper account of the realities of our national political system. It is stated, for example, that broadcasters are reluctant to extend free time to candidates of the major parties for fear of being required to extend equal amounts of valuable air time to candidates from obscure or splinter parties in whom the public may have little interest.

Against this, however, we must weigh the fact that the so-called splinter party of today may become the majority or at least a significant-party of tomorrow. The views of the so-called obscure candidates may ultimately prove to be of great value to the electorate.

For these reasons, we want to proceed very carefully in considering modifications in the present equal time requirement. The subject is vital in a free society, and we are looking forward to the panel's consideration of this topic this morning.

As we all recall, the equal time requirements of section 315 were suspended during the 1960 Presidential campaign. The results of that suspension are still being discussed, and I am sure will be discussed further today.

The other principal issue before us, and in many ways the more difficult of the two, is the "Fairness Doctrine."

The fairness doctrine received its definitive statement in the FCC's 1949 report on "Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees." The doctrine provides that when a licensee presents one side of a controversial issue of public importance, reasonable opportunity must be afforded for the presentation of contrasting views.

This goes to the heart of broadcasting, and the fairness doctrine has received much critical comment from the broadcast industry. It is said that the asserting of a legal, as opposed to a moral, obligation of fairness violates the first amendment of the Constitution, and also section 326 of the Communications Act, which expressly prohibits censorship on the part of the FCC.

These, of course, are legal considerations. But practical objections have also been raised that the existence of the doctrine inhibits broadcasters from venturing into controversial subjects.

This issue is not easily resolved. The fairness doctrine represents an attempt certainly not beyond improvement-to insure that the American public has the opportunity of hearing contrasting viewpoints on the vital issues of the day. Recent studies by respected polling organizations have confirmed what might have been suspected without any polls that the majority of our citizens consider broadcasting television in particular, to be its primary and most reliable source of news and information.

Broadcasting regulation has from its inception-been based on the premise that the airwaves belong to the people, licensed to be used in the public interest, convenience, or necessity. The public should hear from the responsible voices that are raised in the discussion of public issues. The marketplace of ideas should not be foreclosed to some and monopolized by others.

I think all of us will agree to these general principles. But that still leaves us with the question of whether the fairness doctrine is the best way to insure that responsible voices will be heard in the discussion of public issues. We are looking forward to the panel's deliberations on this subject, and will be especially interested in suggestions for improvement in the doctrine itself, or in its administration.

The other two issues I mentioned earlier-personal attacks and editorializing seem to be really subheadings under the general concept of the fairness doctrine. Last year, the FCC promulgated administrative rules specifying the duties of licensees in the cases of personal attacks or political endorsements. These rules required the licensee to provide the victim of the attack, whether it be an individual or a group, with notice of the attack, a transcript or summary of the attack, and an offer of reply time. This was to be performed within a week of the time the attack was broadcast.

These rules were challenged in court by various parties representing the broadcast industry. As if to underline the importance and timeliness of our proceedings here today, we have just learned that the FCC has asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to withhold consideration of the personal attack rules pending further Commission consideration, and perhaps revision, of these rules. I think we should be striving for a bit more certainty and clarity in the law in this area, and your deliberations here will contribute toward the achievement of this goal.

As to editorializing, this issue, too, it seems to me, properly falls under the general heading of the fairness doctrine. To me and others may disagree with this definition-an editorial is simply an expression of the licensee's views on a particular subject which is clearly labeled as such. The expression of opinion may be on a controversial subject, or it may not. If it is on a controversial subject, the fairness doctrine applies and the licensee must afford reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting views.

But I do not want to anticipate the discussions which are to follow. However, it is necessary to say a few words about the format we will be using here.

« ForrigeFortsett »