Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

#  {#section .unnumbered}

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. EB-06-IH-3489       |
|                                  | * |                              |
| **SONSHINE FAMILY TELEVISION,    | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200832080001   |
| INC.**                           | * |                              |
|                                  | * | Facility ID No. 60850        |
| Licensee of Station WBPH-TV      |   |                              |
|                                  | * | FRN: 0006620066              |
| Bethlehem, Pennsylvania          | * |                              |
|                                  | ) | File No. EB-06-IH-3486       |
| **SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP,      | * |                              |
| INC.**                           | * | NAL/Acct. No. 200832080003   |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Licensee of Stations WABM(TV),   | * | Facility ID Nos. 16820,      |
| Birmingham, Alabama, WVTV(TV),   | * | 74174, 9971, 50170, 71363,   |
| Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WUXP-TV,   | ) | 73907, 56528, 66908, and     |
| Nashville, Tennessee, KOCB(TV),  | * | 33336                        |
| WEAR-TV, Pensacola, Florida,     | * |                              |
| WPMY(TV), Pittsburgh,            |   | FRN: 0004331096              |
| Pennsylvania, KABB(TV), San      | * |                              |
| Antonio, Texas, WTWC-TV,         | * |                              |
| Tallahassee, Florida, and former | ) |                              |
| licensee of KSMO-TV, Kansas      | * |                              |
| City, Missouri                   | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
|                                  |   |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

**Adopted: August 27, 2007 Released: October 18, 2007**

By the Commission: Commissioners Adelstein and Copps issuing a joint
statement.

# Introduction

1.  In this *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*, we find
    Sonshine Family Television, Inc. ("Sonshine"), licensee of Station
    WBPH-TV, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, apparently liable for a forfeiture
    in the amount of forty thousand dollars (\$40,000) for willfully and
    repeatedly violating Section 317(a)(1) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended[^1] ("Act"), and Section 73.1212(a) of the
    Commission's rules.[^2] These provisions generally require a
    licensee to make sponsorship identification announcements whenever
    its station broadcasts matter in return for money, service, or other
    valuable consideration. We find that Sonshine, in exchange for
    consideration, broadcast five episodes of the program "The Right
    Side with Armstrong Williams" ("RSAW") on a total of ten occasions
    during the period January 4, 2004, through July 5, 2004, without
    airing the required sponsorship identification announcements.

2.  We also find Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair"), ultimate
    parent of the licensees of Stations WABM(TV), Birmingham, Alabama,
    KSMO-TV, Kansas City, Missouri, WVTV(TV), Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
    WUXP-TV, Nashville, Tennessee, KOCB(TV), WEAR-TV, Pensacola,
    Florida, WPMY(TV), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, KABB(TV), San Antonio,
    Texas, and WTWC-TV, Tallahassee, Florida,[^3] apparently liable for
    a forfeiture in the amount of thirty-six thousand dollars (\$36,000)
    for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1212(d) of the
    Commission's rules.[^4] That section provides that whenever a
    licensee is furnished with "any film, record, transcription, talent,
    script or other material or service . . ." for use in connection
    with the broadcast of political matter or the discussion of a
    controversial issue of public importance, the licensee must make
    sponsorship announcements identifying the party or parties
    furnishing the materials or services. We find that the
    above-captioned Sinclair stations broadcast an episode of the
    program "America's Black Forum," ("ABF") entitled "2004 Election
    Countdown," on September 11 or 12, 2004, without airing the
    sponsorship identification announcements required by this section.

    **II. BACKGROUND**

    **A. Sponsorship Identification Law**

3.  Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the
    Commission's rules establish the general obligation of a broadcast
    station to air sponsorship identification announcements whenever any
    "money, service or other valuable consideration" is paid or promised
    to the station for the broadcast of program material. Specifically,
    Section 317(a)(1) provides:

    All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money,
    service or other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly
    paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so
    broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is so
    broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may
    be, by such person: *Provided*, That "service or other valuable
    consideration" shall not include any service or property furnished
    without charge or at a nominal charge for use on, or in connection
    with, a broadcast unless it is so furnished in consideration for an
    identification in a broadcast of any person, product, service,
    trademark, or brand name beyond an identification which is
    reasonably related to the use of such service or property on the
    broadcast.[^5]

4.  Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules implements Section
    317(a)(1) of the Act. Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules
    states:

> When a broadcast station transmits any matter for which money,
> service, or other valuable consideration is either directly or
> indirectly paid or promised to, or charged or accepted by such
> station, the station, at the time of the broadcast, shall announce:
>
> \(1\) That such matter is sponsored, paid for, or furnished, either in
> whole or in part, and
>
> \(2\) By whom or on whose behalf such consideration was supplied:
> *Provided, however,* That "service or other valuable consideration"
> shall not include any service or property furnished without or at a
> nominal charge for use on, or in connection with, a broadcast unless
> it is so furnished in consideration for an identification of any
> person, product, service, trademark, or brand name beyond an
> identification reasonably related to the use of such service or
> property on the broadcast.[^6]

The proviso components of Section 73.1212(a)(2) and of Section 317(a)(1)
of the Act exempt stations from making sponsorship announcements in
certain circumstances, but these provisos do not apply when the
consideration paid or promised to a station is in the form of "money."
The Commission has noted that the sponsorship identification rules are
"grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to
know who seeks to persuade them" and has warned that it would take
enforcement action against broadcast stations and cable operators that
did not comply with its rules.[^7]

5.  The sponsorship identification rules impose upon broadcast licensees
    a greater obligation of disclosure in connection with political
    material and program matter treating controversial issues. The
    Commission has noted that, particularly in the case of such
    programming, audience members are "entitled to know when the program
    ends and the advertisement begins." [^8] Thus, while the provisos to
    Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of our rules
    provide generally that no sponsorship identification announcement is
    necessary if broadcast-related materials or services are supplied to
    a station free of charge or at a nominal charge,[^9] Section
    317(a)(2) authorizes the Commission to require sponsorship
    announcements for any materials or services that are furnished for
    use in political or controversial issue programming without regard
    to whether they were provided at no charge or at a nominal
    charge.[^10] The Commission has exercised this authority in adopting
    Section 73.1212(d), which provides:

> In the case of any political broadcast matter or any broadcast matter
> involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance
> for which any film, record, transcription, talent, script, or other
> material or service of any kind is furnished, either directly or
> indirectly, to a station as an inducement for broadcasting such
> matter, an announcement shall be made both at the beginning and
> conclusion of such broadcast on which such material or service is used
> that such film, record, transcription, talent, script, or other
> material or service has been furnished to such station in connection
> with the transmission of such broadcast matter: *Provided, however,*
> That in the case of any broadcast of 5 minutes\' duration or less,
> only one such announcement need be made either at the beginning or
> conclusion of the broadcast. [^11]

6.  The Commission applies the same standard for determining whether a
    broadcast matter involves "a controversial issue of public
    importance" as it applied under the fairness doctrine.[^12]
    "\[G\]iven the limitless number of potential controversial issues
    and the varying circumstances in which they might arise," the
    Commission approaches this determination on a case-by-case
    basis.[^13] Consistent with the First Amendment, the Commission
    relies heavily on licensees' editorial judgment, and the scope of
    its review is limited to determining whether a licensee has acted
    reasonably and in good faith in determining whether material is or
    is not subject to the special disclosure rule for matter involving
    controversial issues of public importance.[^14] The inducement
    component of the rule is satisfied whenever material is provided to
    a broadcaster at no or nominal charge.[^15]

    **B. Free Press Complaint and Investigations**

7.  In early January 2005, Free Press and several thousand other
    complainants wrote requesting that the Commission investigate
    alleged payola violations involving Armstrong Williams ("Williams").
    The complaints, citing national news reports, contended that
    Williams was paid by the Department of Education ("DoEd") to promote
    the No Child Left Behind Act ("NCLB") in broadcast programming that
    he produced or in which he appeared without disclosing that fact to
    viewers or to the stations involved. Many of the complaints
    identified numerous broadcast stations reported to have aired such
    NCLB-related programming, which included the show "The Right Side
    with Armstrong Williams."

8.  On February 14, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued
    letters of inquiry to Armstrong Williams' media company, Graham
    Williams Group ("GWG"), and to public-relations firm Ketchum, Inc.
    ("Ketchum").[^16] Ketchum was the prime contractor with DoEd in
    connection with that department's campaign to promote NCLB and GWG
    was a subcontractor of Ketchum's in that endeavor. The *LOIs*
    directed the respondents to answer a number of questions and produce
    a variety of documents relevant to matters raised in the complaints.
    In their responses, GWG and Ketchum provided documentary and other
    evidence that included more than one-hundred hours of recorded
    programs containing NCLB advertisements or discussion and commentary
    concerning NCLB during episodes of RSAW, hosted by Williams, and
    during the program "America's Black Forum" ("ABF"), on which
    Williams appeared as a guest.[^17]

9.  After reviewing this evidence, the Bureau identified those episodes
    in which discussions of NCLB topics took place during the programs,
    but no sponsorship disclosures appeared to have been made. The
    Bureau thereafter issued further letters of inquiry to licensees
    named in the complaints or identified by Williams to determine,
    among other things, whether their stations aired such NCLB-related
    programming, as alleged, and if so, whether the stations disclosed
    the identity of the sponsor of such programming during their
    broadcasts. Sonshine and Sinclair were among the owners to which the
    Bureau directed a further *LOI*.[^18]

10. In its response, Sonshine denies that Station WBPH-TV aired ABF but
    acknowledges that the station aired five different episodes of RSAW
    entitled "What is Faith," "Year End Review," "Young Americans in
    Government,"[^19] "National Security," and "On Point with Rod
    Paige," on a total of ten occasions during the period January 4,
    2004, through July 5, 2004.[^20] During these episodes Williams
    discussed the NCLB program. Based on its inability to "produce
    actual records concerning these particular programs," Sonshine
    opines that "in all likelihood" its station aired them without
    including any sponsorship identification, because it believed no
    identification was necessary.[^21] Sonshine acknowledges, however,
    that its agreement with Williams "call\[ed\] for payment of a
    nominal fee of \$100 to \[it\] for each broadcast," which Sonshine
    implies is not cognizable due to the allegedly modest amount
    involved.[^22] Sonshine further claims that it was neither informed
    by GWG nor made aware that anyone else received or was promised
    consideration for the inclusion of any message intended for
    broadcast.[^23] Thus, Sonshine argues that it had no basis on which
    to conclude that a sponsorship announcement was required for the
    programming. Finally, Sonshine contends that the broadcast
    presentations as a whole make clear that GWG was the material's
    sponsor in each case, and that its failure to include specific
    disclosures announcing that the program was "paid for" and/or
    "sponsored" by GWG was harmless.[^24]

11. In its response, Sinclair denies that any of its stations aired RSAW
    but acknowledges that nine of its stations aired an episode of ABF
    entitled "2004 Election Countdown," taped September 8, 2004, during
    which Williams discussed the NCLB program.[^25] Sinclair admitted
    that these stations aired this episode of ABF without including any
    sponsorship identification.[^26] Sinclair argues, however, that no
    such identification was required. In this regard, Sinclair states
    that it neither received nor was promised any consideration for the
    material's broadcast. Rather, it states that its staff's decision to
    air such material reflected its own "independent and uncompensated
    decision."[^27] Moreover, Sinclair asserts that it had no actual
    knowledge or any reason to believe that anyone had received or been
    promised consideration for inclusion of material in the program that
    it aired.[^28] Sinclair concludes that "it simply did not know, and
    had no reason to know, that the program required any identification
    . . . ."[^29]

# III. Discussion {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

12. Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by
    the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
    any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
    the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a monetary
    forfeiture penalty.[^30] To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the
    Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, and the person
    against whom the notice has been issued must have an opportunity to
    show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be
    imposed.[^31] The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it
    finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has
    violated the Act or a Commission rule.[^32] We conclude under this
    standard that Sonshine is apparently liable for a forfeiture for its
    willful and repeated violation of Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and
    Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules and that Sinclair is
    apparently liable for a forfeiture for its willful and repeated
    violation of Section 73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules.

13. ***Sonshine.*** Both Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section
    73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules expressly provide that
    broadcast stations must identify the sponsor of material whenever
    they accept "money, service or other valuable consideration" to air
    the material. Sonshine concedes that it received money in exchange
    for the broadcast of the five RSAW episodes identified above, but
    implies that the nominal amount of the payment -- \$100 per
    broadcast -- excuses it from making a sponsorship announcement. To
    the extent Sonshine takes this position, it is unavailing. The duty
    to provide a sponsorship announcement where money is exchanged for
    airtime is part of the primary obligation stated in Section
    317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's
    rules. The provisos to these sections, which afford a limited
    exception to the announcement duty, operate by excluding certain
    classes of "service or other valuable consideration" from triggering
    the obligation. Specifically, they provide that the terms "service
    or other valuable consideration" as used in these sections "shall
    not include any service or property furnished without charge or at a
    nominal charge...." Notably, the term "money," which is named as a
    form of consideration that would oblige a station to air a
    sponsorship announcement, is not mentioned in the provisos.
    Moreover, unlike the provisos, the primary obligation stated in
    Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the
    Commission's rules recognizes no exception for "nominal" monetary
    payments. On the contrary, the statute requires sponsorship
    identification where a broadcaster is paid "*any money*, service or
    other valuable consideration."[^33] We conclude that the receipt of
    money in exchange for the broadcast of material requires a
    sponsorship announcement regardless of whether the amount could be
    considered nominal or not.[^34]

14. Moreover, we do not agree that the overall presentations of the RSAW
    episodes obviated the need for Sonshine to provide identification
    announcements in the form specified under the rules.[^35] A
    sponsorship identification announcement must state in language
    understandable to a majority of the audience that the station has
    received consideration for the matter broadcast and from whom that
    consideration was received.[^36]

15. According to Section 73.1212(a)(1), the station shall announce
    "\[t\]hat such matter is sponsored, paid for or furnished, in whole
    or in part."[^37] In addition under Section 73.1212(a)(2)(i): "For
    the purposes of this section, the term 'sponsored' shall be deemed
    to have the same meaning as 'paid for.'"[^38] Thus, the Commission
    has found that the phrase "sponsored by" may be used in place of
    "paid for," but no other substitute words or phrases have been
    specifically allowed.[^39] In addition, the term "presented by" is
    subject to differing interpretations which could lead to public
    confusion or misunderstanding. Thus, the term "presented by" does
    not clearly inform the audience that it is hearing or viewing matter
    which has been paid for.[^40] Moreover, the Commission has ruled
    that use of "promotional fees furnished by" is not sufficient.[^41]
    Thus, due to the potential confusion and harm caused by alternative
    types of identification, the permissible forms of identification are
    narrowly drawn. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit to
    Sonshine's argument that the programs' overall presentations, which
    included identification of the program title, participants, and
    production company, made clear to viewers that those entities were
    also the material's sponsors. Consequently, we find that the
    broadcasts in question lacked appropriate sponsorship
    identification.

16. We conclude that Sonshine willfully and repeatedly violated Section
    317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's
    rules by airing the RSAW episodes "What is Faith," "Year End
    Review," "Young Americans in Government,"[^42] "National Security,"
    and "On Point with Rod Paige," over Station WBPH-TV without airing
    the proper sponsorship identification. The imposition of a monetary
    forfeiture to redress of these failures is appropriate.[^43]

17. ***Sinclair.*** As noted above, Section 73.1212(d) of the
    Commission's rules makes clear that broadcast stations must identify
    the sponsor of any materials or services furnished for use in
    connection with "any political broadcast matter or any broadcast
    matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public
    importance . . . ."[^44] In this case, Williams and GWG provided
    Sinclair with a complete program for broadcast on its stations and
    that program, entitled "2004 Election Countdown," consisted, in
    substantial part, of partisan representatives and commentators
    analyzing and debating various issues central to the presidential
    campaign then underway, as well as clips of the candidates
    themselves making political statements at their respective parties'
    conventions. Based on these characteristics, we find that this
    program material was furnished for use in connection with "political
    broadcast matter" within the meaning of Section 73.1212(d) of the
    Commission's rules.[^45] Accordingly, during each broadcast,
    Sinclair was obliged to air announcements indicating that the
    program was furnished by Williams, irrespective of whether it was
    provided to Sinclair without charge.[^46] We conclude that Sinclair
    willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1212(d) of the
    Commission's rules by airing the ABF episode "2004 Election
    Countdown" over its stations on the respective dates noted above
    without airing proper sponsorship identification and that the
    imposition of a monetary forfeiture in redress of these failures is
    appropriate. In this regard, we observe that the Commission has
    placed particular importance on a licensee's obligation to identify
    to its viewers any and all sponsors of politically related messages.

18. ***Forfeitures.*** The Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement*
    sets a base forfeiture amount of \$4,000 for sponsorship
    identification violations.[^47] After considering the record and all
    of the factors contained in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47
    U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), and the *Forfeiture Policy Statement*, we
    believe a forfeiture of \$40,000 is appropriate for Sonshine's
    violations. This represents the base amount for each of the ten
    broadcasts by WBPH-TV of the referenced RSAW episodes.[^48] After
    similar consideration, we believe a \$36,000 forfeiture is
    appropriate for Sinclair's violations. This represents the base
    amount for the single broadcast of the ABF program over each of the
    nine above-captioned Sinclair stations on September 11 or 12,
    2004.[^49]

# Ordering clauses

19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311
    and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,[^50] Sonshine is hereby NOTIFIED
    of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Forty
    Thousand Dollars (\$40,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
    Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the
    Commission's rules.

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311
    and 1.80 of the Commission's rules,[^51] Sinclair is hereby NOTIFIED
    of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Thirty-Six
    Thousand Dollars (\$36,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
    Section 73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules.

21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
    Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release of this
    Notice, Sonshine and Sinclair SHALL EACH PAY to the United States
    the full amount of the proposed forfeitures or SHALL EACH FILE a
    written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
    forfeitures.

22. Payment of the forfeitures must be made by mailing check or similar
    instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    Commission. The payment MUST INCLUDE the respective FCC Registration
    Number ("FRN") and the NAL/Account Number for the payor specified in
    the caption of this *NAL.* Payment by check or money order may be
    mailed to Federal Communications Commission P.O. Box 358340
    Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
    Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh,
    PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number
    043000261, receiving bank Mellon Pittsburgh, and account number BNF:
    FCC/ACV\--9116229.

23. Each response, if any, must be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W, Room 4-C330,
    Washington, D.C. 20554 and MUST INCLUDE the respective NAL/Acct. No.
    for the responding party referenced above.

24. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
    in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent
    submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
    period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
    accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable
    and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
    respondent's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay
    must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to
    the financial documentation submitted.

25. Requests for payment of the full amount of the *NAL* under an
    installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director --
    Financial Operations, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 1A625,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.[^52]

26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Notice SHALL BE SENT, by
    Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Sonshine Family
    Television, Inc., 813 N. Fenwick Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania
    18109, and to its counsel, J. Geoffrey Bentley, Esq., 2700 Copper
    Creek Road, Oak Hill, Virginia 20171, and to Sinclair Broadcast
    Group, Inc., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street,
    N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037-1128, and to its counsel, Kathryn R.
    Schmeltzer, Esq., and Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., at the same address.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

**JOINT STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN AND COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

*In the Matter of Sonshine Family Television, Inc, and Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture*

Growing abuses of the public trust in recent years are shaking
Americans' confidence in the press. When pundits are paid to promote a
corporate or government agenda while the public is never told, all
commenters and journalists become suspect. The repeated revelations of
advertisers paying their way onto news programming without disclosure
undercut the credibility of all journalists. When budget cuts in
newsrooms lead broadcasters to substitute advertisements disguised by
slick public relations firms as news instead of paying for their own
work, viewers and listener wonder what they can believe. When newsrooms
are too strapped or sloppy to perform their due diligence and provide
disclosure announcements, as required by law, it leads to a crisis of
confidence.

So we now face a crisis in American journalism. That is why today's
action by the Commission is so important. It sends a clear message that
the public has a right to know who is trying to persuade them so they
can make up their own minds about what is presented to them.

While some will try to turn this into a First Amendment issue,
sponsorship identification in no way requires anyone to limit anything
they communicate. On the contrary, it requires more speech, not less.
The only reason it can be construed as limiting expression is because
broadcasters and cable operators are too embarrassed to reveal who paid
to produce or espouse material they are pretending is their own product.
In fact, established ethical guidelines, which are routinely ignored,
call for just such disclosure. The reticence to disclose, or to
otherwise refrain from using material paid for by a sponsor, is not a
restraint upon free expression.

Today, with the release of this *Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture*, the Commission again puts broadcasters and cable operators
on notice that the public deserves a clear statement on whether or not
the programming they are watching is sponsored by a government or
corporate interest.

This *Forfeiture Notice* reinforces the rule that the Commission's
disclosure obligations do not only apply to broadcasters. Rather, the
Commission is serious about applying the rules to everyone up and down
the chain of production and distribution.[^53] Today, the Commission
places broadcasters, producers and distributors on notice. Each and
every individual has a duty to report the real source of any programming
on television or radio. Employers and employees must ensure the audience
knows where the programming they are watching originated or who paid for
it. The argument that the overall presentation of the material obviates
the need to provide sponsorship identification announcements is
unavailing. Under our clear rules, any consideration must be revealed to
the audience.

Failure to disclose Armstrong Williams was paid by the Department of
Education to promote an agenda on the air by itself violates Federal
law.[^54] On top of that, without making a positive or negative judgment
of the content aired, we find that in the instant case a licensee could
not, in good faith, consider the material to be "anything but
political."[^55] The Commission has already concluded that electoral
issues are presumptively controversial and of public importance. In
fact, we both struggle to find an issue more important to many parents
than their child's education. We feel it is not too much of a stretch
for programmers to understand what is a political issue and what is not.
Broadcasters should strive to present independent and honest
broadcasting, and should ethically desire to be forthcoming and open
about where its programming is coming from.

The integrity of the press is of paramount importance to any democracy.
As the Commission has clearly warned, audience members must be able to
tell where the program they are watching ends and the paid advertisement
begins. Today's *Forfeiture Notice* reaffirms the affirmative legal
obligation of broadcasters to alert the public to any payola punditry
and places the industry on notice that the Commission will act to ensure
the public is protected from special interest groups who attempt to
trick the public.

While this action is overdue, we are pleased the Commission takes this
issue seriously. This *Forfeiture Notice* demonstrates how important it
is for broadcast stations to clearly announce any sponsors furnishing
material or services, particularly for use in connection with the
broadcast of political material or discussion of a controversial issue
of public importance. Accordingly, we speak in a unanimous voice.

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a).

[^3]: Sinclair is the ultimate parent of the respective television
    station licensees Birmingham (WABM-TV) Licensee, Inc; WVTV Licensee,
    Inc; WUXP Licensee, LLC; KOCB Licensee, LLC; WEAR Licensee, LLC;
    WCWB Licensee, LLC; KABB Licensee, LLC; and WTWC Licensee, LLC.
    KSMO-TV was licensed to a Sinclair-controlled entity at the time of
    the relevant broadcasts.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(d).

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212. The Commission's rules also contain
    additional requirements designed to implement and provide greater
    specificity for the other requirements in Section 317. Section
    76.1615 establishes many of these requirements for cable operators
    under certain circumstances.

[^7]: *See, e.g.*, *Commission Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable
    Operators and Others of Requirements Applicable to Video News
    Releases and Seeks Comment on the Use of Video News Releases by
    Broadcast Licensees and Cable Operators*, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd
    8593-94 (2005) ("*2005 Public Notice*").

[^8]: *See* Richard Kielbowicz and Linda Lawson, "Unmasking Hidden
    Commercials in Broadcasting: Origins of the Sponsorship
    Identification Regulations, 1927-1963," 56 Fed. Comm. L. J. 329 at
    344 n.80 (2004), *citing* FCC, Public Service Responsibility of
    Broadcast Licensees, 47 (1946); *Commission Reminds Broadcast
    Licensees, Cable Operators and Others of Requirements Applicable to
    Video News Releases and Seeks Comment on the Use of Video News
    Releases by Broadcast Licensees and Cable Operators*, Public Notice,
    20 FCC Rcd 8593 (2005) ("*2005 Public Notice*").

[^9]: *See* paras. 3-4, *supra.*

[^10]: Section 317(a)(2), 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(2), provides that:

    Nothing in this section shall preclude the Commission from requiring
    that an appropriate announcement shall be made at the time of the
    broadcast in the case of any political program or any program
    involving the discussion of any controversial issue for which any
    films, records, transcriptions, talent, scripts, or other material
    or service of any kind have been furnished, without charge or at a
    nominal charge, directly or indirectly, as an inducement to the
    broadcast of such program.

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(d). The Commission's rules also contain
    additional requirements designed to implement and provide greater
    specificity for the other requirements in Section 317. Section
    76.1615 establishes many of these requirements for cable operators
    under certain circumstances.

[^12]: *Amendment of Commission's Sponsorship Identification Rules*, 52
    FCC 2d 701, 710 (1975).

[^13]: *The Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and
    the Public Interest Standards of the Communications Act*, 48 FCC 2d
    1, 11-12 (1974)("*1974 Fairness Report"*).

[^14]: *Id.* at 11.

[^15]: *Westinghouse B'casting Co.,* 40 FCC 28, 29 (1958) ("it is
    obvious that the material furnished by the \[program's producer\],
    at considerable cost to it and no cost to the stations, was made
    available by that association with the expectation or hope that it
    would be presented by the stations to which it was supplied,
    ...\--i.e., as an *inducement* to the stations to present this
    particular material. Conversely, the station was induced to present
    portions of the particular material by the fact that it was made
    available gratis."); *Gaylord B'casting Co*., 67 FCC 2d 25 (1977).
    *See also Announcement of Sponsored Programs*, 28 Fed. Reg. 4707,
    4715 (May 10, 1963) (rejecting contention that proposed case
    illustration 35(c) "was misleading in that it permits the conclusion
    that whenever material involving controversial issues of public
    importance is supplied to a station free of charge, the use of any
    portion of such material in a news program would require an
    announcement as to its source").

[^16]: *See* Letters from William Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations
    & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Sinclair and Ketchum,
    dated February 14, 2005 ("*February 14^th^ LOIs*").

[^17]: *See* Letter from GWG to Kenneth M. Scheibel, Jr., Attorney,
    Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated April
    6, 2005 ("*GWG Response"*), and Letter from Ketchum to William D.
    Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, dated April 13, 2005 ("*Ketchum Response*").

[^18]: *See* Letters from Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr., Deputy Chief,
    Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Sonshine,
    dated November 7, 2006, and January 31, 2007 ("*November 7^th^ LOI*"
    and "*January 31^st^ LOI*"); Letter from Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr.,
    Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement
    Bureau, to Sinclair, dated November 7, 2006 ("*November 7^th^
    LOI*"). By actions dated January 31, June 29, and July 23, 2007, the
    Bureau terminated its investigations of other stations, including
    certain of those owned by Sinclair, based on the licensees' denials,
    and the absence of any independent evidence disputing their denials,
    that they had aired any of the program material at issue on such
    stations.

[^19]: This episode was referred to in our LOI to Sonshine as entitled
    "Young Americans in Government," but that title actually describes
    only the second segment of the episode. The first segment was
    denominated "Profile of a Candidate." The title appearing at the
    beginning of the whole episode - "Profile of Candidate/Americans" -
    appears to be a composite of both segments' titles.

[^20]: Specifically, Sonshine acknowledges that it aired the following
    episodes of RSAW over Station WBPH-TV: "What is Faith" aired on
    January 6, March 4, March 8, and April 30, 2004; "Year End Review"
    aired on January 4, 2004; "Young Americans in Government" aired on
    January 5, 2004; "National Security" aired on April 23, 2004; and
    "On Point with Rod Paige" aired on March 19, April 12 and July 5,
    2004. *See* Letters from Sonshine to Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr.,
    Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement
    Bureau, dated December 22, 2006, March 2, 2007 and March 23, 2007
    ("*Sonshine December 22^nd^ Response,*" "*Sonshine's March 2^nd^
    Response*," and "*Sonshine's March 23^rd^ Response,*" respectively).

[^21]: *See March 23^rd^ Response* at 2.

[^22]: *See id*.

[^23]: *See id.* at 4-5.

[^24]: *See March 23^rd^ Response* at 2-3.

[^25]: *See* Letter from Sinclair to Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr., Deputy
    Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated
    December 22, 2006 ("*Sinclair Response*").

[^26]: Specifically, Sinclair acknowledges that its stations aired the
    episode over its stations on the following respective dates: on
    September 11, 2004, on WABM(TV), WUXP-TV, WEAR-TV, KABB(TV), and
    KOCB(TV); and on September 12, 2004, on KSMO-TV, WVTV(TV), WPMY(TV)
    and WTWC-TV. *See id.* at 3-4.

[^27]: *Id.* at 4.

[^28]: *See id.*

[^29]: *Id.* at 5. Sinclair explains that it likened this donated
    program material to other "syndicated programming, such as reruns of
    shows like 'Seinfeld' and 'Friends,'" which are instances, it
    impliedly suggests, that do not trigger the rule's identification
    requirements. *Id.* at 4 n.8.

[^30]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1); *see also* 47
    U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. §
    1464). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the
    conscious and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act,
    irrespective of any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. §
    312(f)(1). The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act
    clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections
    312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d
    Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in
    the Section 503(b) context. *See, e.g.,* *Southern California
    Broadcasting Co*., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
    4388 (1991) ("*Southern California Broadcasting Co.*"). The
    Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that are
    merely repeated, and not willful. *See, e.g., Callais Cablevision,
    Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC
    Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, *inter
    alia*, a cable television operator's repeated signal leakage).
    "Repeated" merely means that the act was committed or omitted more
    than once, or lasts more than one day. *Southern California
    Broadcasting Co.*, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, ¶ 5; *Callais Cablevision,
    Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362, ¶9.

[^31]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^32]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591, ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^33]: 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1) (emphasis added).

[^34]: *See* *Keene Corp. v. United States*, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993)
    ("where Congress includes particular language in one section of a
    statute but omits it in another ... , it is generally presumed that
    Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion
    or exclusion."), *quoting Russello v. United States*, 464 U.S. 16,
    23 (1983).

[^35]: Sonshine argues that the overall presentations, which included
    introductory visual identification of the program title "Right Side
    with Armstrong Williams," similar aural identifications given at
    program breaks, and the closing display of production credits
    indicating that the program is owned by GWG, should be deemed to
    provide sufficient identification to viewers that GWG was the
    material's sponsor. *See Response* at 2-3.

[^36]: *See Application of Sponsorship Identification Rules to Political
    Broadcasts, Teaser Announcements, Governmental Entities and other
    Organizations*, Public Notice, 66 FCC 2d 302 (1977) ("*1977 Public
    Notice")*.

[^37]: Substantially similar language, applicable to origination
    cablecasting, is set forth at 47 C.F.R. § 76.1615(a).

[^38]: Same language set forth at 47 C.F.R. § 76.1615(a), applicable to
    origination cablecasting.

[^39]: *See* 1977 Public Notice, 66 FCC 2d at 302. *See, e.g., Dallas
    Media Investors Corporation (Licensee of Station KDFI-TV),* Notice
    of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 8 FCC Rcd 3597 (Mass Med. Bur.
    1993) (words "presentation," "copyright," and other words used to
    indicated the source of the sponsored material or ownership rights
    of the program's creator are not sufficient to satisfy the
    requirements of Section 317 of the Act and the Commission's
    sponsorship identification rules); *Channel 36 Licensee Corporation
    (Licensee of Station WATL(TV)),* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 7 FCC Rcd 6541 (Mass Med. Bur. 1992) (announcements
    stating that the program has been paid for "by the distributor" do
    not identify the sponsor, and are not sufficient to satisfy the
    requirements of Section 317 of the Act and the Commission's
    sponsorship identification rules and visual display of "Coral Ridge
    Report" with aural announcement "Coral Ridge Ministries presents the
    Coral Ridge Report with Doctor D. James Kennedy..." does not comply
    with sponsorship identification requirements); *Midwest
    Radio-Television, Inc. (Licensee of Stations WCCO(AM)),* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 512 (1974) (Forfeiture assessed against
    licensee for violation of Section 317 of the Act and Commission's
    sponsorship identification rule. "This is Jack Douglas speaking for
    the Minnesota School Boards Association," is not sufficient as there
    was no indication that the announcement was sponsored or paid for by
    the association); and *Lamar A. Newcomb,* 1 FCC 2d 1395 (1965)
    (program sponsored by Reverend Dale Crowley identified by
    announcement of the words "Dale Crowley" not sufficient because
    there was no indication that the Reverend Crowley was sponsoring or
    paying for the program).

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: *See National Broadcasting Company,* Letter By Direction of the
    Commission, 27 FCC 2d 75 (1970).

[^42]: *See* n.19, *supra.*

[^43]: Given our conclusion that Sonshine violated 47 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1)
    and 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212(a), we decline to address the issue of
    whether any of the programming that Sonshine aired included
    political matter or any matter involving a discussion of a
    controversial issue of public importance and, if so, whether
    Sonshine also violated Section 73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules.

[^44]: *See* para. 5, *supra.*

[^45]: Although the Commission has not specifically defined the term
    "political" for purposes of evaluating a licensee's duties under 47
    C.F.R. § 73.1212(d), that fact should not deter licensees from
    making good faith determinations in this area. Given the nature of
    the ABF episode, including its title, we do not believe that a
    licensee could, in good faith, consider this material anything but
    political. In any event, the Commission has previously concluded
    that issues pertaining to "elections," which the ABF episode clearly
    addresses, are presumptively controversial and of public importance.
    *See Primer, Political Broadcasting*, 100 FCC 2d 1476, 1536-37
    (1984) (staff report suggesting that term reaches material that
    deals "with political subjects"); *Gary M. Sukow*, 36 FCC 2d 668
    (1972) (suggestion that term applies to any interview with a
    political officeholder, whether or not in connection with present
    election). The same sponsorship announcement requirements apply to
    broadcast matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue
    of public importance as to political broadcast matter. We note that
    Sinclair does not maintain that this material is non-political for
    purposes of our sponsorship identification regulations, nor does it
    maintain that it acted reasonably and in good faith in determining
    that this material is non-political. Indeed, the record does not
    reflect that Sinclair considered the issue.

[^46]: The subject program exceeded five minutes in length. Under the
    terms of Section 72.1212(d), sponsorship announcements were
    therefore required at both the beginning and end of the program.

[^47]: *The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
    Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules*, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17114
    (1997), *recons. denied* 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b).

[^48]: *See* n.20, *supra*.

[^49]: *See* n.26, *supra*.

[^50]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

[^51]: *Id*.

[^52]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

[^53]: *See* Letters from Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Graham Williams
    Group and Ketchum, Inc., File No. EB-05-IH-0031 (July 23, 2007).

[^54]: Section 507 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    codified at 47 U.S.C. § 508. *See* Letter from Enforcement Bureau,
    FCC, to Graham Williams Group, Inc., File No. EB-05-IH-0031 (July
    23, 2007)("\[T\]he record established that Williams and GWG \[the
    Graham Williams Group\] received more than nominal consideration
    from DoED \[Department of Education\] to include particular material
    in programming supplied to and intended for transmission by
    broadcast stations and that the material was, in fact, aired by
    various broadcast stations. In these circumstances, Williams and GWG
    were obligated under Section 507 to disclose to the licensees
    reviewing the programming that the NCLB-related broadcast material
    was sponsored by DoED. The record also established that such
    disclosure was not provided by either Williams or GWG. We conclude
    that WGB and Williams violated Section 507 of the Communications
    Act.").

[^55]: *Forfeiture Notice* at footnote 45.