DA 08-1636

Released: July 11, 2008

Chicago Media Action

Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition

c/o Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Esq.

Media Access Project

Suite 1000

1625 K Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

> Re: Petition for Reconsideration filed by Chicago Media Action and
> Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition

Gentlemen:

On July 13, 2007, Chicago Media Action (CMA) and the Milwaukee Public
Interest Media Coalition (MPIMC) filed a joint Petition for
Reconsideration of a June 13, 2007, staff decision denying petitions to
deny filed against the license renewal applications of eight broadcast
television stations serving the Chicago area and 11 broadcast television
stations serving the Milwaukee metropolitan area.[^1] Responsive
oppositions from various licensees were filed on or about July 26, 2007,
and CMA and MPIMC filed their reply on August 6, 2007. For the reasons
set forth below, we deny the petition for reconsideration.

In the petition to deny, CMA and MPIMC had argued that the television
stations serving the Chicago and Milwaukee markets failed to present
adequate programming relating to state and local elections during the
last four weeks of the 2004 election campaign. They attached to their
petitions a study entitled "2004 Campaign News Study in Chicago,
Milwaukee and Portland Markets," which purported to analyze all
regularly scheduled news and public affairs programming on the five
highest-rated commercial stations in Chicago and Milwaukee,
respectively. In denying the petitions, the staff found that the CMA and
MPIMC petitions did not raise a *prima facie* issue as to whether the
stations served the public interest since they failed to provide
evidence that "the named licensees exercised their editorial discretion
in bad faith." [^2] The staff stated, in particular, that the quantity
of one type of programming does not necessarily indicate that the
television programming in Chicago and Milwaukee has generally been
unresponsive.

In their respective Petitions for Reconsideration, CMA and MPIMC assert
that the staff, by claiming it did not have the authority to review the
broadcasters' programming decisions, applied the wrong legal standard to
its allegations, and that the staff failed to consider or evaluate the
numerical data contained in the study attached to the petitions. They
also cite a new study released by the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Newslab ("Newslab Study") on June 12, 2007, which they assert "provides
further evidence of the Broadcasters' failure to provide programming
that meets the needs and interests of the communities of license."[^3]
Among other findings, the Newslab Study found that the Chicago and
Milwaukee markets aired 29 seconds and 36 seconds, respectively, of
election coverage during a typical 30-minute newscast from September 7,
2006, to October 6, 2006. The Newslab Study further concluded that,
during this same period, the Chicago market "aired, on average, 2
minutes and 2 seconds of election coverage compared to 3 minutes and 57
seconds of political advertising;" while the Milwaukee market "aired, on
average, 1 minute and 41 seconds of election coverage compared to 2
minutes and 52 seconds of political advertising."[^4]

The various opposition pleadings respond that the petition for
reconsideration essentially reiterates legal issues advanced and
rejected in the June 13, 2007, staff decision. They note generally that
the original study focused on a narrow time-frame and a single issue
that did not indicate that the licensees' overall programming was
unresponsive to community needs and interests, and they further argue
that the Newslab Study suffers from the same defects as the original.
Most of the oppositions argue that the June 13, 2007, letter did not
establish unfettered and unreviewable editorial discretion for broadcast
licensees, and that CMA and MPIMC's intention to establish quantitative
requirements for broadcasters to cover specific local issues is best
raised in a rule making proceeding and not in the context of the
individual stations' license renewals. In a reply pleading, CMA and
MPIMC continue to insist that the staff applied the wrong standard to
assess their claims, and in doing so put the right of broadcasters to
program their stations over the right of the viewing public to receive
programming that meets their needs and interests.

**Discussion.** The allegations contained in the Petition for
Reconsideration do not warrant reversal of the June 13, 2007, staff
decision. In contrast to the assertions of CMA and MPIMC, the June 13,
2007, staff decision did not preclude review of a broadcaster's
editorial discretion, but instead found, consistent with precedent, that
CMA and MPIMC had failed to provide evidence that the broadcasters had
exercised their discretion in "bad faith." The staff correctly concluded
that the study, even assuming the data contained therein, did not
demonstrate that "television programming in Chicago and Milwaukee has
generally been unresponsive."[^5]

The Newslab study added one new category of programming, non-election
government news coverage aired during the early and late evening
newscasts from January 1, 2007, to March 31, 2007. This new study,
however, again fails to demonstrate that the named licensees'
programming has *generally* been unresponsive. The Newslab study does
not provide any information concerning programming, election or
otherwise, on stations other than the major network affiliates. It also
focuses on the early and late evening local news broadcasts of these
affiliates, and thus does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the
programming aired on these stations.

Having failed to show either a material error or omission in the June
13, 2007, staff decision,[^6] the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
Chicago Media Action and Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition IS
DENIED.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Kreisman

Chief, Video Division

Media Bureau

cc: Howard F. Jaeckel, Esq.

CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

1515 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

F. William LeBeau, Esq.

Senior Counsel

NBC Telemundo License Co.

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

11^th^ Floor

Washington, D.C. 20004

Divora Wolff Rabino, Esq.

Vice President, Law & Regulation

ABC, Inc.

77 West 66 Street, 16^th^ Floor

New York, New York 10023

WGN Continental Broadcasting Company

c/o R. Clark Wadlow, Esq.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP

1501 K Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

WCIU-TV Limited Partnership

c/o J. Brian DeBoice, Esq.

Cohn and Marks, LLC

1920 N Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

Molly Pauker, Esq.

Vice-President

Fox Television Holdings, Inc.

5151 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20016

Paxson Chicago License, Inc., and Paxson Milwaukee License, Inc.

c/o John R. Feore, Jr.

Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW

Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20036

Journal Broadcast Corporation

Mace J. Rosenstein, Esq.

Hogan & Hartson

555 13^th^ Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

WISN Hearst-Argyle TV, Inc.

c/o Mark J. Prak, Esq.

Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP

1600 Wachovia Capitol Center

150 Fayetteville Street Mall

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

WCGV Licensee, LLC, and WVTV Licensee, Inc.

c/o Kathryn R. Schmeltzer, Esq.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

TV 49, Inc.

Denise B. Moline, Esq

Law Offices of Denise B. Moline

1212 South Naper Boulevard

Suite 119

Naperville, Illinois 60540

Illinois Broadcasters Association

c/o Richard R. Zaragoza, Esq.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

[^1]: *Chicago Media Action and Milwaukee Public Interest Media
    Coalition*, 22 FCC Rcd 10877 (2007).

[^2]: *Id.* at 10879.

[^3]: Petition for Reconsideration, at 2.

[^4]: *Id.*

[^5]: *Chicago Media Action and Milwaukee Public Interest Media
    Coalition*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10879.

[^6]: We need not determine here whether the June 12, 2007, Newslab
    study constitutes "new facts" or "circumstances" sufficient to
    support a petition for reconsideration since the data in the new
    study does not alter our ultimate determination the June 13, 2007,
    staff decision was consistent with established precedent and policy.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.106(c)(1).