********************************************************
 NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************


 1800E3-JLB

 April 30, 1998

Dr. Paul Klite Howard F. Jaeckel, Esq.
Executive Director Group W/CBS Television
Rocky Mountain Media Watch 51 West 52 Street
P. O. Box 18858 New York, New York 10019
Denver, Colorado 80218

Arthur B. Goodkind, Esq. Peter D. O'Connell, Esq.
R. Edward Price, Esq. Kathleen A. Kirby, Esq.
Koteen & Naftalin, L.L.P. Wiley, Rein & Fielding
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1776 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036
Washington, D.C. 20036

R. Clark Wadlow, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Ehrlich, Esq.
Sidley & Austin
1722 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

 Re: Applications for Renewal of Licenses
 of Television Stations at Denver, Colorado
 KCNC-TV (BRCT-971126KH)
 KMGH-TV (BRCT-971125KK)
 KUSA-TV (BRCT-971123KP)
 KWGN-TV (BRCT-971201LS)

Dear Dr. Klite and Counsel:

 This letter is issued in response to the Petitions to Deny filed by Rocky Mountain Media
Watch (Media Watch) on February 17, 1998, in connection with the above-referenced license renewal
applications for KCNC-TV, Channel 4 (CBS), KMGH-TV, Channel 7 (ABC), KUSA-TV, Channel
9 (NBC) and KWGN-TV, Channel 2 (WBN), Denver, Colorado. Group W/CBS Television Stations
Partners (Group W/CBS), McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. (McGraw-Hill), Gannett
Colorado Broadcasting, Inc. (Gannett) and KWGN Inc. (KWGN), the licensees of the four stations,
have opposed the petitions, and Media Watch has filed a "Rebuttal."

 Media Watch has raised concerns with respect to each of the station's local news
programming. It states that it conducted a series of "content analyses" of the local evening newscasts
broadcast on the Denver stations during consecutive five-day periods in each quarter of 1994, and
on January 11, 1995, September 20, 1995 and February 26, 1997. Media Watch asserts that its
analyses demonstrate that the four Denver stations' local newscasts suffer from "Toxic TV News
syndrome." According to Media Watch, during the periods it monitored the stations, the "Mayhem
Index" for the stations, i.e., the percentage of local news devoted to stories about crime, disasters,
war and terrorism, ranged from 45 to 55 percent of each newscast. Because the news was dominated
by violent topics, other vital issues such as the environment, arts, science, education, poverty, AIDS,
children and local election coverage, were allegedly ignored by the stations. Media Watch also claims
that "people of color are often stereotyped as perpetrators of crime in newscasts, presenting a
negative role model to viewers [while] women and minorities are under-represented on newscasts as
authorities, experts and leaders." In support, Media Watch provides a tabulation of combined data
for the four stations, which, it asserts, tallies the number of appearances of men, women and persons
from different racial groups as news anchors, reporters, news sources, crime perpetrators and victims
on an unidentified number of local newscasts broadcast in the Summer and Fall of 1994. According
to the tabulation, during the monitored newscasts, white males dominated as news anchors, reporters
and sources, while black males comprised the largest percentage of perpetrators of crime and white
females were most often portrayed as victims. Finally, Media Watch alleges that the stations devoted
a higher portion of their evening newscast airtime to commercial messages than the average television
station, and that there was one-third as much "fluff," i.e., banter, chit-chat, teases, soft news and
celebrity stories, as news.

 Media Watch contends that "[a]lthough the Fairness doctrine [has been repealed], the needs
it addressed, namely ensuring that television stations effectively dealt with controversial issues and
issues of importance, remain self-evident," and that the issues raised by the newscasts' excessive
violence go far beyond "bad journalism." Health and educational organizations have criticized the
cumulative effect of media violence on children's learning, aggression and empathy, and Media Watch
asserts that media violence negatively impacts adults as well, promoting cynicism, violent behavior,
excessive fearfulness, ignorance and racial polarization. Media Watch calls for the Commission to
"send a strong message to the local TV news industry," and condition grant of the renewal
applications on the requirement that the stations: (1) air public service announcements alerting the
public about "TV news' unbalanced and unhealthy diet of information"; (2) teach "media literacy" on
prime-time television; (3) conduct education and sensitivity training for the stations' news staff
regarding media violence effects; and (4) develop and publicize a plan for improving local news
coverage of local elections.

 In response, the licensees assert that Media Watch presents no legally cognizable issue with
respect to the pending renewal applications, but instead, impermissibly seeks to have the Commission
intervene into matters relating to the licensees' good faith news judgment, in violation of both the First
Amendment of the Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act. In addition, all of the
licensees deny that the stations engage in racial or gender stereotyping. KWGN and Group W/CBS
also assert that the studies submitted by petitioner in support of its allegations regarding the stations'
newscasts are deficient in that they examine only a handful of the stations' local broadcasts and fail
to conform in basic respects to rudimentary principles of scientific research. Accordingly, they
contend that the studies cannot be taken as a reliable indicator of the amount or type of coverage
presented by the stations on particular subjects. McGraw-Hill and Group W/CBS also identify
numerous programs aired during their renewal term which, they claim, address many of the issues
which petitioner asserts are ignored by the stations. Finally, Group W/CBS asserts that Commission
imposition of Media Watch's proposed remedies would violate the First Amendment.

 In its "Rebuttal," Media Watch reiterates its concerns about excessive violence in local
television newscasts, and cites to numerous studies which quantify the violent nature of news
programming in various television markets or study the negative effects of excessive television
violence on viewers. In response to the criticism of its content studies, petitioner states that its
"findings have been published in a peer reviewed journal . . . and are similar to results found in other
content analyses of local TV news by journalists and academics across the U.S." Media Watch also
contends that "programming content is not totally off limits to FCC purview," citing to pornography
and its assertion that the Commission requires television stations to air three hours a week of
educational programming as a condition of licensing. According to petitioner, the Commission may
prohibit stations from airing programming if such material is detrimental to public health and interest.
Media Watch also disputes Group W/CBS' assertion that the Commission lacks authority to require
its proposed remedies to "Toxic TV News syndrome."

 DISCUSSION

 In assessing the merits of a petition to deny, a two-step process is required under Section
309(d)(1) and (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1), (2). See
Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The first test is whether
the petition demonstrates by specific allegations of fact that grant of the application would be prima
facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. If such a prima facie case is
alleged, the second test is whether -- on the basis of the application, the pleadings, or other matters
of which the Commission may take official notice -- a substantial and material question of fact is
presented to warrant further inquiry in a hearing.

 Petitioner argues primarily that the stations' news programming contains too much violence,
and that, as a result of this emphasis on violent programming, other news important to the community
is not being covered. Upon examination of the record before us, we conclude that Media Watch has
failed to establish a prima facie case that grant of the renewal applications would disserve the public
interest. As discussed below, for reasons rooted in the First Amendment and the no censorship
provision of Section 326 of the Communications Act, editorial judgments regarding news programs
are committed to a broadcaster's good faith discretion. Moreover, while violence in television
programming is a legitimate public concern, the alleged predominance of violence in these stations'
local news does not present a basis for Commission action. We likewise find no merit to Media
Watch's other allegations regarding coverage of community issues, overcommercialization,
stereotyping and compliance with our EEO rules.

 With certain limited exceptions not applicable here, licensees are afforded broad discretion
in the scheduling, selection and presentation of programs aired on their stations, and Section 326 of
the Communications Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibit any Commission
actions which would improperly interfere with the programming decisions of licensees. Because
journalistic or editorial discretion in the presentation of news and public information is the core
concept of the First Amendment's Free Press guarantee, licensees are entitled to the widest latitude
of journalistic discretion in this regard. See National Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 515 F.2d 1101,
1112-1113, 1119-1120, 1172 (1974), vacated as moot, id. at 1180, cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910
(1976); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 124
(1973); Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d 143, 150-51 (1969). Thus, with regard to news
programming in particular, the Commission has repeatedly recognized that "[t]he choice of what is
or is not to be covered in the presentation of broadcast news is a matter committed to the licensee's
good faith discretion," and that, "the Commission will not review the licensee's news judgments."
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 83 FCC 2d 302, 305 (1980).

 The Commission recognizes that violence in television programming is a legitimate public
concern. In enacting Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act, Congress made specific findings
with respect to the impact of violence upon children. With regard to the development of a voluntary
rating code, however, Congress also acknowledged the importance of journalistic discretion,
recognizing the danger of rating political programming, which is often an integral element of news
programming. In response to Section 551, the industry developed voluntary rating guidelines that
will work with the v-chip to block programs of a certain rating from being aired in the home, and
consistent with its historical deference to journalistic discretion in the presentation of news, the
Commission found it reasonable that the industry and public interest groups involved in developing
the rating system chose not to rate news programming. See Implementation of Section 551 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 98-35 (released March 13, 1998) at  21. Thus, although we
believe that Media Watch's views regarding violence in news programming are legitimate matters for
discussion within the Denver community, the alleged predominance of violence in the stations' local
evening news does not present a basis for intervention by the Commission in connection with a license
renewal application. See Democratic National Convention Television Coverage, 16 FCC 2d 650,
658 (1969) (the Commission "[does] not pass[] judgment on the quality of the networks' coverage.
It is the role of the public, critics, and students of the mass media, either to comment or to be critical
with regard to such matters . . . ."); Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 4 FCC 2d 190, 191-92
(1966) ("The Commission has long held that its function is not to judge the merit, wisdom or
accuracy of any broadcast discussion or commentary . . . . Any other position would stifle discussion
and destroy broadcasting as a medium of free speech.)

 To the extent that the petitions allege that the stations have failed to meet their public interest
obligations to present programming which is responsive to the needs and interests of the Denver
community, Commercial TV Stations, 98 FCC 2d 1075, 1091-92 (1984), we find that Media Watch
has failed to make a prima facie case. With respect to the general issue-responsive programming
obligation, the Commission has granted licensees broad discretion to choose, in good faith, which
issues are of concern to the community and to choose the types of programming to address those
issues. The Commission will defer to the broadcaster's judgment regarding its issue-responsive
programming absent a showing that "the broadcaster was unreasonable or discriminatory in its
selection of issues or that the licensee has offered such nominal levels of responsive programming as
to have effectively defaulted on its obligation to contribute to the discussion of issues facing its
community." License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Television Stations Serving
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 5 FCC Rcd 3847, 3848 (1990). Thus, petitioner has a heavy burden to
show that the licensees have abused their discretion, a burden which Media Watch has failed to meet
here. The "content analyses" which constitute the basis for the petitions to deny examined only a
small sampling of the stations' local news broadcasts over the license term. Based upon this paucity
of information, we cannot judge whether the analyzed local newscasts can be deemed inclusive or
representative of the stations' overall efforts to address issues of importance to their community. The
studies also did not address all of the licensees' local news broadcasts, and excluded all network and
syndicated programming, and all locally produced programming that was not related to the local
evening newscasts. Thus, without more, the content analyses submitted in support of the petition
cannot support an allegation that any individual station "has offered such nominal levels of responsive
programming as to have effectively defaulted on its obligation to contribute to the discussion of issues
facing its community."

 Media Watch also asserts that the monitored newscasts contained excessive commercial
messages, which further detract from the time available to report on issues which Media Watch deems
important to the community. In 1984, however, the Commission eliminated its commercial guidelines
for television stations, finding that commercial levels would be more effectively regulated by audience
selection and market forces. Commercial TV Stations, 98 FCC 2d at 1102-1105. Thus, with the
exception of children's programming, the Commission no longer considers allegations of
overcommercialization in connection with renewal applications. With respect to the allegation that
minorities and women are underrepresented on the stations' local newscasts as anchors and reporters,
the EEO rules do not impose any requirements regarding the hiring of women and minorities, but only
that stations engage in good faith recruitment efforts. In addition, we have reviewed the stations'
recruitment efforts in connection with their renewal applications, and conclude that they have
complied with our rules. We note that the United States Court of Appeals recently found the
Commission's equal employment opportunity regulations to be unconstitutional, Lutheran Church -
Missouri Synod v. FCC, Case No. 97-1116 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 1998), but the Court's mandate has
not yet issued. Finally, because of the result reached here, we need not, and do not, consider whether
the Commission has the authority to impose the specific remedies proposed by Media Watch.

 CONCLUSION

 Having reviewed all matters presented, we conclude that there are no substantial and material
questions of fact and that grant of the renewal applications would be consistent with Section 309(k)
of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 309(k). Thus, because the licensees are
otherwise qualified, grant of the applications will serve the public interest. 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2).

 In view of the foregoing, the Petitions to Deny filed by Rocky Mountain Media Watch ARE
DENIED, and the license renewal applications for stations KCNC-TV (BRCT-971126KH), KMGH-
TV (BRCT-971125KK), KUSA-TV (BRCT-971123KP) and KWGN-TV (BRCT-971201LS) ARE
GRANTED.

 A copy of this decision will be sent Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested to Rocky
Mountain Media Watch.

 Sincerely,

 Barbara A. Kreisman
 Chief, Video Services Division
 Mass Media Bureau