Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
August 27, 2008
 DA 08-1989
In Reply Refer to:  
 1800B3-TEC
 Released:  August 27, 2008
Kings College
c/o WRKC(FM)
133 N. Franklin Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
Re: Kings College
WRKC(FM), Wilkes-Barre, PA
Facility ID No. 34899
File No. BRED-20060327AGC
Application for Renewal of License
Dear Applicant:
We have before us the captioned application (the Application) of Kings College for renewal of 
license of noncommercial educational (NCE) Station WRKC(FM), Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (the 
Station).1 We also have before us Informal Objections (Objections) filed by Mario Fiorucci and 
Richard Aston (collectively, the Objectors) on May 3, 2006, and May 8, 2006, respectively.  On June 29, 
2006, Kings College filed an Opposition to the Objections (Opposition).  For the reasons set forth 
below, we deny the Objections and grant the Application.
Background.  Kings College timely filed the Application on March 28, 2006.  In the Objections, 
the Objectors claim that the Application should be denied because the Stations general manager, Sue 
Henry (Henry), purportedly censored the content of several syndicated programs formerly broadcast on 
the Station.2 Specifically, the Objectors claim that Henry used her influence as general manager to have 
volunteer radio announcer Jim Spak cease broadcasting Radio Nation, CounterSpin, and Making 
Contact because Henry did not agree with their political content.3 In response, Henry writes on behalf of 
Kings College, stating that she discontinued the programs because they offered commentary inconsistent 
with Kings Colleges mission as a private, Catholic institution.4 Henry notes that another station serving 
the Wilkes-Barre community carries these programs, so listeners can still hear them if they so choose.5  
  
1 FCC File No. BRED-20060327AGC.
2 Letter from Richard Aston to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (May 1, 2006) 
(Aston Objection Letter) at 1.
3 Id.; see also Letter from Mario Fiorucci to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
(Apr. 26, 2006) (Fiorucci Objection Letter) at 1.
4 Opposition at 1.
5 Id.  
2
Henry also describes some of the Stations other programming that would be denied to listeners if the 
Commission were to deny the Application.6  
 
Discussion.  Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
Act),7 informal objections must provide properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would 
establish a substantial and material question of fact that grant of the application would be prima facie 
inconsistent with Section 309(k) of the Act,8 which governs our evaluation of an application for license 
renewal.  Section 309(k)(1) provides that we are to grant the renewal application if, upon consideration of 
the application and pleadings, we find that: (1) the station has served the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity; (2) there have been no serious violations of the Act or the Commissions Rules; and (3) there 
have been no other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.9 If, however, the 
licensee fails to meet that standard, the Commission may deny the application  after notice and 
opportunity for a hearing under Section 309(e) of the Act  or grant the application on terms and 
conditions that are appropriate, including a renewal for a term less than the maximum otherwise 
permitted.10
The Objectors request that we deny the Application because of Henrys decision on behalf of 
Kings College to censor[] [certain] liberal programming on the Station.11 The Objectors arguments, 
however, concern matters over which the Commission has only limited review authority.12 The First 
Amendment to the Constitution and Section 326 of the Act prohibit the Commission from exercising any 
power of censorship over broadcast station programming.13 Licensees are entitled to broad discretion in 
the scheduling, selection, and presentation of programming.14  This is particularly so with regard to the 
  
6 Id. (such as The Radio Home Visitor, a locally produced, one-hour show serving the blind and visually impaired 
of Wilkes-Barre).
7 47 U.S.C.  309(e). 
8 Id.  309(k); see, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 note 10 (1990), 
affd sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sept. 10, 
1993); Arena Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 2d 862, 864 (1986) (informal 
objection must contain adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant the relief requested).
9 47 U.S.C.  309(k)(1).  The renewal standard was amended to read as described by Section 204(a) of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); see also Implementation of Sections 
204(a) and 204(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast License Renewal Procedures), Order, 11 FCC 
Rcd 6363 (1996).
10 47 U.S.C.  309(k)(2), 309(k)(3). 
11 Fiorucci Objection Letter at 1.
12 Stephen Diliberto and Kevin M. Walsh, Esq., Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 12983, 12984 (MB 2007) (Stephen Diliberto).
13 U.S. Const. amend. I; 47 U.S.C.  326 (Nothing in [the] Act shall be understood or construed to give the 
Commission the power of censorship over radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no 
regulation or condition shall be promulgated . . . by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free 
speech by means of radio communication).
14 See, e.g., National Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 516 F.2d 1101, 1112-1113, 1119-1120, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1974), 
cert denied sub nom. Accuracy in Media Inc. v. National Broadcasting Company, 424 U.S. 910 (1976); see also 
3
programming decisions of NCE stations.15 The Commission historically has had the appropriately limited 
role of facilitating the development of the public broadcasting system rather than determining the content 
of its programming.16 For these reasons, the Objectors have not raised a substantial and material question 
of fact calling for further inquiry regarding Kings Colleges operation of the Station. 
Therefore, applying the license renewal standard prescribed by Section 309(k) of the Act to the 
present case, we find that the Station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity during the 
subject license term; has not committed any serious violations of the Act or the Rules while operating the 
Station; or made any other violations which, taken together, constitute a pattern of abuse.  Accordingly, we 
will deny the Objections.
Conclusion.  For the aforementioned reasons, and pursuant to Sections 0.61 and 0.283 of the 
Rules,17 IT IS ORDERED that the Informal Objections file by Mario Fiorucci and Richard ARE HEREBY 
DENIED.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Kings College Application for renewal of license (FCC 
File No. BRED-20060327AGC) IS GRANTED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
cc: Mr. Mario Fiorucci,
Dr. Richard Aston
     
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 124 (1973); Hunger in 
America, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC 2d 143, 150-151 (1969). 
15 Stephen Diliberto, 22 FCC Rcd at 12985.
16 Id. (quoting Revision of Programming Policies and Reporting Requirements Related to Public Broadcasting 
Licensees, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 87 FCC 2d 716, 732 (1981)); see also License Renewal Applications 
of Certain Commercial Radio Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 
FCC Rcd 6400, 6401 (MB 1993) (licensees have broad discretion over programming decisions).
17 47 U.S.C.  0.61, 0.283.