Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01440/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01440-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Oleg Nikolyszyn
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 23, 1998 Decided August 11, 1998

No. 95-1385

Alexander J. Serafyn, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Federal Communications Commission,

Appellee

CBS Inc., et al.,

Intervenors

Consolidated with

Nos. 95-1440, 95-1608

Appeal of Orders of the

Federal Communications Commission

Arthur V. Belendiuk argued the cause and filed the briefs

for appellants. Shaun A. Maher and Donna T. Pochoday

entered appearances.

C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for appellee, with whom Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong,

Associate General Counsel, were on the brief.

Richard E. Wiley, Lawrence W. Secrest, III, James R.

Bayes, and Daniel E. Troy were on the brief for intervenors

CBS Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. John

Lane Jr., Ramsey L. Woodworth, and Robert M. Gurss

entered appearances.

Before: Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph, Circuit

Judges.

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 1 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: Alexander Serafyn petitioned the

Federal Communications Commission to deny or to set for

hearing the application of CBS for a new station license.

Serafyn objected that CBS was not fit to receive a license

because it had aired a news program in which it intentionally

distorted the situation in Ukraine by claiming that most

Ukrainians are anti-Semitic. The Commission summarily

denied the petition, holding that Serafyn had not submitted

enough evidence to warrant a hearing. Because the Commission neither applied the correct standard nor provided a

reasoned explanation in its decision, we vacate its order and

remand the matter to the agency for further proceedings.

Serafyn also petitioned to revoke CBS's existing licenses on

the ground that CBS made a material misrepresentation to

the Commission when it gave an affiliated station false information regarding its handling of viewer letters complaining

about the same program. The Commission denied that petition on the ground that Serafyn had not alleged that CBS

intentionally misrepresented the matter to the Commission.

We uphold the Commission's decision in this matter as reasonable.

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 2 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

I. Background

Section 309(a) of the Communications Act provides that the

Federal Communications Commission may grant a broadcast

license only when it determines that doing so would serve the

"public interest, convenience, and necessity." 47 U.S.C.

s 309(a). Under s 309(d) of the Act any interested person

may petition the FCC to deny or to set for hearing any

application for a broadcast license or to revoke an existing

broadcaster's license. The petition must contain

specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that ... a

grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent

with [the public interest, convenience, and necessity].

Such allegations of fact shall ... be supported by affidavit of a person ... with personal knowledge thereof.

Id. The FCC must hold a hearing if it finds that the

application presents a "substantial and material question of

fact" or if it is otherwise unable to conclude that granting the

application would serve the public interest. See s 309(e).

As the Commission interprets it, s 309 erects a two-step

barrier to a hearing: (1) a petition must contain specific

allegations of fact that, taken as true, make out a prima facie

case that grant of the application would not serve the public

interest; and (2) the allegations, taken together with any

opposing evidence before the Commission, must still raise a

substantial and material question of fact as to whether grant

of the application would serve the public interest. See Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C.

Cir. 1988) (describing two-step test). At the first step, "[t]he

Commission's inquiry ... is much like that performed by a

trial judge considering a motion for a directed verdict: if all

the supporting facts alleged in the affidavits were true, could

a reasonable factfinder conclude that the ultimate fact in

dispute had been established." Gencom, Inc. v. FCC, 832

F.2d 171, 181 (D.C. Cir. 1987). At the second step, a substanUSCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 3 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tial and material question is raised when "the totality of the

evidence arouses a sufficient doubt on the [question whether

grant of the application would serve the public interest] that

further inquiry is called for." Citizens for Jazz on WRVR,

Inc. v. FCC, 775 F.2d 392, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

In determining whether an allegation of news distortion

raises a question about the licensee's ability to serve the

public interest, the Commission analyzes both the substantiality and the materiality of the allegation. The Commission

regards an allegation as material only if the licensee itself is

said to have participated in, directed, or at least acquiesced in

a pattern of news distortion. The Commission stated its

policy about 30 years ago as follows:

[W]e do not intend to defer action on license renewals

because of the pendency of complaints of [news distortion]--unless the extrinsic evidence of possible deliberate

distortion or staging of the news which is brought to our

attention, involves the licensee, including its principals,

top management, or news management.... [I]f the

allegations of staging ... simply involve news employees

of the station, we will, in appropriate cases ... inquire

into the matter, but unless our investigation reveals

involvement of the licensee or its management there will

be no hazard to the station's licensed status....

.... Rather, the matter should be referred to the

licensee for its own investigation and appropriate handling.

.... Rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous

act against the public interest .... [b]ut in this democracy, no Government agency can authenticate the news, or

should try to do so.

Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d 143, 150, 151 (1969). In a

footnote the Commission added:

[W]e stress that the licensee must have a policy of

requiring honesty of its news staff and must take reasonable precautions to see that news is fairly handled.

An allegation of distortion is "substantial" when it meets

two conditions, as we summarized in an earlier case.

[F]irst, ... the distortion ... [must] be deliberately

intended to slant or mislead. It is not enough to dispute

the accuracy of a news report ... or to question the

legitimate editorial decisions of the broadcaster....

The allegation of deliberate distortion must be supported

by "extrinsic evidence," that is, evidence other than the

broadcast itself, such as written or oral instructions from

station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery.

Second, the distortion must involve a significant event

and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news

report.... [T]he Commission tolerates ... practices

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 4 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

[such as staging and distortion] unless they "affect[ ] the

basic accuracy of the events reported."

Galloway v. FCC, 778 F.2d 16, 20 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (affirming

Commission's holding that CBS's "60 Minutes" had not distorted news by staging insurance investigator's interrogation

of fraudulent claimant; because she "actually did participate

in the fraud and did confess, even if not in precisely the

manner portrayed, the 'basic accuracy of the events reported'

... has not been distorted").

As we noted in Galloway, the Commission's policy makes

its investigation of an allegation of news distortion "extremely

limited [in] scope. But within the constraints of the Constitution, Congress and the Commission may set the scope of

broadcast regulation; it is not the role of this court to

question the wisdom of their policy choices." Id. at 21.

In 1994 CBS produced and broadcast a controversial segment of "60 Minutes" entitled "The Ugly Face of Freedom,"

about modern Ukraine. The broadcast angered some viewers

who believed that many elements of the program had been

designed to give the impression that all Ukrainians harbor a

strongly negative attitude toward Jews. For example, interviewer Morley Safer suggested that Ukrainians were "genetically anti-Semitic" and "uneducated peasants, deeply superstitious." Also, soundbites from an interview with the Chief

Rabbi of Lviv, Yaakov Bleich, gave viewers the impression

that he believes all Ukrainians are anti-Semites who want all

Jews to leave Ukraine. In addition, CBS overlaid the sound

of marching boots on a film clip of Ukrainian Boy Scouts

walking to church and introduced it in such a way as to give

viewers the impression that they were seeing "a neo-Nazi,

Hitler Youth-like movement." The narrator also stated that

the Ukrainian Galicia Division had helped in the roundup and

execution of Jews from Lviv in 1941, though this Division was

not in fact even formed until 1943 and therefore could not

possibly have participated in the deed. Perhaps most egregiously, when Ukrainian speakers used the term "zhyd,"

which means simply "Jew," they were translated as having

said "kike," which is a derogatory term.

After the broadcast interviewees and members of the

Ukrainian-American community deluged CBS with letters.

In his letter Rabbi Bleich stated "unequivocally" that his

"words were quoted out of the context that they were said"

and that "the CBS broadcast was unbalanced" and "did not

convey the true state of affairs in Ukraine." Cardinal Lubachivsky, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church,

who had also been interviewed, both sent a letter to CBS and

released a statement to the press. In the latter he stated,

"[M]y office was misled as to the actual thrust of the report.

Mr. Fager [the producer] presented the piece as one about

'post-communist Ukraine.' ... I can only deduce that the

goal of the report was to present all Western Ukrainians as

rabid anti-semites." Many other viewers pointed out historical inaccuracies and offensive statements or characterizations

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 5 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

in the show.

Notwithstanding the requirement in 47 C.F.R. s 73.1202

that a licensee keep and make available all letters received

from viewers, WUSA-TV in Washington, D.C., forwarded the

letters it received to CBS's main office in New York. When a

representative of the Ukrainian-American Community Network asked to see the letters, WUSA contacted CBS in New

York and was told by Raymond Faiola that the letters were

in storage and that a response had been sent to each viewer

who wrote in; Faiola attached what he said was a copy of that

response. After failing to locate any viewer who had received

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 6 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

such a reply, the UACN representative questioned this story.

A CBS attorney in turn questioned Faiola, who then explained that the response letter had been sent to only about a

quarter of the viewers who had written in about the program.

When an intensive advertising campaign, however, failed to

turn up even one person in the Ukrainian-American community who had received a response, the UACN representative

complained to the Commission and sent a copy of the complaint to counsel for CBS. When CBS's counsel asked Faiola

for an affidavit confirming his story, Faiola admitted that the

letter he had sent WUSA had been merely a draft and that he

had forgotten to have any actual response letters sent out.

Nos. 95-1385, 1440. Alexander Serafyn, an American of

Ukrainian ancestry, petitioned the Commission to deny or to

set for hearing the application of CBS to be assigned the

licenses of two stations, arguing that the "60 Minutes" broadcast showed that CBS had distorted the news and therefore

failed to serve the public interest. In support of his petition,

Serafyn submitted the broadcast itself, outtakes of interviews

with Rabbi Bleich, viewer letters, a dictionary supporting his

claim about the mistranslation of "zhyd," historical information about the Galicia Division, information showing that CBS

had rebuffed the offer of a professor of Ukrainian history to

help CBS understand the subject, and seven other items of

evidence.

Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no

policy against news distortion and indeed that management

considered some distortion acceptable. For example, according to the Washington Post, Mike Wallace, a longtime reporter for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You don't like to

baldly lie, but I have." Colman McCarthy, The TV Whisper,

Wash. Post, Jan. 7, 1995, at A21. Don Hewitt, the executive

producer of "60 Minutes," is quoted in the same article as

saying that some deception is permissible because "[i]t's the

small crime vs. the greater good," and elsewhere as saying

that "I wouldn't make Hitler look bad on the air if I could get

a good story." Richard Jerome, Don Hewitt, People, Apr. 24,

1995, at 85, 90.

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 7 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

CBS, taking the position that any official investigation into

its news broadcasting "offends the protections of a free

press," did not submit any evidence. Nonetheless, the Commission denied the petition without a hearing. See WGPR,

Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8146-48 (1995). Explaining that it

would not investigate an allegation of news distortion without

"substantial extrinsic evidence" thereof, the Commission determined that only three of Serafyn's items of evidence were

extrinsic to the broadcast itself: the viewer letters, the

outtakes of interviews with Rabbi Bleich, and CBS's refusal

to use the services of the history professor. All the other

evidence, according to the Commission, either concerned "disputes as to the truth of the event ... or embellishments

concerning peripheral aspects of news reports or attempts at

window dressing which concerned the manner of presenting

the news." Id. at 8147 (emphasis in original, citations omitted). The Commission then held that the three items it

regarded as extrinsic evidence "in total ... do[ ] not satisfy

the standard for demonstrating intent to distort." Id. at

8148. Serafyn had therefore failed to show that CBS had not

met its public interest obligations and had "failed to present a

substantial and material issue of fact that the grant of the

application ... would be inconsistent with the public interest." Id. at 8149.

Serafyn and Oleg Nikolyszyn, another viewer who complained to the Commission and whose appeal we consolidated

with Serafyn's, argue that the Commission violated its own

standard in concluding that no hearing was necessary.

Serafyn implicitly objects also to the standard itself insofar as

he argues that it "imposed an impossible burden" upon him

by requiring that he present extrinsic evidence sufficient to

prove his claim without the benefit of discovery, and that the

"objective" evidence he offered should be deemed adequate to

warrant a hearing upon the public interest question.

No. 95-1608. Serafyn and the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America also petitioned the Commission to revoke

or set for a revocation hearing all of the broadcast licenses

owned by CBS, arguing that CBS had made misrepresentations to the Commission regarding its treatment of the viewer

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 8 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

letters. The Commission denied the petition on the grounds

that Serafyn had neither alleged that CBS made a false

statement to the Commission (as opposed to WUSA) nor

proved that CBS intended to make a false statement. With

respect to the latter point the Commission relied solely upon

Faiola's affidavit; it did not consider Serafyn's allegations

that CBS intentionally misrepresented the facts because they

were "not supported by an affidavit from a person with

personal knowledge thereof" and therefore did not meet the

threshold requirement of s 309(d). See Stockholders of CBS

Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 3733 (1995).

II. News Distortion

With regard to the Commission's requirement that he

prove by extrinsic evidence that CBS intended to distort the

news, Serafyn argues that the Commission "has never articulated a precise definition of 'extrinsic evidence' " and that its

prior decisions suggest it is merely seeking "objective evidence from outside the broadcast which demonstrates, without any need for the Commission to second-guess a licensee's

journalistic judgment or for the Commission to make credibility findings, that the licensee has distorted a news program."

He then argues that the Commission misapplied the extrinsic

evidence standard by mischaracterizing some evidence as

non-extrinsic, failing to discuss other evidence he presented,

analyzing each piece of extrinsic evidence separately rather

than cumulatively, and requiring him to prove his case rather

than simply to raise a material question.

The Commission stands by its characterization of the evidence based upon its definition of extrinsic evidence, which it

says " 'is evidence outside the broadcast itself,' such as evidence of written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery." Further, the Commission explains that its investigation properly "focuse[d] on

evidence of intent of the licensee to distort [deliberately], not

on the petitioner's claim that the true facts of the incident are

different from those presented," because "[e]xtrinsic evidence

[must] demonstrate[ ] that a broadcaster knew elements of a

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 9 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

news story were false or distorted, but nevertheless, proceeded to air such programming."

We review the Commission's decision under the arbitrary

and capricious standard. See Astroline, 857 F.2d at 1562.

We will uphold the decision if it is "reasonable and supported

by the evidence before it," but "will not 'hesitate to intervene

where the agency decision appears unreasonable or bears

inadequate relation to the facts on which it is purportedly

based.' " Beaumont Branch of the NAACP v. FCC, 854 F.2d

501, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 752 F.2d 670, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).

Analyzing the Commission's decision under this standard, we

conclude that the agency has failed adequately to explain its

decision not to set the application of CBS for a hearing. We

therefore vacate the decision of the Commission and remand

the matter for further administrative proceedings.

A. Evidentiary standard

At the outset, we note that the Commission never explained

under which step of the inquiry it resolved this case. It

began by stating that Serafyn "must satisfy the threshold

extrinsic evidence standard in order to elevate [his] allegations to the level of 'substantial and material' "; but then said

that Serafyn had not "demonstrate[d]" that CBS intended to

distort the news; and finally concluded that because his

allegations concerned only one show "such an isolated instance ... cannot[ ] rise to the level of a 'pattern of prejudice,' the burden required of a petitioner who seeks to make a

prima facie case." WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8148. The

Commission's muddled discussion suggests that it not only

conflated the first and second steps but also applied the

wrong standard in judging the sufficiency of the evidence.

As we have explained, the appropriate questions for the

Commission to ask at the threshold stage are first, whether

the petitioner's allegations make out a prima facie case, and

second, whether they raise a substantial and material question of fact regarding the licensee's ability to serve the public

interest. Instead, the Commission apparently asked whether

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 10 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Serafyn's evidence proved CBS's intent to distort the news,

for it concluded by saying:

[W]e find, in sum, that the outtakes of the rabbi's interview fail to demonstrate CBS's intent to distort....

The two remaining pieces of evidence ... fall[ ] far

short of demonstrating intent to distort.... Serafyn's

extrinsic evidence in total, therefore, does not satisfy the

standard for demonstrating intent to distort.

Id. at 8147, 8148. In requiring Serafyn to "demonstrate" that

CBS intended to distort the news rather than merely to

"raise a substantial and material question of fact" about the

licensee's intent, the Commission has misapplied its standard

in a way reminiscent of the problem in Citizens for Jazz:

"The statute in effect says that the Commission must look

into the possible existence of a fire only when it is shown a

good deal of smoke; the Commission has said that it will look

into the possible existence of a fire only when it is shown the

existence of a fire." 775 F.2d at 397. For this reason alone

we must remand the case to the agency. Although we do not

propose to determine just how much evidence the Commission may require or whether Serafyn has produced it, which

are matters for the Commission itself to determine in the first

instance, we can safely say that the quantum of evidence

needed to raise a substantial question is less than that

required to prove a case. See id. (" '[P]rima facie sufficiency'

means the degree of evidence necessary to make, not a fully

persuasive case, but rather what a reasonable factfinder

might view as a persuasive case--the quantum, in other

words, that would induce a trial judge to let a case go to the

jury even though he himself would (if nothing more were

known) find against the plaintiff").

We are also concerned about the Commission's method of

analyzing the various pieces of evidence that Serafyn presented. In making its decision the Commission must consider

together all the evidence it has. See Gencom, 832 F.2d at

181; Citizens for Jazz, 775 F.2d at 395. The decision under

review, however, suggests (though not conclusively) that the

Commission analyzed each piece of evidence in isolation only

to determine, not surprisingly, that no item by itself crossed

the threshold. See WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147-48. Because we must remand this matter in any case, we need not

determine whether the Commission in fact erred in this

regard. We simply note that upon remand the Commission

must consider all the evidence together before deciding

whether it is sufficient to make a prima facie case or to raise

a substantial and material question of fact.

B. Licensee's policy on distortion

In addition to holding that Serafyn presented insufficient

evidence to "demonstrate" that CBS had intentionally distorted the "60 Minutes" episode about Ukraine, the Commission's

denial of Serafyn's petition also rested upon the alternative

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 11 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ground that he had not alleged a general pattern of distortion

extending beyond that one episode. Upon appeal Serafyn

argues--and the Commission does not dispute--that he did

present evidence regarding CBS's general policy about distortion, namely the comments of Wallace and Hewitt quoted

above, and that the Commission failed to discuss or even to

mention this evidence. Both Wallace's comment ("you don't

like to baldly lie, but I have") and Hewitt's ("it's the small

crime vs. the greater good") are, to say the least, suggestive.

Furthermore, both Wallace (as the most senior reporter and

commentator for "60 Minutes") and Hewitt (as the producer

of the series) are likely members of the "news management"

whose decisions can fairly be attributed to the licensee.

Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d at 150. The Commission's

failure to discuss Serafyn's allegation relating to CBS's policy

on veracity is therefore troubling. Indeed, because of the

importance the Commission placed upon the supposed lack of

such evidence, its presence in the record casts the Commission's alternative ground into doubt. The Commission must

consider these allegations upon remand.

C. Nature of particular evidence

The Commission gave illogical or incomplete reasons for

finding non-probative two of the three pieces of evidence it

determined were "extrinsic." It also failed to discuss individually certain alleged factual inaccuracies that Serafyn brought

to its attention. Before discussing the Commission's opinion

in detail, however, we set out a brief excerpt from the

transcript of the broadcast.

MORLEY SAFER, co-host: ... [T]he west [of Ukraine],

where we go tonight, is on a binge of ethnic nationalism. "Ukraine for the Ukrainians" can have a frightening ring to those not ethnically correct, especially in

a nation that barely acknowledges its part in Hitler's

final solution.

... [J]ust about every day of the week, the sounds of

freedom can be heard, men and women giving voice to

their particular view of how the new independent

Ukraine should be governed. They disagree about

plenty, but do have two things in common: their old

enemy, Russian communism, and their old, old enemy,

the Jews.

Unidentified Man # 1: (Through Translator) We Ukrainians not have to rely on American [sic] and kikes.

SAFER: Yacoov [sic] Bleich left the United States five

years ago to take over as the chief rabbi for the

Ukraine.

Rabbi YACOOV [sic] BLEICH: There is, obviously, a lot

of hatred in these people that are--that are expounding these things and saying, you know--obviously if

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 12 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

someone, you know, screams, "Let's drown the Russians in Jewish blood," there isn't much love lost there.

...

SAFER: ... In western Ukraine at least, Hitler's dream

had been realized. It was juden-frei, free of Jews. In

the 50 years since, Jews have drifted in from other

parts of the old Soviet Union, about 7,000 now in

[Lviv]. For some Ukrainians, that's 7,000 too many.

Rabbi BLEICH: Yeah. Well, that's not a secret.

They're saying that they want the Jews out.

...

SAFER: The western Ukraine is fertile ground for

hatred. Independence only underlined its backwardness: uneducated peasants, deeply superstitious, in

possession of this bizarre anomaly: nuclear weapons....Western Ukraine also has a long, dark history

of blaming its poverty, its troubles, on others.

[Unidentified] Man # 2: (Through Translator) Kikes

have better chances here than even the original population.

SAFER: Than the Ukrainians.

Man # 2: (Through Translator) Yes.

...

SAFER: The church and government of Ukraine have

tried to ease people's fears, suggesting that things are

not as serious as they might appear; that Ukrainians,

despite the allegations, are not genetically anti-Semitic.

But to a Jew living here ... such statements are little

comfort....

Transcript, Joint Appendix at 92-96.

1. Extrinsic evidence

We discuss first the Commission's analysis of the three

pieces of evidence it found were "extrinsic." The Commission

has the responsibility to determine the weight of such evidence. The reasons it gives for doing so, however, must be

reasonable and not unfounded.

(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich

The outtakes show that all of Rabbi Bleich's quoted comments were made in response to questions about radical

nationalists. Serafyn argued to the Commission that CBS

had misrepresented Bleich's views when it broadcast his

statements without making clear the context in which they

were spoken and without including the qualifications and

positive statements that accompanied them. The Commission

found that the outtakes could indeed "properly serve as

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 13 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

circumstantial evidence of intent," but went on to find that

they did not demonstrate an intent to distort the news

because:

Rabbi Bleich's latter, allegedly misleading comments immediately followed ... Safer's statement ... that only

"some Ukrainians" are anti-Semitic.... Indeed, that

the focus of the "60 Minutes" program was upon only a

certain sector of the Ukrainian population is evident from

at least three other express references by Safer to

"Ukrainian ultranationalist parties," "the Social Nationalists," and other apparently isolated groups of Ukrainians.

Thus, rather than constitute a distortion, Rabbi Bleich's

negative comments about Ukrainians as utilized can

rightly be viewed as limited to only a segment of the

Ukrainian population.... Nor do we find intent to

distort because CBS did not include in its episode positive statements about Ukraine made by Rabbi Bleich....

[T]he determination of what to include and exclude from

a given interview constitutes the legitimate "journalistic

judgment" of a broadcaster, a matter beyond the Commission's "proper area of concern."

WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147.

Serafyn argues upon appeal that the Commission erred in

failing to find the outtakes persuasive evidence of CBS's

intent to distort. The Commission was not unreasonable,

however, in finding that Safer's phrase "some Ukrainians"

and his other references to extremist groups effectively limited the scope of Bleich's comments to "a segment of the

Ukrainian population." Id.

(b) The viewer letters

The Commission held that the letters CBS received from

viewers were extrinsic evidence because they were "external

to the program." Id. at 8148. In the Commission's view,

however, the letters were not probative because the letter

writers were not

"insiders," that is, employees or members of management of CBS. Nor are they persons with direct personal

knowledge of intent to falsify.... And letters sent by

viewers subsequent to the broadcast [are] evidence clearly incapable of going to intent, because intent is a state of

mind accompanying an act, not following it.

Id.

The Commission's reasoning here is flawed in two respects.

First, a person need not have "direct" personal knowledge of

intent in order to have relevant information that constitutes

circumstantial evidence about such intent. See Crawford-El

v. Britton, 93 F.3d 813, 818 (1996) ("[T]he distinction between

direct and circumstantial evidence has no direct correlation

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 14 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

with the strength of the plaintiff's case"); CPBF v. FCC, 752

F.2d at 679 ("Intent [may] be inferred from the subsidiary

fact of [a broadcaster's] statements to third parties"). Second, evidence that sheds light upon one's intent is relevant

whether it was prepared before or after the incident under

investigation; consider, for example, a letter written after but

recounting words or actions before an event.

Upon remand, therefore, the Commission may wish to

consider separately two types of letters. First, there may be

letters that convey direct information about the producers'

state of mind while the show was in production. For example, Cardinal Lubachivsky charged that the producers misled

him as to the nature of the show. Second, there are letters

that point out factual inaccuracies in the show. For example,

Rabbi Lincoln, a viewer, wrote in about the mistranslation of

"zhyd." Although letters of this type may not have independent significance, they may yet be probative in determining

whether an error was obvious or egregious, and if so whether

it bespeaks an intent to distort the facts. See Part II.C.2

below.

(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk

Serafyn asserted that CBS's refusal to consult Professor

Luciuk demonstrated its intent to distort the news because

only someone with no intention to broadcast the truth would

refuse to use the services of an expert. The Commission

found that evidence of the broadcaster's decision was extrinsic to the program but that it "falls far short of demonstrating

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 15 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

intent to distort the ... program" because the "[d]etermination[ ] as to which experts to utilize is a decision solely within

the province of the broadcaster." WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at

8148. Once again, the agency's reasoning is too loose.

Serafyn raises no question about the broadcaster's discretion

to decide whom, if anyone, to employ; it is only because the

broadcaster has such discretion that its ultimate decision may

be probative on the issue of intent. Before the Commission

may reject this evidence, therefore, it must explain why

CBS's decision to employ one expert over another--or not to

employ one at all--is not probative on the issue of its intent

to distort.

2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies

In describing what evidence it would accept to substantiate

Serafyn's claim of news distortion, the Commission stated

that it has "long ruled that it will not attempt to judge the

accuracy of broadcast news reports or to determine whether a

reporter should have included additional facts." WGPR, 10

FCC Rcd at 8147. In "balancing First Amendment and

public interest concerns," it explained, the Commission

will not attempt to draw inferences of distortion from the

content of a broadcast, but it will investigate where

allegations of news distortion are supported by "substantial extrinsic evidence" that the licensee has deliberately

distorted its news report. Mrs. J.R. Paul, 26 FCC 2d at

592. "Extrinsic evidence," that is, evidence outside the

broadcast itself, includes written or oral instructions

from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery. Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d at 151. Our

assessment of allegations of news distortion, in sum,

focuses on evidence of intent of the licensee to distort,

not on the petitioner's claim that the true facts of the

incident are different from those presented.

WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147.

Serafyn argues that the definition quoted above does not

purport to be all-inclusive, and that the Commission acted

unreasonably in holding that the evidence he submitted is not

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 16 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

also extrinsic. In his view the agency should inquire "whether the licensee has distorted a news program" and the

Commission can make this inquiry--without becoming a national arbiter of truth--by relying upon "objective" evidence

to disprove assertions made in a news show. Intervenor CBS

argues that the "objective" nature of evidence has never been

considered in determining whether it is extrinsic. The Commission responds that however one defines "extrinsic evidence," it does not include that which goes only to the truth

of a matter stated in the broadcast.

The Commission has not so much defined extrinsic evidence

as provided examples of the genre and what lies outside it.

While the Commission certainly may focus upon evidence

relevant to intent and exclude all else, the problem is--as the

Commission's past decisions show--that the inaccuracy of a

broadcast can sometimes be indicative of the broadcaster's

intent. See Application of WMJX, 85 FCC 2d 251 (1981)

(station denied intent to mislead public but admitted it knew

news broadcast was false; Commission implicitly concluded

from broadcaster's knowledge of falsity that it had intended

to mislead public); see also Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d

at 147 (Commission may intervene "in the unusual case where

the [truth of the] matter can be readily and definitely resolved").

Here, Serafyn argues that CBS got its facts so wrong that

its decision to broadcast them gives rise to the inference that

CBS intentionally distorted the news. Without deciding

whether Serafyn's arguments about individual facts are correct, or even specifying what standard the Commission should

use when analyzing claims of factual inaccuracy, we must

point out that an egregious or obvious error may indeed

suggest that the station intended to mislead. This is not to

say that the Commission must investigate every allegation of

factual inaccuracy; if the broadcaster had to do historical

research or to weigh the credibility of interviewees, for

example, then any alleged inaccuracy is almost certainly

neither egregious nor obvious. Our point is only that as an

analytical matter a factual inaccuracy can, in some circumstances, raise an inference of such intent. The Commission

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 17 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

therefore erred insofar as it categorically eliminated factual

inaccuracies from consideration as part of its determination of

intent.*

The chief example we have in mind is the apparent mistranslation of "zhyd" as "kike." Such a highly-charged word

is surely not used lightly. Of course, translation is a tricky

business, and it is axiomatic that one can never translate

perfectly. Nonetheless, a mistranslation that "affect[s] the

basic accuracy" of the speaker is problematic under the

Commission's standard. Galloway, 778 F.2d at 20.

Translating can be compared to editing a long interview

down to a few questions and answers. In The Selling of the

Pentagon, the Commission addressed an interviewee's allegation that CBS's "60 Minutes" had "so edited and rearranged

[his answers to questions posed] as to misrepresent their

content." 30 FCC 2d 150, 150 (1971). Although it decided in

that case that the interviewee had not been so badly misrepresented as to require action by the Commission, the agency

allowed that it "can conceive of situations where the documentary evidence of deliberate distortion would be sufficiently

strong to require an inquiry--e.g., where a 'yes' answer to

one question was used to replace a 'no' answer to an entirely

different question." Id. Changing "Jew" to "kike" may be

as blatant a distortion as changing a "no" answer to a "yes,"

so greatly does it alter the sense of the speaker's statement;

if so, then the basic accuracy of the report is affected.

Further, when the word chosen by the translator is an

inflammatory term such as "kike," the licensee could be

expected to assure itself of the accuracy of the translation; if

it does not do so, the Commission may appropriately consider

that fact in reaching a conclusion about the broadcaster's

__________

* Counsel for the Commission was unable to say at oral argument whether the agency simply did not believe that such evidence

could ever be probative--which would be a mistake--or understood

the point we are making but chose to exclude such evidence for

prudential reasons--which would be an exercise of judgment within

its discretion if not unreasonable.

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 18 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

intent to distort the news. The Commission was therefore

unreasonable in dismissing this charge without an explanation.

We need not discuss here each of the other factual inaccuracies raised by Serafyn. On remand the Commission should

consider whether any other error was sufficiently obvious and

egregious to contribute to an inference about CBS's intent,

and therefore to qualify as "extrinsic evidence."

D. Misrepresentation

In Stockholders of CBS, Inc. Serafyn argued that CBS

made a misrepresentation to the Commission by misleading

WUSA about its treatment of the viewer letters and thereby

causing the affiliate to transmit that erroneous information to

the Commission. The Commission responded that "[m]isrepresentation is composed of two elements: a material false

statement made to the Commission and an intent to make

such a statement." 11 FCC Rcd at 3753. The Commission

then held Serafyn had neither alleged that CBS had made its

representation directly to the Commission nor "provided

[any] evidence that CBS [had] intended to convey false information to the Commission through its affiliate." Id.

In reviewing the Commission's conclusion that CBS did not

make a misrepresentation we ask only whether the Commission was "cognizant of the issue raised and, upon the record,

reasonably resolve[d] that issue." WEBR, Inc. v. FCC, 420

F.2d 158, 164 (D.C. Cir. 1969). In this case the answer to

both questions is yes.

There is no dispute that CBS did not make its false

statement directly to the Commission. Serafyn argues, however, that directness has never been required, that "CBS was

aware of Appellants' complaint against WUSA-TV," and that

CBS's misrepresentations to WUSA therefore should "be

taken as seriously as if made directly to the Commission."

The Commission responds first that there is no evidence that

CBS intended to make any misrepresentation--"the most

that was shown in the record below was that one official of

CBS was careless or negligent in providing information to

[WUSA]"--and second that it will sanction only a misrepresentation made directly to the Commission or intended to be

passed on to the Commission.

The Commission reasonably found Serafyn had not alleged

that CBS intended to make any representation either directly

or indirectly "to the Commission." Assuming for the sake of

the argument that CBS could be sanctioned for making a

misrepresentation through WUSA, we agree with the Commission that Serafyn did not substantiate his claim that CBS

knew about the complaint pending before the agency when it

made the two misrepresentations to WUSA. Serafyn's only

evidence is that the UACN had sent CBS's counsel a copy of

the complaint, but that was after WUSA had received the

misinformation and relayed it to the Commission. Absent

any allegation that CBS knew that the first two versions of

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 19 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the incident it provided to WUSA would make their way to

the Commission, the agency reasonably decided not to sanction CBS for misrepresentation.

III. Conclusion

The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Serafyn's petition without analyzing more precisely the

evidence he presented. On the other hand, the Commission

reasonably held that CBS did not make a misrepresentation

to the Commission. We therefore vacate and remand the

Commission's decision in WGPR and affirm its decision in

Stockholders of CBS Inc.

So ordered.

USCA Case #95-1440 Document #373220 Filed: 08/11/1998 Page 20 of 20