I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 501 
To enforce the public interest obligations of broadcast station licensees to 
their local communities. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 1, 2005 
Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. HOLT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FILNER, Mr. 
RANGEL, Mr. OWENS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. 
MCDERMOTT, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) in-
troduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on En-
ergy and Commerce 
A BILL 
To enforce the public interest obligations of broadcast station 
licensees to their local communities. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness and Account-
ability in Broadcasting Act’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) The Communications Act of 1934 requires 
the Federal Communications Commission and broad-
cast licensees to promote the ‘‘public interest,’’ a 
phrase that appears 40 times in the legislation. 
(2) Because broadcasters receive free licenses to 
use the public’s airwaves, estimated to be worth 
hundreds of billions of dollars, they have an obliga-
tion to uphold the public’s interest, and to ade-
quately inform the public about news and opinion. 
(3) From 1949 to 1987, a policy of the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) required that 
radio and television stations air all sides of impor-
tant or controversial issues, and give equal time to 
all candidates. 
(4) Since the rescission of the Fairness Doc-
trine, the country has experienced a proliferation of 
highly partisan networks, news outlets, and owner-
ship groups that disseminate unbalanced news cov-
erage and broadcast content. 
(5) News consumers, particularly those of talk 
radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point 
of view. A 2004 survey by Democracy Radio revealed 
that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio 
are characterized as conservative. This imbalance re-
sults in issues of public importance receiving little or 
no attention, while others are presented in a manner 
not conducive to the listeners’ receiving the facts
and range of opinions necessary to make informed 
decisions. 
(6) The 2004 survey, done by Democracy 
Radio, found that there were 2,349 hours of local 
conservative programs broadcast every week versus 
555 hours of local progressive programs, and 39,382 
hours of national conservative programs broadcast 
every week versus 2,487 hours of national progres-
sive programs. 
(7) An April 2004 poll, conducted by Media 
Matters for America of likely voters shows over-
whelming support across the political and demo-
graphic spectrum for restoring rules requiring fair-
ness and balance on the public’s airwaves. When 
asked whether television and radio stations that use 
the public’s airwaves should be required to present 
the sides of an issue in a reasonably balanced way 
including giving time to opposing points of view. 
(8) Democracy is built on the concept that the 
views, beliefs, and values of an informed citizenry 
provide the best basis for political decision-making.
SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST STAND-
ARDS. 
Section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 309) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection: 
‘‘(l) IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST STAND-
ARD.— 
‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—The purposes of this sub-
section are— 
‘‘(A) to restore fairness in broadcasting; 
‘‘(B) to ensure that broadcasters meet 
their public interest obligations; 
‘‘(C) to promote diversity, localism, and 
competition in American media; and 
‘‘(D) to ensure that all radio and television 
broadcasters— 
‘‘(i) are accountable to the local com-
munities they are licensed to serve; 
‘‘(ii) offer diverse views on issues of 
public importance, including local issues; 
and 
‘‘(iii) provide regular opportunities for 
meaningful public dialogue among lis-
teners, viewers, station personnel, and li-
censees.
‘‘(2) STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC INTEREST DE-
TERMINATIONS.—The Commission may not issue or 
renew any license for a broadcasting station based 
upon a finding that the issuance or renewal serves 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity unless 
such station is in compliance with the requirements 
of this subsection. 
‘‘(3) COVERAGE OF ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPOR-
TANCE.—Each broadcast station licensee shall, con-
sistent with the purposes of this subsection, cover 
issues of importance to their local communities in a 
fair manner, taking into account the diverse inter-
ests and viewpoints in the local community. 
‘‘(4) HEARINGS ON NEEDS AND INTERESTS OF 
THE COMMUNITY.—Each broadcast station licensee 
shall hold two public hearings each year in its com-
munity of license during the term of each license to 
ascertain the needs and interests of the communities 
they are licensed to serve. One hearing shall take 
place two months prior to the date of application for 
license issuance or renewal. The licensee shall, on a 
timely basis, place transcripts of these hearings in 
the station’s public file, make such transcripts avail-
able via the Internet or other electronic means, and 
submit such transcripts to the Commission as a part
of any license renewal application. All interested in-
dividuals shall be afforded the opportunity to partici-
pate in such hearings. 
‘‘(5) DOCUMENTATION OF ISSUE COVERAGE.— 
Each broadcast station licensee shall document and 
report in writing, on a biannual basis, to the Com-
mission, the programming that is broadcast to cover 
the issues of public importance ascertained by the li-
censee under paragraph (3) or otherwise, and on 
how such coverage reflects the diverse interests and 
viewpoints in the local community of such station. 
Such documents shall also be placed, on a timely 
basis, in the station’s public file and made available 
via the Internet or other electronic means. 
‘‘(6) CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE.— 
‘‘(A) PETITIONS TO DENY.—Any interested 
person may file a petition to deny a license re-
newal on the grounds of— 
‘‘(i) the applicant’s failure to afford 
reasonable opportunities for presentation 
of opposing points of view on issues of 
public importance in its overall program-
ming, or the applicant’s non-compliance 
with the Commission’s programming rules