Opinion ID: 305487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Specific Objections

Text: 25 It is important to recognize the sequence of events pertaining to WMAL-TV's efforts to ascertain community needs and interests, before determining whether any substantial and material questions of fact were raised as to the adequacy of those efforts. On 7 August 1969 WMAL-TV filed its application for renewal of its broadcast license; on 2 September 1969 plaintiffs filed their Petition to Deny. In December 1969 a Notice of Inquiry was issued by the Commission proposing a primer on the ascertainment of community needs by broadcast applicants. 19 The FCC stated that this primer was intended to clarify the Commission's requirements regarding ascertainment and that applicants whose ascertainment showings were deficient under the interim guidelines set forth in the Notice of Inquiry can amend as a matter of right prior to designation for hearing. 20 On 12 May 1970 WMAL-TV amended Part I, Section IV-B of its renewal application, which deals with ascertainment of community needs. 26 Plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts on three grounds: (1) that WMAL-TV's initial ascertainment efforts, as reflected in their application for renewal filed 7 August 1969, failed to meet the required standards of representativeness; (2) that the FCC's admission and use of WMAL-TV's amendment filed 12 May 1970 was improper in view of prior Commission and judicial practice; and (3) that the ascertainment efforts reported in this amendment failed to comply with Commission requirements. 27 It may be true that WMAL-TV's initial ascertainment procedures failed to meet the required standards of representativeness. 21 This initial failure, however, is not dispositive of the case. If the FCC's admission and use of the amendment is found to be proper, it is not enough for the plaintiffs to establish the existence of substantial and material questions of fact regarding the first ascertainment. If the amendment is permitted, the plaintiffs must show instead that even after the amendment a substantial and material question of fact still existed. 28 With respect to the second objection, plaintiffs assert first that WMAL-TV's amendment was actually a supplemental pleading whose admissibility was barred by the FCC's Rules 22 and, second, that Commission acceptance of the amendment violated its own policy against upgrading. As for the first ground, that WMAL-TV's amendment qualified as a supplemental pleading and should have been barred in the absence of FCC approval of its being filed as such, plaintiffs' assertion overlooks the fact that the Commission was not required to make such a determination. Section 1.522(a) of the Commission's Rules states that any application may be amended as a matter of right prior to the adoption date of an order designating such application for hearing . . .  and that [i]f a petition to deny . . . has been filed, the amendment shall be served on the petitioner. 23 29 Clearly then, Section 1.522(a) is intended to apply to an application against which a petition to deny has been filed. And, as the Commission indicated in its Notice of Inquiry proposing a new primer on the ascertainment of community needs by broadcast applicants, [a]pplicants whose showings [with respect to ascertainment] are deficient can amend as a matter of right prior to designation for hearing. . . . 24 When the FCC subsequently adopted the final version of its Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants, it specifically permitted applicants in hearing to amend their applications . . . if deemed necessary in view of our action here. . . .  25 Prior and subsequent Commission practice accords with this interpretation. 26 The Commission has even requested this court to remand several cases in which the applicants were contesting adverse FCC decisions regarding ascertainment showings, in order to afford those applicants an opportunity to amend their community surveys. 27 30 As for plaintiffs' assertion that Commission acceptance of WMAL-TV's amendment violated its own policy against upgrading, the FCC's policy against last-minute upgrading pertains to programming performance, not ascertainment. The ascertainment of community needs and interests is prospective in orientation; it is directed at proposals for future programming, not past programming. 28 There is thus a reasonable distinction between allowing last-minute upgrading of ascertainment performance, as opposed to last-minute improvements in programming; the Commission's rule in favor of amendments to ascertainment findings works no harm to the public interest. 31 Plaintiffs' third objection-that WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts as amended failed to comply with Commission requirements-relates both to the content and manner of WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts. As for the former, plaintiffs emphasize WMAL-TV's obligation to serve the needs and interests of the community of license, primarily in their view Washington, D. C., and secondarily the surrounding communities within WMAL-TV's Grade A contour. While the proper obligation in this respect is treated in detail infra, it is not necessary to reach it here, as it is clear that WMAL-TV did in fact primarily survey Washington, D.C. Of 104 community leaders contacted in the amended survey by the Evening Star Broadcasting Company, 49 represented the District of Columbia, 34 nearby Maryland counties, and 21 nearby Virginia counties. These figures reflect each area's percentage of the metropolitan area population, except for Washington, D.C. As the Commission noted, Since Washington, D. C., is WMAL-TV's city of license, WMAL-TV doubled the number . . . of community leaders to be interviewed in Washington. 29 32 As for plaintiffs' other objections with respect to the content of WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts, none raise substantial and material questions of fact making a prima facie case for FCC denial of WMAL-TV's license renewal application. The combination of the scientific statistical survey of Washington area residents, the Fisher survey (focusing on interviews with inner city residents) and the emphasis placed by WMAL-TV on interviewing Washington, D. C., community leaders-in relation to population nearly double the number (49) of those interviewed from suburban Maryland (34) and Virginia (21)-demonstrate that plaintiffs' objections are unavailing in this regard. 33 With respect to the methods employed by WMAL-TV to fulfill its ascertainment obligations, plaintiffs complain first of WMAL-TV's use of preprinted forms for consulting both community leaders and the general public. However, this neglects the fact that the questionnaires were used in lieu of, but in conjunction with, personal interviews, as a means of compiling and digesting the variety of information collected. The FCC's Primer, as finally adopted, provides that [a] questionnaire [or preprinted form] may serve as a useful guide for consultations with community leaders, but cannot be used in lieu of personal consultations. 30 Furthermore, it was permissible, indeed desirable, to use the same forms to summarize interviews with the general public as well as with community leaders. 31 While the purpose of consulting members of the general public is to further ascertain community problems which may not have been revealed by consultations with community leaders, 32 a random sample of the general public is sufficient to meet this requirement 33 and the use of different forms is not required. In addition, both the proposed and final Primers also state that it is not necessary that the information elicited from a community leader be set forth after his name, but simply that the information can be set forth in a general list of community problems. 34 34
35 Plaintiffs allege that WMAL-TV misrepresented the extent of its contact with black Washington, D. C., community leaders in regard to the station's ascertainment of community needs. In Exhibit C of its original application, WMAL-TV used the words close personal association and daily and continuing activity to describe this contact. 35 Plaintiffs submitted affidavits from eight of the leaders listed in Exhibit C to the effect that WMAL-TV did not maintain close personal associations with each of them individually on a daily or continuing basis. WMAL-TV responded to these allegations by presenting affidavits from its staff members detailing their contacts with these and community leaders in general. 36 The Commission concluded on the basis of these statements that the use of the words close personal association and daily and continuing activity did not raise a substantial question of a deliberate attempt on the part of WMAL-TV to deceive the Commission. In the context of the application as a whole and on the basis of the affidavits submitted by WMAL-TV in its Opposition, 36 the FCC concluded that the station's contact with Washington, D. C., community leaders, including black community leaders, was sufficiently regular to qualify as continuing. Nor was it reasonable to interpret the word daily as meaning that the licensee claimed to keep contact daily with each of the community leaders. While use of these words was perhaps careless on the part of WMAL-TV, the only issue is whether the licensee intended to mislead the FCC. It was well within the discretion of the Commission to decide that there was no intent on the part of the station to deceive. As this court has stated on this very point: 37 [Q]uestions respecting misrepresentations of fact are, perforce, fact questions peculiarly within the province of the Commission to consider. As long as the Commission is cognizant of the issue raised and, upon the record, reasonably resolves that issue on behalf of an applicant, this court, will not, and cannot, set that determination aside. 37
38 The determination of whether WMAL-TV's programming raises a substantial and material question of fact with respect to its responsiveness to community needs and interests requires first delineating the station's service area obligations. In the situation presented by the case at bar, WMAL-TV's service area consists of its city of license, Washington, D. C., and the surrounding areas of Maryland and Virginia. While plaintiffs argue that WMAL-TV has a primary obligation to serve the needs and interests of its city of license, with its 70% black population, and that the station's programming should therefore be commensurate with this figure, it is not necessary for us to resolve this issue. In the first place, the Commission in the case at bar recognized . . . the fact that the problems of most cities are particularly complex and pressing and require great efforts on the part of the licensee to fulfill its responsibilities. 38 The FCC further stated: 39 Petitioners assert . . . that the special problems of the District of Columbia (problems enumerated in the Petition to Deny) give rise to a need for specific programming designed to meet the needs and interests of the community. With this contention there is no dispute, but we are of the opinion that the licensee has, by the programming noted in the foregoing paragraphs and in its Opposition, clearly shown that it has broadcast numerous programs which are of particular interest to the District of Columbia's majority Black population. 39 40 In the second place, it is clear that a broadcast licensee has an obligation to meet the needs and interests of its entire area of service. 40 This is particularly the case with respect to television stations, in view of the limited number of stations. Suburban and other outlying area are not cities of license, although their needs and interests must be met by television stations licensed to central cities. 41 How a broadcast licensee responds to what may be conflicting and competing needs of regional or minority groups remains largely within its discretion. It may not flatly ignore a strongly expressed need; on the other hand, there is no requirement that a station devote twenty percent of its broadcast time to meet the need expressed by twenty percent of its viewing public. Until this problem is addressed in a rule-making procedure, the scope of FCC review remains whether or not the licensee has reasonably exercised its discretion. 42 The Commission, after considering plaintiffs' objections in regard to the alleged lack of WMAL-TV responsiveness to community, particularly black community, needs and interests, found that they did not raise questions of fact of such a material and substantial nature to require a hearing. What the Commission found to be in dispute were not the facts, but rather the conclusions to be drawn as to whether the renewal of WMAL-TV's license would be contrary to the public interests. For example, in the record there is a one-month sample news program of WMAL-TV, 41 which arguably shows a concentration on the District of Columbia proper. The Commission found that this programming was responsive to community needs. There was no challenge to the fact that these programs were broadcast. The plaintiffs made the argument before the FCC that this programming was inadequate, and this argument was rejected. We fail to see that a full-scale hearing would have added anything for either the Commission or this court to consider. 43 The Commission found, and we agree, that plaintiffs' objections here lack the requisite specificity. 42 They are largely conclusory and in most instances are not tied to specific programming deficiencies. Where they are so tied, they fail to indicate whether non-blacks are accorded different, more positive treatment. 43 For plaintiffs simply to object to the quality of WMAL-TV's programming in general and conclusory terms offers the Commission little assistance in terms of the guidelines which it requires to implement policy changes. 44 Furthermore, such generalized criticisms run the risk of turning the FCC into a censorship board, a goal clearly not in the public interest. Of course, there must exist in this area a delicate balance between the maintenance of a free competitive broadcast system and reasonable restrictions on such freedom in the public interest, in view of the scarcity of airwaves for broadcasting. In the absence of a competing broadcast application situation, where a hearing is required, 45 plaintiffs bear a substantial burden of specificity, a burden they have not met in the case at bar. The Commission's interpretation of its policies not being arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence, must be permitted to stand. 44 Plaintiffs' specific objections as to the number of blacks who have appeared on WMAL-TV religious programming are not borne out in view of the following: First, of the 55 needs and problems suggested by 104 community leaders in WMAL-TV's amended ascertainment showings, and of the 21 needs suggested by the random sampling of 200 private citizens, none related to religious programming. At least some doubt is thus shed on plaintiffs' conclusory statements as to the relative importance of religion for members of the black community. 45 Secondly, a number of black clergymen and laymen did in fact participate in WMAL-TV's religious programming, as well as in a wide variety of other public affairs programming. This participation was of a sufficiently high order to remove the FCC's findings from the category of arbitrary or capricious. 46 46 A more fundamental objection made by plaintiffs-to the quality of television programming in general, both with respect to black and all citizens' needs and interests-is more suitable for rulemaking, where all viewpoints may be aired. 47 47
48 As the figures with respect to minority group employment submitted by WMAL-TV in its Opposition to the Petition to Deny 48 were not controverted by plaintiffs and no specific instances of refusal by WMAL-TV to hire on racial grounds were alleged, the sole question before the Commission in this regard was whether the aggregate picture presented by WMAL-TV's employment policies and practices made a prima facie case for refusing to renew the station's license. Under Section 73.680 of the Commission's Rules, television licensees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of, inter alia, race in employment policies and practices. 49 However, as the Commission noted in an earlier case, Simply indicating the number of Blacks employed by the licensee, without citing instances of discrimination or describing a conscious policy of exclusion, is not sufficient to require an evidentiary exploration. 50 49 In that case, as in the one at bar, the affidavits of the licensee regarding recruitment of minority group members and their placement in a variety of positions, not simply menial jobs, were sufficient to rebut any allegations of discrimination in that respect. 51 50
51 While plaintiffs allege no specific abuses resulting from the fact that the Evening Star Broadcasting Company, the licensee of WMAL-TV, also owns two radio stations in Washington, D. C., and is in turn owned by the publishers of The Evening Star, one of the city's daily newspapers, they contend that these facts in themselves warrant a hearing on the question of undue concentration in the communications media. 52 Commission renewal of WMAL-TV's broadcast license, initially awarded in 1946, is in accord with its present multiple ownership rules. 52 These rules do provide that the facts of each case are to be considered in terms of the number of people served and the extent of competition, in order to determine whether there is a concentration detrimental to the public interest. This has been interpreted by the FCC to mean that hearings are appropriate where specific abuses are alleged to have resulted from the nature of the ownership structure. 53 53 In the absence of allegations of specific abuses arising from the Evening Star Broadcasting Company's ownership of WMAL-TV, and since the situation presented by the case at bar falls within the scope of the Commission's present multiple ownership rules, concentration of ownership of the communications media is not a proper basis for disapproving a license renewal request. 54 54 What plaintiffs are actually challenging is the wisdom of the Commission's multiple ownership rules. However, as noted above, the FCC is currently investigating-in the context of a rulemaking proceeding-whether it should adopt rules which would require divestiture by newspapers or other multiple owners in a given market. 55 And, as this court has stated, rulemaking proceedings are the most appropriate forum for Commission consideration of basic changes in policy. 56