Opinion ID: 384930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the fairness doctrine claim

Text: 65 Petitioner's last claim of entitlement to free broadcast time for Senator Kennedy is founded upon the well-known fairness doctrine. 149 That label shorthands a twofold requirement that broadcasters give adequate coverage to controversial issues of public importance and fairly reflect contrasting viewpoints in that coverage. 150 Petitioner does not impugn the networks' honesty in rejecting its free-time request; indeed, it has expressly represented both to the Commission and this court its belief that in doing so the networks acted in good faith. 151 Given that, the issue before us is whether the fairness doctrine sustains petitioner's theory that Senator Kennedy was wrongly denied use of the networks' facilities for presentation of his views on the economy. 66 In the opinion and order affirmed by the Commission, the Broadcast Bureau found three fatal flaws in petitioner's fairness complaint. One was a failure to define specifically the particular controversial issue involved. 152 Another was the absence of any evidence indicating that the networks had neglected fairly to present contrasting viewpoints on the publicly-important aspects of the economy in the course of their overall programming. 153 Still another was the asserted impropriety of insisting that a particular individual Senator Kennedy serve as a spokesman. 154 We uphold the Commission on all counts. 67 A complaint invoking the fairness doctrine, we have said, 68 must present prima facie evidence of a fairness doctrine violation. Prima facie evidence consists of specific factual information which, in the absence of rebuttal, is sufficient to show that a fairness doctrine violation exists.... (T)he complainant must produce prima facie evidence of a violation before the broadcaster will be burdened with establishing compliance with the fairness doctrine. 155 69 We think the Bureau was adequately justified in concluding that petitioner fell well short of this standard. 70 In its opinion, the Bureau observed that petitioner nowhere states with specificity what it believes the controversial issue really is. 156 In its several arguments, petitioner has referred merely to such general topics as the nation's economic crisis, 157 inflation, one of the most important issues in the 1980 presidential campaign, 158 and the economic stewardship of the President. 159 We agree with the Bureau that a complainant must define the proffered issue with greater particularity. In both its fairness primer 160 and its political broadcasting primer 161 the Commission has emphasized the need to identify the issue precisely, and this court has upheld the reasonableness of such requirements. 162 Chief Judge Wright capsulized the requirement when very recently he admonished that the issue must be ... highly specific, one that can be defined with precision and can be addressed and responded to directly and efficiently by the broadcaster. 163 71 This is not an idle demand. As we have been careful to explain, (a) broadcaster must have a clear understanding of the issue forming the basis of a complaint in order to assess its compliance with the fairness doctrine. Unless a broadcaster can recognize the issue 'with precision and accuracy,' ... proof of compliance with the fairness doctrine requires the production of 'recordings or transcripts of all news programs, editorials, commentaries and discussion of public issues, many of which are treated over long periods of time.'  164 Imprecise formulation of a controversial issue put forth thus can lead to imposition of such onerous burdens on broadcasters (that) would, in practice, defeat the policy of 'encouraging robust, wide-open debate.'  165 In final result, (i)ssue ambiguity in the fairness doctrine context is a certainty to lessen the free flow of information favored by the First Amendment, and is therefore unacceptable. 166 We are not disposed to blink procedural transgressions that jeopardize realization of this lofty goal. 72 Even if this flaw could be excused, another is immediately perceived. The Bureau pointed out that petitioner has not presented any evidence that the networks have failed in their overall programming to present contrasting views on the issue of the economic crisis facing America. 167 Moreover, said the Bureau, 73 (e)ven if (petitioner) believes that the controversial issue of public importance in this case is defined as which candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination has the soundest economic policies, there is no evidence presented that this issue was discussed in the broadcast. Again, we note that the networks have indicated that they have presented coverage of Senator Kennedy's economic viewpoints. 168 74 The fairness doctrine does not operate with the dissective focus of Section 315(a)'s equal-opportunity provision; 169 it nowhere requires equality but only reasonableness. 170 Intelligent assessment of the nature and caliber of a broadcaster's overall programming obviously cannot be confined to one program, or even to one day's presentations, 171 so a failure to show some fairness deficiency on the whole is necessarily fatal. Wide discretion must be accorded broadcasters in their programming, and while short-run imbalances desirably are to be minimized, it is only in the long run that a well-rounded approach to fairness considerations becomes feasible. The objectives of the fairness doctrine are thus best promoted by encouraging the discussion and presentation of controversial issues in the various broadcast program formats ... for it is just not practical to require equality with respect to a large number of the issues dealt with in a great variety of programs on a daily and continuing basis. 172 So it is that compliance with the fairness doctrine is to be determined on the basis of the broadcaster's programming in its entirety. 173 As the Bureau foresaw, the alternative would involve the agency much too deeply in broadcast journalism; (causing it to) become virtually a part of the broadcasting 'fourth estate,' overseeing thousands of complaints that some issue had not been given 'equal treatment.'  174 75 The Commission customarily finds a fairness-doctrine violation only upon a showing that the broadcaster's decision was unreasonable or in bad faith, a review standard we have consistently endorsed. 175 Petitioner has not attempted to refute the networks' representations that they have afforded and will continue to afford extensive coverage of all views, including Senator Kennedy's, on questions of economic policy. 176 Particularly in this milieu, we have no cause to overturn the Bureau's holding that (i)n order for (petitioner) to make out a prima facie case under the Fairness Doctrine, it must offer much more complete evidence than that provided in its April 4 letter (to the Commission) that the networks have not balanced their coverage of controversial issues. 177 76 Addressing what it deemed to be a third deficiency in petitioner's complaint, the Bureau held that the fairness doctrine did not endow Senator Kennedy with an individual right to broadcast his views on the current economic crisis. 178 Undoubtedly there are cases wherein a particular individual may be an appropriate spokesman for a particular position. 179 Absent that peculiar situation, however, it is the rule that, in the Bureau's words, under the Fairness Doctrine, no specific individual or group is entitled to present the contrasting viewpoints. 180 Petitioner neither alleged nor endeavored to show that the Senator is uniquely and singularly qualified to represent those who dispute the President's economic leadership or strategies. Certainly with the networks' assertions that they have already presented a wide range of views on the state of the Nation's economy, the fairness doctrine does not confer an individual right on Senator Kennedy to address these issues on the air. 77 We thus find petitioner's fairness doctrine contentions, as well as those implicating Section 312(a)(7), to be unacceptable. The order under review is accordingly 78 Affirmed.