Opinion ID: 184630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: News Distortion

Text: 26 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. 27 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 news story were false or distorted, but nevertheless, proceeded to air such programming. 28 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.
29 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 [331 U.S.App.D.C. 347] 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. 30 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 Serafyn's evidence proved CBS's intent to distort the news, for it concluded by saying: 31 [W]e find, in sum, that the outtakes of the rabbi's interview fail to demonstrate CBS's intent to distort.... 32 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. 33 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). 34 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.
35 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 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. [331 U.S.App.D.C. 348] 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.
36 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. 37 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. 38 ... [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. 39 Unidentified Man # 1: (Through Translator) We Ukrainians not have to rely on American [sic] and kikes. 40 SAFER: Yacoov [sic] Bleich left the United States five years ago to take over as the chief rabbi for the Ukraine. 41 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 someone, you know, screams, Let's drown the Russians in Jewish blood, there isn't much love lost there. 42 ... 43 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. 44 Rabbi BLEICH: Yeah. Well, that's not a secret. They're saying that they want the Jews out. 45 ... 46 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. 47 [Unidentified] Man # 2: (Through Translator) Kikes have better chances here than even the original population. 48 SAFER: Than the Ukrainians. 49 Man # 2: (Through Translator) Yes. 50 ... 51 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.... 52