Opinion ID: 442856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 36 Let us emphasize at the outset that I do not condone any action that would perpetuate RKO's status as licensee of channel nine in Los Angeles. The charges leveled at RKO--including, but not limited to, illegal foreign payments by its parent company, the General Tire and Rubber Company, illegal tie-ins between sales of the parent's goods and advertising on RKO, and lack of candor before the Commission--are grave. As one commentator reviewing this case observed, Agencies rarely are confronted with [such] a large body of admissions capable of being interpreted as a confession of misconduct. 2 Dissenting from a Commission order (on a three to two vote) renewing RKO's operating license, Commissioner Johnson stated that the decision, granting RKO's renewal application for KHJ-TV in Los Angeles, may very well be the worst decision of this Commission during my term of seven years and five months. 3 Judge Bazelon agreed, adding that [d]espite the intense competition for this honor, I am constrained to agree. 4 37 But our desire to put RKO out of the broadcasting business in Los Angeles should not blind us to the fact that, as playwrights Beaumont and Fletcher put it, the medicine [may be] worse than the malady. Federal law requires that television licenses be awarded only after comparative hearings to determine the best qualified licensee. 5 The purpose of comparative hearings is ill-served when the pool of candidates is artificially limited to two equally poor contenders. 6 The alleged improprieties of the incumbent license-holder, RKO, have already been hinted at. But the challenger, Fidelity Television, Inc., did not look much better to the hearing examiner, who concluded that Fidelity look[ed] bad from the standpoint of the integration of ownership and management criterion and, along with RKO, was no bargain as a broadcast licensee. 7 To take a specific instance, Fidelity proposed that two of its shareholders--who were to work only part time and neither of whom had broadcast experience--supervise a paid broadcast staff. The hearing examiner characterized this suggestion as being either witless[ ] or insincere. 8 38 While RKO and Fidelity were competing for the distinction of being the least qualified applicant for channel nine, the ostensible guardian of the public interest, the Federal Communications Commission, was remarkably oblivious to events and to the need for an expeditious resolution of this controversy. This proceeding began in October 1965. The Commission released the Initial Decision of the hearing examiner nearly four years later, on 13 August 1969, 9 and did not hear oral argument until two years after that, on 12 October 1971. 39 As of 22 March 1973, the Commission had still not reached a decision, prompting Fidelity to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. Although we refused to issue the writ, we found the Commission's decision to have been unreasonably delayed and ordered it to report its progress within thirty days. 10 The Commission did report its progress (on 6 July), but had still not issued a decision when Fidelity renewed its petition on 21 November 1973. 11 On 6 December 1973, before this court could act, the Commission finally announced its decision. 40 The Commission reversed the hearing examiner and ordered that the application of RKO ... IS DEEMED TO BE GRANTED, and that the application of Fidelity ... IS DEEMED TO BE DENIED, subject to whatever action may be deemed appropriate following resolution of the matters in Docket No. 18759 [a license renewal proceeding in Boston]. 12 Two years later, this court affirmed, conditional upon the outcome of the Boston proceeding. 13 41 Five years after our affirmance, the Commission determined that RKO was not qualified to be licensee of the Boston station and denied its application for renewal. 14 At the same time, it adopted an order in the Los Angeles case finding that RKO lacked the requisite qualifications to remain licensee of KHJ-TV. 15 At that time, City of Angels filed a motion for leave to intervene and a petition to reopen proceedings. The Commission did not even consider the motion and petition until three years had elapsed, and then denied City of Angels's request in a conclusory paragraph. 16 The majority denies this motion today; from its opinion I respectfully dissent.