Opinion ID: 305487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: WMAL-TV's Alleged Misrepresentation of Fact

Text: 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