Opinion ID: 2063068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Communications Act

Text: Most law concerning broadcast communication in the United States is derived from the FCA, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., specifically § 301 et seq. dealing with radio and television communication. The FCA created the FCC, a federal regulatory agency which is assigned the function of licensing radio and television stations. 47 U.S.C. § 303( l ). All licensees are obligated to abide by the FCA and by regulations adopted pursuant to it by the FCC. The four television stations operated by the Authority are FCC licensees. FCC licensees are subject to minimal content regulation. Licenses are awarded as the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served, 47 U.S.C. § 307(a), and licensees are required to operate in the public interest. 47 U.S.C. § 315(a). But, for the most part, Congress and the FCC have limited government regulation of programming decisions. One significant area of regulation is 47 U.S.C. § 315, the equal opportunity provision. Initially, it simply provided that any licensee allowing one candidate for elective office to use its station must allow all other candidates for that office the same opportunity to use the station. If air time is sold to one candidate, comparable air time must be offered to all candidates; if air time is given free to one candidate, it must be offered free to all. Recognizing radio's [and television's] potential importance as a medium of communication of political ideas, Congress sought to foster its broadest possible utilization by encouraging broadcasting stations to make their facilities available to candidates for office without discrimination.... [ Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union v. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525, 529, 79 S.Ct. 1302, 1305, 3 L.Ed. 2d 1407 (1959)] Congress realized that a grant of an FCC license was potentially a grant of significant power and concluded that licensees should be limited in their ability to parlay this power into electoral success for themselves or their favorites. See S.Rep.No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News pp. 2564, 2571 (1959); Primer on Political Broadcasting, supra, at 2216. Section 315 thus embodies the dual policy goals of active political debate and equal political debate. In 1959, Congress altered the balance between these goals by significantly amending § 315(a), declaring that appearances by candidates on bona fide (1) newscasts, (2) news interviews, (3) news documentaries, or (4) coverage of news events do not constitute a use of the station which triggers the equal opportunity provision. It is universally accepted that this amendment was a response to the FCC's Lar Daly decision, Columbia Broadcasting System, 18 P. & F. Radio Reg. 238, recon. den., 26 F.C.C. 715, 18 P. & F. Radio Reg. 701 (1959), in which televised film clips of Mayor Richard Daley, incumbent and candidate for re-election, performing various mayoral functions were held to trigger the equal opportunity doctrine. Congress feared that such an all-inclusive equal-time requirement would tend to dry up meaningful ... coverage of political campaigns, S.Rep.No. 562, supra, at 2572. The inevitable consequence [of Lar Daly ] is that a broadcaster will be reluctant to show one political candidate in any news-type program lest he assume the burden of presenting a parade of aspirants. [ Id. at 2571] Thus, Congress concluded as a result of Lar Daly that active political debate and rigidly equal political debate were conflicting policy goals. The Congressional response was to amend § 315 by adding the four exemptions enumerated above. [12] Thus Congress effectuated its conclusion that, insofar as news coverage was concerned, the public benefits [of a high volume of news coverage] are so great that they outweigh the risk that may result from the favoritism that may be shown by some partisan broadcasters. S.Rep.No. 562, supra, at 2572. Congress delegated to the FCC the responsibility to construe the new exemptions: It is difficult to define with precision what is a newscast, news interview, news documentary, or on-the-spot coverage of news event.... That is why the committee in adopting the language of the proposed legislation ... gave the Federal Communications Commission full flexibility and complete discretion ... [to determine whether a particular program is exempt]. [S.Rep.No. 562, supra, at 2574] In exercising this discretion, the FCC has given the exemptions rather full sway. Kennedy for President Com. v. FCC, 636 F. 2d 417, 423 (D.C. Cir.1980). Thus, in rejecting Ann Klein's petition for inclusion in the Closer Look forum on the issues, the FCC wrote: In order to encourage uninhibited news coverage, the Commission believes its appropriate role in this area requires deferring to the good faith news judgments of broadcasters. To this end, the Commission will not substitute its judgment for that of the broadcaster, but rather will disturb such decisions only when they are found to be unreasonable or in bad faith. This policy is applicable to broadcasters' determinations of whether particular programming falls within any of the news exemptions, as well as journalistic judgments concerning what material should be presented in news programming. [ Ann Klein, Docket No. 8330-B, C5-860 at 3 (5/29/81)] Simply stated, the FCC policy is to leave it to the individual broadcasters to determine the degree to which the equal opportunity rule should be enforced in news broadcasting. This policy determination by the FCC derives from its determination not to risk inhibiting active news coverage.