Opinion ID: 303593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fairness Doctrine Standards and Agency Action Relative Thereto

Text: 11 Recently we have had two occasions to speak on the FCC fairness doctrine in situations relevant here. In Democratic National Committee v. FCC (1972) 4 we upheld the FCC's resolution of various questions arising from the claims of both the Democratic and Republican National Committees under the fairness doctrine. In rejecting the claims of both private litigants, Judge Tamm wrote: 12 The importance of the fairness doctrine is neither academic nor is it an administrative nicety. . . . The need for the doctrine is apparent to even the least initiated after considering that broadcast frequencies are indeed limited and they have been necessarily considered a public trust. Every licensee who is fortunate in obtaining a license is mandated to operate in the public interest and has assumed the obligation of presenting important public questions fairly and without bias. . . . The importance of the doctrine is evident and it is the manifest intention of the Commission to maintain it as a viable instrument in protecting the right of the public to be fully informed on controversial issues. 13 By its very nature the fairness doctrine is one which cannot be applied with scientific and mathematical certainty. There is no formula which if followed will assure that the requirements of the doctrine have been met. Procedurally, the doctrine can only succeed when the licensee exercises that discretion upon which he is instructed to call upon in dealing with coverage of controversial issues. 5 14 Earlier in Green v. FCC (June 1971) 6 we upheld a ruling of the FCC that no violation of the fairness doctrine occurred by the licensees' declining to donate time to petitioners to broadcast messages opposing military service or informing the public of alternatives to compulsory military service, when the issue raised by the Armed Service recruitment announcements was the question of military manpower recruitment by voluntary means. In so doing, we pointed out that 15 [to] invoke the fairness doctrine . . . there must exist a 'controversial issue of public importance' on which the licensee has refused to allow the presentation of a reasonably balanced point of view. . . . The Supreme Court itself enunciated two bases for the fairness doctrine: First, the statutory basis, that broadcast facilities must operate in the public interest; second, that under the First Amendment the public has a right to free and open debate. 7 16 And finally, 17 In our view, the essential basis for any fairness doctrine, no matter with what specificity the standards are defined, is that the American public must not be left uninformed. 8 18 We take these standards enunciated in Democratic National Committee, supra, and Green, supra, as determinative of the case at bar. 19 For clarity we point out one standard which is not involved here. As the FCC decision states, First, it is clear that the personal attack rules are in any event inapplicable. The rules specifically exempt from their scope commentary which is part of a bona fide newscast. That is the situation here. 9 On oral argument petitioner's counsel plainly stated that he was not urging the personal attack rule, that only the fairness doctrine itself was here involved. Therefore, on this part of the FCC ruling we express no opinion. 20 As Judge Tamm wrote in Democratic National Committee, supra, . . . we have clearly stated time after time, ad infinitum ad nauseam, that the key to the doctrine is no mystical formula but rather the exercise of reasonable standards by the licensee, 10 and as we held in Green, supra, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that the licensees' exercise of judgment under the fairness doctrine was unreasonable, arbitrary, or in bad faith. 11 As we further pointed out in Green, supra, to invoke the fairness doctrine as a ground for obtaining access to the air waves, it is not only necessary to define a controversial issue of public importance, but implicitly it is first necessary to define the issue. 12 21