Opinion ID: 305487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: WMAL-TV's Ascertainment Efforts

Text: 25 It is important to recognize the sequence of events pertaining to WMAL-TV's efforts to ascertain community needs and interests, before determining whether any substantial and material questions of fact were raised as to the adequacy of those efforts. On 7 August 1969 WMAL-TV filed its application for renewal of its broadcast license; on 2 September 1969 plaintiffs filed their Petition to Deny. In December 1969 a Notice of Inquiry was issued by the Commission proposing a primer on the ascertainment of community needs by broadcast applicants. 19 The FCC stated that this primer was intended to clarify the Commission's requirements regarding ascertainment and that applicants whose ascertainment showings were deficient under the interim guidelines set forth in the Notice of Inquiry can amend as a matter of right prior to designation for hearing. 20 On 12 May 1970 WMAL-TV amended Part I, Section IV-B of its renewal application, which deals with ascertainment of community needs. 26 Plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts on three grounds: (1) that WMAL-TV's initial ascertainment efforts, as reflected in their application for renewal filed 7 August 1969, failed to meet the required standards of representativeness; (2) that the FCC's admission and use of WMAL-TV's amendment filed 12 May 1970 was improper in view of prior Commission and judicial practice; and (3) that the ascertainment efforts reported in this amendment failed to comply with Commission requirements. 27 It may be true that WMAL-TV's initial ascertainment procedures failed to meet the required standards of representativeness. 21 This initial failure, however, is not dispositive of the case. If the FCC's admission and use of the amendment is found to be proper, it is not enough for the plaintiffs to establish the existence of substantial and material questions of fact regarding the first ascertainment. If the amendment is permitted, the plaintiffs must show instead that even after the amendment a substantial and material question of fact still existed. 28 With respect to the second objection, plaintiffs assert first that WMAL-TV's amendment was actually a supplemental pleading whose admissibility was barred by the FCC's Rules 22 and, second, that Commission acceptance of the amendment violated its own policy against upgrading. As for the first ground, that WMAL-TV's amendment qualified as a supplemental pleading and should have been barred in the absence of FCC approval of its being filed as such, plaintiffs' assertion overlooks the fact that the Commission was not required to make such a determination. Section 1.522(a) of the Commission's Rules states that any application may be amended as a matter of right prior to the adoption date of an order designating such application for hearing . . .  and that [i]f a petition to deny . . . has been filed, the amendment shall be served on the petitioner. 23 29 Clearly then, Section 1.522(a) is intended to apply to an application against which a petition to deny has been filed. And, as the Commission indicated in its Notice of Inquiry proposing a new primer on the ascertainment of community needs by broadcast applicants, [a]pplicants whose showings [with respect to ascertainment] are deficient can amend as a matter of right prior to designation for hearing. . . . 24 When the FCC subsequently adopted the final version of its Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants, it specifically permitted applicants in hearing to amend their applications . . . if deemed necessary in view of our action here. . . .  25 Prior and subsequent Commission practice accords with this interpretation. 26 The Commission has even requested this court to remand several cases in which the applicants were contesting adverse FCC decisions regarding ascertainment showings, in order to afford those applicants an opportunity to amend their community surveys. 27 30 As for plaintiffs' assertion that Commission acceptance of WMAL-TV's amendment violated its own policy against upgrading, the FCC's policy against last-minute upgrading pertains to programming performance, not ascertainment. The ascertainment of community needs and interests is prospective in orientation; it is directed at proposals for future programming, not past programming. 28 There is thus a reasonable distinction between allowing last-minute upgrading of ascertainment performance, as opposed to last-minute improvements in programming; the Commission's rule in favor of amendments to ascertainment findings works no harm to the public interest. 31 Plaintiffs' third objection-that WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts as amended failed to comply with Commission requirements-relates both to the content and manner of WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts. As for the former, plaintiffs emphasize WMAL-TV's obligation to serve the needs and interests of the community of license, primarily in their view Washington, D. C., and secondarily the surrounding communities within WMAL-TV's Grade A contour. While the proper obligation in this respect is treated in detail infra, it is not necessary to reach it here, as it is clear that WMAL-TV did in fact primarily survey Washington, D.C. Of 104 community leaders contacted in the amended survey by the Evening Star Broadcasting Company, 49 represented the District of Columbia, 34 nearby Maryland counties, and 21 nearby Virginia counties. These figures reflect each area's percentage of the metropolitan area population, except for Washington, D.C. As the Commission noted, Since Washington, D. C., is WMAL-TV's city of license, WMAL-TV doubled the number . . . of community leaders to be interviewed in Washington. 29 32 As for plaintiffs' other objections with respect to the content of WMAL-TV's ascertainment efforts, none raise substantial and material questions of fact making a prima facie case for FCC denial of WMAL-TV's license renewal application. The combination of the scientific statistical survey of Washington area residents, the Fisher survey (focusing on interviews with inner city residents) and the emphasis placed by WMAL-TV on interviewing Washington, D. C., community leaders-in relation to population nearly double the number (49) of those interviewed from suburban Maryland (34) and Virginia (21)-demonstrate that plaintiffs' objections are unavailing in this regard. 33 With respect to the methods employed by WMAL-TV to fulfill its ascertainment obligations, plaintiffs complain first of WMAL-TV's use of preprinted forms for consulting both community leaders and the general public. However, this neglects the fact that the questionnaires were used in lieu of, but in conjunction with, personal interviews, as a means of compiling and digesting the variety of information collected. The FCC's Primer, as finally adopted, provides that [a] questionnaire [or preprinted form] may serve as a useful guide for consultations with community leaders, but cannot be used in lieu of personal consultations. 30 Furthermore, it was permissible, indeed desirable, to use the same forms to summarize interviews with the general public as well as with community leaders. 31 While the purpose of consulting members of the general public is to further ascertain community problems which may not have been revealed by consultations with community leaders, 32 a random sample of the general public is sufficient to meet this requirement 33 and the use of different forms is not required. In addition, both the proposed and final Primers also state that it is not necessary that the information elicited from a community leader be set forth after his name, but simply that the information can be set forth in a general list of community problems. 34 34