Court Opinion

ID: 9450178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:37:45.492413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:11.144323
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Edward G. Robinson, Jr., challenges the Federal Communications Commission’s denial of his applications for renewal of the license of radio station *535WDKD, located in Kmgstree, South Carolina, and for a construction permit to change the station’s antenna system.
These are the relevant circumstances. 'On May 11, 1960, the Commission sent Robinson the following letter:
This is with reference to certain complaints received by the Commission concerning certain program material broadcast by your station, with particular reference to the Charlie Walker programs.
It is alleged in substance that said programs are vulgar and suggestive, and are susceptible of double meanings with indecent connotations. The tape recordings of some of your programs are in the possession of the Commission.
It is the practice of the Commission to associate complaints with the files of the stations involved and afford the licensees an opportunity to submit a statement with respect thereto. Accordingly, this matter is being brought to your attention.
In light of the foregoing, it is requested that a statement be submitted by you with respect to this matter within 15 days from the date of this letter.
On June 10, after the Commission allowed Robinson’s counsel to hear certain of the tape recordings, Robinson replied to the Commission, in pertinent part:
* * * These statements made by my employee, Charlie Walker, were not known to me, and I cannot help but agree that they are suggestive and, in .some cases, of a vulgar nature. As a result of this information and in line with my avowed policy of maintaining a clean and decent Radio Station, I have unconditionally released Charlie Walker from my employt as of the date . of this letter.
I want to stress to you the fact that I was not acquainted with the nature of the statements made by Charlie Walker and the show on the air at my Radio Station, and I can assure you that the only accusation which could be leveled at me is that perhaps I should have followed these matters more closely and should have known exactly what was going on. * * *
Thereafter, the Commission designated the matter for hearing upon the following issues:
1. To determine whether in its written or oral statements to the Commission with respect to the above matters, the licensee misrepresented facts to the Commission and/or was lacking in candor;
2. To determine whether the licensee maintained adequate control or supervision of programming material broadcast over his station during the period of his most recent license renewal ;
3. To determine whether the licensee permitting programming material to be broadcast over Station WDKD on the Charlie Walker show, particularly during the period between January 1, 1960 and April 30, 1960, which program material was coarse, vulgar, suggestive, and susceptible of indecent, double meaning;
4. To determine the manner in which the programming broadcast by the licensee during the period of his most recent license renewal has met the needs of the areas and populations served by the station;
5. To determine whether, in light of the evidence adduced with respect to the foregoing issues, the licensee possesses the requisite qualifications to be a licensee of the Commission;
6. To determine whether, in light of the evidence adduced with respect to the foregoing issues, a grant of the above-captioned applications would serve the public interest, convenience or necessity.
At hearings held in Kingstree on May 31, June 1, 2, and 5, 1961, Robinson testified that with a few insignificant exceptions he had never heard Walker broadcast objectionable material, and emphasized that he had never heard complaints about such material. Numerous other *536witnesses, however, testified they had made such complaints to Robinson.
On the basis of his findings adverse to Robinson on the first four issues, the Examiner concluded that Robinson did not possess the requisite qualifications to be a licensee of the Commission, and that a grant of the applications would not serve the public interest, convenience, or necessity. He proposed the applications be denied.
On appeal the Commission affirmed the Examiner’s findings but modified his conclusions of law. Thus, although the Commission in answering issues Nos. 5 and 6 in the negative found against Robinson on all of the first four issues, it held that the finding on either issue No. 1 or No. 3, standing alone, would support denial. In regard to issue No. 1, the Commission said, “We find that in the circumstances of this case, the licensee’s misrepresentations and false statements, in and of themselves, constitute grounds for denial of WDKD’s application for renewal of license.” We agree that this provides sufficient support for the Commission’s decision. Accordingly we reach no other questions.
In determining whether the grant of an application for license renewal will serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity,” 47 U.S.C. § 307 (d), the Commission has a duty to consider the performance of the applicant in meeting the needs of the community. In discharging this duty in the present case, the Commission properly sought information concerning the applicant’s broadcast material which had been the subject of complaints received by the Commission. Robinson’s representations to the Commission that he lacked knowledge of the situation were contradicted by many witnesses. The record amply supports the Examiner’s action in crediting the opposing witnesses and refusing to credit Robinson, and in concluding as a result that Robinson was guilty of misrepresentations.
We intimate no views on whether the Commission could have denied the applications if Robinson had been truthful. “The fact of concealment may be more significant than the facts concealed. The willingness to deceive a regulatory body may be disclosed by immaterial and useless deceptions as well as by material and persuasive ones.” Federal Communications Comm’n v. WOKO, 329 U.S. 223, 227, 67 S.Ct. 213, 215, 91 L.Ed. 204 (1946). We hold only that Robinson’s willingness to deceive the Commission justified its conclusion that he did not possess the requisite qualifications to be a licensee and that a grant of his applications would not serve the public interest. Federal Communications Comm’n v. WOKO, supra.
Affirmed.