In re Complaint Against METROMEDIA,
INC., CONCERNING APPLICATION OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE TO
CIGARETTE ADVERTISING FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
16 F.C.C.2d 941( 1969)
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 69-272
MARCH 20, 1969
ACTION: COMPLAINT
[*941] METROMEDIA, INC., LICENSEE OF STATION
WNEW-TV, 5151 Wisconsin Avenue NW.,
GENTLEMEN:
This refers to a complaint filed on October 2, 1968, against station WNEW-TV,
alleging a failure to comply with the requirements of the Commission's
cigarette advertising policy, set forth in "Applicability of the Fairness
Doctrine to Cigarette Advertising," 9 F.C.C. 2d 921 (1967), affirmed, John
Banzhaf III v. FCC, case No. 21285, C.A.D.C., November 21, 1968, petition for
rehearing pending.
The
above policy requires that a broadcast licensee presenting cigarette
commercials, which "* * * convey any number of reasons why it appears
desirable to smoke * * *" -- must "* * * devote a significant amount
of time to informing the listeners of the other side of the matter -- that
however enjoyable smoking may be, it represents a habit which may cause or contribute
to the earlier death of the user." (9 F.C.C. 2d at 939.) At the same time,
we stressed that we would implement the requirement in such a way as not to
drive cigarette commercials off the air -- a result which would be inconsistent
with the congressional direction in the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
We have
reviewed the facts of this case in the light of the above policies, and find
that if the matter were viewed on the basis of the entire broadcast day there
would be no basis to the complaint. We note,
however, that in the sample period (September 1968) although the vast majority
of your cigarette commercials were broadcast during the hours which you define
as "prime time," comparatively few of your antismoking messages were
broadcast during these hours, and none were broadcast on 13 of the 30 days.
We
recognize that in view of the considerations set forth in the last sentence of
the second paragraph, parity between cigarette commercials and antismoking
messages cannot be required during these hours, and that the implementation of
our policy requires a sensitive balancing.
Without setting down any mathematical formula, and recognizing that you
have been making substantial efforts to inform listeners of the health hazards,
we nevertheless believe that greater effort is called for [*942]
during the periods of maximum viewing.
We therefore request that within 60 days of the date of this letter you
submit a statement of your future policies in this area and that, after the
passage of a period of 4 months from the issuance of this letter, you submit a
report on your efforts to implement such policies.
This
letter was adopted by the Commission on March 19, 1969. Commissioner Cox concurred in the adoption
of the letter but would, in addition, have indicated that the licensee should
have maintained approximately the same ratio between cigarette commercials and
antismoking messages in all periods of the broadcast day. Commissioner
Johnson dissents, with
statement. Commissioner
Wadsworth dissented.
BY
DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON
On October
2, 1968, the Commission received a complaint that WNEW-TV,
Analysis
of the Metromedia figures revealed that no antismoking announcements were broadcast
by WNEW-TV during prime-time hours on 19 of the 30 days in September, and that
during these hours 63 procigarette commercials were broadcast. During a 7-day consecutive period within
this month of September, no antismoking announcements were broadcast at all,
while 27 procigarette commercials were programmed. In other words, during 1 entire week of September, the ratio of
procigarette commercials to antismoking announcements in prime-time was 27 to
0; and during 19 days of September -- over one-half of the entire month -- this
ratio was 63 to 0.
Despite
this abysmal lack of compliance with Commission policies, WNEW-TV is today
given only a mild reproach by the majority.
I dissent.
I have
detailed my objections to the majority's rather cavalier treatment of its
fairness doctrine with respect to procigarette commercials elsewhere, and will
not repeat them here. (See dissenting
opinions in, "In the Matter of Petition To Revoke the License of National
Broadcasting Company, Inc., for Station WNBC-TV, New York, New York," FCC
69-270 (1969), and "In re Application of Westinghouse Broadcasting * *
*," F.C.C. 69-262 (1969).) The issues raised there are equally relevant
here, and I simply do not understand why the Commission continually refuses to
deal with them.