In Re DISSENT TO COMMISSION ACTION OF NOVEMBER 24,
1971,
NOTING STAFF REPORT ON
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
32 F.C.C.2d 920
DECEMBER 15, 1971
DISSENTBY:
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS HOHNSON
For months the Commission has continued to consider the possibility of revamping renewal procedures for commercial television stations. Meanwhile, it continues its old policies of non-action.
Today the Commission notes the staff
report on the disposition of 221 AM and 45 TV stations in
Eight of the 221 AM stations, and eight of the 45 TV stations, propose less than 5% news; eight AM stations and one TV station propose less than 1% public affairs; 40 AM stations and one TV station propose less than 5% public affairs and other non-entertainment programming. I would not cavalierly approve renewal application for such stations without further inquiry.
By chance we received a report on
some stations comparing what the station promised by way of news three years
ago and what in fact the station performed, as measured by the composite week
used to report the Commission:
|
|
Promised percent News in past application |
|
|
|
Actually performed |
|
||
|
AM |
|
|
|
|
KIBE -- |
2.0 |
0.1 |
|
|
KPPC -- |
1.6 |
0.3 |
|
|
KDEO -- |
10.0 |
8.5 |
|
|
KCVR -- |
4.7 |
2.1 |
|
|
IKVIP -- |
15.0 |
3.6 |
|
|
TV |
|
|
|
|
KTXL -- |
4.4 |
0.0 |
|
|
KCST -- |
11.5 |
7.2 |
|
|
KJTV -- |
4.0 |
3.3 |
|
"Promise versus performance" used to be the Commission's benchmark -- even when it refused to create substantive standards. Now, it appears, even significant variations from past promises are not sufficient to cause any particular Commission concern.
One of the most important aspects of the theory of Commission renewal that has not been fully developed is the need to link station resources with station performance. This problem was raised by the standards for renewal suggested in a recent case, Citizens Communication Center v. FCC, F.2d , 22 P&F Radio Reg. 2d 2001 (D.C. Cir. 1971), in which reinvestment of profit was suggested as a standard of merit.
As part of this opinion, I have done some analysis of the financial data of 27 television stations (unidentified) for two consecutive years (unidentified), all selected at random. The data is, of course, incomplete, since the sample is small and runs for only two years. For those two years I have computed the ratios of (1) programming expenses to total broadcast expenses; (2) programming expense to revenue; (3) income before taxes to revenue; and (4) programming expense to income before taxes.
There is much in the data that is interesting. First there is great variability -- a good reason to make the data available to community groups so they can better gauge what their actions regard particular stations should be. Secondly, stations A, B, D, G, M, V, Y, and Z merit special attention. Here more resources go into income before taxes than is spent on programming. Aren't such stations worth further inquiry? Doesn't such data contribute to a fair evaluation of a station's excuse that it can't do better in programming because it would cost too much? To me, it is hard to justify the failure to release such data when its use is almost essential if the renewal process is to other than a charade. Fairness to broadcaster and citizens' groups alike demands it.
In any event, I continue to object
to the Commission's routine renewal process during the "temporary
period" while we work out standards -- a period that has now run for
years, and has given the imprimatur of FCC findings of high "public
interest" service to roughly 2500 stations every year.
|
|
PE; E |
PE; R |
I; R |
PE; I |
||||
|
Station |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 1 |
Year 2 |
Year 1 |
Year2 |
|
A |
43.7 |
34.4 |
31.7 |
23.4 |
27.6 |
31.7 |
114.9 |
74.0 |
|
B |
32.7 |
35.3 |
24.4 |
26.4 |
25.5 |
25.2 |
95.4 |
104.4 |
|
C |
45.9 |
45.1 |
86.5 |
73.1 |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
|
D |
51.1 |
51.4 |
25.3 |
24.3 |
50.5 |
52.7 |
50.0 |
46.0 |
|
E |
38.6 |
33.3 |
29.7 |
30.2 |
22.8 |
9.3 |
130.2 |
325.6 |
|
F |
22.2 |
37.7 |
22.2 |
40.7 |
0.4 |
(*) |
630.7 |
(*) |
|
G |
40.7 |
36.4 |
33.3 |
26.4 |
18.2 |
27.6 |
182.6 |
95.5 |
|
H |
37.8 |
40.0 |
73.8 |
85.4 |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
|
I |
46.2 |
41.1 |
37.7 |
32.7 |
18.5 |
20.4 |
203.3 |
160.1 |
|
J |
40.9 |
36.9 |
36.8 |
33.7 |
10.1 |
8.8 |
365.1 |
385.1 |
|
K |
29.0 |
29.0 |
26.2 |
26.9 |
9.5 |
7.5 |
277.3 |
359.2 |
|
L |
3 4.9 |
32.6 |
27.8 |
26.1 |
20.3 |
20.2 |
136.8 |
129.3 |
|
M |
32.9 |
33.1 |
24.4 |
24.1 |
25.7 |
27.1 |
95.1 |
89.1 |
|
N |
36.7 |
33.9 |
34.1 |
3 9.6 |
7.1 |
(*) |
478.7 |
(*) |
|
O |
23.3 |
23.3 |
25.1 |
25.4 |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
|
P |
13.7 |
28.6 |
12.2 |
25.9 |
11.2 |
9.5 |
108.7 |
271 .6 |
|
Q |
23.0 |
19.7 |
19.2 |
17.5 |
16.3 |
11.5 |
118.0 |
151.5 |
|
R |
0.4 |
6.2 |
0.3 |
4.6 |
7.0 |
24.7 |
4.8 |
18.8 |
|
S |
33.3 |
39.3 |
29.9 |
36.0 |
10.2 |
8.4 |
291.4 |
426.6 |
|
T |
62.4 |
37.9 |
53.2 |
30.8 |
14.6 |
18.9 |
364.2 |
163.0 |
|
U |
29.6 |
27.3 |
41.0 |
37.6 |
(*) |
(*) |
( *) |
(*) |
|
V |
40.3 |
41.2 |
25.6 |
23.8 |
36.5 |
42.3 |
70.1 |
56.2 |
|
W |
32.5 |
33.2 |
24.6 |
25.1 |
24.2 |
24.4 |
101.6 |
102.7 |
|
X |
38.5 |
3 6.8 |
59.8 |
58.2 |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
|
Y |
37.1 |
38.0 |
23.4 |
22.9 |
37.0 |
39.7 |
63.2 |
57.6 |
|
Z |
32.2 |
29.6 |
23.0 |
19.6 |
28.6 |
33.7 |
80.2 |
58.3 |
|
AA |
35.4 |
32.0 |
70.8 |
46.3 |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
(*) |
Note:
PE -- Programming Expense.
E -- Broadcast Expense.
R -- Gross Revenue.
I -- Income Before Taxes.
* -- Indicates loss on income before taxes.