In Re Applications of WOIC, INC. For Renewal of License
of Station WOIC, Columbia, S.C.
Docket No. 19674 File No. BR-1220
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
39 F.C.C.2d 355
RELEASE-NUMBER: FCC 73-106
February 1, 1973 Released
Adopted January 23, 1973
JUDGES:
BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER
HOOKS CONCURRING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT IN WHICH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON JOINS.
OPINION:
[*355] 1. The Commission
has before it for consideration: (1) the above-captioned license renewal
application for Station WOIC, Columbia, South Carolina; (ii) an untimely
petition to deny the aforenoted application; n1 and (iii) various responsive and
related pleadings.
n1 As required, the WOIC renewal application was
filed ninety days prior to the expiration of the preceding license term.
See Rule 1.539(a). Pursuant to Rule 1.580(i), a petition to deny WOIC's
application should have been filed on or before November 1, 1969; however, the
instant petition to deny was not submitted until December 1, 1969. No
adequate explanation for the delay is proffered by petitioner, nor is a waiver
of Rule 1.580(i) requested. See Report and Order (Docket No. 18495), concerning
broadcast license renewal applications, 20 FCC 2d 191, 192-93, 16 RR 2d 1512,
1514 (1969). Accordingly, the instant petition to deny will be dismissed.
Due to the nature of the matters raised, however, we have elected to consider
the petition on its merits as an informal objection filed pursuant to Rule
1.587. See Universal Communications Corp., 27 FCC 2d 1022, 21 RR 2d 359
(1971).
THE PARTIES
2. The instant renewal
application reflects that WOIC, Inc., the licensee of standard broadcast
Station WOIC, is wholly owned by Speidel Broadcasters, Inc., which also
controls the corporate licensees of the following standard broadcast stations:
WTMP, Tampa, Florida; WPAL, Charleston, South Carolina; WYNN, Florence, South
Carolina; WSOK, Savannah, Georgia; and WHIH, Portsmouth, Virginia. Policy
control over all of the above stations, including WOIC, is formulated and
exercised by the Speidel corporation's president and majority stockholder, Joe
Speidel, III. The operational, day-today direction of the stations, which
are principally programmed and oriented to the licensee's concept of black
audience needs, is exercised by local station personnel under the general
supervision of Mr. Speidel and other Speidel corporate officials. In
December 1970, Mr. Speidel became the sole stockholder of Speidel Broadcasters,
Inc.; thereafter, control of these stations' licensee corporations was
transferred, with Commission approval, to Mr. Speidel as an individual.
Beginning in May of 1971, Speidel assigned, with Commission approval, the
licenses [*356] for Stations WTMP, WPAL, WYNN, WSOK and WHIH to new
corporate owners. n2
n2 On
September 5, 1972, the licensee, as required, submitted a renewal application
covering the forthcoming triennial license period (December 1, 1972, through
December 1, 1975) and published and broadcast the prescribed local notice of
this filing. While we could delay consideration of the 1972 renewal
application until petitioner has had an opportunity to examine and comment
thereon, the Commission believes that since a hearing is required in any event
(see paragraphs 12 and 22, infra), the more appropriate procedure is to
designate for hearing both renewal applications and require petitioner to raise
any additional matters with respect to the 1972 application at the
hearing. See Rule 1.229.
3. Petitioner, the Columbia
Citizens Concerned with Improved Broadcasting (Columbia Citizens), is an
association comprised of several local citizens who have joined together for
the purpose of examining and improving the broadcast service to the black
community of Columbia, South Carolina. Many of the twelve identified
members of Columbia Citizens are also officers or directors of a number of
national and state-wide organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union
of South Carolina, the South Carolina Council on Human Relations, Inc., and the
American Friends Service Committee, which allegedly join petitioner in its
request to deny the WOIC renewal application. In the same vein,
affidavits, expressing general support of petitioner's allegations, have been
submitted from nineteen leaders of Columbia's black community, who "join
themselves as parties to the Petition to Deny".
THE PETITION TO DENY
4. Columbia Citizens
predicates its request to deny the WOIC renewal application upon the station's
alleged insensitivity to the needs and aspirations of blacks, its failure to
inform, educate or serve as a means of self-expression for Columbia's black
community, and its economic exploitation of that community. Specifically,
petitioner contends that the licensee discriminates against blacks in its
employment practices; that Station WOIC has made no serious effort to ascertain
the needs of the community's black residents; and that the station's program
service, which is highly commercialized, is unresponsive to the needs of blacks
and other groups in the WOIC service area and varies in significant respects
from the programming proposal set forth by the licensee in its 1966 renewal
application. The petitioner further submits that the licensee has
attempted to conceal its discriminatory practices and its deficient program
service through the use of misleading and inaccurate job descriptions and
program classifications. In the same vein. Columbia Citizens challenges
Speidel's character qualifications, alleging improper conduct in the operation
of his Tampa, Forida station, WTMP. n3
n3 The
Station WTMP matter was set forth by petitioner in a February, 1971 supplement
to its petition to deny. The licensee urges the rejection of the motion
for leave to supplement and the tendered supplement, arguing that the
allegations are both untimely raised and irrelevant to a resolution of the WOIC
renewal application. Since the matter relates to the character
qualifications of the licensee's majority stockholder (Speidel now holds an
83.3% stock interest), the Commission will grant the late-filed motion and
consider the Columbia Citizens petition as supplemented. See Western
North Carolina Broadcasters, Inc., 8 FCC 2d 126, 10 RR 2d 78 (1967).
DISCRIMINATION
5. According to Columbia
Citizens, all of the employees of Station WOIC who exercise actual control of
station policy and operation are [*357] white, whereas blacks, who
comprise a majority of the station's personnel, are neither permitted to
participate in significant policy or programming decisions nor promoted to
policy-making positions. Petitioner contends that the station's program
director, Charles Derrick, a black, has no influence or control over
programming policy; that another black employee, Paris Eley, who the licensee
describes in its renewal application as a part-time news director and
announcer, does not have the title of news director and has been refused
permission to cover news events on behalf of the station; and that Reverend
William Bowman, who reportedly also devotes time to the station's news
operation, has, in fact, no news responsibilities. n4 Columbia Citizens also alleges that
whenever policy-making positions become available, whites with inferior qualifications
are hired to fill such vacancies. It is petitioner's contention that the
foregoing discriminatory practices are not limited to the WOIC operation, but
rather are common to all of the Speidel-owned stations.
n4 No affidavits in support of Columbia Citizens'
allegations have been supplied from these WOIC personnel. Assertedly, the
allegations are based upon statements made by Derrick and Eley in a discussion
with petitioner concerning the operation, practices and policies of Station
WOIC.
6. In its opposition, the
licensee denies any preferential promotion of whites at Station WOIC and
maintains that Station WOIC, as well as the other Speidel stations, operates
under a fair employment policy providing equal opportunities for blacks, both
in initial employment and in advancement. In support thereof, the
licensee points out that the personnel profile for the Speidel stations,
including Station WOIC where black employees outnumber whites 10 to 8, reflects
the employment of 53 blacks and only 36 whites. n5 As an example of the opportunities
for blacks to achieve executive positions at the Speidel stations, the licensee
notes that each of the program directors of these six stations is black and
that blacks hold other responsible positions at Stations WHIH (general
manager), WPAL (station manager), and WTMP (sales manager). With respect
to WOIC's purported use of misleading and inaccurate job descriptions, Joe
Speidel states in an affidavit that all personnel at his stations bear the
responsibilities and duties commensurate with their particular positions.
The WOIC general manager confirms Speidel's statement and specifically avers
that Derrick's duties as the station's program director include: the
responsibility for the quality, acceptability and presentation of commercial
material; the assignment and maintenance of the announcers' work schedules; and
the institution of all new programs, remote broadcasts and special sports
programs. According to Brannon, the WOIC program director also consults
with the station's general manager and public affairs director concerning
program format changes and new program material. Derrick, by affidavit,
attests to the foregoing description of his duties at Station WOIC. With
respect to Eley's position at the station, Brannon submits that he personally
assigned Eley the responsibilities of the station's news director on a
part-time basis [*358] and requested him "to stay on top of
local news events"; that Eley received a salary increase at that time; and
that Eley's announcing duties prevented his full-time devotion to news
gathering. According to Brannon, Eley is encouraged to cover news stories
on his own initiative and, only on one occasion, was Eley requested by station
management not to cover a particular news event. n6 Finally, Brannon describes Reverend
Bowman's responsibilities to include the gathering of news pertaining to church
activities and to items of a general religious nature for presentation by
Station WOIC. Again, the WOIC employee, by affidavit, confirms the
licensee's description of his station activities.
n5 In an affidavit tendered with the licensee's
opposition pleading, Station WOIC's general manager, R. H. Brannon, avers that
it is his practice to give first priority to black applicants whenever the
hiring of a new employee is being considered. The affiant further states
that all of the five employees, who have been added to the WOIC staff during
the preceding three years, are black.
n6 That
news event concerned a strike of hospital workers in Charleston, South
Carolina, which is located approximately 120 miles from Columbia. Brannon
informed Eley that the event could be more fully and economically covered by
Station WPAL which would thereupon provide that coverage to Station WOIC.
In his affidavit, Eley acknowledges his misunderstanding concerning his news
title and confirms the accuracy of Brannon's description of his station
responsibilities and the Charleston hospital strike incident. The affiant
further avers that "I use my discretion as to what local news to cover and
subject only to my other duties on the air and transportation, I do cover a lot
of local material".
7. In reply, Columbia Citizens
submits that its claim of discrimination against blacks is based upon a
document which was sent to the Richland County Citizens Committee, Inc., by
Derrick and Eley, who therein alleged the absence of blacks in policy-making
positions at the Speidel stations and called for the establishment of a
conscientious black news department and a separate black public relations
department, headed by a black, to serve as liaison between Station WOIC and
Columbia's black community. These employees also opined that several WOIC
programs (i.e., "Kaleidescope" and "Definition") were not
relevant to the needs of the black community and that the station's criterion
for hiring black salesmen (i.e., a college degree with prior experience in the
field) was unrealistic. Notwithstanding the licensee's description of its
employees' responsibilities, petitioner posits that Derrick has little or no
authority for planning or initiating programming; that consultation with
Derrick concerning program matter is a mere formality before the station's
general manager of public affairs acts in this regard; and that the public
affairs director would be required to report to Derrick, rather than the
reverse, if he was truly the station's program director. Citing Derrick's
opinion of the Kaleidoscope and Definition programs, Columbia Citizens asserts
that Derrick's programming recommendations are ignored at Station WOIC.
In petitioner's view, Brannon's unawareness of the fact that his instructions
were misunderstood by Eley and "were not in fact being carried out",
reflects a lack of intimacy between the parties and casts doubt upon Eley's
real authority over news. According to Columbia Citizens, Reverend Bowman
does not present news "in the sense of objective reporting of
events".
8. The Commission does not
believe that a substantial and material question of fact has been raised with
respect to the licensee's employment practices. Petitioner's claim that
whites with inferior qualifications are preferred over better qualified blacks
is completely unsubstantiated. No facts or examples of any person
allegedly discriminated against because of race is supplied by Columbia
Citizens, and the Commission notes the significant absence of any complaints of
discriminatory [*359] conduct from station personnel, former
employees, or job applicants. While some WOIC employees may disagree with
the criterion used by the station to select its sales personnel, there is no
indication that a different standard is employed with respect to prospective
white salesmen or that the criterion used constitutes an artificial barrier to
black employment. Moreover, the station's hiring pattern and employment
profile belie a suggestion that blacks are confined to menial pursuits or are
otherwise denied equal employment opportunities. The same is true with
respect to the other Speidel stations. In short, petitioner's allegations
lack the required specificity which would warrant exploration of the licensee's
employment practices in an evidentiary hearing. See Time-Life Broadcast,
Inc., 33 FCC 2d 1050, 1059, 23 RR 2d 1165, 1176 (1972). In the same vein, petitioner's
assertions that several WOIC employees do not exercise the responsibilities
suggested by their job descriptions or titles are not only unsupported by
factual evidence, but also refuted by the sworn statements of station officials
which, in turn, are corroborated by the employees in question. In this
regard, we note that the licensee is not required to bestow program autonomy
upon its program director and that no curtailment of Eley's news-gathering
activities on behalf of the station apparently resulted from the
misunderstanding surrounding his job classification. See note 6,
supra. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the
licensee did not misrepresent the responsibilities and functions of its program
director and its principal news-gathering personnel.
ASCERTAINMENT OF COMMUNITY NEEDS
9. In support of its
contention that the licensee has inadequately surveyed the needs of Columbia's
black community, Columbia Citizens principally argues that blacks comprise
approximately 42% of the population served by Station WOIC; that of the 58
representatives of the area's business community who were consulted by means of
a mailed questionnaire, only seven are blacks; that several of the 58
representatives are advertisers of Station WOIC; and that blacks comprise about
one-half of the 13 area residents who were considered by virtue of their
multiple affiliations to be especially qualified to speak on community needs
and who were personally interviewed by the licensee. Columbia Citizens
also submits that the narrative description of community needs set forth by the
licensee in the subject renewal application appears to be based largely upon a
report entitled "Opportunity and Growth in South Carolina 1968-1985"
which allegedly gives little attention to the black community's particular
needs, tastes, and desires as understood by black leaders. In the same
vein, petitioner charges that neither the WOIC public affairs director, who it
believes is in charge of ascertaining Columbia's needs and interests on behalf
of the licensee, nor any other white policy-making personnel of the licensee
has any substantial involvement with blacks or their activities. In
petitioner's view, the licensee has not sampled an appropriately broad spectrum
of community opinion for a municipality the size of Columbia. n7 Columbia Citizens further contends
that two of [*360] the 13 listed community spokesmen deny having
been personally interviewed by any representative of Station WOIC.
n7 Allegedly, the population of Columbia totaled
133,500 persons in 1969.
10. With respect to the
alleged inadequacy of its ascertainment of community needs, the licensee argues
that Columbia Citizens has disregarded the continuing relationship, which the
station's personnel maintains with the community and its organizations and
which provides the licensee with must useful information concerning the
community's needs and interests. As evidence of the civic involvement of
station personnel, the licensee points to Exhibit 1A of the subject renewal
application which sets forth approximately 28 area organizations, 14 of which
are reported to be primarily concerned with needs and interests of Columbia's
black community. n8 The licensee also maintains that its community ascertainment efforts were
not limited to the 58 questionnaire responses and the 13 personal interviews
challenged by petitioner. Rather, discussions were conducted with station
personnel, a majority of whom are black, and additional questionnaires were
distributed to WOIC personnel who were to use them in interviewing as many
Columbia citizens as possible during their daily station activities.
According to the licensee, the community needs and interests delineated in its
Exhibit 1B were elicited from the foregoing AUXILIARY -- 2:05-2:50 P.M. -- and
telephone interviews which were also conducted by the station's general manager
and public affairs director. With respect to the two community leaders
who allegedly were not personally interviewed, the WOIC public affairs director
explains that the questionnaire was used as a guide for the personal
consultations; that the individuals, both of whom are members of the Columbia
Citizens association, visited the station and were queried by her with respect
to the survey; and that these leaders, instead of responding to the
questionnaire at that time, left with copies of the questionnaire which they
subsequently completed and returned to the station. Since station
personnel had spoken directly with these leaders, they were included in the
listing of personal interviews. n9
n8 The
licensee notes that Miss Cynthia Gilliam, its public affairs director, is and
has long been substantially involved in public service activities of deep
concern to Columbia's black residents and that the submitted portfolio of her
associations and accomplishments covers many areas. In addition, Miss
Gilliam, by affidavit, denies that she is in charge of the licensee's community
ascertainment efforts. The affiant further states that she does not have
the authority to make the actual determinations regarding programming and
program policy at Station WOIC -- that authority is the province of the
station's general manager under the policy direction of the licensee's owners.
n9 In its
reply, Columbia Citizens renews its argument that the licensee has contacted
only a handful of blacks, despite the substantial number of blacks residing in
its service area, and that WOIC's survey efforts, individual or collectively,
do not comport with the located in Greensburg, serves all parishes in its
proposed Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants,
20 FCC 2d 880 (1969), or established in the Commission's pronouncements and
caselaw since Minshall Broadcasting Company, Inc., 11 FCC 2d 796, 12 RR 2d 502
(1968).
11. The licensee's
ascertainment surveys were conducted and the subject renewal application was
filed with the Commission prior to the promulgation of the proposed Primer,
which was intended to clarify and provide guidelines for the ascertainment of community
problems. On February 23, 1971, the Commission released its Report and
Order adopting the Primer. See 27 FCC 2d 650, 21 RR 2d 1507. Among other
things, the Primer requires that broadcast applicants, including licensees
seeking renewal of their authorizations, consult with a representative
cross-section of community leaders and members of the general public in the
area to be served and design programming responsive [*361] to those
ascertained community problems as evaluated. Since the Primer contemplates
a person-to-person dialogue between the applicant and the persons representing
the significant groups that comprise the community, only principals or
management-level employees of the applicant can conduct the required personal
interviews, whereas greater latitude is afforded an applicant in its
consultations with members of the general public, provided that these
interviews are generally distributed throughout the station's service
area. Measured against these standards the licensee's ascertainment
surveys are clearly inadequate. Nor do they fare better when tested by
the standards in effect at the time the WOIC renewal application was filed.
12. In our August 22, 1968
Public Notice entitled "Ascertainment of Community Needs by Broadcast Applicants,"
FCC 68-847, 33 Fed. Reg. 12113, 13 RR 2d 1903, we stated that applicants should
supply "full information" on the steps taken to become informed of
the real community needs and interests of the area to be served and that the
range of group leaders consulted should be representative of the various
community elements -- "public officials, educators, religious, the
entertainment media, agriculture, business, labor, professional and
eleemosynary organizations and others who bespeak the interests which make up
the community." A necessary part of the ascertainment process is also the
surveying of the general listening public who will receive the station's
signals. See Report and Statement of Policy Re: Commission En Banc
Programming Inquiry, FCC 60-970, 25 Fed. Reg. 7291, 20 RR 2d 1901, 1915. The
licensee identified contacts with representatives of Columbia's business
community and with 13 area leaders; however, the Commission is not persuaded
that these contacts, standing along, represent a fair, cross-sectional sampling
of the groups, leaders and citizens that comprise the community of
Columbia. See Santa Fe Television, Inc., 18 FCC 2d 741, 16 RR 2d 934
(1969). While the licensee argues that these formal survey consultations should
be viewed in conjunction with the continuing participation of Station WOIC and
its personnel in the affairs and activities of the Columbia community, the
latter efforts are not sufficiently detailed to show a meaningful investigation
of the community's needs by the method n10 and to support the required conclusion that the
licensee, through its various ascertainment efforts, has acquired a reasonable
knowledge of its community's needs and has designed its program proposal in
response thereto. See United Television Company, Inc. (WFAN-TV), 18 FCC
2d 363, 16 RR 2d 621 (1969); Vernon Broadcasting Company, 12 FCC 2d 946, 13 RR
2d 245 (1968). Therefore, the Commission concludes that an evidentiary inquiry
is warranted so that the licensee can fully demonstrate its efforts to ascertain
the community needs and interests of the areas served by Station WOIC and the
means by which it proposed to meet those needs and interests. n11 See WPIX, Inc. [*362]
(WPIX), 20 FCC 2d 298, 17 RR 2d 782 (1969); United Television Company, Inc.
(WFAN-TV), supra. We do not believe, however, that a misrepresentation issue
concerning the licensee's survey contacts is warranted. The WOIC public
affairs director's explanation concerning the listing of the two Columbia
Citizens members with the other community leaders with whom the licensee had
directly spoken, is not contradicted and demonstrates a reasonable predicate
for the licensee's action. Contrary to petitioner's opinion, this matter
does not adversely reflect upon the licensee's requisite qualifications.
See RKO-General, Inc., 33 FCC 2d 664, 23 RR 2d 930 (1972).
n10 Similarly, the survey, efforts of these
employees, as well as the personal interviews conducted by the station's
management-level personnel, suffer from a lack of specificity. See Southern
Minnesota Supply Co. (KYSM), 12 FCC 2d 66 (1968).
n11 In
this regard, the licensee will be permitted to demonstrate its ongoing efforts
to remain conversant with and attentive to the community's problems throughout
the period when the original renewal application was in deferred status.
Cf. Chuck Stone v. FCC, D.C. Cir. Case No. 71-1166, decided June 30, 1972, 24
RR 2d 2105, rehearing denied September 1, 1972, 25 RR 2d 2001; WKBN
Broadcasting Corp., 30 FCC 2d 958, 974, 22 RR 2d 609, 625-26 (1971),
reconsideration denied FCC 72-1002, released November 15, 1972.
PROGRAM SERVICE
13. Generally, Columbia
Citizens submits that Station WOIC primarily caters to the culture, the habits
and the stereotypes of the segregated past by presenting a steady diet of soul
and gospel music and makes no countervailing effort to contribute to the
Communication of liberating information, education and ideals. n12 Columbia Citizens acknowledges
that, upon request, station time is made available to organizations such as the
Urban League and NAACP., however, the petitioner charges that the licensee
neither participates in any significant manner in the planning and preparation
of these presentations nor develops programming addressed to community needs
with its station personnel. It is the station's policy, opines
petitioner, to run a low-cost operation by presenting a few discussion programs
produced by others without cost to it and a "rip-and-read" news
operation that provides very little local news and almost no local news of
particular concern to Columbia's black population. n13 The petitioner further contends
that the station does not, as claimed, devote 65% to 70% of its newscasts to
local and regional events; that the description of a number of the programs set
forth in the station's program schedules are misleading; and that only three of
the fourteen public service type programs promised in Station WOIC's 1966
renewal application were presented during the composite week.
n12 In Exhibit 1C of the 1969 renewal application,
the licensee detailed several of the ascertained community problems and the
public affairs programs it proposes to broadcast during its next license term
to meet those problems. No specific allegations are directed by
petitioner to the community responsiveness of the programming material set
forth in this exhibit which, in any event, will be explored under the specified
Suburban issue. Accordingly, we will herein consider petitioner's
allegations in the context of the programming which Station WOIC presented from
1966 to 1969.
n13 In
support of the latter allegation, petitioner submits an affidavit from several
of its members who, as leaders of black community organizations, have regular
occasion to request station coverage of events and issues of alleged importance
and concern to Columbia's black community. The affiants state that they
have repeatedly been informed by station personnel that no news reporters are
available and that the news items should be given to the announcer on duty at
the studio. It is the affiants' belief that Station WOIC does not
maintain a news department and has no news reporters.
14. The licensee denies that
its programming is unresponsive to the needs of its community as a whole or to
Columbia's sizable black citizenry and, in support thereof, the licensee points
to a number of typical programs broadcast during the last year of its past
license term, such as: [*363]
|
"Memorandum" |
The
official 15-minute, weekly program of the Columbia Urban League.
Approximately 85% of the programs utilize a discussion format hosted by the
League's executive director and, aside from programs and projects of the
organization, are devoted to disseminating information regarding housing,
employment opportunities, voter registration and educational projects. n14 |
|
|
"Definition" |
This is a
discussion program composed of a panel of area high school youth and a
professional moderator. The program is presented on a weekly basis during
a 15-minute time segment and presents comments from students of different
sex, race, religion and economic background n15 |
|
|
"Employment
Guidance Center Program" (formerly, "Good Advice"). |
|
|
|
This program
has been presented for three years and is now broadcast for a 30-minute
period on Saturday mornings. The program, moderated by an employment
counselor from the organization, consists of interviews and discussions with
prominent area businessmen, industrialists and professional regarding their
firms' educational requirements for employment. Information concerning
the different types of employment available in the area and the salary range,
fringe benefits and similar areas of interest to a prospective employee is
also aired during this program. |
|
|
|
"Palmetto
Profiles" (formerly "Columbia Closeup"). |
|
|
|
A
15-minute, weekly interview-discussion program featuring the executive
director of a Planned Parenthood organization for Richland and Lexington
Counties. Participants on this program include doctors, lawyers,
judges, OEO officials and other community leaders concerned with improving
the health and welfare of the area's residents. |
|
|
|
"Homemaker
Program." |
|
|
|
This is a
series of five, 5-minute programs presented weekly in cooperation with the
Home Economics Division of the South Carolina Department of Education.
Programs in this series provides basic information on such topics as
pre-natal care, obtaining the most dollar and food value from food stamps and
insurance values. |
|
|
|
"Senior
Citizens Program." |
|
|
|
A
15-minute, weekly program featuring the coordinator of the Foster
Grandparent's Project located at Pineland, a state training school and
hospital. The program is designed to disseminate information of value
to the area's senior citizens and guests have included physicians
specializing in geriatrics and representatives of the local Social Security
Office and the state employment service. |
|
n14 A
similar program, "Swing into Action," which is also presented under
the aegis of the Urban League, dealt with black economic development.
Other weekly programs devoted to apprising blacks of the service rendered by
Columbia's legal aid agency ("Your Neighborhood Lawyer") and to
explaining the municipal, county, state and national governmental structure,
the electoral college and the proper use of voting machines (Voter Education
Project -- "V.E.P. Report") have also been aired by Station WOIC.
n15 According
to the WOIC general manager, the format of this program is subject to
modification. Due to difficulties encountered in arranging an appropriate
student panel on a regular basis during the school year, it is sometimes
necessary for the program moderator to present music accompanied by a narrative
description.
The licensee's past programming has also included a special
30-minute, panel discussion program on juvenile crime with a judge and the
chief correctional officer for the Richland County Family Court, a police
captain, and the public relations director fot the Richland County Citizens
Committee; and a weekly, 30-minute program that was aired for a three-month
period in 1969 and that dealt with equal [*364] job opportunities.
On a seasonal basis, Station WOIC has also presented a program, consisting of
news, discussions and interviews by students and faculty members of South
Carolina State College, and a program containing advice on filling out federal
tax forms and other pertinent information relating to the requirements and
services of the Internal Revenue Service. n16
n16 In
addition, the station's public affairs director identifies those members of the
Columbia Citizens Association, who have utilized the broadcast facilities of
Station WOIC on behalf of their other organizations and who have been guest
participants on such public affairs programs as "Palmetto Profiles"
and "Employment Guidance Center".
15. Turning to petitioner's more
specific allegations, the licensee contends that only two of the fourteen
specifically mentioned programs which it planned to present during its
1966-1969 license term were not undertaken during that period, namely, a series
on good citizenship and a series dealing with releases from various
governmental agencies and public service institutions. n17 The licensee further maintains that
six of the promised programs were presented under the same or different titles
during the composite week and that another program was pre-empted by a special
local program on the date selected by the Commission. According to the
licensee, the remaining programs or substitutes of similar service
characteristics were aired during the license term. With respect to the
allegations addressed to its news operation, the licensee states that, as in
the case of many stations of its size, it does not maintain a full-time news
department. Rather, it principally relies upon the news-gathering
activities of Eley and Reverend Bowman (see para. 6, supra), whose efforts are
complemented by the remaining station members and announcers who, as part of
their regular duties, are also alert to newsworthy happenings in the community
and are available to cover local news events, if necessary. In this
manner, station personnel covered a school problem in Lexington, South
Carolina, a disturbance on the campus of South Carolina State College, and a
highway controversy in Columbia. The station also receives many requests
from various community groups for coverage of future events and activities and,
in its general manager's opinion, the station does its best to provide the
requested news coverage and at the same time, afford airtime to all of
Columbia's community groups with particular emphasis to those dealing with the
community's black citizens. Regarding its estimate of the amount of
airtime to be devoted to local and regional news events, the licensee submits
that 42% of the news broadcast during the composite week was clearly related to
local events n18
and that the inclusion of the local news, which was incorporated within the
station's other newscasts, would bring Station WOIC's local news coverage up to
at least 65% during that selected period.
n17
Reportedly, the subject matter of these projected series was elsewhere tested
in the station's program service.
n18 This
figure was calculated by adding the broadcast time of the programs that dealt
with news of a predominately local nature, such as, church and civic news,
funeral announcements, and meetings, to the aggregate broadcast time of the
newscasts entitled "South Carolina News Roundup."
16. In its reply pleading,
Columbia Citizens reiterates its objections to Station WOIC's program service
and submits, for the first time, that repeated logging irregularities have made
it impossible to determine [*365] the public affairs programs the
licensee actually presented during the composite week. Columbia Citizens
points out that on four of the five weekdays during the 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. time
period, the licensee scheduled multiple public affairs programs at the same
time without indicating which, if either program, was presented. Columbia
Citizens further submits that several programs, not presented in cooperation
with a bona fide educational institution, are inaccurately listed on the logs
as educational programs, and that a U.S. Army recruiting program and a National
Guard program are wrongfully classified as public affairs programs. n19 It is also revealed for the first
time in this pleading, that petitioner monitored Station WOIC's programming for
a full week in November of 1969. For a variety of reasons, however, only
one day's monitoring, that of November 21, 1969, provides the basis for
petitioner's allegations that the news broadcast by Station WOIC amounted to
4.2% of its total airtime, rather than 8.7% as claimed in the licensee's
composite week analysis and that local and regional news only amounted to 45.3%
of the news broadcast by Station WOIC, exclusive of weather forecasts and temperature
checks. n20
Finally, Columbia Citizens argues that Station WOIC neither broadcasts nor has
the capacity to present any local news of a type which would require an
affirmative effort on the part of the station's staff. In support
thereof, petitioner submits the affidavits of two of its members, Dewey
Duckett, Jr., and Isaac W. Williams, who stated therein that Station WOIC does
not cover or report upon events of interest to the black community, such as the
regular public meetings of the governing board of directors of the
Lexington-Richland Economic Opportunity Agency, the Columbia City Council, and
the Richland County school board; that Mr. Williams, as field director for the
South Carolina NAACP, was not interviewed by the station concerning his
organization's opposition to the Judge Haynesworth nomination to the U.S.
Supreme Court and its reaction to the Senate's disapproval of the appointment;
and that news affecting Columbia's black residents is often not covered by
Station WOIC because of its lack of news staff. n21 On the basis of its monitoring,
Columbia Citizens also faults Station WOIC for not reporting the visit of Brig.
Gen. F. Davison, one of the Army's highest ranking black officers, to nearby
Fort Jackson and for not promptly reporting the Senate's rejection of the Judge
Haynesworth appointment.
n19 It is
also suggested by virtue of the station's request for a listing of the
participants on the Employment Guidance Center's program (see para. 14, supra)
that the licensee has little or no control over the content of Station WOIC's
public affairs programs. Such inference is not warranted, and since
petitioner cites no specific Instance where the licensee has been remiss in
this regard, this unsupported accusation will not be considered further.
n20 In petitioner's opinion, reliance cannot be
placed upon the sample program logs in analyzing the station's newscasts since
the monitoring disclosed that the hourly and half hourly news headline programs
are not always one minute in duration as scheduled and since the content of the
station's news programs (i.e., local, regional, and national) is not depicted
on the logs. Based upon its analysis of the sample logs, Columbia
Citizens further submits that the amount of broadcast time devoted to news fell
short of the 10 hours and 15 minutes proposed in the station's 1966 renewal
application.
n21 Also
tendered with petitioner's reply pleading is an affidavit from "a regular
listener of WOIC" who cites the station for its failure to inform listeners
of programs of vital concern to the poor, such as social security, welfare
benefits and rights, and housing.
[*366] 17. As the
Commission has pointed out on numerous occasions, the decision as to the choice
of a station's entertainment format is in the sound discretion of the
licensee. E.g., KNOK Broadcasting, Inc., 29 FCC 2d 47, 21 RR 2d 960
(1971). Here, as admitted by Columbia Citizens, the entertainment format
selected by Station WOIC does have wide support among Columbia's black
residents, and we are not convinced that the Commission should interfere and
require the licensee to replace its present entertainment format. See
Interstate Broadcasting Company, Inc., 35 FCC 2d 737, 24 RR 2d 874 (1972). Nor
are we persuaded by petitioner's general allegations that the station's
informational programming is insensitive to the community's needs. See
Black Identity Education Association, FCC 72-378, 21 RR 2d 746. On the
contrary, an examination of the illustrative public affairs programs listed in
the WOIC renewal application discloses programs clearly addressed to community
problems, including several programs specifically attentive to the needs and
interests of Columbia's black citizenry. See paragraph 14, supra.
Programs dealing with black problems in the areas of civil rights, housing,
employment opportunities, social welfare, civics and economic development have
apparently been broadcast by Station WOIC. n22 That petitioner, and even some
station employees, might regard certain individual programs as irrelevant to
the interests of the black community does not raise an issue justifying our
intrusion in this area. See WKBN Broadcasting Corp., supra, 30 FCC 2d at
969-71, 22 RR 2d at 621-22. To belittle the station's public affairs
programming on the basis of the licensee's expenditures for these programs is
not warranted, especially where, as here, that programming as a whole appears
responsive to the community's needs and interests. Moreover, the
Commission does not consider the relationship between revenues and program
expeditures as a factor in evaluating the adequacy of a licensee's public
affairs programming, albeit a request to that effect is contained in a current
rule making petition (RM-1837). To apply any new standards in this regard
on a case-by-case basis, without first subjecting them to the comprehensive
consideration inherent in the rule making process, [*367] is not
appropriate. See Aliaza Federal de Pueblos Libres, 31 FCC 2d 557, 22 RR
2d 860 (1971).
n22 Two 14-minute programs listed on the program
logs for the composite week were misclassified by the licensee. The
obviousness of the error and the fact that the misclassifications did not
appreciably enhance the amount of broadcast time devoted to public affairs
programming negate an inference that these errors were designed to deceive the
Commission. See Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 31 FCC 2d 1090, 1104-05,
22 RR 2d 1069, 1086 (1971). As noted by Columbia Citizens, the licensee was
remiss in listing the actual starting time of the programs on its pre-typed
logs and in making appropriate corrections and notations as required by Rule
73.112. These shortcomings, however, do not raise a substantial question
requiring exploration in a hearing. For the most part, the public affairs
programs set forth in the 1966 renewal application were undertaken by the
licensee and, according to the sworn statement of the station's public affairs
director "WOIC showed [six] of them in its composite week for the 1969
application." This representation is not undermined by the licensee's
failure to note the programs' actual starting times, which Columbia Citizens
initially raised in its reply pleading. Similarly, petitioner's claimed
confusion concerning what programs were aired during the weekday 8:00-8:30 p.m.
time segment can easily be dispelled by reference to Rule 73.112(a(1)(ii),
which states in pertinent part that: "[If] programs are broadcast during
which separately identifiable program units of a different type or source are
presented, and if the licensee wishes to count such units separately, the
beginning and ending time for the longer program need be entered only once for
the entire program. The program units which the licensee wishes to count
separately shall then be entered underneath the entry for a longer program,
with the beginning and ending of each such unit, and with the entry indented or
otherwise distinguished so as to make it clear that the program unit referred
to was broadcast within the longer program."
18. Petitioner's principal
objection to the news service of Station WOIC appears to be that the station
has no full-time news department or reporters. Initially, we must note
that our concern in this regard "is only that the station show that it has
employed sufficient personnel to assure the presentation of an amount of local,
national and inter-national news which is commensurate with the needs of the
community." See Letter to Mr. Richard A. Beserra, FCC 72-965, 25 RR 2d
777, 780. Here, the licensee has indicated the general manner by which it
becomes acquainted with news happenings of concern to its community and has
cited several instances where its personnel, despite their other station
duties, have been utilized to cover and report on events which the licensee
deemed newsworthy. Petitioner views such coverage as sporadic and without
continuity; however, these objections do not raise a material question
regarding the station's ability to inform its listeners. Columbia
Citizens also urges the Commission to fault the licensee for not immediately
interrupting its programming to report the rejection of Judge Haynesworth's
appointment n23
and for not covering various other news events relevant to Columbia's black
community. A licensee has wide discretion in the area of programming and,
in the absence of extrinsic evidence that the licensee has falsified, distorted
or suppressed news, the Commission will not substitute its judgment for that of
the licensee in determining what news is of prime interest to its listening
audience and the manner in which is should be presented. See Universal
Communications Corp., supra, 27 FCC 2d at 1025-26, 21 RR 2d at 364-65. Again,
we will not interfere with the exercise of the licensee's news judgment where,
as here, there is no showing that the licensee consistently and unreasonably
ignored important matters of public concern Compare Radio Station WSNT, Inc.,
27 FCC 2d 993, 21 RR 2d 405 (1971). Based upon its analysis of Station WOIC's
sample logs, petitioner questions whether the licensee has, in fact, fulfilled
its earlier promises with respect to the amount of airtime allocated to news
programs, particularly local and regional news. We have carefully
examined the program logs covering the composite week and we find that both the
petitioner and the licensee have apparently failed to include in their
calculations the weather reports and temperature announcements which Station
WOIC broadcast during the period in question. See notes 1 and 4 of Rule
73.112. The consideration of this material resolves the claimed
discrepancies relating to the licensee's news broadcasts. n24 In view of the foregoing, the
Commission believes that no hearing issue is appropriate with respect to the
program service presented by Station WOIC during its past license term.
n23
According to petitioner, the result of the Senate's vote was first carried by
the A.P. newswire at 1:08 p.m.; nearly one hour later, Station WOIC reported
this event in its regularly scheduled 2:00 p.m. news program.
n24 By
virtue of a single day's monitoring of Station WOIC, petitioner suggests that
the sample logs inaccurately portray the station's program service and cannot
be relied upon. We disagree. To measure or predict a station's
performance on the basis of a single day of operation is not warranted.
Moreover, licensees are not required to satisfy their projected programming
percentages on a daily or weekly basis. See Tri-Counties Communications,
Inc., 31 FCC 2d 83, 22 RR 2d 678 (1971).
[*368] COMMERCIAL
PRACTICES
19. Columbia Citizens accuses Station WOIC of
devoting an excessive amount of time to commercial announcements and of
exceeding its limitation of 25% commercial matter in any 60-minute segment on
several occasions during the preceding license term. Petitioner further
criticizes the licensee for increasing from 25% to 30% the maximum percentage
of commercial matter in normal hours and for permitting up to 20 minutes (33
1/3%) during two three-hour periods on Thursday, Fridays, and Saturdays and at
all times during election campaigns. The licensee opposes the
specification of an issue in this regard, arguing that the preceding license
renewal application, as amended on December 30, 1966, reflects that 18 minutes
was the maximum amount of commercial matter which it proposed to normally allow
each hour and that the only change in its commercial policy, the substitution
of Wednesday for Saturday as a heavy traffic day, is responsive to present
buying habits in its market and does not represent a substantial variance from
Station WOIC's prior commercial practices.
20. Examination of the subject
renewal application reflects that the licensee exceeded its 18-minute
commercial ceiling in 8 of the 124 hourly segments of the composite week and
that none of the overages exceeded 20 minutes. The licensee specifically
stated that deviations from its normal commercial policy may occur under
certain circumstances. It is not alleged that the eight overages did not
fall within the specific circumstances provided for by the licensee. Nor
has petitioner shown that Station WOIC's commercial policy contravenes our most
recent pronouncements regarding commercial standards. n25 See Chicago Federation of Labor and
Industrial Union Council, FCC 72-1079, released December 8, 1972. No
substantial and material question has been raised concerning the station's
commercial practices and no issue is, therefore, warranted. See Mahony
Valley Broadcasting Corporation, FCC 72-1001, released November 15, 1972.
n25 While recognizing the right of a broadcaster to
exercise his reasonable judgment in terms of his particular situation, the
Commission expressed general approval of a commercial policy which specifies a
normal commercial content of 18 minutes in each hour with stated exceptions permitting
up to 20 minutes per hour during no more than 10% of the station's total weekly
broadcast hours and with a further exception allowing up to 22 minutes where
the excess over 20 minutes is purely political advertising. See Report
No. 8842. released February 13, 1970, concerning the WXCL standards.
THE STATION WTMP MATTER
21. Columbia Citizens filed a
supplement to its petition to deny on February 16, 1971. See note 3,
supra. As part of that submission, the petition attached affidavits from
two representatives of the University of South Florida student government
charged with the responsibility of collecting contributions for the
Disadvantaged Student Loan Fund. The affiants state that in May of 1970
they were personally informed by the Station WTMP general manager that the
money originally collected from "Soul Night", n26 which had been spent, would
[*369] be replaced and that the station would given $525 to their fund by
June 12, 1970. According to the affiants and a former announcer at
Station WTMP, none of the money collected (approximately $1,150) was ever
donated to any scholarship fund, including the affiants' Disadvantaged Student
Loan Fund. It is alleged that the "Soul Night" proceeds were
used to repair damage caused by a fire at the station's offices.
Petitioner also contends that in mid-1968 Station WTMP defrauded one of its
advertisers, James Brown Productions, by airing only $600 worth of the $900 in
spot advertising it purchased and by mis-applying the remaining $300 to the amount
of the advertiser's former manager, George Grogan, against whom the station had
a disputed claim. According to petitioner, the advertiser inquired at
that time concerning the amount of spot announcements presented on its behalf
and was informed by the salesman concerned that $900 worth of advertising was
broadcast. n27
It is further alleged that this salesman, who subsequently became the general
manager at Station WTMP, had earlier been accused by the station's management
of improperly withholding money from his station accounts. Affidavits, in
support of these contentions, are supplied from the station's former program
director-announcer and its former traffic manager. n28
n26 On
July 20, 1968, Station WTMP sponsored this promotion, whose proceeds, after
expenses, were to be directed to "the WTMP Scholarship Fund to be divided
between Hillsborough, Polk, and Pinellas Counties".
n27 In
August, 1970, the advertiser requested an accounting of the money it spent at
Station WTMP in 1968. By letter of August 18, 1970, a copy of which is
submitted by petitioner, the Speidel corporation's comptroller replied that
"we are unable to supply the information you request from the station
records."
n28The remaining allegations, which are based on the
statements made by three former Station WTMP announcers, largely relate to
their terms of employment and rates of compensation while at the station --
matters in which the Commission has declined to interfere, absent a clear
showing that the licensee's dealings with its employees has contravened law or
adversely affected the program service rendered to the public. Here, the
required showing has not proffered. Petitioner's other allegations, which
are again based upon the uncontroverted statements of these former employees, do
not raise a material and substantial question of impropriety on the part of the
station or its management. Significantly, there is no showing that the
actions complained of were unreasonable or impermissible. Compare KSID,
Inc., 22 FCC 2d 833, 18 RR 2d 1187 (1970); and United Television Company, Inc.
(WFAN-TV), supra, 18 FCC 2d at 365-67, 16 RR 2d at 624-28. Further
consideration of the foregoing matters does not appear warranted at this time.
22. The licensee does not
dispute the allegations raised by Columbia Citizens. Rather, it argues
that "[None] of the allegations is relevant to a resolution of the WOIC
renewal application." We disagree. The acts complained of arose in
the operation of a broadcast station, whose corporate licensee was controlled
by WOIC's principal stockholder. n29 It is well established that serious misconduct in
the operation of a broadcast facility reflects upon the basic qualifications of
the licensee and its principals and can be considered in other Commission
proceedings involving those same persons. E.g., Faulkner Radio, Inc., 15 FCC 2d
780, 15 RR 2d 285 (1968); and Walter T. Gaines (WGAV), 25 FCC 1 387, 17 RR 165
(1958), reconsideration denied 26 FCC 460, 17 RR 185 (1959). Mr. Spiedel's
awareness of or involvement in these matters is not apparent from the pleadings
before us; nor can we determine at this time whether Specidel paid insufficient
attention to the operation of Station WTMP or unreasonably delegated his
responsibilities and obligations to other station officials. In any
event, however, the [*370] ultimate responsibility for the alleged
wrongdoing of Station WTMP's officers and employees clearly rests upon the
major principal. See Star Stations of Indiana, Inc., 19 FCC 2d 991, 993,
17 RR 2d 491, 493-94 (1969); Robert D. and Martha M. Rapp, 12 FCC 2d 703, 13 RR
2d 32 (1968). In view of the seriousness of the questions raised n30 and the licensee's virtual
reticence with respect thereto, the Commission is constrained to specify
appropriate issues to resolve those questions at a hearing.
n29 At the
time of the alleged misconduct, the corporate licensee of Station WTMP was
wholly owned by Speidel Broadcasters, Inc., whose 99.45% stockholder was Joe
Speidel, III. According to the licensee, Speidel, who was the president
of the Station WTMP licensee, "is actively engaged in the supervision of
each of [his] stations, and visits several of the stations every month."
See para. 2, supra.
n30 As we
noted in our Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning fraudulent billing
practices, "misrepresentations by licensees in any and all billing
practices... certainly reflects adversely on the qualifications of a licensee
and, to a degree, on the industry as a whole. The public interest,
convenience and necessity clearly require reasonable ethical business practices
in the industry -- specifically on the part of individual broadcasters.
It is within the Commission's authority, and is its responsibility, to take
whatever action is appropriate to check these practices, which essentially
amoung to the use of broadcast facilities for fraudulent purposes." 23 FCC
2d 70, 71, 19 RR 2d 1506, 1508 (1970). Also see Public Notice, FCC 72-1090,
released December 7, 1972. Of similar import is the possible
misappropriation of proceeds from "Soul Night" and the resulting
deception upon the public.
ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
23. In the judgment of the
Commission, substantial and material questions of fact have been raised with
respect to the adequacy of the licensee's efforts to ascertain the community
needs and interests of the areas served by Station WOIC and the means by which
it proposed to meet those needs and interests. The pleadings also raise
serious questions concerning misconduct at a station controlled by the
licensee's major principal. The Commission is, therefore, unable to make
the statutory finding that a grant of the renewal application for Station WOIC
is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and is of
the opinion that the foregoing matters should be explored in an evidentiary
hearing.
24. Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the above captioned license renewal applications, ARE DESIGNATED FOR
HEARING at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the
following issues:
(1) To determine whether standard
broadcast Station WTMP, while under the ownership and control of Joe Speidel,
III, engaged in fraudulent billing practices.
(2) To determine, with respect to
the aforenoted period, the facts and circumstances surrounding the Station WTMP
promotion, "Soul Night", and the use of the proceeds therefrom.
(3) To determine whether, on the
basis of the facts adduced in response to the foregoing issues, Joe Speidel,
III, an officer and principal of the corporate licensees of Stations WTMP and
WOIC, participated in or failed to exercise adequate control or supervision
over the management and operation of Station WTMP and, if so, whether said
actions adversely reflect upon the qualifications of WOIC, Inc., to be a
Commission licensee.
(4) To determine the efforts made by
WOIC, Inc., to ascertain the community needs and interests of the areas served
by Station WOIC and the means by which the licensee proposed to meet those needs
and [*371] interests during the period the 1969 application was in
deferred status (i.e., December 1, 1969 through December 1, 1972). n31
n31 See
note 11, supra.
(5) To determine whether, in light
of all the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, a grant of the
application for renewal of license of Station WOIC would serve the public
interest, convenience and necessity.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
That, the petition to deny and supplement thereto, filed by the Columbia
Citizens Concerned with Improved Broadcasting, IS DISMISSED; and that
considered as an informal objection filed pursuant to Rule 1.587, the
aforementioned petition, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and IS DENIED
in all other respects.
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That,
the motions to expedite consideration of renewal application, filed by WOIC,
Inc., ARE DISMISSED as moot.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
That, the Columbia Citizens Concerned with Improved Broadcasting is made a
party to the hearing ordered herein. n32
n32 Several members of Columbia Citizens are
purportedly acting in a representative capacity; however, their authority to do
so has not been clearly established. Accordingly, we have not named these
organizations as parties to the instant hearing. Compare Radio Station
WSNT, Inc., supra. Similarly, we have declined to accord party status to the 19
community leaders who, in affidavits attached to petitioner's reply pleading,
merely "generally support the allegations made by Petitioners against WOIC
[and] believe them to be true". Under these circumstances, we
believe the future participation of these individuals and organizations in this
hearing should be governed by Rules 1.223 and 1.225.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
That, in accordance with Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence shall be on
the party respondent as to issues (1), (2) and (3). The burden of
proceeding with respect to issue (4) and the burden of proof with respect to
all of the issues herein shall be upon WOIC, Inc.
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
That, to avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard, WOIC, Inc., and the
party respondent, pursuant to Section 1.221(c) of the Commission's Rules, in
person or by attorney, shall, within twenty (20) days of the mailing of this
Order, file with the Commission in triplicate, a written appearance stating an
intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on
the issues specified in the Order.
30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
That, WOIC, Inc., shall, pursuant to Section 311(a)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.594 of the Commission's Rules, give
notice of the hearing within the time and in the manner prescribed in such rules,
and shall advise the Commission of the publication of such notice as required
Section 1.594(g) of the Rules.
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary.
CONCUR:
[*372] CONCURRING
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BENJAMIN L. HOOKS IN WHICH COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS
JOHNSON JOINS
In Re Renewal of WOIC (AM) --
Special Broadcasters, Inc.
Although I concur in the result
reached today by my fellow Commissioners, it is my position that issues should
have been added to the Designation Order, i.e., whether the station had engaged
in discriminatory practices toward the minority community within its service
area and failed to serve them thru its programming; and whether the employees
of the station whose official titles bespoke of the exercise of power,
discretion, and policy making, e.g., program director, news director, etc. were
allowed to enjoy and exercise their duties or whether they were effectively or
constructively enjoined from the exercise thereof by direction of the principals
of the licensee.
However, it is my understanding that
such issues may be brought up at the hearing as corollary matters to the
"ascertainment" issue, contained in the Designation Order, and I
trust that these issues will be developed at the hearing.