In Re Disposition of APRIL 1, 1973, BROADCAST RENEWAL
APPLICATIONS FOR ALABAMA AND GEORGIA
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
41 F.C.C.2d 235
JUDGES:
DISSENTING OPINION
OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON ON GEORGIA-ALABAMA RENEWALS
CONCURRING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
BENJAMIN L. HOOKS ON ALABAMA-GEORGIA BROADCAST RENEWALS
OPINION:
[*235] On March 29,
1973, the Commission noted actions to be taken by the staff under delegated
authority in connection with disposition of April 1, 1973 broadcast renewal
applications for Georgia and Alabama.
CONCURBY:
HOOKS
CONCUR:
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER
BENJAMIN L. HOOKS
It is with great trepidation that I concur
in the action taken by the Commission in this matter. This action may be
supportable by the majority when viewed from the standpoint of efficiency and
reduction of the Commission's backlog, however, my principal reason for
concurring is the imminent establishment of the Commission's external equal
employment opportunity office. Although, in light of what I feel to be
very questionable equal employment opportunity reports submitted by most
Alabama and Georgia renewal applicants, there are still very serious questions
which have not been answered to my satisfaction. Those reports reflect a
continuation of the foot dragging practices of the communications
industry. It is difficult, if not impossible, for me to understand how
the broadcasters here involved can allege that they have and will continue to
operate in the public interest when the only people they hire, promote, train
and otherwise utilize are, for the most part, of a single ethnic
persuasion. Which fact, especially when viewed alongside the minority and
female population breakdown of their service areas, shows a pattern of benign
neglect to a substantial portion of the population they serve.
This neglect is wasteful of the
human resources within their communities and negates assertions by the
broadcasters that they operate in the public interest. The unresolved
question is, therefore: how can broadcasters operate in the public interest
when they have chosen to black-out of their narrow world, a very substantial
portion of the population? The bulk of the Alabama and Georgia renewal
applicants have endeavored to make a very visible segment of the population
invisible. Operation in the public interest means much more than
efficient utilization of the spectrum and furnishing an aural and/or visual
service to the public; it also means effective utilization of human
[*238] resources as well. This wasteful non-use of human resources
makes my concurrence even more reluctant because I firmly believe that the
record shows less than an adequate movement in that direction on the part of
the stations herein involved.
My concurrence in this matter,
though fraught with misgivings and as stated previously, was tendered because
of the imminent establishment by the Commission of an External Equal Employment
Opportunity Office which will be charged with assuring the Commission and the
public that broadcasters are doing everything within their power not only to
present programming attuned to the needs of their service area, but also to
utilize to -- the fullest extent possible -- the human resources within their
communities. That EEO Office will be in a position to review, on more
regular basis than is now done, the employment practices of the broadcast
industry and will recommend, whenever certain patterns are extant, remedial
action against those stations including calling for early renewal of
licenses. The establishment of that Office should put licensees on notice
that the old, "I can't find one" foot dragging technique of
yesteryears is as extinct as the Brontosaurus of the Jurassic Period.
Programming, while not specifically
at issue here because it has always been (and rightly so) principally within
the purview of the licensees is nonetheless an integral part of this
proceeding. It is a mystery to me that licensees can aver that they have
operated in the public interest when few or none of the programs presented
addressed themselves to the issues which are important to the people who reside
within their service areas. Performance versus promise is a strong
indicator of whether a licensee is qualified to continue in its role as trustee
of the public airways. Thus, more responsiveness by broadcasters is
expected by the Commission.
Furthermore, I have been advised
that untimely and/or informal petitions to deny or defer were filed against a
great number of Georgia renewal applicants. I trust those petitions
caused the stations involved to take a closer look at their activities to the
same degree as they caused me in reaching my decision to reluctantly concur in
this matter.
DISSENT:
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
The FCC decided in August 1972 (see
Pennsylvania and Delaware Renewals, F.C.C.
2d ) to take affirmative -- if modest -- steps to enforce its
rules designed to discourage discriminatory employment practices. The
Commission decided to take action against stations employing more than ten
people and showing any of the following employment patterns:
1. No female employees, or a decline
in the number of female employees from 1971 to 1972.
2. No black employees, or a
decline in the number of black employees from 1971 to 1972, in areas with a
minority population of 5% or more.
If this statistical minimum to which the Commission proposed
to adhere was mild, the method of enforcement was equally gentle: when a
station did not comply with these standards, the Broadcast Bureau would send it
a letter simply asking a station to explain its employment practices.
Certainly nobody would argue that this was a cruel or unusual punishment.
Today the majority takes action
which undermines and substantially discounts even its own disgracefully weak
rules. Faced with a large number of stations in Alabama and Georgia not
in compliance with the above described standards, the majority asked the staff
to reduce the number of stations that would receive letters if we were to be so
bold as to comply with our own decisions. Today the Broadcast Bureau
presents to the Commission an abridged list of stations to be sent letters of
inquiry. As to which stations remain on the list and which have been a
priori "pardoned" by the staff, a roll of the dice would have as
rationally decided the difference. For example, WHOS, which, from 1971 to
1972, added a black and subtracted a [*236] woman employee, will
get a letter; WDHN, which cut back on women and got rid of its only black
employee, will not receive a letter. This kind of arbitrary staff
procedure reflects an arbitrary Commission order that they reduce the
list. Nobody told staff how to separate the good from the bad among the
ugly, and post facto it is impossible to see any method in the madness.
Why could not all stations not in
compliance with such minimal standards have been sent our mild letter of inquiry
which asks so nicely that they merely explain their employment practices?
Why does the majority now decide that its carefully and conservatively
conducted statistical analyses leading to the above-described standards should
be ignored in favor of the grab-bag policy it now implements? Is truth
really such a monster as to be avoided at all costs? I think not. I
dissent.
Today not only is the majority
abdicating its responsibility to protect the public interest in equal
opportunity employment, it is also proposing to renew the licenses of Georgia
and Alabama stations which refuse to serve the public's needs for a minimal
amount of news, public affairs and other non-entertainment programming.
I do not ask much of our nation's
broadcast licensees. Yet it is my job as a Commissioner to ensure that
those who we have licensed to use the airwaves in the "public
interest" live up to some responsibilities. In 1968, after an
exhausting and intensive study former Commissioner Cox and I concluded that the
public interest could not be arbitrarily found to have been served by those who
broadcast less than 5% news, 1% public affairs and 5% other non-entertainment
programming. We would have established these guidelines for translating
the intentions of Congress into a language of positive action. But the
majority prefers to adopt policies in the meaningless obscurity of unmeasured
space. At this time the Commission approves the renewal of licensees who
do not intend to, and have not in the past, lived up to even the minimal
standards by which I take my stand in the public interest.
For example, the majority today
finds no violation of the public interest when WEBJ proposed to have no public
affairs programming whatsoever. But as long as the majority insists on adopting
no operational standard of the public interest, insists on non-policy floating
in space, such a programming proposal will be accepted the same as any
other. Such an unstructured and undisciplined approach is not rational
policy. It is not any policy.
Here are the stations proposing less
than 5% news:
|
|
Percent news |
|
Call letters and locations |
now proposed |
|
WRIP,
Rossville, Ga |
1.0 |
|
WGKA,
Atlanta, Ga |
1.5 |
|
WAVO,
Decatur, Ga |
3.6 |
|
WTHB,
Augusta, Ga |
4.0 |
|
WJAZ,
Albany, Ga |
4.6 |
|
WBAM,
Montgomery, Ala |
4.7 |
|
WTCG-TV,
Atlanta, Ga |
2.3 |
|
WJCL(TV),
Savannah, Ga |
4.5 |
|
WDHN-TV,
Dothan, Ala |
4.6 |
[*237] The following
stations propose between 0.5% and 0.99%. Public Affairs Programming:
|
WABB |
WFOM |
WLET |
|
WACL |
WGAF |
WMLT |
|
WBLJ |
WHBB |
WMNZ |
|
WCOX |
WHHY |
WMSL |
|
WERH |
WJAT |
WTCB |
|
WFDR |
WJJC |
WTIF |
|
WFMH |
WLAY |
WTRP |
WEBJ proposed 0%; WSNT proposed less
than 0.5%.
The Program proposals of these stations
in the combined category of Public Affairs and "other programs"
(exclusive of sports and entertainment) were:
|
1.0-1.9 percent |
3.0-3.9 percent |
4.0-4.9 percent |
||
|
WVLD |
WDIG |
WHHY |
WALG |
WMSL |
|
|
WDNG |
WJRD |
WAUG |
WNPT |
|
|
WFOM |
WLAY |
WAZA |
WOMN |
|
|
WGKA |
WRFC |
WCLS |
WQXI |
|
|
WGOV |
WDHN-TV |
WCUG |
WSGA |
|
|
WGST |
|
WJOI |
WTBC |