Back to Index

 In Re Renewals of BROADCAST LICENSES FOR ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI, 1973; Part 1 of 2

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

42 F.C.C.2d 3

MAY 31, 1973 

---

JUDGES:

THE COMMISSION BY COMMISSIONERS BURCH (CHAIRMAN), ROBERT E. LEE, H. REX LEE, REID, WILEY, AND HOOKS, WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON DISSENTING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT, APPROVED STAFF ACTION REVIEWING BROADCAST LICENSES FOR ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI FOR 1973.

---

OPINIONBY: JOHNSON

DISSENTBY: JOHNSON

DISSENT:

DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER NICHOLAS JOHNSON

For my entire term I have dissented to the automatic renewal of licensees guilty of substandard performances in programming and (more recently) employment.  The 1973 Arkansas-Louisiana-Mississippi renewals represent the last group that will cross my desk during my official tenure as Federal Communications Commissioner.  Therefore, I and my staff and seminar students have prepared a major report on broadcasting in America, incorporating many of the complaints and suggestions of my seven years, for this one final renewal dissent.

BROADCASTING IN AMERICA

The Performance of Network Affiliates

in the Top 50 Markets

July 1973 -- A case study prepared by FCC Commissioner Nicholas

Johnson and his staff and seminar students

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	Page
Table of Contents	4
Table of Tables	4
Credits	5
INTRODUCTION (and overall programming ranking)	6
Chapter 1.  PROGRAMMING PERFORMANCE
I.  Introduction	14
II.  News & Public Affairs	16
III.  Commercialization	25
IV.  Local Programming	30
V.  Confidential Financial Information	38
Chapter 2.  EMPLOYMENT
I.  Introduction	49
II.  Analysis of Minority Employment	52
III.  Analysis of Female Employment	59
IV.  Remedies for Claims of Employment Discrimination	61
V.  National Employment Analysis	64
Chapter 3.  PATTERNS OF OWNERSHIP	68
Chapter 4.  HOW YOU CAN IMPROVE TELEVISION IN YOUR COMMUNITY
I.  What Can You Do?  (an Introduction)	100
II.  How Do You Prepare?	103
III.  What Action Can You Take?	118
Appendix A.  Systems Methodology	123
Appendix B.  Citizens' Organizations & Resource Materials	126
Appendix C.  Additional Tables of Information	128
Appendix D.  The Ten Best and Ten Worst Stations	166
Appendix E.  Setting Minimum Levels of Performance	170
Appendix F.  The Top 50 Markets	171
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.  Ranking the network affiliates
in the top 50 markets on their overall
programming performance	7
Table 2.  Overall programming ranking
including rank in each of the
programming criteria	14
Table 3.  Ranking of performance in
news, public affairs and "other"
programming	19
Table 4.  Ranking of performance in
category of Public Service announce-
ments	23
Table 5.  Ranking of performance in
commercialization category	28
Table 6.  Ranking of performance in local programming	34
Table 7.  Ranking based on the percentage
of gross revenues allocated to
program expenditures	44
Table 8.  Ranking of the total percentage
of minority employees relative
to the percentage of minorities in the SMSA	53
Table 9.  Ranking of the percentage
of minorities employed in high pay
positions	57
Table 10.  Ranking of the percentage
of women employed in high pay
positions	59
Table 11.  National total of full time,
minority and women employees of
affiliates in the study in 1972	64
Table 12.  Stations reporting fewer than
5 minority employees in 1972	64
Table 13.  Total full time, minority and
women employees in high pay
positions in 1972	65
Table 14a.  Stations employing 0 or 1
minorities in high pay positions in
1972	65
Table 14b.  Stations employing 0 or 1
women in high pay positions in 1972	65
Table 15.  Stations showing a decrease
in employment of minorities or
women in 1972	66
Table 16.  Cross reference of owners to call letters	74
Table 17.  Ownership Information	77

CREDITS

This report is very much the product of a multi-group effort.  The groups involved included my own staff, a group of Georgetown University law students in a seminar I was teaching, FCC employees outside of my office, and guests appearing before the seminar.

After the markets and stations were selected, decisions had to be made as to which categories of data to include and exclude, and the analyses to which they should be subjected.  The data had to be extracted from FCC files.  Computer programs were written.  Additional research, writing and editing produced the text.  The text and charts were laid out and typed many times.  Each of these tasks involved uncounted hours of labor.

The principal participants in my own office were Larry Gage and Elaine Weiss.  It was they who did the lion's share of the administration of the group effort, following up on the thousands of details necessary to the project's timely completion, editing the seminar students' contribution, and adding their own substantial segments of text.  Karen Possner, a doctoral candidate in Communications at the University of Iowa, made valuable contributions to the seminar sessions and this report.  Chuck Shepherd helped out with some of the charts.  Bonnie Herbert and Karen Margrave bore the considerable burdens of typing and preparing this substantial manuscript at a time when their normal tasks were especially heavy.

The Georgetown law students were: Phil Argento, Thomas J. Collin, Raymond C. Fay, Ronald G. Gabler, Larry Harbin, Karen B. Possner, Lucilla A. Streeter, James R. Tanfield, David Wagner, James B. Wilcox, Jr. and Brady Williamson.  They participated in my seminar with the advance knowledge that the burdens would be substantial and executed the assignment with great ability and good spirits.  Derrick A. Humphries participated in the first two months of the seminar.  The contribution of Larry Harbin in preparing and executing our computer programs warrants special mention.

Those FCC employees outside of my office who gave us invaluable assistance include: Pearl Cook, Larry Eads, John Foret, Alex Korn, Quentin Proctor, Allan Stillwell, Wally Johnson, David Westin and Harold Kassens.  We very much appreciate their cooperation -- occasionally requiring their staying well beyond the FCC's normal 4:30 pm. closing time.

Seminar guests who gave us an evening of their time included: Sam Buffone, a former seminar student and currently an associate in Stern Concern; former FCC Commissioner Kenneth A. Cox; former FCC General Counsel Henry Geller, currently with the Rand Corporation; Dr. Everett Parker, Director of the United Church of Christ Office of Communications; Tracy Westen, a former legal assistant of mine and currently Director of Stern Concern; and Dr. Clay T. Whitehead, Director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy -- as well as most of the FCC employees mentioned above.  Each contributed in his or her own way to the seminar participants' understanding of the performance and regulation of broadcasting in America.

The other friends and advisors who have had some input during the past seven years to my thinking about broadcast regulation in general and this approach to it in particular are too numerous to itemize but are no less important to the end product.

With thousands of pieces of data copied and handled many times, there are undoubtedly errors somewhere in this report.  All I can say is that we have done our best to keep such errors to an absolute minimum and express our regrets in advance to any broadcaster who has been adversely affected by such error.

NICHOLAS JOHNSON, Washington, D.C.

June 1973

INTRODUCTION

The revelations surrounding Watergate have only dramatized what many concerned citizens and public interest lawyers have known for a long time: we cannot rely on government to solve our problems.  The regulatory agencies set up to serve the public interest all too often end up almost totally subservient to industry pressure.

Whatever may be the case elsewhere, however, the Federal Communications Commission is a classic case of what now Chief Justice Burger once called "a curious neutrality in favor of the licensee." n1

n1 Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission, 359 F 2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1966).

Seemingly congenital pro-industry bias, of course, is no reason to give up on the agency.  Quite the contrary.  It must be watched all the more closely.  There must be appeals to the courts and Congressional and press exposes of the FCC's most egregious decisions.  There must be public participation in license renewal hearings, fairness doctrine complaints, FCC rule makings, Congressional hearings involving the agency, and so forth.  Still, it is only the better part of wisdom and imagination to try to come up with alternatives to government at the same time efforts are being made to maximize the potential of the FCC.

One such alternative is represented by this report.  It is, quite simply, an effort to use public disclosure of broadcasters' performance, and comparative rankings of those broadcasters, as a means of rewarding the better stations and punishing the worst.

It is true, of course, that this analysis of what is, after all, FCC data, may attract the attention of FCC staff or Commissioners, or may provide an incentive to outraged citizens to file license renewal challenges against the worst stations.  This report may be more seriously considered by broadcasters because they are aware of that potential threat.  But that is not the principal purpose of the report.  The major hope is simply that the mere publishing of this data will, standing alone, provide reinforcement for the better stations and an incentive to improvement by the worst.

It is true that an FCC Commissioner was involved in the preparation of this document.  But in many ways that should be irrelevant to its impact.  The data used is publicly available from the FCC's files.  And broadcasters have little to fear from the vote of one dissenting Commissioner on a seven-person Commission.  In short, this is the kind of study that any group should be able to do -- nationally, as this one, or locally, and in more depth.

This report represents the attempt of one Commissioner, his staff, and seminar students to analyze the performance of each of the network affiliates in the top fifty television markets in the country.  Because the findings are presented in the form of rankings of those stations, in areas of performance from employment to programming, it is perhaps fitting to begin the report with the overall composite ranking of the affiliates with regard to their programming performance.

Quite simply, this table ranks each of the stations in the study based on a composite of all of the programming criteria analyzed in Chapter one.  In this table KPIX-TV, San Francisco, ranks as the best-programmed station in the top fifty markets, and WCCB, Charlotte, N.C., ranks as the worst.

TABLE 1. -- Network affiliates ranked by composite of all programming criteria

Rank	Call letters	Net. aff.	Mkt. No,	Location
1	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco
2	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
3	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
4	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
5	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
6	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
7	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington D.C.
8	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
9	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
10	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
11	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
12	WRC	NBC	10	Washington D.C.
13	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
14	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
15	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
16	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
17	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston
18	KATU	ABC	26	Portland
19	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
20	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
21	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
22	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
23	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
24	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
25	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
26	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
27	KMOX	CBS	12	St Louis
28	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
29	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
30	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
31	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
32	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
33	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City
34	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
35	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
36	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans
37	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis
38	WBFN	CBS	25	Buffalo
39	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
40	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
41	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
42	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
43	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago
44	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
45	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
46	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
47	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
48	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
49	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham
50	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
51	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
52	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
53	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
54	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
55	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington D.C.
56	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami
57	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte
58	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
59	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
60	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
61	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
62	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
63	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
64	KTRK	ABC	15	Houston
65	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
66	KSD	NBC	12	St Louis
67	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
68	KTVI	ABC	12	St Louis
69	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
70	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston
71	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St Petersburg
72	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
73	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
74	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
75	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
76	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco
77	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
78	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
79	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
80	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St Petersburg
81	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
82	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
83	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
84	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
85	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
86	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
87	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City
88	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence
89	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
90	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
91	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City
92	WLKY *	ABC	36	Louisville
93	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
94	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
95	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
96	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego
97	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
98	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo
99	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
100	WDHO *	ABC	45	Toledo
101	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
102	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
103	WHNB *	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
104	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
105	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
106	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
107	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse
108	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
109	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
110	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntingto
111	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
112	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
113	KOA	NBC	32	Denver
114	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
115	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
116	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
117	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
118	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
119	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
120	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
121	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntingto
122	KNSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
123	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
124	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntingto
125	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
126	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton
127	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St Petersburg
128	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
129	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
130	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
131	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
132	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
133	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
134	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City
135	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
136	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus
137	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
138	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
139	WBMG *	CBS	38	Birmingham
140	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
141	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis
142	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
143	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
144	WCCB *	ABC	35	Charlotte

* Denotes UHF network affiliate.

This report represents an effort to do more than just charge the Commission once again with the refusal to develop any positive standards for the performance of its broadcast licensees.  Such charges have often been made, in any different forums.  This is an effort to demonstrate the type of analysis that could be made of the available indicia of a licensee's performance prior to the renewal of its right to profit from the public airwaves.

The Commission has often been confronted with the opportunity to develop minimum standards in areas of programming, ownership and employment.  Each time those standards have either been rejected or thoroughly emasculated by the Commission majority.  n2 When former Commissioner Kenneth A. Cox was Chief of the Broadcast Bureau, he sent letters to stations with percentages of news and public affairs programming below certain minimum levels -- a practice swiftly ended by the full Commission. 

n2 The most celebrated, of course, was the 1946 "Blue Book," Part II, which attempted for the first time to set minimum standards for service to the public; it did not last the decade.  It is reprinted in F. Kahn, ed., Documents of American Broadcasting 141-146 (rev'd. ed. 1972).  Most recently, former Commission General Counsel Henry Geller proposed a minimum level of performance below which a broadcaster would be questioned at renewal time; his proposal -- that broadcasters program at least 15% local, 10% news and 5% public affairs, both overall and in prime time -- was never seriously considered by the Commission majority.

The major problem seems to arise from the broadcasters' (and most Commissioners') refusal to accept the fact that there is most emphatically a difference between censorship of programming, which the Communications Act of 1934 specifically prohibits, n3 and assurance of adequate levels of service in areas important to the listening or viewing public regardless of the subject matter or content of the programming presented.  n4

n3 47 U.S.C. �  326.

n4 For an excellent explication of the broadcaster's point of view, see Kalven, "Broadcasting, Public Policy and the First Amendment," 10 J. Law & Econ. 15 (1967).

When Kenneth Cox was an FCC Commissioner he attempted to come up with some method at license renewal time for determining whether or not a licensee had adequately served the public interest -- or whether it deserved further inquiry because of poor performance.  One simple standard used the data available on the license renewal form.  It merely required the licensee to demonstrate that 5% of its program week had been devoted to news, 1% to public affairs, and 5% to "other" non-entertainment programming (which came to be known as the "5-1-5" standard) -- far too low, especially for television licensees.

Other approaches were also tried.  The occasion of the Oklahoma renewals (all the licenses in any given state expire at the same time) was used to do a book-length study of broadcasting in the state of Oklahoma, describing the communities in detail, noting the various sources of information available, from print as well as broadcast media, and generally describing the performance of the licensees seeking renewal at that time.  n5

n5 Renewal of Standard Broadcast and Television Licenses, an Oklahoma Case Study, 14 F.C.C. 2d 1 (1968).

Later, in the state of New York, n6 and for the renewals processed jointly from Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, n7 still another approach was used.  Stations were ranked by all the criteria available from their license renewal form -- news and public affairs, the number of public service announcements, and so forth -- in a manner that is similar in some ways to the procedure of this larger study of network affiliates. 

n6 Renewal of Standard Broadcast and Television Licenses, 18 F.C.C. 2d 268, 269, 322 (1969).

n7 Renewals of Standard Broadcast and Television Licenses, 21 F.C.C. 2d 35 (1969).

The impact of each of these efforts upon the Commission was minimal, although it has recently adopted a badly-needed new renewal application which somewhat improves the quality of the data collected from licensees.  n8 It has not, however, acted favorably on any proposals for minimum standards on that information.  n9

n8 In the Matter of Formulation of Rules and Policies Relating to the Renewal of Broadcast Licensees, Docket No. 19153, FCC 73-451 (May 4, 1973).

n9 For example, see the Henry Geller proposal discussed in note 2 supra.

The impact upon the industry, however, has been somewhat more significant, and has been a motivating factor in this study.  For example, even though broadcasters and their lawyers know that a failure to meet the 5-1-5 standard will have no effect whatsoever upon license renewals, they are increasingly programming to meet those standards if only because they dislike even the minimal adverse attention of a dissenting opinion buried deep within the official FCC Reports.  When the New York and Washington studies were published, broadcasters were quite pleased to attract public and advertiser attention to their high ratings -- and very quick to call Commissioners' attention to any miscalculation that resulted in even a slightly lower rating than they felt they deserved.

In attempting to mount a project that would have an effect on as wide a segment of American broadcasting as possible, there has been great selectivity in both the stations chosen and the criteria used.  It would have been impossible to evaluate each and every one of the more than 8,000 radio and television stations in this country.  First, television was chosen over radio, because its influence is more widely felt and also, quite frankly, because it was an easy way to eliminate the vast majority of licensees at the outset.  The 50 largest television markets in the country were selected from among the some 12,000 communities in the United States, because they contain more than 65% of the American population and constitute the most "cost effective" focus.  n10 The "top 50" have often been selected by the FCC as a natural break in its broadcasting regulations.  Finally, the three network affiliates in each market were selected (rather than including independent television stations as well) because those are the choice of roughly 85% of the nation's viewers at any given moment.  n11 Moreover, as they tend to have the largest revenue of any stations in the industry, one can fairly hold them to the highest standards.  Theoretically, then, that produces a population of some 150 stations (three network affiliates in each of 50 markets).  However, factors intervened to reduce the final sample to 144, although for some purposes (such as employment there was information available on 147.  n12

n10 The "top 50 markets" used in this study were determined on the basis of the most recent rankings by the American Research Bureau, published in ARB's 1972 Television Market Analysis on November 20, 1972.  No more current data will be published until after September 1, 1973.  The market's rank is determined according to the average number of households reached from 9 a.m. to midnight within a survey area.  Survey areas are the geographic areas comprised of those counties in which ARB estimates 98% of the net weekly circulation of home market stations occurs.  Because the average number of households is reported by thousands, two markets are tied for the 41st rank and three are tied for the 45th.  Accordingly, we list no 42nd, 46th or 47th rank.

The only exception to ARB's top 50 markets was our deletion of Wilkes Barre-Scranton, which would have been number 49, from our study and the concomitant elevation of Salt Lake City, otherwise market number 51.  This was done because we felt it unfair to compare the results in Wilkes Barre-Scranton, an all-UHF market, with those of its VHF competitors, even though we retained five markets in which one network affiliate broadcasts on UHF (they are appropriately identified in the rankings).

The top 50 markets include parts of some 43 different states and help send over 82% of the members of the House of Representatives to Congress.

n11 That is not to say there aren't a few enormously successful independents that should have been included in a study of America's biggest broadcasters.  However, we felt we had to draw the line somewhere, and we could not have justified the inclusion of independents in less than all the top 50 markets.

n12 Three network affiliates located in the top 50 markets were eliminated from our study.  Three additional stations were excluded from the over-all ranking and public service announcement portions of our report, but were included in the employment and ownership portions.  The details are listed below:

Call sign	KSCT
Channel	39
Affiliation	ABC
City	San Diego
Market number	49
Excluded from	Entire Study
KSCT became San Diego's ABC
affiliate early this year.  Prior to this, XETV, a
Mexican station, was the ABC affiliate.
The Commission has no jurisdiction over,
and therefore no data pertaining to,
broadcasters outside the U.S.
Call sign	KRON
Channel	4
Affiliation	NBC
City	San Francisco
Market Number	8
Excluded from	Entire Study
KRON's 1968 renewal was designated
for hearing on 3/19/69; a final decision
was not made until 5/3/73.  During
this period, the station was "in docket" and
not required to submit renewal application
information.  Thus, we had no more recent
data than that reflecting the station's
performance between 1965 and 1968.
Call sign	WCVB
Channel	5
Affiliation	ABC
City	Boston
Market number	6
Excluded from	Entire Study
WCVB is just barely into its second
year of operation after a Commission and
court battle that lasted nearly a decade;
its licensee was a successful competing
applicant for the frequency formerly
licensed to WHDH, Inc.
Call sign	WGHP
Channel	8
Affiliation	ABC
City	Greensboro
Market number	48
Excluded from	Composite ranking and public service announcements only
WGHP was renewed in 1966, but its
1969 renewal application was designated for
hearing on 6/1/70.  As yet unresolved,
the most recent renewal application data
reflects the station's performance between
1963 and 1966.
Call sign	WKEF
Channel	22
Affiliation	ABC
City	Dayton
Market number	39
Excluded from	Composite ranking and public service announcements only
WKEF is a new UHF station which
only commenced operation in 1969.
Call sign	WTAR
Channel	3
Affiliation	CBS
City	Norfolk
Market number	44
Excluded from	Composite ranking and public service announcements only
WTAR was renewed in 1966, but its
1969 renewal application was designated for
hearing on 1/21/70.  As yet unresolved,
the most recent renewal application data
reflects the station's performance between
1963 and 1966.

As an additional footnote, we wish to underscore the competitive problems faced by the five UHF affiliates that have been included in our study (WLKY, Louisville, 91st in our composite programming ranking; WDHO, Toledo, 100th; WHNB, Hartford, 103rd; WBMG, Birmingham, 139th; and WCCB, Charlotte, 144th).  UHF stations are traditionally at a severe disadvantage in competing for viewers in a market, even when they are affiliated with a network.  Virtually all UHF stations operate deeply in the red for years after they go on the air, and it can be expected that their performance will radically improve as they edge toward profitability.  Finally, it must be noted that at least one of the UHF stations in this study, WDHO, Toledo, has been ranked on the basis of data submitted to the FCC before it had acquired even the financial stimulus of a network affiliation.

The analysis of the performance of those stations has been limited to information supplied by the broadcasters themselves on official U.S. Government forms in public files at the FCC.  n13 No monitoring (viewing or listening) of any of the stations was undertaken.  Nor was there even an examination of TV Guide or local newspaper listings for additional information.  There was neither the time nor the manpower, and there was an affirmative desire to avoid any data gathering or subjective analyses that would subject the findings to "tis-taint't" arguments with broadcasters. 

n13 In order to provide the broadest possible view of television in the top 50 markets, it was occasionally necessary to use station data reported by former licensees.  For example, if a station received its license renewal in June, 1972, and was sold in August, 1972, our data was taken from the information of the earlier licensee.  This was the case with the seven stations listed below:

KBTV, Channel 9, ABC, Denver, Colorado.

Present licensee: Combined Communications Corp.

Former licensee: Mullins Broadcasting Co.

Date of change: September 19, 1972

KGTV, Channel 10, NBC, San Diego, California

Present licensee: McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co.

Former licensee: Time-Life Broadcasting, Inc.

Date of change: June 1, 1972

Former call letters: KOGO

KMGH, Channel 7, CBS, Denver, Colorado

Present licensee: McGraw-Hill.

Former licensee: Time-Life.

Date of change: June 1, 1972

Former call letters: KLZ

KOCO, Channel 5, ABC, Oklahoma City

Present licensee: Combined Communications

Former licensee: Cimaron Television Corp.

Date of change: August 29, 1972

WCHS, Channel 8, CBS, Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.

Present licensee: Rollins Telecasting, Inc.

Former licensee: WCHS AM-TV Corp.

Date of change: April 30, 1973

WRTV, Channel 6, WBC, Indianapolis

Present licensee: McGraw-Hill

Former licensee: Time-Life

Date of change: June 1, 1972

Former call letters: WFMB

WTMJ, Channel 4, NBC, Milwaukee

Present licensee: WTMJ, Inc.

Former licensee: The Journal Co.

In addition, data other than form 303 programming data from the seven stations listed below was partially affected by similar changes in licensees:

Financial and Employment Data:

WXII, Channel 12, NBC, Greensboro/Winston Salem/High Point, N.C.

Present licensee: Multimedia, Inc.

Former licensee: Triangle Broadcasting Corp.

Date of change: October 2, 1972

WBTV, Channel 3, CBS, Charlotte, N. Carolina

Present licensee: Jefferson-Pilot Broadcasting Co.

Former licensee: Jefferson-Standard Broadcasting Co.

Date of change: November 7, 1972

WDSU, Channel 6, NBC, New Orleans

Present licensee: Cosmos Broadcasting of Louisiana

Former licensee: WDSU-TV, Inc.

Date of charge: November 29, 1972

Financial data only (taken partially from former and partially from present licensee):

WPVI, Channel 6, ABC, Philadelphia

Present: Capital Cities

Former: Triangle Publications

Date of change: April 27, 1971

WSAZ, Channel 3, NBC, Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.

Present licensee: Lee Enterprises, Inc.

Former licensee: Capital Cities

Date of change: April 27, 1971

WTEN, Channel 10, CBS, Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y.

Present licensee: Albany TV, Inc.

Former licensee: Capital Cities

Date of change: April 27, 1971

WTNH, Channel 8, ABC, Hartford/New Haven

Present licensee: Capital Cities

Former licensee: Triangle Publications

Date of change: April 27, 1971

Finally, station WWYS-TV, Syracuse, New York, was granted a modification on December 12, 1972 that changed the name of the licensee from WRG Baker Television Corp. to WNYS-TV.  The actual owners of the station remained substantially the same.  And station WOTV, Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo was granted a change of call letters on July 1, 1972, from WOOD, although the licensee also remains the same.

The findings are grouped into three separate chapters dealing with programming performance, minority and female employment statistics, and ownership information.  A fourth chapter is devoted to the use of this information by interested community groups or individuals.  Appendices have been added that deal with the computer programming methodology, potential sources of information and assistance for those interested in pursuing the subject further, and additional information not included in the main body of the report.

The method of analyzing the stations' performance has been to select the most precise criteria available from the data collected and then simply rank the stations based on their performance.  Thus, in programming, some four factors were isolated and explored.  They were then combined for determination of a single overall ranking based on a composite computation of programming performance.

By this method, television station KPIX, San Francisco, owned by the Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, was the best-programmed station among network affiliates in the top 50 markets as of June, 1973; WCCB, Charlotte, N.C., was the worst.  There is often a wide range of performance among affiliates within a city.  But Pittsburgh and Portland would appear to be among the best, and Charleston-Huntington, W. Va., and Kansas City, Mo., among the worst.  Baltimore seems to have the best performance overall in local programming, Washington in news. public affairs and other; Syracuse scores lowest in both categories.  Oklahoma City stations have the most public service announcements; Nashville stations the fewest.  Westinghouse Broadcasting Company's five television stations ranked 1, 2, 4, 5 and 31, thus making Westinghouse by far the best multiple owner in the country.  The stations of Taft, ranked 49, 120, 123, 134 and 136, showed that corporate owner to be one of the worst.

In the employment chapter, stations with low or non-existent minority or female employment are singled out for special mention, and all the stations in the study are ranked on the basis of total employment as well as employment of minorities and women in high-paying positions.  Stations WTEV, Providence, WNYS, Syracuse, and WCAU, Philadelphia were among the best, while KSL, Salt Lake City, KMSP, Minneapolis and WKZO, Kalamazoo-Grand Rapids were among the worst.

In the ownership chapter, the findings have been collated and rearranged to show the performance of individual owners, especially when (as is most often the case) they own two or more stations.  In each section Commission policy is considered and its shortcomings pointed out, but the most important part of this report is the information regarding the relative performance of each network affiliate in the top 50 markets.  See Appendix D for a summary of the ten best and ten worst stations in each area of programming and employment and Appendix E for a summary of what we consider to be the minimum tolerable levels of performance in each of those areas.

Finally, Chapter 4 is included on the assumption that anyone interested in improving the quality of broadcasting in this country can use this study as a handbook for the further pursuit of those improvements.  This report is necessarily incomplete.  Only the action of concerned people in their own local communities can ensure that it will have maximum impact on improving broadcasters' performance.

Chapter 1

PROGRAMMING PERFORMANCE

I.  INTRODUCTION

The composite programming ranking announced in the Introduction to this report consists of an evaluation of the programming of each of 144 network affiliates in the top 50 markets on the basis of four distinct programming criteria: a combination of news, public affairs and other programming; local programming; commercialization; and allocation of financial resources to program expenditures.  Each of these areas will be explained in detail, and individual area rankings given, in the four sections of this chapter below.  The composite programming ranking that precedes the substantive discussion in this chapter was determined by transposing the quantitative performance of each licensee in each of the four areas onto a scale of 0 to 100, then weighting them equally in determining the final average on which the overall ranking was based.  For a more complete explanation of the analytical models used in this section, see Appendix A.  The programming criteria are presented in Table 2 in the form of the station's rank in each of the four areas.  For a composite ranking that presents the criteria based on the relative scale of 0 to 100, see Table 1-a in Appendix C.

Network affiliates ranked by composite of all programming criteria

	Call	Net.	Mkt.
Rank	letters	aff.	No.	Location
1	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco
2	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
3	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
4	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
5	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
6	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
7	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington, D.C.
8	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
9	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-HighPt-Win Sal
10	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
11	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
12	WTC	NBC	10	Washington, D.C.
13	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
14	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
15	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
16	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
17	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston
18	KATO	ABC	26	Portland
19	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
20	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
21	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
22	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
23	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
24	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
25	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
26	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
27	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis
28	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
29	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
30	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
31	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
31	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
33	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City
34	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
35	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
36	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans
37	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis
38	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo
39	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
40	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
41	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
42	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
43	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago
44	KOVR	abc/	27	Sacramento-Stockton
45	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
46	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
47	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
48	WDAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
49	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham
50	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
51	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
52	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
53	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
54	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
55	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington D.C.
56	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami
57	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte
58	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
59	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
60	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
61	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
62	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
63	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
64	KIRK	ABC	15	Houston
65	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
66	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louiis
66	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
68	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis
69	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
70	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston
71	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
72	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
73	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
74	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
74	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
76	KGO	ABC	8	San Antonio
77	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
78	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
79	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
80	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
81	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
82	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
83	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
84	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
85	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
86	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
87	KCMO	ABC	23	Kansas City
88	WTFV	ABC	34	Providence
89	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
90	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
91	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City
92	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville
93	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
94	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
95	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
96	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego
97	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
98	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo
99	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
100	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo
101	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
102	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
103	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
104	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
105	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
106	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
107	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse
108	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
109	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
110	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington
111	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
112	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
113	KOA	NBC	32	Denver
114	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
115	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
116	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
117	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
118	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
119	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
120	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
121	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington
122	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
123	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
124	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington
125	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
126	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton
127	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
128	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
129	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
130	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
131	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
132	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
133	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
134	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City
135	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
136	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus
137	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
138	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
139	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham
140	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
141	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis
142	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
143	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
144	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte

		News,	Commer.	Financial
Rank	Local	Pa
		and other
1	31	13	1	103
2	6	59	4	24
3	76	48	6	3
4	4	6	30	57
5	2	7	23	123
6	10	1	81	52
7	28	40	41	9
8	52	60	10	15
9	96	38	2	76
10	67	35	49	2
11	7	24	70	31
12	49	15	101	7
13	63	77	49	1
14	3	3	138	35
15	17	53	101	8
16	68	28	5	110
17	37	41	24	59
18	50	96	24	13
19	35	84	33	20
20	27	14	70	69
21	84	29	57	12
22	22	19	81	61
23	8	64	63	48
24	32	66	57	28
25	1	118	129	44
26	75	4	108	27
27	59	11	101	36
28	24	97	63	16
29	16	78	36	70
30	135	119	8	4
31	5	56	49	116
31	15	16	49	138
33	57	90	88	6
34	11	25	78	104
35	112	45	41	14
36	20	55	81	55
37	65	39	36	64
38	55	21	57	80
39	60	17	88	58
40	21	8	121	88
41	29	22	78	94
42	40	49	98	33
43	41	2	132	74
44	134	120	16	5
45	72	111	16	41
46	42	9	121	73
47	117	127	13	10
48	19	33	88	101
49	23	12	49	144
50	14	62	112	45
51	115	94	3	113
52	126	46	16	63
53	83	104	63	11
54	77	82	70	25
55	79	10	117	50
56	71	27	41	117
57	122	75	16	47
58	58	88	30	93
59	43	91	57	71
60	70	5	121	79
61	82	125	30	22
62	48	37	106	67
63	118	105	28	21
64	18	95	63	100
65	64	26	129	37
66	36	68	70	108
66	105	87	33	46
68	86	140	24	19
69	9	31	129	112
70	25	30	108	127
71	61	44	81	96
72	104	63	13	130
73	78	106	13	130
74	13	92	106	89
74	33	18	141	65
76	94	70	98	30
77	69	43	101	77
78	90	131	28	38
79	107	112	41	34
80	80	32	117	51
81	121	54	36	84
82	46	52	88	120
83	30	42	137	83
84	12	74	139	72
85	47	114	70	85
86	39	101	114	49
87	54	69	101	97
88	130	110	41	32
89	38	80	114	92
90	110	103	70	39
91	62	124	81	53
92	136	142	11	23
93	132	50	36	115
94	114	47	70	91
95	81	81	57	124
96	51	20	132	128
97	88	122	49	75
98	87	71	63	122
99	44	73	117	98
100	139	144	6	29
101	26	34	121	141
102	123	115	88	17
103	116	23	63	136
104	73	65	78	135
105	101	36	121	66
106	95	85	88	86
107	144	143	8	18
108	127	89	88	54
109	142	136	16	40
110	140	107	16	102
111	143	137	12	60
112	111	102	88	62
113	56	79	108	132
114	66	83	108	125
115	53	61	142	68
116	113	86	121	43
117	89	116	132	26
118	100	121	36	129
119	124	113	41	107
120	74	138	33	133
121	85	132	24	140
122	109	141	13	126
123	141	109	41	81
124	119	58	70	139
125	92	134	98	56
126	45	123	132	87
127	120	51	132	78
128	131	108	57	114
129	103	57	117	121
130	106	93	81	134
131	99	67	121	118
132	97	98	121	82
133	93	99	114	106
134	34	72	144	131
135	102	133	88	90
136	128	130	63	105
137	137	135	41	95
138	108	100	88	142
139	125	117	49	143
140	98	76	140	119
141	138	139	49	111
142	91	128	142	42
143	129	126	112	99
144	133	129	81	137

II.  NEWS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

"60 per cent of all Americans over the age of 21 rely on television as their primary source of news." Barry Cole, Television (1970).

To argue that Congress intended television to be dedicated summarily to the aggrandizement of the personal or corporate fortunes of its licensees is to argue the absurd.  Rather, Congress intended that television frequencies be used to serve the public, n1 and any reasonable interpretation of "serving the public" must include equipping them to be better citizens, via the informational programming most often encountered in the rather cumbersome categories known to the Commission as "news," "public affairs" and "other." n2

n1 See 47 U.S.C. �  307(a)(b).  Indeed, the Commission stated early in its development that:

It is axiomatic that one of the most vital questions of mass communications in a democracy is the development of an informed public opinion through the public dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital issues of the day...  It is this right of the public to be informed, rather than any other right on the part of the government, any broadcast licensee or any individual member of the public to broadcast his own particular views of any matter, which is the foundation stone of the American system of broadcasting.

Quoted in Walter Emery, National and International Systems of Broadcasting, at 13, Michigan State University Press (1969).  For legislative history of the Communications Act, see Rosenbloom, "Authority of the Federal Communications Commission," in Coons, ed., Freedom and Responsibility in Broadcasting at 96 (1961).

n2 The categories of "news" and "public affairs" are self-explanatory.  "Other" programming is described as all programming not falling in those two categories or in the categories of "entertainment" or "sports."

The Commission first determined that news and public affairs were "critical programming categories" and began collecting this data in its current form in 1966, when it adopted the license renewal application now in use.  n3 But collecting this data and putting it to significant use are two entirely different things, and the practice of this Commission to date has been to make no inquiry whatsoever into a licensee's news, public affairs, and other non-sports, non-entertainment programming, no matter how badly a station had performed, and more than a few stations have been renewed notwithstanding a total failure to deliver programming in one or more of these categories.  n4 Even a major television station like WCCO-TV, a Minneapolis CBS affiliate, was renewed automatically in March, 1968, despite no public affairs shown during the composite week and only 30 minutes weekly proposed for the future. 

n3 FCC 2d 175 (1966).

n4 See, e.g., Herman C. Hall, 11 FCC 2d 344 (1968).

Although the Commission has never set standards in its renewal procedures for weighing the news and public affairs data it receives, a 5% news, 1% public affairs and 5% "other" standard thought to be comparable to the minimum diet necessary to stave off complete informational starvation was established and discussed at one time by just two of the seven Commissioners (Cox and Johnson).  n5 Since those standards have been so minimal and so easy to comply with, many previously offending broadcasters have made an effort to do so, as can be seen by a glance at the raw data in the three categories.  n6 There continues to be some, however, who do not choose even to provide that infinitesimal level of public service, who regularly devote more minutes of time to commercials than to the three informational categories combined; and yet the staff continues to do nothing every two months but provide, as a gesture of courtesy, a compilation of those stations falling below the 5-1-5 standard in each bimonthly "package" of renewals for the remaining concerned Commissioner to use in his lonely dissents. 

n5 See discussion of these studies at notes 5, 6 and 7 in the Introduction to this Report.

n6 The ten best and ten worst stations in each category may be found in Appendix D.

The news, public affairs, and other programming information required of a licensee on his renewal application is collected in the form of hours and minutes of air time devoted to each.  Of course, quality of programming cannot be determined from this data.  It is impossible to tell without actual observation, for example, whether a station's news operation is of the wire service "rip and read" variety or whether there are mobile camera units roaming the city to provide original feeds at all hours.  Until such information is available, however, we must rely on what the stations are required to tell the Commission quantitatively about their programming operations.  For, although a station broadcasting only 8 hours of news in a 140-hour week may in fact be investing more time, expense, and imagination in its production than one airing 14 hours in the same week, the only presumption we can make is the contrary -- the more news, the better the potential for service to the public.  We proceed therefore on the assumption that, all other factors being equal, a station running 14 hours of news on a weekly basis better serves the public interest and need than a station running 8 hours.  The same reasoning would apply to public affairs and other programming.

Another shortcoming of the existing renewal application is that it makes no inquiry into when during the broadcast day news, public affairs, and other programming are being aired.  It is conceivable, for example, that a station may air one hour of public affairs between 3:30 am and 4:30 am daily and, when this is added to its other public affairs programs, post a total of 10 hours for the week.  n7 It should be self-evident, however, that the seven hours of programming in the early morning can be written off as little more than no programming at all, reaching such a small audience as to be of virtually no service to the public.  This lacuna in our information must be borne in mind when reviewing these figures, and local program guides or station logs should be consulted to learn the distribution of news, public affairs and other programming in a particular station's broadcast week. 

n7 In addition, many commercial stations will run the same public affairs special more than once, thereby getting credit for two or even three hours of programming for just one show.

Our ranking of station programming performance is based solely on the hours of programming presented.  For the overall ranking of this performance factor, we have simply added together the number of hours and minutes of news, public affairs and other programming presented during the composite week and ranked the stations on the basis of that total.  We list the number of hours of each of the three categories separately, and provide a ranking for each.  For example, the top station in the overall news-public affairs-"other" ranking, station WPLG, Miami, can be seen to be number 9 in news, number 7 in public affairs and number 12 in other programming.  These additional statistics are provided in this chapter because a station's failure to devote substantial time to any one of them is indefensible whatever its overall raking, and such a station should be singled out for further inquiry.  n8

n8 WLWI, Indianapolis, for example, was number 26 in its overall news, public affairs and other ranking, due to a fine showing in the latter two categories (32nd and 4th).  Its news programming, however, placed it an abysmal 127th, thereby clearly delineating an area in which the licensee could improve.

Although the percentage of the total programming week devoted by a licensee to each of these categories is available from the station's license renewal form and has been used in similar studies in the past, n9 we have decided in this study to use the raw total of hours.  This has been done because the use of percentages, we feel, tends to favor those broadcasters with a shorter broadcast week.  For example, a station on the air 120 hours a week with 12 hours of news would be programming 10% news, while a station broadcasting 146 hours a week with 13 hours of news would actually show a lower percentage.  We feel the additional hours of news programmed by the latter should be given greater credit than the higher percentage of the former, and have acted accordingly. 

n9 See the studies cited in notes 5, 6, and 7 in the Introduction to this Report.

In addition to the hours of news, public affairs, and other programming broadcast by a station in the composite week, the disparity between a station's promised performance and its actual performance and the decrease (or increase) in performance levels from one renewal period to the next can also be revealing measures of a station's service.  Indeed, the Commission has said as much in a few specific instances in the past.  n10 And even the current Commission, which at one time or another has indicated that it favors the total elimination of existing Commission programming standards, concedes that a station's "promise vs. performance" is a valid indication of its performance in the public interest.  n11 While we have not attempted, due to the length of this study, to relate the licensees' most recent performance to either his current or his previous promises, the necessary information is readily available, in the licensee's public file or at the FCC for those who are interested. 

n10 See, e.g., WKBN Broadcasting Corp., 30 FCC 2d 958, 975 (1971); Southern Broadcasting Co., 26 FCC 2d 998 (1970); WMOZ, Inc., 36 FCC 201, 241 (1964); and KORD, Inc., 31 FCC 85, 88 (1961).

n11 See Letter from Clay T. Whitehead, Director of Office of Telecommunications Policy, to Rep. Carl Albert, March 13, 1973.

Network affiliates ranked by total hours of news, Public Affairs, and "Other" in composite week

Rank	Call letters	Net. aff.	Mkt. No.	Location	News and rank
1	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami	17.90	9
2	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago	19.98	4
3	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles	22.00	1
4	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City	16.13	27
5	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta	17.72	12
6	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh	20.20	2
7	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia	18.55	6
8	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angles	17.05	19
9	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia	16.37	25
10	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington D.C.	172.12	17
11	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis	16.25	26
12	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham	13.97	54
13	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco	16.62	23
14	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton	20.15	3
15	WRC	NBC	10	Washington D.C.	14.83	41
16	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston	18.53	7
17	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City	15.08	39
18	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago	14.28	49
19	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus	13.60	55
20	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego	19.27	5
21	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo	15.90	30
22	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston	15.80	32
23	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven	15.20	36
24	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans	16.77	20
25	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore	15.07	40
26	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis	8.17	127
27	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami	14.37	46
28	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven	13.58	56
29	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland	14.03	53
30	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston	14.65	44
31	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit	14.80	42
31	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	16.77	20
33	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore	14.07	52
34	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	16.65	22
35	KGW	NBC	26	Portland	16.48	24
36	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton	17.22	16
37	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	14.68	43
38	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal	12.82	67
39	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis	12.62	69
40	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington D.C.	10.43	101
41	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston	11.43	84
42	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton	11.83	74
43	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland	11.57	81
43	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	8.08	129
45	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	6.25	137
46	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham	15.63	33
47	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence	13.35	63
48	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma	13.48	61
49	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati	11.27	88
50	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-FortWorth	15.02	29
51	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	16.10	28
52	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte	15.13	38
53	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh	17.55	13
54	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	13.50	58
55	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans	17.12	17
56	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta	17.40	15
57	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	11.32	87
58	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington	14.37	46
59	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore	11.58	79
60	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh	11.82	75
61	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago	9.50	114
62	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia	9.32	117
63	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	11.33	86
64	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix	17.85	10
65	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis	18.42	8
66	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma	12.88	66
66	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus	9.33	116
68	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis	17.47	14
69	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City	11.72	77
70	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco	10.05	107
70	WIOL	CBS	45	Toledo	13.37	62
72	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City	17.75	11
73	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver	11.58	79
74	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	13.50	58
75	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte	13.50	58
76	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix	15.33	34
77	WABC	ABC	1	New York City	10.58	98
77	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City	14.58	45
79	KOA	NBC	32	Denver	14.32	48
80	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis	15.82	31
81	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven	8.87	121
82	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City	12.25	72
83	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma	14.23	50
84	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville	15.27	35
85	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville	11.47	82
86	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland	11.73	76
87	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami	12.05	73
88	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio	15.17	37
89	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse	11.37	85
90	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City	10.57	99
91	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	14.10	51
92	WIMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee	12.40	71
93	KFNS	CBS	45	San Antonio	12.82	67
94	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence	12.98	65
95	KIRK	ABC	15	Houston	10.97	91
96	KATU	ABC	26	Portland	10.85	94
97	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville	13.00	64
98	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee	10.23	104
99	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit	10.05	107
100	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	8.58	124
101	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville	10.83	95
102	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego	13.57	57
103	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T	10.62	97
104	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City	10.32	102
105	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal	10.88	93
106	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo	8.75	123
107	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington	10.22	105
108	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis	11.05	89
109	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo	10.50	100
110	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence	11.63	78
111	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee	9.55	113
112	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans	10.08	106
113	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo	9.68	111
114	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	12.62	69
115	KABC	ABC	22	Los Angeles	9.75	110
116	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit	10.30	103
117	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham	7.73	132
118	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati	11.00	90
119	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T	9.22	119
120	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton	9.57	112
121	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T	11.47	82
122	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix	9.50	114
123	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton	8.38	125
124	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City	8.00	130
125	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville	5.35	141
126	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta	9.22	119
127	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse	9.25	118
128	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver	9.97	109
129	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte	5.08	142
130	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus	7.42	133
131	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio	10.95	92
132	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington	8.85	122
133	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City	7.37	134
134	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland	8.12	128
135	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	10.63	96
136	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City	6.00	139
137	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	8.00	130
138	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati	5.88	140
139	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis	6.47	136
140	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis	6.15	138
141	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	8.20	126
142	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville	4.53	143
143	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse	6.55	135
144	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo	1.67	144

Rank	Pub. affairs and rank		Other and rank
					Composite
1	11.12	7	16.82	12	45.833
2	9.10	15	14.00	21	43.083
3	10.03	9	10.78	70	42.817
4	4.10	83	21.72	1	41.950
5	4.97	59	18.92	6	41.600
6	7.13	31	13.50	27	40.833
7	11.43	3	10.83	69	40.817
8	4.10	83	19.63	5	40.783
9	3.62	98	20.12	3	40.100
10	9.92	10	12.52	38	39.550
11	4.70	68	18.22	8	39.167
12	6.07	39	18.72	7	38.750
13	10.72	8	11.37	59	38.700
14	7.67	20	10.57	77	38.383
15	9.37	13	13.78	23	37.983
16	7.78	19	11.17	65	37.483
17	11.13	6	11.08	66	37.300
18	5.57	48	17.42	9	37.267
19	5.60	47	16.87	11	36.067
20	4.22	80	12.08	46	35.567
21	7.45	23	12.05	48	35.400
22	7.32	27	12.03	49	35.150
23	6.27	36	13.55	25	35.017
24	5.50	49	12.70	36	34.967
25	6.33	35	13.52	26	34.917
26	6.83	32	19.83	4	34.833
27	7.38	25	12.68	37	34.433
28	5.18	55	15.60	18	34.367
29	3.07	117	17.25	10	34.350
30	8.70	16	10.47	83	33.817
31	4.75	66	13.95	22	33.500
31	5.22	54	11.52	56	33.500
33	4.45	74	14.85	19	33.367
34	3.22	113	13.45	28	33.317
35	5.73	44	11.05	68	33.267
36	4.07	89	11.40	58	32.683
37	6.42	34	11.53	55	32.633
38	3.87	92	15.82	16	32.500
39	7.47	22	12.33	43	32.417
40	7.67	20	14.25	20	32.350
41	11.17	4	9.38	95	31.983
42	7.92	18	12.08	46	31.833
43	3.43	104	16.70	13	31.700
43	7.38	25	16.23	15	31.700
45	4.30	79	21.12	2	31.667
46	4.90	60	11.08	66	31.617
47	7.40	24	10.53	79	31.283
48	4.50	72	13.25	32	31.233
49	3.28	110	16.52	14	31.067
50	7.22	30	7.90	118	31.033
51	2.98	119	11.85	52	30.933
52	3.30	108	12.40	41	30.833
53	4.83	62	8.40	110	30.783
54	8.15	17	9.10	99	30.750
55	4.53	71	9.10	99	30.750
56	4.10	83	9.22	97	30.717
57	3.57	100	15.62	17	30.500
58	5.38	51	10.73	71	30.483
59	11.90	2	6.85	133	30.333
60	9.63	12	8.75	104	30.200
61	7.25	28	13.43	30	30.183
62	9.25	14	11.50	57	30.067
63	7.23	29	11.35	60	29.917
64	6.27	36	5.67	140	29.783
65	2.50	126	8.67	107	29.583
66	5.30	53	11.32	61	29.500
66	9.67	11	10.50	80	29.500
68	6.05	40	5.98	138	29.500
69	3.93	90	13.62	24	29.267
70	11.15	5	7.80	121	29.000
70	2.35	133	13.28	31	29.000
72	4.18	81	6.88	132	28.817
73	4.32	78	12.82	35	28.717
74	3.88	91	11.20	63	28.583
75	4.77	65	10.18	86	28.450
76	2.52	125	10.57	77	28.417
77	5.37	52	12.42	40	28.367
77	5.88	42	7.90	118	28.367
79	6.17	38	7.87	120	28.350
80	5.13	57	7.33	127	28.283
81	12.92	1	6.43	136	28.217
82	3.55	101	12.22	44	28.017
83	4.40	76	9.15	98	27.783
84	1.08	143	11.23	62	27.783
85	4.08	86	12.00	51	27.550
86	5.15	56	10.62	75	27.500
87	5.07	58	10.23	85	27.350
88	6.75	33	5.42	141	27.333
89	3.73	96	12.17	45	27.267
90	3.77	95	12.92	34	27.250
91	5.62	46	7.33	127	27.050
92	4.08	86	10.50	80	26.983
93	3.10	116	10.72	72	26.633
94	4.70	68	8.10	115	25.783
95	4.85	61	9.82	89	25.633
96	2.83	120	11.83	53	25.517
97	4.35	77	8.17	113	25.517
98	2.80	121	12.35	42	25.383
99	3.28	110	12.02	50	25.350
100	3.30	108	13.45	28	25.333
101	2.33	134	11.83	53	25.000
102	4.50	72	6.77	134	24.833
103	3.20	114	10.65	74	24.467
104	5.98	41	8.12	114	24.417
105	4.45	74	8.93	102	24.267
106	5.82	43	9.67	98	24.233
107	3.48	103	10.50	80	24.200
108	4.17	82	8.75	104	23.967
109	4.63	70	8.45	109	23.583
110	5.65	45	6.22	137	23.500
111	3.43	104	10.40	84	23.383
112	3.32	107	9.90	87	23.300
113	2.50	126	11.10	65	23.283
114	3.25	112	7.17	131	23.033
115	4.83	62	8.38	111	22.967
116	3.82	93	8.75	104	22.867
117	5.40	50	9.50	94	22.633
118	3.42	106	7.92	117	22.333
119	3.73	96	9.30	96	22.250
120	1.80	142	10.67	73	22.033
121	3.00	118	7.38	126	21.850
122	4.83	62	7.28	129	21.617
123	2.45	130	10.60	76	21.433
124	3.58	99	9.70	92	21.283
125	2.65	122	12.95	33	20.950
126	4.08	86	7.22	130	20.517
127	3.55	101	7.47	125	20.267
128	3.20	114	6.55	135	19.717
129	1.90	141	12.52	38	19.500
130	2.20	136	9.80	90	19.417
131	3.80	94	4.27	144	19.017
132	2.00	139	7.97	116	18.817
133	2.40	132	8.98	101	18.750
134	2.03	137	8.35	112	18.500
135	2.43	131	5.27	142	18.333
136	4.75	66	7.53	124	18.283
137	2.62	123	7.58	123	18.200
138	2.50	126	9.78	91	18.167
139	2.33	134	8.87	103	17.667
140	2.55	124	8.67	107	17.367
141	2.03	137	5.68	139	15.917
142	2.47	129	7.73	122	14.733
143	1.93	140	5.12	143	13.600
144	83	144	9.90	87	12.400

Public Service Announcements

In addition to requiring information with respect to news, public affairs, and other programming, the FCC requires that stations report the number of public service announcements (psa's) aired during the composite week and the number proposed to be aired during an average week in the future renewal period.  While the broadcasting of psa's is one measure of a station's performance in the public interest, the Commission, in common with the data it receives on news, public affairs, and other programming, has never attempted to set "psa standards" at renewal time, for the purpose of evaluating licensee performance.  n12

n12 Indeed, Deputy Broadcast Bureau Chief Harold Kassens, in noting that some licensees even fail to fill in this blank on their application, said "It doesn't matter whether they run one or 1000... we're not going to do anything about it...."

Although we believe that the quantity of psa's broadcast by a station in any given week is a measure of its performance in the public interest, it must be recognized that the number by itself reveals very little about a station's performance.  In point of fact, what the figure does not reveal may be even more significant than what it does.

The figure does not disclose, for example, how the psa's are distributed during a typical broadcast day.  Because they are aired free of charge it is likely that a station will run them most frequently during the hours when its rates are lowest and it sells the least commercial time -- i.e., late might and early morning.  The natural tendency, given that television as presently constituted is a profit-maximizing enterprise, is to broadcast psa's in the hours when air time is cheapest and, accordingly, audiences smallest.  To run a sixty-second psa during prime time will ordinarily cost a station hundreds of dollars in lost revenue, whereas running it at 2:30 am entails either no loss (because the time could not be sold) or a loss of considerably smaller magnitude.  Notwithstanding, therefore, that a station may be presenting large numbers of psa's during any given week, their effect and value will be marginal if they appear predominantly at those times when television audiences are smallest.

Not only does the present renewal application not disclose the distribution of psa's, but it also does not disclose their length.  Although a psa of ten seconds duration may on occasion be just as effective as one of sixty seconds, it is likely that a station running five-and ten-second psa's exclusively is doing so solely in order to lose as little revenue as possible and is therefore indiscriminately rejecting all announcements of greater length.  This practice is manifestly not consonant with station performance in the public interest.

Finally, the renewal application does not require that a licensee disclose the source of psa's.  Licensees have a Congressional mandate to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity of their local communities, and it necessarily follows that psa's should be well-suited to this task.  Although national organizations are fully entitled to free time for psa's, service to the local community is the raison d'etre of a television station, hence locally produced announcements ought to be given preferred treatment.  When a station airs only professionally produced announcements from national organizations (e.g., Heart Association, the U.S. Army or CARE), because they are better-sounding or appearing or easier to broadcast for technical reasons, or because they are less hard-hitting and controversial (having been cleared by the Advertising Council), it can scarcely be maintained that the local community is being as well served as it would be by announcements regarding even a local blood drive or a library fund-raising event -- not to mention more controversial local issues.  Unfortunately, the present renewal application does not reveal whether or not such treatment is in fact being accorded locally originated psa's, and determination of that, as well as the time and duration of announcements, must be left to the monitoring techniques of concerned local organizations.

Notwithstanding these substantial shortcomings, the number of announcements listed on the renewal applications does give some indication of service to the public.  We do feel that the station with 450 psa's and the station with but 50 both deserve to have that fact noted in our study.  Accordingly, we present below a ranking based solely on the number of psa's.  Because of the defects in these numbers which we have just discussed, however, we have not included this factor in our final composite ranking.

Network Affiliates Ranked by Number of Public Service Announcements in Composite Week

Rank	Call letters	Net. aff.	Mkt. No.	Location	PSA's
1	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City	572
2	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore	495
3 KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia	464
4	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	462
5	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland	446
6	WIVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	386
7	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence	369
8	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City	365
9	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh	364
10	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia	348
11	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix	336
12	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston	327
13	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven	326
14	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco	317
14	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus	317
16	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh	309
17	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston	300
17	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington, D.C.	300
17	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham	300
20	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	297
21	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore	290
22	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City	287
22	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston	287
24	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	286
25	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma	285
26	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T	281
27	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse	272
28	WINH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven	270
29	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City	269
30	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	265
31	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo	263
32	KGW	NBC	26	Portland	262
33	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence	259
33	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City	259
35	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo	258
36	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati	256
37	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego	251
38	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia	247
38	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio	247
40	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington, D.C.	246
41	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore	245
41	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati	245
43	KABC	ABC	2hLos Angeles	243
44	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta	242
45	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	241
45	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis	241
45	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami	241
48	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T	238
49	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis	237
50	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis	235
51	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver	234
52	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T	231
52	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago	231
54	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	230
54	KATU	ABC	26	Portland	230
56	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami	226
56	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh	226
58	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee	224
59	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington	221
60	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston	218
61
KOA	NBC	32	Denver	216
62	WABC	ABC	1	New York City	214
63	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte	212
64	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio	211
65	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City	207
65	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville	207
67	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	204
67	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis	204
69	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo	203
69	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington	203
71	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland	200
72	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans	198
73	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse	197
74	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton	195
74	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	195
76	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus	194
77	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton	192
78	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta	191
79	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton	188
80	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis	186
81
WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City	185
81	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham	185
83	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit	184
83	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville	184
85	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles	183
85	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	183
87	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago	182
88	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland	179
88	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis	179
88	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix	179
91	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus	177
91	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington	177
91	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	177
91	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal	177
95	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans	176
96	WRC	NBC	10	Washington D.C.	173
97	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City	172
97	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton	172
99	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles	169
100	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta	166
101	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago	165
101	KTRK	ABC	15	Houston	165
103	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo	163
104	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	162
105	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence	159
106	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco	155
106	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City	155
108	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo	154
109
KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City	151
109	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte	151
111	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix	150
112	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsp-High Pt-Win Sal	149
112	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami	149
112	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte	149
115	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse	148
116	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St Paul	147
117	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo	146
118	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City	135
119	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham	134
120	WILL	ABC	21	Milwaukee	133
121	KGIV	NBC	49	San Diego	132
122	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	130
123	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver	129
124	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland	127
125	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	126
126	KSIP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	124
127	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati	121
128	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio	115
129	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	114
130	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville	112
131	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis	112
132	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit	110
133	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma	109
134	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis	107
135	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee	103
136	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans	98
137	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis	86
138	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville	84
139	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville	84
140	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma	83
141	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit	81
142	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville	75
143	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton	60
144	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven	0

III.  COMMERCIALIZATION

Public concern with the amount and character of broadcast advertising was recognized as early as 1922 when Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce and in charge of radio regulation, said: "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service, for news, for entertainment, for education and for vital commercial purposes to be drowned in advertising chatter." n13

n13 Hearings Before Communications Subcommittee of Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H.R. 8316, H.R. 8318, H.R. 8729, H.R. 8896, H.R. 8980, H.R. 9042 at 37 (Nov. 6, 1963).

In 1960 the FCC said that broadcast licensees have an obligation "to avoid abuses with respect to the total amount of time devoted to advertising continuity as well as the frequency with which regular programs are interrupted for advertising messages." n14 The problem, however, is that the Commission has never done anything concrete about over commercialization, because its knee-jerk response tends to be to protect the industry's profits rather than the public interest. 

n14 Id.

In 1963, for example, the Commission tentatively announced that it would attempt to propose the adoption of rules requiring all broadcast licensees to observe the limitations on advertising contained in the industry�s own self-regulatory handbook, the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Good Practices.  n15 Those limitations, which can be ignored by broadcasters if they choose, today would include 9 1/2 minutes per hour of commercials in prime time and 16 minutes at all other times except children's weekend programming, from 7:00 am to 2:00 pm Saturday and Sunday, which has recently been limited to 12 minutes per hour. 

n15 See the comprehensive discussion of this rulemaking and its ultimate demise in Krasnow and Longley, The Politics of Broadcast Regulations 105-111 (1973).

Needless to say, the industry outcry to the suggestion was as rapid as it was furious, and the Commission quickly backed off with a 1964 promise to continue to develop its policy on commercialization on a case by case basis.  n16 Broadcasting Magazine, always privy to the Commissions innermost thoughts and processes, assured the industry in July of 1964 that only the most extreme cases of over commercialization would ever be brought to the Commission's attention.  n17

n16 Id., at 107. The Commission found its ground cut out from under it by a concerted broadcaster assault on Congress which led to hearings on a bill "to prohibit the Commission from adopting any rules governing the length or frequency of broadcast ads." When the bill overwhelmingly passed the House (before dying in the Senate) the Commission seemed to get the "message" and allowed its rulemaking to expire without coming to any results.

n17 "FCC Again Rebuff's Chairman," Broadcasting, July 27, 1969, at 34.

The basic assumption used in applying the commercialization factor in the final ranking of our study is that the greater the emphasis on commercials (the more the commercial time) the worse the station is performing.  While recognizing the current need of the broadcaster to protect his financial self-interest (and that of his stockholders), we have attempted to balance that self-interest against the needs of the viewing public in determining the relative service of each affiliate in the study.  Moreover, we are not convinced that greater service to the public, via fewer commercials, necessarily means less revenue to the broadcaster.  An advertising executive concerned about the value of his commercial product recently screened for his colleagues a single "clutter clip" spanning the even minute period between the end of one prime time network show and the beginning of the next, in which he counted no fewer than thirty-five separate "messages" to the viewer!  Surely, if fewer "minutes" of commercial time are made available, as a service to the public, the advertiser will be willing to pay a higher price for the greater exclusivity he is buying.

This theory is at least partially borne out by the variety of international experiences in setting commercial limitations.  In Germany, for example, advertisers willingly pay more for one of the twenty minutes of commercials allowed per day than they would if commercials were appearing at a rate of 12 or 16 minutes per hour.  Such advertising, moreover, is strictly limited to the 6-8 pm portion of German "prime time," in which the normally varied German television fare is given over to -- you guessed it! - American series reruns.  Other international standards included those of France which, in 1968, only allowed a total of 2 minutes of advertising per day.  Newer rulings, however, allow 5 minutes of advertising on one channel and 15 minutes on another.  Canada limits commercial time to 7 minutes per hour segment and also places a limit on the amount of advertisements during any 15 minute period to 5 in number and 4 minutes of total time.

The extent of the Commission regulation of commercials at the present time is "the 18 month letter" which is sent to all television licensees who propose in their renewal applications to exceed 16 minutes of commercial matter per hour.  In response to this letter the applicant must give information on complaints, total number of hours in excess of 16 minutes of commercial time, and defenses of the station's policies in terms of community and public interest.  The "18 month letter" amounts only to a doubt expressed by the Commission that the licensee is not meeting the public interest in commercialization -- a "doubt" involving as little actual sanction as does the NAB Code.

The data gathered in the course of this study was limited to the resources available, namely the license renewal form 303 filed by the licensee.  Form 303, Section IV-B, Part IV asks the applicant to list past commercial practices and Part V asks for proposed commercial practices including the following questions: "What is the maximum amount of commercial matter in any 60 minute segment which the applicant proposes normally to allow?  If the applicant proposes to permit this amount to be exceeded at times, state under what circumstances and how often this is expected to occur, and the limits that would then apply." The form fails, however, to request a breakdown of commercialization in prime time and non prime-time hours.  Nor does it require submission of crucial information on program interruption or other matters, such as loudness violations.  n18

n18 Statement of Policy Concerning Loud Commercials, FCC 65-618 (July 12, 1965).

The license renewal application requests the licensee to submit the number of 60 minute segments which fall into four categories: (A) up to and including 8 minutes; (B) over 8 and up to and including 12 minutes; (C) over 12 and up to and including 16 minutes; (D) over 16 minutes.  We concluded that the categories (C) and (D) (over 12-16, and over 16) were most significant for our study; 12 minutes of commercials per hour means that the public is being subjected to commercials at a rate of one hour out of every five, or 20% of all broadcasting time, and is a useful maximum limit.  Such commercialization would violate even the industry's own standards in prime time and during children's programming.  We find no justification for giving any weight at all to the NAB's 16 minute non-prime time standard.

The total column and the ranking column in the commercialization table will indicate the number of 60 minute segments in which 12 or more commercial minutes appeared during the composite week: the number one station is therefore that station with the fewest 60 minute segments with 12 or more commercial minutes.

We considered and rejected using a method of ranking based on the number of 60 minute segments with 12 or more minutes of commercials expressed as a percentage of the total number of 60 minute segments in the station's broadcast week, because a clear advantage would then accrue to stations operating between 12 midnight and 6:00 am, when far fewer commercials can be sold.  The result would have been an unrealistic lower overall percentage.  By using raw data the focus is on the time of greatest audience viewing, and a more accurate reflection of significant over-commercialization should thus be obtained.

We also considered more heavily weighting the over-16 category as a penalty, since per se violations were obvious here.  A random sampling of the stations indicated, however, that this category produced such a small occurrence relative to those in the over 12 to 16 category (just one or two 60 minute segments per station) that unless an extremely high weighting factor (e.g., 5x) was applied there would be no significance to the overall ranking.  Moreover, any weighting would necessarily be arbitrary.  Where ties occurred, however, in the commercialization ranking, the number of segments of over-16 minutes of commercials was used to break them.

We recognize that this analysis -- and the data upon which it is based -- is less than ideal.  For a broadcaster to run 13 minutes of non-program matter during 60 minutes when the NAB Code would permit 16 is one thing; to run 13 minutes when the Code permits 9 1/2 is something else again.  And yet the renewal form does not permit such distinctions.  On the other hand, to the viewer who is watching, 13 minutes is 13 minutes whatever time of day the commercials may be run.

Another factor we could not analyze from the available data was whether a broadcaster could have sold more commercials than he did.  For example, of the 20 highest ranked stations on the commercialization index (that is, the 20 with the fewest number of commercials) 14 are in markets 26 to 50.  It is possible to conclude that this "favorable" ranking reflects no higher ethical values, or desire to serve the public interest, but merely the inability to sell more commercials than that.

Network Affiliates Ranked by Number of Composite Week Hours With More Than 12 Min of Commercials

Rank	Call letters	Net. aff.	Mkt.	Location
			No.
1	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco
2	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
3	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
4	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
5	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
6	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
6	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo
8	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse
9	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
10	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
11	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville
12	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
13	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
13	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Spinbg-Ashvi
13	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
16	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
16	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte
16	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington
16	KDVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
16	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
16	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
22	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
23	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
24	KATU	ABC	26	Portland
24	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis
26	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston
27	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington
28	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
28	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-WinSal
30	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
31	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
32	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
33	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
33	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
35	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
36	WAVY	NBC	44	Norfolk-Newport News-Hampton
36	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-Troy
36	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis
39	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
40	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
41	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
41	WVEC	ABC	44	Norfolk-Newport News-Hampton
41	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
41	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington, D.C.
41	WIEV	ABC	34	Providence
46	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Grand Rapids
46	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
46	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami
49	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
49	WHDQ	ABC	29	Memphis
49	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
49	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
49	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
49	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
55	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham
56	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham
57	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
57	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
57	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo
57	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
57	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
62	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
63	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
63	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
63	WIDL	CBS	45	Toledo
63	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
63	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
63	KTRK	ABC	15	Houston
69	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus
70	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
70	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington
70	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
70	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
70	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
75	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis
75	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
77	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
78	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
78	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
80	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
81hKOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City
81	WDSO	NBC	31	New Orleans
81	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
81	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte
81	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
86	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
87	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
88	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City
88	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
88	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
88	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
88	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
88	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
88	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
88	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
88	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
97	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
98	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
99	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
99	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco
101	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City
101	WRC	NBC	10	Washington, D.C.
101	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
101	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis
105	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
106	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
106	WIMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
108	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
108	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
110	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston
111	KOA	NBC	32	Denver
112	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
113	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
114	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
114	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
116	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
117	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
117	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
119	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
119	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington, D.C.
121	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
121	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
121	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
121	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
121	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
126	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
126	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
128	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
129	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
130	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
131	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
132	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
132	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
132	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago
135	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton
136	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego
137	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
138	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
139	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
140	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
141	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
142	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
143	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
144	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City

Rank	12-16	Over 16	Total
	min.
1	2	0	2
2	4	0	4
3	10	1	11
4	13	0	13
5	15	0	15
6	18	0	18
6	18	0	18
8	19	0	19
9	18	1	19
10	20	0	20
11	21	1	22
12	23	0	23
13	24	0	24
13	24	0	24
13	24	0	24
16	25	0	25
16	25	0	25
16	25	0	25
16	25	0	25
16	25	0	25
16	25	0	25
22	24	1	25
23	26	0	26
24	27	0	27
24	27	0	27
26	26	1	27
27	24	3	27
28	28	0	28
28	28	0	28
30	29	0	29
31	28	1	29
32	27	2	29
33	30	0	30
33	30	0	30
35	29	1	30
36	31	0	31
36	31	0	31
36	31	0	31
39	30	1	31
40	29	2	31
41	32	0	32
41	32	0	32
41	32	0	32
41	32	0	32
41	32	0	32
46	31	1	32
46	31	1	32
46	31	1	32
49	33	0	33
49	33	0	33
49	33	0	33
49	33	0	33
49	33	0	33
49	33	0	33
55	31	2	33
56	29	4	33
57	35	0	35
57	35	0	35
57	35	0	35
57	35	0	35
57	35	0	35
62	33	2	35
63	36	0	36
63	36	0	36
63	36	0	36
63	36	0	36
63	36	0	36
63	36	0	36
69	36	1	36
70	37	0	37
70	37	0	37
70	37	0	37
70	37	0	37
70	37	0	37
75	36	1	37
75	36	1	37
77	35	2	37
78	38	0	38
78	38	0	38
80	36	2	38
81	39	0	39
81	39	0	39
81	39	0	39
81	39	0	39
81	39	0	39
86	38	1	39
87	37	2	39
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
88	40	0	40
97	39	1	40
98	41	0	41
99	40	1	41
99	40	1	41
101	42	0	42
101	42	0	42
101	42	0	42
101	42	0	42
105	41	1	42
106	43	0	43
106	43	0	43
108	44	0	44
108	44	0	44
110	43	1	44
111	42	2	44
112	45	0	45
113	44	1	45
114	45	1	46
114	45	1	46
116	44	2	46
117	47	0	47
117	47	0	47
119	46	1	47
119	46	1	47
121	48	0	48
121	48	0	48
121	48	0	48
121	48	0	48
121	48	0	48
126	47	1	48
126	47	1	48
128	46	2	48
129	49	0	49
130	48	1	49
131	46	3	49
132	50	0	50
132	50	0	50
132	50	0	50
135	48	2	50
136	47	3	50
137	49	2	51
138	52	0	52
139	51	2	53
140	55	0	55
141	56	0	56
142	57	1	58
143	55	3	58
144	49	10	59

IV.  LOCAL PROGRAMMING

From the beginning, a strong legal and cultural emphasis in American broadcasting has been on local service.  The Federal Communications Act of 1934, for example, provides that broadcast licenses should be divided "among the several states and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio services to each of the same." n19 The Act never mentions networks, except to emphasize that the FCC should watch over their operation, n20 and in repeated decisions and rulings since then, both the courts and the FCC have defined television in America as local television.  n21

n19 47 U.S.C. �  307(b).

n20 47 U.S.C. �  303(i) gives the Commission authority to "make special regulations applicable to radio stations engaged in chain broadcasting."

n21 There was a considerable amount of language to that effect in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. (1943), which upheld the right of the Commission to regulate the practices of the networks.

It didn't have to be this way, and in retrospect it would have been more efficient and more profitable for television service to have been national or regional in nature, with superpower stations blanketing the country and "local" service limited only to translating or augmenting the central station's signal.  This scheme is used in most of the civilized nations of the world, and indeed, was seriously considered in the United States in what was called DuMont Plan, which the Commission finally rejected in its Sixth Report and Order on Television Allocations in 1952.  n22 It said:

n22 Dockets 8736, 8975, 8976 and 9175, 1 P & F Radio Reg. 91:599 (part 3) (1952).

This Commission... believes that on the basis of the Communications Act it must recognize the importance e of making it possible... for a large number of communities to obtain television assignments of their own.  In the Commission's view as many communities as possible should have the opportunity of enjoying the advantages that derive from having local outlets that will be responsive to local needs.  [emphasis added] n23

n23 Id., at paragraph 79.

This allocation decision was by no means a minor one, either, since it required a far greater chunk of the valuable, limited frequency space than any system of national or regional broadcasting would have required.  As the Commission reiterated in the course of its 1960 en banc Programming Inquiry, it had long since determined that "the principal ingredient of the licensee's obligation to operate his station in the public interest is the diligent, positive and continuing effort by the licensee to discover and fulfill the tastes, needs and desires of his community...." n24

n24 Report and Statement of Policy Re: Commission En Banc Programming Inquiry, 25 F.R. 7291.  20 P & F Radio Reg. 1901 (1960).

Despite this conscious attempt to emphasize local service concerned with local politics, education, sports, entertainment, religion, and so forth, for network affiliates the concept has largely been a failure.  The statistical analysis of the local programming of the stations in this study indicates that the average station did little more than 13 hours of local programming in a week -- 13 hours out of a broadcast week that sometimes stretches to 135 hours and beyond.  And with most stations, fewer than one-fourth of all "local" hours were programmed in prime time.  The rest of the broadcast week is left to be filled by the network feeding often as much as 17 continuous hours a day with national entertainment, news, and sports.  Moreover, any gap is often taken up by syndicated programs purchased independently by the local stations -- programs like The Mike Douglas Show or The Dating Game, or old movies.

The networks simply dominate "local" television.  Most viewers know their local television stations by channel number, but few identify those channels with local stations.  The identification tends to be with the network.  Without the occasional station "I.D." required by the FCC, the local stations could very well slip into total anonymity.

Variety's Les Brown blames the profit-motive:

It was a noble theory to make the station the basic component of the system and hold it responsible for what it broadcasts, but in practice it has been about as effective as holding the newsstand dealer responsible for what appears in the papers.  Like the newsstand operator, all the average station owners really want to do is sell.  n25

n25 Lee Brown, Television: The Business Behind the Box, 179 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (1971).

It is simply cheaper -- and, therefore, better business -- to let the network provide the programming.  For each network program that the local station carries it receives a small percentage of the network's advertising revenue from that program in return.  In addition, the network leaves open a number of commercial "spots" within and around the program that the local station can sell.  During prime time hours, and for sports events, those benefits can generate a tremendous amount of revenue for the local station -- certainly far more than producing and selling a local program.  Instead of creating a local program, paying people to produce it and perform in it, and then worrying about selling it to an advertiser, a local station merely carries its network's programming or acquires nationally syndicated programs.

Moreover, an advertiser, whether his product is sold locally or nationally, is far more likely to buy time on a network or syndicated program than on a local program.  With "All in the Family," for example, an advertiser knows he has a successful program, he knows how many people he will be reaching, how old they are, and whether they are male or female.  With a local program, he seldom can have that information at all, let alone in advance.  It's the difference between the favorite and a long-shot in a horse race.  Every one of these factors helps explain why there is so little local programming, and even less high quality local programming.

Ranking television stations on the basis of their local programming is particularly difficult.  The FCC license renewal form sets out a lengthy definition of a "local program":

... any program originated or produced by the station, or for the production of which the station is primarily responsible and employing live talent for more than 50% of the time.  Such a program, taped or recorded for later broadcast, shall be classified as local.  A local program fed to a network shall be classified by the originating station as local.  All non-network news programs may be classified as local.  Programs primarily featuring records or transcriptions shall be classified as recorded even though a station announcer appears in connection with such material.  However, identifiable units of such programs which are live and separately logged as such may be classified as local.  n26

n26 F.C.C. Form No. 303, Section 4, b, page i.

It is a flexible, confusing definition that different stations interpret differently, but it leaves no doubt as to the importance of local programming.  In addition to this definition, the Policy Statement attached to the renewal form identifies 14 major elements as "necessary or desirable to serve the broadcast needs of many communities." n27 Local programming is necessarily an important part of at least seven of those elements, although only three -- news, public affairs, and local programming -- are singled out for special attention on the license renewal form.  n28

n27 Id.

n28 See Part I of this Chapter.

In ranking the stations based on their local programming the raw total of hours is used rather than the expression of that total as a percentage of the composite week, for the reasons given in this section on news.  n29 Two factors from the renewal application are combined to give a total "index" of the licensee's local programming performance.  The total hours of local programming and the total hours of local programming in prime time are added to one another and that total divided by two.  The stations are then ranked on the basis of that index.  Thus, we have given additional significance to the prime time local programming factor.  Prime time local programming is, in effect, being counted twice -- once by itself and once as part of the total hours of local programming.  This additional weight reflects a conscious judgment on our part that the impact of television should be measured in terms of the number of people it reaches, which number is far greater in prime time than any other time during the broadcast week.  For a network affiliate to program locally in prime time, other than during the half hour "returned" under the prime time access rule, n30 requires a greater degree of commitment to the local viewing public as well as to the local advertiser.  While counting the prime time local twice may be arbitrary, in view of the considerably greater number of viewers during prime time, we feel it is a legitimate and conservative additional weighting.  n31

n29 See text at page 27 of this Chapter.  "Total hours of local programming," for purposes of this report was limited to local programming logged between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. While we would have preferred to have information limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. (to account for the half hour of local news broadcast by most network affiliates between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.), we felt it was more important to discourage stations from seeking to improve their "rating" by dumping additional local programming into the virtually viewerless hours of the early morning.  As additional justification for ignoring that "traditional" half hour of local news, we would note:

i) this particular programming is generally the same for every network affiliate in the top 50 markets; and

ii) It will have already been accounted for under the category "news, public affairs and other."

n30 47 CFR �  658 (k).

n31 One problem encountered in this analysis was the precise definition of "prime time." In some central and mountain time zone states, for example, prime time actually runs from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM instead of 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM.While the recently adopted license renewal form specifically takes that phenomenon into effect, all the data we have gathered has been subject to the interpretation of "prime time" by the licensee.  It has not appeared to have a major effect on the analysis, but should be borne in mind especially when considering the local programming segment of this report.

The over-all results of the survey of local programming are not encouraging.  With but few exceptions, local network affiliates pay little attention to local programming and even less attention to local programming in prime time.  And the Commission, rather than set standards for further scrutiny in this area it has supposedly considered so important for so long, continues to look the other way at renewal time.

Network affiliates ranked by local programming

Rank	Call letters	Net. aff.	Mkt. No.	Location
1	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
2	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
3	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
4	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
5	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
6	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
7	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
8	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
9	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
10	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
11	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
12	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
13	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
14	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
15	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
16	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
17	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
18	KTRK	ABC	15	Houston
19	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
20	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans
21	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
22	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
23	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham
24	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
25	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston
26	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
27	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
28	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington D.C
29	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
30	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
31	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco
32	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
33	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
34	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City
35	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
36	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis
37	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston
38	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
39	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
40	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
41	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago
42	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
43	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
44	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
45	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton
46	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
47	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
48	WDTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
49	WRC	NBC	10	Washington D.C
49	KATU	ABC	26	Portland
51	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego
52	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
53	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
54	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City
54	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo
54	KOA	NBC	32	Denver
57	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City
58	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
59	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis
60	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
60	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
62	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City
63	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
64	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
64	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis
66	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
67	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
68	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
69	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
70	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
71	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami
71	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
73	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
74	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
75	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
76	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
77	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
78	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
79	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington D.C
80	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Peterburg
81	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
82	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
83	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
84	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
85	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington
86	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis
87	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo
88	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
89	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
89	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
91	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
92	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
93	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
94	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco
95	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
95	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
97	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
97	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
99	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
99	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
101	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
102	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
103	WSPA	CBS	40	Giville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
104	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
105	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
106	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
107	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
108	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
109	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
110	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
111	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
112	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
113	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
114	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
115	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
116	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
117	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
118	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
119	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington
120	WFLA	NBC	24	Ampa-St. Petersburg
120	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
122	WSDC	NBC	35	Charlotte
123	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
123	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
125	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham
126	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
127	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
128	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus
129	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
130	WTFV	ABC	34	Providence
131	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
132	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
133	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte
134	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
135	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
136	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville
137	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
138	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis
139	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo
140	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington
141	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
142	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
143	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
144	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse

Rank	Prime time local and rank		Local programming and rank
					Composite
1	6.17	42	35.67	1	20.917
2	6.00	46	25.42	2	15.708
3	8.00	7	21.92	4	14.958
4	8.82	5	19.88	8	14.350
5	9.00	2	19.42	11	14.208
6	8.53	6	19.45	10	13.992
7	9.58	1	17.92	21	13.750
8	8.00	7	18.92	15	13.458
9	6.52	27	20.30	6	13.408
10	4.53	76	22.02	3	13.275
11	7.42	16	19.03	14	13.225
12	8.92	4	17.25	32	13.083
13	8.00	7	17.95	20	12.975
14	4.00	80	21.92	4	12.958
15	6.50	29	19.35	12	12.925
16	6.20	41	19.32	13	12.758
17	6.50	29	18.83	16	12.667
18	7.38	18	17.90	22	12.642
19	7.80	10	17.30	31	12.550
20	7.50	15	17.58	27	12.542
21	6.50	29	18.55	17	12.525
22	6.67	25	18.33	18	12.500
23	5.23	65	19.62	9	12.425
24	7.02	20	17.60	26	12.308
25	6.03	44	18.25	19	12.142
26	7.67	12	16.17	39	11.917
27	7.40	17	16.27	38	11.833
28	3.50	91	20.07	7	11.783
29	7.52	14	15.93	42	11.725
30	5.50	57	17.83	23	11.667
31	7.00	21	16.00	40	11.500
32	6.00	46	16.98	33	11.492
33	7.73	11	15.23	53	11.483
34	6.50	29	16.45	36	11.475
35	5.57	56	17.35	30	11.458
36	6.50	29	16.33	37	11.417
37	5.00	70	17.58	27	11.292
38	7.00	21	15.47	48	11.233
39	6.92	23	15.00	55	10.958
40	4.00	80	17.75	25	10.875
41	4.15	78	17.57	29	10.858
42	6.00	46	15.58	44	10.792
43	6.52	27	15.00	55	10,758
44	6.27	38	15.07	54	10.667
45	6.00	46	15.30	51	10.650
46	5.70	55	15.53	46	10.617
47	9.00	2	12.00	79	10.500
48	5.00	70	15.93	42	10.467
49	6.00	46	14.92	58	10.458
49	4.97	73	15.95	41	10.458
51	5.00	70	15.50	47	10.250
52	3.42	101	16.78	34	10.100
53	7.03	19	13.10	74	10.667
54	7.58	13	12.50	76	10.042
54	3.50	91	16.58	35	10.042
54	4.67	75	15.42	49	10.042
57	6.13	43	13.88	64	10.008
58	6.00	46	13.92	62	9.958
59	6.27	38	13.48	68	9.875
60	6.00	46	13.67	66	9.833
60	1.83	127	17.83	23	9.833
62	3.75	87	15.57	45	9.658
63	5.38	64	13.62	67	9.500
64	5.17	68	13.75	65	9.458
64	5.50	57	13.42	71	9.458
66	3.83	85	14.92	58	9.375
67	3.00	108	15.42	49	9.208
68	5.10	69	13.20	73	9.150
69	2.95	117	15.28	52	9.117
70	6.55	26	11.67	83	9.108
71	5.50	57	12.42	77	8.958
71	6.50	29	11.42	84	8.958
73	6.00	46	11.82	81	8.908
74	2.77	119	14.95	57	8.858
75	6.50	29	11.00	88	8.750
76	3.45	100	14.05	61	8.750
77	6.75	24	10.72	92	8.733
78	3.50	91	13.92	62	8.708
79	6.28	37	11.10	86	8.692
80	6.25	40	10.80	90	8.525
81	3.03	107	13.48	68	8.258
82	4.52	77	11.82	82	8.167
83	6.02	45	10.17	100	8.092
84	3.90	84	12.13	78	8.015
85	2.50	122	13.47	70	7.800
86	2.50	122	13.25	72	7.877
87	5.50	57	10.18	99	7.842
88	2.80	118	12.80	75	7.800
89	5.50	57	10.00	104	7.750
89	6.50	29	9.00	115	7.750
91	5.22	67	10.17	100	7.692
92	0.50	134	14.65	60	7.575
93	4.00	80	10.83	89	7.417
94	3.58	89	11.08	87	7.333
95	3.00	108	11.42	84	7.208
95	4.00	80	10.42	95	7.208
97	4.77	74	9.55	108	7.158
97	5.50	57	8.82	118	7.158
99	3.25	104	10.67	93	6.958
99	3.50	91	10.42	95	6.958
101	5.50	57	8.33	124	6.917
102	6.00	46	7.58	136	6.792
103	3.30	103	10.25	98	6.775
104	3.00	108	10.42	95	6.708
105	4.02	79	9.38	112	6.700
106	3.68	88	9.53	109	6.608
107	5.23	65	7.93	128	6.583
108	3.00	108	10.08	103	6.542
109	3.08	106	9.95	107	6.517
110	3.00	108	10.00	104	6.500
111	3.50	91	9.42	111	6.458
112	0.75	133	12.00	79	6.375
113	3.55	90	9.12	114	6.333
114	3.50	91	8.83	117	6.167
115	3.50	91	8.67	121	6.083
116	3.33	102	8.77	119	6.050
117	2.50	122	9.50	110	6.000
118	3.00	108	8.92	116	5.958
119	3.83	85	7.67	135	5.750
120	3.00	108	8.42	123	5.708
120	3.50	91	7.92	129	5.708
122	3.00	108	8.33	124	5.667
123	1.00	130	10.17	100	5.583
123	3.00	108	8.17	127	5.583
125	3.20	105	7.83	131	5.517
126	2.50	122	8.50	122	5.500
127	3.50	91	7.40	137	5.450
128	0.0	139	10.75	91	5.375
129	0.0	139	10.55	94	5.275
130	0.50	134	10.00	104	5.250
131	2.67	120	7.75	133	5.208
132	1.17	129	9.17	113	5.167
133	0.83	131	8.33	124	4,583
134	2.67	120	6.17	141	4.417
135	1.48	128	7.33	138	4.408
136	0.0	139	8.75	120	4.375
137	0.20	138	7.73	134	3.967
138	0.0	139	7.92	129	3.958
139	0.0	139	7.82	132	3.908
140	0.50	134	7.00	139	3.750
141	2.50	122	4.50	143	3.500
142	0.83	131	6.10	142	3.467
143	0.0	139	6.53	140	3.267
144	0.50	134	2.92	144	1.708

We believe that financial information is of special relevance in evaluating stations' programming performance.  To the extent that "quality" or "local" programming costs more than old movies, a station's gross revenues, profit, and programming expenses are relevant in evaluating whether more should be expected of the station.  Thus, it would often be of advantage to poorer stations to make this information public.  Financial information is traditionally available for public utilities and other companies regulated by government.  Getting financial information from the FCC is, however, another matter.

The Commission originally collected financial information from broadcast licensees as a way of enabling the government to keep up with the growth and development of a relatively new communications industry.  It was thought that the data would be of importance to the broadcasters themselves.  Even today the Commission accumulates and publishes market-by-market reports of revenues and expenditures for the industry.

Over the years the Commission has gradually expanded its use of this information into more substantive policy areas.  Profits are deemed relevant, for example, in determining how much a station should be fined for a violation of Commission rules.  It is used to determine whether a market can sustain economically an additional radio or television station.  It can be used in change of format cases to support (or challenge) the argument of a licensee that significant losses justify a different programming format.

It is our contention that financial information should also be used in determining whether a licensee has met its obligation to operate in the "public interest, convenience or necessity." Specifically, the amount of money spent on programming, particularly local programming, compared to the station's profits, or gross revenues, can be a valid indicator of its commitment to public service.  Our premise is that a station spending a greater percentage of its revenues on local programming is doing a better job, and accordingly we have included a financial factor designed to reflect a licensee's performance as a fourth (and final) input into our overall programming ranking.

There are, of course, severe limitations upon the effective use of financial information in a report of this nature.  Despite the fact that all licensees are required to file financial forms annually, there is no uniform system of accounts; so there is no necessary consistency between licensees' reports.  Nor does the Commission do an audit on the information it receives; so there is no guarantee of accuracy.  Furthermore, the information currently required is not particularly detailed or specific.  For example, it is impossible to tell how much of its total program expenses have been spent by a licensee on locally-originated programming or live-on-air talent, as opposed to extensive libraries of old movies.

Perhaps the most significant obstacle to the analysis of this information, however, is its confidentiality.  This has made it exceedingly difficult for the Commission staff to analyze and report our findings in the context of this study.  And it makes it virtually impossible for a concerned citizens group accurately to gauge the performance of a licensee.

On March 23, 1938, under the authority of the Communications Act of 1934 n32 and the Rules n33 the Commission ordered that each licensee of a broadcast station n34 file information about its earnings and expenditures.  n35 In April, 1945, the Commission, in seeking to update the rules regarding the filing of financial data, also invited comments as to whether any or all of the information required to be filed should be open for public inspection.  n36 In August of that year the proposed rules were adopted, including for the first time a very limited public disclosure provision commented upon by Commissioner Clifford Durr as follows:

n32 47 U.S.C. �  308(b).

n33 Then numbered �  1.341 of the Commission rules.  Today that authorization may be found at 47 CFR �  1.611.

n34 Id.  Today the language requires the reports of "each licensee or permittee of a commercially operated standard, FM, television or international broadcast station (as defined in Part 73 of this chapter)...."

n35 At that time the forms were 705 and 706 and were labelled "Annual Financial Report for Standard Broadcast Stations and Networks." By 1940, Section 1.341, note 33 supra, was deleted and redesignated Section 1.361.  In August 1943, Section 1.361 was revised and forms were thereafter referred to as 324, 328, and 329.  Information regarding ownership, operation, interests and contracts was also required by that date.

n36 In the Matter of Promulgation of Rules and Regs. Concerning the Filing of Financial Ownership and Other Reports of Broadcast Licensees, Docket 6756, 10 Fed. Reg. 4364 (1945).

... the amended rules are a move in the right direction, but in my opinion they stop far short of making available to the public information to which it is properly entitled.  Section 1.5 still withholds from public scrutiny balance sheets and income statements of broadcasting licensees filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 1.301 and network and transcription service contracts filed pursuant to Section 1.302.  It is true that the Commission... announced "that it is giving consideration to expanding its annual statistical report so that the report will contain certain financial data with respect to the operations of individual stations." This, too, gives promise of a further move in the right direction, but I can see no reason for giving the public less than complete information.  n37

n37 Memorandum of Commissioner Clifford Durr, dated August 3, 1975.

In 1960 the Commission staff undertook extensive revision of the annual financial report with the purpose of obtaining more detailed, current data on all stations.  A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was adopted and published in November 1960, n38 and the currently applicable financial Form 324 was adopted in a Memorandum Order and Opinion in January of 1963.  n39 The comments received in the course of the proceeding mainly spoke of the additional burdens on the licensees to furnish more complete information.  The question of confidentiality was not fully considered.  The information collected on April 1 of each year remains "confidential," subject of the provisions of August, 1945, its disclosure permitted only upon a "substantial showing of relevancy and need." n40

n38 25 Fed. Reg. 10738 (1960).

n39 28 Fed. Reg. 36 (1963).

n40 See 47 CFR �  0.451, 0.457, 0.461 (1968): Multivision Northwest, Inc., 8 F.C.C. 2d 892, aff's on reconsideration, 10 F.C.C. 2d 391 (1967).

Two provisions of the Public Information Act of 1966 are pertinent to the Commission's authority to disclose or withhold confidential financial information: 5 U.S.C. �  552 provides that the general requirement of each administrative agency to "make available to the public" certain types of information does not apply to "... trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential." Notwithstanding this language, �  552 does not prohibit the disclosure of such financial information; it merely exempts it from compulsory disclosure, leaving the release of financial information to the discretion of the agency.  The Commission has explicitly recognized this discretionary authority in the text of its rule, n41 which states that the Commission is "authorized to withhold" -- not prevented from withholding -- such confidential information under Federal law. 

n41 5 U.S.C. �  552(b)(4).

The second pertinent provision of the U.S. Code is contained in 18 U.S.C. �  1905, which provides in part:

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties..., which information concerns or relates to... the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof... to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined...." [emphasis added]

Once again, Section 1905 does not bar an agency from releasing otherwise confidential financial information.  It merely imposes sanctions for the "unauthorized" release of such information -- that is, in a manner not approved by the agency in its official capacity.  As the Court explained in Consumers Union of U.S., Inc v. Veterans Administration, 425 F.2d 578 (D.C. Circuit 1970):

Unlike other statutes which specifically define the range of disclosable information..., Section 1905 merely creates a criminal sanction for the release of "confidential information." Since this type of information is already protected from disclosure under the Act by �  552(b)(4), Section 1905 should not be read to expand this exemption, especially because the Act requires that exemptions be narrowly construed, 5 U.S.C. �  552(b) (Supp. IV, 1969).  n42

n42 47 CFR �  0.457(d).

The scope of Section 1905, therefore, is governed by that of Section 552, which, in turn, leaves disclosure to the discretion of the individual agency.  Where the "public interest" is concerned, the Public Information Act and its legislative history has been interpreted to place on the government agency the burden of justifying denials of disclosures:

This law was initiated by Congress and signed by the President with several key concerns: (a) that disclosure be the general rule, not the exception; (b) that all individuals have equal rights of access; (c) that the burden be on the Government to justify the withholding of a document, not on the person who requests it...  n43

n43 425 F. 2d 578 (D.D. Circuit 1970).

The Commission rules contain its principal guidelines on nondisclosure of confidential information:

The Commission is authorized to withhold from public inspection materials which would be privileged as a matter of law if retained by the person who submitted them and materials which would not customarily be released to the public by that person, whether or not such materials are protected from disclosure by a privilege.  n44

n44 See Memorandum of the Attorney General on the Public Information Act, pp. iii-iv (June 1967); See also Amendment of Part 0, Rules and Regulations, 8 F.C.C. 2d 908 (1967).

In the same Section, the Commission goes on to include the following material in non-public status: "(i) Financial reports submitted by licensees of broadcast stations pursuant to �  1.611 of this chapter or by radio and television networks.  n45

n45 47 C.F.R. �  0.457(d)(1) (1969).

Although the Commission's rules permit the disclosure of confidential financial information upon a "persuasive showing as to the reasons for inspection of such materials," n46 this "persuasive showing" is difficult for the average citizens group.  The Commission's procedures, for example, may require three separate rounds of pleadings: the first to obtain an initial ruling from the Commission's Executive Director; a second to seek review by the full Commission; and a third to obtain judicial review of Commission denials of disclosure.  n47 Months can pass before the Commission issues a final ruling suitable for judicial review.  n48 Faced with these obstacles, inexperienced petitioners are highly unlikely to prevail even if they are able to follow the prescribed procedures.  n49

n46 Id.  Indeed, the Commission has exercised its discretion on numerous occasions, releasing otherwise confidential information for "public interest" reasons.  See, e.g., Cape Cod Broadcasting Co., Inc., 23 F.C.C. 2d 277 (1970); Fetzer Cable Vision, 11 F.C.C. 2d 516 (1968): MultiVision Northwest, Inc., 8 F.C.C. 2d 892 (1967); aff'd on reconsideration, 10 F.C.C. 2d 391 (1967); cf.  Sioux Empire Broadcasting Co., 10 F.C.C. 2d 132 (1967).

n47 See the procedure outlined in 47 C.F.R. �  0.461, "Requests for inspection of materials not routinely available for inspection."

n48 See, e.g., Request by Reuben B. Robertson, 25 F.C.C. 2d 942 (1970) (more than two months taken to resolve a simple inspection request).

n49 See, e.g., McKeon Construction Co., 27 F.C.C. 2d 879 (1971); KOWL, Inc., 24 F.C.C. 2d 305 (1970): cf. Sioux Empire Broadcasting Co., 10 F.C.C. 2d (1967).

There have been three significant recent tests of the right of the Commission to withhold confidential financial information from public groups seeking to use that information to assess the relative performance of broadcast licensees: the Alianza case, the KTTV/Metromedia Commission proceeding, and the Stern Community Law Firm petition for a change in Commission rules.

In the Alianza case, n50 the D.C.  circuit Court of Appeals uphold the refusal of the Commission to disclose the annual financial reports of three Albuquerque, New Mexico, television stations to an organization of Mexican-Americans who claimed the reports would be helpful to it in deciding whether to oppose the stations' license renewals.  n51 The Commission decided the release turned upon "the reasonable necessity for petitioner having the information, the position of the station in the proceeding involved, the inability to obtain the requested information from other sources, and the relevancy and materiality of the information sought." n52

n50 Alianza Federal de Pueblos Libres v. Federal Communications Commission, 25 P & F Radio Rig. 2d 20001 (D.C.  circuit 1972).

n51 See the Commission's original Alianza decision.  31 F.C.C. 2d 557 (1971). See also Sioux Empire Broadcasting Co., 10 F.C.C. 2d 132, 134 (1967).

n52 KOWL, Inc., 24 F.C.C. 2d 305 (1970). A fuller discussion of the confidential treatment accorded to annual financial reports and of past treatment of similar requests may be found at 24 F.C.C. 2d 306.

Alianza contended that its request met the Commission's qualifications for disclosure.  Before the Commission can review a television broadcast license, the group alleged, it must find that the station's past three-year performance has sufficiently served the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." A critical element in judging past performance under that standard is the past programming.  Discussing one criterion in evaluating past programming.  Alianza stated: "there no longer seems any question that the adequacy of a station's programming must be judged in substantial part by the extent to which it reinvests an adequate percentage of its profits into locally originated and community-oriented programming." Alianaza maintained further that a broadcaster is a "public trustee," whose profits derive from the use of publicly-owned property.  The public, it asserted, is entitled to a "fair return" on their investment in the nature of programming.  This "fair return" is the value of the programming benefits received by the public expressed as a function of profits.  Consequently the profit figures and programming expenditures contained in FCC forms 324 are necessary to determine the "fair return." n53

n53 As authority for its argument, Alianza cite Wichita-Hutchinson Co., Inc., 19 F.C.C. 2d 433 (1969), a case involving the transfer of KTVH-TV in Hutchinson, Kansas, to the owner of WKY-TV, in Oklahoma City.  In that case, the Commission compared the two stations' percentages of programming expenditures to profits and gross revenue to attempt to determine if the transferee would better serve the public interest than the transferor.  Alianza also cited Citizens Communications Center v. FCC, 447 F 2d 1201 (D.C. Circuit, June 11, 1971) in which the Court suggested that "... one test of superior service should certainly be whether and to what extent the incumbent has reinvested the profit on his

The Court of Appeals, in a brief per curiam opinion upholding the Commission's contention that Alianza's arguments were not sufficiently substantial to warrant disclosure, merely accepted the Commission's argument that

the issue of financial disclosure is prematurely before the court... because the licensee may be denied renewal for deficient public service programming without reference to financial circumstances, or, in any hearing which the Commission may hold, disclosure may become necessary if the licensee attempts to justify inadequate public service programming by reference to its financial necessities.  n54

n54 Alianza, supra note 51, 25 R.R. 2d at 20002.

"In any event," the court concluded, "if renewal is granted, petitioner may seek review of that action in this court and urge as error the Commission's handling of the financial disclosure question." n55

n55 Id.

The second major recent landmark in the area of financial disclosure was the request by Citizens Communications Center for inspection of the financial reports of Metromedia, Inc., licensee of KTTV-TV, Los Angeles, California, n56 decided just one month after Alianza.  In KTTV the Commission chose to uphold the decision of its Executive Director to allow Citizens Communication Center, on behalf of the National Association for Better Broadcasting and others, to examine the licensee's financial reports for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971.  Metromedia, in response to various petitions to deny the renewal of its KTTV license, has asserted that the Commission should examine its programming performance "in the light of its income picture compared to the huge profits of the three network owned stations," and also that "Commission records reflect that... the 'large profits' in this market are being made by the network owned stations.  The rate of return for Metromedia on capital invested in KTTV has been less than the Commission permits a public utility to make." n57 The Commission felt that these assertions relied sufficiently upon the confidential information contained in the financial reports to require the disclosure of that information to the petitioners to deny.  n58

n56 FCC 72-1068 (Released December 1, 1972).

n57 Id., at pp. 2-3.

n58 In so holding the Commission pointed to a series of analogous cases.  including Multivision, et al, supra note 47.

The Alianza and KTTV cases epitomize the case-by-case approach the Commission has been taking with regard to disclosure of financial information; in neither case was there any cogent discussion of the value of making all financial reports available to the public as Commissioner Durr had suggested in his Memorandum some 28 years ago.  In the course of oral argument of the Alianza case before the Court of Appeals, however, the FCC did go on record with the assertion that if all financial information were to be made public, it should be done in a formal rulemaking and not in the course of resolving an individual case.

The Stern Community Law Firm, counsel for Alianza in that dispute, took the Commission at its word and proceeded to file a petition for just such a rulemaking, looking toward the adoption of rules (1) to permit public inspection of all FCC forms 324, "Annual Financial Report of Networks and Licensee of Broadcast Stations" at the offices of the Commission and at the offices of individual networks and broadcast licensees, and (2) to amend FCC form 324 to require each broadcast licensee to list its programming expenditures in four programming categories -- news, public affairs, all other (excluding entertainment and sports), and total local programming.

Earlier this year the Commission staff, obviously feeling somewhat boxed in by its position in the Alianza oral argument, brought up a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, based on the Stern petition, for Commission consideration.  n59 While the Notice proposed no specific amendments to existing Rules, it did invite comments on the Stern Firm suggestions and indicated an open mind rather than any specific position on the proposed changes.  The Commission majority was not nearly so troubled, however, by the considerations of inconsistent prior positions, and it quickly consigned the proposal to an early demise, with clear instructions to the staff to withdraw its proposed Notice and substitute a decision denying the Stern Firm petition.  The latter document has not yet come up for consideration, but one would have to assume that the cumbersome case-by-case process will continue to be the law in this area, and that the result will be simply to ensure that future licensees will no longer attempt to defend themselves on financially-based grounds.  n60

n59 Unreleased staff memorandum.

n60 Even though this document was never publicly released, I discuss it here because I recorded a dissenting vote to the decision to "recommit" the staff document for modification.

The form 324 financial information, while not available to the seminar students, was available to members of the Commissioner's staff.  It has been utilized in preparing this report in such fashion as not to reveal any information still currently held to be confidential.  n61

n61 It is possible, however, for a member of the public to obtain complete financial information, in totals for any three stations in a broadcasting market.

Ideally, we would have preferred to rank the stations in this report by reporting their total "programming expenses" in dollars (the only "programming" item listed separately on form 324, a sample of which is included at the end of this Part) and their profit.  This could be expressed as a ratio.  We were unable to do this for a variety of reasons.  For one, it would have been difficult to rank the stations in such a manner without revealing something more than we feel we are allowed by law to reveal.  In addition, a small handful of the stations on our list reported no profit at all, and any ranking based on a program expenses to profit ratio would have necessarily eliminated those stations.  Nevertheless, we feel such a ranking would be useful if and when the financial information is ever made available to the public.

The method we have chosen to use, and the basis for the table below, is simply to rank the stations in the study on the basis of programming expenses as a percentage of gross revenues.  This method leaves much to be desired, primarily because of the differences in methods of accounting and the lack of specificity in the figures reported, but this is the only information available to the Commission, and we feel it can be significant in a relative perspective.  That is, the station that can be shown to be spending 47% of its gross revenues on programming is, we feel, doing a better job than the station spending just 25 of its revenues.  The stations have been ranked, then, on the basis of that factor, although the table eliminates any reference to either the dollar figures or even the percentages in volved.  n62

n62 That percentage was used, however, in the computer analysis to determine more accurately the stations' relative positions.  See the more detailed discussion of the methodology in Appendix A.

Network Affiliates Ranked by the Ratio of Program Expenses/Gross Revenues

Rank	Call	Net.	Mkt.	Location
	letters	aff.	No.
1	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
2	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
3	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
4	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
5	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
6	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City
7	WRC	NBC	10	Washington, D.C.
8	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
9	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington, D.C.
WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
11	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
12	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
13	KATU	ABC	26	Portland
14	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
15	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
16	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
17	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
18	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse
19	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis
20	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
21	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
22	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
23	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville
24	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
25	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
26	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
27	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
28	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
29	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo
30	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco
31	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
32	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence
33	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
34	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
35	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
36	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis
37	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
38	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
39	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
40	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
41	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
42	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
43	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
44	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
45	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
46	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
47	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte
48	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
49	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
50	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington D.C.
51	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
52	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
53	KOCO	abc/	41	Oklahoma City
54	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
55	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans
56	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
57	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
58	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
59	WNAC	ABC	6	Boston
60	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
61	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
62	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
63	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
64	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianaplis
65	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
66	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
67	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
68	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
69	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
70	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
71	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
72	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
73	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
74	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago
75	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
76	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
77	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
78	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
79	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
80	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo
81	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
82	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
83	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
84	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp news-Hamp
85	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
86	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
87	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton
88	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
89	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
90	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
91	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
92	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
93	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
94	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
95	WVEC	ABC	44	Norfolk-Newp News-Hamp
96	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
97	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City
98	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
99	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
100	KIRK	ABC	15	Houston
101	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
102	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington
103	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco
104	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
105	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus
106	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
107	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
108	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis
109	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
110	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
111	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis
112	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
113	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
114	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
115	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
116	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
117	WCKT	NBC	18	Aliami
118	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
119	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
120	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
121	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
122	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo
123	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
124	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
125	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
126	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
127	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston
128	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego
129	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
130	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
131	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City
132	KOA	NBC	32	Denver
133	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
134	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
135	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
136	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
137	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte
138	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
139	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntingto
140	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntingto
141	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
142	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
143	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham
144	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham

CHAPTER 2

EMFLOYMENT

I.  INTRODUCTION

In June, 1969, the FCC issued formal rules forbidding employment discrimination by radio and television stations based upon race, color, national origin, or sex.  n1 The Commission's duty to issue such rules is rooted in the national policy against discrimination in employment, as embodied in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, n2 as well as the Communication Act's broad directive that all broadcast licensees serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity."

n1 47 F.C.R. �  73.680.

n2 42 U.S.C. �  2000 e-2 (1964).

The public interest standard and the national policy take on added importance when the unique nature of broadcasting is considered.  The broadcast licensee, as a "public trustee" given profitable, private use of an influential piece of public property, can only continue to be entrusted with that use if it lives up to the Commission's affirmative and enforceable public interest obligations, including obligations relating to employment.

To enable the FCC to monitor station compliance with its equal employment opportunities ruling, the broadcaster is required to submit two documents: (1) his station's equal employment opportunity plan, and (2) an employment report.  The equal employment opportunity program is submitted as part of the applicant's license renewal form.  n3 The employment report (form 395), which records the number and position of workers by race and sex, is by far the more objective and significant of the two and must be submitted annually.  n4 It is data from this second document that is the basis for the employment rankings and statistics of our network affiliates study.  (A sample of the form is included at the end of this chapter.)

n3 �  VI(b) of FCC Broadcast Renewal application form 303 calls for the applicant to out-line for the Commission his proposals for conforming his policies to the FCC rules regarding equal employment opportunities.

n4 47 C.F.R. �  1.612.

The Commission has been collecting form 395 only since 1971.  n5 Nevertheless, it has become clear in that very short time that neither the Broadcast Bureau nor a majority of the Commissioners have any intention of improving the questionable employment practices this data has revealed in a large percentage of the licensees.  There are two tough questions that must be answered before any gains can be made in the employment of minorities or women in broadcasting today.  Neither has been treated seriously by the Commission. They are: (1) What are to be the standards for licensee compliance with the Commission rules (and the federal law) concerning equal employment opportunity? (2) What are to be the penalties for non-compliance? 

n5 See Report and Order in Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to Require Broadcast Licensees to Show Nondiscrimination in their Employment Practices, 23 FCC 2d 430 (1970).

The latter question should be easy enough to answer.  Theoretically, the FCC penalties for non-compliance could range from temporary deferral of license renewal, pending further Commission inquiry into the applicant's employment program or practices, to an outright denial of the application for renewal following a hearing.  A penalty between deferral and denial might include subjecting the licensee to the forfeiture (fines) provisions of Section 503 of the Communications Act.  All have their precedent in other areas of Commission regulation, and proper penalties could be readily determined once the standards for compliance were set.

The Commission's derogation of its responsibility to answer the first question, therefore, is a far more serious one.  Prodded perhaps by the presence of the first black Commissioner in the FCC's history (Commissioner Benjamin Hooks), the Commission finally decided last August to do "something" about the equal opportunity information received with the license renewal applications.  n6 But the majority was content merely to send letters to a small handful of licensees, "requesting additional information on the licensees' efforts to provide equal employment opportunity to minority persons and women." It seemed to me we should have come up with something more than that weakly-phrased missive, and I dissented.  n7 But even that letter was only sent to stations having eleven or more employees, in areas with five per cent or greater minority population, when the form 395's reported (1) a decline in minority employees from one year to the next, or (2) no minority employees in the past year, or (3) no women employees in the past year.  Note how severely restrictive those standards are.  For example, a television station with sixty employees, one of whom was black, would not get a letter of inquiry -- so long as it did not experience a decline in minority employment. 

n6 See my dissent in Letter to Reverend Everett C. Parker, FCC 72-438, 24 P & F Radio Reg. 2d 396, 398 (1972), a Commission decision handed down just two months before Commissioner Hooks' arrival.  See also my extensive study of employment discrimination among stations in the Pennsylvania-Delaware renewal package, which may also have had some affect on the Commission majority, Equal Employment Opportunity Inquiry, 36 FCC 2d 515, 517 (1972).

n7 Pennsylvania and Delaware Broadcasting Stations, 38 FCC 2d 158 (1972).

There are other serious inconsistencies in this method of dealing with the problem.  A station with sixty employees whose minority employment had declined from thirty to twenty eight, for example, would, under these guidelines, receive a letter despite its fine overall showing.  A station with a serious deficiency (and decline) in female employment would not even be considered unless the station's area had a five per cent or greater minority employment, thus requiring enforcement of solutions to the former problem to rely on a completely unrelated "threshold" criteria related to the latter.

Even within this restrictive (and illogical) "solution" to the equal employment problem, the Commission has failed to demonstrate any positive concern for effectively dealing with discrimination.  Although the first of the letters were sent out in August, 1972, the responses from the licensees were in most cases still awaiting action by the Boardcast Bureau staff in mid-1973, and no further Commission initiated action has been taken with regard to even the most blatant offenders.  n8 "We're just kind of waiting around with the [broadcasters'] replies [to the FCC inquiries]," was the response of one Broadcast Bureau official to the query of a concerned citizen.  "We don't really know what we could do about licensees who don't employ fairly anyway." n9 This attitude is taken despite the same official's earlier admission that any of the potential courses of action outlined above (hearing, denial of renewal, fine) could be easily initiated at any moment. 

n8 Indeed, a number of the stations, after nothing but the passage of time, were simply renewed.

n9 Interview with an anonymous analyst in the Renewal Branch of the FCC Broadcast Bureau, March, 1973.

Thus, the Commission leaves itself open to the charge that it is quietly searching, not for an effective course of action that would begin to reverse the traditional patterns of discrimination in the broadcasting industry, but for some course of action that would mollify critics without adversely affecting its "business-as-usual" rubber stamping of renewals.  n10 That this is the Commission's true attitude is further evidenced by its "reassuring" statements to the effect that the data on form 395 annual reports is "chiefly" valuable to determine industry-wide employment trends, and that, in regard to individual stations, it is not to be suggested "that such data for any particular year would demonstrate the existence of discrimination of any station." n11

n10 All the interested reader need do is compare the Commission's disposition of the WLBT renewal proceeding, Lamar Life Broadcasting Co., 14 FCC 2d 431 (1968), with the stinging reversal of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F. 2d 994 (1969); the Court outlined in detail the flagrant, long-standing discrimination of the licensee, in areas of programming as well as employment.

In this study of the network affiliates in the top 50 markets we take issue with that contention -- that a case for discrimination cannot be based upon a reading of the annual employment data of an individual station.  We also dispute the implied contention that discrimination in employment has no important relation to the service of a licensee in the "public interest, convenience or necessity."

We have not included our employment analysis in the overall station ranking found in chapter 1. We have omitted it, however, only because that ranking was designed to evaluate programming, not because we consider employment discrimination any less important than programming.  Indeed, the argument could well be made that licensee discrimination against minorities or women, especially in those jobs with a greater degree of influence on programming creation and decision-making, is as directly related to the station's programming as any of the other factors on which we have been able to gather information.  Be that as it may, we have chosen to treat employment separately from programming.  (1) We believe that community groups other than those oriented specifically towards quality programming will be able more effectively to consider employment if the information is presented in this manner.  (2) It is our intention that this chapter complement an excellent survey of all 609 commercial TV stations already conducted and published by the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ in 1972.  n12

n12 Jennings, Television Station Employment Practices: The Status of Minorities and Women, Office of Communication, United Church of Christ, November, 1972.

A.  Total Employment

We have made the assumption that minority employment statistics for the top 50 markets can be compared and ranked most effectively -- and fairly to the broadcasters -- by taking into consideration the percentage of minorities in the population of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) of the stations involved.  n13 For example, it would be less defensible, we felt, to compare the minority employment performance of a network affiliate in Washington, D.C. (with an SMSA minority population of 28.3%) with that of one in Minneapolis-St. Paul (with a minority population of just 3.7%) without accounting, somehow, for the differences between the minority employment pool of the two cities.  Thus, we have ranked the licensees by relating their minority employment to the minority population in the SMSA.  The result is a "factor" comparing two percentages.  A station receiving a factor of 1.000 would be employing exactly the same percentage of minorities in the station as exist in the population of his area.  The station ranked 26th, for example, WKYC, Cleveland, employs 17.62% minorities in an SMSA with a minority population of 17.6%, for a "factor" of 1.001.  The top station in the ranking, WTEV, Providence, employs 8.33% minorities in an area with a 3.4% minority population, for a factor of 2.451.  While this method of ranking does tend to favor stations in a region with a lower minority population, we would point out that a number of such stations, in markets like Salt Lake City and Minneapolis-St. Paul, nevertheless found themselves at the very bottom of our study. 

n13 Our source for this information was the U.S. Bureau of the Census.  The precise figure we required, however, included Spanish-surnamed people among "minorities" in an SMSA and was nowhere printed in an official publication.  We had to go directly to the Bureau in Washington for the information.

It is our opinion that a licensee with a factor of less than 1.000 deserves, at a minimum, some further inquiry into its program of employment.  It is rather appalling to note that some 82% of the stations in our study have total employment factors of less than 1.000, and more than 35% of them have factors of less than 0.500, Certainly the latter group deserves a more serious inquiry.

Network Affiliates Ranked by Ratio of Percent Minorities Employed to Percent Minorities in SMSA

Rank	Call letters	Net. Aff.	Mkt. No.	Location	SMSA
1	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence	3.4%
2	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse	5.0%
3	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence	3.4%
4	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston	6.8%
5	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington	4.7%
6	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma	8.0%
7	KGW	NBC	26	Portland	5.2%
8	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington	4.7%
9	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse	5.0%
10	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington	4.7%
11	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh	7.8%
12	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady	4.4%
13	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City	12.6%
14	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse	5.0%
15	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus	12.6%
16	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr. Rapids	6.1%
17	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City	12.6%
18	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus	12.6%
19	WNAC	CBS	6	Boston	6.8%
20	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady	4.4%
21	KATU	ABC	26	Portland	5.2%
22	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr. Rapids	6.1%
23	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton	11.9%
24	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh	7.8%
25	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo	9.9%
26	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland	17.6%
27	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland	5.2%
28	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	3.7%
29	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo	9.9%
30	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati	11.8%
31	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis	17.3%
32	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh	7.8%
33	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus	12.6%
34	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles	32.9%
35	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence	3.4%
36	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati	11.8%
37	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton	11.9%
38	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo	10.5%
39	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma	8.0%
40	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit	19.9%
41	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	16.8%
42	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco	28.9%
43	WRC	NBC	10	Washington, D.C	28.3%
44	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee	9.8%
45	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix	20.0%
46	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City	12.6%
47	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis	13.4%
48	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven	11.8%
49	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis	13.4%
50	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbc-Ashvi	13.6%
51	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicahgo	23.4%
52	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland	17.6%
53	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City	14.6%
54	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo	10.5%
55	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles	32.9%
56	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia	19.8%
57	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis	13.4%
58	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco	28.9%
59	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia	19.8%
60	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi	13.6%
61	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City	14.6%
62	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore	25.1%
63	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago	23.4%
64	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville	13.0%
65	WINH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven	11.8%
66	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington, D.C	28.3%
67	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix	20.0%
68	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City	30.3%
69	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven	11.8%
70	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville	18.7%
71	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego	20.6%
72	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta	23.6%
73	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia	19.8%
74	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptngb-Ashvi	13.6%
75	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver	16.8%
76	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City	30.0%
77	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta	23.6%
78	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis	17.3%
79	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego	49
San Diego	20.6%
80	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	21.3%
81	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago	23.4%
82	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma	8.0%
83	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal	20.3%
84	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville	13.0%
85	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City	6.9%
86	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton	22.0%
87	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington, D.C	28.3%
88	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	27.3%
89	WGKP	ABC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal	20.3%
90	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte	23.9%
91	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul	3.7%
92	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix	20.0%
93	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee	9.8%
94	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit	19.9%
95	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	21.3%
96	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth	21.3%
97	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit	19.9%
98	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville	18.7%
99	WABC	ABC	1	New York City	30.0%
100	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	16.8%
101	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta	23.6%
102	KTRK	ABC	15	Houston	30.8%
103	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City	14.6%
104	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio	52.6%
105	WTAR	CBS	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	27.3%
106	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston	30.8%
107	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland	17.6%
108	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton	22.0%
109	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis	38.4%
110	WHBO	ABC	29	Memphis	38.4%
111	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore	25.1%
112	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles	32.9%
113	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver	16.8%
114	KRON	NBC	8	San Francisco	28.9%
115	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans	35.6%
116	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami	39.1%
117	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans	35.6%
118	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee	9.8%
119	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham	30.0%
120	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio	52.6%
121	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis	17.3%
122	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham	30.0%
123	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio	52.6%
124	WCKT	NBC	16	Miami	39.1%
125	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton	22.0%
126	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami	39.1%
127	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati	11.8%
128	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore	25.1%
129	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville	18.7%
130	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo	9.9%
131	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville	13.0%
132	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston	30.8%
133	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte	23.9%
134	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte	23.9%
135	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectadv-T	4.4%
136	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis	38.4%
137	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal.	20.3%
138	KOA	NBC	32	Denver	16.8%
139	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans	35.6%
140	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg	16.8%
141	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp	27.3%
142	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo	10.5%
143	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham	30.0%
144	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City	6.9%
145	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City	6.9%
146	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul	3.7%
147	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids	6.1%

	Total	Minorities employed
Rank	employees		Factor
		Number	Percent
1	72	6	8.33%	2.451
2	77	8	10.39%	2.078
3	76	5	6.58%	1.935
4	175	23	13.14%	1.933
5	81	7	8.64%	1.839
6	136	19	13.97%	1.746
7	126	11	8.73%	1.679
8	51	4	7.84%	1.669
9	75	6	8.00%	1.600
10	54	4	7.41%	1.576
11	167	19	11.38%	1.459
12	63	4	6.35%	1.443
13	88	16	18.18%	1.443
14	101	7	6.93%	1.386
15	93	16	17.20%	1.365
16	109	9	8.26%	1.354
17	77	13	16.88%	1.340
18	90	15	16.67%	1.323
19	167	15	8.98%	1.321
20	76	4	5.26%	1.196
21	98	6	6.12%	1.177
22	71	5	7.04%	1.154
23	122	16	13.11%	1.102
24	144	12	8.33%	1.068
25	87	9	10.34%	1.045
26	193	34	17.62%	1.001
27	98	5	5.10%	0.981
28	201	7	3.48%	0.941
29	86	8	9.03%	0.940
30	84	9	10.71%	0.908
31	148	23	15.54%	0.898
32	130	9	6.92%	0.888
33	127	14	11.02%	0.875
34	192	55	28.65%	0.871
35	102	3	2.94%	0.865
36	206	21	10.19%	0.864
37	107	11	10.28%	0.864
38	79	7	8.86%	0.844
39	119	8	6.72%	0.840
40	190	31	16.32%	0.820
41	124	17	13.71%	0.816
42	224	52	23.21%	0.803
43	227	51	22.47%	0.794
44	146	11	7.53%	0.769
45	113	17	15.04%	0.752
46	119	11	9.24%	0.734
47	93	9	9.68%	0.722
48	144	12	8.33%	0.706
49	127	12	9.45%	0.705
50	76	7	9.21%	0.677
51	342	54	15.79%	0.675
52	152	18	11.84%	0.673
53	103	10	9.71%	0.665
54	86	6	6.98%	0.664
55	229	50	21.83%	0.664
56	153	20	13.07%	0.660
57	80	7	8.75%	0.653
58	165	31	18.79%	0.650
59	70	9	12.86%	0.649
60	57	5	8.77%	0.645
61	96	9	9.38%	0.642
62	149	24	16.11%	0.642
63	274	41	14.96%	0.639
64	110	9	8.18%	0.629
65	81	6	7.41%	0.628
66	136	24	17.65%	0.624
67	405	13	12.38%	0.619
68	237	44	18.57%	0.619
69	69	5	7.25%	0.614
70	70	8	11.43%	0.611
71	113	14	12.39%	0.601
72	141	20	14.18%	0.601
73	202	24	11.88%	0.600
74	74	6	8.11%	0.596
75	120	12	10.00%	0.595
76	280	50	17.86%	0.595
77	114	16	14.04%	0.595
78	107	11	10.28%	0.594
79	132	16	12.12%	0.588
80	134	16	11.94%	0.561
81	300	39	13.00%	0.556
82	158	7	4.43%	0.554
83	89	10	11.24%	0.553
84	56	4	7.14%	0.549
85	81	3	3.70%	0.537
86	128	15	11.72%	0.533
87	140	21	15.00%	0.530
88	71	10	14.08%	0.516
89	67	7	10.45%	0.515
90	114	14	12.28%	0.514
91	158	3	1.90%	0.513
92	78	8	10.26%	0.513
93	120	6	5.00%	0.510
94	149	15	10.07%	0.506
95	186	20	10.75%	0.505
96	141	15	10.64%	0.499
97	213	21	9.86%	0.495
98	119	11	9.24%	0.494
99	189	28	14.81%	0.494
100	123	10	8.13%	0.484
101	149	17	11.41%	0.483
102	101	15	14.85%	0.482
103	73	5	6.85%	0.469
104	70	17	24.29%	0.462
105	106	13	12.26%	0.449
106	94	13	13.83%	0.449
107	140	11	7.86%	0.446
108	103	10	9.71%	0.441
109	71	12	16.90%	0.440
110	78	13	16.67%	0.434
111	147	16	10.88%	0.434
112	317	44	13.88%	0.422
113	113	8	7.08%	0.421
114	207	25	12.08%	0.418
115	136	20	14.71%	0.413
116	155	25	16.13%	0.413
117	90	13	14.44%	0.406
118	101	4	3.96%	0.404
119	33	4	12.12%	0.404
120	80	17	21.25%	0.404
121	115	8	6.96%	0.402
122	83	10	12.05%	0.402
123	90	19	21.11%	0.401
124	134	21	15.67%	0.401
125	81	7	8.64%	0.393
126	137	21	15.33%	0.392
127	134	6	4.48%	0.379
128	137	13	9.49%	0.378
129	114	8	7.02%	0.375
130	136	5	3.68%	0.371
131	105	5	4.76%	0.366
132	125	14	11.20%	0.364
133	24	2	8.33%	0.349
134	121	10	8.26%	0.316
135	78	1	1.28%	0.291
136	82	9	10.98%	0.286
137	87	5	5.75%	0.283
138	87	4	4.60%	0.274
139	109	10	9.17%	0.258
140	70	3	4.29%	0.255
141	78	5	6.41%	0.235
142	41	1	2.44%	0.232
143	61	4	6.56%	0.219
144	87	1	1.15%	0.167
145	137	1	0.73%	0.106
146	59	0	0.0%	0.0
147	69	0	0.0%	0.0

B.  High pay employment

With the factor developed in the previous section, it would be possible for a station to achieve a relatively high ranking and still employ most of its minorities in low paying, menial positions.  Discrimination in filling the higher paying, more influential positions may be every bit as significant to the minority group member discriminated against.  In Table 9, therefore, we rank the stations in our study based solely on the percentage of minorities employed in the top five job categories on the reporting form 395 (officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, and skilled craftsmen).  We have not "corrected" the rankings in these categories for the total percentage of minorities in the SMSA because it is our belief that the "market" for most such employees is a national rather than local one.  n14

n14 One need only scan the pages of the various organs of the trade press, such as Broadcasting magazine, TV-Radio Age, and so forth, to see that management personnel, on-camera talent, licensed technicians and engineers and other skilled production personnel form a finite national pool which advertises for employment (and are advertised for by the broadcasters) on a nationwide basis.

Network affiliates ranked by percent minorities employed in high pay positions

Rank	Call	Net.	Mkt.	Location
	letters	aff.	No.
1	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
2	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
3	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco
4	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
5	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
6	WRC	NBC	10	Washington D.C.
7	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
8	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
9	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
10	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis
11	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
12	WROP	CBS	10	Washington D.C.
13	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
14	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
15	KPIX	CBS	8	San Francisco
16	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
17	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington D.C.
18	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
19	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
20	WBMG	CBS	83	Birmingham
21	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
22	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
23	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptngb-Ashvi
24	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
25	WCKF	NBC	18	Miami
26	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
27	WMAQ	NBC	3	Chicago
28	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
29	WYVN	ABC	28	Columbus
30	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
31	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
32	WIAR	CBS	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
33	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
34	KRON	NBC	8	San Francisco
35	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
36	KSOU	CBS	15	Houston
37	KIRK	ABC	15	Houston
38	WGHP	ABC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
39	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
40	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
41	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
42	KOCO	ABC	41	Okahoma City
43	WHTO	CBS	39	Dayton
44	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
45	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
46	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
47	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte
48	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
49	WFBC	NBC	40	Gnville-Sptbg-Ashvi
50	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
51	WQXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
52	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
53	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
54	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
55	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
56	WNYS	abc/	43	Syracuse
57	WBTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
58	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
59	KFMB	CBS	49	San Diego
60	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
61	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
62	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
63	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
64	WNAC	CBS	6	Boston
65	WAST	ABC	37	Albany Schenectady-T
66	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
67	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
68	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
69	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
70	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis
71	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
72	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham
73	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
74	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
75	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
76	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City
77	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
78	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington
79	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
80	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
81	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
82	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
83	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
84	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
85	KMOX	CBS	12	St. Louis
86	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
87	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
88	WTNH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
89	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
90	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
91	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis
92	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
93	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
94	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
95	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
96	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
97	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
98	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
99	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
100	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
101	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
102	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
103	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
104	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte
105	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
106	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo
107	KDA	NBC	32	Denver
108	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
109	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
110	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
111	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
112	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
113	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
114	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
115	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City
116	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
117	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
118	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
119	KATU	ABC	26	Portland
120	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
121	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
122	WOIV	NBC	41	Kalamazo-Gr Rapids
123	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence
124	KOPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
125	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo
126	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans
127	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
128	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
129	WDHO	ABC	45	Toledo
130	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville
131	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
132	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
133	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington
134	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis
135	WVFC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
136	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
137	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
138	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
139	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
140	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
141	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City
142	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
143	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
144	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
145	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington
146	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
147	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids

		High pay
Rank	High pay	Minorities employed
	positions
		Number	Percent
1	162	45	27.78%
2	57	12	21.05%
3	189	38	20.11%
4	64	12	18.75%
5	174	29	16.67%
6	170	27	15.88%
7	52	8	15.38%
8	73	11	15.07%
9	74	11	14.86%
10	61	9	14.75%
11	179	26	14.53%
12	111	16	14.41%
13	112	16	14.29%
14	127	18	14.17%
15	110	15	13.64%
16	60	8	13.33%
17	128	17	13.28%
18	155	20	12.90%
19	181	23	12.71%
20	24	3	12.50%
21	104	13	12.50%
22	58	7	12.07%
23	58	7	12.07%
24	109	13	11.93%
25	102	12	11.76%
26	121	14	11.57%
27	236	27	11.44%
28	114	13	11.40%
29	62	7	11.29%
30	224	25	11.16%
31	253	28	11.07%
32	82	9	10.98%
33	64	7	10.94%
34	165	18	10.91%
35	83	9	10.84%
36	75	8	10.67%
37	75	8	10.67%
38	57	6	10.53%
39	57	6	10.53%
40	58	6	10.34%
41	98	10	10.20%
42	59	6	10.17%
43	82	8	9.76%
44	83	8	9.64%
45	138	13	9.42%
46	66	6	9.09%
47	78	7	8.97%
48	56	5	8.93%
49	45	4	8.89%
50	102	9	8.82%
51	80	7	8.75%
52	115	10	8.70%
53	105	9	8.57%
54	82	7	8.54%
55	129	7	8.57%
56	48	4	8.33%
57	109	9	8.26%
58	211	17	8.06%
59	87	7	8.05%
60	138	11	7.97%
61	88	7	7.95%
62	181	14	7.73%
63	105	8	7.62%
64	132	10	7.58%
65	53	4	7.55%
66	54	4	7.41%
67	96	7	7.29%
68	55	4	7.27%
69	83	6	7.23%
70	97	7	7.22%
71	70	5	7.14%
72	56	4	7.14%
73	56	4	7.14%
74	101	7	6.93%
75	131	9	6.87%
76	59	4	6.78%
77	59	4	6.78%
78	59	4	6.78%
79	119	8	6.72%
80	120	8	6.67%
81	105	7	6.67%
82	60	4	6.67%
83	61	4	6.56%
84	107	7	6.54%
85	110	7	6.36%
86	112	7	6.25%
87	65	4	6.25%
88	6	4	.15%
89	82	5	6.10%
90	116	7	6.03%
91	83	5	6.02%
92	100	6	6.00%
93	67	4	5.97%
94	86	5	5.81%
95	88	5	5.68%
96	159	9	5.66%
97	148	8	5.41%
98	75	4	5.33%
99	75	4	5.33%
100	94	5	5.32%
101	134	7	5.22%
102	97	5	5.15%
103	98	5	5.10%
104	20	1	5.00%
105	103	5	4.85%
106	103	5	4.85%
107	66	3	4.55%
108	67	3	4.48%
109	45	2	4.44%
110	95	4	4.21%
111	48	2	4.17%
112	73	3	4.11%
113	76	3	3.95%
114	76	3	3.95%
115	51	2	3.92%
116	103	4	3.88%
117	78	3	3.85%
118	78	3	3.85%
119	79	3	3.80%
120	132	5	3.79%
121	83	3	3.61%
122	83	3	3.61%
123	56	2	3.57%
124	58	2	3.45%
125	59	2	3.39%
126	89	3	3.37%
127	90	3	3.33%
128	92	3	3.26%
129	33	1	3.03%
130	37	1	2.70%
131	75	2	2.67%
132	40	1	2.50%
133	44	1	2.27%
134	94	2	2.13%
135	47	1	2.13%
136	52	1	1.92%
137	162	3	1.85%
138	119	2	1.68%
139	66	1	1.52%
140	78	1	1.28%
141	101	1	0.99%
142	45	0	0.0%
143	64	0	0.0%
144	62	0	0.0%
145	36	0	0.0%
146	48	0	0.0%
147	51	0	0.0%

III.  ANALYSIS OF FEMALE EMPLOYMENT

Women comprised approximately 22.1% of the employees at the 147 stations in our study, but only 6.4% of the employees in the five high-paying categories discussed in the previous section.  That tremendous disparity points up an urgent need for affirmative action programs designed to get more women into the high-paying, decision-making end of broadcasting.  In Table 10, therefore, we rank the network affiliates on the percentage of women employed in those five categories.

Network Affiliates Ranked by Percent Women Employed in High Pay Positions

Rank	Call	Net.	Mkt.	Location
	letters	aff.	No.
1	WCAU	CBS	4	Philadelphia
2	WMAL	ABC	10	Washington D.C
3	WTOP	CBS	10	Washington D.C
4	WLKY	ABC	36	Louisville
5	KMBC	ABC	23	Kansas City
6	KABC	ABC	2	Los Angeles
7	WGHP	ABC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
8	WLWI	ABC	14	Indianapolis
9	WSIX	ABC	30	Nashville
10	KOMO	ABC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
11	WAST	ABC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
12	WHTN	ABC	33	Charleston-Huntington
13	WCBS	CBS	1	New York City
14	WTVJ	CBS	18	Miami
15	WVUE	ABC	31	New Orleans
16	KTVK	ABC	45	Phoenix
17	WNBC	NBC	1	New York City
18	WXYZ	ABC	5	Detroit
19	WPLG	ABC	18	Miami
20	WTOL	CBS	45	Toledo
21	WCCB	ABC	35	Charlotte
22	WIIC	NBC	9	Pittsburgh
23	WCXI	ABC	17	Atlanta
24	WBZ	NBC	6	Boston
25	WLS	ABC	3	Chicago
26	WXII	NBC	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
27	WLWC	NBC	28	Columbus
28	WISH	CBS	14	Indianapolis
29	WCCO	CBS	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
30	KBMS	CBS	49	San Diego
31	WOHO	ABC	45	Toledo
32	Knox	CBS	12	St. Louis
33	WBBM	CBS	3	Chicago
34	KGO	ABC	8	San Francisco
35	KING	NBC	16	Seattle-Tacoma
37	WFAA	ABC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
38	KNBC	NBC	2	Los Angeles
39	WTAR	CBS	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
40	WVEC	ABC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
41	WMAO	NBC	3	Chicago
42	WTIC	CBS	22	Hartford-New Haven
43	KMSP	ABC	13	Minneapolis-St Paul
44	WRTV	NBC	14	Indianapolis
45	WBNS	CBS	28	Columbus
46	WTVN	ABC	28	Columbus
47	WCKT	NBC	18	Miami
48	KSAT	ABC	45	San Antonio
49	KDFW	CBS	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
50	KXTV	CBS	27	Sacramento-Stockton
51	WPVI	ABC	4	Philadelphia
52	WPTV	CBS	35	Charlotte
53	KPIX	CBS	8	SanFrancisco
54	WSM	NBC	30	Nashville
55	WBRC	ABC	38	Birmingham
56	WBAL	NBC	19	Baltimore
57	WJZ	ABC	19	Baltimore
58	WAVY	NBC	44	Norf-Newp News-Hamp
59	WLOS	ABC	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
60	WCHS	CBS	33	Charleston-Huntington
61	KWTV	CBS	41	Oklahoma City
62	KTAR	NBC	45	Phoenix
63	KRON	NBC	8	San Francisco
64	WHEN	CBS	43	Syracuse
65	WABC	ABC	1	New York City
66	WRC	NBC	10	Washington, D.C.
67	WKYC	NBC	7	Cleveland
68	KATU	ABC	26	Portland
69	WITI	ABC	21	Milwaukee
70	KYW	NBC	4	Philadelphia
71	KOA	NBC	32	Denver
72	KNXT	CBS	2	Los Angeles
73	KSTP	NBC	13	Minneapolis-St. Paul
74	WSB	NBC	17	Atlanta
75	WFMY	CBS	48	Gnsb-High Pt-Win Sal
76	WTMJ	NBC	21	Milwaukee
77	WDSU	NBC	31	New Orleans
78	WHNB	NBC	22	Hartford-New Haven
79	WGR	NBC	25	Buffalo
80	WTEV	ABC	34	Providence
81	WLWD	NBC	39	Dayton
82	KHOU	CBS	15	Houston
83	KSD	NBC	12	St. Louis
84	KENS	CBS	45	San Antonio
85	WLAC	CBS	30	Nashville
86	WKRC	ABC	20	Cincinnati
87	WLWT	NBC	20	Cincinnati
88	KGW	NBC	26	Portland
89	KOIN	CBS	26	Portland
90	WISN	CBS	21	Milwaukee
91	WPRI	CBS	34	Providence
92	WOAI	NBC	45	San Antonio
93	WTAE	ABC	9	Pittsburgh
94	KUTV	NBC	50	Salt Lake City
95	KBTV	ABC	32	Denver
96	WMC	NBC	29	Memphis
97	WRGB	NBC	37	Albany-Schenectady-T
98	KMGH	CBS	32	Denver
99	WWL	CBS	31	New Orleans
100	WBAP	NBC	11	Dallas-Fort Worth
101	WSPA	CBS	40	Gnville-Sptnbg-Ashvi
102	WNYS	ABC	43	Syracuse
103	WBMG	CBS	38	Birmingham
104	KGTV	NBC	49	San Diego
105	WMAR	CBS	19	Baltimore
106	KTRK	ABC	15	Houston
107	KPRC	NBC	15	Houston
108	WCPO	CBS	20	Cincinnati
109	WWJ	NBC	5	Detroit
110	WSOC	NBC	35	Charlotte
111	WREC	CBS	29	Memphis
112	WNAC	CBS	6	Boston
113	WFLA	NBC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
114	WHIO	CBS	39	Dayton
115	KOOL	CBS	45	Phoenix
116	KCPX	ABC	50	Salt Lake City
117	KOCO	ABC	41	Oklahoma City
118	WKY	NBC	41	Oklahoma City
119	WHBQ	ABC	29	Memphis
120	WTEN	CBS	37	Albany-SchenectadyT
121	WTVT	CBS	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
122	KIRO	CBS	16	Seattle-Tacoma
123	WKBW	ABC	25	Buffalo
124	KCRA	NBC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
125	KDKA	CBS	9	Pittsburgh
126	WAGA	CBS	17	Atlanta
127	WAVE	NBC	36	Louisville
128	WJW	CBS	7	Cleveland
129	WAPI	NBC	38	Birmingham
130	WHAS	CBS	36	Louisville
131	KOVR	ABC	27	Sacramento-Stockton
132	WJBK	CBS	5	Detroit
133	WZZM	ABC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
134	WKZO	CBS	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
135	WDAF	NBC	23	Kansas City
136	WBEN	CBS	25	Buffalo
137	WLCY	ABC	24	Tampa-St. Petersburg
138	WEWS	ABC	7	Cleveland
139	WSAZ	NBC	33	Charleston-Huntington
140	KCMO	CBS	23	Kansas City
141	WINH	ABC	22	Hartford-New Haven
142	WSPD	NBC	45	Toledo
143	WSYR	NBC	43	Syracuse
144	WJAR	NBC	34	Providence
145	WOTV	NBC	41	Kalamazoo-Gr Rapids
146	KTVI	ABC	12	St. Louis
147	KSL	CBS	50	Salt Lake City

		High pay women
	High pay	employed
	positions
		Number	Percent
1	56	14	25.00%
2	128	21	16.41%
3	111	15	13.51%
4	37	5	13.51%
5	82	11	13.41%
6	162	21	12.96%
7	57	7	12.28%
8	66	8	12.12%
9	58	7	12.07%
10	132	15	11.36%
11	53	6	11.32%
12	36	4	11.11%
13	181	20	11.05%
14	127	14	11.02%
15	74	8	10.81%
16	56	6	10.71%
17	179	19	10.61%
18	181	19	10.50%
19	105	11	10.48%
20	59	6	10.17%
21	20	2	10.00%
22	120	12	10.00%
23	80	8	10.00%
24	131	13	9.92%
25	224	22	9.82%
26	73	7	9.59%
27	73	7	9.59%
28	64	6	9.38%
29	162	15	9.26%
30	87	3	9.20%
31	33	3	9.09%
32	110	10	9.09%
33	211	19	9.00%
34	189	17	8.99%
35	112	10	8.93%
36	45	4	8.89%
37	148	13	8.78%
38	174	15	8.62%
39	82	7	8.54%
40	47	4	8.51%
41	236	20	8.47%
42	119	10	8.40%
43	48	4	8.33%
44	97	8	8.25%
45	98	8	8.16%
46	62	5	8.06%
47	102	8	7.84%
48	64	5	7.81%
49	105	8	7.62%
50	66	5	7.58%
51	121	9	7.44%
52	109	8	7.34%
53	110	8	7.27%
54	97	7	7.22%
55	56	4	7.14%
56	114	8	7.02%
57	86	6	6.98%
58	58	4	6.90%
59	58	4	6.90%
60	44	3	6.82%
61	60	4	6.67%
62	75	5	6.67%
63	165	11	6.67%
64	45	3	6.67%
65	138	9	6.52%
66	170	11	6.47%
67	155	10	6.45%
68	79	5	6.33%
69	95	6	6.32%
70	159	10	6.29%
71	66	4	6.06%
72	253	15	5.93%
73	119	7	5.88%
74	104	6	5.77%
75	70	4	5.71%
76	105	6	5.71%
77	89	5	5.62%
78	54	3	5.56%
79	55	3	5.45%
80	56	3	5.36%
81	75	4	5.33%
82	75	4	5.33%
83	94	5	5.32%
84	57	3	5.26%
85	76	4	5.26%
86	57	3	5.26%
87	134	7	5.22%
88	96	5	5.21%
89	78	4	5.13%
90	78	4	5.13%
91	59	3	5.08%
92	60	3	5.00%
93	103	5	4.85%
94	62	3	4.84%
95	83	4	4.82%
96	64	3	4.69%
97	64	3	4.69%
98	88	4	4.55%
99	88	4	4.55%
100	112	5	4.46%
101	45	2	4.44%
102	48	2	4.17%
103	24	1	4.17%
104	98	4	4.08%
105	100	4	4.00%
106	75	3	4.00%
107	102	4	3.92%
108	103	4	3.88%
109	129	5	3.88%
110	78	3	3.85%
111	52	2	3.85%
112	132	5	3.79%
113	82	3	3.66%
114	82	3	3.66%
115	83	3	3.61%
116	58	2	3.45%
117	59	2	3.39%
118	90	3	3.33%
119	61	2	3.28%
120	61	2	3.28%
121	92	3	3.26%
122	94	3	3.19%
123	67	2	2.99%
124	101	3	2.97%
125	107	3	2.80%
126	109	3	2.75%
127	76	2	2.63%
128	115	3	2.61%
129	40	1	2.50%
130	83	2	2.41%
131	83	2	2.41%
132	138	3	2.17%
133	48	1	2.08%
134	51	1	1.96%
135	51	1	1.96%
136	103	2	1.94%
137	52	1	1.92%
138	116	2	1.72%
139	59	1	1.69%
140	59	1	1.69%
141	65	1	1.54%
142	67	1	1.49%
143	75	1	1.33%
144	78	1	1.28%
145	83	1	1.20%
146	83	1	1.20%
147	101	0	0.0%

IV.  REMEDIES FOR CLAIMS OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Claims of employment discrimination against any television station may be filed with both the FCC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The claim can be filed with the FCC by any individual or interested community group if there is reason to believe that an employee has been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex.  Any claim of discrimination filed with the FCC should allege -- and demonstrate, to the extent possible -- that the broadcaster is in violation of his public interest responsibility to engage in fair employment practices, and that he has failed to comply with the FCC's equal employment rules.  n15 The FCC's action on a discrimination claim it considers legitimate will be geared toward bringing the broadcaster into compliance with those rules, and a complaint before the FCC is thus brought on behalf of the Commission rather than the individual or group against whom the discrimination is alleged. 

n15 47 C.F.R. �  73.680.

If an employee or group merely wishes to bring a claim of discrimination to the attention of the FCC, without further pursuing the matter, it may write a letter of complaint to the FCC, stating the particulars of the claim against the station.  The FCC will review the complaint in much the same manner as it might review a complaint based on a violation of the fairness doctrine or another type of programming violation and may request a response from the broadcast.  At the very least, the complaint is placed in the station's complaint file for review when its license comes up for renewal.  If the complaints division finds that the complaint at issue is significant enough, it will forward the complaint to the renewal branch at the appropriate time.  n16

n16 Unfortunately, time and the renewal process have proven that what citizens would consider significant and what the FCC would consider significant are often leagues apart in areas like employment.

A fuller remedy at the FCC might be pursued in the form of a petition to deny the station's license renewal.  n17 The petition may assert discrimination against particular employees or it may cite a general trend or pattern of employment discrimination, both of which are a violation of the FCC's equal employment rules.  The petition to deny provides a remedy separate from the Commission's independent inquiry into a complaint about the station's equal employment practices.  It requires the Commission to confront the issue directly, and is therefore somewhat more likely to result in further inquiry by the Commission, a fine under Section 503 of the Communications Act, n18 or the outright denial of renewal of the broadcaster's license; at the very least, the issues involved will be given a fuller airing than they might receive if the complaint merely takes the form of a letter of information to the FCC. 

n17 See the procedures described in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this Report.

n18 47 U.S.C. �  503(b)(1) provides for a forfeiture of up to $1000 per violation, up to a limit of $10,000, against any licensee who "willfully or repeatedly fails to observe any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission...."

Unlike a claim of employment discrimination filed at the FCC, a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC is aimed at providing relief to the individual employee who feels he has been discriminated against.  The following is but an abbreviated description of the process to be followed at the EEOC.  More information can be acquired by writing or calling:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1800 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506 or District or Regional Offices of the EEOC (listed in local telephone directories under U.S. Government) Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which created the EEOC forbids discrimination in hiring, upgrading and all other conditions of employment, where the discrimination is based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  n19 Title VII, as amended, covers all employers with 15 or more employees, so all the television stations in this survey (and all other television stations as well) should be required to comply with its provisions. 

n19 42 U.S.C. �  2000 e-2 (1964).

A person who believes that he or she is a victim of discrimination by a broadcast employer may file a complaint with the EEOC at the above address.  A complaint may also be filed by an individual or a group on behalf of any individual who may have suffered discrimination.

An individual who feels he or she cannot file a charge because of a need to remain anonymous may write one of the EEOC's five Commissioners in Washington, D.C., requesting the filing of a Commissioner's Charge, and setting forth the facts which warrant the filing of such a charge.  The individual Commissioner may, at his or her discretion, proceed to file a charge, permitting the complaint to remain anonymous.

It is important that an individual file the charge as soon as possible after the discrimination takes place.  In most cases the charge must be filed within 180 days of the discrimination complained of if the EEOC is to have jurisdiction of the matter.

When the EEOC receives the charge, a representative reviews the facts and contacts the complainant.  If the charge is one which can be handled by the EEOC, an investigator gathers all the facts from the complainant and from the parties charged with discrimination.  The EEOC is required by law to furnish a copy of the charge to the parties charged with discrimination.

If the EEOC does not find that the facts support the complainant's charge, the complainant and the parties charged with discrimination are notified that the charge has been dismissed.

If the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe that the individual has been discriminated against, it then attempts to conciliate and reach an agreement satisfactory to all parties involved.  Before the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the EEOC was limited to this process of conciliation in seeking a resolution of the charge.  Now, if the EEOC cannot reach a settlement agreeable to all parties, the Commission may go to a United States District Court to obtain an order prohibiting the discrimination.  n20

n20     U.S.C.     (1972 Supp.).

The person filing the complaint is also entitled to request notification of his or her own right to file a suit if the EEOC cannot reach a settlement or if the EEOC does not take the case to court within 180 days after the complaint is filed.

In some instances, however, the EEOC may not act directly on the charge until state remedies are sought.  If the individual bringing the charge lives in a state or locality which enforces its own fair employment practices law, the EEOC must initially send the case to the state or local agency for investigation and notify the individual that it has done so.  After a minimum of 60 days have passed, the EEOC automatically reactivates the charge, unless it has already been settled to the satisfaction of the individual bringing the charge by the state or local agency.

Finally, an individual charging discrimination should remember that it is illegal for anyone to penalize or retaliate against the individual in any way.  In the event any attempt is made to penalize or retaliate against a person in any way for filing a charge with the EEOC, the EEOC should be notified immediately.

For further information about this avenue of relief, you should acquire, in addition to the United Church of Christ materials described in Chapter 4, the EEOC pamphlets Facts about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Toward Job Equality for Women, from the EEOC's Washington office.

V.  NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS

A.  Total Employment

The 147 television stations included in this study, the major network affiliates in the nation's top 50 television markets, reported 17,641 full-time employees in 1971 and 17,737 in 1972, an increase of 96, or 0.5%.  Employment of minority group employees among full-time employees at the 147 stations was 1,759 (10.0%) in 1971 and 2,043 (11.5%) in 1972.  Women were employed in 3,893 of the full-time positions (22.1%) in 1971 and 3,926 (22.1%) in 1972.

TABLE 11. -- Total Full-time Employment -- 147 Stations -- 1972

Total employees	17,641 (100%)
		17,737 (100%)	+96 (+0.5%)
Minority employees	1,759 (10.0%)
	2,043 (11.5%)	+284 (+16.1%)
Women employees	3,893 (22.1%)
	3,926 (22.1%)	+33 (22.1%)

Of the 147 stations, the following 19 reported fewer than five minority employees:

TABLE 12. -- Fewer Than Five Minority Employees -- 1972

Call				Number of
letters	Channel	Location	Market	minority
	#		#	employees
KSTP	5	Minneapolis/St. Paul	13	3
KMSP	9	Minneapolis/St. Paul	13	0
WISN	12	Milwaukee	21	4
WLCY	10	Tampa/St. Petersburg	24	3
KOA	4	Denver	32	4
WHTN	13	Charleston/Huntington	33	4
WCHS	8	Charleston/Huntington	33	4
WJAR	10	Providence	34	3
WCCB	18	Charlotte	35	2
WLKY	32	Louisville	36	4
WAST	13	Albany/Schenectady/Troy	37	4
WTEN	10	Albany/Schenectady/Troy	37	4
WRGB	6	Albany/Schenectady/Troy	37	1
WAPI	13	Birmingham	38	4
WKZO	3	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	41	0
WDHO	24	Toledo	45	1
KCPX	4	Salt Lake City	50	3
KUTV	2	Salt Lake City	50	1
KSL	5	Salt Lake City	50	1

B.  High Pay Positions

Of the nine job positions in the annual employment report, five have substantially higher pay scales than the rest.  They are: officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, and craftsmen.  In 1972, the 147 stations reported 13,448 full-time workers in the upper five job categories.  This represents about 75.8% of all the full-time employees at the 147 stations.

Minority employees comprised 9.2% (1,241 jobs) of the stations' full-time positions in the upper five job categories in 1972 (compared with 11.5% of the total station work force), and women held 866 jobs, comprising 6.4% (compared with 22.1% of the total station work force).  In short, comparing the differential between high pay and total jobs, women are more discriminated against by broadcasters within their organizations than minorities.

TABLE 13.  -- Total Minorities and Women in High Pay Positions -- 1972

	1972 number	Percentage
Total full-time	13,448	100%
Minorities full-time	1,241	9.2%
Women full-time	866	6.4%

Of the 147 stations, the following 16 (10.9%) reported employing one or no minorities in the upper five job categories in 1972:

TABLE 14a. -- Stations Employing 0 or 1 Minorities in High Pay Positions -- 1972

				Total	Minority
Call ltrs.	Location	Ch. #	Mkt. #	high-pay	high-pay
				employees	employees
WKZO	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	3	41	51	0
KMSP	Minneapolis/St. Paul	9	13	48	0
KSL	Salt Lake City	5	50	101	1
KUTV	Salt Lake City	2	50	62	0
WRGB	Albany/Schenectady/Troy	6	37	64	0
WDHO	Toledo	24	45	33	1
WISN	Milwaukee	12	21	78	1
WLCY	Tampa/St. Petersburg	10	24	52	1
WVEC	Norfolk/Newport News	13	44	47	1
WAPI	Birmingham	13	38	52	1
WLKY	Louisville	32	36	37	1
WCHS	Charleston/Huntington	8	33	44	1
WHTN	Charleston/Huntington	13	33	36	0
WSPA	Greenville/Sptnburg/Asheville	7	40	45	0
WCCB	Charlotte	18	35	20	1
WLWI	Indianapolis	13	14	66	1

Of the 147 stations, the following 17 (11.6%) reported employing one or no women in the upper five job categories in 1972:

TABLE 14-b. -- Stations Employing 0 or 1 Women in High Pay Positions -- 1972

				Total	Minority
Call ltrs.	Location	Ch. #	Mkt. #	high-pay	high-pay
high-pay
				employees	employees
KSL	Salt Lake City	5	50	101	0
WOTV	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	8	41	83	1
KTVI	St. Louis	2	12	83	1
WJAR	Providence	10	34	78	1
WSPD	Toledo	13	45	67	1
WTNH	Hartford/New Haven	8	22	65	1
KCMO	Kansas City	5	23	59	1
WSAZ	Charleston/Huntington	3	33	59	1
WLCY	Tampa/St. Petersburg	10	24	52	1
WKZO	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	3	41	51	1
WDAF	Kansas City	4	23	51	1
WSYR	Syracuse	3	43	75	1
WZZM	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	13	41	48	1
KUTV	Salt Lake City	2	50	62	1
WREC	Memphis	3	29	52	1
WAPI	Birmingham	13	38	40	1
WBMG	Birmingham	42	38	24	1

It should be especially noted that there are double offenders among the ranks of these, the most egregious of high-pay discriminators.  Stations KSL, Salt Lake City, KUTV, Salt Lake City, WLCY, Tampa-St. Petersburg, WKZO, Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo and WAPI, Birmingham report a combined total of some 306 high-pay positions, but employ a total of just three minorities and four women in those positions.

C.  Increase or decrease of minority and female employment from 1971 to 1972

100 stations (68%) reported an increase in the number of full-time minority group employees in 1972 over 1971; 47 (32%) reported a decrease or remained the same.  67 stations (46%) reported an increase in the number of full-time women employees in 1972 over 1971; 80 (54%) reported a decrease or remained the same.  Once again, by this measure, we see that more efforts are being made to improve the employment picture for minorities than for women.

The following 64 stations reported decreases in employment of minorities, or women, or both:

TABLE 15. -- Stations Showing Decrease in Employment of Minorities or Women -- 1972 n21

n21 It should be noted, however, that certain of these stations are relatively speaking among the very best in our employment rankings.  WCAU, for example, ranks Number 1 in employment of women in high pay positions, even though it experienced a decline.

Call	Location	Ch. #	Mkt. #	M=minorities
ltrs.				W=women
WCBS	New York City	2	1	W
KNXT	Los Angeles	2	2	W
WPVI	Philadelphia	6	4	W
WCAU	Philadelphia	10	4	W
WJBK	Detroit	2	5	M, W
WWJ	Detroit	4	5	W
WNAC	Boston	7	6	M, W
WJW	Cleveland	8	7	W
WRC	Washington, D.C.	4	10	W
WMAL	Washington, D.C.	7	10	W
WBAP	Dallas/Ft. Worth	5	11	W
KMOX	St. Louis	4	12	W
KTVI	St. Louis	2	12	W
WCCO	Minneapolis/St. Paul	4	13	M
KSTP	Minneapolis/St. Paul	5	13	M. W
KMSP	Minneapolis/St. Paul	9	13	M
WRTV	Indianapolis	6	14	M, W
KTRK	Houston	13	15	W
KOMO	Seattle/Tacoma	4	16	W
KIRO	Seattle/Tacoma	7	16	W
WAGA	Atlanta	5	17	M, W
WKRC	Cincinnati	12	20	M, W
WCPO	Cincinnati	9	20	W
WTMJ	Milwaukee	4	21	M, W
WITI	Milwaukee	6	21	W
WTNH	Hartford/New Haven	8	22	M, W
WHNB	Hartford/New Haven	30	22	W
WDAF	Kansas City	4	23	W
KMBC	Kansas City	9	23	M
KCMO	Kansas City	5	23	W
WLCY	Tampa/St. Petersburg	10	24	W
WFLA	Tampa/St. Petersburg	8	24	W
WGR	Buffalo	2	25	W
KOIN	Portland	6	26	W
WBNS	Columbus	10	28	M, W
WTVN	Columbus	6	28	W
WLWC	Columbus	4	28	W
WSM	Nashville	4	30	M
WWL	New Orleans	4	31	W
KOA	Denver	4	32	M
KMBH	Denver	7	32	M
KBTV	Denver	9	32	M, W
WPRI	Providence	12	34	W
KSL	Salt Lake City		5	50
M, W
WCCB	Charlotte	18	35	M
WHAS	Louisville	11	36	M, W
KLKY	Louisville	32	36	W
WAVE	Louisville	3	36	W
WAPI	Birmingham	13	38	M
WHIO	Dayton	7	39	W
WLOS	Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville	13	40	W
KOCO	Oklahoma City	5	41	W
WKY	Oklahoma City	4	41	W
WZZM	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	13	41	M, W
WOTV	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo	8	41	M, W
WVEC	Norfolk/Newport News	13	44	M
KOOL	Phoenix	10	45	W
KTVK	Phoenix	3	45	M
WOAI	San Antonio	4	45	M
WTOL	Toledo	11	45	W
WDHO	Toledo	24	45	M, W
WSPD	Toledo	13	45	W
WFMY	Greensboro/Winston Salem/High Point	2	48	W
KUTV	Salt Lake City	2	50	M, W

Chapter 3

PATTERNS OF OWNERSHIP

The question of who should (or should not) own the facilities and control the programming of radio and television stations has been at the very heart of broadcasting since the decision was first made to regulate the use of the public airwaves by licensing them for private profit.  n1 For, while the allocation of frequencies to local rather than national broadcast service committed an almost wastefully-large chunk of the spectrum to broadcasting, there have always been fewer desirable frequencies available than parties requesting the opportunity to exploit them.  No less true today is Justice Frankfurter's 1943 dictum that broadcasting must be subject to governmental regulation because "unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is not available to all...  Because it cannot be used by all, some who wish to use it must be denied...." n2

n1 See Johnson and Hoak, "Media Concentration: Some Observations on the United States' Experience," 56 Iowa L. Rev. 267 (1970).

n2 National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 199 at 226 (1943).

The concentration of broadcast outlets in the hands of a few wealthy individuals or corporations would seem to be inimical to the manner of regulation contemplated in the Communications Act of 1934.  Not only would those few use up the opportunities of many others (and particularly minority groups who have been almost completely shut out of station ownership), they would provide the basis for an extremely unhealthy situation in which the "voices" utilizing the spectrum would be expressive of far fewer viewpoints than Congress originally intended.

The Commission has always waxed schizophrenic in the promulgation and enforcement of rules and policies designed to alleviate the problems of media control.  Diversification of ownership has always been recognized as a valid means to the goal of diversity of "voices," of viewpoints available to the public, n3 but there has also existed considerable confusion regarding the achievement of that goal.  The Commission continues to acknowledge that a proper objective should be "... the maximum diversity of ownership that technology will allow in each area..;" n4 but its words have become irrevocably clouded by its actions. 

n3 See Multiple Ownership of AM, FM, Television Broadcast Stations, 18 FCC 288, 291 (1953). Although there is no provision in the Federal Communications Act of 1934 dealing specifically with the concentration of ownership, the power to promulgate rules as the multiple ownership rules has been found to lie within the administrative discretion of the FCC under the broad purposes of the Act.  See United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956).

n4 In the Matter of Amendment of � �  73.35, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 18 P & F Radio Reg. 2d 1735 (1970). One presumes "technology" would allow each individual station in any given region to be licensed to a different person or corporate entity.

In 1971, for example, the Commission decided that ownership interest by anyone in more than seven AM, seven FM or seven television stations (of which no more than five may be VHF) would be contrary to the public interest (the so-called "7-7-7 rule").  n5 late 1972, however, the Commission allowed Cosmos Broadcasting of Louisiana to purchase television station WDSU-TV in New Orleans.  The purchase gave the assignee's parent, Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation, the license to its fourth VHF station, three of which are in the same geographic region of the country, but it also gave the South Carolina National Bank of Charleston an interest in its ninth VHF station, and a Mr. John Smith an interest in his eighth.  n6

n5 47 C.F.R. �  73.636(a)(2).

n6 WDSU-TV, Inc., 39 FCC 2d 534 (1972).

Another aspect of media ownership regulation has been the intolerably fragmented promulgation and enforcement (or non-enforcement) of rules and policies regarding different types of ownership problems.  The 7-7-7 rule, for example, took no cognizance of cross-ownership among the various broadcast media, thus theoretically permitting each broadcaster to acquire AM-FM-TV combinations in single markets, so long as it did not exceed its "limit" of seven of each.  In March of 1970, in an attempt to remedy this omission, the "one-to-a-market" amendment to the multiple ownership rule was adopted.  n7 It provided, prospectively only, that the FCC would not approve applications for construction permits or transfers of licenses if more than one full-time broadcasting outlet would be owned or controlled by the same owner in the same market. 

n7 Amendment of Multiple Ownership Rules, supra note 4.

The one-to-a-market rule created such an outcry among broadcasters, however, that by March of 1971 the Commission had amended it and made it applicable only to combinations of VHF television stations with aural stations in the same market.  n8 AM and FM stations in the same market could be commonly owned, and combinations of UHF and aural stations were to be handled on a case-by-case basis.  The Commission also noted that the problem of cross-ownership of newspapers and television or radio facilities was perhaps more important, but that Commission regulation in this area would be far less effective because the Commission does not regulate newspapers. 

n8 Amendment of Multiple Ownership Rules.  21 P & F Radio Reg. 2d 1551 (1971).

The Commission has long been charged with the language of the Supreme Court holding that "Congress intended to leave competition in the business of broadcasting," n9 and that the Commission "should administer its regulatory powers with respect to broadcasting in the light of the purposes which the... [antitrust laws were] designed to achieve." n10 Other recognizably antitrust aspects of the media ownership problem, such as regional concentration or local monopolization of all media, including newspapers, could therefore well be reached under this broad mandate.  However, the Commission continues essentially to ignore than mandate and to grant new or assigned broadcast facilities to established media interests, as in Los Angeles, where the transfer of an AM-FM combination to an applicant with an interest in the L.A.  Times was approved, n11 or in Georgetown, Texas, where an FM license was awarded to an applicant who owned the city's only newspaper, its only AM radio station and its only cable television franchise, n12 or in other cases right down to the present.  n13 Only when monopoly abuses can be documented does the Commission take any positive action, as in Mansfield, Ohio, where it denied the application of the Mansfield Journal Company for licenses to construct an AM/FM combination because it found that the Company had used its position as the sole newspaper in the community to exert pressures on advertisers.  n14

n9 F.C.C. v. Sanders Bros.  Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940).

n10 National Broadcasting Co., supra note 2, 319 U.S. 199, 223 (1943).

n11 John Poole Broadcasting Co., Inc and KBIQ, Inc., FCC 69-118 (1969).

n12 Charles R. Fanow, Jr., FCC 71-203 (1971).

n13 See, e.g., my dissent in McPherson Broadcasting, Inc., FCC 98757 (1973).

n14 Mansfield Journal Co. v. FCC, 18 F2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1950). More recently, see Greater Boston TV Corp. v. FCC, WHDH, Inc. v. FCC, et al., 444 F2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1970), in which the Court upheld the award of a newspaper company's Boston VHF television to a competing applicant.

Other equally complex facets of the ownership question have arisen in the course of Commission deliberations, but the majority of Commissioners has rarely been inclined to resolve the unique problems attendant each of them.  One example might be found in the potential adverse affects of allowing one owner to build a regional concentration.  This can often occur with far fewer than the "allowable" seven AM, seven FM or seven television stations.  Yet it has been difficult (if not impossible) for the Commission to visualize the harm to the local population.  There are always, it seems, "sufficient outside media influences" in the air -- even if they originate in a large city some 75 miles away -- to rationalize a majority conclusion to diminish further the diversity of media voices in a given region.  This was the case, for example, earlier this year when the majority granted a new FM facility to an applicant in Muskegon Heights, Michigan, who already owned four AM and two FM stations within the same general Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo metropolitan area.  n15

n15 Muskegon Heights Broadcasting Co., Inc., 39 F.C.C. 2d 475 (1973).

Another distressing line of ownership precedent concerns the tendency of the Commission majority to grant to an owner new stations or major improvements in facilities, either or which essentially "decides" that the owner is qualified to be a broadcast licensee, at a time when those very same qualifications are being called into question in the course of other proceedings before the Commission.  Late in 1972, for example, the Commission granted an application for the assignment of WAXY-FM, Fort Lauderdale, Florida to RKO General, Inc., even though RKO's most basic qualifications were being challenged in hearings concerned with the renewal of its VHF television licenses in Los Angeles and Boston.  n16

n16 RKO General, FCC 72-1201 (1972).

In undertaking to study nearly 150 television stations in our 50 largest media markets, we had hoped to be able to compare the performance of the "media barons" -- the corporate owners possessed of conglomerate interests both within and without the various media -- with that of the independent, local owners who would have no such outside interests.  That comparison has proved to be impossible, because it is apparent from a brief glance at our ownership tables that virtually none but a small handful of those network affiliates would qualify as even remotely resembling "local" owners.  On the information available, just three of the 147 stations in our ownership "sample" were owned by independent owners -- i.e., owners with no reported outside interests (including, but by no means limited to broadcasting or other media).  n17 And while those three were ranked numbers 54, 56 and 97 in our composite programming rankings (certainly an average enough showing) they hardly constitute a sufficiently large group for adequate comparison with the multiple or multimedia owners. 

n17 Of course, it is impossible to tell which of even these independents have unreported outside corporate interests, or which of their stockholders or officers might have similar unreported interests.  We have been necessarily limited in our study to data available at the F.C.C. and as noted in the text at footnote 22, that data is very often incomplete.

Multiple owners, on the other hand, seemed to have something of a stranglehold on the television audiences of the top 50 markets.  Just 17 large corporations account for the ownership of 68 of the stations in our study, each of them owning three or more affiliates, and the 17 also account for some 137 other reported broadcasting interests.  Thirteen other owners each held two of the affiliates in our top 50 study, and that group accounted for some 70 additional broadcast holdings among them.  In other words, just 30 corporate owners hold the licenses of 94 of the top 50 market network affiliates and also appear to own, among themselves, nearly 4% of all the broadcasting stations in the country n18 -- with, of course, access to decidedly more than 4% of the nation's audience. 

n18 What's more, even those figures do not come close to telling the full story, since among that 4% are probably well over half of the most highly profitable radio and television properties in the country.

Multimedia owners, with major interests in media other than broadcasting, appear also in epidemic proportion among the licensees of the network affiliates in our top 50 markets.  No fewer than 80 American newspapers n19 are co-owned with network affiliates in our study, including at least 38 of our largest urban dailies.  A partial listing should give you some feel for the extent of the incestuous cross-ownership between the nation's most profitable television stations and its most powerful newspapers:

n19 The precise number is difficult to determine, since some licensees list merely the corporate owner for a group of smaller newspapers in their form 323.

Albuquerque Tribune	Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Baltimore News-American	Houston Post
Baltimore Sun	Los Angeles Herald-Examiner
Boston Record-American	Los Angeles Times
Chattanooga Times	Milwaukee Journal*l Cincinnati Post and Times-Star
Minneapolis Star and Tribune
Cleveland Press	New York Times
Columbus Dispatch	Newsday
Daily Oklahoman	Oklahoma City Times
Dallas Times-Herald	Pittsburgh Press
Dallas Morning News	San Francisco Chronicle
Dayton News	San Francisco Examiner
Denver Post	St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Detroit News	Washington Evening Star
Fort Worth Press	Washington Post

In addition, it is worth noting some of the numerous other publishing interests represented among the network affiliates in this report:

Fairchild Publications	Random House
Pontiac Press	World Almanac
Holt, Rinehart and Winston	Time
Phoenix Magazine	Fortune
Cosmopolitan	Sports Illustrated
Vogue	Time-Life Books
Good Housekeeping	Mandemoiselle
Better Homes and Gardens	Glamour
House and Garden	Harpers Bazaar
Sports Afield	Newsweek
Avon Books	McGraw Hill
Popular Mechanics	Corinthian
United Technical Publications	Science Digest
Successful Farming	Money

To these publishing interests must be added the myriad cable television systems and franchises still held by these licensees.  n20

n20 These are too numerous, and often too ill-defined, to set out here.  There are hundreds of cable systems and franchises cross-owned with the broadcasting properties in this Report; however, Commission Rules specifically prohibit cross-ownership of cable and broadcast facilities in the same market, and require divestiture of all facilities so held of one type or the other by August 10, 1973.  47 C.F.R. �  76.501.

How, then, are we to analyze the information we have gathered from Commission records?  In the first place, we would do well to note that the information accumulated by the Commission, largely from the form 323 ownership reports, n21 is by no means complete (or even absolutely accurate).  For example, nowhere in the FCC files can we locate any information about the type or extent of defense subsidiaries known to be owned by licensees like Avco or Westinghouse or General Electric.  Often, multi-billion dollar conglomerate holdings are merely summarized, for purposes of the form 323, with innocuous phrases like "additional manufacturing interests" or "various product subsidiaries." Moreover, the major stockholders and/or officers of those corporations -- the persons who can actually be found to be exercising the most significant control over the policies of the stations -- are rarely identified satisfactorily by the anonymous corporate licensees, and the outside interests of those individuals are rarely enumerated for the FCC's information.  A thorough report on patterns of ownership, which would study conglomerates and subsidiaries, ties through directorships or individual shareholders or financial institutions, and so forth, would quite simply require as many man-hours of well-structured research as were spent on this entire report, even if we were to limit ourselves to the top 50 markets.  It once took the FCC 18 months to prepare a simple report of its ownership information for a Senate Committee -- and even then the Committee was able to point out errors. 

n21 Required by 47 C.F.R. �  1.615.

We should use this section, then, primarily to underscore the current state of media ownership in America today, and secondarily to make note of the relative performance in areas of programming and employment of our "media baron" licensees.  It can be seen, for example, that some of the conglomerate owners have done markedly better than others.  There can be no question but that the Westinghouse Corporation, whose five stations rank a truly remarkable 1, 2, 4, 5 and 31 in overall programming, cares more about its audience (among the conglomerate owners) than, say, Taft Broadcasting, whose five stations rank 49, 120, 123, 134 and 136, or ABC, whose five were ranked 13, 76, 102, 115 and 117.

Other results were not nearly so clear-cut, however, with curious spreads for owners like Hearst (8, 48, 132) or Cox Broadcasting Corp. (15, 31, 57, 126) or Combined Communications (23, 91, 142) scattering their stations all over the programming charts.  Given greater manpower and more time, the programming ownership data would perhaps have been analyzed further; until that opportunity occurs, we have attempted to gather as much information as possible in the ownership tables that follow, and leave it to others to assimilate that information.

The Tables below are designed to provide a maximum amount of information about each of the owners represented in the study.  Table 16 simply lists the stations alphabetically by their call letters and provides a cross reference to the name of the owner as it will be listed in Table 17.  Table 17 contains 17 separate columns, with entries for the owner (listed alphabetically), the stations falling within our top 50 market study, the market number, location, channel number, and network affiliation of each station, its composite programming rank, its rank in each of the major programming areas, and its rank in employment of minorities and women.  The remaining columns list the owners' additional interests, to the extent available at the Commission, in other broadcasting stations, newspapers or publishing media, and other unrelated corporate interests.  An asterisk (*) next to a listing in one of these three columns indicates a controlling (though not necessarily 100%) interest in the company, if under some other corporate or individual's name.  A double asterisk (**) indicates less than a controlling interest in the company.

TABLE 16. -- Cross Reference of Owners to Call Letters

[Alphabetically by call letter]

Call ltrs	Location					Owner
KABC	Los Angeles					American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
KATU	Portland					Fisher Companies, Inc.
KBTV	Denver					Combined Communications Corp.
KCMO	Kansas City					Meredith Corporation.
KCPX	Salt Lake City					Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
KCRA	Sacramento/Stockton					Kelly Broadcasting Co. (Partnership)
KDFW	Dallas/Fort Worth					Times Mirror Co.
KDKA	Pittsburgh					Westinghouse Electric Corp.
KENS	San Antonio					Harte-Hanks Newspapers, Inc.
KFMB	San Diego					Midwest Television Inc.
KGO	San Francisco					American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
KGTV	San Diego					McGraw-Hill Inc.
KGW	Portland					King Broadcasting Co.
KHOU	Houston					Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
KING	Seattle/Tacoma					King Broadcasting Co.
KIRO	Seattle/Tacoma					Bonneville International Inc.
KMBC	Kansas City					Metromedia, Inc.
KMGH	Denver					McGraw-Hill Inc.
KMOX	St. Louis					Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.
KMSP	Minneapolis/St. Paul					Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
KNBC	Los Angeles					RCA Corporation
KNXT	Los Angeles					Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.
KOA	Denver					General Electric Company
KOCO	Oklahoma City					Combined Communications Corp.
KOIN	Portland					Newhouse Broadcasting Co. (50%) (Orig Own 50%)
KOMO	Seattle/Tacoma					Fisher Companies Inc.
KOOL	Phoenix					G. Autry (55%), T. Chauncey (20%)
						A. Kerney (19%), F. Beer (k%); listed under KOOL Radio-
						Television, Inc., licensee
KOVR	Sacramento/Stockton					Metropolitan Broadcasting Corp.
KPIX	San Francisco					Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Kprc/	Houston					Houston Post
KRON	San Francisco					Chronicle Publishing Co.
KSAT	San Antonio					The Outlet Company
KSD	St. Louis					Pulitzer Publishing Co.
KSL	Salt Lake City					Bonneville International Corp.
KSTP	Minneapolis/St. Paul					Hubbard Broadcasting Inc.
KTAR	Phoenix					KTAR Broadcasting Co.
KTRK	Houston					Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp.
KTVI	St. Louis					Newhouse Broadcasting Corp.
KTVK	Phoenix					E. McFarland (41%) (various small %'s); listed
						under
						Arizona Television, Inc. licensee
KUTV	Salt Lake City					Standard Corp. (80%) CIC (20%)
KWTV	Oklahoma City					Griffin Television Inc.
KXTV	Sacramento/Stockton					Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
KYW	Philadelphia					Westinghouse Electric Corp.
WABC	New York City					American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
WAGA	Atlanta					Storer Broadcasting Co.
WAPI	Birmingham					Newhouse Broadcasting Corp.
WAST	Albany/Schenectady/Troy					Sonderling Broadcasting Corp.
WAVE	Louisville					Orion Broadcasting, Inc.
WAVY	Norfolk/Newport News					Lin Broadcasting Corp.
WBAL	Baltimore					Hearst Corp.
WBAP	Dallas/Fort Worth					Carter Publications, Inc.
WBBM	Chicago					Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.
WBEN	Buffalo					Buffalo Evening News
WBMG	Birmingham					Southern Broadcasting (33%) (various small %'s)
WBNS	Columbus					Dispatch Printing Cor.
WBRC	Birmingham					Taft Broadcasting Co.
WBTV	Charlotte					Jefferson Pilot Corp.
WBZ	Boston					Westinghouse Electric Corp.
WCAU	Philadelphia					Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
WCBS	New York City					Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
WCCB	Charlotte					Mecklenburg Television Broadcasters Inc.
WCCO	Minneapolis/St. Paul					Mid-Continent TV (53%), Mpls
						Star (47%)
WCHS	Charleston/Huntington					Rollins, Inc.
WCKT	Miami					Sunbeam Television Corp.
WCPO	Cincinnati					Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
WDAF	Kansas City					Taft Broadcasting Co.
WDHO	Toledo					Overmeyer Co. Inc.
WDSU	New Orleans					Cosmos Broadcasting Corp.
WEWS	Cleveland					Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
WFAA	Dallas/Fort Worth					Dallas Evening News
WFBC	Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville					Multimedia, Inc.
WFLA	Tampa/St. Petersburg					Media General Inc.
WFMY	Greensboro/Winston Salem/High					Landmark Communications
						Inc.
	Point.
WGHP	Greensboro/Winston Salem/High					Southern Broadcasting
						Co., Inc.
	Point.
WGR	Buffalo					Taft Broadcasting Co.
WHAS	Louisville					WHAS, Inc.
WHBQ	Memphis					RKO General Inc.
WHEN	Syracuse					Meredith Corp.
WHIO	Dayton					Cox Broadcasting Corp.
WHNB	Hartford/New Haven					Plains Television Corp.
WHTN	Charleston/Huntington					Reeves Broadcasting Corp.
WIIC	Pittsburgh					Cox Broadcasting Corp.
WISH	Indianapolis					Corinthian Broadcasting Corp.
WISN	Milwaukee					Hearst Corp.
WITI	Milwaukee					Storer Broadcasting Co.
WJAR	Providence					The Outlet Company
WJBK	Detroit					Storer
Broadcasting Co.
WJW	Cleveland					Storer Broadcasting Co.
WJZ	Baltimore					Westinghouse Electric Corp.
WKBW	Buffalo					Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp.
WKEF	Dayton					Springfield Television Broadcasting Corp.
WKY	Okalahoma City					WKY Television System Inc.
WKRC	Cincinnati					Taft Broadcasting Co.
WKYC	Cleveland					RCA Corporation
WKZO	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo					Fetzer Communications, Inc.
WLAC	Nashville					Life & Casualty Ins. Co. (50%); T. Baker,
						Jr. (25%), A.
						Beaman (25%)
WLCY	Tampa/St. Petersburg					Rahall Communications Corp.
WLKY	Louisville					Sonderling Broadcasting Co.
WLOS	Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville					Wometco Enterprises,
						Inc.
WLS	Chicago					American Broadcasting Companies
WLWC	Columbus					Avco Corp.
WLWD	Dayton					Avco Corp.
WLWI	Indianapolis					Avco Corp.
WLWT	Cincinnati					Avco Corp.
WMAL	Washington, D.C.					Evening Star Newspaper Co.
WMAQ	Chicago					RCA Corporation
WMAR	Baltimore					A. S. Abell Co.
WMC	Memphis					Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
WNAC	Boston					RKO General Inc.
WNBC	New York City					RCA Corporation
WNYS	Syracuse					The Outlet Corp.
WOAI	San Antonio					Avco Corp.
WOTV	Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo					Time, Inc.
WPLG	Miami					Post Newsweek Stations, Inc.
WPRI	Providence					Poole Broadcasting Co.
WPVI	Philadelphia					Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp.
WQXI	Atlanta					Pacific & Southern Broadcasting Co., Inc.
WRC	Washington, D.C.					RCA Corporation
WREC	Memphis					New York Times Co.
WRGB	Albany/Schenectady/Troy					General Electric Co.
WRTV	Indianapolis					McGraw-Hill, Inc.
WSAZ	Charleston/Huntington					Lee Enterprises, Inc.
WSB	Atlanta					Cox Broadcasting Corp.
WSIX	Nashville					General Electric Company
WSM	Nashville					NLT Corp.
WSOC	Charlotte					Cox Broadcasting Corp.
WSPA	Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville					Spartan Radiocasting Co.
WSPD	Toledo					Storer Broadcasting Co.
WSYR	Syracuse					Newhouse Broadcasting Corp.
WTAE	Pittsburgh					Hearst Corp.
WTAR	Norfolk/Newport News					Landmark Communications Inc.
WTEN	Albany/Schenectady/Troy					Poole Broadcasting Co.
WTEV	Providence					WGAL-TV
WTIC	Hartford/New Haven					Travelers Corp.
WTMJ	Milwaukee					The Journal Co.
WTNH	Hartford/New Haven					Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp.
WTOL	Toledo					Cosmos Broadcasting Corp.
WTOP	Washington, D.C.					Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.
WTVJ	Miami					Wometco Enterprises, Inc.
WTVN	Columbus					Taft Broadcasting Co.
WTVT	Tampa/St. Petersburg					WKY Television System Inc.
WVEC	Norfolk/Newport News					Peninsula Broadcasting Corp.
WVUE	New Orleans					Columbia Pictures Industries Inc.
WWJ	Detroit					The Evening News Association
WWL	New Orleans					Loyola University
WXII	Greensboro/Winston Salem/High					Multimedia, Inc.
	Point.
WXYZ	Detroit					American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
WZZM	Kalamazoo/Grand Rapids					Synercom
			Chan-	Affili-								Mkt.
Owner		(Stations)	nel	ation				Market				No.		Rank
A. S. Abell Co		WMAR-TV	2	CBS				Baltimore				19		34
American		KABC-TV	7	ABC				Los Angeles				2		102
Broadcasting		KGO-TV	7	ABC				San Francis-				8		76
Co., Inc.								co.
		WABC-TV	7	ABC				New York				1		13
		WLS-TV	7	ABC				Chicago				3		115
		WXYZ-TV	7	ABC				Detroit				5		117
Arizona Tele-		KTVK-TV	3	ABC				Phoenix				45		97
vision Co.
(licensee)
(controlling
interest by
E. McFar-
land).
Avco Corp		WLWC-TV	4	NBC				Columbus,				28		131
								O.
		WLWD-TV	2	NBC				Dayton				39		83
		WLWI-TV	13	ABC				Indianapolis				14		65
		WLWT-TV	5	NBC				Cincinnati				20		25
		WOAI-TV	4	NBC				San Antonio				45		58
Bonneville Int.		KIRO-TV	7	CBS				Seattle/				16		114
Corp.								Tacoma
		KSL-TV	5	CBS				Salt Lake				50		33
								City
Buffalo		WBEN-TV	4	CBS				Buffalo				25		38
Evening
News Inc.
Capital Cities		KTRK-TV	13	ABC				Houston				15		64
Broadcasting		WKBW-TV	7	ABC				Buffalo				25		73
Corp.		WPVI-TV	6	ABC				Philadel-				4		50
								phia
		WTNH-TV	8	ABC				Hartford/				22		95
								New
								Haven
Carter Publica-		WBAP-TV	5	NBC				Dallas/Ft.				11		93
tions, Inc.								Worth
Houston Post/		KPRC-TV	2	NBC				Houston				15		41
Channel 2
TV Co.
Chronicle Pub.		KRON-TV	4	NBC				San				8
Co.								Francisco
Columbia		KMOX-TV	4	CBS				St. Louis				12		27
Broadcasting		KNXT-TV	2	CBS				Los Angeles				2		40
System, Inc.		WBBM	2	CBS				Chicago				3		74
		WCAU-TV	10	CBS				Phila-				4		46
				delphia
		WCBS-TV	2	CBS				New York				1		26
Columbia		KCPX-TV	4	ABC				Salt Lake				50		109
Pictures								City.
Industries		WVUC-TV	8	ABC				New				31		79
Inc. (Screen								Orleans.
Gems Broad-
casting)
Combined		KBTV-TV	9	ABC				Denver				32		142
Communica-
tions Inc.		KOCO-TV	5	ABC				Oklahoma				41		91
								City.
		KTAR-TV	12	NBC				Phoenix				45		23
Cosmos Broad-		WDSU-TV	6	NBC				New				31		36
casting Corp.								Orleans.
		WTOL-TV	11	CBS				Toledo				45		98
Cox Broad-		WHIO-TV	7	CBS				Dayton				39		126
casting Corp.		WIIC-TV	11	NBC				Pittsburgh				9		15
		WSB-TV	2	NBC				Atlanta				17		31
		WSOC-TV	9	NBC				Charlotte				35		57
Dallas Evening		WFAA-TV	8	ABC				Dallas/Ft.				11		85
News								Worth
Dispatch Print-		WBNS	10	CBS				Columbus				28		22
ing Co.
Dun & Brad-		KHOU-TV	11	CBS				Houston				15		70
street.		KXTV-TV	10	CBS				Sacra-				27		105
								mento/
								Stockton
		WISH-TV	13	ABC				Indianap-				14		104
								olis.
Evening News		WWJ-TV	4	NBC				Detroit				5		69
Assn.
Evening Star		WMAL-TV	7	ABC				Wash., D.C.				10		7
Broadcasting
Co.
Petzer Com-		WKZO-TV	3	CBS				Grand				41		138
munications								Rapids/
Inc.								Kala-
								mazoo
													Wom-
Owner					Local		News		Comm.	Fin.	Min.		en		PSA
A. S. Abell Co					11		25		78	104	110		105		41
American					123		115		96	17	34		6		43
Broadcasting					94		70		99	30	42		34		106
Co., Inc.
					63		77		56	1	98		65		62
					53		61		143	68	63		25		87
					89		116		135	26	97		18		141
Arizona Tele-					88		122		49	75	91		16		111
vision Co.
(licensee)
(controlling
interest by
E. McFar-
land).
Avco Corp					99		67		121	118	15		27		91
30					42		137		83	36	81		79
					64		26		130	37	47		8		50
					1		118		129	44	36		87		36
					58		88		31	93	123		92		38
Bonneville Int.					66		83		109	125	39		122		140
Corp.
					57		90		88	6	145		147		118
Buffalo					55		21		60	80	130		136		35
Evening
News Inc.
Capital Cities					18		95		69	100	102		106		101
Broadcasting					78		106		21	109	25		123		31
Corp.					14		62		113	45	56		51		10
					81		81		57	124	65		141		28
Carter Publica-					132		50		36	115	96		100		30
tions, Inc.
Houston Post/					29		22		79	94	132		107		12
Channel 2
TV Co.
Chronicle Pub.											114		63
Co.
Columbia					59		11		105	36	31		32		49
Broadcasting					21		8		128	88	112		72		85
System, Inc.					33		18		141	65	81		33		52
					42		9		127	73	59		1		38
					75		4		111	27	75		13		22
Columbia					142		136		16	40	85		116		29
Pictures
Industries					107		112		44	34	117		15		72
Inc. (Screen
Gems Broad-
casting)
Combined					91		128		142	42	113		95		123
Communica-
tions Inc.					62		124		81	53	17		117		33
					8		64		66	48	45		62		88
Cosmos Broad-					20		55		82	55	115		77		136
casting Corp.
					87		71		65	122	38		20		103
Cox Broad-					45		123		133	87	23		114		143
casting Corp.					17		53		101	8	24		22		56
					5		56		54	116	101		74		78
					122		75		18	47	90		110		109
Dallas Evening					47		114		75	85	95		37		67
News
Dispatch Print-					22		19		85	61	33		45		14
ing Co.
Dun & Brad-					25		30		110	127	105		82		60
street.					101		36		122	66	125		50		74
					73		65		80	135	57		28		67
Evening News					9		31		131	112	94		109		83
Assn.
Evening Star					4		6		30	57	87		2		17
Broadcasting
Co.
Petzer Com-					108		100		91	142	147		134		129
munications
Inc.

	Interest or ownership
Owner										Other
	Other broadcasting					Publishing
A. S Abell Co	WMAR-FM (Bal-					Baltimore Sun
	timore).
	WBOC-AM (Salis-
	bury, Md.).
	WBOC-FM (Salisbury, Md.).
	WBOC-TV (Salisbury, Md.).
American	WABC-AM (N.Y.)									ABC Films,
Broadcasting	WPLJ-FM (N.Y.)									Inc.
Co., Inc.
	WLS-AM (Chicago)									ABC Int.
	WDAI-FM (Chi-									Television.
	cago).									ABC Records,
	KGO-AM (S.F.)									Inc.
KSFX-FM (S.F.)						ABC Record
	KABC-AM (L.A.)									and Tape
	KLOS-FM (L.A.)									Sales
	WXYZ-AM (De-									ABC Pictures
	troit).									Corp.
	WRIF-FM (De									ABC Theatre
	troit).									Holdings,
	KQV-AM (Pitts-									Inc.
	burgh).
	KXYZ-AM (Hous-
	ton).
	KAUM-FM (Hous-
	ton).
Arizona Tele-
vision Co.
(licensee)
(controlling
interest by
E. McFar-
land).
Avco Corp	WWDC-AM (Wash.,					Avco Embassy
	D.C.).					Pictures.
	WWDC-FM (Wash., D.C.).					Pictures.
KYA-AM-FM	Avco Radio
	(San Francisco)					Television
	KOIT-FM (San Francisco)					Sales, Inc.
	WOAI-AM (San					Avco Pro-
Antonio)	gram Sales,
	WRTH-AM (St.					Avco Film
	Louis)					& various
						manufactur-
						ing interests
Bonneville Int.	KSL-AM (Salt					Salt Lake				The Church
Corp.	Lake)					City Desert of Jesus
	KSL-FM (Salt					News Christ of
	KIRO-AM					the latter
	(Seattle) (Salt					Brigham
	WNEW-AM (N.Y.)					Young
	WFRM-FM (n.y/.)					University
	KMBZ-AM (K.C.)					CATV
	KMBR-FM (K.C.)					(Seattle,
	KBIG-AM (L.A.)					Wash. **;
	KXTZ-FM					Logan,
	KBYU-FM					Utah;
	(Provo, U.)					Ogden, U.;
	KBYU-TV					Salt Lake
	WCLR-FM					City, U. *)
	(Skokie, Ill.)
Buffalo	WBEN-AM					Buffalo
Evening	(Buffalo)					Evening
News Inc.	WBEN-FM (L.A.)					News
Capital Cities	WKBW-AM					Fairchild
Broadcasting	(Buffalo)					Publica-
Corp.	KFRE-TV					tions
	(Fresno, Cal.)					Pontiac Press
	WTVD-TV					Co.
	(Durham, N.C.)
	WPAT-AM
	(Paterson, N.J.)
	WPAT-FM
	KPOL-AM (L.A.)
	KPOL-FM (L.A.)
	WPRO-AM
	(Providence)
	WPRO-FM (L.A.)
Carter Publica-	WBAP-AM (Ft.					Ft. Worth
tions, Inc.	Worth)					Star-Tele-
	WBAP-FM (L.A.)					gram
Houston Post	KPRC-AM					Houston Post
Channel 2	(Houston)
TV Co.
Chronicle Pub.	KRON-FM (San					San Western
Co.	Francisco)					Francisco				Communi-
						Chronicle cations
						CATV
						(Carmel-
						by-the Sea,
						Ca. Chico,
						Ca.;
						Croning,
						Ca.;
						Orlando,
						Ca.; San
						Mateo Cy.,
						Ca.; Wil-
						lows, Ca.;
						Concord,
						Ca.;)
						Western
						TV Cable
						CATV (S.
						San Fran.,
						Ca.).
Columbia	WCBS-AM (New					Holt,				CBS Int'l.
Broadcasting	York).					Rinehart,				CBS Musical
System, Inc.	WCBS-FM (New					and				Interests
	WCAU-AM					Winston				Cinema
	(Phila.)									Center
	WCAU-FM (Phila.)									Films
	WBBM-AM									CBS
	(Chicago)									Labora-
	WBBM-FM (Chicago)									tories
	KMOX-AM (St.									Creative
	Louis)									Playthgs
KMOX-FM (St. Louis)						W.B.
	KCBS-AM (San									Saunders
	Fran.)									Co.
	KCBS-FM (San									CBS Schools,
	WEEI-AM									Inc.
	(Boston)									Viacom Int'l
	WEEI-FM (Boston)									CATV
	WEEI-FM (San									CATV
	KNX-AM (Los									(Fairfax,
	Angeles)									Ca.;
	KNX-FM									Heraldsburg
	(Hollywood)									Ca.; San
						Geronimo
						Valley, Ca.;
						Sausalito,
						Ca.;
						Sonora,
						Ca.; Belle-
						vue, Wa.:
						Port
						Angeles,
						Wa.; Seat-
						tle, Wa.);
						Telerama
						Inc. CATV
						(17 sys-
						tems);
						Tele-vue
						Systems
						Inc. CATV
						(22 sys-
						tems);
						Nor-Cal
						Cable-
										vision
						Inc. **
						CATV (2
						systems)
Columbia	KCPX-AM (Salt									Screen Gems
Pictures	Lake City).									Productions
Industries	KCPX-FM (Salt									Screen Gems-
Inc. (Screen	(Newark)									Music Inc.
Gems Broad-	WAPA-TV (San									Roosevelt
casting)	Juan)									Music
	** WOLE-TV									Bell Records
	(Aguadilla-									Learning
	Mayaguez, P.R.)									Corp. of
						America
						Columbia
						Pictures
Combined	KTAR-AM					Phoenix mag.				Eller Outdoor
Communica-	(Phoenix).					Outdoor				Advertising
tions Inc.	KTAR-FM (Phoenix).					Arizona
	KBLU-AM (Yuma)
	KBLU-TV (Yuma)
Cosmos Broad-	(Montgomery).
	WIS-AM (Colum-
	bia, S.C.)
	WIS-TV (Columbia, S.C.)
Cox Broad-	WSB-AM (Atlanta)					United				Bing Crosby
casting Corp.	WSB-FM (Atlanta)					Technical				Productions
	(Dayton).					tions				Commu-
	WHIO-FM (Atlanta)					* Dayton				nications
	WIOD-AM					News				CATV (29
	(Miami).									systems
	WAIA-FM (Atlanta)									owned and
	KTVU-TV									3 others
	(Oakland).									partly-
	WSOC-AM									owned)
	(Charlotte).									CATV ** (2
	WSOC-FM (Atlanta)									Cleveland
										Cleveland
										area
										systems)
										Video Service
						Company
Dallas Evening	WFAA-AM					News-Texan
News	(Dallas).					Dallas
	WFAA-FM (Atlanta)					Morning News
	WDFM-TV					6 suburban
	(Beaumont, Tx.)					dailies
Dispatch Print-	WBNS-AM					* Columbus
ing Co.	(Columbus).					Dispatch.
	WBNS-FM (Columbus).					* Dispatch
						Printing
						Co.
Dun & Brad-	KOTV-TV (Tulsa)					Corinthian				Corinthian
street.	WANE-TV (Ft.					Editors,				Broadcast-
	Worth).					Inc.				ing Corp.
										owned by
										Dun &
										Bradstreet.
Evening News	WWJ-AM (Detroit)					Detroit News
Assn.	WWJ-FM (Detrolt)
	KOLD-TV
	(Tucson)
	WALA-TV
	(Mobile)
Evening Star	WMAL-AM					Evening Star
Broadcasting	(Wash., D.C)					Wash.,
Co.	WMAL-FM (Wash., D.C.)					D.C.
	WLVA-TV
	(Lynchburg, Va.)
	WLVA-AM (Lynchburg, Va.)
WCIV-TV
	(Charleston, S.C.)
	WCIV-AM (Charleston, S.C.)
Petzer Com-	KOLN-TV									Wolverine
munications	(Lincoln)									Cabvlevision
Inc.	KGIN-TV (Grand									CATV
	Island, Me.)									(Albion,
	* KMEG-TV									Mi., Battle
	(Sioux City)									Creek, Mi.)
	* WKZO-AM
	(Kalamazoo)
	* WKZO-AM
	(Kalamazoo)
	* WJEF-AM
	(Grand Rapids)
	* WJEF-FM (Grand Rapids)
	* WWTV-TV
	(Cadillac)
	* WWTV-AM (Cadillac)
	* WWTV-FM (Cadillac)
			Chan-		Affili-			Market				Mkt.
Owner		(Stations)	nel		ation			Market				No.		Rank
Fisher Com-		KOMO-TV	4		Seattle/			16				24
panies, Inc.								Tacoma
		KATU-TV	2		ABC			Portland				26		18
General		KOA-TV	4		NBC			Denver				32		113
Electric Co.		WSIX-TV	8		ABC			Nashville				30		61
		WRGB-TV	6		NBC			Albany				37		118
								Schen-
								ectady/
								Troy
John T. Griffin		KWTV-TV	9		CBS			Oklahoma				41		54
Harte-Hanks		KENS-TV	5		CBS			San				45		130
Newspapers								Antonio
Hearst Corp		WBAL-TV	11		NBC			Baltimore				19		48
		WISN-TV	12		CBS			Milwaukee				21		132
WTAE-TV		4	ABC		Pittsburgh			9				8
Hubbard		KSTP-TV	5		NBC			Minneapo-				13		59
Broadcasting								lis/St.
Co. Inc.								Paul
Jefferson Pilot		WBTV-TV	3		CBS			Charlotte				35		82
Corp.
Journal Co		WTMJ-TV	4		NBC			Milwaukee				21		74
Kelly Broad-		KCRA-TV	8		NBC			Sacramen-				27		20
casting Co.								to/Stock-
								ton
King Broad-		KGW-TV	8		NBC			Portland				26		10
casting Co.		KING-TV	5		NBC			Seattle/				16		3
								Tacoma
KOOL Radio-		KOOL-TV	10		CBS			Phoenix				45		140
Television,
Inc. (licensee)
(controlling
interest by
Gene Autry).
Landmark		WFMY-TV	2		CBS			Greensboro/				48		9
Communica-								High
tions Inc.								Point/
								Winston-
								Salem.
		WTAR-TV	3		CBS			Norfolk/				44
								Newport
								News/
								Hampton.
Lee Enterprises		WSAZ-TV	3		NBC			Charleston/				33		124
Inc.								Hunting-
								ton
Life & Casualty		WLAC-TV	5		CBS			Nashville				30		86
Insurance Co.
(half-owner)
Lin Broadcast-		WAVY-TV	10		NBC			Norfolk/				44		81
ing Corp.								Newport
								News/
								Hampton
Loyola		WWL-TV	4		CBS			New Orleans				31		11
University
McGraw-Hill		KGTV-TV	10		NBC			San Diego				49		112
Inc.		KMGH-TV	7		CBS			Denver				32		99
		WRTV-TV	6		NBC			Indianapolis				14		37
Mecklenburg		* WCCB-TV	18		ABC			Charlotte				35		144
Television
Broadcasters
Inc.
Media General,		WFLA-TV	8		NBC			Tampa/St.				24		127
Inc.								Petersburg
Meredith Corp		KCMO-TV	5		CBS			Kansas City				23		87
		WHEN-TV	5		CBS			Syracuse				43		108
Metromedia		KMBC-TV	9		ABC			Kansas City				23		135
Owner				Local		news Comm.	Fin.		Min.		Women		PSA
Fisher Com-				32		66	61		28		61		10		25
Panies, Inc.
				50		96	25		13		21		68		54
General				56		79	108		132		138		71		61
Electric Co.				82		125	32		22		70		9		138
				100		121	39		129		135		97		26
John T. Griffin				77		82	77		25		12		61		8
Harte-Hanks				106		93	83		134		104		84		64
Newspapers
Hearst Corp				19		33	95		101		61		56		21
				97		98	123		82		118		90		58
				52		60	10		15		32		93		16
Hubbard				43		91	62		71		91		73		126
Broadcasting
Co. Inc.
Jefferson Pilot				46		52	93		120		134		52		63
Corp.
Journal Co				13		92	107		89		44		76		135
Kelly Broad-				27		14	73		69		86		124		77
casting Co.
King Broad-				67		35	53		2		7		88		32
casting Co.				76		48	6		3		6		35		133
KOOL Radio-				98		76	140		119		67		115		11
Television,
Inc. (licensee)
(controlling
interest by
Gene Autry).
Landmark				96		38	2		76		83		75		91
Communica-
tions Inc.
											105		39
Lee Enterprises				119		58	71		139		5		139		91
Inc.
Life & Casualty				39		101	114		49		98		85		138
Insurance Co.
(half-owner)
Lin Broadcast-				121		54	37		84		88		58		20
ing Corp.
Loyola				7		24	72		31		139		99		95
University
McGraw-Hill				111		102	89		62		79		104		121
Inc.				44		73	118		98		75		98		51
				65		39	40		64		49		44		88
Mecklenburg				133		129	84		137		133		21		112
Television
Broadcasters
Inc.
Media General,				120		51	134		78		41		113		54
Inc.
Meredith Corp				54		69	102		97		61		140		109
				127		89	90		54		9		64		115
Metromedia				102		133	94		90		53		5		47

		Interest or Ownership
Owner		Other broadcast				Publishing				Other
Fisher Com-		KOMO-AM
panies, Inc.		(Seattle)
General		KOA-AM (Denver)								Manufacturing
Electric Co.		KOA-FM (Denver)								merchandis-
		WSIX-AM (Nash-								ing financial
		ville)								General Elec-
		WSIX-FM (Nash-								tric
		ville)
		WGY-AM (Sche-								Cablevision
		nectady)								Corp.
		WGY-FM (Sche-								CATV
		nectady)
										(Merced-
										Atwater,
										Ca.; Tracey,
										Ca.; Vaca-
										ville, Ca.;
										Walnut
										Creek, Ca.;
										Decatur, Il.;
										Anderson,
										In.; Biloxi,
										Ms.; Hatties-
										burg, Ms.;
										Watertown,
										N.Y.; and
										12 fran-
										chises)
John T. Griffin
Harte-Hanks						Express Pub.
Newspapers						Co. (San
						Angelo
						Standard-
						Times;
						Abilene
						Reporter
						News; Big
						Spring
						Herald;
						Corpus
						Christi
						Caller
						Times;
						Denison
						Herald;
						marshall
						News
						Messenger;
						Greenville
						Herald-
						Banner
Hearst Corp		WBAL-AM (Balti-				Baltimore
		more				News-
		WBAL-FM (Balti-				American
		more)
		WISN-AM (Mil-				Los Angeles
		waukee)				Herald-
		WISN-FM (Mil-				Examiner
		waukee)
		WATE-AM (Pitts-				San Francisco
		burgh)				Examiner
		WTAE-FM (Pitts-				Boston
		burgh)
		WAPA-AM (San				Record-
		Juan)				American
						San Antonio
						Light
						Seattle Post-
						Intelligencer
						Good House-
						keeping
						Cosmopolitan
						Harpers
						Bazaar
						Sports Afield
						Popular
						Mechanics
						Science Digest
						Avon books
Hubbard		KOB-TV (Albu-
Broadcasting		querque)
Co. Inc.		KOB-AM (Albu-
		querque)
		WTOG-TV (St.
		Petersburg)
		KSTP-AM-FM
		(Minn. St. Paul)
		WGTO-AM (Cy-
		press Gardens,
		Fl.)
Jerfferson Pilot		WBT-AM (Char-								Jefferson
Corp.		lotte)								Productions
		WBT-FM (Char-
		lotte)
		WWBT-TV (Rich-
		mond)
		WBIG-AM
		(greensboro)
Journal Co		WTMJ-AM (Mil-				* Milwaukee				Midwestern
		waukee).				Journal				relay Com-
		WTMJ-FM (Mil-								pany (closed
		waukee).								circuit)
										CATV
										(Stevens
										Point, Wi.;
										Wausau,
										Wi.; Whit-
										ing, Wi.)
Kelly Broad-		KCRA-AM (Sac-
casting Co.		ramento)
		KCTC-FM (Sac-
		ramento)
King Broad-		KING-AM (Seat-								King Video-
casting Co.		tle)								cable Co.
		KING-FM (Seat-								CATV
		tle)
		KREM-TV								(Lodi, Ca.;
		(Spokane)								Los Angeles,
		KREM-AM								Ca.; Placer-
		(Spokane)
		KREM-FM								ville, Ca.;
		(Spokane)
		KGW-AM								Lake Os-
		(Portland)								wego, Ca.;
		KINK-FM								Portland,
		(Portland)								Ca.; Ellens-
										burg, Wa.;
										Montesano,
										Wa.; West-
										port, Wa.;
										Kelso, Wa.;
										Seattle, Wa.;
										Bothell,
										Wa.)
										** Valley Vision
										Inc. CATV
										3 systems
										and 2
										franchises)
KOOL Radio-		KOOL-FM
Television,		(Phonenix).
Inc. (licensee)
(controlling
interest by
Gene Autry).
Landmark		[Not legible)				Norfolk				Telecable
Communica-		WTAR-AM				Virginian-				Corp. CATV
tions Inc.		(Norfolk).				Pilot				(Auburn,
		WTAR-FM				Ledger Star				Ga.; Co-
		(Norfolk).				Greensboro				lumbus,
						Daily News.				Ga.; De-
										catur, Al.;
										Opelika,
										Al.; Selma,
										Al.; Bloom-
										ington, Il.;
										Kokomo,
										In.; Roa-
										noke
										Rapids,
										N.C.;
										Wytheville,
										Va.; Beck-
										ley, W. Va;
										Princeton,
										W. Va.;
										Racine, Wi.
										and 7
										franchises)
Lee Enterprises		KGLO-AM				Various daily
Inc.		(Mason City, Ia.)				newspapers
		KGLO-TV				in Iowa,
		(Mason City, Ia.)
		KEYC-TV				Illinois,
		(Mankato, Mn.)				Wisconsin,
		KEYC-FM				Nebraska,
		(Mankato, Mn.)
		KHQA-TV				Montana,
		(Hannibal, Mo.)				and Oregon
		WTAD-AM
		(Quincy, Il.)
		WTAD-FM
		(Quincy, Il.)
		WMDR-FM
		(Moline, Il.)
		KFAB-AM-FM
		(Omaha)
Life & Casualty		WLAC-FM (Nash-								American
Insurance Co.		ville)								General
(half-owner)										Life In-
										surance Co.
Lin Broadcast-		WANCD-AM (De-
ing Corp.		catur, Il.)
		WAND-TV (De-
		catur, Il.)
		KAAY-AM (Little
		Rock)
		KAAY-FM (Little
		Rock)
		KEEL-AM
		(Shreveport)
		KEEL-FM
		(Sherveport)
		WAKY-AM
		(Louisville)
		WBBF-AM
		(Rochester)
		WBBF-FM
		(Rochester)
		WIL-AM (St.
		Louis)
		WIL-FM (St.
		Louis)
		KILT-AM
		(Houston)
		KILT-FM
		(Houston)
Loyola		WWL-AM (New
University		Orleans
		WWL-FM (New
		Orleans)
McCraw-Hill		KERO-TV				McCraw-Hill
Inc.		(Bakersfield)
Mecklenburg		WKAB-TV
Television		(Montgomery)
Broadcasters		WABG-AM (Green-
Inc.		wood, Ms.)
		WABG-TV (Green-
		wood, Ms.)
		WOLO-TV (Colum-
		bia, S.C.)
		WBBJ-TV (Jackson,
		In.)
		WLBJ-AM (Bowl
		Green, Ky.)
		WLBJ-FM (Bowl
		Green, Ky.)
		WWOD-AM
		(Lynchburg, Va.)
		KXEL-AM (Water-
		loo, Ia.)
		KXEL-AM (Water-
		loo, Ia.)
		WDOD-AM
		(Chattanooga)
		WDOD-FM
		(Chattanooga)
		WKIN-AM
		(Kingsport, In.)
Media General,		WFLA-AM (Tam-								CATV
Inc.		pa)								(Fredericks-
		WFLA-FM (Tam-								burg, Va.)
		pa)
Meredith Corp		WHEN-AM				Better Homes
		(Syracuse)				and Gardens
		WPHO-AM				Successful
		(Phoenix)				Farming
		WPHO-TV				Appleton-
		(Phoenix)
		KCMO-AM				Century
		(Kansas City)				Crofts
		KFMU-FM				New Century
		(Kansas City)
		WOW-AM (Omaha)				Lyons &
		WOW-FM (Omaha)				Carnahan
		WOW-TV (Omaha)
		WNEM-TV (Flint)
Metromedia		WNEW (New York)								Metromedia
		WNEW-FM (New York)								Producers
		WNEW-TV (New York)								Corp.
		KLAC-AM (Los								Wolper Pic-
		Angeles)								tures Ltd.
		KMET-FM (Los								Wolper Pro-
		Angeles)
		KTTV-TV (Los								ductions,
		Angeles)
		WXIX-TV (New-								Inc.
		port, Ky.)								Ice Capades
		WASH-FM								Inc.
		(Washington,
		D.C.)
		WTTG-TV
		(Washington,
		D.C.)
		WIP-AM (Phila-
		delphia)
		WMMR-FM
		WHK-AM (Cleve-
		land)
		WOMC-FM
		(Detroit)
			Chan-	Affili-								Mkt.
Owner	(Stations)		nel	ation			Market					No.		Rank
Metropolitan	KOVR-TV		13	ABC			Sacramento/					27		44
Broadcasting							Stockton
Corp.
Midcontinent	* WCCO-TV		4	CBS			Minneapo-					13		84
Television							lis/St.
							Paul
Midwest Tele-	KFMB-TV		8	CBS			San Diego					49		96
vision Inc.
Multimedia Inc-	WFBC-TV		4	NBC			Greenville/					40		72
							Spartan-
							burg/
							Asheville
	WXII-TV		12	NBC			Greensboro/					48		63
							Winston
							Salem/
							High
							Point
Newhouse	KOIN-TV		6	CBS			Portland					26		21
Broadcasting	KTVI-TV		2	ABC			St. Louis					12		68
Corp.	WAPI-TV		13	NBC			Birming					38		52
							ham
	WSYR-TV		3	NBC			Syracuse					43		47
New York	WREC-TV		3	CBS			Memphis					29		128
Times Com-
pany
NTL Corp	* WSM-TV		4	NBC			Nashville					30		28
Orion Broad-	WAVE-TV		3	NBC			Louisville					36		106
casting Co.
Outlet Co	KSAT-TV		12	ABC			San					45		78
							Antonio
	WJAR-TV		10	NBC			Providence					34		94
	** WNYS-		9	ABC			Syracuse					43		107
	TV
Overmeyer, Inc.	WDHO-TV		24	ABC			Toledo					45		100
Pacific and	WQXI-TV		11	ABC			Atlanta					17		143
Southern
Broadcasting
Co.
Peninsula	WVEC-TV		13	ABC			Norfolk/					44		137
Broadcasting							Newport
Corp.							News/
							Hampton
Plains Televi-	* WHNB-TV		30	NBC			Hartford/					22		103
sion Corp.							New
							Haven
Poole Broad-	* WPRI-TV		12	CBS			Providence					34		51
casting Corp.	* WTEN-TV		10	CBS			Albany/					37		90
							Schenec-
							tady/
							Troy
Pulitzer Pub-	KSD-TV		5	NBC			St. Louis					12		66
lishing Co.
Rahall Com-	* WLCY-TV		10	ABC			Tampa/St.					24		70
munications							Peters-
Corp.							burg
RCA	KNBC-TV		4	NBC			Los Angeles					2		14
	WKYC-TV		3	NBC			Cleveland					7		116
	WMAQ-TV		5	NBC			Chicago					3		43
	WNBC-TV		4	NBC			New York					1		39
							City
	WRC-TV		4	NBC			Washington					10		12
Reeves Tele-	WHTN-TV		13	ABC			Charleston/					33		110
com. Corp.				Hunting-
							ton
RKO General	WHBQ-TV		13	ABC			Memphis					29		141
Inc.	WNAC-TV		7	ABC			Boston					6		17
Rollins Inc	WCHS-TV		8	CBS			Charleston/					33		121
							Hunting-
							ton
													Wom-
Owner					Local	News		Comm.	Fin.		Min.		en		PSA
Metropolitan					134	120		20	5		108		131		97
Broadcasting
Corp.
Midcontinent					12	74		139	72		28		29		116
Television
Midwest Tele-					51	20		132	128		71		30		37
vision Inc.
Multimedia Inc					104	63		14	130		60		36		85
					118	105		29	21		137		26		112
Newhouse					84	29		59	12		27		80		5
Broadcasting					86	140		26	19		78		146		137
Corp.					126	46		17	63		143		129		17
					117	127		13	10		14		143		17
New York					131	108		58	114		109		111		130
Times Com-
pany
NTL Corp					24	97		67	16		129		54		142
Orion Broad-					95	85		92	86		64		127		83
casting Co.
Outlet Co					90	131		28	38		118		48		128
					114	47		70	91		35		144		7
					144	143		8	18		2		102		73
Overmeyer Inc.					139	144		7	29		142		31		117
Pacific and					129	126		112	99		75		23		44
Southern
Broadcasting
Co.
Peninsula					137	135		42	95		141		40		91
Broadcasting
Corp.
Plains Televi-					116	23		64	136		69		78		144
sion Corp.
Poole Broad-					115	94		3	113		3		91		105
casting Corp.					110	103		76	39		20		120		52
Pulitzer Pub-					36	68		74	108		121		83		45
lishing Co.
Rahall Com-					61	44		86	96		140		137		4
munications
Corp.
RCA					3	3		138	35		54		38		99
					113	86		126	43		26		67		88
					41	2		136	74		51		41		101
					60	17		97	58		67		17		65
					49	15		103	7		43		66		96
Reeves Tele-						107		19	102		8		12		59
com. Corp.
RKO General					138	139		52	111		110		119		134
Inc.					37	41		27	59		19		112		22
Rollins Inc					85	132		24	140		10		60		69

	Interest or ownership
							Other
	Other broadcasting		Publishing
	WMMS-FM (Cleve-
	land)
	WTCN-TV
	(Minneapolis)
	KSAN-FM
	WCBM-AM
	(Baltimore)
	KNEW-AM (Oak-
	land)
Metropolitan	KMJ-AM (Fresno)		Fresno Bee				** Nor Cal
Broadcasting	KMJ-FM (Fresno)		Modesto Bee				Cablevision
Corp.	KMJ-TV (Fresno)		Sacramento				Inc.
	KBEE-AM		Bee				CATV
	(Modesto)						(Oroville,
	KBEE-FM (Modesto)						Ca.; Yuba
	KBFK-AM						City, Ca.;
	(Sacramento)						and 4
	KBFK-FM (Sacramento)						franchises)
Midcontinent	WCCO-AM		** Minneapolis				ACTV (Rice
Television	(Minneapolis)		Star and				Lake, Wi.)
			Tribune Co.
Midwest Tele-	KFMB-AM (San		** Lindsay-
vision Inc.	Diego)		Schaub
	KFMB-FM (San Diego)		Newspapers
	WMBD-AM		Champaign
	(Peoria)		News
	WMBD-FM (Peoria)		Gazette
	WMBD-TV (Peoria)
	WCIA-TV
	(Champaign)
Multimedia Inc-	WFBC-AM		Greenville				** CATV
	(Greenville)		News				(Columbus,
	WFBC-FM (Greenville)		Piedmont				In.)
	WMAZ-AM		Asheville
	(Macon)		Citizen
	WMAZ-FM (Macon)		Times
	WMAZ-TV (Macon)		Montgomery
	WBIR-AM		Advertiser
	(Knoxville)		Alabama
	WBIR-FM		Journal
	WBIR-TV (Knoxville)
	WWNC-AM
	(Asheville)
Newhouse	WSYR-AM		** Denver				CATV
Broadcasting	(Syracuse)		Post				(Anniston,
Corp.	WSYR-FM (Syracuse)		Jersey City				Al. Carth-
	WAPI-AM		Journal				age, N.Y.;
	(Birmingham)		Newark Star-				Corning,
	WAPI-FM (Birmingham)		Ledger				N.Y.; Delhi,
	WTPA-FM		Long Press				N.Y.;
	(Harrisburg)		and Star				Malone,
	WTPA-TV (Harrisburg)		Journal				N.Y.;
	WSYE-TV						Messena,
	(Elmira-Corning)						N.Y.;
	KOIN-AM						Ogdensburg,
	(Portland)						N.Y.;
	KOIN-FM (Portland)						Oneonta,
			Staten Island				N.Y.;
			Advance				Rome,
			News and				N.Y.;
			Sunday				Sidney,
			Republican				N.Y.; and
			Vogue				13 others in
			Mademoiselle				New York
			Glamour
			House &
			Garden
New York	* WREC-AM		New York
Times Com-	(Memphis)		Times
pany	* WQXR-AM (New		Chattanooga
	York)		Times
	* WQXR-FM (New York)
NTL Corp	* WSM-AM						Third Na-
	(Nashville)						tional Bank
	* WSM-FM (Nashville)						of Nashville
Orion Broad-	WAVE-AM						CATV (Grand
casting Co.	(Louisville)						Rapids, Mi.;
	WMT-AM (Cedar						St. Peter,
	Rapids)						Mn.
	WMT-FM (Cedar Rapids)
	WMT-TV (Cedar Rapids)
	WFIE-TV (Evans-
	ville, Inc.)
	WJMN-TV
	(Escanaba, Mi.)
	WFRV-TV (Green
	Bay)
Outlet Co	WJAR-AM						Retail de-
(Providence)			partment
	WDBO-AM						stores
	(Orlando)
	WDBO-FM (Orlando)
	WDBO-TV (Orlando)
Overmeyer Inc.	WXIX-TV
	(Cincinnati)
	WPGH-TV
	(Pittsburgh)
	KEMO-TV (San
	Francisco)
	WATL-TV
	(Atlanta)
	KDJO-TV (Rosen-
	berg, Tx.)
Pacific and	WQXI-AM
Southern	(Atlanta)
Broadcasting	WQXI-FM (Atlanta)
Co.	WSAI-AM
	(Cincinnati)
	WSAI-FM (Cincinnati)
	KHON-TV
	(Honolulu)
	KHAW-TV
	(Hilo, H.)
	KAII-TV
	(Wailuku, H.)
	KKDJ-EM (Los
	Angeles)
	WWDJ-AM
	(Hackensack)
	KIMN-AM
	(Denver)
	KYXI-AM
	(Oregon City,
	Ore.)
Peninsula	WVEC-AM						CATV
Broadcasting	(Hampton, Va.)						(Ahoskie,
Corp.	WVEC-FM (Hampton, Va.)						N.C.;
							Morfrees-
							burg, N.C.;
							Emporia,
							Va.; and 5
							others)
Plains Televi-	WICS-AM (Spring-						CATV
sion Corp.	field, Il.)						(Muskegon,
	WICD-AM						Mi.; Me-
	(Champaign, Il.)						chanicsburg,
							Pa.; and
							Richmond,
							In.)
Poole Broad-	WJRT-TV (Flint)
casting Corp.	* WTEN-AM
	(Albany)
	* WCDC-AM
	(Adams, Ma.)
Pulitzer Pub-	KSD-AM (St.		St. Louis				CATV
lishing Co.	Louis)		Post-Dis-				(Clayton,
	KVOA-TV		patch				Mo.)
	(Tucson)
	KOAT-TV
	(Albuquerque)
Rahall Com-	WLCY-AM (St.						CATV (Hills-
munications	Petersburg)						borough,
Corp.	WLCY-FM (St. Petersburg)						Fl.)
	WFBM-AM
	(Indianapolis)
	WFBM-FM (Indianapolis)
	WKAP-AM
	(Allentown, Pa.)
	WWNR-AM
	(Beckley, W.Va.)
RCA	WNBC-AM (New		Random				RCA Global
	York)		House				Communi-
	WNBC-FM (New York)						cations
	WRC-AM (Wash-						RCA In-
	ington)						ternational
	WRC-FM (Washington)						Service
	WMAQ-AM						Corp.
	(Chicago)						RCA Insti-
	WMAQ-FM (Chicago)						tutes Inc.
	WKYC-AM						RCA Sales
	(Cleveland)						Corp.
	WKYC-FM (Cleveland)						RCA Dis-
	KNBC-FM (Los						tributing
	Angeles)						Corp.
	KNBR-AM (San						Hertz Corp.
	Francisco)
	WJAS-AM (Pitts-
	burgh)
Reeves Tele-	WITH-AM						Tele Promp-
com. Corp.	(Baltimore)						Ter Corp.
	WITH-FM (Baltimore)						CATV (owns
	WKEE-AM						127 systems;
	(Huntington)						partially
	WKEE-FM (Huntington)						owns 6 other
	WBLG-TV						systems;
	(Lexington)						holds 29
							other
							franchises)
							Owns 80% of
							Marcus
							CATV
							Corp. &
							Parker
							Industries
							Inc.
							Owns 50% of
							Theta
							Cable
							Owns Tele-
							PrompTer
							Transmis-
							sion of
							Kansas Inc.
							Owns Inter-
							mountain
							Microwave
							of Montana
							Owns Tele-
							PrompTer
							Transmis-
							sion of New
							Mexico
							Owns Tele-
							PrompTer
							Transmis-
							sion of
							Oregon Inc.
							Theta Com-
							munications
							Muzak Corp.
RKO General	KHJ-AM (Los						RKO Radio
Inc.	Angeles)						Pictures
	KRTH-FM (Los Angeles)						RKO Stanley
	WOR-TV (New						Warner
	York)						Theaters
	WOR-AM (New York)						Inc.
	WXLO-FM (New York)						General Tire
	WHBQ-AM						and Rubber
	(Memphis)						Co.
	WHBQ-FM (Memphis)						Cablecom-
	WRKO-AM						General
	(Boston)						Inc. CATV
	WGMS-AM						(owns 40
	(Bethesda)						systems and
	WGMS-FM						partly-
	(Bethesda)						owns 12
	KKEE-AM (San						others;
	Francisco)						holds 100%
	KFRC-FM (San						of 3 other
	Francisco)						franchises
							and con-
							trolling
							interest in
							11 others)
							* Mountain
							States
							Video Inc.
							CATV (20
							franchises)
Rollins Inc	WCHS-AM						CATV (Wil-
	(Charleston)						mington,
	WEAR-TV						De.)
	(Pensacola)
	WPTV-TV (North
	Pole, N.Y.)
	WBEE-AM
	(Harvey, Il.)
	WAMS-AM
	(Wilmington)
	WRAP-AM
	(Norfolk)
	KDAY-AM
	(Santa Monica)
		Channel		Affiliation								Mkt.
Owner	(Stations)							Market				No.		Rank
Sripps-Howard	WCPO-TV	9		CBS				Cincinnati				20		42
	WEWS-TV	5		ABC				Cleveland				7		125
Broadcasting	WMC-TV	5		NBC				Memphis				29		89
Sounderling	WAST-TV	13		ABC				Albany/				37		30
Broadcasting								Schenectady/
Corp.
								Troy
	WLKY-TV	32		ABC				Louisville				36		92
Southern	** WBMG-TV	42		CBS				Birmingham				38		139
Broadcasting
Co., Inc.	WGHP-TV	8		ABC				Greensboro/				48
								Winston-Salem/
								High
								Point
Spartan	WSPA-TV	7		CBS				Greenville/				40		129
Broadcasting								Spartanburg/
Corp.
								Asheville
Springfield	WKEF-TV	22		ABC				Dayton				39
Television
Broadcasting
Corp.
Standard Corp	* KUTV-TV	2		NBC				Salt Lake				50		53
								City
Storer Broadcasting	WAGA-TV	5		CBS				Atlanta				17		60
Co.
	WITI-TV	6		ABC				Milwaukee				21		45
	WJBK-TV	2		CBS				Detroit				5		133
	WJW-TV	8		CBS				Cleveland				7		77
	WSPD-TV	13		NBC				Toledo				45		119
Sunbeam	WCKT-TV	7		NBC				Miami				18		56
Synercom	WZZM-TV	7		ABC				Kalamazoo/				41		35
Communications								Grand
Corp.								Rapids
Taft Broadcasting	WBRC-TV	6		ABC				Birmingham				38		49
Co.
	WDAF-TV	4		NBC				Kansas				23		134
								City
	WGR-TV	2		NBC				Buffalo				25		123
	WKRC-TV	12		ABC				Cincinnati				20		120
	WTVN-TV	6		ABC				Columbus				28		136
Time, Inc	WOTV-TV	8		NBC				Kalamazoo/				41		62
								Grand
								Rapids
Times Mirror	KDFW-TV	4		CBS				Dallas-Fort				11		101
Corp.								Worth
Travelers Corp	WTIC-TV	3		CBS				Hartford-New				22		16
								Haven
20th Century	KMSP-TV	9		ABC				Minneapolis-St.				13		122
Fox
								Paul
Washington	WPLG-TV	10		ABC				Miami				18		6
Post Co., Inc.
	WTOP-TV	9		CBS				Washington,				10		55
								D.C.
Westinghouse	KDKA-TV	2		CBS				Pittsburgh				9		4
Corp.	KPIX-TV	5		CBS				San Francisco				8		1
	KYW-TV	3		NBC				Philadelphia				4		5
	WBZ-TV	4		NBC				Boston				6		31
	WJZ-TV	13		ABC				Baltimore				19		2
WGAL-TV, Inc	WTEV-TV	6		ABC				Providence				34		88
WHAS, Inc	WHNS-TV	11		CBS				Louisville				36		19
WKY Television	WKY-TV	4		NBC				Oklahoma				41		29
System Inc.								City
(licensee)	WTVT-TV	13		CBS				Tampa-St.				24		80
								Petersburg
Wometco	WLOS-TV	13		ABC				Greenville-				40		111
Enterprises								Spartanburg-
Inc.								Asheville
	WTVJ-TV	4		CBS				Miami				18		66
													Women
Owner					Local	News			Comm.	Fin.	Min.				PSA
Sripps-					40	49			98	33	127		108		127
Howard					92	134			100	56	107		138		124
Broadcasting					38	80			115	92	136		96		100
Corp.
Sounderling					135	119			9	4	12		11		48
Broadcasting
Corp.
					136	142			11	23	84		4		130
Southern					125	117			50	143	118		103		119
Broadcasting
Co., Inc.											39		7
Spartan					103	57			117	121	74		101		104
Broadcasting
Corp.
Springfield
Television
Broadcasting
Corp.
Standard Corp					83	104			63	11	144		94		106
Storer Broadcasting					70	5			124	79	71		126		100
Co.
					72	111			22	41	93		69		120
					93	99			116	106	40		132		132
					69	43			104	77	52		128		71
					124	113			41	107	54		142		108
Sunbeam					71	27			46	117	123		47		45
Synercom					112	45			43	14	22		133		24
Communications
Corp.
Taft Broadcasting					23	12			51	144	121		55		81
Co.
					34	72			144	131	103		135		81
					141	109			45	81	29		79		25
					74	138			34	133	30		86		41
					128	130			68	105	18		46		76
Time, Inc					48	37			106	67	16		145		74
Times Mirror					26	34			125	141	80		49		45
Corp.
Travelers Corp					68	28			5	110	48		42		13
20th Century					109	141			15	126	147		43		122
Fox
Washington					10	1			87	52	126		19		56
Post Co., Inc.
					79	10			120	50	66		3		40
Westinghouse					4	6			30	57	11		125		9
Corp.					31	13			1	103	58		53		14
					2	7			23	123	73		70		3
					15	16			55	138	4		24		17
					6	59			4	24	128		57		2
WGAL-TV, Inc					130	110			48	32	1		80		33
WHAS, Inc					35	84			33	20	131		130		65
WKY Television					16	78			38	70	46		118		1
System Inc.
(licensee)					80	32			119	51	100		121		6
Wometco					143	137			12	60	50		59		125
Enterprises
Inc.
					105	87			35	46	115		14		112

	Interest or ownership
Owner			Other
	Other broadcasting	Publishing
Sripps-Howard	WMC-AM	Scripps-Howard
	(Memphis)
Broadcasting	WMC-FM (Memphis)	Newspapers
Corp.	WPTV-TV (West	(Pittsburgh
	Palm Beach)	Press;
	KTEW-TV	Cleveland
	(Tulsa)	Press;
	WNOX-AM	Cincinnati
	(Knoxville)	Post and
		Times-Star;
		Knoxville
		News Sentinel;
		Fort
		Worth
		Press; Albuquerque
		(Tribune)
		World
		Almanac
Sounderling	KFOX-AM (Long		SBC Management
Broadcasting	Beach)
Corp.	KFOX-FM (Long Beach)		Corp.
	WWRL-AM (New		Modern
	York)	Teleservices
	WOPA-AM (Oak		Inc.
	Park, Il.)		Bernard
	WGLD-FM (Oak Park, Il.)		Howard
	KDIA-AM		& Co.
	(Oakland)
	WDIA-AM
	(Memphis)
	WAID-FM (Memphis)
	WOL-AM
	(Washington)
	WMOD-FM (Washington)
Southern	** WBMG-AM
Broadcasting	(Birmingham)
Co., Inc.	KULF-AM
	(Houston)
	WRVA-AM
	(Richmond)
	WRVQ-FM (Richmond)
	KOY-AM
	(Phoenix)
	WTOB-AM
	(Winston-Salem)
	WKIX-AM
	(Raleigh)
	WYYD-FM (Raleigh)
	WSGN-AM
	(Birmingham)
Spartan	WSPA-AM (Spartanburg,
Broadcasting	S.C.)
Corp.	WSPA-FM (Spartanburg, S.C.)
	WTHO-AM
	(Thomson, Ga.)
	WTHO-FM (Thomson, Ga.)
Springfield	WWLP-TV
Television	(Springfield, Ma.)
Broadcasting	WRLP-AM
Corp.	(Greenfield, Ma.)
	WRLP-TV (Greenfield, Ma.)
Standard Corp		Ogden
		Standard
		* Salt Lake
		Tribune
Storer Broadcasting	WDEE-AM		Northeast
Co.	(Detroit)		Airlines
			CATV (20
			systems in
	WSBK-TV		California
	(Boston)		and 3 systems
	WSPD-AM		in
	(Toledo)		Florida; 3
			additional
	WJW-AM		franchises in
	(Cleveland)		California
	WPNA-FM		and 3 in
	(Philadelphia)		Florida)
	KGBS-AM (Los
	Angeles)
	KGBS-FM (Los Angeles)
	WGBS-AM
	(Miami)
	WHN-AM (New
	York)
Sunbeam
Synercom	WZZM-FM (Kalamazoo/Grand
Communications
Corp.	Rapids)
Taft Broadcasting	WKKQ-FM (Cincinnati)
Co.
	WKRC-AM (Cincinnati)
	WTVN-AM
	(Columbus)
	WTVN-FM
	WBRC-AM
	(Birmingham)
	WBRC-FM (Birmingham)
	WGR-AM
	(Buffalo)
	WGR-FM (Buffalo)
	WDAF-AM
	(Kansas City)
	WDAF-FM (Kansas City)
	WNEP-TV
	(Wilkes-Barre)
Time, Inc	KOGO-FM	Time, Fortune,
	(San Diego)	Sports
		Illustrated,
		Money
		magazines
		Time-Life
		Books
Times Mirror		Dallas Times	** Church of
Corp.		Herald	Jesus Chirst
		Newsday	of Latter
		Los Angeles	Day Saints
		Times	(see Bonneville
		Orange Coast	International
		Daily Pilot
			Corp.)
			T-M Communication
			Co. CATV
			(23 systems
			in California,
			New York,
			and Florida;
			4 franchises
			in California
			and 3 in
			Florida)
Travelers Corp	WTIC-AM (Hartford-New
	Haven)
	WTIC-FM (Hartford-New Haven)
20th Century			20th Century
Fox			Fox Film
			Corp.
Washington	WTOP-AM	Newsweek	Home Theater
Post Co., Inc.	(Washington,	Washington	Network
	D.C.)	Post	Co. (pay
	WTOP-FM (Washington, D.C.)		TV)
	WJXT-AM
	(Jacksonville)
	WJXT-TV (Jacksonville)
	WCKY-AM
	(Cincinnati)
Westinghouse	WBZ-AM (Boston)		Manufacturing
Corp.	WBZ-FM (Boston)		of home appliances;
	KYW-AM (Philadelphia)	electronic
			equipment
			for industry
	KDKA-AM (Pittsburgh)	apparatus
			for the generation,
	KDKA-FM (Pittsburgh)
	WINS-AM (New		transmission,
	York)		and
	WOWO-AM (Ft.		utilization
	Wayne)		of electricity,
	WIND-AM		including
	(Chicago)		that developed
	KFWB-AM (Los
	Angeles)		through
			atomic
			energy
			CATV
			(Panama
			City, Fla.,
			Tallahassee,
			Fla., Dublin,
			Ga.,
			Milledgeville,
			Ga.,
			Swamsboro,
			Ga., Thomasville,
			Ga.,
			Voldosta,
			Ga.,
			** Bronx,
			N.Y.)
			CATV (franchise
			in
			Lynn Haven,
			Fla.)
			Closed Circuit
			(Micro-Relay
			Inc.)
WGAL-TV, Inc	WGAL-TV (Lancaster)
WHAS, Inc	WHAS-AM
	(Louisville)
WKY Television	WHAS-FM	Oklahoma
System Inc.	(Louisville)	Pub. Co.,
(Licensee)	WVTV-TV (Milwaukee)	Daily and
		Sunday
	WKY-AM (Oklahoma	Oklahoman,
	City)	Oklahoma
	KTVT-TV (Dallas-Ft.	City Times
	Worth)	plus occas'l
	KHTV-TV	other printed
	(Houston)	materials
Wometco	WLOS-AM (Greenville,		Automatic
Enterprises	N.C.)		food and
Inc.	KVOS-TV (Bellingham,	refreshment
	Wa.)		vending;
			industrial
			food service;
			chain of restaurants;
			chain of
			motion picture
			theaters;
			film production
			and
			processing;
			TV slide
			production;
			closed circuit
			TV;
			outdoor advertising
			Miami Seaquarium
			CATV
			(Thibodaux,
			La., East
			Brunswick,
			N.J.,
			Keeseville,
			N.Y.,
			Plattsburg,
			N.Y.)

Chapter 4

HOW YOU CAN IMPROVE TELEVISION IN YOUR COMMUNITY

I.  WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Now that you better understand how the quality of television broadcasting in your community compares to service provided in other markets, you may have other questions.  One of these is probably where to go from here.  In this chapter we will attempt to answer that question, explaining just how you can use the results of our report, as well as ways in which you can expand on our information within your own community.

Most citizens today believe that television broadcasters have an absolute right to program by whim, to present to millions of daily viewers whatever they might choose, in whatever sequence, at whatever time.  But while that may be the heritage of American television, it most certainly is not the law.  The law, in fact, is just the opposite.  Our system of broadcasting was established pursuant to a statute that clearly provides that radio and television belong not to any businessman but rather to the public.  A television station can only lawfully operate by serving the needs of its audience.  The Supreme Court recently emphasized this view in ruling that "it is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters which is paramount." n1 The Federal Communications Commission in Washington is authorized and directed to enforce this concept of public service, but as you have seen from our study, in many cases its enforcement has not been as thorough as we -- the viewing public -- have a right to demand. 

n1 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 at 390 (1969).

Precisely how do we go about demanding our rights as the "public" for whose "interest, convenience or necessity" the broadcast licensee is supposed to operate?  n2 In the first place, there are a set of procedures within the Commission's regulatory process that have always been available for public input, although they were never adequately used until Dr. Everett Parker, Director of Communications of the United Church of Christ, convinced the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the Commission's policy of excluding the public in a case involving a television license renewal in Jackson, Mississippi.  n3 That case -- perhaps the most significant landmark thus far in the area of citizen involvement in the regulatory process -- eventually resulted in the refusal of the Commission to renew the license of the Lamar Life Broadcasting Company for WLBT-TV, Jackson, Mississippi, at least partly on the basis of racial discrimination in programming and employment.  Later, in WHDH, Inc., n4 the television license held by a Boston newspaper, the Herald Traveler, was awarded to a competing applicant partially composed of leaders of various community groups, whose proposed programming carefully took into consideration the needs of the entire Boston viewing community.  n5 Current FCC Chairman Dean Burch, in a speech before the NAB, has called WHDH "a mistake we arent's likely to repeat soon;" n6 nevertheless, it has established a precedent for license challenges that will not be taken nearly so lightly by licensees, whatever the "reassurances" of Chairman Burch. 

n2 As we have noted before, that language was made an irrevocable part of each licensee's obligation by the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. �  309(a).

n3 Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission, 359 F. 2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

n4 WHDH, Inc., 16 FCC 2d 1 (1969).

n5 The license was, in fact, taken away from WHDH for reasons that included the licensee's relationship with its commonly owned newspaper, the Boston Herald Traveler, its de facto transfer of control, and its essentially absentee ownership.  The incumbent's programming was held not to be a factor unless it has been "either quite good or very poor, [thus giving] some indication of unusual performance in the future." Thus, the Commission allowed itself to weigh the "average" expectations for future WHDH, Inc. programming against the civic-minded proposals of BBI, Inc., the challenging group.  The latter was granted the license.  See 16 FCC 2d, 8-9, 15-17.

n6 Speech delivered Wednesday, March 28, 1973, to the NAB National Convention.

Besides these major successful efforts at broadcasting reform, involving many years of litigation and thousands of dollars of expenses, there have, in recent years, been scores of smaller achievements by citizens and community groups in the constant battle to upgrade the quality of television broadcasting.  Those have included reforms in programming practices, employment practices, concentration of control and other areas of local concern, and have often been brought about by pressures, publicity and negotiations in the community itself, completely outside the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of the FCC.  But there have been many failures as well, due in part to lack of adequate citizen preparation for the herculean task of taking on the broadcaster.  Many more intolerable situations remain unremedied because groups that could be exerting influence simply do not know how to do it effectively.

In this chapter, than, we will try to tell you how to use the information in this report, how best to use the additional information and techniques that will be available to you in your own community, and where to turn for more complete assistance than we can provide.  We can only outline here the approaches we feel are the most potentially effective.  But there are others who stand waiting to aid you in considerably greater detail if you choose to make a fight of your discontent with the inadequacy of the licensees in your community.

Although Congress and the FCC has promulgated a number of specific standards that a broadcaster theoretically is charged with maintaining, you should not assume that your grievance with your local station is hopeless merely because it does not fit neatly into one of those pigeonholes.  n7 Explicitly a part of the license of every broadcaster is his statutory mandate to operate in the "public interest," and the Supreme Court long ago held, in an opinion by Justice Frankfurter, that the "public interest standard is a broad one to be generously interpreted." The Commission, Frankfurter cautioned, was not to be merely a "traffic policeman" concerned with the technical aspects of broadcast regulation, but was to have a wide regulatory flexibility in determining the outer limits of the concept of the public interest.  n8

n7 Some of those might include the fairness doctrine, overcommercialization, racial discrimination, or violation of rules pertaining to lotteries or personal attacks, and so forth.

n8 National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, at 215 (1943).

Nevertheless, the current bias of the FCC is sufficiently pro-industry that your complaint or petition will have a much greater chance of success if it relates to one of the established guidelines, which we will develop in greater detail below.  For the moment, you should think of the following requirements: Broadcasters are required to ascertain the needs of a cross section of their audiences and to program with respect to these needs.  n9 They must be fair in handling controversial issues of public importance.  n10 They cannot discriminate in hiring and employment.  n11 They are fully responsible for the advertising they broadcast.  n12 Consolidation of ownership and control of the media (newspapers and broadcasting stations) is not unlawful, but is disfavored in the belief that it threatens the range of information available to the public.  n13 Finally, there are some specific restrictions on such practices as broadcasting to defraud or coerce.  n14

n9 Primer on the Ascertainment of Community Problems by Broadcast Applicants, 27 FCC 2d 650 (1971).

n10 Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 FCC 1246 (1949). See also Applicability of Fairness Doctrine in the Handling of Controversial Issues of Public Importance (the "Fairness Primer"), 40 FCC 598 (1964).

n11 47 C.F.R. �  73.680.  See discussion of employment rules in Chapter 2 of this Report.

n12 The FCC does not directly regulate the content of commercials, but the Federal Trade Commission will consider complaints about false and misleading advertising against the advertiser (rather than the licensee).  For a discussion of FCC "standards" of overcommercialization see the appropriate section of Chapter 1 of this Report.

n13 See WHDH, Inc., supra note 4.  See also the discussion of Commission ownership rules in Chapter 3 of this Report.

n14 Specific provisions of the Act or Rules forbid such practices as rigging contests, 47 U.S.C. �  509, accepting payola, 47 U.S.C. �  508, broadcast of lotteries, 47 C.F.R. �  73.656, or fraudulent billing, 47 C.F.R. �  73.678.

You, as members of the public, have a number of different ways in which you can enforce these broadcaster obligations, as well as the more general requirements of the public interest.  Short of formal legal actions, you can deal with shortcomings of the television stations in your community by publicizing them via public relations campaigns, picketing, boycotts, moving a large number of citizens to complain, or by establishing a sufficient power base in your community to force a licensee to negotiate an agreement to upgrade his below-standard practices (if only out of fear of more serious legal challenges).

If these methods fail, there are more formalized legal procedures you can follow, including general complaints to the FCC, "fairness doctrine" complaints, petitions to deny the broadcaster's application for renewal of his license, and (although this requires the backing of more substantial moneyed interests) the WHDH style of "competing application" for the broadcaster's facilities.  Citizens may also have significant input into the FCC rulemaking procedure, including (but not limited to) the filing of requests for Commission changes in its rules.  This was the route chosen by the group called "Action for Children's Television."

Several overriding general principles deserve additional emphasis.  In any of these actions you must know your facts thoroughly so that your position appears as well-reasoned and reasonable as possible, and you won't be shaken by station managers' threats or public relations rhetoric.  Know precisely what it is you are trying to achieve.  Don't muddy the issue with overly broad demands.  Try to involve as many community groups as possible, so that you can move in a unified front with a maximum power base.  Strengthen your "informal" bargaining position and support your public relations and education initiatives by showing a willingness and an ability to plot a legal course.  Finally, always be aware of all the options.  A complaint can be a very effective means of enforcing a specific standard, but in some cases a letter writing campaign will actually accomplish the purpose of your complaint.  On the other hand, a letter writing campaign is often more effective if you can convincingly threaten a petition to deny.  Do you understand all the alternatives?  Remember, a petition to deny by a citizen group with a good power base potentially sends the broadcaster down an arduous and expensive road during which he risks some chance of loss of the station.  In many cases this alone will strongly influence the broadcaster to settle your grievance "out of court." But don't use this procedure frivolously, because it wastes everyone's time, energy and money, and gives legitimate demands for reform a bad name.  There are enough serious failings in most television licensees today that the few who are doing well should be allowed a little breathing space.  Remember, we've identified the best stations in the country in this report as well as the worst.

II.  HOW DO YOU PREPARE?

Your first step in attempting to upgrade the standards of your local broadcaster should be to acquire "A Guide to Citizen Action in Radio and TV," (Citizen Guide) written by Marsha Prowitt and available without charge from the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ.  n15 It describes FCC programming and performance standards, explains the acknowledged avenues of effective public action, and indicates where to go if you need assistance.  It's the best available manual for citizen participation in broadcasting.  You might also want to take a look at How to Talk Back to Your Television Set.  n16 A third source, which lawyers will find particularly useful, is "The Primer on Citizen's Access to the Federal Communications Commission," published by the Citizen's Communications Center in Washington, D.C.  n17 Finally, there are helpful materials available from the FCC itself.  One of the best is the "Procedural Manual" ("The Public and Broadcasting"), a special issue of the Federal Register of September 29, 1972.  n18

n15 For address, see Appendix B.

n16 Nicholas Johnson, How to Talk Back to Your Television Set, Bantam Books (1970).

n17 For address, see Appendix B.

n18 The Public and Broadcasting: a Procedure Manual, Federal Register, Vo. 37, No. 190, p. 20510 (September 29, 1972).  See also the Primer on Ascertainment, supra note 9, and the Fairness Primer, supra note 10.

A.  Your Community Organization

If you have not already formed a citizen's communication group, there are instructions for doing so in the Citizen Guide.  In addition, you should check the Sources Appendix of this report (Appendix B) for a description of already existing national or regional groups with which you can affiliate or who can provide a model for your local operation.  If your primary interest is in children's programming, for example, you should get in touch with ACT (Action for Children's Television); if it is the treatment of minorities in broadcasting, then BEST (Black Efforts for Soul in Television) may be able to guide you.  n19 In each case, however, there are other groups in the midst of the fray, and there should be no reason why you or your group should have to go it alone. 

n19 Address for these and all other groups mentioned may be found in Appendix B.

If you are just one concerned citizen, or at most a small group, your next step should be to broaden your base by enlisting the support (and hopefully the resources) of existing groups right in your own community.  It may even surprise you how many of them there are, not knowing how to effect changes but as concerned as you about the low quality of broadcast service.

Look, for example, to your local chapter of the NAACP or ACLU.  Most cities in the top 50 markets have them, and while the organizations may not be capable of formally endorsing your plans, the individuals involved may well be able to help with the sort of activity you have in mind.  See if the National Organization for Women (NOW) or a similar women's rights group exists in your community.  Try the membership of the League of Women Voters, or the ever-present variation on the theme of "Committee for Good Government." Look to the campuses of local or regional colleges or universities for interested faculty, students or groups.  The journalism classes of the local high school may become convinced to turn your ideas for improving local television into year-long class projects.  Churches often have civic action groups.  Some labor union locals may be persuaded to take up your banner.  Consider Senior Citizen Clubs, as many of the members have considerable leisure time and are often therefore both the greatest victims of the shortcoming of television and the greatest potential source of monitors.

Use your imagination.  If television can stand a heap of improving in your community, an awful lot of people are going to be dissatisfied with it.  It's up to you to find them and let them know that something can be done.  If none of the above groups is interested enough to be aroused into action, or when you feel it's necessary to broaden your base, consider the particular shortcomings of your broadcasters and find organizations that would have a special interest in them: Does a station's program logs show it runs just sixty public service announcements a week -- and mostly at 3:00 in the morning to boot?  Very well, call on the local charities, boys clubs and civic organizations and explain to them what broadcasters in other cities are doing for groups like theirs.  The same could be done with local programming or any other category; the organizational permutations and combinations are bounded only by your imagination and energy.

Local groups should be convinced that television service should be better for a number of reasons.  First, you need demonstrable community support when dealing with the broadcasters and when going before the FCC, if that becomes necessary.  Also, broadcasters, like everyone else, begin to get the message once they hear something enough times from enough sources.  Community support is also necessary to raise funds for newspaper advertisements, supplies, and other expenses.  Moreover, these groups may provide volunteer help for mailings, observation and even (in the face of hard line broadcaster intransigence) "confrontations" via picketing, leafleting, and so forth.

Finally, here are a few public relations hints on dealing with other people and groups in your community (common sense for the most part, but worth repeating).  Work with, not against, the leaders of others groups in your community; every group of people is going to have a different set of priorities, and the beauty of getting different groups together to improve television service is the broad front on which your broadcaster's actions can be challenged, and enthusiastically, by a variety of divergent opinions.  In other words, don't try to force your priorities on others, but allow them to find their natural position in your concerted attack, to work through the contacts you make, not in spite of them.  If the minister or rabbi in one congregation can be convinced by his membership to take up the shortcomings of television in a sermon or in his weekly newsletter it might be more productive than your own direct intercession; allow people to involve themselves rather than directing them (except, of course, in the stages of data collection and observation that requires trained guidance).  And remember, it will always inure to your benefit to rally a wide range of viewpoints and philosophies to your cause; a broadcaster by definition has a special knowledge of broad support; he knows when he has it because the rating services tell him so, and he is easily turned out by small numbers because small numbers have come to mean "no profit." He will know, therefore, when your support is broadly based.  And while there are effective things you can do in a small group (or even as an individual), the clout you will have in the early stages of your observation and negotiation will be considerably greater if broad segments of your entire community are behind you.

B.  Gathering Information

Once you and your group have determined, either on your own or through the information provided in this Report, that one or more of the licensees in your community could stand some improvement, your next step is to accumulate information about the broadcaster and his practices from as wide a range of sources as possible.  In this section we will briefly discuss each of those sources and suggest ways they can be put to good use.

Basically, there are three major types of research to be done, and each will be covered in turn.  They utilize: 1) independently published material, such as the TV Factbook, TV Guide and the program logs in your local newspaper; 2) the various types of information on file at the FCC, most of which is also available in the local community in the public file each licensee in required to maintain; and 3) the actual programming practices of the station, as observed and recorded by the members of your group.  These three major sources of information may also be augmented by such additional methods as interviewing members of the community (as a check, perhaps, on a station's ascertainment of community problems) or interviewing the broadcasters themselves.  You may well discover other methods in your community that are related (or can be adapted) to your specific needs and requirements.

1.  The most elementary tools of the citizen's group are the daily or weekly program logs found in TV Guide or your local newspaper; they are an important source of information and as good a place as any to begin your analysis of the stations in your community.  You will find you can use these logs as a rough check against the information found in the more complete logs filed by the licensee with his renewal application, and a close look at the entire programming week in such a log should reveal some important facts about the station immediately to which you can begin to apply the criteria and standards discussed in the course of this report.  It should not be difficult to estimate, from program logs, such factors as the total hours a station broadcasts per week; the extent of a licensee's news programming, including total hours of news per week, news as a per cent of all programming, local/regional news, total local/regional hours of news, local/regional news as a per cent of all news; similarly with public affairs, live programming, local programming, other non-entertainment programming, and the type and amount of different types of programming during prime time.

You can also use TV Guide, or some other program log, to begin to analyze types of information that cannot be adduced from a glance at a renewal application.  When, for example, is the local news usually run?  If it is a network affiliate, does the station normally substitute old movies for the network's public affairs programs?  What programs are normally broadcast to children?  This procedure should, in fact, become an important step in preparing a list of items with which you eventually hope to confront the broadcaster, and you may even be constrained to analyze such things as the diversity or sameness of programming offered by all the stations at one given hour or the practice of a network affiliate in filling his prime time "access" period (does he use tired game shows or innovative local programs)?  A word of caution, however: many stations have developed techniques for giving the false impression to viewers (and even to networks) that they are carrying shows (other network public affairs programs) when in fact they intend at the last minute to switch on an old movie.  Thus, the TV Guide or local newspaper may not give an accurate record of a station's program week, and must be checked against your own observation.  There is no legal penalty for such last-minute switching -- unless, of course, the licensee represents in program logs filed with the FCC (or to the network in question) that he has carried a show he has in fact pre-empted.  But a pattern of such behavior can clearly be used to fuel the claim that the licensee is operating on principles of self, not public, interest.

Additional information about a licensee can be obtained from the tools of his own trade, including sources like TV Factbook, by which advertisers inform themselves of a licensee's audience size, advertising rates and so forth, and Broadcast Yearbook, which contains comparable and additional miscellaneous information.  Even the reports of the various rating services would be helpful (if you can get them).

2.  Your second major source of information will be the files of the FCC in Washington or the "public files" maintained by the local stations in your town.  n20 Much of this data will consist of filings of various FCC-required forms, a brief survey of which is given below.  For a more complete description of the forms as well as the rules regarding their public inspection, see another publication available from the United Church of Christ, A Guide to Understanding Broadcast License Applications, by Ralph M. Jennings. 

n20 As required by Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. �  1.526.

The following material is available for public inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, primarily in files in the Public Reference Room, located on the second floor at 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.: 1) the license renewal applications and related filings for the previous two renewal periods; 2) "history cards" briefly noting the major events, including renewals, assignments and violations, in a station's history; 3) docket files, for those licensees engaged in a hearing on some issue, such as one whose renewal is being challenged or one which is applying for some new or improved facility; 4) employment information; 5) fairness doctrine complaints against a station; 6) ownership information; and 7) files containing petitions for rulemakings affecting the licensees in your community (or television broadcasting in general).  This information is available for public inspection between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM on working days.

The same application forms, ownership and employment reports, and many types of viewer complaints must, by Commission rules, be made available for public inspection at the station or at some other readily accessible place.  In addition, every station must also keep detailed logs of its programming (and every other aspect of its operation as well), with notations made, on a minute by minute basis, for every program, commercial, and psa that has aired.  (Logs do not, however, contain transcripts of the contents of the programs.) The station files a set of these logs for its "composite week" (see definitions at the end of Chapter 1) with its renewal application, and while these logs are destroyed by the FCC after a station's license has been renewed, n21 composite week duplicates must be kept in the station's public file at all times.  These logs are of considerable value, since they reveal many facets of a licensee's operation not apparent from the brief summaries and percentages spelled out in the renewal application, or in newspaper TV program guides.  An FCC rulemaking may soon make them available to the public for the entire three-year period of the broadcaster's license.  n22

n21 This is done because the FCC claims it lacks storage space for the unwieldy logs, even though the logs would be far more helpful to public interest researchers than the "summaries" of that information that go into the renewal application.

n22 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of Petition for Rulemaking to require broadcast licensees to retain certain program records.  Docket No. 19667, FCC 73-23, 38 F.R. 1511, 3 P & F R.R. Current Service 53:353 (January 8, 1973).

For a number of reasons it is always advisable to expend a considerable effort studying the files available at the local station.  First, you will thereby let the broadcaster know that you are concerned with his performance -- and that you mean to do a thorough job of studying it.  In addition, the information kept at the station is sometimes both more accessible and more complete than that found at the FCC.  Finally, in all likelihood you will here encounter your first expression of broadcaster hostility or the evasive tactics with which he will attempt to avoid showing you his file, or to withhold some of it from you as "misplaced" or "not available this week," or generally to intimidate you while you are examining it.  This is a useful lesson for you to learn early.  Just remember, the law is crystal clear -- the files must be conveniently available to you, n23 and if you find they are incomplete or if you are not well received or otherwise denied access by the station, you should immediately bring it to the attention of the Complaints and Compliance Division of the FCC, by telephone if necessary, and demand an immediate investigation into the broadcaster's intransigence.  n24

n23 47 C.F.R. �  1.526.  Stations often will attempt to withhold part of their files, and especially their composite week program logs.  Since these logs enable you to determine how many commercials (for example) are being run during children's programs, or how many of a station's psas are run at 2:00 AM, they are important and must be shown to you; if the licensee does otherwise he risks possible fine for violation of Commission rules.

n24 Local FCC offices will not be of much assistance in matters like this, since they are generally equipped only to handle technical complaints or problems.  Inquiries should be addressed directly to Washington.

The FCC forms themselves should be relatively easy to understand, with the aid of the United Church of Christ manual described above.  The license renewal application, Form 303, is the most important application in the file (and the source of most of the quantitative conclusions reached in this Report).  For most large television stations, the exhibits attached to it make the 303 a major document indeed, often measured in pounds rather than pages.  But while it will be useful and informative to read the numerous exhibits submitted by a broadcaster with his application for renewal (if only because this is the same type of document you might well be challenging the next time his license expires), the critical programming information will be contained in just a few short sections.

Section IV-B of form 303 contains the basic information on television program service, and the most important parts of Section IV-B are: Part I, on ascertainment of community needs, Part II, concerning past programming (news, public affairs and other programming are stressed), Part III describing proposed programming, Part IV setting out past commercial practices, and Part V indicating proposed commercial practices.

Each television licensee must also file a form 395 employment report with the FCC every year.  These reports focus on the employment of minorities and women and are the source of Chapter 2 of this study.  The general policy of equal employment as expressed in the Commission's own rules and policy statements n25 is that no person shall be discriminated against in employment because of race, color, religion, national origin or sex.  Form 395 is set up to provide information as to the number of minority (and female) employees relative to the total number of employees in categories such as officials and managers, professionals, laborers and service workers. 

n25 See general discussion of these rules and policies in Chapter 2.

Each broadcaster must also file ownership reports on form 323.  Ownership reports provide detailed information about the licensee's business affairs, his interests outside broadcasting, and various contracts and agreements involving the licensee and his principal employees.  New forms are filed whenever there is a change in the required information.

3.  The final area of major citizens group research should be the careful observation, monitoring, of the licensee's programming, the one major type of research truly beyond the scope of our particular study.  There is a difference, of course, between merely observing a station's programming and actually monitoring it for specific information.  How much you do will depend in large measure on how many people you have and how dedicated they are.  But you must remember that the more ambitious your goals the greater the attention that will be paid to your final product -- and the more difficult it will be to complete with a staff consisting of unpaid volunteers.

The United Church of Christ Office of Communication has made an art of the process of monitoring television stations, even to the point of achieving official FCC recognition in a radio license companion case to WLBT, of the equality of a "monitored" week (properly executed) with the Commission's own composite week for the purpose of program analysis.  n26 But Dr. Everett Parker's monitors are all carefully trained, and they work in teams that include (for each station) two monitors, two "back up" observers (or supervisors) and one aural tape engineer, all of whom are on duty and recording at all times during the broadcast week under consideration.  If you feel the resources of your group are sufficient for such an undertaking, contact Ralph Jennings (in New York) or Jane Goodman (in Washington) for further information about the Church's training techniques.  n27

n26 Lamar Life Insurance Co., 38 FCC 1143 (1965).

n27 For addresses see Appendix B.

Many of the same facts can also be gathered with fewer people, with more simple recording forms, and a couple of stopwatches to time commercials, interruptions, program segments, and so forth.  Even this process, if you are careful to limit the information you seek, will produce valuable data about the service a licensee is giving, which can always be used to augment data available from other sources as well to adduces significant conclusions that could not otherwise be made.

It is crucial, whether you are monitoring or observing, to know precisely what it is you are looking for, and to have simple forms that can be filled in while the programming is being observed.  Again, the United Church of Christ experience should be invaluable in this regard, since it has developed specific forms to satisfy the needs of various types of monitors or observers.  A selection of those are attached at the end of this section.

The list of things one might look for in this process is almost end-less.  Your particular interests will no doubt give you some direction.  You or your group might well begin by holding one or more sessions in which you all merely observe the programming of the station or stations of interest to you, discuss what you see amount yourselves, and don't bother to record any information.  It might be useful to include child psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, and so forth, in these early sessions if they are available to you.  Once you break down into smaller units for actual monitoring, the experiences and observations of other in your group will prove invaluable.

Even if you are acutely aware of the needs and predilections of your organization, however, you cannot hope to insure accuracy and corroboration of your findings if you attempt to monitor alone.  A minimum of two people are required, and they must be spelled every few hours by fresh workers.  Many believe a supervisor is necessary to monitor the monitors, and later be available to corroborate the testimony of the monitors as to the procedures used.  For even two people working without supervision will have a difficult time of it unless their data recording forms are as simple to use as possible.

You should start the actual process of monitoring with a form that has columns for time of day, name of "program," category of the program (entertainment, news, education, commercial, or psa).  What you will be doing is writing down the entire broadcast day from sign-on to sign-off.  Or perhaps you will want to start by emphasizing "prime time" (6:00 to 11:00 PM on TV or 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM in some areas).  It is important to list name of show, nature of show (is programming category) and duration.  You should also include a column in which you indicate whether the show was produced nationally or locally -- this is usually done from general knowledge, and by noting the opening and closing credits.

You should plan to monitor for at least an entire week -- and preferably one in which a degree of programming normalcy can be assumed.  You would not, for example, monitor during Christmas week or election week -- or the first week of the new fall schedule.  In the end you will have amassed a list of all programming offered to the audience by all the stations in your community (or the network affiliates, or others which you have selected for emphasis).  If you are comparing all the stations in your community, it is important that you monitor them during the same week so more accurate comparisons can be made.

An important ingredient in your data collection process is the attention paid to time.  Use several clocks in your monitoring exercise.  If several television sets are to be monitored in one room simultaneously one master clock can serve all monitors, but each individual group should have one or two cumulative stop watches in order to time the separate segments in the broadcast day (this is especially true for shorter segments like commercials and psa's).

In evaluating the performance you will want to compare your findings to what the broadcasters proposed to do in their last license renewal applications.  This should be done regardless of the more specific (i.e., black-oriented or children-oriented) programming you are seeking to evaluate, since it will give your effort a wider scope and the broadcasters proposals (from his form 303) are readily available for your inspection.  If on the 303 a licensee proposed that 5% of its broadcast week would be devoted to news and public affairs programming, for example, you can easily acquire monitoring data that tells you whether or not the licensee is doing that.  If the broadcast day is 10 hours long that means that 30 minutes should have been devoted to that category of programming.

By the same taken, you will probably want to add up the amount of programming in each category.  If the station was on the air for a total of 130 hours during the week you will want to know the percentage of time devoted to news broadcasts, entertainment shows (variety, "soap operas," game shows, religious programming, commercial messages, public service announcements, or old movies.  You will also most likely want to note the percentage of programs locally produced as opposed to those fed directly from the network, those syndicated, or those produced by any source independent of the local station.

In addition to corroborating (or challenging) the proposals and reported categories of the broadcaster's renewal application, you will quickly find that monitoring can also add dimensions to those same categories that would not otherwise be available through inspection of a station file or TV Guide-type program log.  Form 303 will tell you how many 60-minute segments of the broadcast week include more than 12 minutes of commercials, but it will not tell you whether those segments occur in the early evening hours, when the majority of people are watching, or during children's programs.  Form 303 will tell you how many public service announcements the licensee runs in the course of a week, but it will not tell you when they are run (are they bunched together between old movies at 2:30 in the morning?), or how long they are (some psa's are just 10 seconds long -- or less), or how responsive they are to local needs (as distinguished from Army recruiting spots, or Red Cross appeals).  As you can see, the dimensions for analysis are virtually endless, if the monitoring is done in sufficient detail.  By putting it all together you will be able to obtain a far more precise view of your broadcasters' performance than is available even in a report of this magnitude, which surveys all the material available at the FCC.

What else should you specifically look for in monitoring a station's performance? The Citizen Guide asks several questions which monitoring and other information gathering will help answer: Has each station lived up to the promises made in its license application?  Has each station properly ascertained the needs and interests of the entire community?  Do the programs offered truly respond to the needs of the community as identified on the license renewal application?  Is fair employment opportunity reflected in the station's employment figures or only in policy statements?

In the few paragraphs that follow, we will attempt to set out a few of the many specific things you can look for -- in doing so, we hope to spur you on to develop a more precise list well attuned to the needs and shortcomings in your own community.

You might start, for example, with commercialization.  Although the license renewal application tells you little that is specific, it is important to know how many commercial minutes per hour are being shown during prime time, or during children's time on Saturday and Sunday morning.  In addition, you might look for the Frequency of commercials and of program interruptions.  (It's not just the minutes of commercials that is annoying, it's the number of non-program announcements, and the number of program interruptions.) How many commercials are for local businesses (thereby providing at least something remotely in the nature of a local service) and how many simply for national products?  How deceptive are the broadcaster's "station break" policies?  (Does the station announce "Beat Your Wife will be right back after station identification" -- and then break for six commercials?) What products are being advertised to children?  To adults?

You can perform a similar analysis with public service announcements.  When are they shown? What is their subject matter (are they of local interest)? Are they stale (from the station's ever-handy library) or topical?  Do most of a station's psa's come from the same source -- i.e., the Advertising Council (which is a rather conservative group of advertisers with a virtual monopoly on the psa "business"), or the U.S. Government?

Analyze the news in equal depth.  Instead of just the number of minutes of news listed in the program guides per day (or week), clock the precise number of minutes actually devoted to news.  Break that down into weather (some stations spend more than 20% of a 30 minute "news" show on the charming personality of their weather person), sports, "entertainment" and heard news.  Check the content of your television news show against the content of your local paper -- do the stations just cover three of the biggest headline stories and forget the rest?  Are there some controversial subject that never seem to make the news?  Some segments of your community that are over-looked?  Are most of the events press conferences, most of the persons interviewed politicians or other "establishment" figures rather than ordinary citizens?  How much of the "local" news show is actually local news and how much is some announcer reading wire service clips of national or regional stories?  How much effort does the station expend covering the news?  Is it strictly limited to the "rip-and-read" style of reportage, with an occasional still photo flashed on the screen, or does it actually employ camera crews and in-field announcers to cover personally those items of greatest local interest?  If your city has a population that is, say, 20% black, what percentage of the news is devoted to covering the activities of the black community?  How much time is wasted on news shows by jokes and entertainment from the "gang" (as on many segments of ABC's "Eyewitness News" format) -- remember, in your average 30 minute news show you may only be getting 15 minutes or less of actual reporting to begin with.

Examine children's programming for a wide variety of factors, including commercialization, amount of cheap animation versus role-stimulating live entertainment, amount of "children's" programming that consists of little more than ancient series reruns or movies, or racial or sexual stereotypes on children's television.  What is presented for children between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM each day?  Is age differentiated programming available for those under 6, 6 to 12, teenagers, and so forth, or is it just all "children's" programming?

Violence scales similar to the one recommended recently by the National Institute of Mental Health n28 might be employed to measure the amount of violence in television programming for a particular station.  Is there more violence in television programming for a particular station?  Is there more violence in children's programming?  Is it commonly presented as an effective means of achieving desirable ends?  Are the goals and values reflected in television programming really acceptable at all? n29

n28 See Comstock and Rubinstein, ed., Television and Social Behavior: Media Content and Control, 29-34, National Institute of Mental Health (1971).

n29 See, e.g., the Staff Reports of the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, published by the National Institute of Mental Health.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1971).  See especially the volume entitled Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence.

Monitor for violations of the Fairness Doctrine.  n30 To meet his obligations, the broadcaster has to fulfill two basic requirements.  First, controversial issues, or issues of public importance, must be discussed.  Second, balanced coverage of different viewpoints on these issues must be presented.  The broadcaster has to bear the expense of meeting the fairness obligation if no paid advertising or programming is available, and he also must seek out spokesmen representing the other side of an issue.  You may want to determine whether or not, and in what manner, broadcasters are meeting these requirements.  A third aspect of Fairness Doctrine monitoring would be determining the percentage of controversial issues presented that are locally relevant.  For example, inflation and the war in Southeast Asia may well have local angles and impact, but they are not, strictly speaking, "local" issues.  The arguments on either side of whether to build a new freeway through the heart of town might be. 

n30 See Fairness Primer, supra note 10.  See also Prowitt, Guide to Citizen's Action, at 10.

The wealth of information available from careful monitoring is, as you can see from this partial listing, enormous.  If you can possibly muster the resources from within your organization, it is an option well worth the time and effort.

Examples of the United Church of Christ "Observer's Report Form" are given in the next four pages.

III.  WHAT ACTION CAN YOU TAKE?

Once you have gathered your relevant information about a broadcaster's practices, what are your available lines of attack -- and which will be best suited to changing those practices to make them more responsive to the needs of the local community?  In this report we will merely outline the various avenues for reform, since there is no need for us to go into the detail you can find in other sources.  Specifically, the Prowitt Guide to Citizen Action discussed earlier in the chapter n31 provides detailed guidance in each of the areas outlined below, and additional sources will be suggested in Appendix B.  n32

n31 Hereinafter cited as Citizen's Guide.

n32 Lawyers should see especially two Office of Communications.  United Church of Christ Publications: Jennings, Guide to Understanding Broadcast Licensee Applications and Other FCC Forms, and the forthcoming Bennett, Representing the Audience in Broadcasting Proceedings.

One category of potential community action involves the use of legal machinery: the filing of petitions to deny the renewal of a broadcaster's license (or the grant of transfer of control or any other application he might make), informal objections to such applications, formal complaints regarding the alleged violation of an FCC rule or policy, or competing applications designed to acquire the right to broadcast over the licensee's frequency for yourself or your group.

Other action might include educational or public relations campaigns designed to bring the station's shortcomings to the attention of the community as a whole, complaints made to the licensee himself regarding specific aspects of his operation, or direct negotiation with the licensee regarding specific suggestions for improvement or reform in his service to the public.

A.  Public education and public relations

Once you have familiarized yourself with the performance of the stations in your market area and zeroed in on the specific problems or shortcomings, you will almost certainly want to bring your findings to the attention of the community.  This should be done in order to draw additional support from that community, as well as to bring some initial pressure on the licensee to correct the shortcomings himself.  The methods of publicizing your findings can be as varied as your imagination allows, and could include issuing press releases for use by non-broadcast media, n33 including such disparate sources of potential publicity as student newspapers or shopping ad weeklies (or even other broadcast media that may be willing to cooperate with your effort); organizing letter-writing campaigns or radio talk show call-ins; arranging to discuss or lecture at meetings of church, social or community groups or at high schools or colleges; enlisting the support of local politicians (or political candidates); and so forth. 

n33 You will run into problems, of course, in communities where the broadcast and non-broadcast media are wholly or partially controlled by the same entities.  That is the situation, unfortunately, in far too many of the cities in our study.  See the discussion of this problem in Chapter 2 of this Report.

B.  Informal complaints

Complaints can sometimes achieve results if made in sufficient quantity (or with sufficient legal specificity).  Their major drawback, of course, is that they depend on the goodwill of the broadcaster for their success.  You will therefore achieve the best results if you are careful to avoid overly-general complaints and limit yourself to alleging the violation of specific Commission rules or policies, such as the fairness doctrine, equal employment rules, equal time provisions, and so forth.  Such informal complaints should, as suggested by Ms. Prowitt in the Citizen Guide, 1) state the facts clearly as you see them, including your name, the station's call letters, and the specific actions complained of; 2) cite a standard to which you can relate your grievance or proposal; and 3) request a specific remedy, such as a new kind of program, an increase in minority employment or the opportunity to present the other side of a controversial issue or respond to a personal attack.  n34

n34 Citizen's Guide, at 19.

In addition to complaining directly to the station you may want to broaden the scope of your action by complaining at the same time to its biggest local or national advertisers, the network with which the station is affiliated (if any), the local chamber of commerce -- in short, anyone you feel might be in a position to care about or perhaps attempt to influence the licensee's activities.  In some cases, the subject matter of the complaint may dictate additional parties who should receive it: if the complaint concerns the absence of local public service announcements, for example, complaints might be delivered to local hospitals or boys clubs or service organizations which would benefit from improved performance as well as to the station.  As a final step, of course, you should bear in mind that complaints can also be made to the FCC -- or, indeed, to other government agencies such as the FTC or the EEOC, at state and city levels as well as federal.  These will be mentioned again under "legal action" below.

C.  Negotiation

Direct negotiation between your group and the broadcaster can conceivably bring about the greatest degree of change possible with limited organizational resources.  Once you have set specific goals for improvement of the service of broadcasters in your community, and have acquired relatively wide support for those goals, much may be accomplished in face-to-face negotiation with the broadcaster provided: 1) your goals have as their basis one or more of the specific obligations implicitly or explicitly required of the broadcaster by statute or Commission rules or policies, and 2) you can demonstrate to the broadcaster your determination to pursue your goals through more formal legal remedies if negotiations are not successful.  For further information regarding this tactic, we would refer you once again to the Citizen Guide, which includes as an appendix a copy of just such an agreement negotiated between community groups and broadcasters in Texarkana, Texas.  n35

n35 Id., Appendix D, at 39.

D.  Formal legal complaints

If informal actions fail to induce the necessary changes in broadcast service to your community, you will probably want to pursue the various legal remedies available to you.  We can do little more than enumerate these remedies within the scope of this report; but again, there are a number of sources for lawyers and laymen that set out pretty clearly the procedures you can pursue.  n36 You have four basic avenues of FCC legal attack available to you.  In order of increasing difficulty, they are: complaints to the Commission; informal objections to a licensee application; formal petitions to deny an applications, either for renewal of a license or some other operating modification; or a competing application for the frequency on which the current licensee is operating. 

n36 See sources cited in notes 18 and 32 supra and Appendix B of this Report.

Complaints to the Commission are perhaps the least effective form of legal action, but they have the virtue of being simple to generate.  Moreover, if a complaint is carefully drawn, so that it raises a significant legal issue concerning the licensee's violation of some Commission statute, rule or policy, it can require at the very least that the Broadcast Bureau act to determine whether or not it has merit, thereby creating a ruling capable of being appealed to the full Commission and, ultimately, to the United States Court of Appeals.  n37 Don't allege generalizations in complaints to the Commission, such as "this station discriminates against blacks and Spanish-surnamed citizens." Go into sufficient detail, based on your observations or research, to allege specific instances of violation and to request specific remedies.  Force the Commission to accept or deny the premise of your complaint -- not merely dismiss it as "overly vague," or thank you for providing information which merely will be "associated" with a station file -- because by doing so you will almost certainly be forcing the station to defend its policies.  The more specific your complaint and your request for a remedy, in other words, the more likely is the station to feel the pressure of your desire for change. 

n37 Appeal to the courts need not be prosecuted in the D.C. Circuit Court alone, although most end up in that circuit.  You should bear in mind that the Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in your part of the country, although it might not necessarily possess the communications or regulatory "expertise" of the D.C. Circuit, could conceivably bring a fresher outlook on local problems to their decision.

E. Informal objections

Informal objections are generally associated with the application of a licensee for renewal of its license.  n38 Unlike a petition to deny, however, this type of legal action may be taken at any time up to the actual grant of a licensee's application, and must be considered by the Commission in its process of weighing the evidence for against the licensee.  The element of time is therefore not so important with an informal objections as with a petition to deny, and that is perhaps its chief virtue; however, it stands to reason that an informal objection, in order to be taken seriously, must involve allegations of considerably greater importance than those which are acceptable in a normal petition to deny.  It is well to reserve this legal tool for serious allegations, such as fraud or some other such gross malfeasance, discovered when it is too late to file an actual petition to deny.  And while the procedural rules regarding the content of an informal objection are less stringent than those concerned with more formal petitions, you would do well to treat this type of application every bit as seriously as you would any other (particularly if it is the only option open to you because you have not been able to complete your research before the cut-off date for petitions to deny has been passed). 

n38 47 C.F.R. �  1.587.

F.  Petitions to deny

Petitions to deny must be filed by a "party of interest" in the licensee's application proceeding, pursuant to rather stringent rules of procedure set out by the Commission in a number of sources to which we've alluded above.n39 As members of the community the broadcaster is supposed to serve, you should have no difficulty establishing yourself as a "party of interest," n40 and you should be prepared at each stage of your research and negotiation process to put together a well-documented petition setting out carefully all the reasons you feel the licensee has failed to serve the public.  The Citizen Guide spells out this requirement in greater detail:

n39 47 F.C.R. �  1.580.  See also the Procedure Manual, supra note 18.

n40 See, e.g., Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F2d 994 (1966), in which the Court of Appeals held that the Commission's "traditional position that members of the listening public do not suffer any injury peculiar to them and that allowing them standing would pose great administrative burdens" was erroneous and not in with the Commission's own pronouncement that "individual citizens and the communities they compose owe a duty to themselves and their peers to take an active interest in the scope and quality of the television service which... has a vast impact on their lives and the lives of their children..." [Emphasis in the opinion], 359 F2d 994, 1000-1006.

If, for example, one of your charges is that the station discriminates against minority people in its employment, you should support this allegation with specific information which might include statistics on the low employment of minority people in each category of station responsibility as compared with population of minority groups in city or of minority people who have applied for employment; signed statements (affidavits) of minority persons who have been denied employment, citing specific violations of the equal employment rules and other relevant material.  n41

n41 Citizen's Guide, at 27.

In other words, the more carefully organized you make your allegations, the greater the likelihood of a positive FCC response -- and the greater the pressure on the licensee to compromise with your group on reform of his programming or other practices.  Since, as the Citizen Guide points out, the petition to deny is a "severe action... costly and time consuming [to both parties]," you should only consider it as "the last resort when other means of achieving necessary change... have failed." n42 Nevertheless, you should from the beginning be prepared to demonstrate to the broadcaster that you have the patience, the resources and the legal capacity to carry through with a challenge to the renewal of his license.  n43

n42 Id., at 26.

n43 You should always attempt to include one or more lawyers in your group, and your legal counsel should always be prepared on the various filings that could be made against a station relatively quickly.  His or her preparation should therefore begin as early as possible, and preferably before any contact with the station has been made.  Many of the people cited in this chapter or listed in Appendix B stand ready to help you understand the legal vagaries of the potential challenges and complaints outlined here, in the Citizen's Guide and in the sources cited.

A petition to deny a licensee's application for renewal has one major temporal drawback: such an application need only be filed once every three years, and once a station's license has been renewed a community group may find itself with considerably less influence for the next two years or so.  There are, however, other types of proceedings in which you may be able to participate, and you will do well to determine whether any of the licensees in your community are or will be involved in any of them.  Any time a licensee makes a major alteration in his facilities, for example, he is required to file an application for such an alteration which may be challenged by a community group.  If he seeks to move his principal studio, for example, or shift his antenna to a new location or increase his power he is required to apply just as if he were seeking a new facility.

Note carefully the business plans of the licensees in your community; are any intending to sell their stations in the near future, assigning or transferring their license to a new licensee?  You will want to insist on becoming a party to that sort of transaction, especially if it involves a television station, so as to ensure a higher level of service by the new licensee.  Examine his proposals, and bring to his attention the shortcomings of the previous licensee.

Finally, you will want to apprise yourself of the nature and extent of a licensee's holdings other than the station in your community.  An overwhelming majority of the licensees in this study, for example, own two or more broadcast facilities, n44 and it will be the rare licensee whose licenses all expire in the same renewal period.  You may well be able successfully to apply pressure on the substandard licensee in your community by working with groups in other cities in which it holds licenses.  This type of activity requires little but increased coordination, and this as well as each of the other activities mentioned above are simply illustrative of the axiom that the more you know about every aspect of your licensees the more effective you can be in dealing with their shortcomings in your community. 

n44 See the extensive cross-ownership tables in Chapter 3 of this Report, but bear in mind even they are far from complete in terms of various individuals' or corporations' non-broadcast interests.

G.  Competing applications

One last, drastic measure you may be inclined to pursue, particularly if you are saddled with a licensee who blatantly refuses to serve the public interest, is a competing application for use of the frequency itself.  Such an application can be made, pursuant to Commission rules, whenever a broadcaster's license comes up for renewal.  It should not be made frivolously, but only after careful deliberation and accumulation of sufficient operating capital and programming and technical expertise; if each of the latter is available, however, and your allegations of misfeasance are sufficiently serious, you may wish to compete for the frequency, which does, after all, belong to the public and not the existing licensee.  Note carefully the rules and policies that must be followed by a competing applicant, however, and make certain you are both willing and able to meet the requirements of each step in the procedure.  n45

n45 See, e.g., the FCC Policy Statement on Comparative Hearings, 1 FCC 2d 393 (1965).

---

Back to Top Back to Index