Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Elapsed time from time received to time dispatched or telephoned ** Elapsed time from time filed to time of transmission

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. STEPHEN M. AUG,

The Evening Star-The Sunday Star,
Washington, D.C.

JULY 6, 1973.

DEAR MR. AUG: This is to advise you that I am granting your request of July 3, 1973 for access to an exchange of correspondence involving an extension of time given to the accounting firm of Touche Ross & Co. to complete work for the Commission concerning the investigation of American Telephone & Telegraph Company.

As you know, the letters involved are not Commission records that are routinely available for public inspection under the Commission's rules. However, in accordance with Section 0.461 (a) of the rules, 47 CFR § 0.461 (a), I have determined that there is no need for withholding these records from public inspection.

Arrangements may be made through my office for inspection of the Commission's file in this matter.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

In Re Complaint by

JOSEPH MAURO, SILVER SPRING, MD.

Concerning Fairness Doctrine Re Station
WTOP-TV, Washington, D.C.

Mr. JOSEPH MAURO,

JULY 13, 1973.

1828 Brisbane Court,

Silver Spring, Md.

DEAR MR. MAURO: This is in response to your letter of complaint, dated June 21, 1973, alleging that Station WTOP-TV, Washington, D.C., has failed to comply with the fairness doctrine with respect to the subject of abortion.

In particular, you state that on Sunday, March 11, 1973, WTOP-TV broadcast a half-hour edition of its program "Everywoman" which consisted of a panel discussion of the abortion issue; that the program began with an opening statement by the moderator, Rene Carpenter, followed by two-minute statements of position from each of the four persons composing the panel-"two persons for and two against abortion"; that these opening statements were followed by two ten-minute segments during which the audience asked questions of the panelists; and that the broadcast concluded with a closing statement by the moderator. You also state that "the opening and closing statements of the station's moderator-employer were decidedly anti-life or pro-abortion, as were her comments during the other portions of the program," and that "while the format of the show was otherwise conducive to a balanced presentation of contrasting views, the biased editorializing by the moderator dominated the presentation and robbed it of any 'fairness." You submit that "the station's presentation of her [the moderator's] extremely slanted viewpoint precludes the station from claiming now that it made either a reasonable or good faith attempt to present contrasting views fairly." Copies of correspondence which you have submitted indicate that you brought these claims to the station's attention by letter dated February 22, 1973 and that by letter dated March 8 the station replied that in its judgment "the 'Everywoman' show you appeared on was a balanced and fair examination of the differing views about abortion." You request a determination "that WTOP-TV's programming on the abortion issue violated the fairness doctrine" and "such relief as is appropriate."

As explained in previous correspondence, where complaint is made to the Commission under the fairness doctrine, the Commission expects a complainant to submit specific information indicating, inter alia, reasonable grounds for the claim that the station broadcast only one

side of a controversial issue of public importance and has failed to afford reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting views in its overall programming. Allen C. Phelps, 21 FCC 2d 12, 13 (1969). Review of your instant complaint fails to disclose any allegation or other information tending to show that the licensee has not afforded such reasonable opportunity in its overall programming on the issue of abortion, as opposed to the one particular program which you have cited.

Furthermore, with respect to the particular program about which you have complained, it should be noted that neither the fairness doctrine nor any other rule or policy of the Commission precludes the presentation of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance by licensees or their employees, and that the expression of such viewpoints alone does not evidence that a licensee has acted unreasonably or in bad faith in meeting his fairness doctrine obligations. Also, the fairness doctrine does not require that precisely equal time be afforded to each side of a given issue or that a perfect balance of sides and viewpoints be achieved. As the Commission has stated: "A policy of requiring fairness, statement by statement or inference by inference, with constant Governmental intervention to try to implement the policy, would simply be inconsistent with the profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be 'uninhibited, robust, wide-open." National Broadcasting Co., Inc. (AOPA Complaint), 25 FCC 2d 735, 737 (1970). All the fairness doctrine requires is that a "reasonable opportunity" be afforded for the presentation of contrasting views on controversial issues of public importance discussed in the station's programming. You have indicated that the "Everywoman" program in question afforded you and another anti-abortion spokesman, as well as the two pro-abortion spokesmen, two minutes each to present and discuss your positions on the issue and also provided two ten minute segments for response to related audience questions.

For the foregoing reasons, it does not appear that Commission action is warranted on your complaint.

Staff action is taken here under delegated authority. Application for review by the full Commission may be requested within 30 days by writing the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, stating the factors warranting consideration. Copies must be sent to the parties to the complaint. See Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 47, Section 1.115.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM B. RAY,

Chief, Complaints and Compliance Division,
for Chief, Broadcast Bureau.

41 F.C.C. 2d

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »