Syndicated series American Security Council: Washington Report; American Security Council: Washington Report. Citizen's Council Forum; Twentieth Century The Good Life; Viewpoint. Twentieth Century Reformation Hour. Howard Kershner's Commentary; Life Line. The Protestant Hour. Howard Kerschner's Commentary; Viewpoint. The Protestant Hour. John Birch Society Report; the Protestant Hour. Life Line. Life Line; Manion Forum. The Protestant Hour. American Security Council: Washington Report; Howard Kershner's Commentary; Twentieth Cen- Life Line; Northwestern Reviewing Stand; Our Our Changing World. Do. Our Changing World; the Barry Farber Show; the Christian Crusade; Citizen's Council Forum; The Joe Pyne Show. Northwestern Reviewing Stand. Christian Crusade; Richard Cotten's Conservative Viewpoint. Life Line; the Protestant Hour. Christian Crusade; Life Line. Man With a Mike; Northwestern Reviewing Stand. Christian Crusade; Citizen's Council Forum; Life The Joe Pyne Show; the Protestant Hour. Drew Pearson's Washington Merry-Go-Round. Citizen's Council Forum; Manion Forum. Life Line; Twentieth Century Reformation Hour. Our Changing World; the Protestant Hour. Citizen's Council Forum. APPENDIX A-EXHIBIT 2 SELECTED ATTITUDES AND POLICIES OF BROADCAST LICENSEES IN ALASKA On November 1, 1966, this subcommittee mailed a questionnaire to all broadcast licensees throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions, dealing with the fairness doctrine and section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. Of a total of 26 stations operating in the State on January 1, 1967, 23 stations from Alaska responded to the questionnaire. Following are the compiled results of responses from Alaska, reflecting selected practices, policies, programs, and attitudes of broadcasters there. 1. STATION EDITORIALS No station in Alaska broadcast regularly scheduled station editorials at the time of response, but five broadcast them sporadically. Of the remaining stations who returned questionnaires, three once broadcast editorials and discontinued them, 14 have never carried them, and one failed to respond to the question. Stations which have never broadcast editorials were asked to state their reason for not doing so. Nine said they lacked qualified personnel, facilities, time, or funds. Lack of listener interest, location in a small community, or a wish not to create dissension cause three stations to abstain from the practice. Another category includes one station that stated it was station policy. One station thinks that it is not in the public interest to editorialize and feel they should present both sides rather than just its point of view. One station does not editorialize because it is a new station. Of those stations that presently editorialize, either regularly or sporadically, in Alaska, four are commercial AM's and one is commercial TV. Those stations that once broadcast editorials and discontinued them were asked their reason for discontinuance. In this group, two said they lacked (or had lost) adequate personnel to editorialize. A change of format resulted in cancellation of editorials in another instance. 2. OPEN MIKE PROGRAMS A review of complaint files at FCC indicates that open mike type programs generate fairness doctrine complaints second only to syndicated program series. These programs, largely a radio phenomenon, have enjoyed widespread popularity among broadcast licensees in the last few years. These are programs which solicit and broadcast the opinions of members of the community on a wide variety of topics. Usually telephone calls are solicited from the public, and telephone conversations between the caller and program moderator are broadcast. Of the stations in Alaska responding that they currently broadcast locally originated open mike programs, all seven are commercial AM stations. Fourteen respondents stated they had never carried open mike programs and two replied that open mike programs had once been carried by their station, but were discontinued. Those responding stations in Alaska who once carried and discontinued the open mike format were asked to give their reasons for doing so. One stated it lacked adequate time, while the other said it lost qualified personnel. 3. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE GENERALLY All respondents were asked to state their opinion of the fairness doctine. Is it OK as is? Does it need modification or clarification? Should it be discarded? Twenty-three Alaskan stations responding to this question answered in the following fashion: Respondents who felt the doctrine needs modification or clarification were asked to suggest the modification or clarification they felt was needed. Eight Alaska stations think modification or clarification is needed, and the following suggestions were offered: two felt broadcasters should not be required to notify the other side or person attacked, or should not be required to furnish person attacked a transcript, or be required to affirmatively seek out opposing viewpoints. For one, the doctrine is too vague. It is too difficult to define "controversy" and "personal attack." It should be made more understandable. When a personal attack occurs on commercially sponsored programs, five think the broadcaster should not be required to afford free time for reply. One respondent stated the fairness doctrine discourages controversial broadcasts. 4. THE PERSONAL ATTACK RULE On April 8, 1966, the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, wherein it announced its intention to incorporate the personal attack feature of the fairness doctrine into a rule of the Commission. After adoption, violation of the rule could be punished with fines and forfeitures. The respondents were asked if they approved or disapproved of the proposed rule. Respondents from Alaska answered as follows: Among those who did not answer, two stated they had no opinion or were not sufficiently familiar with the proposal to comment. Those who indicated disapproval of the proposed rule were asked to state why they disapproved. One thinks the civil remedy of libel and slander should be adequate to protect persons attacked. Another feared the rule might lead to programing or policy control by the Government and believes the FCC has too much power already. Five state that compliance with the rule would be too time consuming, too expensive, or too impractical or that the proposal would be too difficult to police. 5. SECTION 315 All respondents were asked their opinion about section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (equal time for legally qualified candidates). Is it OK as is? Does it need modification? Should it be repealed? Here is how respondents answered those questions: Those who indicated that modification was needed were asked to suggest changes that should be made. These are the answers they gave: One said broadcasters will be responsible or will be fair without section 315. One would like it to apply to major parties only and not to minor or splinter parties or to radicals. Two want some exception written into section 315, to cover broadcast personnel who run for office. Two made some suggestion other than shown above. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS In responding to the questionnaire, broadcast licensees were invited to make any suggestions, comments, or criticisms about the questionnaire or the committee's work which they might wish to offer. The only comment made was a respondent's questioning the choice of programs in part of the questionnaire listing "Syndicated Program Series." 7. SYNDICATED PROGRAM SERIES The questionnaire included a list of 53 specific syndicated program series which deal from time to time with issues of public importance. Respondents were asked if they presently carried one or more of the listed series. A table follows listing the call letters of stations in Alaska which carried any of the series at the time of response. The name of any series carried by each station is listed beside its call letters. Just to the right of each call letter, there is also information about that particular station's practice with regard to editorials and open mike programs. First is information on editorials. The station's practice is designated by a twoletter code as follows: RS-Station regularly schedules editorials. CD-Station once carried editorials but discontinued. NC-Station never carried editorials. DA-Station did not answer the question. Information on open mike programs follows and is also designated by a twoletter code as follows: PC-Station presently carries an open mike program. CD-Station once carried but discontinued. NC-Station never carried open mike programs. All call letters are AM stations unless otherwise indicated. Noncommercial letters are followed by an asterisk (*). SELECTED ATTITUDES AND POLICIES OF BROADCAST LICENSEES IN ARIZONA On November 1, 1966, this subcommittee mailed a questionnaire to all broadcast licensees throughout the United States, its territories and possessions, dealing with the fairness doctrine and section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. Of a total of 78 stations operating in the State on January 1, 1967, 63 stations from Arizona responded to the questionnaire. Following are the compiled results of responses from Arizona, reflecting selected practices, policies, programs, and attitudes of broadcasters there. 1. STATION EDITORIALS Five stations in Arizona broadcast regularly scheduled station editorials at the time of response, while 29 broadcast them sporadically. Of the remaining stations who returned questionnaires, five once broadcast editorials and discontinued them, while 24 have never carried them. Stations which have never broadcast editorials were asked to state their reason for not doing so. Fifteen said they lacked qualified personnel, facilities, time, or funds. Fear of the fairness doctrine, FCC redtape, or an uncertainty about FCC policy were cited by two stations as a reason for not broadcasting editorials. Two stations think editorials are incompatible with their format (i.e., community, school, State, or church owned or educational, religious, good music, country and western, etc. format). Fear of economic reprisal or negative listener reaction was mentioned by one. Another category includes one station that stated it was station policy. Three respondents say they use other types of programs to cover controversial issues such as newscasts, commentary, panels, forums, etc. Two indicated they were planning to start editorials, giving some thought to it or might start. Of those stations that presently editoralize, either regularly or sporadically, in Arizona, four are commercial AM-FM simulcasters; 24 are commercial AM's; six are commercial TV's. Those stations that once broadcast editorials and discontinued them were asked their reason for discontinuance. In this group, two said they lacked (or had lost) adequate personnel, facilities, time or funds to editorialize. A change of format resulted in cancellation of editorials in two other instances. 2. OPEN MIKE PROGRAMS A review of complaint files at FCC indicates that open mike type programs generate fairness doctrine complaints second only to syndicated program series. These programs, largely a radio phenomenon, have enjoyed widespread popularity among broadcast licensees in the last few years. These are programs which solicit and broadcast the opinions of members of the community on a wide variety of topics. Usually, telephone calls are solicited from the public, and telephone conversations between the caller and program moderator are broadcast. Of the stations in Arizona responding that they currently broadcast locally originated open mike programs, four are commercial AM-FM simulcasters; eight are commercial AM's; one is commercial TV; and one is noncommercial TV station. Twenty-nine respondents stated they had never carried open mike programs and 16 replied that open mike programs had once been carried by their station, but were discontinued. Four did not answer the question. Those responding stations in Arizona who once carried and discontinued the open mike format were asked to give their reasons for doing so. Two lacked, lost, or found it too expensive to provide adequate personnel facilities, or time. A lack of audience participation, response or interest was cited in five replies. One station said they just decided to stop and there was no particular reason. Cancellation was caused in one instance because the programs were too one-sided in content and were dominated by a small group. Another stopped because the programs included too many crank calls. One respondent gave some other reason for discontinuing. 3. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE GENERALLY All respondents were asked to state their opinion of the fairness doctrine. Is it OK as is? Does it need modification or clarification? Should it be discarded? Sixty-three Arizona stations responding to this question answered in the following fashion: Three stated they had no opinion or were not sufficiently informed to have an opinion. Respondents who felt the doctrine needs modification or clarification were asked to suggest the modification or clarification they felt was needed. Twenty Arizona stations think modification or clarification is needed. For 13, the doctrine is too vague. It is too difficult to define "controversy" and "personal attack." It should be made more understandable. Four suggest that commentary upon political figures should be exempt from the doctrine. Those respondents who think the fairness doctrine should be discarded were asked to state why they thought so. This is how they responded: eight think broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference. Four believe the doctrine violates the first amendment (free speech) or think broadcasters should have as much freedom as newspapers. One thinks civil libel and slander remedies afford sufficient remedy to the public in lieu of the doctrine. For one, the fairness doctrine opens the door of publicity to crackpots, radicals, lunatics, or the unqualified. The fairness doctrine discourages controversial broad |