Those who indicated that modification was needed were asked to suggest changes that should be made. These are the answers they gave: Eight said broadcasters will be responsible or will be fair without section 315. Seven believe section 315 violates the first amendment (free speech) or think broadcasters should be as newspapers and magazines. Two want broadcasters to be free of responsibility for candidate comment. For five, section 315 is too vague and should be clarified and made more understandable. Sixteen would like to apply to major parties only and not to minor or splinter parties or to radicals. Two state a station should not be required to offer free time to a candidate to respond to an opponent who has paid for his time. Two want a provision giving the broadcaster relief when all his time availabilities have been sold. One made some other suggestion. 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. These are the general remarks volunteered in responses from Colorado: five think less Federal control is desirable; there is no need to regulate broadcasters; they will be fair without regulation; or the public does not need protection from broadcasters. Five complain about Government paperwork; too many forms; too much paperwork required. Two think the survey is useful; the study is a good idea. Two argued that the fairness doctrine discourages controversy in broadcasting. Three questioned the wisdom of the questionnaire or were confused by portions of it. Three think FCC should be limited to establishing engineering standards and required to stay out of programing. One stated it follows the fairness doctrine as a matter of operating policy. Three said they were very seldom confronted with fairness doctrine problems. Due to their format (good music, educational, etc.), one station found it difficult to respond to the questionnaire. One feels the broadcaster's entire record, rather than the fairness doctrine and section 315 by themselves, should be taken into account in measuring operation in the public interest. Two want broadcasters to be treated like newspapers. Two think the U.S. Government needs a complete regulatory overhaul. Three stations included and adopted comments prepared by Pierson, Ball & Dowd concerning the proposed personal attack rule or expressed agreement with the position of the National Association of Broadcasters on section 315 and the fairness doctrine. Seven offered some other comment. 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 call letters of stations in Colorado 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. 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 (*). 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 65 stations operating in the State on January 1, 1967, 58 stations from Connecticut responded to the questionnaire. Following are the compiled results of responses from Connecticut, reflecting selected practices, policies, programs, and attitudes of broadcasters there. 1. STATION EDITORIALS Four stations in Connecticut broadcast regularly scheduled station editorials at the time of response, while 19 broadcast them sporadically. Of the remaining stations who returned questionnaires, six once broadcast editorials and discontinued them, 29 have never carried them. Stations which have never broadcast editorials were asked to state their reason for not doing so. Five said they lacked qualified personnel, facilities, time, or funds. Four 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). Another category includes six stations that just never did it or never thought about it, stated they had no particular reason or that it was station policy, a management decision or the owners couldn't agree. Three stations think broadcasters should not editorialize, that it is not in the public interest to do so and feel they should present both sides rather than just their point of view. Two respondents say they use other types of programs to cover controversial issues such as newscasts, commentary, panels, forums, etc. Another pair of stations do not editorialize because they are new stations, or have new owners, new management, or a new format. Some other response was given by one. Of those stations that presently editorialize, either regularly or sporadically, in Connecticut, two are commerical AM-FM simulcasters; 16 are commercial AM's; two are commercial FM's; two are commercial TV's; and one is a noncommercial radio station. 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 ownership, management, scheduling, or format resulted in cancellation of editorials in three instances. One quit because editorials were too controversial or hazardous, 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 Connecticut responding that they currently broadcast locally originated open mike programs, two are commercial AM-FM simulcasters; 13 are commercial AM's; and one is a noncommercial radio station. Thirty-six respondents stated they had never carried open mike programs and five replied that open mike programs had once been carried by their station, but were discontinued. One did not answer the question. Those responding stations in Connecticut who once carried and discontinued the open mike format were asked to give their reasons for doing so. One 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 four replies. 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? Fifty-eight Connecticut 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. Twelve Connecticut stations think modification or clarification is needed, and the following suggestions were offered: One felt broadcasters should not be required to affirmatively seek out opposing viewpoints. Two state that the opposing party should be required to stick to the original issue. Two would like to see the fairness doctrine expanded to cover newspapers and magazines. For five, the doctrine is too vague. It is too difficult to define controversy and personal attack. It should be made more understandable. One thinks the penalty for violation, loss of license, is too severe. When a personal attack occurs on commercially sponsored programs, one thinks the broadcaster should not be required to afford free time for reply. Those respondents who think the fairness doctrine should be discarded were asked to state why they thought so. This is how they responded: Six think broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference. Six believe the doctrine violates the first amendment (free speech) or think_broadcasters should have as much freedom as newspapers. For one, the fairness doctrine opens the door of publicity to crackpots, radicals, lunatics, and the unqualified. The fairness doctrine discourages controversial broadcasts in view of one respondent. Among those who think the doctrine should be discarded and those who think it needs modification or clarification, two confuse the doctrine with section 315, and one gave some response other than those listed in the two preceding paragraphs. 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 Connecticut 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. In response, seven said broadcasters will be responsible or will be fair without Government interference. Four think the rule would violate the first amendment (freedom of speech) or that broadcasters should be as free as newspapers or magazines. One thinks the civil remedy of libel and slander should be adequate to protect persons attacked. One thinks the proposed rule is too vague and confusing, and should be clarified or made more understandable. "Controversy" and "personal attack" are not adequately defined. One says the rule if adopted, will discourage controversial broadcasts, and another states that compliance with the rule would be too time consuming. Three stated that the proposal needs more flexibility or indicated that the present doctrine works better the way it is. Two gave some other reason. 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 believes section 315 violates the first amendment (free speech) or thinks broadcasters should be as free as newspapers and magazines. Ten would like it to apply to major parties only and not to minor or splinter parties or to radicals. One thinks exceptions should be provided when a large number of candidates are in a race or where other peculiar local conditions exist. Six made some other suggestion. 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. These are the general remarks volunteered in responses from Connecticut: One complains about Government paperwork: too many forms; too much paperwork required. Another stated they follow the fairness doctrine as a matter of operating policy. One said they were very seldom confronted with fairness doctrine problems. One wants broadcasters to be treated like newspapers. Conversely, another wants newspapers treated like broadcasters; that is, place newspapers under section 315 and/or the fairness doctrine. One expressed fear or concern that their responses would be used against them by the FCC or politicians. One offered some other comment. 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 Connecticut 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 two-letter 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. DA-Station did not answer the question. All call letters are AM stations unless otherwise indicated. Noncommercial letters are followed by an asterisk (*). |