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 14 stations operating in the State on January 1, 1967, 11 stations from Delaware responded to the questionnaire. Following are the compiled results of responses from Delaware, reflecting selected practices, policies, programs, and attitudes of broadcasters there. 1. STATION EDITORIALS One station in Delaware broadcast regularly scheduled station editoria's at the time of response, while two broadcast them sporadically. Of the remaining stations who returned questionnaires, two once broadcast editorials and discontinued them, and six have never carried them. Stations which have never broadcast editorials were asked to state their reason for not doing so. One said they lacked qualified personnel, facilities, time, or funds. 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). 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. Of those stations that presently editorialize, either regularly or sporadically, in Delaware, all three are commercial AM stations. Those stations that once broadcast editorials and discontinued them were asked their reason for discontinuance. Both stations gave a change of management as their primary reason. 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 Delaware responding that they currently broadcast locally originated open mike programs, four are commercial AM's and one is a noncommercial TV station. Five respondents stated they had never carried open mike programs and one replied that open mike programs had once been carried by their station, but were discontinued. Those responding stations who once carried and discontinued the open mike format were asked to give their reasons for doing so. The only Delaware station gave the major reason as a lack of audience interest. 3. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE GENERALLY All respondents were asked to state their opinion of the fairness doctrine. Is it OK as it is? Does it need modification or clarification? Should it be discarded? Eleven Delaware stations responding to this question answered in the following fashion: Respondents who felt the doctrine is unacceptable or needs modification or clarification were asked to state their reasons or suggestions. This is how the Delaware stations responded. Three think broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference. One believes the doctrine violates the first amendment (free speech) or think broadcasters should have as much freedom as newspapers. The fairness doctrine discourages controversial broadcasts in view of another respondent. 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 Delaware 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, two said broadcasters will be responsible or will be fair without Government interference. One thinks the proposed rule is too vague or confusing, and should be clarified or made more understandable. "Controversy" and "personal attack" are not adequately defined. 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. Both stations would like section 315 to apply to major parties only and not to minor or splinter parties or to radicals. 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. However, no Delaware station volunteered any suggestions or comments. 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 Delaware 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. SS-Station scheduled editorials sporadically. 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. All call letters are AM stations unless otherwise indicated. Noncommercial letters are followed by an asterisk (*). APPENDIX A-EXHIBIT 9 SELECTED ATTITUDES AND POLICIES OF BROADCAST LICENSEES IN FLORIDA 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 277 stations operating in the State on January 1, 1967, 219 stations from Florida responded to the questionnaire. Following are the compiled results of responses from Florida, reflecting selected practices, policies, programs, and attitudes of broadcasters there. 1. STATION EDITORIALS Twenty-seven stations in Florida broadcast regularly scheduled station editorials at the time of response, while 72 broadcast them sporadically. Of the remaining stations who returned questionnaires, 19 once broadcast editorials and discontinued them, 98 have never carried them, and three failed to respond to the question. Stations which have never broadcast editorials were asked to state their reason for not doing so. Thirty-five 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 five stations as a reason for not broadcasting editorials. Seventeen 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). Lack of listener interest, location in a small community, or a wish not to create dissension cause one station to abstain from the practice. Fear of economic reprisal or negative listener reaction was mentioned by two. Another category includes nine 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. Fifteen stations think broadcasters should not editoralize, 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. Nine respondents say they use other types of programs to cover controversial issues such as newscasts, commentary, panels, forums, etc. Some eight stations do not editorialize because they are new stations, or have new owners, new management, or a new format. Four indicated they were planning to start editorials, giving some thought to it, or might start. Some other response was given by two. Of those stations that presently editorialize, either regularly or sporadically, in Florida, 12 are commercial AM-FM simulcasters; 63 are commercial AM's; eight are commercial FM's; 14 are commercial TV's; one is a noncommercial radio station, and one is a noncommercial TV station. Those stations that once broadcast editorials and discontinued them were asked their reason for discontinuance. In this group, seven said they lacked (or had lost) adequate personnel, facilities, time, or funds to editorialize. Five found that the fairness doctrine, FCC redtape, or presenting opposing points of view caused them too many problems. A change of ownership, management, scheduling, or format resulted in cancellation of editorials in four instances. Three quit because there was a lack of audience interest or response. Negative reaction in the community, a loss of advertisers or listeners, caused two to discontinue editorials. After trying editorials for a period, one station decided editorials were not in the public interest, and decided to present both sides instead of just their point of view. 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 Florida responding that they currently broadcast locally originated open mike programs, six are commercial AM-FM simulcasters; 21 are commercial AM's; one is a commercial FM; and three are commercial TV's. One hundred and fifty-one 78-319-68-12 respondents stated they had never carried open mike programs and 28 replied that open mike programs had once been carried by their station, but were discontinued. Nine did not answer the question. Those responding stations in Florida who once carried and discontinued the open mike format were asked to give their reasons for doing so. Eight 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 seven replies. One station said that the programs caused too many problems generally. Cancellation was caused in one instance because the program was too one-sided in content, and dominated by a small group. One stopped because the programs included too many petty gripes and radical 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? Two hundred and nineteen Florida stations responding to this question answered in the following fashion: Seven 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. Forty-two Florida stations think modification or clarification is needed, and the following suggestions were offered: six 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 24, the doctrine is too vague. It is too difficult to define "controversy" and "personal attack." It should be made more understandable. One thinks newscasts should be exempt. When a "personal attack" occurs on commercially sponsored programs, one thinks the broadcaster should not be required to afford free time for reply. One suggests 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: 19 think broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference. Twentyfive believe the doctrine violates the first amendment (free speech) or think broadcasters should have as much freedom as newspapers. Eight think civil libel and slander remedies afford sufficient remedy to the public in lieu of the doctrine. For three, the fairness doctrine opens the door of publicity to crackpots, radicals, lunatics, or the unqualified. Three state that the listener can turn off any station he finds offensive and the Government should let the public decide what it wants to hear. The fairness doctrine discourages controversial broadcasts in view of 14 respondents. Two think the competition between stations insures fairness without any need for Government regulation. Among those who think the doctrine should be discarded and those who think it needs modification or clarification, 10 think compliance with the doctrine is too time consuming, too expensive, too impractical, or too difficult to police or administer. 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 |