be too difficult to police. Two objected to the requirement of affording free time for reply by the person attacked if he does not wish to pay for it. Nine stated that the proposal needs more flexibility or indicated that the present doctrine works better the way it is. Fifteen 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 Should it be repealed?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: 14 said broadcasters will be responsible or will be fair without section 315. Four believe section 315 violates the first amendment (free speech) or think broadcasters should be as newspapers and magazines. One thinks section 315 should apply to campaign appearances only and that nonpolitical public service announcements should be exempt. For 10, section 315 is too vague and should be clarified and made more understandable. Thirty-six would like it to apply to major parties only and not to minor or splinter parties or to radicals. Three think exceptions should be provided when a large number of candidates are in a race or where other peculiar local conditions exist. Four 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. Sixteen 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 work which they might wish to offer. These are the general remarks volunteered in responses from Texas: eight 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. Contrarily, one thinks stronger legislation is needed to enforce fairness, and more control is needed over quasireligious political smear groups. Nine complain about Government paperwork; too many forms; too much paperwork required. Five think the survey is useful; the study is a good idea. Three argued that the fairness doctrine discourages controversy in broadcasting. Four 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. Five stated they follow the fairness doctrine as a matter of operating policy. One said they were very seldom confronted with fairness doctrine problems. Due to their format (good music, educational, etc.), and two stations found it difficult to respond to the questionnaire. Seven feel the broadcaster's entire record, rather than the fairness doctrine and section 315 by themselves, should be taken into account in messuring operation in the public interest. Eight want broadcasters to be treated like newspapers. Conversely, three want newspapers treated like broadcasters; i.e.. place newspapers under section 315 and/or the fairness doctrine. One mentioned problems with the FCC unrelated to the questionnaire. One believes there should be no 315 exemption for major political parties. One thinks, the U.S. Government needs a complete regulatory overhaul. Two 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 publie 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 Texas 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. All call letters are AM stations unless otherwise indicated. Noncommercial letters are followed by an asterisk (*). First Angry Man; Our Changing World. The Good Life; the Protestant Hour; Viewpoint. Dan Smoot Report; Manion Forum. American Security Council: Washington Report; American Security Council: Washington Report; Life Line; Our Changing World. Life Line; Man With a Mike; Our Changing World. Richard Cotten's Conservative Viewpoint. Life Line; Man With A Mike. Citizen's Council Forum; Life Line. The Joe Pyne Show. Life Line; the Protestant Hour. The Protestant Hour. Manion Forum. American Security Council: Washington Report; The Protestant Hour. Dan Smoot Report; Scope; the Mike Douglas Life Line. The Merv Griffin Show. The Joe Pyne Show. American Security Council: Washington Report. Our Changing World. Life Line. Do. Life Line; the Good Life; the Protestant Hour, Manion Forum. Life Line. Do. The Mike Douglas Show. Perspective; Scope. Life Line; Viewpoint. Our Changing World. 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 49 stations operating in the State on January 1, 1967, 40 stations from Utah responded to the questionnaire. Following are the compiled results of responses from Utah, reflecting selected practices, policies, programs and attitudes of broadcasters there. 1. STATION EDITORIALS Four stations in Utah broadcast regularly scheduled station editorials at the time of response, while 13 broadcast them sporadically. Of the remaining stations who returned questionnaires, one once broadcast editorials and discontinued them, and 22 have never carried them. Stations which have never broadcast editorials were asked to state their reason for not doing so. Eight said they lacked qualified personnel, facilities, time or funds. Three 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 and a wish not to create dissension caused one station to abstain from the practice. Another category includes three 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. Two 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. Two indicated they were planning to start editorials, giving some thought to it or might start. Of those stations that presently editorialize, either regularly or sporadically, in Utah, two are commercial AM-FM simulcasters; 12 are commercial AM's; one is a commercial FM; two are commercial TV's. The station that once broadcast editorials and discontinued them was asked its reason for discontinuance. It answered by saying that it lacked adequate personnel. 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 co versations between the caller and program moderator are broadcast. Of the stations in Utah responding that they currently broadcast locally originated open mike programs, six are commercial AM's; and three are noncommercial TV stations. Twenty-six respondents stated they had never carried open mike programs and four 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 Utah who once carried and discontinued the open mike format were asked to give their reasons for doing so. One found it too expensive to provide adequate personnel facilities, or time. A lack of audience participation, response or interest was cited in one reply. Two respondents 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? Utah stations responding to this question answered in the following fashion: One 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. Five Utah stations think modification or clarification is needed, and the following suggestions were offered. For one, 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, two think 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: five think broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference. Three 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, or the unqualified. The fairness doctrine discourages controversial broadcasts in view of three respondents. Among those who think the doctrine should be discarded and those who think it needs modification or clarification, one confuses the doctrine with section 315, |