vited to call and express opinion on "Speak Up." He asserted that no one had ever pointed out that the statements complained of were untrue. He feels the statements about UNESCO were true. He opposes UNICEF using little children to collect contributions on Halloween, and he just doesn't like Christmas cards that are contemptuous of Christ. He has carried programs favorable to U.N. On civil rights. he said:

We deplore the rift and strife brought about by civil rights. We are all Americans and should stand together as Americans.

On the State Department:

Note their record on Cuba.

On the John Birch Society:

I know of no facts that would indicate that they are other than good lawabiding Americans.

On the Supreme Court:

I believe that they were right on their first decision; i.e., prayer written by a unit of government; wrong in their second-not freely allowing prayer in public schools.

Regarding the other programs complained of, the licensee asserted: All of the programs are accurate to the best of our knowledge after diligent checking.

On the offer to supply tapes, he said:

We had mailings from the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions and studied them for a possible source of information broadcasts but concluded that they were not suitable for our station.

Concluding, he suggested:

This criticism stems from a very small group who have also applied pressure on our sponsors and seem to want to exert their control over our programing. On March 29, 1965, another letter was addressed from FCC to the licensee. There, he was advised:

It is not clear from your letter that you have made an affirmative effort to afford reasonable opportunity for the presentation of viewpoints contrasting with those of the station or those presented by the commentators to which you refer, or if you have, the manner in which you have implemented such effort. The Commission believes that in so important an area no confusion should exist and accordingly, requests that you submit a statement.

On May 8, 1965, the licensee responded again as follows:

I have read your letter many times and have studied the Commission's public notice of July 1, 1964, and feel we have acted in full faith.

We had considered ourselves essentially a music station and when the Commission let it be known in "Broadcasting" that a station must include talk and discussion we sought the best and most reliable sources of commentary. After considerable search and study we selected "Life Line," Manion Forum," and "Howard Kushner" [sic].

These programs are all pro-American, anti-Communist, and in accord with the stated policies of our Government. We have found these programs and the people that produce them completely reliable and accurate in the facts and information presented, and on the rare occasion when the question of controversy arose, handled the request for opposing views in a most fair manner and in so doing fulfilled our obligation to be fair in a manner satisfactory to us.

On the subject of the United Nations and disarmament, these programs were apposed [sic]-while "Master Control" and "Songtime" were for. On the subject of urban renewal "Life Line" invited an opposition view On any controversial subject both views are heard. Whenever possible we pick up debates. We do not

make unfounded accusations of any kind, but only repeat a responsible authority-"District Attorney says," "As repeated by the local newspaper," and so forth. When controversial subjects are presented both sides are heard, and our daily program "Speak Up" invites anyone to call. We feel we have gone overboard to make it possible for anyone to be heard.

In regard to Citizen's Council we feel these have been accurate, factual reports from southern Governors and Senators, and have helped us to understand problems in the South.

We have always had and will continue to have an open mike for discussions ni and debates on controversial subjects, and constantly seek every opportunity to pick up visiting speakers when permission can be obtained.

On November 24, 1965, a third letter was addressed to licensee from FCC. The text of that letter follows:

This refers to your letter of May 8, 1965, describing your sources of talk and commentary programs and the manner in which you present opposing views on controversial issues. You state you broadcast as commentary Life Line, Manion Forum, Howard Kershner, and Citizen's Council. You describe those programs as pro-American, anti-Communist and in accord with the policies of our Government and state you have found the people who produce them to be completely reliable and accurate as to the facts they present.

As you are aware, the commentary programs you carry on your station often deal with controversial issues of public importance. Your responsibility as a licensee is to affirmatively make provision for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such controversial issues. It is clear that you have a right to present your views, or those of any person or group on any subject, but if such views deal with a controversial issue of public importance your responsibility under the "fairness doctrine" must be considered. For example you note that Life Line offered time for the presentation of an opposing view on urban renewal. The responsibility for compliance with the "fairness doctrine" cannot be delegated by the licensee to the producer of the program on which the controversial issue was discussed. The licensee's responsibility in this area is nondelegable. (See Q and A No. 10, "Fairness Primer," a copy of which we furnished to you March 29, 1965.)

We note that you reiterate your earlier statement that the commentary programs you carry are reliable and factually accurate. There is often more than one responsible view as to how facts, admittedly accurate, may be interpreted and as to the manner in which they should be presented. What is important is that contrasting views be aired. It does not require any appraisal of the merits of the particular issue to determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to present both sides of the question. Thus, in appraising the record of a station in presenting programs concerning a controversial bill pending before the Congress of the United States, if the record disclosed that the licensee had permitted only advocates of the bill's enactment to utilize its facilities to the exclusion of its opponents, it is clear that no independent appraisal of the bill's merits by the Commission would be required to reach a determination that the licensee has misconstrued its duties and obligations as a person licensed to serve the public interest. The Commission's concern is with the right of the public to be informed and that right is not served when only one viewpoint on an issue is presented, even though there is a factual basis for that viewpoint.

Although you mention specifically three issues, United Nations, disarmament, and urban renewal, in which you presented opposing views and state that "on any controversial subject both views are heard," you do not describe any mechanism or practice you have developed to discharge your obligation affirmatively to encourage and implement the broadcast of contrasting viewpoint on controversial issues you air, with the exception of allowing persons to participate on your "open mike" program. Although the "open mike" programs may give some opportunity for presentation of contrasting viewpoints, such a phone-in program would not appear to be adequate to answer views expressed on regularly scheduled commentary programs. We note that Mrs. Guss offered to provide a program (or programs) presenting views contrasting to those presented on the commentary programs you broadcast, but that you rejected them. This raises a question as to whether it is your policy to refuse to present any views except those with which you are in agreement.

In such an important area of responsibility the policies and practices of the licensee in affirmatively attempting to achieve compliance with the "fairness doctrine" should be clear. Accordingly, you are requested to set forth specificall; your policies and practices as well as the manner in which you implement them in this respect. For your information in this regard we enclose copies of letters dated September 16, 1964, and December 2, 1964, to the Mid-Florida Televisio Corp. and July 29, 1964, to Capitol Broadcasting Co. which describe the pretices of some licensees in this area."

43

On February 10, 1966, a Member of the Senate wrote Chairman Henry, transmitting a further fairness complaint against the station. On February 25, 1966, Chairman Henry replied, stating the complain: was being referred to the station for comment. One day before, on February 24, a letter from FCC was mailed to the licensee. The text of that letter follows:

The Commission is in receipt of a further complaint concerning your program ing on controversial issues of public importance. A copy of pertinent portions of that complaint is enclosed.

We also note that on November 24, 1965, we requested you "to set forth speci fically your policies and practices as well as the manner in which you implement them" with respect to compliance with the "fairness doctrine." We have no record of an answer to our request of November 24, 1965.

Accordingly, it is requested that you submit your comments on the attached complaint as well as a reply to our inquiry of November 24, 1965, within 10 days of the date of this letter.

Licensee responded on March 6, 1966. He said he would be the first to insist that everyone be treated fairly; however, there seems to be a cleavage between responsibility to listeners and some interpretations of the "Fairness Act." He reiterated his position that the programs complained of were factually accurate and again insisted that the complaints were a consorted action of just a small group not representative of the community.

On April 22, 1966, still another letter was addressed to licensee from FCC. The concluding paragraphs of that letter are as follows:

In short, you have not responded in point and completely to our inquiry of November 24, 1965. The information requested, and not supplied is: (1) A specific showing as to any policies or practices by which you discharge your obligation to affirmatively encourage and implement the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues which you air, and (2) when you have presented a view on a controversial issue is it your policy to refuse to present any other views on it except those with which you are in agreement? (See our letter to you of November 24, 1965.)

Accordingly, you are requested to advise us of your policies in this respect, specifically answering the above, but of course your reply need not be limited to those two points. Your reply should be submitted within 20 days of the date of this letter.

On May 17, licensee wired FCC requesting additional time to respond. The request was granted to May 31, 1966.

Responding again upon May 24, 1966, licensee advised that he had started broadcasting the following spot announcement:

KNEV-FM is dedicated to providing listeners with authoritative, factual information on important matters. In fulfilling this responsibility, we welcome the comments of responsible local citizens. If you feel that your views on important matters are not being presented in our broadcast schedule, we invite you to write us, outlining your suggestion. Our address is: KNEV-FM, 1100 Kietzke Lane, Reno, Nev. All letters from responsible local citizens will be carefully considered.

43 In view of the final resolution of this complaint, it is interesting that both the Capitol (WRAL) case and the Mid-Florida case were disposed of after each licensee advised they had adopted a new policy of broadcasting invitational announcements following controver sial issue programs.

The announcement is not necessarily broadcast following each controversial issue broadcast but is included from time to time in licensee's general broadcast content.

One further question remained for the Commission. So another letter was addressed to licensee on June 15, 1966, which contained this language:

We note that in your letter of May 24, 1966, you now request comments on matters of importance from your audience. Such a request for comments may be of assistance to you in determining whether the audience thinks you are giving a fair presentation of views on such matters. However, requests for views of the audience does not alone achieve compliance with the fairness doctrine. The use made of such views, of course, may achieve compliance or assist in doing so. The fundamental responsibility for compliance rests upon the licensee and is not delegable. Report on Living Should Be Fun Inquiry, 33 FCC 101, 107. Thus, if after receipt of comments from your audience, you aired only those in agreement with your own views or those you had previously broadcast, such action would in no way achieve compliance with the fairness doctrine. In this connection, we note that you have not answered a question raised in our letter of April 25, 1966: When you have presented a view on a controversial issue is it your policy to refuse to present any other views on it except those with which you are in agreement? The good faith answer to that question may be an important factor in considering your efforts to comply with the fairness doctrine.

In view of the voluminous correspondence in which we have fully and in detail described to you the Commission's fairness doctrine and means used by others to achieve compliance with it, no further Commission action with respect to this matter is warranted at this time. However, a further review of your actions in this area will be made in connection with the overall review of the time your license is up for renewal. [Emphasis supplied.]

Finally, on July 15, 1966, licensee responded for the last time. There, he said:

In order that there be no misunderstanding, let me make our position perfectly clear. We have previously submitted to you the text of an announcement which we are currently broadcasting to inform the public of our desire to offer complete discussions of important questions. This is a good-faith offer, and if any responsible individual requests an opportunity to present views on a controversial issue which has been previously discussed on our station, you may be assured that such requests will receive every consideration. It is not our intention to limit the use of our facilities to the presentation of viewpoints with which we agree. Rather all requests from responsible citizens will receive our careful consideration, subject only to the usual limitations of manpower and facilities.

This response satisfied FCC licensee was indeed in compliance with the fairness doctrine.

In this case, 12 years elapsed before licensee finally convinced FCC he was in compliance. His efforts "affirmatively to encourage and implement" presentation of opposing views consisted of the periodic broadcast, not necessarily following controversial issue programs, of an invitational announcement and his representation that responsible parties would be afforded an opportunity to be heard upon demand. Licensee's final response is the last document in FCC's file. Although the Commission staff advises that the Commission is satisfied with the response, no letter has been written licensee advising him of that satisfaction, nor have either the original complainant or the Senator who expressed interest been written to inform them of disposition of the matter. This case was never referred by the staff to the Commission. It was handled entirely on the staff level.

Before leaving KNEV, one further fact should be noted. On September 17, 1965, while the complaint remained unresolved, the license of

KNEV-FM was renewed for a full 3-year term without reference to the complaint, and in apparent disregard of the fact that licensee wa not then considered to be in compliance with the fairness doctrine. The most difficult complaint for FCC to resolve is one where licensee's initial response raises questions of fact. The complainant and licensee simply do not agree in their account of what has taken place. In these cases the Commission is almost helpless to cope with the problem. It seldom undertakes an independent field investigation and ordinarily elects to accept licensee's version as true. Doing so, it writes complainant that no further action is indicated on FCC's part. Complainant is seldom invited to supply verified or more detailed informa tion. Most complainants, at this juncture, do not attempt to do so and the matter comes to an end, both for the present and a renewal time. In rare instances, however, an independent field investigation of fairness complaints will be undertaken by FCC. These investigations seem to be reserved for licensees against whom a large number of particularly flagrant violations have been alleged.

When a decision is made to conduct a field investigation of fairness complaints, the field investigation force of Complaints and Compliance Division is utilized. That force has an authorized strength of six men, who in addition to investigating fairness complaints, must also conduct field investigations on all other complaints where investigation is desired. Of the six authorized, only five are now em ployed. Of the five presently employed, due to a heavy mail workload in Complaints and Compliance, two have been diverted to answering mail. This leaves three men who are presently actively engaged in field investigation of complaints of all kinds. Complaints and Compliance Division estimates that some 40 to 50 field investigations of all types of complaints are conducted each year.

Even when field investigation is undertaken, FCC has never resolved a particular fairness complaint with an evidentiary hearing. Hence, it relies largely upon the unverified statements of complainant and licensee and, when field investigation is undertaken, the unverified statements of witnesses. Even when sworn statements are taken, since no evidentiary hearing is involved, they may not be subjected to cross-examination.

In addition to the field investigation force of complaints and compliance, the Field Engineering Bureau maintains a technical inspection force. The facilities of approximately 54 percent of all licensees will be visited and inspected by members of that force each 3 years. While responsible for inspection of transmission facilities of all types, it is estimated that 25 man-years are devoted each year to inspecting radio and TV stations.

For some years this technical inspection force, ordinarily electronics engineers, was required to carry out certain nontechnical inspection of each station visited. This included inquiring about certain types of program content, inspection of the station's public complaint file, et cetera. Recently, FCC relieved the technical inspection force of its nontechnical responsibilities, reasoning that the additional inspection requirement was overburdening the resources of the Field Engineering Bureau and that its technical personnel was largely unqualified to examine into nontechnical matters.

During this investigation, all files associated with fairness complaints received by FCC during the period from January 1, 1965, through June 30, 1966, were read, abstracted, analyzed, and tabulated