department, Complaints and Compliance and Engineering raise no questions, the call letters of the involved station are included in a list of other stations which fall in the same category for the renewal period. Until very recently, it was at this point fairness doctrine" and section 315 complaints were checked, along with other correspondence files of Renewal and Transfer affecting licensee, to determine if problems existed. If complaints had been made against the station of sufficient moment to be called before the Commission, the staff member handling those complaints would advise of their existence.

Since the Commission adopted its new policy of dealing with and disposing of complaints as they arose, any fairness or section 315 complaint which is finally resolved before renewal is seemingly not considered of sufficient moment for Commission consideration at renewal. On the other hand, theoretically, any unresolved complaint which has been referred to the station for comment is of sufficient moment. But as we have seen by "KNEV," this is not always the case. As a practical matter, it appears that Commission attention is not invited to past or pending complaints at renewal time unless one or more of the complainants also file a timely petition opposing renewal.

Very recently, the function of handling fairness and section 315 complaints was assigned to the Complaints and Compliance Division. Prior to that, it was a responsibility of Renewal and Transfer. Under the new system, it is assumed that comments upon these complaints will accompany the control card of Complaints and Compliance.

After being satisfied no outstanding fairness and section 315 problems exist and assuming that all control cards recommend a grant, the Chief of Renewal and Transfer examines the list of call letters, certifying them to the License Division for renewal of license.

Where, on the other hand, questions are raised by the control cards or the review of fairness and section 315 complaints, the involved call letters are compiled into another list. These "recommended deferrals" are reviewed by the Chief of Renewal and Transfer, together with the Chief of the Broadcast Bureau. If, in their opinion, the involved discrepancy is not sufficiently serious for Commission attention, they may elect to correct it by correspondence with the licensee or dispose of it with further review of the application. After this process, the remaining recommended deferrals are referred to the full Commission for final action by them.

In acting upon deferred renewals, the Commission has, in the past usually adhered to the traditional standards. If an applicant's proposed service fell short on news or public affairs, his renewal would not be granted until he agreed to amend the proposals, bringing them in line with the standards. If he proposed to carry commercial matter in excess of the standards, his application was not granted until he agreed to modify his proposed commercial practices. More recently, however, the Commission has seemed to attach much less importance to these standards. It has, in the recent past, renewed licenses of applicants who proposed far less news or public affairs programing than prescribed by the standards. Some renewals have been granted where applicants proposed to carry no news or no public affairs. And the Commission has also renewed radio licenses where as much as 20 minutes per hour of commercial matter on a regular basis has been proposed. No doubt the Commission's action in this

regard will be reflected in a revision of traditional standards for application review.

III. APPLYING THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

A. THE STATIONS

In the course of this study a questionnaire was mailed each broadcast license subject to regulation by FCC. According to the Commission, there were 6,787 active broadcast licenses outstanding on January 1, 1967. At the final deadline for processing responses, 5,643 stations had returned their questionnaires. The data in this section is based upon an analysis and tabulation of those responses. Of the total, 2,898 were standard AM stations, 1,069 were FM stations, 670 were television stations, and 503 respondents were AM-FM simulcasters (representing 1,006 broadcast licenses). The sample includes 5,245 commercial licenses and 398 noncommercial ones.

The questionnaire inquired about "fairness doctrine" and section 315 policies and practices and solicited comments and suggestions. Questions were also included touching upon certain types of programing. Included were editorials, open mike programs, syndicated program series, public affairs, and network programs.

1. Selected attitudes on the fairness doctrine and section 315

In view of vigorous opposition to the "fairness doctrine" by the National Association of Broadcasters and other organized segments of the industry, it may be reasonable to assume a majority of licensees also oppose the doctrine. Surprisingly, this is not the case. In response to the question: "What is your opinion of the fairness doctrine?" 2,767 respondents said it was OK as is, 1,183 thought it needs modification or clarification, 1,160 would like to see it discarded, 137 indicated they had no opinion or were not sufficiently informed to form an opinion and 396 did not answer the question. Hence, only 20.5 percent of all respondents thought the doctrine should be discarded.

In a similar vein, respondents were asked to give their opinion of FCC's proposal to adopt the personal attack feature of the doctrine as a Commission rule. Those indicating approval numbered 2,574, and 2,024 indicated disapproval, while 455 indicated they had no opinion or were not sufficiently informed to form an opinion. Another 590 respondents did not answer the question. Again the level of disapproval was surprisingly low, only 37.6 percent of all respondents.

Faced with a similar question about section 315, the results were similarly surprising. Those favoring section 315 included 2,308 respondents, while 1.201 thought it needs modification, 1,094 thought it should be repealed, 670 indicated they had no opinion and 370 did not answer the question. Here, only 19.4 percent of all respondents favored repeal of section 315.

Those respondents who thought modification or clarification of the "fairness doctrine" was needed were asked to state the changes or clarification they thought desirable. Among those who offered suggestions, 599 thought the doctrine is too vague, that it is difficult to define terms like "controversy" and "personal attack" and that the doctrine should be clarified or made more understandable. Any requirement to notify the other side or person attacked, to affirmatively seek out

opposing views, or to supply transcripts was objected to by 187 stations. Another group of 166 objected to affording free time for reply statements where the opposing view originated upon commercially sponsored broadcasts. Twenty-two wanted the doctrine extended to cover print media. Eighteen believed opposing parties should be required to adhere to the original issue when making reply statements. Fifteen thought the doctrine should not apply to spontaneous or inadvertent violations. Commentary upon political figures should be exempted in the view of 10 respondents. Nine believed the penalty of license loss is too severe. Eight wanted newscasts exempt. Seventy-eight confused the doctrine with section 315.

Those who want the "fairness doctrine" discarded were asked why. Of this group, 575 thought broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference; 503 thought the doctrine violates the First amendment, or that broadcasters should be as free as newspapers, 488 said the doctrine discourages controversial broadcasts: 236 found compliance with the doctrine too time consuming, too expensive, or too impractical or contended it is too difficult to police or administer; 98 believed the doctrine opens the door for crackpots, radicals, lunatics, or the unqualified; 80 thought competition among broadcasters insures fairness without any need for regulation: 72 thought the Government should permit the public, exercising its prerogative to turn the dial, to decide what it wishes to hear; and a like number, 72, thought the civil remedies of libel and slander would suffice to protect the public without a "fairness doctrine."

The 2,024 respondents who disapproved of the proposed personal attack rule were asked to state their reason for disapproval. In this group, 508 stated broadcasters are responsible and will be fair without Government interference; 371 thought the rule would violate the First amendment; 335 felt more flexibility is needed than the proposal affords or felt the doctrine works better as it presently stands: 323 thought the rule would discourage controversial broadcasts: 259 felt the proposal is too vague and should be made more understandable: 243 contended that civil libel and slander remedies afford the public adequate protection without the rule; 230 were afraid the rule would lead to programing or policy control by the Government, giving FCC too much power; 204 objected to the requirement for prebroadcast submission of transcripts and notification of persons attacked: 42 disliked affording free time for response to attacks made with commercial sponsorship; and 12 respondents confused the proposed rule with section 315.

Respondents suggesting modification of section 315 were asked to describe desired changes. These are the suggestions they made: 809 wanted section 315 to apply only to candidates of major parties and not to minor parties or splinter groups; 212 thought section 315 is too vague and should be made more understandable: 154 said broadcasters will be fair without Government interference: 133 reflected an appar ent misunderstanding of the section; 113 believed section 315 violates the First amendment; 70 thought newscasts, nonpolitical public service announcements, or noncampaign appearances should be exempted: 59 wanted an exception permitting broadcasting professionals to run for office without invoking section 315 upon their professional appear ances; 49 wanted an exception where a large number of candidates

qualify for the same office; and 25 urged an exception when all time availabilities have been sold.

A further breakdown of responses to the questions eliciting approval and disapproval of the fairness doctrine and section 315 was undertaken. Just over 21 percent of all commercial radio respondents registered disapproval of the fairness doctrine and 20 percent of them wanted to see section 315 repealed. Twenty-five percent of the commercial television respondents disapproved of the fairness doctrine and 27 percent wanted section 315 repealed. Among the commercial rspondents, almost 48 percent of radio licensees thought the fairness doctrine is OK as it is and 41 percent of television licensees thought so. By contrast, 65 percent of all noncommercial respondents believed the doctrine to be OK as is and 50 percent said section 315 is OK as is. Only 6 percent of noncommercial respondents thought section 315 should be repealed, and 5.7 percent wanted to see the fairness doctrine discarded. A breakdown by network affiliation was also undertaken. Affiliates of the ABC television network answered in this way: 50 percent thought the fairness doctrine is OK as is and 19 percent thought it should be discarded; 40 percent approved of section 315 as is and 14 wanted it repealed. ABC's radio affiliates gave these answers: 50 percent said the fairness doctrine is OK as is, while 24 percent wanted it discarded; 45 percent liked section 315 as is, and 20 percent wanted it repealed.

Forty percent of CBS television affiliates thought the fairness doctrine is OK as is, and 27 percent wanted it discarded. On the other hand, only 24 percent of those affiliates approved of section 315, while 40 percent thought it should be repealed. CBS radio affiliates gave these answers: 47 percent approved of the fairness doctrine as is, and 25 percent wanted it discarded; 33 percent thought section 315 is OK as is, and 26 percent wanted it repealed.

Among affiliates of the Mutual radio network who responded, 52 percent thought the fairness doctrine is OK as is, and 19 percent believed it should be discarded. Section 315 as it is was favored by 46 percent of Mutual affiliates, and 20 percent wanted it repealed.

Thirty-five percent of responding NBC television affiliates favored the fairness doctrine as is, and 30 percent wanted it discarded. Only 22 percent favored section 315 as is, and 31 percent wanted it repealed. Among NBC's radio affiliates, 37 percent favored the fairness doctrine as is, and 32 percent thought it should be discarded. Thirty-three percent of those radio affiliates liked section 315 as is, and 35 percent wanted it repealed.

The noncommercial networks, NET and NER, afford a dramatic. contrast to their commercial counterparts. Only 4.3 percent of responding NET members wanted the fairness doctrine discarded, while 66 percent thought it is OK as is. None of them thought section 315 should be repealed. Among NER members, 67 percent thought the fairness doctrine is OK as is, and only 5 percent wanted it discarded, while 14 percent thought section 315 should be repealed.

Another group of 284 stations are affiliated with a network other than ABC, CBS, Mutual, NBC, NET, or NER. This group included 53 percent who thought the fairness doctrine is OK as is, and 20 percent who wanted to see it discarded; while 49 percent liked section 315 as is, and 17 percent wanted it repealed.

Of the remaining respondents, those without any network affiliation, 43 percent of the television stations favored the fairness doctrine as is, and 20 percent wanted it discarded, while 40 percent favored section 315 as is, and 22 percent wanted it repealed. Fifty percent of nonnet work radio respondents thought the fairness doctrine is OK as is, and 18 percent wanted it discarded. The radio respondents in this category included 44 percent who favored section 315 as is, and 17 percent who believed it should be repealed.

2. Syndicated program series

The review of fairness complaints revealed that more violations were alleged against syndicated program series than any other type programing. These are programs designed for airing over a number of stations but which are not distributed by a network or which may be syndicated in addition to their network coverage by distribution to nonnetwork stations. They are ordinarily recorded by the distributor, who dispatches them by mail or express to stations which carry them.

Part III of the questionnaire dealt with syndicated program series. Fifty-three specific program series which dealt from time to time with issues of public importance were listed. This list was completed from FCC complaint files, from responses to a questionnaire mailed syndicators listed in Broadcast Yearbook, and from listings in the programing section of Broadcasting magazine. Each respondent was asked to indicate any of the listed programs which were currently carried by the station or which were once carried and discontinued. For programs once carried and discontinued, or offered on sponsored basis and declined, each station was asked to state its principal reason for discontinuing or declining. Tabulations of these responses were undertaken. Those tabulations reflect only the responses recorded from questionnaires returned by stations.

The program carried by the largest number of stations, 446, was "Our Changing World." This series has been carried and discontinued by 177 stations. In that group, 124 terminated the program for lack of a sponsor; 14 changed ownership, management, or format; 12 found the series too expensive; and nine cited a lack of audience interest. Among those who carry the series, 91 had offered it less than 1 year. The remainder have carried it an average of 2.2 years. Thirty-two stations carried the program on a sustaining basis, the remainder obtained commercial sponsorship.

"The Protestant Hour" was being carried by 414 stations. Twentyseven have carried it less than 1 year. Of those remaining, the average station has carried the program 5.6 years. The program is carried upon a sustaining basis by all except 11 stations. Those who once carried and discontinued the series included 109 respondents. Sixty-two did so because of a change in ownership, management, or format. Eleven stopped for lack of sponsorship. Three found the program lacked audience interest. Two thought the program was not in the public interest (too liberal, too conservative, didn't like content, etc.). One complained of poor technical quality and another said the sponsor or producer did not pay his bills or was slow pay.

"American Security Council Washington Report" was carried by 358 respondents, 317 of which carried it on a sustaining basis. Fiftytwo had carried the program less than 1 year and the remainder an