Those stations which discontinued open mike programs were asked to give the year of discontinuance. The question was not answered by 127. This is how the rest replied: 1955 and before, 14; 1956, three; 1957, five; 1958, 11; 1959, 11; 1960, 24; 1961, 20; 1962, 34; 1963, 59; 1964, 96; 1965, 144; and 1966, 184. While there has been a dramatic increase in the number of stations initiating open mike programs in recent years, it can be observed from the data above that the total number of such programs on the air has not increased so dramatically. Although 565 stations started the format in the years 1963 through 1966, 483 abandoned it during the same period. 4. Station editorials Much of the literature about the "fairness doctrine" has been written in a context of editorializing by licensees. Editorializing was the principal ingredient of the celebrated Mayflower case. Yet editorials are far short of syndicated series and open mike programs in generating fairness complaints. However, in total number of violations alleged, they do rank third. For this reason and because broadcasters have been urged by FCC and industry groups to editorialize, a section of the questionnaire was devoted to this type programing. Respondents who editorialize include 566 who do so on a regularly scheduled basis, and 1,890 who do so sporadically. While 2,738 have never broadcast editorials, 384 once did and discontinued. A total of 65 respondents did not answer the question. To trace the growth of editorializing, respondents were asked the number of years they had followed the practice. This is how they responded: 128 began the practice in 1956 or before; 86 began in 1957; 39 in 1958; 95 in 1959; 87 in 1960; 171 in 1961; 305 in 1962; 241 in 1963; 282 in 1964; 261 in 1965; and 226 in 1966. There were 535 who did not answer the question. Those who broadcast editorials were asked to give the number of days per week they are ordinarily broadcast. Ninety respondents broadcast editorials 7 days per week. Sixty-seven do so 6 days per week. Those who schedule them 5 days per week included 239 respondents. Four days per week were used by 23. Forty-nine broadcast them 3 days per week and 80, 2 days per week. Eighty-seven broadcast them only 1 day a week and 1,735 did not regularly schedule them. To obtain some idea of the saturation of editorials, editorializing respondents were asked to state, on the average, the number of times editorials are scheduled upon days when they are broadcast. This table shows how they answered. The rest did not answer or follow no regular practice. To ascertain the topical range of editorial comment, the following question was asked: "During the first half of 1966 (January 1 through 30) approximately what percentage of all station editorial broadcasts from your station deal with the following categories of issues; local issues, statewide or regional issues, national issues, international issues, and other issues?" Those who dealt with local issues included 1,905 repondents, 724 who dealt exclusively with local issues. Statewide or regional issues drew the attention of 1,069 with 32 devoting all their editorials to these issues. National issues had 714 adherents while 14 dealt exclusively in them. International issues attracted 358, with three giving them their complete attention. Other issues were touched on by 201 respondents, 13 of which devote exclusive attention to them. It is apparent, then, that local issues attract far more broadcast editorial comment than any other sort. To see just how much, a profile of the average station's editorializing subject matter was done. This is how that profile looks: A fairly widespread practice in the newspaper business is the publication of canned editorials as an expression of the editor or publisher's own opinion. One section of the questionnaire sought to measure the extent of this practice among broadcasters. Responses indicate that the practice is not widespread. During the first half of 1966, 82 respondents said they broadcast editorials furnished by a group ownership parent company; 52 from a network; 40 from a newspaper; 95 from a nonprofit organization; 78 from a syndicated editorial source paid by the station; 27 from a syndicated source which furnished the editorials free, and five from a syndicated source which offered compensation to the station. Those respondents who had never broadcast station editorials were asked to state their principal reason for not doing so. Their responses are shown below. Number of respondents: 947. 369_ 356_ 277 257 138_. 133. 131. 57 37... Reason given Lack qualified personnel, facilities, time or funds. Don't think broadcasters should editorialize, it's not in the public interest, or we present both sides rather than just our point of view. Incompatible with ownership or format (i.e., community, school, State, or church owned; educational, religious, good music, country, and western, etc., format). Management decision, just never did it, never thought Use other program types for controversial issues (i.e., Planning to start, giving some thought to it, or might Fear "fairness doctrine" or FCC redtape, not sure of Small community, listeners not interested, or don't Fear of economic reprisal or negative listener reaction. Stations which once broadcast editorials and discontinued were asked to give their principal reason for doing so. Their responses follow: Number of respondents: 40.. 12_ 11. 5. 4 3. 2. Reason given Lacked or lost adequate personnel, facilities, time, or funds. Changed ownership, management, or format. The "fairness doctrine," FCC redtape, or presenting other side caused problems. Decided editorializing was not in public interest, broadcasters should not editorialize, decided to present both sides instead of just our point of view. Lack of audience response or interest. Lost advertisers or listeners or experienced negative community reaction. Just decided to stop for no particular reason. Of 384 respondentsin this category 307 did not answer the question. 5. Network program series and specials The questionnaire included the following question: "During the first half of 1966 (January through June) did this station preempt any network program dealing with news and/or public affairs for any reason other than technical or commercial sale of time for other programing?" Seventy-five respondents answered in the affirmative. They were asked to list the name of such programs, give the dates of preemption, and state their principal reason for preempting. Among those responses no substantial "fairness doctrine" violations appeared. This was not surprising, since review of FCC complaint files revealed very few allegations of violations associated with specific stations against network programs. Only one such complaint was referred for station comment during the period examined, and FCC was satisfied with the first response that overall balance had been achieved. Direct inquiry of all networks reveals that few, if any, fairness complaints are received directly by them. 6. Other station practices and policies At the beginning of this report, we observed that FCC believes the public interest, convenience, or necessity requires each broadcast licensee to devote a reasonable percentage of his broadcast time to presenting programs dealing with public issues of interest in the community served by the particular station. This is the initial affirmative requirement of the "fairness doctrine”—that each licensee must deal with issues of public importance. As recently as July 5, 1967, FCC reaffirmed this principle. In its memorandum opinion and order adopting the new personal attack rule, this language appears: "The development of an informed public opinion through the public dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day is the keystone of the "fairness doctrine." It is this right of the public to be informed, rather than the right on the part of the Government, any broadcast licensee, or any individual member of the public to broadcast his own particular views on any matter, which is the foundation stone of the American system of broadcasting." How sturdy is the foundation stone? To what extent does the public enjoy its right to be informed? Several questions were included in the licensee questionnaire which may shed some light upon these questions. Respondents were asked to state the number of man-hours per week devoted, on the average, to locally originated news and public affairs programs at their stations. News and public affairs programs are the vehicles for discussion of public issues and the dissemination of the various points of view thereon. Surprisingly, 570 licensees stated they devoted no manpower to locally originated news and public affairs programing, while 497 respondents did not answer the question. The remaining 4,576 answered this way: Man-hours per week: 1 through 5 hours___. Number of respondents 387 484 681 813 561 328 439 362 295 152 74 Respondents were also asked to state the number of broadcast hours devoted, on the average, per week to locally originated news and public affairs programs. Since 570 devote no manpower to these programs, it was not surprising that 516 stated they devoted no broadcast time to them. Again, 497 respondents did not answer the question. The others gave these answers: Broadcast hours per week: 1.1 through 2.1 hours.. Number of respondents 393 365 307 305 503 530 517 779 454 477 Since public issues might be covered in "talk" programs other than those strictly characterized as news or public affairs, respondents were asked to give the number of broadcast hours per week devoted to all other locally originated "talk" programs. Answering "none" were 2,296 stations and, again 479 respondents did not answer the question. Other answers were: Obviously, if no time is devoted to locally originated news and public affairs programs, issues unique to the community served must be largely ignored. But a failure to schedule locally originated programs of this type does not mean the licensee fails to schedule public issue programs. Network and syndicated news and public affairs programs might be carried. Hence, each respondent was asked to give the num ber of broadcast hours per week, on the average, devoted to all news and public affairs program, whether locally originated, syndicated, or network. Here, 513 respondents said they carried "none," while, as before, 497 failed to answer the question. The rest gave these answers: While a licensee may schedule programs which he characterizes as news or public affairs, these offerings could be largely devoid of any issues about which there is disagreement. If the "fairness doctrine" is to achieve its goal of insuring debate upon important issues of the day, those issues must necessarily be controversial ones. Hence, each respondent was asked: "Does this station ever broadcast any programs dealing with controversial issues of public importance?" Those who answered "No" included 1,511 respondents and 218 did not answer the question. Obviously, a dramatically large number of stations are assuming no responsibility for dealing with important public issues. Just under 70 percent of all respondents affirmatively stated they sometimes carry programs dealing with controversial issues of public importance, while almost 27 percent said they never do so. One can only wonder what the latter group promised to do in their last renewal applications. Finally, those stations who stated they carried news or public affairs programs were asked to give the source. Of all broadcast time devoted to news or public affairs, each was asked to state the percentage thereof obtained from each of three sources: network programs, syndicated programs, and locally originated programs. The average respondent who carries news or public affairs programs locally originates 48.6 percent of them, obtains 37.5 percent from a network, and depends upon syndicated programs for the remaining 13.9 percent. Respondents who sometimes carry programs dealing with controversial issues of public importance were asked a number of questions about their policies and practices in connection with them. One such practice, to encourage and implement presentation of opposing views, is the broadcast invitation to present opposing views. Respondents were asked if they follow this practice. Among stations which carry controversial issue broadcasts, 2,693 always broadcast an invitation for opposing views when they offer broadcasts which present only one point of view. Sometimes these announcements are broadcast by 656 and they never are by 489. Another affirmative effort to seek out opposing views is the practice of writing, telephoning, or otherwise communicating offers of reply time directly to recognized spokesmen for opposing views. There were 2,392 respondents who said they always do this, 1,057 who do it sometimes, and 398 who answered they never do. During the first half of 1966, 378 respondents said they made a total of more than 1,200 such offers which were declined, while over 1,500 were accepted. |