respect to the senatorial races. Specifically, we sought to determine whether stations gave more time in races where there were two candidates than in races where there were more than two candidates. We divided the 36 States in which there were senatorial candidates into 2 groups: 28 States where there were 2 candidates and 8 States in which there were more than 2 candidates in the general elections. Our analysis showed first that only a minority of the stations gave sustaining time to senatorial candidates. Secondly, we found no significant differences in station participation in the senatorial races as between the two groups of States. In the 28 States with two Senatorial candidates per race, 23 percent of the TV stations reported free time for Senatorial candidates and 9 percent of the AM stations. The comparable ratios for the 8 States were 26 percent of the TV stations and 14 percent of the AM stations. When we measured the amount of time given by TV and AM stations, we found similarly only slight differences as between the stations in the two State groupings. In other words, more overall time-well, we haven't gotten to the time yet, but there was a slightly greater percentage of stations giving free time in the multicandidate States. This record certainly does not support the view that the equaltime provisions of section 315 seriously hampered stations in their decisions to provide or fail to provide sustaining time for senatorial candidates in the general elections. Proportionately no more stations provided free time in races with two candidates than in races with more than two candidates. And of the minority of stations giving free time to senatorial candidates the total time given was proportionately the same in the two-candidate races as in the multicandidate races. We also attempted to determine the extent to which stations provided equal time to each of the senatorial candidates. Here, particularly, the survey results can only be tentative and serve primarily to raise questions rather than to provide answers. The summary results of this study were as follows: Proportion of stations reporting sustaining time for senatorial candidates There are two significant points to be made about this table: In the 28 States with only two candidates per race, almost a third of the AM stations reported free time for one candidate, but no time for the other candidate; 16 percent of the TV stations reported a like result. The second point is that in the 8 States with more than two candidates per race, 55 percent of the TV stations and 86 percent of the AM stations reported no free time for at least one of the candidates. Undoubtedly, there are various explanations for the inequality of time given opposing candidates, such as offers of sustaining time by stations which were not accepted, or the absence of requests for equal time by one or another opposing candidate, or a portion of the time given by some stations may have been exempt from the equal-time provisions of section 315. On their face, the figures suggest that even at the senatorial level where the candidates usually have had extensive experience in campaigning, many candidates do not avail themthemselves of the opportunities for free time to which they are legally entitled. If this is true, then the obligations imposed on stations by section 315 may not, in fact, be as burdensome and onerous as is sometimes alleged. We do have a separate statement with respect to the gubernatorial candidates. In preparation for the hearing, our staff did a second study of the general election, gubernatorial race. The results followed the same pattern as in the senatorial race. A minority of stations participated and stations in the 13 States, where more than two candidates were entered, were as active proportionately in giving free time, in fact even more active, than the stations in the 22 States where there were only two candidates. Likewise, in measuring the equality of time for each gubernatorial candidate, we have the same picture as in the senatorial race. It would appear that candidates do not seem to avail themselves of their rights to equal time under section 315. With your permission, I offer the statistics as an exhibit in the record at this point. Senator PASTORE. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The table follows:) Analysis of sustaining time for gubernatorial candidates in the 1962 general election (35 States with 399 TV stations and 2,507 AM stations) Stations in operation... Stations reporting sustaining time for gubernatorial candidates in the general election.. Amount of time given: Stations reporting less than 1 hour.. Equal amount of time for all candi- Time for all candidates, but unequal amounts. Equal for major party candidates, but no time for minor party candidates. Equal amount of time for candidate of 1 major party and candidates of minor parties, but no time for candidates of other major party... Unequal time for major party candidates and no time for minor party candidates Unequal amount of time for candidates of 1 major party and candidates of minor parties, but no time for candidates of other major party.. Time for 1 candidate, but no time for others.. 1 24 Source: Prepared by Federal Communications Commission, June 1963. (Based on survey of political broadcasting.) Mr. HENRY. In closing I should mention that Chairman Pastore's letter requesting a report on political broadcasts during the 1962 campaign, which report was recently furnished the committee, also asked for information on various complaints received with respect to the 1962 elections. We have documented such complaints, together with other complaints received by the Commission up to June 1, 1963. They are contained in the attached report, which I offer for the record at this time. (The report follows:) REPORT OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONCERNING COMPLAINTS RECEIVED DURING THE 1962 ELECTIONS AND SIMILAR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED TO JUNE 1, 1963 1. STATISTICAL SUMMARY During the year 1962, the Commission received a total of 342 complaints relating to the "equal opportunities" provision of section 315. Of these complaints, 69 involved the office of U.S. Senator; 66 involved the office of U.S. Representative; 44 involved the office of Governor; and 41 related to all other offices. There were 122 complaints which were general inquiries, without reference to any specific candidate or office. Some of the total 342 complaints received in 1962 related to the news-type program exempted under the 1959 amendments to the act; 16 involved inquiries relating to bona fide newscasts, 5 involved inquiries relating to news documentaries, 16 involved inquiries relating to news interviews, 2 involved inquiries relating to on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, and 16 involved general inquiries about news-type programs. From January 1, 1963, to June 1, 1963, the Commission received a total of 29 complaints relating to the "equal opportunities" provision of section 315. Of these complaints, none related to either the office of Governor or U.S. Senator, 1 involved the office of U.S. Representative, and 12 related to all other offices. There were 16 complaints which were general inquiries, without reference to any specific candidate or office. Four of the complaints related to the newstype programs exempted under the 1959 amendments to section 315. Two complaints involved inquiries relating to on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, and two involved general inquiries about news-type programs. Now turning to complaints relating to the Commission's "fairness doctrine" as opposed to "equal opportunities," for the 5 months of January 1 to June 1, 1962, there were 418 complaints involving fairness. Of these complaints, there were two instances of editorials involving a public office, neither of which related to Senator, Representative or Governor, and there were eight instances in which editorial positions were taken with respect to issues relating to a current campaign. During the last 7 months of 1962, there were between 400 and 450 complaints involving the "fairness doctrine." Of these complaints, 41 involved candidates and 12 related to ballot issues. In addition to these general complaints, the Commission received approximately 2,200 complaints which involved the broadcast of the ABC Howard K. Smith program entitled "The Political Obituary of Richard M. Nixon." Between January 1, 1963, and June 1, 1963, there were approximately 221 complaints involving the Commission's "fairness doctrine." Of these complaints, there were 11 separate instances of editorials involving public office and there were 16 instances in which editorial positions were taken with respect to issues relating to a current campaign. Additionally, there were approximately 1,370 compliants which related to the question of alleged predominance of "liberal" viewpoints expressed over broadcast stations as opposed to "conservative" viewpoints. 2. DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINTS BY CATEGORIES (The following are intended to be illustrative only and do not include all of the complaints in these categories.) General news exemption inquiry On June 11, 1962, the Commission received an inquiry from Senator Russell Long asking whether (1) programs such as "Meeet the Press," "Youth Wants to Know," "Capitol Cloakroom," and network programs of entertainment content such as "Today," "Tonight," and "PM" were exempt from the "equal opportunities" provision of section 315; (2) whether the broadcast of a Congressman's weekly radio and television report entitled his oppenents in a Democratic primary to "equal opportunities"; and (3) whether the "equal opportunities" provision applied to an interview of him by a station for insertion in the station's news and public service programs, or the insertion in such programs of film and tape clips made by the Senator. The Commission, by letter of June 13, 1962, advised the Senator that sufficient details had not been provided, but the Senator's attention was invited to a recent ruling given by the Commission to Congressman Clark Thompson with respect to the same matter (see question and answer 15). In the Thompson case, the Commission had under consideration the broadcast of a Congressman's weekly report inserted into a regularly scheduled bona fide newscast. The commission there held that such a broadcast was not exempt and did not attain exempt status by its insertaion within a program which was exempt such as a bona fide newscast and that to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the legislative intent and would result in a subordination of substance to form. "Meet the Press" and "Youth Wants to Know" were referred to in the legislative history as regularly scheduled exempt programs. The "Tonight" program had previously been held by the Commission not to be an exempt news-type program (see question and answer 12). This case involved the appearance of a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President on a network variety show. The Commission held that such a program was not exempt from the “equal opportunities" requirement of section 315. As to the other programs mentioned by him, the Senator was advised that a determination of whether section 315 applied would depend, among other things, on the nature, format and content of the program, the extent of licensee control and supervision over the program, the "bona fides" of the program, who initiated the appearance of the candidate, and whether the program is and has been regularly scheduled. Bona fide newscast On June 8, 1962, the Commission received an inquiry from the late Congressman Clem Miller, asking (1) whether the broadcast of a press release as part of a bona fide newscast by a regular station announcer would be deemed to be a "use"; and (2) whether the playing of all or portions of audiotapes made by the Congressman as part of a bona fide newscast would be deemed to be a "use." By letter of June 15, 1962, the Commission advised Congressman Miller that, with respect to his first question, if there was no appearance by him ou the station in connection with the broadcasting of the press release, no "use" was involved, although the broadcast of such press release might raise a "fairness doctrine” question. With respect to the Congressman's second question, his attention was invited to the Commission's ruling with respect to Congressman Clark Thompson (see question and answer 15) and it was stated that broadcasts of the Congressman's audiotapes would constitute à "use." In the Thomspon case, the Commission had under consideration the broadcast of a Congressman's weekly report inserted into a regularly scheduled bona fide newscast. The Commission there held that such a broadcast was not exempt and did not attain exempt status by its insertion within a program which was exempt, such as a bona fide newscast, and that to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the legislative intent and would result in a subordination of substance to form. Bona fide newscast On July 20, 1962, the Commission received a letter from Judge John J. Murray, Democratic candidate for Congressman in Indiana's Second Congressional District, alleging that station WSJV-TV, South Bend, Ind., had denied his request for time based on Congressman Charles A. Halleck's prior appearance on ABC's "Final Report" program and that station WBKB, Chicago, Ill., and station WPTA-TV, Fort Wayne, Ind., had not responded to his request for time based on the same facts. The following chronology will indicate the volume of correspondence necessary in order to obtain the information required to resolve the matter: 1. July 5, 1962: Copies of letters from complainant to licensees (WBKB, WSJV, WPTA). 2. July 6, 1962: Receipt of copies acknowledged. 3. July 20, 1962: Letter from complainant (with enclosure). 4. July 23, 1962: Copy of letter to ABC (WBKB) received. 5. July 23, 1962: Letter sent to three licensees (WBKB, WSJV, WPTA). 6. July 23, 1962: Letter sent to complainant. 7. July 24, 1962: Letter sent to complainant. 8. July 27, 1962: Answer from WPTA, Fort Wayne, Ind. 9. July 31, 1962: Answer from ABC (WBKB). 10. August 1, 1962: Letter to ABC (WBKB). 11. August 6, 1962: Answer from WSJV-TV, South Bend, Ind. 12. August 8, 1962: Answer from ABC (WBKB). 13. August 9, 1962: Telegram from WPTA. 14. August 9, 1962: Letter to WSJV. 15. August 9, 1962: Letter to complainant. 16. August 13, 1962: Telegram from WSJV. After sending letters to the stations with respect to the manner in which they had compiled with the "fairness doctrine" and with respect to the basis for their determination that the program was exempt, if, in fact, this was their determination, the Commission determined, on the basis of the information furnished, that the program on which Congressman Halleck appeared was a regularly scheduled bona fide newscast within the meaning of section 315(a) (1). It was also determined that, with the exception of station WSJV-TV, the |