Appendix — Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee

Supreme Court brief1973

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

a id

MPS ARI aa iO FE

eee ee ae

DATE

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

Aug.

1971

Feb. 16

Response of FCC to motion concerning oral argu-

ment

Motion of FCC for leave to file motion to extend

time to file brief to Feb. 22, 1971

Reply of CBS to FCC’s response to motion to set

case for argument with related case

Brief for CBS

Brief for ABC

Order granting FCC leave to file motion to extend

time to file brief to Feb. 22, 1971 and extending

time to file brief of FCC to Feb. 22, 1971

Order scheduling case for argument on the merits

with related case

Brief for FCC

Motion of CBS for additional time for oral argu-

ment

Motion of DNC to accept reply brief not in con-

formity with the court rules

Order accepting reply brief of DNC not in con-

formity with court rules

Reply Brief for DNC

Order denying CBS additional time for oral argu-

ment

Oral argument before Judges Wright, McGowan

and Robinson

Opinion of Court of Appeals by Judge Wright;

dissenting opinion by Judge McGowan

Judgment reversing and remanding to FCC

Motion of FCC to extend time to file petition for

rehearing to Aug. 31, 1971

Se oe ie ok oS aS ARELLANO ETS he

Docket Entries

DATE

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1971

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Opposition of BEM to motion of FCC to extend

time to file petition for rehearing

Opposition of DNC to motion of FCC to extend

time to file petition for rehearing

Motion of ABC for leave to file petition for re-

hearing

Order extending time to file petition of FCC for

rehearing to Aug. 31, 1971

Motion of ABC for leave to file petition for re-

hearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc

Consent of parties for NBC to file amicus curiae

brief

Motion of CBS for leave to file petition for re-

hearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc

Petition of FCC for rehearing and suggestion for

rehearing en banc

Order granting CBS leave to file petition for re-

hearing and to file suggestion for rehearing en

banc

Petition of CBS for rehearing and suggestion for

rehearing en banc

Motion of NBC to file brief as amicus curiae

Order directing Clerk to file brief of amicus curiae

in support of the petition for rehearing

Order denying petition for rehearing

Brief for NBC

Letter to counsel that no judge requested a vote

on suggestion for rehearing en banc and that no

action will be taken on said petition

Docket Entries

DATE

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

Oct.

Nov.

1971

Certified copy of opinion and judgment issued to

the FCC

Motion of FCC to recall mandate and for leave to

file motion for stay of mandate

Order directing FCC to return mandate issued on

Oct. 12, 1971 and directing Clerk to stay reissuance

until Oct. 22, 1971

Motion of FCC to further stay mandate to Nov.

22, 1971

Certified copy of mandate issued on Oct. 12, 1971

returned by FCC

Certified index to record returned by FCC

Order denying further motion of FCC for stay

of mandate

Answer of Post-Newsweek in support of motion

for stay of mandate

Certified copy of opinion and judgment reissued

to the FCC

Order denying the motion of FCC to further stay

mandate until Nov. 22, 1971

Receipt dated Nov. 5, 1971 from the FCC for

“Certified Index to the Record”

i al ai alin Sal eT eee rad oe then jenna ar See

Docket Entries

in the

United States Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.)

Business Executives’ Move for Vietnam Peace

v. Federal Communications Commission,

No. 24,492

(7)

“

— pets SF SRE EEE

Be ES) ae eS i oe

Docket Entries

DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1970

July 31

Aug. 8

Sept. 11

Petition of BEM for review of FCC inaction

equivalent to an order denying relief

Motion of BEM for temporary relief

Motion of BEM to suspend rules and order immedi-

ate hearing

Certified copies of petition for review mailed to

FCC and to Attorney General by certified mail

Response of FCC to motion for temporary relief

Certified mail receipt returned from Attorney

General

Certified mail receipt returned from FCC

Motion of BEM to file amended petition for review

Order directing Clerk to file amended petition of

BEM for review and extending time for filing of

responses to Sept. 21, 1970

Amended petition of BEM for review

Opposition of FCC to motion for temporary relief

Certified copy of amended petition for review

mailed to FCC

Certified copy of amended petition for review

mailed to Attorney General by certified mail

Motion of Post-Newsweek for leave to intervene

Motion of Post-Newsweek for leave to file opposi-

tion to request for temporary relief by Sept. 24,

1970

Order granting Post-Newsweek leave to intervene

Docket Entries

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

Nov.

Order granting Post-Newsweek leave to file opposi-

tion to request for temporary relief by Sept. 24,

1970

Objection of Post-Newsweek to request for tempo-

rary stay

Reply of BEM to objection to motion for tempo-

rary relief

Order denying motion of BEM for temporary re-

lief and directing counsel to submit by Oct. 9, 1970

an agreement setting forth dates on which briefs

and appendix will be filed

Order directing time for filing briefs and allowing

parties to proceed under Rule 30(c)

Certified index to record

Motion of BEM for leave to file motion to extend

time to file brief

Order granting motion of BEM for leave to file

motion to extend time to file brief and extending

time to Nov. 23, 1970

Brief for BEM

Motion of BEM for leave to file amended brief

Joint appendix to briefs

Motion of FCC for leave to file for Post-Newsweek

and FCC

Order granting motion of FCC for leave to file

motion to extend time to file brief and tending time

to Dec. 30, 1970

Brief for Post-Newsweek

Brief for FCC

Ni SAOSIN LOE SOE RRA OIE IE

Docket Entries

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

Aug.

Order granting motion for leave to file amended.

brief

Brief for FCC

Brief for Post-Newsweek

Motion of BEM for leave to file reply brief

Brief for FCC

Order granting motion of BEM for leave to file

reply briefs

Reply brief for BEM

Oral argument before Judges Wright, McGowan

and Robinson

Opinion of Court of Appeals by Judge Wright;

dissenting opinion by Judge McGowan

Judgment reversing and remanding to FCC

Motion of FCC to extend time to file petition for

rehearing to Aug. 31, 1971

Opposition of BEM to motion to extend time to

file petition for rehearing

Opposition of DNC to motion to extend time to

file petition for rehearing

Motion of Post-Newsweek for leave to file petition

for rehearing

Response of BEM in opposition to motion for leave

to file petition for rehearing

Motion of ABC for leave to file petition for re-

hearing

Order granting ABC leave to file petition for

rehearing and to file suggestion for rehearing

en banc and extending the time to file the petition

for rehearing by the FCC to Aug. 31, 1971

Docket Entries

DATE

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

Oct.

1971

Aug. 30

Petition of Post-Newsweek for rehearing and sug:

gestion for rehearing en banc

Petition of ABC for rehearing

Petition of FCC for rehearing and suggestion for

rehearing en banc

Order denying petitions of FCC, ABC and Post-

Newsweek for rehearing

Letter to counsel that no judge requested a vote

on suggestion for rehearing en banc and that no

action will be taken on said petition

Certified copy of opinion and judgment issued to

the FCC

Motion of FCC to recall mandate and for leave

to file motion for stay of mandate

Order directing FCC to return mandate issued on

Oct. 12, 1971 and directing Clerk to stay reissuance

until Oct. 22, 1971

Motion of FCC to further stay mandate to Nov. 22,

1971

Certified copy of mandate issued on October 12,

1971 returned by FCC

Certified index to record returned by FCC

Order denying further motion of FCC for stay

of mandate

Answer of Post-Newsweek in support of motion for

stay of mandate

Certified copy of opinion and judgment reissued

to the FCC

Order denying the motion of FCC to further stay

the mandate until Nov. 22, 1971

Receipt dated Nov. 12, 1971 from the FCC for the

“Certified Index to the Record”

FE PIAL OBOE IAIN NE

III

Relevant Pleadings Before and Orders

of the

Federal Communications Commission

Democratic National Committee, F.C.C. 70-861

(13)

Bo ieran 4!

_— PSY TIO CELT TIE

__ —

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20554

IN RE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Washington, D. C.

Request for Declaratory Ruling Concerning Access

to Time on Broadcast Stations

To: The Commission.

REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RULING

The Democratic National Committee (hereinafter

called the DNC), by its counsel, pursuant to Section

5(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 554(e), and Section 1.2 of the Commission’s regula-

tions, requests that the Commission issue a declaratory

ruling:

That under the First Amendment to the Constitu-

tion and the Communications Act, a broadcaster may

not, as a general policy, refuse to sell time to respon-

sible entities, such as the DNC, for the solicitation

of funds and for comment on public issues. Red

Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

The DNC is willing to purchase time at regular com-

mercial rates and is not at this time requesting a ruling

that free time for the specified purposes must be made

available to it.

*On the other hand, the DNC believes that the networks and

individual stations have a legal and moral responsibility to make

significantly more free time available to responsible groups for

public issue programming. In this connection it is important to

note the enormous profitability of the broadcast industry, the un-

precedented and unique impact of television on our society and the

urgent problems of public policy that our nation now faces.

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

The DNC Requires Access to the Broadcast

Media To Broaden Its Financial Base.

The DNC seeks this ruling for two interrelated pur-

poses, which it believes are essential to the continuation

and improvement of the nation’s political system. In the

words of the recently issued report of an expert and

prestigious non-partisan Commission on campaign costs

—the Voters’ Time report—the DNC hereby seeks:

1. “To guarantee that there is basic access to the

broadcast media for all significant candidates

. 3” and

2. “To stimulate effective citizen participation in

the processes of democratic government by en-

couraging small contributions to political cam-

paigns.” Voters’ Time, Report of the Twentieth

Century Fund, Commission on Campaign Costs

in the Electronic Era, p. 17 (1969) .?

The DNC incurred substantial financial obligations

during the 1968 presidential campaign. The DNC has

a pressing responsibility to eliminate this large indebt-

edness. An essential part of this effort is a wide-

spread radio and television campaign through which

political contributions will be solicited on a nationwide

basis. In 1970 America, this is the only way the DNC

ean effectively reach large numbers of small contribu-

tors to the extent necessary to satisfy its indebtedness

and to promote adequately its candidates and causes.

The DNC intends to request to purchase time on in-

dividual radio and television stations and on national

networks. It anticipates that time will be requested

both for the broadcast of specific programs of varying

2 The members of the Commission were Newton N. Minow (who

served as Chairman), Dean Burch, Thomas G. Corcoran, Alexander

Heard and Robert Price.

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

durations and for spot announcements of varying dura-

tions. Some presentations—both programs and an-

nouncements—will be primarily (or solely) devoted to

the solicitation of funds. Other presentations may con-

tain comment on then-current controversial issues of

public importance. For example, as part of this fund

raising campaign, the DNC may wish to utilize broad-

cast time to offer what it considers to be viable alterna-

tives to the policies of the present Republican Adminis-

tration.

The dramatically soaring costs of conducting modern

campaigns have dangerously increased the dependence

of candidates and political parties upon large contribu-

tors:

—In 1956, a little over forty percent of all contribu-

tions by individuals to the Democratic Party ex-

ceeded $500. In 1968, almost eighty percent of all

contributions by individuals to the Democratic

Party exceeded $500.°

—The Voters’ Time report points out that “between

1960 and 1964, the number of people who con-

tributed $500 or more to national-level committees

increased from about 4,000 to 6,700, and total re-

ceipts of both parties from this source increased

from $5.6 million to $8.3 million.” ¢

—The University of Michigan’s highly respected Sur-

vey Research Center estimates that only six percent

of the population made political contributions in

1968.

The DNC, like its counterpart in the Republican

Party, is profoundly concerned as national candidates

3 See Table 5, Voters’ Time, supra.

4Id. at 45.

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

become more and more dependent on fewer and fewer

contributors to whom they are forced to turn for higher

and higher percentages of continually increasing cam-

paign costs. As Leonard Hall, former Chairman of the

Republican National Committee, said:

“All of us engaged in political activity agree that

every effort should be made to interest more and more

individuals in political campaigns, and, in particular,

to increase the number who provide financial support

through their contribution. Every political leader is

desirous of broadening the base of financial support.

_ ”” Voters’ Time, supra, pp. 43-44.

A uniform conclusion of expert task forces and com-_

missions that look at this problem is: the concentration —

of political contributions in relatively few hands pre-

sents clear and present dangers to the integrity of our

political system. See e.g., Financing Presidential Cam-

paigns, Report of the President’s Commission on Cam-

paign Costs, p. 11 (1962); Financing a Better Election

System, Committee for Economic Development, p. 51

(1968) ; Voters’ Time, supra, Pp. 44 (1969).

First, such concentration may make certain candi-

dates unduly obligated to a few special interest groups.

See Financing a Better Election System, p. 51. Second,

as the report of President Kennedy’s Commission on

Campaign Costs noted:

“The heavy dependence of political parties in presi-

dential campaigns upon substantial gifts from and

expenditures by a relatively small number of indi-

viduals and organizations lends itself to wide-spread

misinterpretations.” At p. 11.

Third, it has been suggested that the erroneous impres-

sions derived from undue concentration of political con-

tributions may lead to a cynicism that could ultimately

destroy democracy. Voters’ Time, supra, at p. 44.

—_—

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

Television and radio—whose expense has been the ma-

jor cause of this dangerous political situation—may also

be its cure. Access to broadcast facilities is the most

expensive and the most critical feature in the conduct

of a present-day political campaign. In 1968, the total

cost for political advertising on television and radio was

approximately $90 million—or almost one-third of all

money spent in political campaigning that year. That

$90 million is. almost three times the $34 million federal

budget for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs;

eighteen times the $5 million budget for the civil rights

enforcement activities in the Department of Justice; and

almost four times the $24.9 million budget of the Fed-

eral Communications Commission itself.° The astronom-

ical expenditure of $90 million is a reflection of the reach

and impact which political experts attribute to the broad-

cast media. See MacNeil, The People Machine: The In-

fluence of Television on American Politics (1968);

J. F. Kennedy, A Force That Has Changed The Political

scene, TV Guide, Nov. 14, 1959.

A political organization seeking the attention and

support of potential small contributors must have access

to the broadcast media. Television, in particular, is

unquestionably without peer in its ability to reach the

nation. Television has brought the Vietnam war, racial

strife and student disorder into every living room in

America with consequences for our society we cannot

yet fully perceive. It is only through this medium that

an effective nationwide campaign such as the DNC pro-

poses can be launched.

The importance of access to television—and the ex-

posure which such access brings—was recently under-

5 See Alexander and Myers, A Financial Landslide for the GOP,

Fortune, March 1970, p. 104, 189.

* The Budget of the United States Government, Fis@al Year 1971.

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

scored by the Senate Committee on Commerce during its

evaluation of amendments to the political broadcast pro-

visions of section 315 of the Communications Act when

it noted:

“Television has become the most accepted medium

of mass communication in the United States. Nine-

ty-five percent of all American homes have tele-

vision sets.

“The air waves, especially those used for television,

now play @ dominant role in political campaigning.

During the 1968 presidential election campaign a

candidate could with a single message lasting one

minute, presented within one program, on one tele-

vision network, reach as many as 23 million view-

ers of voting age—a number equal to almost a

third of the votes cast in that election. Prior to

television, with the most intensive campaign, a can-

didate could have reached only a small fraction of

that audience.” S. Rep. No. 91-751 To Accompany

S. 3687, 91st Cong., 9d Sess., March 25, 1970, p.

5." (Emphasis supplied. )

The evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that the

use of the broadcast media is the most effective way to

broaden the financial base of a political party.

One television appeal by then National Republican

Committee Chairman Dean Burch, on October 19, 1964,

produced what one Republican official termed “the most

phenomenal outpouring” of financial political support in

the history of this country. See The Evening Star,

October 23, 1964. Within three days after this tele

eiiaennbnnies

7The subsequent deliberations on S. 3687 on the Senate Floor

contain repeated references to the critical importance of television

and radio to political campaigning and deep concern of the Senate

with the expense involved in obtaining adequate exposure through

the use of broadcast media. See, @.9- comments of Senator Pastore,

116 Cong. Rec. at $5634, April 13, 1970.

PEST RPS RT SAAN EET IN — |

a ———

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

vision appeal, the Republican Party had received 70,000

letters and thirty-five hundred money orders. In all, it

has been calculated that television appearances by Mr.

Burch during the 1964 campaign harvested at least

100,000 contributions in amounts of less than $100. See

Alexander and Myers, The Switch in Campaign Giving,

Fortune, November 1965, p. 212.

Similarly, a handful of network television solicita-

tions during September and October 1968 produced al-

most $800,000 in campaign funds for the Democratic

nominee, Hubert H. Humphrey. These contributions,

which were sent to a post office box number which was

advertised only in those few television spots, averaged

$10 apiece, and none exceeded $100.°

Therefore, the DNC has concluded that, if it is to

achieve the broad financial base which it, as well as

many respected commissions, believes to be essential to

the integrity of this nation’s political process, it must

promptly launch a nationwide radio and television cam-

paign of the type described.’

There is an Urgent Need for the Declaratory

Ruling at an Early Time.

The DNC has several million dollars of debts which

are long overdue. It has an urgent responsibility to

satisfy these debts as promptly as possible. To develop

8 We are informed that a recent television appeal by five United

States Senators for funds to promote peace in Southeast Asia

produced an estimated $100,000 in small contributions within the

first two days after the telecast.

®° Even with this campaign, it is the belief of the DNC Chairman

that in the 1972 Presidential campaign, the Republican Party will

have $50 million to spend, while the Democratic Party is likely to

have only one-fifth of that amount or $10 million. The New York

Times, March 29, 1970, p. 1. Without the successful implementa-

tion of the current campaign that disparity will only be increased.

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

and produce the materials to be used in the contemplated

campaign will require the expenditure of thousands of

dollars.” Indeed, the DNC is currently attempting to

raise, independent of funds already dedicated, substan-

tial sums to be used exclusively in the campaign. The

DNC is most reluctant, particularly in view of its pres-

ent financial condition, to undertake the expenditures

necessary to the complete development of a successful

campaign unless it can be certain that it will be able to

obtain the access to the broadcast media which imple-

mentation of the plan demands. On the other hand,

once the Commission gives it the assurances sought by

this request, the DNC will forthwith begin to purchase

time to carry out its plan.

The DNC, both over the years and in the preliminary

planning of the present campaign, has had extensive

dealings with broadcasters. The DNC’s experiences in

this area make it clear that it will encounter consid-

erable difficulty—if not total frustration of its efforts—

in carrying out its plans in the event the Comission

should decline to issue a ruling as requested. By way of

examples:

A. The “Election Campaign” Policy. The CBS

television network quite recently flatly rejected a

request by the DNC to purchase one-half hour of

prime time. The DNC planned to present an issue-

oriented program which would have included an

In reporting on this incident, The New York

Times on March 22, 1970, quoted Richard W.

10 The DNC obviously expects that the returns will justify the

expense, otherwise it would not undertake the project at all.

ee 2

- ea aT SRS SPELL SPE YT = .

Re eS LYLE ASLO TENE ER s97

—

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

Jencks, President of the CBS Broadcast Group, as

saying that CBS’ policies “do not permit the sale

of time for presenting currently controversial points

of view except during election campaigns.” ”

B. The “Controversial Issue” Policy. A common

policy of broadcast stations is to refuse to sell an-

nouncement or program time for the broadcast of

views on controversial issues of public importance.

For example, the Post-Newsweek Stations in Wash-

ington, D. C—WTOP-AM-FM-TV—have “long had

a policy of not accepting spot announcements deal-

ing with controversial issues, .. .” as reflected in a

February 5, 1970 letter from Larry H. Israel,

Chairman of the Board of the Stations, to William

B. Ray of the Commission’s Complaints and Com-

pliance Division."* Indeed, the CBS Network policy

is to this effect, as indicatea above, although CBS

may—it is not altogether clear—,eclax that policy

during “election campaigns.”

C. The “Fund. Solicitation” Policy. Numerous

stations have enunciated policies that neither spot

announcements nor program time will be made

available where the proposed user of the time in-

tends to solicit funds, as would the DNC in this

campaign. For example, the ABC Network and its

owned and operated stations have a “general pol-

icy” against solicitations which can be, and is,

11 The Times went on to attribute to Mr. Jencks statements about

other

groups—i.e., supporters of the United Nations and opponents

of ABM—which had recently been denied time on the basis of CBS’

arbitrary policy.

12The Commission currently has before it a complaint by a

businessmen’s association against WTOP with respect to the sta-

tion’s policy. The instant DNC request for ruling, of course,

involves much wider and more fundamental public interest con-

siderations.

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

relaxed, with the company’s approval.” What any

such policy means in practice is that a station will

permit its facilities to be used for solicitation by

certain groups in certain circumstances.” Thus,

stations carry public service announcements for fa-

vored groups as well as religious presentations

which contain both direct and indirect appeals for

funds. In fact, every commercial announcement, in

the last analysis, is a solicitation for funds.

There may be still other “general policies” which would

have applicability to the campaign. Certainly, the num-

ber of stations alone portends greater problems in this

i area than have already been encountered. In addition to

= the three national commercial networks, as of April 1,

% 1970, there were, on the air, 509 commercial VHF tele-

4 vision stations, 180 commercial UHF stations, 4,280

| standard broadcast stations, and 2,111 commercial FM

stations. While several of these stations have common

owners, it does not necessarily follow that every station

owned by an individual or group would follow the same

policies.

There are a variety of policies which any of these

thousands of stations could follow to prevent the Demo-

cratic National Committee from carrying out its proposed

campaign. One station might ban the campaign because

it involves a solicitation of funds. Another, which per-

mits solicitation of funds, might ban the campaign on the

13 See, for example, WBKEB-TV, Chicago, Illinois, Renewal Appli-

cation, File No. BRCT-21, dated August 30, 1967, Exhibit 5,

§ III, p. 2.

14 The stations appear to make their exceptions in an arbitrary

and capricious manner without any rational standard. We do not

question the limitation of access to “responsible” groups. We do

submit that under the “responsible” group de jure theory, the

stations are de facto discriminatory in an unreasonable and im-

proper way.

sn i a is al aa ll LDV ER RLS GE PE

—¥

——

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

grounds that the proposed spot contained controversial

material on a major political issue of the day. Still

others might justify a ban on the ground that there was

no election campaign (or no national election campaign)

in process.

It is obvious that there must be a national, uniform

communications policy with respect to the activities of a

responsible group, such as the DNC, that would permit

the kind of access through which funds could be solicited

and the American people could be informed of divergent

views on national issues. Without action by this Com-

mission, there will be no such policy.

The DNC Has a Constitutional and Statutory Right

to the Media Access It Now Seeks.

A broadcaster may not constitutionally adopt artificial

and arbitrary barriers to access to its facilities by re

sponsible groups. In its unanimous landmark decision,

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969),

the Supreme Court emphasized that it is the public’s right

to hear contrasting viewpoints which is protected by the

First Amendment, not the broadcaster’s freedom to pre-

sent only those viewpoints which accord with his own.

In this respect, the Court said:

“This is not to say that the First Amendment is

irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary,

it has a major role to play as the Congress itself

recognized in § 326, which forbids FCC interference

with ‘the right of free speech by means of radio com-

munication.’ Because of the scarcity of radio fre-

quencies, the Government is permitted to put re-

straints on licensees in favor of others whose views

should be expressed on this unique medium. But

the people as a whole retain their interest in free

speech by radio and their collective right to have

the medium function consistently with the ends and

a eed

a RET?

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right

of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the

broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sand-

ers Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940);

FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358,

361-62 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass

Communications 546 (1947 ). It is the purpose of

the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited

marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately

prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization

of that market, whether it be by the Government

itself or a private licensee. Associated Press Vv.

United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945); New York

Times Co. v. Sullivan, 876 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) ;

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 680 (1919)

(Holmes, J., dissenting). ‘[S]peech concerning pub-

lic affairs is more than self-expression; it is the es-

sence of self-government.’ Garrison v. Louisiana,

379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964). See Brannan, The Su-

preme Court and the Meiklejohn Interpretation of

the First Amendment, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1965).

It is the right of the public to receive suitable access

to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas

and experiences which is crucial here. That right

may not constitutionally be abridged either by Con-

gress or by the FCC.” 395 U.S. at 389-90 (emphasis

supplied).

The Court also employed language that would extend

to members of the public the right of access to broadcast

facilities. For example, the Court said:

“By the same token, as far as the First Amend-

ment is concerned those who are licensed stand no

better than those to whom licenses are refused.

license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no

constitutional right to be the one who holds the

license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the

exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in

the First Amendment which prevents the Govern-

SEALE LICL LE a PETE: PeIGTE ystaedr rset SGT SP EID a” Ts

a ——

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

ment from requiring a licensee to share his fre-

quency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy

or fiduciary with obligations to present those views

and voices which are representative of his community

and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred

from the airwaves.” 395 U.S. at 389.

In a somewhat similar fashion, the Supreme Court added:

“It does not violate the First Amendment to treat

licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio

frequencies as proxies for the entire community,

obligated to give suitable time and attention to mat-

ters of great public concern. To condition the grant-

ing or renewal of licenses on a willingness to present

representative community views on controversial is-

sues is consistent with the ends and purposes of

those constitutional provisions forbidding the abridg-

ment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Congress need not stand idly by and permit those

with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the

people or to exclude from the airways anything but

their own views of fundamental questions. The

statute, long administrative practice, and cases are

to this effect.” 395 U.S. at 394.

This language of the Court should be contrasted with

the assertion of Mr. Jencks—as reported in the March

22, 1970 edition of The New York Times—that CBS’

policy has roots in his company’s “belief that [its] news

organization can give a fairer presentation” than others.

As thus described by Mr. Jencks, the CBS policy ex-

plicity violates the constitutional standards set down by

the Court in Red Lion.

The DNC submits that arbitrary barriers, contrary

to the law as established in Red Lion, are erected to

meaningful access when, for example, a national televis-

ion network asserts that time for “political broadcasts”

will be sold only during certain periods every other, or

ats

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

every fourth, year. The DNC submits that arbitrary

barriers, contrary to the law as established in Red Lion,

are created when a local station pursues a policy of not

selling spot or program time to responsible parties who

wish to comment on controversial issues of public im-

portance.” Finally, in this regard, the DNC submits that

arbitrary and capricious barriers, contrary to the law as

established in Red Lion, are created when a broadcaster

proffers, as a reason for refusing to sell time to a re-

sponsible group, a policy that it will not permit the so-

licitation of funds over its facilities. These are, how-

ever, precisely the types of policies which the DNC now

faces in its effort to carry out a meaningful fund-raising

campaign.”

The DNC does not contend, and it need not contend,

that broadcasters are precluded from establishing rea-

sonable restrictions regarding the use by others of the

facilities for which they hold licenses. Broadcasters can,

for example, limit the use of facilities to presentations

by responsible spokesmen. Similarly, even where re-

sponsible spokesmen are to appear, broadcasters can adopt

and implement whatever procedures may be needed to

ensure that the use of facilities, for example, is in good

taste or does not result in the presentation of slanderous

material.

15 The DNC submits that this is so under Red Lion whether a

station argues that it has literally adhered to the terms of the

fairness doctrine either because of the “balance” which it has

achieved or because of the innocuous nature of the material which

the broadcaster permits to be transmitted over the facilities to

which its license pertains.

16Qn May 15, 1970, the Commission gave notice of the institu-

tion of proceedings looking to the adoption of rules, implementing

Red Lion, which would require broadcasters, in certain situations

to open up their stations to others. This is what the DNC here

seeks, but in a broader context than that proceeding appears to

SF WO SR oD a ely EERO |

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

On the other hand, in considering what restrictions

are reasonable in this area, the broadcaster and the Com-

mission must remain mindful of the importance of broad-

cast media to anyone desiring to make an effective na-

tionwide presentation. And, of course, the pronounce-

ments by the Supreme Court in Red Lion—based on the

public’s rights under the First Amendment—would pre-

clude the adoption of fixed and inviolate policies of the

types with which the DNC is now faced.

There is a critical question of public policy, as well as

constitutional law, involved here: Are the public air-

waves—the most powerful communications media in our

democracy—to be used to solicit funds for soap, bras-

sieres, deodorants and mouthwashes and not to solicit

funds to enhance the exchange of ideas?

The Commission is accordingly requested to rule—in

order to remove a substantial uncertainty—that for a

broadcaster to refuse to sell time to responsible entities,

such as the DNC, for the solicitation of funds and for

comment on public issues, because of the broadcaster's

“general policies” against selling time for such purposes,

violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States and the Communications Act.

The “Public Interest” Standards of the

Communications Act Are Violated by

the “General Polices” Here Involved.

Should the Commission decline to issue this ruling, a

refusal of a broadcaster to sell time to the DNC should

nevertheless be evaluated by the Commission in a manner

adverse to the broadcaster in its consideration of the re-

newal application. The Commission is, thus, alterna-

tively, requested to so rule.

_ Some of the public interest considerations surrounding

| the present proposal of the DNC have been enumerated

—__ Pe

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling qi

above. The United States Supreme Court has had occa-

sion to address itself to the importance of the broadcast

media to political expression:

“Recognizing radio’s potential importance aS @ me-

dium of communication of political ideas, Congress

sought to foster its broadest possible utilization by

encouraging broadcasting stations to make their

facilities available to candidates for office without

discrimination, and by insuring that these candidates

when broadcasting were not to be hampered by

censorship of the issues they could discuss. Thus,

expressly applying this country’s tradition of free

expression to the field of radio broadcasting, Con-

gress has from the first emphatically forbidden the

Commission to exercise any power of censorship over

radio communication. It is in line with this same

tradition that the individual licensee has consistently

been denied ‘power of censorship’ in the vital area of

political broadcasts.” Farmers Ed. & Coop. Union

vy. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525, 529-30 (1959).

The Commission has frequently had occasion to com-

ment upon the public interest considerations inherent in

a broadcaster’s making time available for political broad-

casts. Indeed, in the Report and Statement of Policy

Re: Commission En Banc Programming Inquiry, 20 P

& F Radio Reg. 1901 (1960), the Commission included

political broadcasts as among the “major elements neces-

sary to meet the public interest, needs and desires” of a

station’s community.

The Commission has found, moreover, in situations

where no violation of section 315 of the Communications

Act had occurred, that the imposition of artificial restric-

tions, in terms of allotted time, for the use of facilities

by political candidates, was contrary to the public in-

terest. The Commission expressed particular concern

with judgments as to the amounts of time to be made

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

available which were “arbitrarily determined in advance”

of an election and which bore no relationship to the

importance of the election to which the arbitrary limita-

tions applied. Homer P. Rainey, 3 P & F Radio Reg. 737

(1947).

Also pertinent are the Commission’s determinations,

in the context of comparative broadcast proceedings, that

a licensee’s practice in refusing, inter alia, to carry po-

litical broadcasts involving local and state political of-

fices are indicative of a tendency to disregard local pro-

gramming needs. City of Jacksonville, 12 P & F Radio

Reg. 113, 180j (1956); see also Loyola University, 12

P & F Radio Reg. 1017, 1099 (1956).

Instructive as well is the following discussion in the

Commission’s ruling on the question of whether biparti-

san spot announcements soliciting funds for political par-

ties would be subject to the fairness doctrine:

“In conclusion, we think two other observations are

in order. First, we recognize that the announce-

ments described by you constitute an effort to

achieve the worthwhile and commendable goal of

broadening the base of political contributions. The

importance of this effort was recently emphasized

when, on May 29, 1962, President Kennedy trans- ~

mitted to the President of the Senate and the Speak-

er of the House of Representatives legislation de-

signed to carry out five of the important recommen-

dations contained in the ‘Report on the President's

Commission on Campaign Costs.’ In his letter of

transmittal, the President stated, among other things:

‘In these days when the public interest demands

basic decision so essential to our security and

survival, public policy should enable presidential

candidates to free themselves of dependence on

large contributions of those with special in-

terests. Accordingly, it is essential to broaden

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling ‘

the base of financial support for candidates and

parties. To accomplish this, improvement of

public understanding of campaign finance,

coupled with a system of incentives for solici-

tation and giving, is necessary.’

“Furthermore, your proposal has an objective, in

common with the broad policy underlying the ‘fair-

ness doctrine’—the right of the public in a free s0-

ciety to be fully informed as to controversial is-

sues of public importance, including those involving

political parties and candidates. See paragraph 6

of enclosed Editorializing Report.

“Second, the question whether to present such an-

nouncements is one for the licensee, who is f

with many competing requests to allocate time for

public service announcements. The Commission

course expresses no opinion as to how that time

should be allocated. But the announcements in ques-

tion should not be rejected upon the sole ground that

the licensee would have tobe fair in their presenta-

tion.” Lawrence M. C. Smith, 25 P & F Radio Reg.

991, at 298 (1963).

The DNC is mindful of the provisions of sections 3(i)*

and 326 of the Communications Act and of rulings, such

as that issued by the Commission in its November 22,

1965 letter to the Women’s Washington Strike for Peace,

to the effect that:

“with respect to the refusal of the station to sell

time for spot announcements, under the Communi-

cations Act, the selection and presentation of broad-

cast material are the responsibilities of the individ-

——

11 Section 3(i) is intended, we submit, simply to exempt broad-

casters from the panoply of common carrier regulation provided for

in Title II of the Communications Act. It should not be permitted

as a defense to & challenge to & broadcaster that its policies re-

stricting access to the licensed facilities by others are contrary to

the public interest.

—

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

ual station licensees, and Section 326 of the Act ex-

pressly prohibits the exercise of censorship powers

by the Commission. . . .”

The response to those matters insofar as they pertain

to this request is that they all predate the Red Lion de-

cision. The Commission’s regulation of broadcast sta-

tion programming has undergone rapid development over

the past few years which culminated in the Red Lion

decision. It is now clear that in the field of broadcasting

it is principally the public and not the broadcaster which

the First Amendment is designed to protect.

Moreover, it is not necessary for the Commission to

rule that a broadcaster must present programs or an-

nouncements of any particular nature proffered by any

particular concern. The Commission must rule, however,

that to establish arbitrary barriers to access on the part

of responsible groups, such as the DNC, is contrary to

the First Amendment and to the Communications Act as

construed in Red Lion, or, in the alternative, that such

barriers—in the case of the DNC’s present campaign or

in general—are, per se, contrary to the public interest.

CONCLUSION

To insure the basic access to the broadcast media

guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution

and the Communications Act, and to enable the political

parties of this country to broaden significantly their fi-

nancial base, the Commission is hereby respectfully urged

to issue as promptly as possible a declaratory ruling, pro-

viding that:

a. A broadcaster may not, as a general policy,

refuse to sell time to responsible entities, such as the

DNC, for the solicitation of funds and for comment

on public issues; or, alternatively,

“

a A RIERA TIN LINHA NT PS RIT

Request of DNC for Declaratory Ruling

b. Any such “general policy” will be taken into

consideration—in a manner adverse to the broad-

caster—by the Commission in evaluating whether

the grant of a broadcaster’s renewal application ac-

cords with the public interest.

Respectfully submitted,

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

By /s/ Joseph A. Califano, Jr.

JosePH A. CALIFANO, JR.

1229 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

General Counsel *

Of Counsel:

David H. Lloyd

1229 Nineteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

May 19, 1970

(Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]

a ———

Letter of May 22, 1970 to ABC

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20554

May 22, 1970

In Reply Refer to:

8330

C5-1344

American Broadcasting Company, Inc.

1330 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019

Gentlemen:

The Commission has received a “Request for Declaratory

Ruling Concerning Access to Time on Broadcast Stations”

from the Democratic National Committee, a copy of which

was served upon you by the Committee.

The Committee requests that the Commission rule that

“a broadcaster may not, as a general policy, refuse to sell

time to responsible entities, such as the DNC, for the

solicitation of funds and for comment on public issues”

or, alternatively, that such a general policy “will be taken

into consideration—in a manner adverse to the broad-

caster—by the Commission in evaluating whether the

grant of a broadcaster’s renewal application accords with

the public interest.”

On page 13 of its Request, the Committee refers to the

American Broadcasting Company’s policies in this area.

In order that it may be more fully informed, the Com-

mission requests that you submit your comments upon

the particular reference to ABC, and any other comments

which you may wish to submit regarding the Request

for Declaratory Ruling.

Biers Dea

Letter of May 22, 1970

Please submit your comment within twenty days of the

date of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ William B. Ray

WrLiAM B. Ray, Chief

Complaints and Compliance Division

for Chief, Broadcast Bureau

ec: Robert Kaufman, Esq.

Alfred Beckman, Esq.

Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Esq.

Letter of May 22, 1970 to CBS

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20554

May 22, 1970

In Reply Refer to:.

8330

C5-1344

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

51 West 52nd Street

New York, New York 10019

Gentlemen:

The Commission has received a “Request for Declaratory

Ruling Concerning Access to Time on Broadcast Stations”

from the Democratic National Committee, a copy of which

was served upon you by the Committee.

The Committee requests that the Commission rule that

“a broadcaster may not, as a general policy, refuse to

sell time to responsible entities, such as the DNC, for

the solicitation of funds and for comment on public is-

sues” or, alternatively, that such a general policy “will

be taken into consideration—in a manner adverse to the

broadcaster—by the Commission in evaluating whether

the grant of a broadcaster’s renewal application accords

with the interest.”

On pages 11, 12 and 17 of its Request, the Committee

refers to the Columbia Broadcasting System’s policies in

this area.

In order that it may be more fully informed, the Com-

mission requests that you submit your comments upon

the particular references to CBS and any other comments

which you may wish to submit regarding the Request for

Declaratory Ruling.

— LEENA IIL LIN LLP LAL LEI OE TEEN

Letter of May 22, 1970

Please submit your comments within twenty days of the

date of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ William B. Ray

WILLuaM B. Ray, Chief

Complaints and Compliance Division

for Chief, Broadcast Bureau

ec: Joseph DeFranco, Esq.

Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Esq.

Letter of May 27, 1970

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA

[CWA Emblem]

(Affiliated with AFL-CIO)

1925 K Street, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

[Union Label]

Telephone: FEderal 7-7711

JOSEPH A. BEIRNE, President

May 27, 1970

The Honorable Dean Burch, Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D. C.

My dear Mr. Chairman:

This is in support of the request for Declaratory Rul-

ing, filed May 19, 1970, with the Commission by the

Democratic National Committee through its General Coun-

sel, Joseph A. Califano, Jr.

It is a travesty that the broadcasting stations and

networks have refused the reasonable request of the DNC

for the purchase of broadcast time at standard rates.

The wrong is compounded by the necessity for the DNC

to pray to the Commission for relief.

The broadcasters’ action to deny is contradictory to

the precedents of the last six years. In 1964, the Re-

publican National Committee purchased broadcast time

to make a nationwide solicitation for political campaign

funds. The Republican group did in fact receive money

as a direct result of the solicitation. The broadcasters

who accepted the Republican purchase of time would dis-

tort reality were they to contend that they had no means

Letter of May 27, 1970

of knowing that a funds solicitation was to be carried

on the airwaves.

In 1968, the Democratic National Committee used

broadcast media for funds, again with the full knowledge

of the broadcasters.

The broadcasters’ contention that political proadcast-

ing will be accepted only in “political campaign” periods

is specious, inasmuch as the broadcasters themselves have

in effect taken it upon themselves to determine the cam-

paign period. The Party or candidate involved should

be the one who determines when the campaign opens.

Political campaigns have been in progress in every month

of the year.

The Communications Act and the Rules of the Com-

mission which flow therefrom impose positive duties on

broadcasters to serve their communities, one means of

which is in the public affairs field. Political issues, by

their very nature controversial, fall within the public

affairs category-

The broadcasters also are attempting to deny the use

f the airwaves on the grounds that the DNC will enter

i with the funds

ionably true. However, the

communities, the programs being

zations are quite controversial.

rticipation in the processes

aging small contri-

Earn

}

Letter of May 27, 1970

It would be entirely wrong for the Parties to become the

chosen instruments of special interest donors of large

amounts.

I should hope that the Commission will act quickly to

resolve the questions raised by the Democratic National

Committee, and direct the broadcasters to make the broad-

cast facilities available. Since there are sufficient recent

precedents, this issue appears uncomplicated. The broad-

casters must be informed once again that they do not

own the airwaves, but merely are the fiduciaries, to whom

certain duties pertain.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ J. A. Beirne

JOSEPH A. BEIRNE

President

Comments of ABC.

AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.

1330 Avenue of the Americas @ New York, N. Y. 10019

LT 1-7777

EVERETT H. ERLICK

Group Vice President and General Counsel

June 10, 1970

Mr. William B. Ray, Chief

Complaints and Compliance Division

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D. C. 20554

Your Reference 8330

C5-1344

Dear Mr. Ray:

By letter to American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

(“ABC”) dated May 22, 1970, you stated that the Com-

mission had received a “Request for Declaratory Ruling

Concerning Access to Time on Broadcast Stations” from

the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”). In that

pleading DNC requested a ruling that “a broadcaster

may not, as a general policy, refuse to sell time to re-

sponsible entities, such as the DNC, for the solicitation

of funds and for comment on public issues.” You re

quested ABC to comment in particular on an allegation

in said pleading (p. 13) that the ABC network and its

owned and operated stations have a “general policy”

against solicitations, “which can be, and is, relaxed, with

the company’s approval.”

DNC’s citation is to a portion of ABC’s Standards and

Policies, on file with the Commission (e.g. BAL-5733,

Exhibit 1-3, Attachment B, Section III), dealing with

“Appeals for Charity.” That provision, not here appli-

cable, states (p. 2): .

Comments of ABC

ABC reserves the right to determine which appeals

(for charity) may be made over its facilities. No

direct solicitation of funds may be made without

specific permission of ABC. The client is required

to consult with ABC before arranging to include

appeals for charity in any program.’

ABC’s Standards elsewhere provide (p. 4):

Discussion of political or controversial issues may

not be included by sponsors in their regularly sched-

uled programs advertising goods and services, except

when, in the opinion of ABC, it does not contravene

the public interest.

Elsewhere ABC’s Standards restrict as follows the so-

licitation of funds on religious broadcasts (p. 26):

Solicitation of funds will be permitted on religious

broadcasts to the extent that the following announce-

ment may precede or follow the program proper:

‘You are invited to send your free will gifts and

offerings for the support of this program to (name

of program, box number, city and state).’

Religious sponsors may not ask the public to buy

their publications. “

Equally pertinent to DNC’s pleading are the following

provisions in ABC’s Standards dealing with “Political

Programs” (pp. 27-28) :

Effective with the opening of a local, state or na-

tional campaign as determined on the basis of the

appropriate election laws, ABC will sell time for

political programs to legally qualified candidates,

their duly authorized representatives, or their politi-

cal organizations which show substantial evidence of

1 Emphasis supplied throughout this letter.

Comments of ABC

their activity in the campaign such as through public

participation. .. -

In addition, ABC will sell time for political pro-

grams prior to the official opening of a campaign

and starting on 4 date to be determined by the

American Broadcasting Company, to individuals and

organizations. ABC reserves the right to decide

whether such individuals or organizations seeking to

precampaign time for political programs

are duly qualified to discuss and have a recogni

interest in the forthcoming campaign.

Also directly in point, with respect to DNC’s pleading

of May 19, 1970, are the following excerpts from ABC’s

current Standards and Policies dealing with “Controver-

sial Issue Programming” :

will continue to use its facilities for the presenta-

tion of the views of responsible individuals and or-

structure.

Whenever ABC permits its facilities to be used for

the presentation of one viewpoint on @ controversial

issue of public importance, it will afford reasonable

opportunity for the presentation of contrasting views.

Balance need not be achieved on the same program,

but when considered on an overall basis, ABC’s pro-

ing will present the contrasting viewpoints on

controversial public issues.

Comments of ABC

ABC will determine what subjects are of such in-

terest or importance as to warrant time for their

presentation. ABC will also decide whether it will

present a contrasting viewpoint itself, or if not,

which individuals or organizations seeking time are

best qualified to discuss a subject chosen for broad-

cast treatment or are most representative of a view-

point selected for presentation.

Comment: on or discussion of current or proposed

legislation or pending litigation will be permitted

only on political, news, news commentary, discussion

and controversial issue programs. Comment on or

discussion of pending litigation must be within the

bounds of fair comment in order not to prejudice

the outcome.

Absent special public interest considerations, ABC

will not sell time for controversial issue programs

or announcements or permit the solicitation of funds

or the sale of publications on controversial issue

broadcasts.

In short, absent special public interest considerations,

ABC will not sell time for comment on controversial is-

sues or for solicitation of funds.

ABC offers the following additional comments on the

Request for Declaratory Ruling:

The continued strength and viability of our two party

system are of vital importance. ABC has emphasized in

recent Congressional hearings the importance of a wider

base for political contributions—small sums from millions

of Americans rather than large contributions from a

few.

Of course, there are many controversial public issues

and dozens of responsible organizations advocating all

Comments of ABC

shades of opinion on such issues. Were we to open the

door entirely to any “responsible entity” who wished to

purchase time for programs or announcements in which

to espouse its point of view on controversial issues of

public importance and/or to solicit funds, we think it

reasonable to anticipate a flood of such requests. The

obvious problems would be, in each instance, compliance

with the “Fairness Doctrine” and where to draw the

line.

Because the strength and viability of the major politi-

cal parties are vitally important, ABC would be prepared,

consistent with its other obligations, to accept such orders

for time from major political parties as can be accom-

modated on a reasonable basis. At the same time, we

propose to continue our general policy against the sale

of time for controversial issue programs and announce-

ments and solicitations for funds, absent special public

interest considerations.

As a licensee, and as a responsible member of the com-

munity, ABC submits that the foregoing policies, so long

as they are reasonably applied, are entirely appropriate.

In its Declaratory Ruling, or by separate letter, the Com-

mission may wish to address itself to ABC’s proposed

treatment of the issue.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Everett H. Erlick

EVERETT H. ERLICK

NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.

1725 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C., EMerson 2-4000

Comments of NBC

June 22, 1970

Howard Monderer

Washington Attorney

Hilburt Slosberg, Esq.

Office of General Counsel

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D. C. 20554

Dear Mr. Slosberg:

Pursuant to your request for a statement on the sub-

ject, NBC has no policy which prevents it from accepting

Several months ago, in discussions with a representa-

Respectfully yours,

/8/ Howard Monderer

HOWARD MONDERER

Comments of CBS

CBS

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

51 West 52 Street

New York, New York 10010

(212) 7165-4821

Robert V. Evans

Vice President and General Counsel

June 22, 1970

Mr. William B. Ray, Chief

Complaints and Compliance Division

Federal Communications Commission

1919 “M” Street, N. W.

Washington, D. ©. 20036

Re: Commission Reference 8330

C5-13844

Dear Mr. Ray:

This is in response to your May 22 letter requesting the

comments of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. on

the “Democratic National Committee Request for Declar-

atory Ruling Concerning Access to Time on Broadcast

Stations” (hereinafter “DNC Request”). The DNC asks

the Commission to rule:

a general policy will be taken into consideration—

in a manner adverse to the proadecaster—by the Com-

mission in evaluating whether the grant of a broad-

caster’s renewal application accords with the inter-

est.’ ”

CBS welcomes this opportunity to comment on the DNC

Request. The DNC Request poses 2 fundamental chal-

Comments of CBS

lenge to the ability of a broadcast licensee to establish

and follow general policies best articulated in the licen-

see’s judgment to insure that controversial issues are cov-

ered fully and fairly. The DNC Request also calls into

question long standing FCC regulatory policy in this im-

portant area. In essence, the DNC now requests, with-

out any allegation or showing of inadequate coverage,

that this Commission repudiate the regulatory philosophy

it enunciated in adopting the Fairness Doctrine, Jn the

Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, and has

since consistently reiterated:

“It is apparent that our system of broadcasting,

under which private persons and organizations are

licensed to provide broadcasting service to the vari-

ous communities and regions, imposes responsibility

in the selection and presentation of radio program

material upon such licensees. Congress has recog-

nized that the requests for radio time may far ex-

ceed the amount of time reasonably available for

distribution by broadcasters. It provided, therefore,

in §3(h) of the Communications Act that a person

engaged in radio broadcasting shall not be deemed

a common carrier. It is the licensee, therefore, who

must determine what percentage of the limited

broadcast day should appropriately be devoted to

news and discussion or consideration of public is-

sues, rather than to the other legitimate services of

radio broadcasting, and who must select or be re-

sponsible for the selection of the particular news

items to be reported or the particular local, state,

national or international issues or questions of public

interest to be considered, as well as the person or

persons to comment or analyze the news or to dis-

cuss or debate the issues chosen as topics for radio

consideration.” 13 F.C.C. 1246, 1247, 25 R.R. 1901,

1903 (1949).

Comments of CBS

We endeavor in these comments to show that CBS’s pres-

ent method of handling controversial issues serves the

public interest in obtaining full, fair and informative

discussion, and that there is no need for a new compul-

sory carriage rule that would unbalance programming

and have a host of other undesirable effects. We further

demonstrate that there is no statutory or constitutional

right to the relief requested by the DNC. To the con-

trary, the rule would contravene the statutory policy set

forth in Sections 3(h) and 326 of the Communications

Act.

I. The DNC Has Misunderstood CBS Policies Relat-

ing To The Presentation Of Controversial Issues.

CBS Policies Insure Full And Fair Presentation

Of Controversial Issues.

The DNC Request has incorrectly described CBS policies

(pages 11, 12 and 17 of the DNC Request). We, there-

fore, outline those policies and the reasons for their

adoption.

Central to CBS policies relating to the coverage of news

and the expression of viewpoints on controversial issues

is a fundamental commitment to objectivity in reporting

the news and a recognition that the public can make in-

formed judgments only if it is regularly exposed to the

vigorous clash of viewpoints on the major issues of the

day. CBS has consistently sought to maintain a fair and

balanced treatment of these issues in its news and infor-

mational broadcasts.’ In furtherance of these goals, CBS

has long maintained policies which in general provide

that broadcasts dealing with current controversial issues

be produced under the supervision and control of CBS

1 Indeed, we do not understand the DNC Request to question

CBS’ performance with respect to objective and fair coverage

of issues.

Comments of CBS

News or a CBS Owned station. Only by lodging these

responsibilities with our own personnel can we effectively

insure that objectivity and fairness will actually be

achieved. This commitment to fairness is also the basis

of the long standing CBS policy not to sell time for the

expression of viewpoints on public issues (except for

political broadcasts as discussed below), but rather to

provide significant opportunities for such discussion with-

out charge to partisans of various viewpoints in our

news and information broadcasts. In adopting this policy

we concluded that we could not provide coverage of sig-

nificant issues with fairness and balance if partisans

with strong financial resources could preempt our fa-

cilities to present their viewpoints on issues they select.

A policy of selling time to partisans would in our view

necessarily distort the manner in which issues were pre-

sented to the listening and viewing public. CBS has con-

cluded that as a licensee in a medium with a finite

amount of time to provide news, information and enter-

tainment, we best serve the public by presenting issues

and viewpoints within a balanced program schedule util-

izing newsworthiness as the sole criterion”

CBS has built one of the world’s great news organiza-

tions, with a well-deserved reputation for fairness and

objectivity. CBS News and the CBS Owned stations pro-

vide regularly-scheduled hard news broadcasts. These

broadcasts regularly include so-called “mini-documen-

taries”, as well as investigative reports, sometimes in

two, three or four-part series. In addition, CBS also

provides regularly-scheduled weekly news interviews such

as FACE THE NATION and WCBS-TV’s NEWS-

? The problem would be exacerbated by the so-called “prime time

access” rule adopted by the Commission in Docket No. 12782

which would have the effect of limiting each network’s prime time

(7-11 p.m.) schedule to three hours each evening with only a

limited exemption for news and public affairs broadcasts.

——

Comments of CBS !

52 |

MAKERS, numerous documentaries and special news

broadcasts. Thus, for example, in the years” 1968 and '

1969 there were 84 CBS News special broadcasts and 28

60 MINUTES proadcasts—all in prime time. Important

subjects are also dealt with on the CBS News religious

rograms, LOOK UP AND LIVE and LAMP UNTO

MY FEET.

In the past decade the CBS News operation has grown

significantly. Consider the following comparisons be-

tween the two-year period, 1968-1969, and the two-year

period, 1956-1957:

—Total hours of news and public affairs broadcasting:

1,354 vs. 675—more than twice as much.

Total prime time hours of news and public affairs

proadeasting: 192 vs. 34—about six times as much.

_—Total hours of regularly-scheduled hard news broad-

casts, 6 p.m.-11 p.m.-: 338 vs. 130—over two and

one-half times as much.

—Total hours of documentaries: 100 (all in prime

time) vs. 37 (six in prime time).

In quality as well as quantity, CBS has served the public

increasingly well under its policy of professional respon-

sibility for coverage of controversial issues. In 1968,

CBS News special broadcasts dealt with the issues that

were being debated by all Americans, including, for ex-

ample, such broadcasts as Walter Cronkite’s “Report

From Vietnam” ; Charles Collingswood’s on-the-scene “Re-

port From Hanoi”; and “Cuba: Ten Years of Castro”.

There was 2 documentary entitled “Marijuana”; one on

the plight of the American Indian entitled “The For-

gotten American”; and a report on civil disorders that

asked “What Happened to the Riot Report?”. There was

a broadcast on hucksterism in American politics, “Cam-

Comments of CBS

paign American Style”; the hard-hitting report, “Hunger

In America”, which led to public outery and Congres-

sional investigation; and the now classic seven-part series,

“Of Black America”. 1969 reports included documen-

taries on coal-mining accidents and the struggle in the

United Mineworkers Union, a three-part series on the

generation gap, and a report on the college turmoil. There

was “Triangle of Conflict: China, Russia and the U.S.”

and a probing documentary on the ABM controversy.

Viewers of 60 MINUTES during the years 1968 and

1969 heard Ramsey Clark discuss policemen, saw a two-

part treatment of germ and gas warfare, saw a report

on racial discrimination in Great Britain, a discussion of

the Pope and the pill, a report on homosexual assaults

in America’s prisons, a report on U.S. draft evaders in

Canada, and parallel reports from both sides of the

Biafran-Nigerian war, the Irish civil war and the Arab-

Israeli conflict.®

In addition, the CBS MORNING NEWS WITH JOSEPH

BENTI regularly includes interviews with government

*To demonstrate how fully and fairly issues are reported to the

public by CBS News, we have prepared as an Exhibit to these

comments a summary of that coverage on one major public issue

of the day—the Indochina War and the domestic reaction to it.

This exhibit examines one CBS News hard news broadcast series,

THE CBS EVENING NEWS for a three-month period. We note,

too, that similar coverage of the issues was presented by the CBS

MORNING NEWS and other CBS hard news broadcasts. In

addition, (for a period of approximately six months) it examines

other CBS News television broadcasts such as documentaries,

specials, and news-interview broadcasts.

Each CBS Owned television station has, of course, supplemented

the national coverage in its own local news broadcasts. Also,

attached as an Exhibit is a summary of the WCBS-TV coverage

of this issue, again including one local hard-news broadcast series,

the WCBS-TV 6:00 O’CLOCK REPORT (for a period of three

months), and other WCBS-TV news broadcasts as well as WCBS-

TV Editorials and Replies to those Editorials (for a period of

approximately six months).

ain ite ae

- —- - ‘ —— . eee eed

or “ : y at Ay

Comments of CBS

leaders and other important public figures. This discus-

sion format in recent months has afforded such prominent

Democrats as Senators Birch Bayh, Frank Church, J.

William Fulbright, Gale McGee, George McGovern, Walter

Mondale, and Edmund Muskie, and Congressmen George

Mahon, Morris Udall, and Lester Wolff an opportunity

to express their viewpoints on the controversial issues

of the day.

a high proportion of direct presentations of views by in-

dividuals—both on our regular “hard” news programs

and our news interview programs such as FACE THE

NATION. Indeed, television news generally achieves pro-

portionately more direct quotation from a news subject’s

own lips, and less paraphrasing in the words of reporters,

than any other news medium.

CBS provides a very substantial degree of direct expo-

sure for partisans on controversial issues—always, how-

ever, through formats that are journalistically well-suited

to provide a full and fair elucidation of the issues. After

President Nixon’s April 30 address on Cambodia, CBS

News broadcast on May 3 a special report, “Where We

Stand In Cambodia”. In addition to news reports from

Cambodia and analyses of developments by CBS News

correspondents, this broadcast also presented the com-

ments of such national leaders as Secretary of State

Rogers, retired General Maxwell Taylor, retired General

James Gavin, and Senators Hugh Scott, Fred Harris,

John Stennis, George Aiken, William Fulbright and Mark

Hatfield. On May 9, 1970 CBS News presented a special,

“The Colleges, Cambodia, and the Confrontation in Wash-

ington”, which included, among others, the views of Dr.

Spock, Dr. Moos and Coretta King on the domestic reac-

mae” ve:

Comments of CBS

tion to the conflict in Cambodia. On June 5, 1970, two

days after President Nixon’s most recent address on

Cambodia, CBS News presented a live debate, “The Sen-

ate and the War”, moderated by Eric Sevareid, on which

six U.S. Senators debated the Indochina situation—three

supporting the President and three opposing him.

Still another format was utilized by CBS News on the

May 10, 1970 broadcast, “Campuses in Crisis: Three Col-

lege Presidents Speak”. In this news special CBS cor-

respondent Harry Reasoner of CBS discussed unrest on

college campuses, and its relationship to the war, with

the presidents of the University of Michigan, Notre Dame

University, and Yale University.

Nonetheless, these direct appearances remain part of our

own basic effort to inform fully and fairly; they are not

permitted to become the instrument of partisan advocacy.

The Report of The Twentieth Century Fund Commission

on Campaign Costs in the Electronic Era, heavily relied

on by the DNC, aptly describes the dangers in the politi-

cal sphere of substituting partisan program control for

professional news responsibility:

“Advances in broadcasting technology have made it

possible to present a candidate in the best possible

light, with all inept answers to hard questions edited

out of the tape, with false starts and all uncertain-

ties and human failings eliminated, all warts and

blemishes removed, a single smooth image alone re-

maining. It is no criticism of television or radio to

say that some day it may be possible to offer a

wholly plausible and wholly false impression of a

candidate. Broadcasting would become an impene-

trable shield for a candidate, would not open a win-

dow on him through which the public could see him

clearly.” *

* Twentieth Century Fund, Voters’ Time, p. 87 (New York;

1969).

Comments of CBS

These admonitions apply as much to a political party as

to a political candidate. In programs prepared by CBS

News, the hard questions are pressed, not ducked, and

human failings are exposed, not edited out.

We agree that the First Amendment is concerned pri-

marily with the right of the public to be informed—and

it is our commitment to that ideal which has led us to

adopt policies considered “arbitrary” by the DNC. Our

fundamental conviction that the public can most effec-

tively be informed through the journalistic judgments of

the media was discussed by Richard W. Jencks, Presi-

dent, CBS/Broadcast Group in an August 11, 1969 ad-

dress before the American Bar Association on the role

of the press today:

“An organ of information does not exist to serve the

unrestrained freedom of speech of individual mem-

bers of its public, or even of its own editorial staff;

still less does it exist to be a therapeutic outlet for

the frustrated. The collection and dissemination of

which make up the daily quota of happenings—some

sensemaking whole. Learned Hand once described

total recall, but a deliberate pruning of, and

culling from, the flux of events. Were it possi-

ble by some magic telepathy to reproduce an

occasion in all its particularity, all reproductions

would be interchangeable; the public could have

no choice, provided that the process be

gilt

Comments of CBS

mechanically perfect. But there is no such magic;

and if there were, its result would be immeasur-

ably wearisome and utterly fatuous.’

“It is the function thus described that demands the

intervention or professional journalists. between the

event and the public; it is this function which mili-

tates against the concept of news organizations as

common carriers of other people’s views, with no

control over content.”

These comments cannot present a full-length portrait of

the growth and accomplishments of CBS news operations.

But even this sketch should demonstrate the basic wis-

dom of this policy and the folly of replacing it, as the

DNC Request would have this Commission do, with a

governmentally imposed requirement to sell program time

for discussion of issues to all comers (except, apparently, _

those in the vague and undefined category of the “irre-

sponsible”) .

While CBS policy provides that the presentation of con-

troversial issues be undertaken in news and informational ©

broadcasts, the prohibition against the sale of time does

not apply to broadcasts on behalf of political candidates

or in connection with ballot propositions.

In exempting the sale of time to political candidates from

our general policies, we recognize that the basic purpose

of Section 315 of the Communications Act was to facili-

tate discussion of political issues by legally qualified

candidates.

CBS places no limitations (except with respect to defa-

mation and obscenity in non-315 appearances) on the use

of paid political broadcast time. Paid political broad-

casts may present material on any current local or na-

tional controversial issue—so long as the broadcast is on

behalf of a candidate or a group of candidates, Because

LIL AINE,

Comments of CBS

ballot propositions are so involved in the electoral process

and indeed in the campaigns of many candidates we

made a similar exception for them in our policies.

The CBS 1968 STATEMENT OF POLICY ON POLITI-

CAL BROADCASTS (a copy of which was furnished to

- both Democratic and Republican National Committees, as

well as other state and local political committees in 1968)

makes clear that:

“A paid political broadcast may contain a direct

appeal for funds provided it is clear that CBS is

not to be involved in any way in the collection or

handling of such funds.” (page 17)

Indeed, the DNC Request specifically takes note of the

fact that in both the 1964 and 1968 national campaigns,

the major political parties made successful use of na-

tional television in the solicitation of campaign funds.

To a large extent, existing CBS policies recognize the

needs expressed by the Democratic Request that:

“A political organization seeking the attention and

support of potential small contributors must have

access to the broadcast media.”

In this spirit, CBS/Broadecast Group President, Richard

W. Jencks, recently testified in support of S. 3637, to

repeal Section 315 (a) as to Presidential and Vice-

Presidential candidates and to reduce the cost of political

campaign broadcasts. ;

Consistently with CBS’s long standing recognition of the

importance of adequate public financial support of politi-

cal parties, and with direct relevance to the matters

raised by the DNC Request, CBS will permit the pur-

chase by political parties of a special category of spot

announcements (i.e. up to one minute in length) for the

purpose of political fund-raising. These announcements

need not be on behalf of candidates or ballot propositions.

| . Comments of CBS

II. A Regulatory Policy Which Imposes Common Car-

rier Obligations on Broadcasters Would Be Con-

ty trary To The Public Interest.

CBS news policies have (1) prevented the distortion

that would occur if coverage of an issue were dependent

upon its financial support rather than upon its news-

1 worthiness, (2) fostered the development of one of the

Ve world’s great news organizations, and (3) provided the

public with exterisive coverage of controversial issues of

all kinds, including a very substantial degree of direct

exposure for partisans on controversial issues, to a great-

er extent than most other broadcast or print media.

PONT Re ere ee

If CBS were compelled to sell program time to partisans

on the haphazard basis suggested by the DNC, the bal-

ance in programming that CBS has assiduously main-

tained would be jeopardized. The indulgence and interest

of the viewing public are by no means unlimited. If

broadcasters must sell program time to partisans, they

will have correspondingly less time for other news, sports,

and entertainment programs. And each broadcaster’s

ability to provide a fair presentation of public issues in

his overall broadcast schedule will be adversely affected.

It is hard to think of a proposal more mischievous in its

consequences to the public’s right to learn and know.

Fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues could

never emerge from an auction in which the highest bid-

ders determined what issues to discuss and how they

should be presented. Yet that is exactly the direction

in which the DNC proposal would take us.

If broadcasters were compelled to sell time to “responsible

entities” wishing to comment on public issues, would the

public be more fairly informed about the plight of the

American Indian or racism in America, about gun con-

trol or the ABM controversy, about coal-mining accidents

Comments of CBS

or air pollution? Or would the disparate financial re-

sources of the persons interested in issues like these ir-

reparably unbalance and distort coverage? be

There are significant production costs involved in creat-

ing interesting, persuasive television broadcasts. Would

it then be the responsibility of the broadcasters them-

selves to produce and air the material that would restore

the balance—and, if so, how are top-flight professional '

journalists to be~interested in devoting their careers to a

journalism whose content is to be determined by the cur-

rency of other people’s propaganda? If there are more

bidders than time available, how would the networks

choose among bidders, and could the Commission avoid

the dangerous role of umpire reviewing the decisions

made?

We appreciate that political campaigns are costly and

increasingly difficult to finance. We also recognize that

there is a relation between dollars spent and success or

failure in an election. However, the issue in this pro-

ceeding is not a short-term problem of the DNC—its debt

and the 1970 election. At stake is something more

fundamental—the danger of replacing rational political

discussion with one-sided presentations designed to per-

suade rather than to inform. Indeed, Voters Time, ex-

tensively cited by the DNC, cautions that:

“ | the democratic process requires open forums

for political ideas and the widest possible dissemina-

tion of information. Letting ability to pay determine

access to the great audience and fostering the de-

velopment of commercial-like campaign spots rather

than rational political discussions may in time sub-

vert the democratic process.”

We agree.

If the concept were adopted, what limits, if any, could a

licensee apply to those seeking to purchase time? The

ccemeansl ha

—

Comments of CBS

DNC request would rule out “arbitrary barriers” to ac-

cess on the part of “responsible” groups, such as the

DNC. From the requests received to purchase time on

various public issues, on what basis would the licensee de-

termine the issues and the group to be afforded access?

Must the licensee, for example, sell time in 1970 to a

group opposing fluoridation of water, or is that issue too

remote and unimportant today? Should it strive for

balance in selling time to opposing viewpoints or should

it simply sell available time to the highest bidder so long

as he is “responsible’? What is the scope of the li-

censee’s discretion in determining the indicia of “responsi-

bility’? And what are the licensee’s obligations if the

proponents of a question wish to buy time and the Oppos-

ing groups wish time, but do not have, funds?* Is it

likely that grappling with these unsolvable problems will

result in the public being better informed than if broad-

casters continue to have the non-delegable responsibility

for full and fair coverage of controversial issues?

5 We can not conceive of any one desiring to purchase time

who would admit to the label “irresponsible.”

quested this FCC ruling .were conducting active advertising cam-

Paigns in New York City newspapers voicing their opposition to the

adoption of the new Constitution.

Comments of CBS |

Ultimately, of course, even the DNC’s “common carrier”

proposal requires that there be some gatekeeper to de-

termine who will be heard, who is “responsible” and who

is not, which responsible group should be sold a segment

of time when not enough of this scarce resource is avail-

able for all and how much time should be sold to other

partisans in the light of other program needs? Will the

gatekeeper continue to be the licensee, or does the DNC a

contemplate that the Commission will fulfill that role

through a continuing process of interpreting and elabor-

ating the DNC rule? The DNC Request does not say, but

it is obvious that the result will be to put the Commis-

sion in the business of making specific programming de-

cisions for which the licensee is now responsible.

The DNC rule would significantly divest the licensee of

responsibility for controversial issue programming and

in so doing it would necessarily place that responsibility

upon the Commission if a “chaotic” situation were to be

avoided.' Our whole tradition of press freedom from

undue governmental interference cries out against such

a result. The DNC, concerned with its own present diffi-

culties, has lost sight of the vital democratic principles

underlying Professor Zechariah Chafee’s trenchant warn-

ng: *

“Whenever anybody is inclined to look to the govern-

ment for help in making the mass media do what we

desire of them, he had better ask himself one anti-

septic question: ‘Am I envisaging myself as the of-

ficial who is going to administer the policy which

seems to me so good?’ Justice Holmes remarked

that, when socialism came, he hoped he would be ‘on

the committee.’ You and I are not going to be on the

committee which is charged with making newspapers

™ FCC letter to Representative Ottinger, discussed in Section

III below, 18 RR 2d 1031 (1970).

Comments of CBS

or radio scripts better written and more accurate and

impartial. It is very easy to assume that splendid

fellows in our crowd will be exercising the large

powers over the flow of facts and opinions which

seem to us essential to save society, but that is an

iridescent dream. We must be prepared to take our

chances with the kind of politicians we particularly

dislike, because that is what we may get.” Chafee,

Government and Mass Communications Vol. II, p.

709.

III. There Is No Constitutional Or Statutory Right To

Compel Broadcasters To Carry The DNC’s Pro-

grams. To The Contrary, The Communications

Act Bars The Commission From ImposingAny Such

Obligation. The Commission Has Consistently De-

clared That There Is No Right Of Compulsory

Carriage.

The constitutional and statutory arguments of the DNC,

like its policy arguments, are without merit. The DNC

contention is not that CBS has failed to present adequate

and fair coverage of public issues, but that “responsible

entities” have a “right” to purchase time for the pur-

pose of presenting programs of their own to express

views and solicit funds for carrying out political or other

objectives. It suggests—mistakenly—that the “right” it

asserts derives from both the Constitution and the Com-

munications Act. As we now show, the claim is sup-

ported neither by the Constitution nor the statute, and as _ ,

the Commission has consistently recognized, it is specific-

ally barred from creating such a right.

A. There Is No Constitutional Right To Compel

oe Carriage Of Programs On Broadcast Stations.

The DNC’s suggestion that there is a First Amendment

right purchase time is insupportable. _ Broadcasters,

Comments of CBS '

though licensed by the Commission and subject to its

valid regulations, are not publicly-owned facilities, and

there is no First Amendment right to purchase time on

radio or television stations. This question has been set-

tled ever since McIntire v. William Penn Broadcasting

Co., 151 F. 2d 597 (8rd Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 327

U.S. 779 (1946). There clergymen and religious cor-

porations brought suit to compel a radio station to sell

time to them for the broadcast of certain programs. The

court denied relief, holding that plaintiffs had no First

Amendment right to purchase time on the station. It

stated

“there is no reason, the FCC permitting and no viola-

tion of the anti-trust laws being involved, why the

defendant may not sell time to whomever it pleases.

As we have stated, Congress had confided the se-

lection of program material to be broadcast to the

taste and discrimination of the broadcasting stations.

* * * *

True, if a man is to speak or preach he must

have some place from which to do it. This does not

mean, however, that he may seize a particular radio

station for his forum. . . . ‘Unlike other modes of

expression radio inherently is not available to all.’

* * _ a

“s radio broadcasting station is not a public utility

in the sense that it must permit broadcasting by

whoever comes to its microphones.” Id at 600-01.

Accord, Massachusetts Universalist Convention v. Hil-

dreth & Rogers Co., 183 F. 2d 497, 501 (1st Cir. 1950).

Similarly, in Avins v. Rutgers, 385 F. 2d 151 (8rd Cir.

1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 920 (1968), the plaintiff

brought suit against the State University of New Jersey,

asserting that the State University law review had vio-

lated the First Amendment by rejecting an article he

Comments of CBS

had submitted, allegedly because of its “conservative”

content. The court rejected this contention, relying on

the McIntire case.* There is nothing in Red Lion Broad-

casting Co. v. FCC 395 U.S. 367 (1969) that indicates

that McIntire is not good law or suggests that, apart

from Section 315, there is any legal obligation for broad-

cast licensees to sell time. To the contrary, as we discuss

below, Red Lion sustained long standing Commission poli-

cies that are wholly inconsistent with the right asserted

here by the DNC.

Moreover, the rule proposed by the DNC would inevitably

lead the Commission into the realm of censorship by re-

quiring it to regulate broadcast access and to decide

which groups were sufficiently “responsible” to merit ex-

posure in this medium and which programs it should

compel broadcasters to carry. Governmental “dictation

as to what should go into particular programs” or what

groups are to be heard is the very heart of censorship.

Chafee, Government and Mass Communications, p. 641

(1965). See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296

(1940); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953);

Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951).

*The district court held: “It could not be contended reason-

ably that the Editorial Board of Rutgers Law Review must accept

for publication every treatise on law which is submitted to it.

There must necessarily be a broad area for the exercise of discre-

tion.” Quoted at 385 F. 2d at 152. The court of appeals affirmed,

holding (p. 153-154): “The right to freedom of speech does not

open every avenue to one who desires to use a particular outlet

for expression. . . . [t]he acceptance or rejection of articles sub-

mitted for publication in a law school law review necessarily in-

volves the exercise of editorial judgment and this is no wise

lessened by the fact that the law review is supported, at least

in part by the State.”

Comments of CBS

B. There Is No Statutory Right To Compel Car-

riage Of Programs On Broadcast Stations. A

Commission Rule Compelling The Broadcast Of

Any Program Supplied By A “Responsible

Group” Would Violate The Communications

Act.

The DNC claims that as a “responsible entity” it also ‘

has a statutory right to purchase time on broadcast sta-

tions. This claim has no better legal ground. Like the _

constitutional claim, it was explicitly rejected in the

Massachusetts Universalist and McIntire cases.’

Moreover, for this Commission to compel carriage of the

Democratic National Committee’s programs would plainly

violate the Communications Act. Section 3(h), 47 U.S.C.

Section 3(h), explicitly states that broadcasters are not

common carriers, and it explicitly bars the Commission

from imposing a common carrier obligation on broad-

casters. This section, together with Section 326, 47 U.S.C.

Section 326, establishes that the licensee—and not the Com-

mission—is to exercise the power of program selection.”

See 1960 Report and Statement of Policy Re: Commission

En Banc Programming Inquiry, 25 Fed. Reg. 7291, 7294

(August 3, 1960).

Nothing in the Act or the Commission’s rules is to the

contrary. Proceeding from Section 315 are limited and

carefully circumscribed personal rights of reply to material

previously selected for broadcast by the licensee: (i)

equal opportunities for political candidates; (ii) replies

® Thus, for example, in McIntire (p. 600) the court stated: “the

plaintiffs have cited no specific provisions of the Federal Com-

munications Act which has been violated by the defendant and

we can find none.

10 Contrary to the assertion (p. 22 fn. 1) in the DNC request,

as we show, Section 3(h) does far more than exempt broad-

casters from Title II of the Communications Act.

Se Pe

Comments of CBS

to personal attacks; and (iii) replies to station political

endorsements.

If a licensee affords broadcast time to a political candi-

date, the opponents of that candidate must be given

equal opportunities. And under the Commission’s rules,

if a station broadcasts a personal attack or makes a po-

litical endorsement, a reply must be afforded. Except in

these limited instances, the licensee has full responsibility

as to source and content of his programs.”

The Congress’ decision not to make the broacaster a com-

mon carrier, and its decision to make the licensee respon-

sible for program selection, were advertent and deliberate.

As the legislative history of the Act-and its interpreta-

tion by the courts and the Commission show, this Con-

gressional policy is central to the regulatory scheme.

In its consideration of the Radio Act of 1927, Congress

faced and rejected the notion that broadcasters should be

charged with a common carrier responsibility. The bill,

as reported by the Senate committee, contained a common

carrier provision.» This provision was ultimately re- |

™To be sure, the balanced programming required by the fair-

ness doctrine requires stations to carry appropriate opposing

views. But it leaves the licensee the widest discretion as to source

and manner of presentation of the views. No person or group is

given the right to compel carriage of its program.

12“Tf any licensee shall permit a broadcasting station to be

used, . . . [to broadcast any matter for a valuable consideration],

or by a candidate or candidates for any public office, or for the

discussion of any question affecting the public, he shall make no

discrimination as to the use of such broadcasting station, and with

‘respect to said matters the licensee shall be deemed a common

carrier in interstate commerce: Provided, that such licensee shall

have no power to censor the material broadcast.” S. Rep. No. 772,

69th Cong., Ist Sess. (1926), p. 4; 67 Cong. Rec. 12503 (1926).

The “common carrier” language, the requirement of “non-

discrimination” and the references to broadcasting matter for a

valuable consideration and “the discussion of any question affecting

Comments of CBS

vised (creating what became Section 315) so that in-

stead of requiring broadcast access on a common carrier

basis, it merely afforded reply opportunities limited to

political candidates. Senator Dill reasoned that common

carrier obligations would hamper the broadcaster who

would then be compelled to “accept anything and every-

thing that was offered him so long as the price was paid.”

(67 Cong. Rec. 12502 (1926)). Similarly, Senator Dill

opposed the provision because he feared that if discretion

were taken away in this area, broadcasters:

would have to give all their time to that kind of

discussion, or no public question could be discussed.

67 Cong. Rec. 12504 (1926).*

the public” were deleted on the floor of the Senate, through an

amendment offered by Senator Dill (67 Cong. Rec. 12501-12502

(1926) ).

13 Senator Howell objected to the change because “to perpetuate

in the hands of a comparatively few interests the opportunity of

reaching the public by radio and allowing them alone to determine

what the public shall and shall not hear is a tremendously dangerous

course for Congress to pursue.” (67 Cong. Rec. 12503 (1926)).

Senator Dill responded; “I sympathize with a great deal of what

the Senator is saying, I want to remind the Senator of the

danger of having the wo ‘public questions’ in the bill.

“That is such a general term that there is probably no question

of any interest whatsoever that could be discussed but that the other

side of it could demand time; and thus a radio station would be

placed in the position that the Senator from Iowa mentions about

candidates, namely, as that they would have to give all their time to

that kind of discussion, or no public question could be discussed.

“As I say, I sympathize with the Senator’s position; but the

opposition to that was so strong in the minds of many that it

seemed to me wise not to put it in the bill at this time, but to

await developments, and get this organization to functioning, and

the bill can be amended in the future.

“{ just wanted to leave that idea with the Senator as to my

reasons for taking the view I do.” (67 Cong. Rec. 12504) (1926).

Poy

Comments of CBS

Debate on the conference report reaffirmed the judgments

reached in the earlier debate that it would be unwise to

enact a common carrier obligation."

The 1927 Congress did not stop at rejecting common car-

rier status for licencees. It also adopted what is now

Section 326 of the Communications Act. The legislative

history demonstrates that by this action Congress in-

tended to bar the Commission from abridging the right

of the licensee to choose the programs that it will carry.

Even before Congress began consideration of the bill, a

proposal was initially rejected that would have per-

mitted the agency to establish a system of priorities for

the selection of program material by broadcasters under

which, for instance, religious or educational programs

would have preference over entertainment programs.**

When the bill which became the 1927 Act was introduced

in 1926, this provision was deleted, according to Rep-

resentative White—the author of the bill— because “of

the fear which had been expressed by so many to me that

that did confer something akin to censorship.” This pro-

#68 Cong. Rec. 2567 (1927). The 1927 Act did contain a pro-

vision, dropped without comment from the 1934 Act, permitting

license revocation if the Interstate Commerce Commission found

that a particular licensee had been guilty of discrimination with

respect to charges or service. Compare 44 Stat. 1162, 1168, with

48 Stat. 1064. However, it was understood that the 1.C.C. would

have to find that broadcasters were “common carriers,” within

the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Act, and that the I.C.C.

had not previously asserted that such entities were common car-

riers within that Act. See 67 Cong. Rec. 5559 ( 1926) ; 68 Cong.

Rec. 2567 (1927).

** A bill authorizing the licensing authority to “prescribe. . . the

priorities as to subject matter to be observed” by classes of stations

and stations within classes had originally been introduced by

Representative White in 1924. H.R. 7357, 68th Cong., 1st Sess.

(1924).

** Hearings on H. R. 5589 Before the House Committee on the

Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 69th Cong., Ist Sess. (1926).

= ELI IE LIE IEG, ME TIED NL IE OSS SEATED LET ASE! CE ata ematam

Comments of CBS

vision having been deleted, Representative White was

satisfied that the bill as it passed the House did not per-

mit censorship, even though it contained no specific anti-

censorship provision.” ,

The Senate, however, was not gatisfied with an unwritten

proscription. The bill as introduced in the Senate * con-

tained a specific provision—which later became Section

326—barring Commission censorship. And Senator Dill,

the Senate sponsor, responded to a suggestion on the floor

that the bill would permit censorship by stating that the

“bill does not give to the Commission the power to censor

programs, but instead there is a provision in the bill

which specifically prohibits the commission from censor-

ing programs in any way.” °

Following adoption of the 1927 Act, in 1929, the Radio

Commission, in a major pronouncement on the scope of

the 1927 Act and its views on its own responsibilities, re-

jected, as had Congress two years before, the view that

broadcasters must allow access to all who seek it. It was

contended that the broadcasters’ obligations, like those

of telephone common carriers, ran to “the sender” of mes-

‘sages. The Commission held, however, that “the duties

of broadcasting stations are to listeners.” Great Lakes

Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Radio Commission, 3 F.R.C.

Ann. Rep. 82, 33.

The efforts to enact a right of access were not over, how-

ever. For example, in 1934 Congressman McFadden,

seeking to achieve by legislation a Aight substantially

identical to that which the DNC seeks here in its request

for a declaratory ruling, sought to forbid discrimination

by any broadcasting stations against programs sponsored

——

1167 Cong. Rec. 5480 (1926).

18S, 1754, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926).

1967 Cong. Rec, 12615 (1926).

Comments of CBS

by any religious, charitable or educational association.

H.R. 7986, 78rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1934). The Commis

sion opposed the McFadden bill. Chairman Sykes, tes-

| tifying against the bill, began his statement by pointing

} out that the proposal to require access

“fs directly contrary to broadcasting as it has grown

up in the United States prior to the act of 1927

and is directly contrary to the theory of broadcast-

ing under the act under which we operate... .”

The Chairman also stated that the Act

“puts upon the individual licensee of a, broadcast

station the private initiative to see that those pro-

grams that he broadcasts are inthe public interest

. Then that act makes those individual li-

censees responsible to the licensing authority to see

that their operations are in the public interest.”

Hearings on H.R. 8301 Before the House Committee

On Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 78rd Cong.,

2nd Sess. (1934), pp. 349-52;

The McFadden bill was not reported out of committee,

but Chairman Sykes’ testimony opposing it became—at

his request—part of the record of the Congressional con-

sideration of the Communications Act of 1934. Section

8(h) of that Act was adopted specifically declaring that

broadcasters are not common carriers. Passage of this

provision—based as it was on the history of the 1927

Act, the Commission’s views in the Great Lakes case and

its Chairman’s testimony on the McFadden bill—consti-

tutes a clear legislative determination that it is not in the

public interest to compel carriage of programs, without

licensee selection as to content.” To the contrary, with

20 Other attempts to add a common carrier provision were made

both before and after consideration of the 1934 Act. All of them

failed. E.g., H.R. 14467, 70th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1928) ; H.R. 6227,

78rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1934); H.R. 8716, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.

. (1945).

Comments of CBS

the exceptions noted earlier, the Act and its legislative

history established that “the choice of programs rests

with broadcasting stations licensed by the F.C.C.” Mc-

Intire, supra, at 599. See also F.C.C. v. Sanders Bros.

Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); Pulitzer Pub-

lishing Co. v. F.C.C., 68 App. D.C. 124, 126, 94 F.2d

249, 251 (1937).

Other legislative history shows that the general rule

against compulsory carriage has particular force in the

present case. First, in rejecting over the years numerous

proposals to expand the equal time concept beyond candi-

date appearances, Congress has recognized the importance

of the exercise of journalistic standards and licensee dis-

cretion in broadcasting news. In amending Section 315

of the Communications Act in 1959, Congress provided

that even the equal time provision of Section 315 for

political candidates would be inapplicable to certain cate-

gories of news broadcasts—an amendment which rep-

resented an increased Congressional recognition for the

need of journalistic discretion in broadcasting news. In

connection with the fairness provision of the 1959 amend-

ment Congress had the benefit of the Commission’s com-

ments on proposed bills before House and Senate Com-

mittees which took the position that “when it comes to

application of the overall fairness standard, the licensee

can exercise discretion as to which viewpoints are en-

titled to be expressed and which spokesmen are entitled to

be heard... .”* In the course of the floor debates on

the “fairness amendment” to the bill, it was made clear

21See the Commission’s official comments on proposed bills

appearing in Hearings on S. 1585, S. 1604, S. 1858 and S. 1929

Before the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Committee _

on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)

p. 71 and in Hearings on H.R. 53889, H.R. 5675, H.R. 6326, H.R.

7122, H.R. 7180, H.R. 7206, H.R. 7602 and H.R. 7985 Before a Sub-

committee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959), p. 10.

| Comments of CBS

that, as the fairness requirement was understood, it im-

posed only a general obligation on broadcasters to exer-

cise their programming judgment in good faith, and was

not a back door method of depriving broadcasters of dis-

cretion.”

Second, the relief which the DNC seeks relates to po-

litical campaigns and would, in effect, amount to an ex-

tension of Section 315 of the Act. Over the years, Con-

gress has carefully limited Section 315 and has rejected

amendments which would have extended the equal oppor-

tunities provisions of Section 315 to spokesmen for can-

didates and other election issues.22 When consideration

72105 Cong. Rec. 14457 (1959) (remarks of Senators Pastore,

Proxmire and Hartke) ; 105 Cong. Rec. 16231 (1959) (comments of

Chairman Harris in response to Congressman Jones of Missouri) ;

105 Cong. Rec. 16227 (1959) (comments. of Congressman Celler).

7S. 6. 71st Cong., 1st Sess. (1929) (equal opportunities for

candidates, their spokesmen and political parties) ; H.R. 5716, 71st

Cong., 2nd Sess. (1929) (similar) ; S. 1806, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.

(1941) (equal opportunities must be afforded opposing parties when

public officials discuss public questions); S. 814, 78th Cong., 1st

Sess. (1948) (similar); H.R. 3595, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947)

(equal opportunities required for candidates, their spokesmen,

political parties, when referendum questions are discussed, and for

the discussion of differing viewpoints on public questions) ; S. 1333,

80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) (similar); H.R. 6949, 81st Cong.,

2nd Sess. (1950) (equal opportunities for candidates, their spokes-

men, or when referendum questions are discussed), H.R. 5470, 82nd

Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) (equal opportunities required for candi-

dates or their spokesmen), S. 1379, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1951)

(similar), H.R. 7062, 82nd, 2nd Sess. (1952) (similar); S.R. 539,

82nd, 2nd Sess. (1952) (similar); H.R. 11851, 87th Cong., 2nd

Sess, (1962) (opportunities for response required when an indi-

vidual is subjected to fidicule by a candidate utilizing time pursuant

to Section 315); H.R. 7072, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (1963) (equal

opportunities to be afforded opponents when station editorializing

favoring one candidate or opposing his opponent) H.R. 7612, 88th

Cong. 1st Sess. (1968) (similar to H.R. 11851, 87th Cong. 2nd

Sess.) H.R. 10135, 88th Cong. 2nd Sess. ( 1964) (similar to H.R.

7072, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.) H.R. 5414, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. (1965)

(similar to H.R. 11851, 87th 2nd Sess.) ,

Comments of CBS

has been given to broadening the provisions of Section

315, Congress has made it clear that Congress itself

retains responsibility. In connection with the 1959 amend-

ments to Section 315, Congress specifically stated that it

intended to continue supervision of the equal opportuni- _

ties area:

“The Congress declares its intention to reexamine

from time to time the amendment to Section 315 (a)

of the Communications Act of 1934 made by the first

section of this Act, to ascertain whether such amend-

ment has proved to be effective and practicable. (73

Stat. 557% (1959)).”

C. The Commission Has Consistently Declared That

There Is No Right To Compulsory Carriage.

The DNC Request is also fundamentally inconsistent with

the concept of licensee responsibility which has long been

a root of this Comission’s regulatory policy, as exempli-

fied by its 1949 Editorializing Report, 13 F.C.C. 1246,

and its 1960 Report and Statement of Policy in the En

Bane Programming Inquiry, 25 Fed. Reg. 7291 (August

8, 1960). Thus, in a basic enunciation of its fairness

doctrine, the Commission wrote in the Report on Edi-

torializing :

“Tt should be recognized that there can be no one all

embracing formula which licensees can hope to apply

to insure the fair and balanced presentation of all

quoted above, p. 2.

— 7

Comments of CBS

CT hae

This was the philosophy too of the Commission in the

1960 En Bane Programing Report:

“An examination of the foregoing authorities serves

to explain why the day-to-day operation of a broad-

cast station is primarily the responsibility of the

individual station licensee. Indeed, Congress pro-

vided in Section 3(h) of the Communications Act

that a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall

not be deemed a common carrier. Hence, the Com-

mission in‘administering the Act and the courts in

interpreting it have consistently maintained that

responsibility for the selection and presentation of

| broadcast -material ultimately devolves upon the in-

‘ dividual station licensee, and that the fulfillment of

the public interest requires the free exercise of his

independent judgment.

* * .- *

“Broadcasting licensees must assume responsibility

for all material which is broadcast through their

facilities. This duty is personal to the licensee and

may not be delegated. He is obligated to bring

his positive responsibility affirmatively to bear upon

all who have a hand in providing broadcast matter

for transmission through his facilities so as to as-

sure the discharge of his duty to provide acceptable

program schedule consonant with operating in the

public interest in his community.”

Moreover, the very issue presented by the DNC Request

was the subject of a complaint to the Commission in 1965

by the Washington Women’s Strike for Peace involving a

policing of Station WTOP in Washington apparently

similar to that complained of in the DNC Request. The

group had complained about the station’s refusal to sell

its spot announcements on the subject of the Vietnam

war and alleged that such denial violated the First

Amendment and in any case was “contrary to policies

of this Commission.”

Comments of CBS

After noting that “it is not the policy of the licensee to

sell spot announcements concerning controversial public

issues, but rather, when they are of sufficient interest,

the licensee deals with them in news and public affairs

programs,” the Commission wrote:

“With respect to the refusal of the station to sell

time for spot announcements, under the Communi-

eations Act, the selection and presentation of broad-

cast material are the responsibilities of the individ-

ual station licensees, and Section 826 of the Act

expressly prohibits the exercise of censorship powers

by the Commission. That Section provides ...--

“Thus, the Act makes it clear that the Commission

has no power to require a broadcaster to carry or

refrain from carrying any particular program, or

to prescribe the content of any program presented

over the air. Moreover, Section 3(h) of the Act

provides that ‘. . . a person engaged in radio broad-

easting shall not, insofar as such person is SO en-

gaged, be deemed a common carrier.’ In McIntire

v. Wm. Penn. Broadcasting Company, 151 F. 2d 597,

the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, stated,

in part, that:

‘For a radio station to refuse to sell time in

which an individual may broadcast his views

may be censorship but we know of no law which

prohibits such a course. As we have indicated,

a radio broadcasting station is not a public

utility in the sense that it must permit broad-

casting by whoever comes to its microphone.’

“In view of the foregoing, it does not appear that

Commission action concerning radio station WTOP

is warranted in this instance.”

Although the DNC is “mindful of the provisions of Sec-

tions 3(i) [sic] and 326 of the Communications Act

and of rulings [such as the Women’s Strike letter] :

Comments of CBS

(DNC Request, p. 22), these statutory sections and rul-

ings are dismissed with the remarkable assertion: “The

response to these matters insofar as they pertain to this

request is that they all predate the Red Lion decision.”

(DNC Request, p. 23). Not so easily dismissed, however,

is the Comission’s decision of March 24, 1970, which

involved the question of compulsory carriage in connection

with the right of the ABC Television Network to delete

certain remarks made by Judy Collins on The Dick

Cavett Show. In that ruling, it is clear that the Com-

mission continues to recognize (after Red Lion) that

the licensee has considerable discretion in fulfilling the

obligations of the fairness doctrine, including the selec-

tion of issues, formats, and the appropriate spokesmen.

Thus, the Commission stated in its Judy Collins letter:

“Except for broadcasts by legally qualified candi-

dates for public office, where the licensee is enjoined

from censoring, the licensee is responsible for all

material broadcast over his facilities, and thus can

and does edit and select the material to be presented.

Each licensee makes thousands of programming de-

cisions a year—that some material “works,” some

does not fit in a particular program, etc.

“That the material in question involves discussion of

a controversial issue does not take it outside the

scope of the licensee’s editing and selection process.

The licensee must devote a reasonable amount of

time to the discussion of controversial issues of pub-

lic importance, and cannot exclude from the airways

views with which he disagrees. Red Lion Broad-

casting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) ; Report on

Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 FCC 1246

(1949). As the Supreme Court stated in Red Lion,

the licensee must . . . conduct himself as a proxy

or fiduciary with obligations to present those views

and voices which are representative of his com-

munity and which would otherwise, by necessity, be

Comments of CBS |

barred from the airways. But he is not a common

carrier (see Section 3 (h) of the Communications

Act) and can exercise judgment as to appropriate tt

spokesmen, time, or manner of presentation of the

issue. ; |:

}

Sone a Ae Carat

“This last point is, of course, crucial. A person or

group cannot demand that as a matter of right its

message be presented over the station’s facilities.

Melntire v. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co., 151 F. 2d

597 (3rd Cir. 1945). The licensee does not have to

present programming material which he believes ei-

ther will not serve the needs or interests of his lis-

teners or will not do so as well as other program: -

ming material. Report and Statement of Policy Re:

Programming Inquiry, 20 Pike & Fischer, Radio

Regulations, 1902, 25 F.R. 7291. He is thus con-

stantly called upon to make choices between types

of programming, and then, within each type, to

Furthermore, in considering the DNC’s contention that

the Commission’s fairness policies and rulings which pre-

date Red Lion are no longer of decisional significance, it

should be emphasized that the very first paragraph of

the Court’s opinion in Red Lion states:

“The Federal Communications Commission has for

many years imposed on radio and television broad-

casters the requirement that discussion of public is-

sues be presented on broadcast stations, and that

each side of those issues must be given fair cover-

age. This is known as the fairness doctrine, whi

originated very early in the history of broadcasting

and has maintained its present outlines for some

Comments of CBS

time. It is an obligation whose content has been de-

fined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular

cases, and which is distinct from the statutory re-

quirement of § 315 of the Communications Act that

equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for

wey office.” 395 U.S. at 369-70. [Footnote omit-

]

Similarly, the current viability of the Commission’s fair-

ness policies and rulings was explicitly confirmed by the

Court’s description of the 1959 Congressional action

amending Section 315 of the Communications Act as a

ratification of long standing FCC administrative con-

struction of the fairness obligations.

Thus the DNC is clearly wrong in asserting that the

Court in Red Lion contemplated the abandonment of tra-

ditional FCC fairness policies and the adoption by the

FCC of a common carrier theory as set forth in the DNC

Request. To the contrary, the decision ratified long-

standing FCC policies in this area.

IV. CONCLUSION

CBS intends to continue to promote robust and rational

discussions of issues of public importance with the widest

possible dissemination of facts and contrasting opinions.

As a member of the “most powerful communication media

in our democracy” we understand our obligations to the

public and reject the notion that the ability to pay should

be a factor in the exchange of ideas on controversial

public issues. We disagree that anyone with a viewpoint

and a dollar in hand ought to be able to purchase broad-

cast time to propagandize a particular view. Stripped

of all its rhetoric, that is the thrust of the DNC’s Re-

quest,

CBS submits that its policy and practice insure compre-

hensive coverage of controversial issues—with ample op-

Comments of CBS

portunity for a full and fair discussion of a cross section

of opinion. The central guiding force in our various

news formats is not ratings or cost, but is the apprecia-

tion that the public has a right to know—to be informed

of the news of the day—that somehow through the sifting

and winnowing of fact and opinion, truth will emerge

and citizens will be better able to exercise their responsi-

bilities.

At times our news broadcasts are unpopular and criti-

cized, but as Dr. Frank Stanton, President, CBS, re

cently stated:

« |. the fact is that tranquility is not the order of

the day. Ours is a questioning, searching society—

unsure, groping, running to extremes, abrasive, often

violent even in its reactions to the violence of others.

one way or another. It is the duty of the media to

report all this as faithfully as humanly possible—not

to hide it from view or to sugar-coat the facts.”

This is our call to action, a mandate that has always

guided CBS, and that is fully consistent with the Com-

mission’s goals.

We therefore believe that the Commission should decline

to make the ruling requested by the DNC.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert V. Evans

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

of Counsel

Attachments

Comments of CBS

CBS NEWS EXHIBIT

Comments of CBS

;

ANALYSIS OF CBS EVENING NEWS COVERAGE

OF INDOCHINA WAR AND DOMESTIC

REACTION IN THE MONTHS OF

MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY 1970

Mins:Secs

Sunday, March 1, 1970

Mudd: Enemy mortars hit Luang Prabang, 00 44

Laos. B-52s hit Ho Trail.

Shepard & Threlkeld: Report from Queson Val- 02:45

ley, So. Vietnam, where six marines are ac-

‘eused of murdering civilians at Son Trang

or Thanh Tra.

Appearing: Lt. Col. Charles Cooper, 01:30

SOF,* “Civilians had attacked

troops in past.”

Monday, March 2, 1970

Cronkite: Antiwar movement leaders suggest 00:20

following letter of law,~ burying Selective

Service in paper.

Cronkite: Sen. Mansfield again criticizes US in 00:22

Laos.

Cronkite: Report No. Vietnamese may boycott 00:19

Paris Peace talks.

Cronkite: Most of 43,000 marines in Vietnam 00:15

to be withdrawn by mid-July.

Cronkite: Guerrillas blow up bridge on High- 00:16

way One in Vietnam.

Cronkite: Tran Ngoe Chau’s re-trial begins in 00:24

Saigon.

*SOF—Sound Appearances on Newsfilm.

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Monday, March 2, 1970 (Continued)

Benti: Report on dismal understaffing in Veter- 04:48

ans Hospitals, low quality care given to Viet- -

nam vets.

Appearing: Patient Matthew Raible,

Dr. Albert Tomasulo, VA’s Don-

ald Johnson, Rep. Olin Teague,

Patients Robert Muller, Patrick

Sheehan, Ron Kovic.

Tuesday, March 3, 1970

Mudd: Administration to release transcript of 01:33

Senate hearings on Laos. |

Appearing: Melvin Laird, SOF, “No 00:24

buildup in Laos.”

Sen. McGovern, SOF, “Laird mis- 00:48

leading—special forces in Laos.”

Cronkite: Laotian premier and military high 00:15

command in emergency meeting in Vientiane.

Cronkite: So. Vietnam troops claim they killed 00:12

323 enemy in Mekong Delta in three-week

operation.

Cronkite: Americans find huge enemy cache of 00:12

rice near Cambodia.

Sargent: Survivors of Tet offensive in Hue have 01:15

memorial service for massacre victims.

Appearing: Maj. Robert Dash, SOF, 00:16

calls it massacre.

Teacher Nguyen Duc Mai, SOF, 00:18

citizens now scared of VC.

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Wednesday, March 4, 1970

Cronkite: Sen. Ribicoff’s new attack on black

market money deals in SE Asia.

Cronkite: Souvanna Phouma says Laos will fall

to N. Vietnam unless US continues bombing.

Kalb & Mudd: White House launches new effort

to calm concern about Laos involvement.

Appearing: Laird, SOF, “No plans to

use US ground forces in Laos.”

Sen, Fulbright, SOF, Senate appre-

hensive about troops in Laos.

Thursday, March 5, 1970

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures.

Threlkeld: Trans Ngoc Chau convicted again in

- gecond trial, gets 10 years.

Appearing: Tran Ngoc Chau, SOF,

“tT am a nationalist.”

Cronkite: Paris Peace Talks—Communists

charge escalation in Laos.

Sen. Muskie says Administration follows end-

less path to victory in Vietnam.

Friday, March 6, 1970

Rather: Nixon issues statement giving all facts

on Laos.

Kalb: Washington officials fear possible involve-

ment of US in Thailand if Laos falls.

Mudd: Senate reaction to Nixon Laos statement:

guarded. .

00:28

00:20

01:40

00 :22

00 :38

00:16

02:08

00:04

00:11

00 :22

02:05

01:48

00 :34

Comments of CBS

Friday, March 6, 1970 (Continued )

Appearing: Sen. Cooper, SOF, “US

will have to either fight or get

troops out.”

Sen. McGovern, SOF, “Senate must

continue to get and make public

information on war.”

Cronkite: Saigon official says if US Embassy had

backed Tran Ngoc Chau up, he would not

have been prosecuted.

Saturday, March 7, 1970

Mudd: AP says No. Vietnam holding 320, may

soon release names. ;

Sunday, March 8, 1970

Mudd: 27 Americans killed in Laos since 1962,

White House acknowledges.

Sargent: Report from Tang Tra where military

hearing may prove new American massacre of

civilians, last month.

Monday, March 9, 1970

Cronkite: White House again ups figures on Laos

dead, now “less than 50”.

Cronkite: Pathet Lao offer to exchange views on

terms of peace proposal with Laotian govern-

ment.

McLaughlin: Report on the fighting in Laos.

Cronkite: Thieu says all of SE Asia would fall

to China if US pulls out.

Mins:Secs

00:35

00:32

00:31

00:20

00 :40

02:30

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Tuesday, March 10, 1970

Rather: White House will release new statement

on position on school desegregation: Nixon

concerned about, “credibility gap” on desegre-

gation and Laos. ».

Cronkite: Western newsmen in Laos get plane

trip to see road being’ built by Chinese in

Northern Laos.

Cronkite: Army accuses 5 more in My Lai mas-

sacre, including Capt. Ernest Medina.

Wednesday, March 11, 1970

Cronkite: Vietnam action light.

Cronkite: Capt. Medina (My Lai case) appears

at hearing, refuses comment.

Cronkite: Souvanna Phouma endorses peace talk

proposal.

Cronkite: France calls for everybody to pull out

of Laos.

Cronkite: Cambodia’s Sihanouk cancels visits to

Moscow, Peking, after anti-Communist dem-

onstrations in Pnom Penh.

Thursday, March 12, 1970

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures.

Cronkite: Laos Premier Souvanna Phouma says

he’s willing to agree to cease fire.

Cronkite: State Dept. supports French demand

US and N. Vietnam both get out of Laos.

Friday, March 13, 1970

Cronkite: Cambodia demands No. Vietnam and

VC remove troops.

02:12

00 :40

00:23

00:24

00:20

00:14

00 :26

00:20

00:19

00:31

00 :47

Comments of CBS

Friday, March 13, 1970 (Continued)

Cronkite: 16 helicopters lost in S. Vietnam last 00:14

week. my !

Rowan: Interviews Capt. Medina, latest to be ac- 00:48

cused by Army in My Lai massacres.

Appearing: Capt. Ernest Medina, 01:32

SOF, describes interrogation of

prisoners.

Cronkite: State Dept. says it’s neutral on repeal 00:34

of Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

Mins:Secs

EL“ CCU

Saturday, March 14, 1970

Mudd: Sihanouk in Moscow as deadline comes 00:30

for Cambodia’s demand that N. Vietnamese,

VC leave country.

Mudd: ‘Terrorist bombs explode in Saigon. 00:15

Mudd: Mansfield says he’s been assured no more 00:18

B-52 raids will be made on Plain of Jars.

Mudd: Washington lawyers report on Nov. 15 00:20

moratorium released.

Appearing: Ramsey Clark, SOF, 01:00

charges Justice Dept. with caus-

ing violence.

Sunday, March 15, 1970

Herman: Apparent mutiny reported aboard USS 02:30

Columbia Eagle, carrying bombs to Thailand.

Now anchored off Cambodia.

Mudd: Kosygin sends message to Nixon calling 00:20

for halt to US military action in Laos.

Mudd: No. Vietnam, VC, Cambodian represent- 00:30

atives to meet tomorrow in Phnom Penh.

PCR NON ERIE ERED ene te “ A , ae * VIP ONE PAN NLS Me VP IO

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Monday, March 16, 1970

Benton: Few facts filtering out on “mutiny” 01:36

story on ship carrying arms to Thailand. One,

names of men thought responsible, Clyde Mc-

«,, Kay and Alvin Glatkowski.

Appearing: Asst. Defense Secy. Dan- 00:30

iel Henkin, SOF, All hands safe,

not charging anyone with mutiny.

Cronkite: Cambodia opens talks with N. Vietna- 00:23

mese, VC, on Cambodian demand that troops

leave country.

Cronkite: US reports loss of three planes in Laos. 00:13

Cronkite: White House confirms reports on radar 00:20

installation in Laos being overrun two years

ago. ,

Kalb: Sen. Fulbright discloses Secy. of State 01:16

Rogers’ testimony before Foreign Relations

Committee hearings on Laos. Rogers upset.

Appearing: Sen. Fulbright, SOF, quotes 00:20

Rogers that US has no plans to use troops.

Cronkite: Navy plane crashes at Da Nang, 22 00:18

killed.

Cronkite: US troops in Vietnam down to 460,800. 00:14

Cronkite: Vietnam National Assembly approves 00:20

legislation for land reform.

Tuesday, March 17, 1970

Benton: 12 more officers accused in My Lai mas- 02:20

sacre, bringing total now to 14.

Appearing Lt. Gen. Peers, SOF, No evi- 00:40

dence to indicate suppression of infor-

mation but “major tragedy occurred.”

Hi a oe KA ia PRON TO Re cape NR AE BU RLS ROT TT PEELS S N LP

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Tuesday, March 17, 1970 (Continued) —

Army Secy. Resor, SOF, all charged due 00:28

a fair trial.

Cronkite: Cambodian tugs two Columbia Eagle 00:32

into port of Sihanoukville, 13 crewmen still

aboard.

Cronkite: Cambodia getting nowhere in efforts to 00:28

get North Vietnam and VC troops out of

country.

Shepard: Report on infiltration route from Cam- 02:04

bodia in Mekong Delta area.

- Appearing: Navy Lt. Armand Zeddies, 00:37

SOF, sees more activity of NVA. ?

Cronkite: Sam Thong, US operated base in Laos, 00:30

evacuated of US troops, expected to fall.

Cronkite: Sec. of State Rogers clarifies statement 00:32

released by Sen. Fulbright yesterday—no

present plans to send troops to Laos.

Wednesday, March 18, 1970

Cronkite: Prince Sihanouk deposed in coup d’etat 00:48

as ruler of Cambodia.

Raphael: Interview with Sihanouk in Paris last 00:20

week.

Appearing: Sihanouk, SOF, does not 00:48

blame US for coup d’etat.

Kalb: Washington keeping low profile on Cam- 01:32

bodian coup.

Appearing: Sen. Mansfield, SOF, foresees 00:46

“disintegration and chaos,” would like

to see Sihanouk back.

Comments of CBS

Wednesday, March 18, 1970 (Continued)

McLaughlin: Report on 24 crew members of Co- 02:22

lumbia Eagle who were put out in lifeboats.

Silver: West Point cadets pass in review as fare- 00:42

well to General Samuel Koster, accused in My

Lai massacre.

Appearing: General Koster, SOF, Thank 00:10

you for support.

Mins:Secs

Thursday, March 19, 1970

Cronkite: US recognizes new Cambodian govern- 00:18

ment.

Cronkite: Sihanouk in Peking, getting royal 00:18

treatment, may set up government in exile.

Cronkite: Communists at Paris talks say US in 00:20

trying to enlarge Vietnam War, into Laos and

i Cambodia.

Cronkite: Laird says Communists could sweep 00:15

across Laos.

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures. 00:20

j Cronkite: American Div. Commander, Maj. Gen. 00:27

Lloyd Ramsey, breaks arm in helicopter crash.

Cronkite: USIA opinion poll about war conduct- 00:32

ed in So. Vietnam not available for security

reasons.

Cronkite: Mendel Rivers raps Army for charg- 00:30

ing 14 officers in My Lai massacre, will hold

: investigation.

Cronkite: Thomas Glenn Jolley, who went to 00:31

: Canada to avoid draft, rejected citizenship,

tries to get back into country, is refused.

Cronkite: Antiwar movement demonstrations 00:34

planned for this week peter out.

i. SO RAL EIOR AE NOE NEL EG EIN Et UB SO GR ORE PEGE

CNS een TOR ON Bead

Comments of CBS

Friday, March 20, 1970 4

Cronkite: Thai troops being used in Laos. 01:00

Cronkite: Cambodia ready to crush attempt by 00:22

Sihanouk to regain power.

Cronkite: Ky says Cambodia is vulnerable to 00:34

takeover by N. Vietnam also that So. Vietnam

artillery support to Cambodian troops was in-

formal commanders pact.

Cronkite: Vietnam action west of Hue, and south 00:23

of Da Nang.

Mins:Secs

Saturday, March 21, 1970

Mudd: Nixon says Laos action not affecting his 00:10

decisions on So. Vietnam withdrawals.

Mudd: American pilots fly scores of missions in 00:10

Laos.

Mudd: Nixon said US will continue to respect 00:20

Cambodian neutrality.

Sunday, March 22, 1970

Mudd: Sihanouk to live in Peking and Moscow 00:30

alternatively.

Monday, March 23, 1970

Cronkite: Rogers says Nixon has appealed to So- 00:22

viets for help in restoring peace in Laos.

McLaughlin: Report on Communists presenting 01:32

peace proposals to Laotian government.

Cronkite: Two fighter planes lost over Laos in 00:17

past week.

Cronkite: No. Vietnam declares support for Si- 00:26

hanouk in efforts to overthrow new Cambo-

dian government.

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Monday, March 23, 1970 (Continued)

Cronkite: Air Force charges two majors, twelve 00:13

sergeants with violations in operating Thai-

land mess halls.

Tuesday, March 24, 1970

Cronkite: Helicopter shot down in Laos, 11th 00:30

plane in 14 days.

Shepard: Cambodian government erasing traces 02:12

of Sihanouk.

Morton: Sen. Dodd opens hearings on marijuana 00:50

use in Vietnam, especially before My Lai.

Appearing: Dr. Joel Kaplan, SOF, testi- 00:18

fies that 50% to 80% of US forces in

Vietnam use marijuana.

Charles West, SOF, testifies that men did 00:36

smoke marijuana night before My Lai

massacre.

Cronkite: Two enligted men testify at Long Binh 00:35

court martial they saw sergeant shoot civilian

at orders of First Lt. James Duffy.

Wednesday, March 25, 1970

Cronkite: Pentagon says marijuana is big prob- 00:35

lem in Vietnam, but denies link with My Lai

massacre.

Cronkite: Three more charged in My Lai case— 00:10

total now 25.

Cronkite: Newspaper reporting Thieu is consid- 00:30

ering coalition seized in Saigon.

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Thursday, March 26, 1970

Cronkite: Vietnam peace group releases names 00:45

of 34 being held in No. Vietnam, eight of

which are new.

Cronkite: Allies try to talk prisoners at Paris 00:15

talks, no go.

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures. 00:12

Cronkite: Ellsworth Bunker may end tour as 00:20

Ambassador to Vietnam soon.

Cronkite: No. Vietnam, VC, closing embassies in 00:25

Cambodia.

Cronkite: American planes bomb inside Cambo- 00:10

dia.

Friday, March 27, 1970

Cronkite: So. Vietnamese units attack Commu- 00:38

nists in Cambodia.

Threlkeld: Report on a US patrol near Cambo- 04:00

dian border.

Cronkite: White House Says Ellsworth Bunker 00:15

to stay on as Ambassador to So. Vietnam.

Cronkite: American-backed troops force Commu- 00:17

nists back near Long Cheng, Laos.

Saturday, March 28, 1970

Mudd: New Cambodian government orders mo- 00:30

bilization.

Kalb: State Department concerned over Cambo- 01:10

dian situation.

Appearing: Cambodian Rep. Thay Sok, 00:20

SOF, believes Cambodia can defend it-

self.

Comments of CBS

Sunday, March 29, 1970

Shepard: Report on Cambodian response to VC

moving into Cambodia and preparations for

possible Sihanouk return.

Mudd: Lt. Duffy guilty of ordering murder of

Vietnamese POW, court reconsiders decision

when it learns that life sentence is manda-

tory.

Laurence: New men reporting for replacement

in War Zone C, So. Vietnam.

Monday, March 30, 1970

Shepard: Report from Kompong Cham, Cambo-

dia, where a riot led to death of two National

Assemblymen and 27 of the rioters.

Appearing: Allistair Chisholm, SOF, de-

scribes riot and believes civil war is

near.

Cronkite: Cambodia to ask UN to get No. Viet-

nam and VC to withdraw troops.

Rowan: Troop withdrawals may be slowed by af-

fairs in Laos and Cambodia.

Cronkite: So. Vietnam guerrillas shell govern-

ment camp, kill 26.

Cronkite: James Duffy guilty of murder of So.

Vietnam civilian, then court learns life sen-

tence mandatory, reduces charge to involun-

tary manslaughter, maximum 6 years.

Schakne: Massachusetts legislature may pass law

forbidding Mass. boys to go to Vietnam, which

will be court test of legality of Vietnam War.

SRE EEL LI OEE I ENTER NN NIE PEON Hil BREEN BST LL MN OR Es eB

Mins:Secs

02:10

00:40

05 :35

03 :08

00:50

00:25

01:32

00:15

00:21

01:32

Comments of CBS

Monday, March 30, 1970 ( Continued )

Appearing: H. James Shea, SOF, says 00:40

bill will protect Mass. boys and test

constitutionality of war.

William Randall, SOF, believes bill un- 00:45

constitutional and does not protect

Mass. people; does not want to tie

President’s hands.

Gov. Francis Sargent, SOF, questions po- 00:33

litical motivation of bill.

Mins:Secs

Tuesday, March 31, 1970

Reasoner: Troop withdrawal planned by White 00:25

House in 2 weeks.

Reasoner: Government forces recapture Sam 00:15

Thong, Laos.

Reasoner: Lt. Duffy gets six months in killing of 00:25

So. Vietnamese prisoner.

Sargent: Report on people of Dai La hamlet in 02:16

I Corps of So. Vietnam getting new machine

to mill rice.

Appearing: Capt. Robert McKelvy, SOF, 00:35

Says only way to win people is to make

them self-sufficient.

Wednesday, April 1, 1970

Cronkite: Communists stage most damaging at- 00:40

tacks in five months in So. Vietnam.

Rowan: Capt. Medina formally accused of blame 00:45

for slayings of 175 at My Lai.

Appearing: Capt. Medina, SOF, Says he 01:05

was shocked at charges; did not order

massacre.

Comments of CBS

Wednesday, April 1, 1970 (Continued)

Cronkite: Cambodia says No. Vietnamese over- 00:25

ran outpost 5 miles inside border.

Cronkite: Laos government rejects Communist 00:20

peace proposals, to offer counter-proposal.

Cronkite: Anti-antiwar march planned for Sat- 00:40

urday, but White House creates flap by send-

ing out letter saying it was postponed when

it wasn’t.

Cronkite: Massachusetts legislature passes anti- 00:17

Vietnam bill.

Mins:Secs

Thursday, April 2, 1970

Cronkite: Mass. Governor signs anti-Vietnam 00:23

War bill.

Appearing: Gov. Sargent, SOF, explains 01:15

signing bill; wants issue to go to Su-

preme Court; cautions against opti-

mism.

Cronkite: Laird makes no comment on Mass law. 00:15

Cronkite: Fulbright says we should leave SE 01:00

Asia to No. Vietnam as strongest power in

area. Rogers tells Foreign Relations Com-

mittee we have no intentions of getting in-

volved in Cambodia.

Cronkite: Cambodia says American troops have 00:17

no right to pursue Communists into Cambo-

dian territory.

Cronkite: 65 more shellings of Allied bases in 00:15

No. Vietnam.

Threlkeld: Report on the helicopters being in- 03:45

creasingly used in Vietnam.

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures. 00:20

Cronkite: Paris peace talks —6l1st session—no 00:07

progress.

EP ET OE NII TNL ES SE OIE OLIGO OY VO EN GP il A nS I SEY

Comments of CBS

Mins:Secs

Friday, April 3, 1970

Cronkite: Communists shell 60 towns and bases 00:37

in Vietnam.

Cronkite: Laotian troops who retook Sam Thong 00:25

accused of looting it.

Shepard: Cambodian government says calm re- 01:45

stored, frees 486 political prisoners,

Cronkite: Leaders of anti-antiwar march in 00:18

Washington tomorrow schedule prayer meet-

ing for tonight.

Saturday, April 4, 1970 .

H. Walker: Anti-antiwar march in Washington, 02:40

led by Rev. Carl McIntire.

Appearing: Lester Maddox.

Mudd: Administration steers clear of numbers 00:10

game on this march no aerial] photos.

Mudd: Battle reported at Con Thien, So. Viet- 00:15

nam, near DMZ.

Mudd: Students taking military training in 00:15

Cambodia.

Quint: Report on nature of military training in 03:10

Cambodia.

Sunday, April 5, 1970

Mudd: New Cambodian leaders may proclaim re- 00:30

public.

Mudd: US gunships fire on government Outpost 00:25

by mistake near Pleiku, S. Vietnam. Fight-

ing near DMZ continues.

Laurence: Whispered report on action in War 05:50

Zone C—a combat assault. None of the many

soldiers identified.

Comments of CBS

Mins :Secs

Monday, April 6, 1970 ‘

Reasoner: Communists beseiging Dak Seang, 00:52

Green Beret camp near Laotian border in So.

Vietnam.

Laurence: Report on fighting in War Zone C, 03:55

near Cambodia. This report on one company

and “magic” company commander who has

had only two casualties; plays it careful.

Tuesday, April 7, 1970

Cronkite: Sen. Hart’s wife convicted in war pro- 00:25

test at Pentagon.

Cronkite: Communist spring offensive in Viet- 00:33

nam steps up, and assault on Dak Seang con-

tinues.

Cronkite: Heavy fighting in _ Vietnam and in 00:16

Cambodia.

Cronkite: Five newsmen missing, believed cap- 00:17

tured by VC, include Sean Flynn and Dana

Stone working for CBS.

Threlkeld: Veterans wanting higher pensions, 01:45

housing, disrupt Saigon in demonstration.

Cronkite: Antiwar group releases names of 81 00:15

prisoners in No. Vietnam, eight of them new.

Wednesday, April 8, 1970

Cronkite: Seige of Dak Seang “past crucial pe- 00:30

riod,” but both sides bringing in reinforce-

ments.

Quint: Cambodians definitely at war—in Chipou, 01:55

near Vietnam border.

Comments of CBS

Wednesday, April 8, 1970 (Continued)

Cronkite: Columbia Eagle — hijacked munitions 00-30

ship—sails from Cambodian waters.

Cronkite: Laotian Premier Souvanna Phouma 00:25

asks halt to bombing except Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Mins:Secs

Thursday, April 9, 1970

Reasoner: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures, 00:40

and cumulative figures for war so far.

Reasoner: US command says US soldiers have 00:25

been permitted to cross Cambodia border only

on courtesy visits.

Laurence: Report on Charlie Company in War 06:25

Zone C, on day company refuses to follow or-

ders of new captain.

Reasoner: White House Says Nixon to make 00:15

speech on Vietnam next Thursday, 9PM—

CBS will televise.

Reasoner: Senate Foreign Relations Committee 00:30

votes to repeal Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Reasoner: South Vietnamese relief battalion 00:22

reaches Dak Seang.

Reasoner: 100 Vietnamese civilians killed in 00:35

Cambodia—some Say accident, some say mas-

sacre.

Saturday, April 11, 1970

Mudd: Senators Church and Cooper introduce 00:20

legislation against use of US troops in Cam-

bodia.

Mudd: Enemy Stages new attack on Dak Seang, 00:15

S. Vietnam.

Comments of CBS

100

Mins:Secs

Sunday, April 12, 1970

Mudd: No. Vietnamese attack at Dak Pek, near

Cambodian border.

Shepard: Report on Fire Base Tango, near Dak

Seang, which has been under attack almost

constantly.

Mudd: Cambodian troops authorized to attack

No. Vietnamese and VC, instead of waiting to

be attacked, fight at Pra Saut.

Monday, April 13, 1970

Rather: Nixon consults with Laird, military

leaders on troop withdrawals for his speech

Thursday.

Cronkite: American troops in Vietnam now at

429,000.

Cronkite: Rocket attack on Saigon, first in four

months.

Shepard: Report from Tam Kanh, receiving

point for casualties from Dak Seang special

forces camp.

Cronkite: Charlie Company involved in near mu-

tiny in Laurence piece 4/9/70, not to be pun-

ished.

Cronkite: Cambodia expecting attack on Svay

Rieng.

Tuesday, April 14, 1970

Cronkite: Cambodia asks for arms aid, not spe-

cifically from us.

Quint: Report on trip in Cambodia near Viet-

nam border where Quint and crew were al-

most captured by VC.

APR ELLIE AL TTI TATE NAD ST IN ET

00:15

00:20

02 :32

00 :25

02:00

00 :30

00:18

02:40

00:25

00 :22

03 :20

aan

Comments of CBS

101

. Mins:Secs

Wednesday, April 15, 1970

Schakne: Antiwar protests for April 15 in Bos- 01:10

ton.

Fromson: Antiwar protests in Cleveland. 01:10

Plante: Antiwar protests in Chicago. 00:40

Appearing: Sen. Goodell, SOF, says stop 00:15

war and rebuild America.

Pappas: Antiwar protest in Colorado Springs. 01:15

Cronkite: Antiwar protest at U. of Calif. Berke- 00:20

ley campus.

Rather: Nixon’s reaction to protests: we couldn’t 01:12

care less.

Cronkite: Saigon shelled for second time this 00:10

week.

Cronkite: Cambodia Premier Lon Nol appeals to 00:15

people to drive out Communist Vietnamese

forces.

Cronkite: Many Vietnamese bodies, shot, floating 00:22

down Mekong River from Cambodian terri-

tory.

Thursday, April 16, 1970

Cronkite: Russia less cool to thought of new Ge- 00:37

neva conference on SE Asia.

Cronkite: Cambodia appeals to Washington for 00:25

arms.

Quint: Report on bodies floating down Mekong 01:30

River from Cambodia.

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures. 00:20

rey ee

Comments of CBS

102

Mins:Secs

Friday, April 17, 1970

Shepard: South Vietnamese troops moving into 02:30

Cambodia, but newsmen are kept out.

Cronkite: Massacre of Vietnamese residents of

Cambodia reported at Takeo.

Cronkite: Nixon to make Vietnam speech Mon-

day evening.

Laurence: Another report on Charlie Company

in War Zone €, this one concentrating on men

who want to kill and men who don’t.

Saturday, April 18, 1970

Mudd: Cambodia says VC have surrounded Ta-

keo, close to Phnom Penh.

B. Kalb: 100 Vietnamese civilians killed in Ta-

keo by Cambodian soldiers, say survivors.

Shepard: Student demonstrators demonstrate

against Thieu in Saigon.

Mudd: Secy. of State Rogers says US is seeking

clarification of Soviet statement less cool to

idea of new Geneva conference on SE Asia.

Sunday, April 19, 1970

Mudd: Administration acknowledges extent of

US involvement in Laos.

Appearing: Sen. Symington, SOF, says

information must be publicly disclosed.

Mudd: Heavy ground fighting near Dak Seang,

So. Vietnam.

Laurence: Report on Charlie Company in War

Zone C—battalion and Bravo Company com-

mand post attacked, 100 enemy killed.

> i al ee a a a a il a al a POI Tt

00:30

00:12

05:00

00:20

01:50

01:10

00:15

00:40

00:15

00:25

03 :50

seqegeyaeee

Comments of CBS

103

Sunday, April 19, 1970 (Continued)

Hart: Vietnam Moratorium Committee closing

national offices, keep local offices open.

Appearing: Sam Brown, SOF, Says na-

tional office has passed its useful life;

work now has to be done in localities,

Monday, April 20, 1970

Cronkite: Nixon to announce 50,000 withdrawal

tonight.

Cronkite: US troops now in Vietnam—425,500.

Cronkite: Five helicopters shot down over Viet-

nam yesterday.

B. Kalb: Report from near Saang, Cambodia, 18

miles from Phnom Penh, taken by VC yester-

day.

Cronkite: VC reject French proposal for another

Geneva conference.

Tuesday, April 21, 1970

Cronkite: Cambodian troops use Vietnamese ci-

vilians as decoys to flush out VC guerrillas.

Quint: Report from Saang—civilians having

trouble getting used to war.

Cronkite: So. Vietnam force drives 2 miles into

Cambodia.

Cronkite: VC call Nixon withdrawal announce-

ment maneuver.

Cronkite: Thieu hopes withdrawal will be accom-

panied by more arms.

Mins:Secs

00:45

01:36

00:25

00:08

00:10

03:00

00:20

00:45

02 00

00:22

00:17

00:30

Comments of CBS

104

. Mins :Secs

Wednesday, April 22, 1970

Cronkite: Defense Dept. trying to close tax loop- 00:30

hole which makes men exempt from income

: tax if they only fly over Vietnam once in any

month.

Cronkite: Foreign embassies in Phnom Penh con- 00:25

sidering evacuation of their dependents.

Quint: Report on Cambodian army unit’s use of 01:45

: Vietnamese civilians as shield, to flush out vc

snipers. wn

Cronkite: So. Vietnamese troops have entered 00:18

; Cambodia five times in past week.

: Cronkite: Four helicopters shot down over Viet- 00:15

nam yesterday, four planes over Laos.

j Thursday, April 23, 1970

4 Rather: Nixon agrees to send arms to Cambodia 02:00

3 —captured AK-47 rifles only.

Cronkite: Senate Foreign Relations Committee 00:10

} sending investigators to look into our involve-

ment in Cambodia.

Cronkite: Saang, Cambodia, retaken by govern- 00:25

ment troops, and enemy concentrates on tak-

ing Takeo.

Cronkite: Four planes, two copters shot down 00:15

over Laos and Vietnam yesterday.

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures. 00:10

Cronkite: Paris peace talks—Communists hint at 00:20

pullout.

Cronkite: Lt. Wm. Calley wins 3 month delay in 00:18

court martial.

-_ til more) ans & SE ba 2s Sak, eae eae eile BIR a NS ae Oe a eel

Comments of CBS

105

Mins:Secs

Thursday, April 23, 1970 (Continued)

Laurence: Last report from Charlie Company in 05:00

War Zone C—Army says no more.

Appearing: PFC Robert Teschker, PFC

Lee Boling, PFC George Rivera.

Friday, April 24, 1970

Pierpoint: Ron Ziegler says Cambodia conflict is 01:45

not a civil war, clearly an invasion, as Nixon

ponders next move there.

Cronkite: Soviet accuses US of provocations in 00:17

Cambodia.

Cronkite: Communists trying to cut off Phnom 00:30

Penh.

Cronkite: Cambodia chief of staff says Vietna- 00:17

mese living there have been fifth column for

Communists.

Cronkite: South Vietnamese have crossed into 00:22

Cambodia again.

Rowan: Congressional investigation of My Lai 01:20

hears Major General Samuel Koster.

Threlkeld: Report from Song My on how survi- 03:20

vors of My Lai are living today.

Saturday, April 25, 1970

Mudd: Secy. of State Rogers says No. Vietnam 00:25

violated Geneva agreements, UN charter in

invading Cambodia.

Threlkeld: Report from An Thanh, So. Vietnam, 02:35

on refugees returning to So. Vietnam from

Cambodia.

Comments of CBS

106

Sunday, April 26, 1970

Mudd: Communists threaten Phnom Penh, Cam-

bodia, as Cambodian troops re-occupy Saang.

Quint: Report from Saang, Cambodia.

Mudd: Sihanouk said to have left Peking, per-

haps for Hanoi, in effort to return to rule in

Cambodia.

; Monday, April 27, 1970

Kalb: State Secy. Rogers gives closed door testi-

mony before Senate Foreign Relations Com-

mittee on Cambodia.

Appearing: Sen. Fulbright, SOF, says

Rogers gave impression that President

would send aid to Cambodia.

Cronkite: Defense Secy. Laird feels best way to

deal with Cambodia is to support So. Vietna-

mese pursuit.

Cronkite: Communists press offensives near

Phnom Penh, and at Ang Tasom.

Cronkite: First C-130 gunship of war downed

over Laos.

Sem t ee es

Tuesday, April 28, 1970

Cronkite: Red China warns US to stay out of

Laos, Cambodia.

Cronkite: US to send 4,000 more captured Com-

munist weapons to Cambodian government.

Cronkite: Cambodian troops beat back attempt

to recapture Ang Tasom in Cambodia.

Quint: Report on Highway One in Cambodia,

running from Phnom Pehn to Vietnam bor-

der, most of it in control of VC.

Cronkite: Five more aircraft lost in Vietnam,

Laos in last three days.

CRE ea aR cI Nea AP DO ORE aot AT

Mins:Secs

00:30

03:15

00:15

01:30

00 :52

00:35

00 :30

00:25

00:17

00:10

00:15

02:10

00:15

Comments of CBS

107

Mins:Secs

Wednesday, April 29, 1970

Cronkite: Nixon authorizes US troops going into 00:25

Cambodia.

Threlkeld: Report on US troops going into Cam- 01:12

bodia.

Rather: US troops in Cambodia—White House 01:25

report.

Rowan: US Troops in Cambodia—Pentagon re- 00:52

port.

Kalb: US troops in Cambodia—State Depart- 00:56

ment report.

Mudd: US troops in Cambodia—Congress angry. 00:45

Appearing: Senator Aiken, SOF, says he 00:10

is disappointed, didn’t think the Presi-

dent would do it.

Senator Mansfield, SOF, says he “can’t 00:27

stomach it,” it was “most inadvisable.”

Senator Stennis, SOF, says advisers are 00:22

necessary.

Thursday, April 30, 1970

Cronkite: Nixon to address nation at 9PM, CBS 00:15

will carry.

Cronkite: Foreign Relations Committee calls 00:20

move into Cambodia a “grave development”.

Rather: Preview of Nixon’s speech on Cambodia. 01 215

Webster and Threlkeld: So. Vietnam troops with 02:15

American advisers have moved into Cambo-

dia as far as Prasaut.

Cronkite: Battles continue near Ang Tasom and 00:38

Takeo, Cambodia.

lim.

SQA RLU ae aaa Sentind

Comments of CBS

108

Mins:Secs

Thursday, April 30, 1970 (Continued)

B. Kalb: Cambodia Foreign Minister says he’ll

protest move into Cambodia.

Cronkite: Britain withholds backing Cambodian

move, Russia condemns it, as do Communists

at Paris peace talks.

Collingwood: On the thinking behind the Cam-

bodian thrust.

Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures.

Friday, May 1, 1970

Cronkite: US troops move into Cambodia.

Laurence: Report on Charlie Company among

those who moved into Cambodia.

Rather and Hart: Nixon busy with Cambodian

move.

Appearing: Nixon, SOF, says protesting

college students are bums; forces in

Vietnam are the greatest; doesn’t know

if people are behind him.

Herbert Klein, SOF, says Mitchell con-

tributed to decision but was not decid-

ing vote.

Kalb: Congressional reaction to Cambodian move.

Appearing: Senator Thurmond, SOF, says

President has all facts; deserves sup-

port.

Senator Fulbright, SOF, says meeting

with President would be a good thing;

Congress should advise him.

01:00

00:22

03 :35

00:15

01:00

03 :00

01:00

01:20

00 :36

00:50

00:25

00 :35

Comments of CBS

109

& Mins:Secs

Friday, May 1, 1970 (Continued )

Cronkite: Sen. Kennedy calls move into Cambo- 00:10

dia madness.

Appearing: Sen. Kennedy, SOF, move 00:50

cannot be justified.

Cronkite: Overseas reactions to Cambodian move 00:40

predictable.

Dick: Demonstration against Cambodian move 01:25

on University of Maryland campus spills over.

Cronkite: Other campus violent protests. 00:35

Cronkite: CBS to do one-hour special Sunday at 00:06

8PM on Cambodia.

Cronkite: 6 helicopters lost over So. Vietnam, 1 00:13

plane over Laos.

Saturday, May 2, 1970

Rowan: Laird says he'll recommend resumption 01:05

of bombing of No. Vietnam if they retaliate

Cambodian move.

Appearing: Laird, SOF, says this is not 00:30

an enlargement of war but step toward

ending it.

Webster: Troops moving into Cambodia haven’t 02:25

encountered much of the enemy.

Mudd: Helicopters collide in Cambodian push. 00:20

Mudd: Russian reaction to Cambodian push. 00:15

Mudd: Hanoi reaction—also charge we’ve 00:30

bombed them.

Schieffer: Foreign Relations Committee now cool 01:22

on meeting with Nixon.

Comments of CBS

108

Mins:Secs

Thursday, April 30, 1970 (Continued)

B. Kalb: Cambodia Foreign Minister says he’ll 01:00

protest move into Cambodia.

Cronkite: Britain withholds backing Cambodian 00:22

move, Russia condemns it, as do Communists

at Paris peace talks.

Collingwood: On the thinking behind the Cam- 03:35

bodian thrust.

} Cronkite: Last week’s Vietnam casualty figures. 00:15

Friday, May 1, 1970

Cronkite: US troops move into Cambodia. 01:00

1 Laurence: Report on Charlie Company among 03:00

those who moved into Cambodia.

f Rather and Hart: Nixon busy with Cambodian 01:00

move.

3 Appearing: Nixon, SOF, says protesting 01:20

: college students are bums; forces in

Vietnam are the greatest; doesn’t know

if people are behind him.

Herbert Klein, SOF, says Mitchell con- 00:36

tributed to decision but was not decid-

ing vote.

Kalb: Congressional reaction to Cambodian move. 00:50

Appearing: Senator Thurmond, SOF, says 00:25

President has all facts; deserves sup-

port.

Senator Fulbright, SOF, says meeting 00:35

with President would be a good thing;

Congress should advise him.

a Di la hl PORT IRA TY EET LN INET INT HT ee RL IE MIS Hire LEIS Coy MDOT “7

Comments of CBS

109

Mins:Secs

Friday, May 1, 1970 (Continued)

Cronkite: Sen. Kennedy calls move into Cambo- 00:10

dia madness.

Appearing: Sen. Kennedy, SOF, move 00:50

cannot be justified.

Cronkite: Overseas reactions to Cambodian move 00:40

predictable.

Dick: Demonstration against Cambodian move 01 325

on University of Maryland campus spills over.

Cronkite: Other campus violent protests, 00:35

Cronkite: CBS to do one-hour special Sunday at 00:06

8PM on Cambodia.

Cronkite: 6 helicopters lost over So. Vietnam, 1 00:13

plane over Laos.

Saturday, May 2, 1970

Rowan: Laird says he’ll recommend resumption 01:05

of bombing of No. Vietnam if they retaliate

Cambodian move.

Appearing: Laird, SOF, says this is not 00:30

an enlargement of war but step toward

ending it.

Webster: Troops moving into Cambodia haven’t 02:25

encountered much of the enemy.

Mudd: Helicopters collide in Cambodian push. 00:20

Mudd: Russian reaction to Cambodian push. 00:15

Mudd: Hanoi reaction—also charge we've 00:30

bombed them.

Schieffer: Foreign Relations Committee now cool 01:22

on meeting with Nixon.

Comments of CBS

110

Mins:Secs

Saturday, May 2, 1970 (Continued)

Appearing: Sen. Hatfield, SOF, says Con-

gress must either vote to withhold

funds for war or declare war.

Sen. Scott, SOF, says Congress will vote

funds.

Sunday, May 3, 1970

Rowan: Administration claims uncovering giant

supply caches in Cambodia push, call reported

raids on North Vietnam “protective reaction.”

Rather: New raids, approved by Nixon, are at

least upgraded “protective reaction.”

Syvertsen: Report on fighting in new Cambodian

Webster: Action unexpectedly not heavy in Cam-

bodian push as No. Vietnam HQ still not

found.

Mudd: Agnew on FACE THE NATION ques-

tioned by Bruce Morton and George Herman

on whether we’re occupying Cambodia.

Appearing: Spiro Agnew; see FACE

THE NATION list.

Mudd: Dr. Spock arrested in antiwar demonstra-

tion across street from White House.

Monday, May 4, 1970

Pappas: 4 killed in campus rioting at Kent State

Univ. in Ohio.

Rather: Nixon issues statement of regret on

Kent State.

hel dial fe

00 :25

00:12

01:05

01:00

01:32

01:51

01:40

00:15

03 :00

01:10

PEPE ATRL REN ANTM EN ON RT ENO Y NIT ITIE TOMI arte se Ot ,

Comments of CBS

111

Monday, May 4, 1970 (Continued)

Cronkite: Smaller demonstrations at Univ. of 00:40

Maryland, Stanford—National Student Assn.

calls for student strike tomorrow to protest

Cambodia.

Cronkite: China calls Cambodian push “mad pro- 00:30

vocation.”

Cronkite: Kosygin protests Cambodian push in 00:25

special news conf.

Cronkite: Nixon advisers are saying Communists 00:22

may break off Paris peace talks,

Cronkite: Laird says raids on No. Vietnam are 00:15

over, but they could start again.

Cronkite: Communists move toward Phnom Penh 00:50

in Cambodia.

Laurence: Report that Communist HQ in Cam- 02:00

bodia may have been found.

Morton: Foreign Relations Committee, skeptical, 01:20

agrees to White House briefing, along with

House Foreign Relations Comm.

Appearing: Sen. Fulbright, SOF, feels 00:30

meeting subverts independent judg-

ment of Congress more interested in

consultations then briefings.

Mins:Secs

Tuesday, May 5, 1970

Rather: Nixon meets with Congressional Armed 00:53

Services, Foreign Relations Committees on

Cambodia.

Appearing: Sen. Tower, SOF, says inva- 00:25

sion was necessary move to shorten

war.

Sen. Schweiker, says war is tearing coun- (00:20

try apart; cannot support it.

Beaicntiv. acide Sai lathe

Comments of CBS

112

Mins :Secs

Tuesday, May 5, 1970 (Continued)

Kalb: Rogers, Laird, opposed Cambodian push.

Cronkite: Air raids on No. Vietnam were fol-

lowed by one more Nixon didn’t know about.

Cronkite: Student strikes reported in 114 col-

leges.

Cronkite: Mrs. Nixon calls off trip, and Nixon

calls off weekend trip, because of demonstra-

tions.

Cronkite: Cambodia approves Cambodian push.

Cronkite: Allies launch new push at third point

on Cambodian border, farther north.

Syvertsen: Allies uncover major enemy base in

Cambodia.

Cronkite: U Thant calls for Indochina confer-

ence.

Cronkite: British Labourites say Cambodian

push could hamper withdrawal plans.

Cronkite: So. Vietnamese schools, colleges closed

fearing anti-Thieu demonstrations.

Cronkite: Tran Ngoc Chau, Thieu enemy, sen-

tenced to 10 years two months ago, has trial

declared unconstitutional.

Wednesday, May 6, 1970

Cronkite: No. Vietnam may be launching coun-

ter-offensive.

Shepard: Report from the scene as new attack

into Cambodia is launched. Soldiers feel un-

prepared.

Cronkite: House rejects antiwar amendments by

large votes.

01:25

01:00

00 :30

00:13

00:15

“01:30

00:12

00:17

00:15

00:21

Comments of CBS

113

Wednesday, May 6, 1970 ( Continued)

Cronkite: First shipment of rifles to Cambodia

completed.

Cronkite: Laird, Rogers say they supported Nix-

on’s move into Cambodia.

Cronkite: No. Vietnamese call off today’s peace

talks.

Cronkite: Troops ordered into Saigon as unrest

appears to be growing.

Morton: Antiwar march on Washington planned

for Saturday.

Thursday, May 7, 1970

Reasoner: White House Says troops in Cambodia

captured major base complex 25 miles north

of Snoul.

Laurence: Report on US troops near Snoul—

making friends.

Duvall: Report on US troops in Snoul—making

no friends.

Reasoner: So. Vietnam plans to send boats up

Mekong River to Phnom Penh.

Reasoner: Last week’s casualty figures from

Vietnam.

Morton: Demonstrators, officials, still stalemated

over location of weekend antiwar demonstra-

tion in Washington.

Reasoner: 186 colleges across country closed be-

cause of war protests.

”

Mins:Secs

00:15

00:25

00:20

00:22

02:00

00:45

01:30

00:50

00:25

02:20

00:20

Comments of CBS

114

a Mins :Secs

Friday, May 8, 1970

Cronkite: Effects of Nixon Cambodian move—

schools closed, thousands expected at Wash-

ington rally tomorrow.

Schorr: Congress doves stay behind in general

exodus to align selves with protestors.

Appearing: Sen. Percy, SOF, says politi-

cians would listen to youth if they cam-

paigned.

Sen. McGovern, SOF, only effective way

to end war is constitutional.

Sen. Muskie, SOF, says we need to with-

draw from Vietnam to rebuild our

country.

Cronkite: 250 in State Dept. express concern,

apprehensive over Cambodian push.

Schoumacher: Washington officials compromise

with demonstrators, will allow meeting on

Ellipse.

Cronkite: J. Edgar Hoover says Communists

were in last November antiwar rally.

Dean: New York constructi

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.