# DA-96-1653: A. H. Belo Corporation (10/01/96): A. H. Belo Corporation

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_96_1653

## Section

- **Citation:** DA-96-1653: A. H. Belo Corporation (10/01/96)
- **Heading:** A. H. Belo Corporation
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FCC Declaratory Rulings / A. H. Belo Corporation

## Text

Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1653
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Request of )
A. H. BELO CORPORATION )
For Declaratory Ruling )
STAFF RULING
Adopted: October 1, 1996 Released: October 1, 1996
By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:
1. The Commission has before it a request for declaratory ruling filed September 23,
1996, by the A. H. Belo Corporation (Belo). Belo seeks a Commission ruling that its proposal
to provide free air time in the context of news coverage of "major" candidates for the United
States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and Gubernatorial races prior to the
November 5, 1996, general election are exempt from the "equal opportunities" provision of
Section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C. Section 315(a). For
the reasons discussed below, we believe that the proposal is consistent with the statutory
exemptions and related Commission and judicial case law and, accordingly, it should be deemed
exempt from the equal opportunities requirement as "on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news
event" programming under Section 315(a)(4).
Factual Background .
2. Belo proposes that, in each of the areas served by a station licensed to Belo,1 the Belo
station would, in cooperation with local Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) affiliates, produce a
program or programs featuring candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and
for Governor. Belo plans to begin airing these programs in October 1996. With respect to the
U.S. House of Representatives races, Belo will present candidates from districts within its
stations' respective Grade A contours
eration with local Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) affiliates, produce a
program or programs featuring candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and
for Governor. Belo plans to begin airing these programs in October 1996. With respect to the
U.S. House of Representatives races, Belo will present candidates from districts within its
stations' respective Grade A contours. When more than two legally qualified candidates are
competing for an office, Belo states that it will select candidates by utilizing "pre-established
objective criteria for public support and credibility appropriate to each jurisdiction involved, such
1 Belo is licensed to operate the following stations: WFAA-TV, Dallas, TX; KHOU-TV, Houston, TX;
KIRO-TV, Seattle, WA; KXTV, Sacramento, CA; WWL-TV, New Orleans, LA; WVEC-TV, Norfolk/Hampton, V A;
and K.OTV, Tulsa, OK.
12306
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1653
as significant levels of public support in independent public opinion polls, numbers of signatures
on nominating petitions, receipt of substantial campaign contributions from varied sources, prior
holding of significant public office(s), or receipt of a substantial level of votes in prior elections
for the same or comparable offices." Each station licensed to Belo will invite the selected
candidates to its studio to "videotape 'live'" their respective statements. Each program will be
introduced by Belo and PBS station officials and moderated by a newscaster from the local Belo
station's news division. The moderator will ask each candidate in turn to respond to the same
question with five minutes accorded for the candidates' responses. Once taped, the questions and
the "candidates' unedited five minute responses" will be combined by Belo news personnel into
a one-hour program, with the statements presented back-to-back and the order of presentation to
be determined by coin flip if two candidates are selected and by a drawing of straws if more than
two participate
with five minutes accorded for the candidates' responses. Once taped, the questions and
the "candidates' unedited five minute responses" will be combined by Belo news personnel into
a one-hour program, with the statements presented back-to-back and the order of presentation to
be determined by coin flip if two candidates are selected and by a drawing of straws if more than
two participate. The programming would be aired by both the local Belo and PBS stations and
will be broadcast without commercial interruption.2
3. Belo claims that its proposed format is fully consistent with Commission precedent,
which Belo argues has held that similar programming satisfies Congressional intent for exempt
bona fide "news event" broadcasts. Specifically, Belo contends that "[t]he presentation of
unedited statements by Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates on issues central to their
candidacies is, by any reasonable standard, newsworthy5 and the Belo proposal is carefully
structured to ensure against favoritism of any particular candidates." Furthermore, Belo notes in
support of its request, that it has received a number of journalism awards, particularly for its
coverage of local news, and that the proposed programming is in keeping with its concentration
on public service by increasing local news coverage in each of the communities it is licensed to
serve.
Discussion
Legal Background
4. Section 315 of the Act provides that if a broadcaster or origination cablecaster3 permits
a legally qualified candidate for public office to "use" a broadcast station or cable television
2 To accommodate all candidates in larger markets, Belo states that it may be necessary to produce "two
episodes." Belo maintains, however, that all of the selected candidates competing for the same office would always
appear in the same broadcast. Belo also states that it will offer the programming to local cable television systems
and radio stations
a broadcast station or cable television
2 To accommodate all candidates in larger markets, Belo states that it may be necessary to produce "two
episodes." Belo maintains, however, that all of the selected candidates competing for the same office would always
appear in the same broadcast. Belo also states that it will offer the programming to local cable television systems
and radio stations.
3 For purposes of applying the equal opportunities requirement, Section 315(c) defines "broadcasting station"
as including cable television systems. In implementing this provision, the Commission has applied Section 315 only
to a cable system's origination cablecasting, defined as programming over which it exercises exclusive control. 47
C.F.R Section 76.5(p).
12307
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1653
system,4 it must afford equal opportunities to all legally qualified opponents for the same office.
In 1959. the Commission ruled that the appearance of the incumbent Mayor of Chicago on a local
newscast during his reelection campaign triggered equal opportunities rights for his opponents.
In re Telegram to CBS. Inc. ("Lar Dalv"). 18 Rad. Reg. 238, recon. denied. 26 FCC 715 (1959).
Congress, fearing that the ruling would inhibit news coverage of the political arena, within
months enacted four news exemptions to the equal opportunities requirement:
1) bona fide newscast;
2) bona fide news interview;
3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is
incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the
news documentary); and
4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited
to political conventions and activities incidental thereto).
47 U.S.C. Section 315(a)(l)-(4). In Aspenjnstitute. 55 FCC 2d 697 (1975), affdjubjiom^
Chisholm v. FCC. 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976) cert.Jemed, 429 U.S
is
incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the
news documentary); and
4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited
to political conventions and activities incidental thereto).
47 U.S.C. Section 315(a)(l)-(4). In Aspenjnstitute. 55 FCC 2d 697 (1975), affdjubjiom^
Chisholm v. FCC. 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976) cert.Jemed, 429 U.S. 890 (1976) ("Aspen"),
which granted a news event exemption to candidate debates, the Commission adopted a two-part
test for analyzing whether a program should be considered bona fide news event programming.5
First, it determined whether the format of the program reasonably fit within the news event
exemption category and, second, it assessed whether the decision to carry a particular event was
the result of good faith news judgment and not based on partisan purposes.
5. Since the Commission's decision in Aspen, the Commission has reevaluated its
interpretation of the statutory exemptions to give broadcasters greater discretion to present "news
event" coverage of the political process. Several years ago, in King Broadcasting Company, 6
FCC Red 4998 (1991), on remand from King Broadcasting Company v. FCC. 860 F.2d 465 (D.C.
Cir. 1988), vacating WEBE-108 Radio Company. 2 FCC Red 5963 (M.M. Bur. 1987), review
denied. FCC 88-162, released May 13, 1988 ("King"), the Commission ruled that back-to-back
appearances by the major candidates for the office of President hi programming produced by the
broadcaster could qualify as bona fide news event programming.
4 In general, a use is any "positive" identified or identifiable appearance of a legally qualified candidate. This
excludes disparaging depictions by opponents or third-party adversaries. See Report and Order. 7 FCC Red 678, 684
back
appearances by the major candidates for the office of President hi programming produced by the
broadcaster could qualify as bona fide news event programming.
4 In general, a use is any "positive" identified or identifiable appearance of a legally qualified candidate. This
excludes disparaging depictions by opponents or third-party adversaries. See Report and Order. 7 FCC Red 678, 684
(1991).
5 Eight years later in Henry Geller. 95 FCC 2d 1236, affd sub nom.. League of Women Voters v. FCC. 731
F.2d 995 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("Geller"). the Commission held that its decision in Aspen had, in some respects, been
unnecessarily restrictive. Applying the two-prong test formulated in Aspen, it therefore allowed broadcasters to
sponsor and air debates from their own studios and to tape and air a "reasonably recent event." The Commission
reasoned that, although there was a chance that according broadcasters additional freedom and flexibility in their
news programming might result in an occasional abuse, Congress clearly had accepted that risk in order to foster
a more informed electorate. Id. at 1244.
12308
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1653
6. More recently, in Fox Broadcasting Company ("Fox"), FCC 96-355 (released August
21, 1996), the Commission relied on its King decision and granted the requests of Fox, Capital
Cities/ABC and PBS that their respective proposals for the presentation of the major presidential
candidates be deemed exempt as on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event. In Fox.
however, the Commission noted that its holding was decided hi the context of elections at the
presidential level, and that, although it would utilize the same principles in considering requests
for news exemptions involving candidate presentations for offices below the presidential level,
those cases would be evaluated in the context of the specific circumstances of future requests.6
Analysis of Belo Request
7
on noted that its holding was decided hi the context of elections at the
presidential level, and that, although it would utilize the same principles in considering requests
for news exemptions involving candidate presentations for offices below the presidential level,
those cases would be evaluated in the context of the specific circumstances of future requests.6
Analysis of Belo Request
7. Consistent with the principles set forth in King and Fox, we believe that Belo's
proposed format for the presentation of congressional and gubernatorial candidates is exempt as
"on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events."
8. With respect to the first prong of the Aspen test, we agree with Belo that back-to-back
appearances by major Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates are reasonably treated as news
events. The Commission noted hi King that Congress had concluded generally that the objective
of equal opportunities "must be balanced against two other objectives no less vital: encouraging
maximum coverage of all news events ... hi order to cultivate a fully informed public, and
preservation of licensees' traditional independent journalistic judgment with respect to
broadcasting such events." Id. (quoting the court hi Kennedy for President Committee
("Kennedy"). 77 FCC 2d 965, 968-69, aff d sub nom. Kennedy for President Committee v. FCC.
636 F.2d 417 (D.C. Cir. 1980).) News coverage of congressional and gubernatorial candidates
is an extremely important element of local news coverage.7 Thus, consistent with the
Commission's finding in King and Fox that statements by the major candidates for the Presidency
are reasonably viewed as bona fide news events, we conclude that a broadcaster may reasonably
determine that a Congressional or Gubernatorial race, as Belo has determined, is sufficiently
newsworthy to warrant news coverage
ely important element of local news coverage.7 Thus, consistent with the
Commission's finding in King and Fox that statements by the major candidates for the Presidency
are reasonably viewed as bona fide news events, we conclude that a broadcaster may reasonably
determine that a Congressional or Gubernatorial race, as Belo has determined, is sufficiently
newsworthy to warrant news coverage.
6 While we recognize that, as a practical matter, broadcasters may seek to assure that the Commission
believes that a proposed format is exempt before it is broadcast, we note that broadcasters are not required by the
statute or case law to seek our approval before presenting programming deemed by the broadcaster to fit one of
the exempt bona fide news categories.
7 There is no indication in the statute or the legislative history that Congress intended that the Commission
apply any different standards to congressional or gubernatorial elections.
12309
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1653
9. Furthermore, as we noted in King and Fox, the Geller ruling8 established that the "on-
the-spot" element of the news event exemption is not lost when programming is taped and shown
at some later date as long as the broadcast is of a "reasonably recent event." Thus, Belo's
proposed programming satisfies the first prong of our analysis.
10. With respect to the second prong of our analysis whether the broadcaster is
exercising good faith judgment that the event is newsworthy it is also clear that Belo has met
the guidelines enunciated in King and Fox. There is no evidence in the record of any intent to
advance a particular candidacy. The stuctural safeguards outlined by Belo to avoid favoritism
are consistent with the guidelines established in Fox and related case law
is whether the broadcaster is
exercising good faith judgment that the event is newsworthy it is also clear that Belo has met
the guidelines enunciated in King and Fox. There is no evidence in the record of any intent to
advance a particular candidacy. The stuctural safeguards outlined by Belo to avoid favoritism
are consistent with the guidelines established in Fox and related case law. The proposed
candidate statements are essentially identical to the back-to-back programming approved hi King
and the election eve statements in Fox, with the added safeguard also present in Fox that each
candidate's statement would respond to the same question. Furthermore, Belo asserts that it will
employ objective criteria in selecting the candidates, considering significant levels of public
support in independent public opinion polls, numbers of signatures on nominating petitions,
receipt of substantial campaign contributions from varied sources, prior holding of significant
public office(s), or receipt of a substantial level of votes in prior elections for the same or
comparable offices. As we stated in Fox, a licensee is not required to delegate the selection of
the candidates to a third party as long as its own criteria for candidate selection are reasonable.
We find that the criteria that Belo has committed to use for candidate selection meets this
standard. We also believe that Belo's commitment to present the statements uninterrupted and
unedited lends an additional assurance that the licensee does not intend to further any particular
candidacies.. We conclude, therefore, that Belo's decision to broadcast the event is not intended
to favor one candidate over another.
11. In view of the foregoing, A. H. Belo Corporation's request IS GRANTED. Staff
action is taken pursuant to delegated authority.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Roj^XStewart
Chief, Mass Media Bureau
See note 5, infra.
12310

## Nearby sections

- [DA-00-1341: A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling (06/20/00) A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_00_1341.md)
- [DA-01-2234: Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services (09/26/01) Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2234.md)
- [DA-01-2871: Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan (12/11/01) Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2871.md)
- [DA-02-765: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66 (04/04/02) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_765.md)
- [DA-02-2078: Time-Telepictures Television (08/26/02) Time-Telepictures Television](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_2078.md)
- [DA-03-2865: INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC (09/09/03) INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_2865.md)
- [DA-03-4108: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration (01/06/04) Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_4108.md)
- [DA-04-970: List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets (04/08/04) List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_970.md)
- [DA-04-3201: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies (10/06/04) Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3201.md)
- [DA-04-3576: Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (11/12/04) Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3576.md)
- [DA-05-140: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (01/26/05) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_140.md)
- [DA-05-148: CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS (01/21/05) CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_148.md)
- [DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05) Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618.md)
- [DA-05-1667: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (06/15/05) Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1667.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_96_1653. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.