Fox Broadcasting Company, Public Broadcasting Service, and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In re Requests of )

)

Fox Broadcasting Company, )

Public Broadcasting Service, )

and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. )

)

For Declaratory Rulings )

DECLARATORY RULING

Adopted: August 19, 1996 Released: August 21, 1996

By the Commission:

1. The Commission has before it three separate requests for declaratory ruling filed

by the Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and Capital

Cities/ABC, Inc. (ABC). Each seeks a Commission ruling that its respective proposal to provide

free air time in the context of news coverage to the major presidential candidates prior to the

November 5, 1996 general election is 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 proposals are consistent with the statutory

exemptions and related Commission and judicial case law and that, accordingly, each should be

deemed exempt from the equal opportunities requirement as "on-the-spot coverage of bonafide

news event" programming under Section 315(a)(4).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Fox Proposal. Fox proposes the following two-pronged format for presentations

by the "major" presidential candidates in order to "contribute to the public interest in an open and

vigorous exchange of ideas prior to the November 5, 1996, general election":

pportunities requirement as "on-the-spot coverage of bonafide

news event" programming under Section 315(a)(4).

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Fox Proposal. Fox proposes the following two-pronged format for presentations

by the "major" presidential candidates in order to "contribute to the public interest in an open and

vigorous exchange of ideas prior to the November 5, 1996, general election":

(1) A taped one-hour prime time program to be aired election eve, with each candidate

accorded an equal amount of time to make a statement in response to the question, "Why

should the American voter vote for you?" The statements would be broadcast

back-to-back, the candidates would have no interaction with reporters or with each other,

and the order of appearance would be determined by coin flip if two candidates participate

or by a drawing of straws if there are more than two; and

11101

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

(2) During the last six weeks of the campaign, each candidate would respond, in taped

one-minute "position statements," to ten questions to be furnished to them by September

1, 1996. Each candidate would be asked the same questions, and the questions would be

formulated by an independent consulting or polling organization. The statements, though

not contemplated as back-to-back, would be "broadcast in prime-time programs of

comparable audience size." The initial order of the statements would be determined by

a coin toss or by drawing straws and would alternate in sequence for the duration of the

broadcasts. The statements would be publicized and regularly scheduled.

3. Under the Fox proposal, selection of major presidential candidates for participation

in both elements of its proposed programming will be determined by reference to selections made

by the Commission on Presidential Debates for participation in the presidential debates

uld alternate in sequence for the duration of the

broadcasts. The statements would be publicized and regularly scheduled.

3. Under the Fox proposal, selection of major presidential candidates for participation

in both elements of its proposed programming will be determined by reference to selections made

by the Commission on Presidential Debates for participation in the presidential debates. 1

Further, Fox states that it will not exercise any control over the content of the candidates'

statements with respect to either of these proposals. Finally, Fox states that it will make

production facilities available, "free of charge and at mutually convenient times and locations,"

for the candidates to record both their one-minute position statements and their election eve

statements. The statements are to be recorded "live on videotape," which Fox explains means that

"the candidates appear live and provide . . . responses, without any opportunity to edit or

otherwise modify or enhance the responses in the post-production process.".

4. In support of its request, Fox claims that "the spoken presentations by the

candidates on issues of concern to voters," consistent with the Commission's 1991 King decision,2

may reasonably be viewed as news events subject to broadcast coverage in the exercise of its

good faith news judgment. Fox states that it has designed structural safeguards to prevent against

possible candidate favoritism, a concern of Congress when it enacted the news exemptions. Fox

maintains, for example, that, by deferring to a third party for the selection of candidates, it has

removed itself from even the possibility of broadcaster favoritism. Fox thus contends that both

formats are bona fide news events consistent with the Commission's interpretations of Section

315(a)(4) of the Act and, alternatively, that both formats also satisfy the criteria enunciated by

the Commission for bona fide news interviews under Section 315(a)(2) of the Act.3

5. PBS Proposal

has

removed itself from even the possibility of broadcaster favoritism. Fox thus contends that both

formats are bona fide news events consistent with the Commission's interpretations of Section

315(a)(4) of the Act and, alternatively, that both formats also satisfy the criteria enunciated by

the Commission for bona fide news interviews under Section 315(a)(2) of the Act.3

5. PBS Proposal. PBS proposes to present a series of programs as part of its "PBS

Democracy Project," to "contribute to a better informed and active electorate in the forthcoming

' The Commission on Presidential Debates is an organization established to plan and sponsor debates among

the leading candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. The debate Commission selects candidates based

upon a variety of factors including the newsworthiness of their candidacy. It would not be involved in Fox's

production in any manner.

2 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 (MM. Bur. 1987), review

denied. FCC 88-162, released May 13, 1988 (King).

3 In light of our finding herein that both parts of the Fox proposal satisfy the requirements for the bona fide

news event exemption, analysis of the alternative news interview exemption request is unnecessary.

11102

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

presidential election" and "to stimulate voter interest and involvement." Candidate selection

would be based on objective criteria such as national polling results or could be predicated on

selections made by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Conditioned on the acceptance by

the presidential candidates of at least the two "major parties," individual candidate statements

lasting at least 2'/z minutes would be broadcast on successive days during prime time, for several

weeks before the November 5, 1996 election

ia such as national polling results or could be predicated on

selections made by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Conditioned on the acceptance by

the presidential candidates of at least the two "major parties," individual candidate statements

lasting at least 2'/z minutes would be broadcast on successive days during prime time, for several

weeks before the November 5, 1996 election. Each candidate would be afforded an opportunity

to present his or her views without restriction as to content/ The statements would be aired each

day at the same time and would be rotated with one candidate statement per night.

6. The following conditions would be imposed by PBS on each candidate: (1) only

the candidate would be permitted to appear and would have to be on screen for the entire length

of the broadcast; and (2) the candidate's visual appearance would be limited to a prescribed

format, such as a depiction of only the candidate's head and shoulders, with no props or sound

effects permitted. PBS asserts that any station agreeing to carry the programming would be

obligated to carry all of the programs in the series. PBS contends that its proposal will provide

for a more extensive and substantive discussion than that afforded by 30-second candidate

advertising, which, in its view, is obscured by the use of production techniques typically

associated with the selling of products and services. PBS argues that both the newsworthiness

of its proposed programming and its good faith news judgment in deciding to carry it are

consistent with Commission precedent, most notably the King decision. PBS thus requests that

the Commission rule that its proposed programming is exempt bonafide news event programming

under Section 315(a)(4) of the Act.

7. ABC Proposal. ABC proposes to offer the "major" presidential candidates the

opportunity to appear on a one-hour prime-time special during the final week of the campaign

consistent with Commission precedent, most notably the King decision. PBS thus requests that

the Commission rule that its proposed programming is exempt bonafide news event programming

under Section 315(a)(4) of the Act.

7. ABC Proposal. ABC proposes to offer the "major" presidential candidates the

opportunity to appear on a one-hour prime-time special during the final week of the campaign.

ABC states that this would be a "live unrestricted event," with the candidates appearing without

interruptions or questions from any third party. ABC explains that the candidates would discuss

with each other, and the American people, the issues they believe to be most important in the

election. ABC contends that spontaneous interaction and dialogue between or among the

candidates is indistinguishable from debates, which have been held by the Commission to be

exempt news events for over twenty years. ABC also contends that the Commission's decision

in King is even more clearly supportive of its format, particularly in light of the structural

safeguards identified in its request.

8. ABC asserts that it will defer selection of the candidates to be included in the

program until a point later in the campaign when it can determine who the major candidates are.

ABC commits to prevent favoritism by looking to objective criteria such as polling results, the

number of states in which the candidate is on the ballot, and whether the candidate has engaged

in a nationwide campaign, to make the selection. ABC believes that a free form discussion

involving the major presidential candidates in the week before the election is a highly

newsworthy event and that its use of the proposed safeguards against favoritism indicate its good

J Because these appearances would, if the request is granted, not be "uses" under Section 315, which cannot be

censored. PBS reserves the right to edit any potentially libelous remarks or personal attacks

on

involving the major presidential candidates in the week before the election is a highly

newsworthy event and that its use of the proposed safeguards against favoritism indicate its good

J Because these appearances would, if the request is granted, not be "uses" under Section 315, which cannot be

censored. PBS reserves the right to edit any potentially libelous remarks or personal attacks.

11103

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

faith news judgment. ABC thus asks that the Commission rule that its proposed programming

would be exempt news event programming under Section 315(a)(4) of the Act.

II. COMMENTS AND EN BANC TESTIMONY

9. On May 13,1996, the Commission issued a Public Notice asking interested parties

to comment on the issues raised by the Fox request and, more generally, on the Commission's

interpretations of the news exemptions to the equal opportunities requirement.5 The Commission

also announced that it would conduct an en bane hearing on June 25, 1996, to provide further

public exploration of the issues generated by the various network proposals and requests.6

10. In our request for comments, we asked whether approval of the Fox proposal

would be consistent with statutory language, legislative history, and judicial and Commission case

law regarding the news exemptions. In addition, we sought comments on whether the

Commission's current interpretation of Section 315 of the Act limits ways in which broadcasters

may voluntarily provide time for candidates to speak directly to voters, and whether programming

that broadcasters in good faith deem to be bonafide news should be exempt regardless of format.

11. We received a total of 25 comments in response to our request and 12 panelists

participated in the en bane hearing. In addition, United States Senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and

John McCain (R-AZ) appeared at the hearing and made statements

s to speak directly to voters, and whether programming

that broadcasters in good faith deem to be bonafide news should be exempt regardless of format.

11. We received a total of 25 comments in response to our request and 12 panelists

participated in the en bane hearing. In addition, United States Senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and

John McCain (R-AZ) appeared at the hearing and made statements. The majority of commenters

and en bane participants generally recognize the benefits to the public of free, unfiltered

broadcast presentation of the major presidential candidates and specifically support finding both

parts of the Fox proposal exempt as "on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news event"

5 The list of commenting parties is attached as Appendix A hereto. PBS and ABC first described their

programming proposals to the Commission as part of their comments for this proceeding. In addition, at the time

of the Public Notice, the CBS, NBC and CNN networks had also announced plans for news coverage of the

presidential campaign. Those networks have not sought a Commission ruling concerning their respective

programming.

6 A list of participants in the en bane hearing is attached as Appendix B. The en bane hearing was scheduled

in response to the April 16, 1996 request of The Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition (Coalition), who asked the

Commission to convene an en bane hearing "to promote a maximum contribution by the electronic media, especially

broadcast television, to the coming general election campaign for President, with special focus on recent proposals

to provide free network television time to the major presidential candidates." The Coalition argued that a hearing

should address the Commission's statutory responsibility to interpret Section 315 of the Act so as to increase the

amount and level of substantive political discussion

dcast television, to the coming general election campaign for President, with special focus on recent proposals

to provide free network television time to the major presidential candidates." The Coalition argued that a hearing

should address the Commission's statutory responsibility to interpret Section 315 of the Act so as to increase the

amount and level of substantive political discussion. The Coalition stated that it had urged the television networks

to offer the major candidates "a few minutes a night during prime time in the culminating weeks of the 1996

presidential campaign," and argued that if the networks accepted its proposal, such coverage would be exempt as

bonafide news event programming under Section 315(a)(4).The Coalition did not, however, file with us a specific

request for a ruling on whether its proposal is exempt under Section 315(a). Nonetheless, our decision here

addressing the requests by Fox, PBS and ABC serves to provide general guidance to others who wish to offer various

types of exempt programming formats.

11104

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

programming.7 These commenters contend that uninterrupted presentations by the major

presidential candidates reasonably can be considered news events under the statute and

Commission precedent. Consistent with the views of a number of commenters. the National

Association of Broadcasters (NAB) stated that the election eve back-to-back portion of Fox's

proposed format fully satisfies the criteria established in the Commission's 1991 King decision.

In addition, NAB asserts that the same rationale should apply to the sixty-second statements, even

if they are not back-to-back, so long as they air in comparable time periods.

12. Senator Bradley commented on the importance of having the candidates themselves

communicate directly with the voters, in contrast with the negative campaigning increasingly

associated with paid political advertising

addition, NAB asserts that the same rationale should apply to the sixty-second statements, even

if they are not back-to-back, so long as they air in comparable time periods.

12. Senator Bradley commented on the importance of having the candidates themselves

communicate directly with the voters, in contrast with the negative campaigning increasingly

associated with paid political advertising. He also stated that broadcasters are granted a privilege

to use a limited public resource and that use of the airwaves should not be available only to the

highest bidder. Senator McCain endorsed the Coalition's call for the networks to give the major

Presidential candidates several minutes of time per night in the closing weeks of the campaign.

He stated that simulcasting the candidates' appearances on the major networks would provide the

greatest impact on the electorate.8

13. To the extent that commenters supportive of the Fox proposals voice any concerns

about the impact of granting the requested rulings, they generally relate to the treatment of third-

party candidates and the likelihood that these candidates may be excluded from coverage. In

addition, three commenters (The LaRouche Committee, Daniel Walker and the World Workers

Party) oppose the Fox proposal entirely because they believe it would exclude coverage of minor

candidates.9 However, Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Charles Manatt state that political

communication is enhanced ~ and the public interest served ~ by focusing the public's attention

on the major candidates through political broadcasts. PBS states that there are often numerous

candidates on the ballot in Presidential elections, yet there is usually a demonstrable lack of

interest on the part of the public in most minor party candidacies. PBS points out that the top

three vote recipients in the 1992 Presidential election received 99.37% of all votes cast

lic's attention

on the major candidates through political broadcasts. PBS states that there are often numerous

candidates on the ballot in Presidential elections, yet there is usually a demonstrable lack of

interest on the part of the public in most minor party candidacies. PBS points out that the top

three vote recipients in the 1992 Presidential election received 99.37% of all votes cast. 10 During

his en bane testimony on behalf of Fox, Rupert Murdoch stated that, although the views of all

candidates are respected, it is simply not possible to offer time to candidates who have failed

7 Fox's proposal is supported by the comments of ABC, CSAE, Common Cause, Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and

Charles Manatt, Henry Geller, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-Healthy Nations Program, Media Access

Project, Michael Meyerson, the National Association of Broadcasters, NBC, NTIA, Norman Omstein, People for the

American Way, Public Broadcasting Service, Paul Taylor, Woodstock Theological Center, and WTTW.

8 The broadcast industry describes the kind of simulcasting proposed by the Coalition and supported by Senator

McCain as "roadblocking." It would involve a voluntary decision by the networks to provide broadcast time to cover

a news event at exactly the same time.

9 The Natural Law Party, while not opposing the Fox proposal, asks the Commission to make clear that, if time

is provided to candidates of the two major parties, it also be provided to other candidates meeting a prescribed

standard.

10 According to information compiled by the Federal Election Commission, 23 candidates for the presidency

received votes in the 1992 general election.

11105

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

during the campaign to obtain significant public support.

14. Concern over the possibility of broadcaster favoritism was also voiced by a number

of commenters who support Fox's request, and they stress the importance of the Commission's

emphasis on safeguards against abuse

s for the presidency

received votes in the 1992 general election.

11105

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

during the campaign to obtain significant public support.

14. Concern over the possibility of broadcaster favoritism was also voiced by a number

of commenters who support Fox's request, and they stress the importance of the Commission's

emphasis on safeguards against abuse. For example, Professor Michael Meyerson expressed

concern that broadcaster favoritism may more readily occur in local races where multiple

candidacies and parochial concerns abound. Consequently, he urges the Commission to be careful

in its consideration of the Fox request to assess the potential impact of our ruling at the local

level. Most of the commenters, including Common Cause and NTIA, pointed out that the Fox

proposal contains adequate safeguards against possible broadcaster favoritism, such as removing

itself from the selection of the participating candidates and the questions to be presented, as well

as ensuring that the one-minute statements air in periods of comparable audience share.

15. CBS and ABC recommend that the Commission rule that programming which

broadcasters in good faith deem to be bonafide news coverage is exempt regardless of format,

provided there are adequate safeguards against broadcaster favoritism. They argue that the public

is best served by giving broadcasters the freedom to employ a variety of formats to cover and

present views of candidates for public office. These commenters thus suggest that the

Commission eliminate from its news exemption analysis the determination of whether the

program at issue falls under one of the enumerated formats of Section 315(a). Henry Geller

states that the Commission should continue granting exemptions as broadly as possible consistent

with its wide discretion under the statute

ws of candidates for public office. These commenters thus suggest that the

Commission eliminate from its news exemption analysis the determination of whether the

program at issue falls under one of the enumerated formats of Section 315(a). Henry Geller

states that the Commission should continue granting exemptions as broadly as possible consistent

with its wide discretion under the statute. However, eliminating format considerations from

Section 315(a), Geller argues, must occur through congressional action, something he asserts the

Commission should urge Congress to do. WTTW states that it would be helpful for the

Commission to give specific guidance as to the permissible variations of exemption formats.

During his en bane testimony, Timothy B. Dyk, on behalf of the NAB, voiced a similar concern

about the need for broadcasters to request Commission rulings on a case-by-case basis.

16. While supporting Fox's request, MAP strongly opposes further expanding the news

exemptions as suggested by ABC and CBS, arguing that the Commission has already interpreted

the news exemptions too broadly. Instead, MAP suggests that the Commission consider changing

the definition of "legally qualified candidate" contained in its rules." By more narrowly defining

a legally qualified candidate in the Commission's rules, MAP argues, the Commission could at

least at the national level reduce the number of candidates entitled to equal opportunities without

having to assess the merits of particular news programming. Under MAP's proposal, the

standards for the redefinition would include: support in independent opinion polls; signatures on

nominating petitions; amount of campaign contributions; and votes in prior elections. The

" Only "legally qualified" candidates are afforded equal opportunities rights under Section 315 of the

Communications Act

ving to assess the merits of particular news programming. Under MAP's proposal, the

standards for the redefinition would include: support in independent opinion polls; signatures on

nominating petitions; amount of campaign contributions; and votes in prior elections. The

" Only "legally qualified" candidates are afforded equal opportunities rights under Section 315 of the

Communications Act. Section 73.1940 of the Commission's rule defines a legally qualified candidate by reference

to whether a candidate has qualified for a place on the ballot in accordance with the law of the election jurisdiction

or has made a substantial showing of candidacy. A-substantial showing involves the traditional indicia of an actual

candidacy such as the establishment of campaign headquarters, speech making, fund raising, etc. In the Presidential

context, a candidate who has so qualified in at least 10 states is deemed a candidate in all states. 47 C.F.R. Section

73.1940.

11106

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

Natural Law Party requests that the Commission make clear that all candidates achieving national

party status, as evidenced by qualifying for the ballot in states with a total of at least 270

electoral votes and qualifying for matching funds from the Federal Election Commission, should

be entitled to participate in Fox's programming.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Background

17. We begin our analysis with a review of the statute, the legislative history, and the

relevant precedent. Section 315 of the Act provides that if a broadcaster or origination

cablecaster12 permits a legally qualified candidate for public office to "use" a broadcast station

or cable television system,13 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

didate for public office to "use" a broadcast station

or cable television system,13 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. (LarJDalv), 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-tbe-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).

18. Rather than specifically enumerating the characteristics of the programming formats

intended to be covered by the exemptions, Congress left it to the Commission to interpret the full

scope of the exemptions. See S. Rep. No. 1539, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1960). The legislative

history evidences Congress's recognition that the exemptions defied clear format characterizations

and that the Commission was to have broad discretion to interpret them:

It is difficult to define with precision what is a newscast, news interview, news

' : 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)

ewscast, news interview, news

' : 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).

IJ 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).

11107

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

documentary, or on the spot coverage of news events. . . . That is why the

committee in adopting the language of the proposed legislation carefully gave the

Federal Communications Commission full flexibility and complete discretion to

examine the facts in each complaint which may be filed with the Commission.

... In this way the Commission will be able to determine on the facts submitted

in each case whether a newscast, news interview, news documentary, [or] on the

spot coverage of a news event ... is bona fide or a "use" of the facilities

requiring equal opportunities.

S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1959). Furthermore, as the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the D.C. Circuit observed in Chisholm v. FCC. 538 F.2d 349, 358 (D.C. Cir. 1976), Congress

came to the realization that the notion of absolute equality for all competing candidates, first

envisioned when Section 315 was enacted in 1934, would have to give way to two other

noteworthy objectives:

First, the right of the public to be informed through broadcasts of political events;

and

Second, the discretion of the broadcaster to be selective with respect to the

broadcasting of such events.

Chisholm v

on that the notion of absolute equality for all competing candidates, first

envisioned when Section 315 was enacted in 1934, would have to give way to two other

noteworthy objectives:

First, the right of the public to be informed through broadcasts of political events;

and

Second, the discretion of the broadcaster to be selective with respect to the

broadcasting of such events.

Chisholm v. FCC, supra, at 358, quoting Hearings on Political Broadcasts-Equal Time Before the

Subcommittee on Communications and Power of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce. 86th Cong., 1st Sess. at 1-2 (1959) (Comments of Chairman Harris). With respect

to Congress's intent to facilitate greater news coverage of the political process, the court in

Chisholm v. FCC also observed that "the basic purpose" of the news exemptions is "[t]o enable

what has become the most important medium of political information to give the news concerning

political races to the greatest number of citizens, and to make it possible to cover the political

news to the fullest degree." 14 Thus, the Commission was faced with the formidable task of

implementing Congress's intention to strike a balance between fairness to the candidates and

greater broadcast coverage of elections.

19. Initially, the Commission interpreted the exemptions narrowly. Over the last

twenty years, however, the Commission has interpreted the exemptions to allow for more diverse

kinds of news programming, particularly with respect to the bona fide news interview and on-the-

spot coverage of bona fide news event exemptions. In recognition of Congress' primary goal in

enacting the exemptions ~ to facilitate a better informed electorate through greater news coverage

of the political process ~ the Commission has accorded greater deference to a licensee's good

faith news judgment. The following discussion outlines the interpretive evolution reflected in the

rulings most pertinent to the issues raised by the instant requests

ion of Congress' primary goal in

enacting the exemptions ~ to facilitate a better informed electorate through greater news coverage

of the political process ~ the Commission has accorded greater deference to a licensee's good

faith news judgment. The following discussion outlines the interpretive evolution reflected in the

rulings most pertinent to the issues raised by the instant requests.

14 Chisholm v. FCC, supra, at 356, quoting 105 Cong. Rec. 14451 (1959) (remarks of Sen. Holland).

1T108

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

B. On-The-Spot Coverage of a Bona Fide News Event

20. The Commission narrowly construed the news event exemption until its 1975

decision in Aspen Institute. 55 FCC 2d 697 (1975), aff d sub nom.. Chisholm v. FCC. supra,

cert, denied, 429 U.S. 890 (1976) (Aspen), when the Commission reversed earlier rulings that had

denied requests to treat debates and press conferences as exempt bona fide news events. In

Aspen. The Commission reevaluated its reading of the statute and legislative history, concluding

that:

[tjhere is no indication that Congress intended the Commission to take an unduly

restrictive approach which would discourage news coverage of political activities

of candidates. Rather, Congress intended that the Commission would determine

whether the broadcaster in such cases had made reasonable news judgments as to

the newsworthiness of certain events and of individual candidacies and had

afforded major candidates broadcast coverage. ... In some circumstances this

might logically entail exclusion of certain programs from within an exemption,

such as programs designed for the specific advantage of a candidate, or those

which are patently not bona fide news. It would not in our view extend to a

restrictive application as to certain categories of events simply because the

candidate's appearance is the central aspect of the event.

Aspen at 705

s this

might logically entail exclusion of certain programs from within an exemption,

such as programs designed for the specific advantage of a candidate, or those

which are patently not bona fide news. It would not in our view extend to a

restrictive application as to certain categories of events simply because the

candidate's appearance is the central aspect of the event.

Aspen at 705. Thus, the Commission determined that it could be flexible in evaluating whether

a format was reasonably within the news event exemption and that, in the absence of bad faith,

it should defer to a broadcaster's good faith news judgment in deciding to broadcast an event.

21. In Aspen, the Commission also adopted a two-part test for analyzing whether a

program should be considered bona fide news event programming. 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. 15 After deciding that debates and press conferences

could reasonably fit the news event exemption under the first prong of the test, the Commission

decided that, under the second prong, it could, when certain safeguards were present, defer to a

broadcaster's good faith news judgment in deciding to broadcast an "event." With respect to

candidate debates, the Commission ruled that, to be considered an exempt news event, a debate

15 In 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), the Commission further clarified Aspen and

emphasized that in making the analysis of whether a program is exempt, the Commission will first "determine

whether a particular scenario falls within one of the classes of appearance exempt under Section 315(a)( 1 )-(4)." Id.

at 969

nedy). 77 FCC 2d 965, 968-69, aff d sub nom. Kennedy for

President Committee v. FCC. 636 F.2d 417 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the Commission further clarified Aspen and

emphasized that in making the analysis of whether a program is exempt, the Commission will first "determine

whether a particular scenario falls within one of the classes of appearance exempt under Section 315(a)( 1 )-(4)." Id.

at 969. Second, the Commission will explore "whether a particular broadcast which is claimed exempt was presented

using a broadcaster's good faith news judgment." Id. The second aspect of this analysis places considerable reliance

on the exercise of a broadcaster's discretion to determine "newsworthiness" once it is determined an exempt news

event is involved. Thus, "absent evidence of the broadcaster's intent to advance a particular candidacy,

newsworthiness of an event is left to the reasonable news judgment of the professionals." Kennedy for President

Committee v. FCC, 636 F.2d at 427.

11109

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

must be sponsored by a non-broadcaster third party, such as the League of Women Voters, must

be aired in its entirety, and must be aired live. Press conferences also were required to be aired

live and in their entirety to qualify for the exemption.

22. In Henry Geller. 95 FCC 2d 1236, aff d 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, 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

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. 16 The Commission explained that the common denominator of all exempt

programming was bonafide news value and that the identity of a debate sponsor should not affect

the bona fides of the programming. Similarly, Geller eliminated the so-called "one-day rule,"

which had required that the broadcast be nearly contemporaneous with the event covered. The

Commission reasoned that a broadcaster's good faith determination to delay or rebroadcast a

newsworthy debate later than the day after the event in order to maximize audience potential did

not destroy its "on-the-spot" nature and furthered, to ari even greater degree, Congress's goal of

increasing the presentation of political campaign news. Accordingly, the Commission determined

that the "rule-of-thumb" on the timing of an exempt news event program should be that the

program encompasses news reports of any "reasonably recent event," so long as intended in good

faith by the broadcaster to inform the public and not intended to favor or disfavor any

candidate. 17

23. In its 1991 decision in King, the Commission further expanded the Section

315(a)(4) exemption by granting a request for a broadcaster-initiated news event involving

appearances alone, with no journalistic or other interaction with the candidates. 18 The

Commission reasoned that "candidate presentations, in which the major nominees for the highest

office in the land set forth in speeches 'their essential campaign messages to the American

people' reasonably may be viewed as news 'events' subject to broadcast coverage within the

meaning" of Section 315(a)(4)

arances alone, with no journalistic or other interaction with the candidates. 18 The

Commission reasoned that "candidate presentations, in which the major nominees for the highest

office in the land set forth in speeches 'their essential campaign messages to the American

people' reasonably may be viewed as news 'events' subject to broadcast coverage within the

meaning" of Section 315(a)(4). 19 It thus concluded that "the mere fact that the presentations

16 See Geller at 1244.

" Id.

18 The first program in the series proposed by the licensee consisted of a one-hour taped program in which the

two major party nominees for President would be allocated 30 minutes each to set forth their respective campaign

messages without the involvement of journalists or any interaction between the candidates. The order of appearance

would be reversed in a similar one-hour broadcast at the end of the series. The licensee indicated that there would

be one, possibly two, broadcasts in between the opening and closing programs, which would consist of separate

45-minute interviews with each of the two candidates, combined into 90-minute programs. The series would be made

available to broadcast stations and cable systems for airing no later than one week after taping.

19 Id. at 4999.

11110

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

allow the candidates to present their views in the most favorable light, without spontaneous

interaction with the press or opposing candidates, does not preclude application of the news

exemption."20

24

series would be made

available to broadcast stations and cable systems for airing no later than one week after taping.

19 Id. at 4999.

11110

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

allow the candidates to present their views in the most favorable light, without spontaneous

interaction with the press or opposing candidates, does not preclude application of the news

exemption."20

24. The Commission emphasized as critical to its decision the need for structural

safeguards to avoid the possibility of abuse, such as the back-to-back appearances by opposing

candidates, which the licensee in King included as part of its proposed format.21 The

Commission also reasoned, as it had in Geller, that, on balance, Congress's goal of fostering

greater news coverage of the political process outweighed any increased possibility of abuse.22

Finally, the Commission stressed in King that the exclusion of third-party candidates whose

"significance" can be established by objective criteria such as polling results, would raise

questions about the bona fides of the programming.23

C. Legal Analysis of Pending Proposals

25. As explained above, since the Aspen decision more than twenty years ago, the

Commission's interpretations of the news event exemption have accorded broadcasters significant

discretion in the formulation of innovative news programming formats and in the overall exercise

of their good faith news judgment. These decisions have served to promote the central objective

underlying the Section 315 exemptions. They are fully consistent with congressional intent to

permit increased broadcaster discretion, and to encourage greater coverage of political news, in

a context in which "the Commission has been granted greater than normal discretion." Chisholm

v. FCC, 538 F.2d at 364

d faith news judgment. These decisions have served to promote the central objective

underlying the Section 315 exemptions. They are fully consistent with congressional intent to

permit increased broadcaster discretion, and to encourage greater coverage of political news, in

a context in which "the Commission has been granted greater than normal discretion." Chisholm

v. FCC, 538 F.2d at 364. According to a number of commenters, allowing broadcasters to

sponsor and air debates from their own studios and to present those debates live or on a

reasonably tape-delayed basis in Geller has increased the number of such events and the public

has clearly benefited. Likewise, the decision in King to allow for more innovation has increased

the amount of broadcaster-initiated news event programming, again increasing the amount of

election-related information available to the public.

26. Although the Commission has appropriately relied on broadcaster discretion, we

nevertheless retain an obligation to ensure that there exist reasonable safeguards against

broadcaster favoritism. As discussed below, we conclude that, consistent with the principles

established in our prior decisions, the proposals under consideration are within the statutory

exemption for on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event. Hence, the programs are not

subject to the equal opportunities requirement in Section 315 of the Act.

:o Id.

21 King. 6 FCC Red at 5000.

" Id.

:3 Id.

11111

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

27. Fox Proposal. We agree with the majority of commenters and en bane panelists

that the back-to-back election eve appearances fall squarely within the Commission's King

decision and are exempt as on-the-spot coverage of a bonafide news event. First, it is clear that

these are bona fide news events

King. 6 FCC Red at 5000.

" Id.

:3 Id.

11111

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

27. Fox Proposal. We agree with the majority of commenters and en bane panelists

that the back-to-back election eve appearances fall squarely within the Commission's King

decision and are exempt as on-the-spot coverage of a bonafide news event. First, it is clear that

these are bona fide news events. As we observed in King, appearances by major presidential

candidates, "by any reasonable standard, are news 'events,'" provided that sufficient structural

safeguards against broadcaster favoritism are in place. Furthermore, Geller 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, Fox's

proposed election-eve broadcast of back-to-back appearances satisfies the first prong of our

analysis.

28. 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 Fox has met

the test enunciated in King. There is no evidence of intent to advance a particular candidacy.

The election eve statements are identical to the back-to-back programming approved in King with

the added safeguard that each candidate's statement would respond to the same question. The

candidates who would be offered time would be those selected by the Commission on Presidential

Debates for inclusion in the debates it sponsors. While we do not require a broadcaster to defer

selection of candidates to independent third parties in order to demonstrate good faith, doing so

adds a greater level of assurance of good faith by minimizing the potential for broadcaster abuse

in the selection of candidates. The World Workers Party argues that exclusion from the news

prevents third-party candidates from gaining sufficient public support to warrant their being

deemed newsworthy

on of candidates to independent third parties in order to demonstrate good faith, doing so

adds a greater level of assurance of good faith by minimizing the potential for broadcaster abuse

in the selection of candidates. The World Workers Party argues that exclusion from the news

prevents third-party candidates from gaining sufficient public support to warrant their being

deemed newsworthy. However, through the news exemptions. Congress intended to do no more

than ensure that broadcasters are not inhibited from covering newsworthy events.

29. The one-minute position statements are also exempt as on-the-spot coverage of

bona fide news events. Again, as in the election eve broadcast, statements by the major

presidential candidates are, consistent with the Commission's reasoning in King, reasonably

viewed as news events, provided safeguards against favoritism are built into the format. Also

consistent with Geller, the tape delay does not present an impediment to the "on-the-spot" element

of the exemption. Furthermore, we agree with the comments of Henry Geller that in light of

Fox's plan to present a series of candidate statements in response to identical questions about

important campaign issues, these statements can reasonably be treated as exempt "mini-debates"

in that the public will be exposed to the differing views of each candidate on identical important

campaign questions. As with reliance on independent third parties for candidate selection, we

do not require that a broadcaster pose questions to candidates, but doing so helps demonstrate that

a broadcaster is exercising good faith news judgment.

30. Further, although Fox's format for the one-minute statements does not envision

back-to-back presentation, it does incorporate other safeguards

ampaign questions. As with reliance on independent third parties for candidate selection, we

do not require that a broadcaster pose questions to candidates, but doing so helps demonstrate that

a broadcaster is exercising good faith news judgment.

30. Further, although Fox's format for the one-minute statements does not envision

back-to-back presentation, it does incorporate other safeguards. King did not require

presentations to be back-to-back to meet the good faith test; rather, the Commission explicitly

contemplated the need to clarify in future rulings, on a case-by-case basis, any other safeguards

11112

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

that would suffice.24 Fox's pledge to air the statements during comparable time periods will serve

the same essential purpose as back-to-back statements by ensuring that the candidates have

roughly equal access to viewers. Further, the questions to be answered during the statements are

to be formulated by independent nonpartisan organizations. This element of Fox's format lends

an additional assurance that Fox's proposed programming is not designed to favor any candidate

in the same way as the decision to defer to the Commission on Presidential Debates for its

candidate selections. Finally, we do not believe that the short length of each statement affects

the bona fides of the programming. The legislative history is silent on the issue of whether

Congress envisioned a minimum length for a news program, and we see no reason to impose

one.25 These programs are also distinguishable from political advertising. The candidates must

appear throughout the broadcast and are not permitted to edit or utilize other post-taping

production techniques. The presence of these structural safeguards satisfies us that Fox does not

intend to favor one candidate over another.

31. PBS Proposal. We similarly find that PBS's proposal qualifies for a news event

exemption

o distinguishable from political advertising. The candidates must

appear throughout the broadcast and are not permitted to edit or utilize other post-taping

production techniques. The presence of these structural safeguards satisfies us that Fox does not

intend to favor one candidate over another.

31. PBS Proposal. We similarly find that PBS's proposal qualifies for a news event

exemption. The Commission has stated that statements by the major candidates for President are

"by any reasonable standard 'news events'" provided adequate safeguards against favoritism are

implemented. As stated above, a licensee is not required to ask questions of candidates or to

arrange for third parties to do so. Though PBS's programming will not be aired live, Geller

makes clear that the rebroadcast of any "reasonably recent event" suffices for the purpose of

being "on-the-spot." Consequently, we find that PBS's proposal involves a bona fide news event

satisfying the first prong of our analysis.

32. Nor is there any basis to question the good faith hews judgment of PBS with

respect to its decision to broadcast the event. PBS's format includes reasonable safeguards. First,

PBS states that it will select the candidates for inclusion in its programming based upon objective

criteria such as national polling data, or as in Fox's proposal, by reference to those candidates

selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Further, the statements will be equal in

length and aired at the same time each day. While airing the spots at the same time of day is not

a requirement, it is a significant safeguard against the potential for broadcaster favoritism. Thus,

we find that PBS has satisfied the second prong of our analysis ~ that the decision to broadcast

the event is the result of good faith news judgment, not an intention to favor one candidate over

-* In King

aired at the same time each day. While airing the spots at the same time of day is not

a requirement, it is a significant safeguard against the potential for broadcaster favoritism. Thus,

we find that PBS has satisfied the second prong of our analysis ~ that the decision to broadcast

the event is the result of good faith news judgment, not an intention to favor one candidate over

-* In King. 6 FCC Red at 5000, n.4, we stated:

We emphasize here that the balanced nature of the program format, which includes

structural safeguards for objective news coverage of political candidates, is critical to our

assessment of the bona fides of a news event under Section 315(a)(4) in this case. We

will carefully scrutinize any future requests for exemption pursuant to these standards.

To the extent there is need for further clarification of the kind of objective structural

criteria we might consider in allowing an exemption under Section 315(a)(4) in any future

cases, we shall address such matters on a case-by-case basis.

-* In Silver King Broadcasting Company. 3 FCC Red 2819 (MMB 1988), the Mass Media Bureau ruled that

a program of 3-4'/2 minute duration was exempt as bona fide news interview programming.

11113

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

another.

33. ABC Proposal. Last, we find ABC's proposed one-hour prime-time "live

unrestricted event" to be exempt under King. As is the case with debates, discussion between or

among the major presidential candidates during the final week of the campaign is reasonably

viewed as a bonafide news event. Furthermore, ABC has indicated that its programming would

be aired live, which is not required in light of Geller, but adds to the event's newsworthiness.

In fact, as ABC points out, its proposal is somewhat similar to a debate format which we

exempted twenty years ago in Aspen and subsequently permitted broadcasters to sponsor in

Geller. Consequently, ABC's proposal satisfies the first prong of our analysis.

34

icated that its programming would

be aired live, which is not required in light of Geller, but adds to the event's newsworthiness.

In fact, as ABC points out, its proposal is somewhat similar to a debate format which we

exempted twenty years ago in Aspen and subsequently permitted broadcasters to sponsor in

Geller. Consequently, ABC's proposal satisfies the first prong of our analysis.

34. With respect to the second prong, there is no indication that ABC's news

judgments will not be bonafide. ABC asserts that it will employ objective criteria in selecting

the candidates, considering polling results, the number of states in which a candidate has achieved

oailot status, and the extent to which a candidate has engaged in a nationwide campaign. As we

pointed out above, 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 is reasonable. We find that the criteria

that ABC has committed to use for candidate selection meets this standard and that ABC's

decision to broadcast the event is not intended to favor one candidate over another.

IV. OTHER MATTERS

35. As discussed above, and in accordance with congressional intent, we have flexibly

construed the statutory exemption for on-the-spot coverage of bonafide news events. However,

we are unwilling to abandon completely our review of programming formats as proposed by ABC

and CBS. Had Congress intended that the Commission take such an approach, it would have

been unnecessary to enumerate the four exemption formats of Section 315(a). Moreover, we do

not believe that review of program formats to determine exempt status impedes broadcasters in

providing election-related information to the public. Our interpretations of the exemptions have

allowed broadcasters substantial discretion and flexibility to formulate formats they believe will

provide for a more informed electorate.

36

four exemption formats of Section 315(a). Moreover, we do

not believe that review of program formats to determine exempt status impedes broadcasters in

providing election-related information to the public. Our interpretations of the exemptions have

allowed broadcasters substantial discretion and flexibility to formulate formats they believe will

provide for a more informed electorate.

36. We also decline in this proceeding to adopt MAP's suggestion that the Commission

redefine the term "legally qualified candidate." This term is used in determining those candidates

entitled to equal opportunities under Section 315 and to reasonable access pursuant to Section

312(a)(7).26 In this proceeding, we are asked to determine whether a licensee can reasonably

consider certain appearances by candidates it deems newsworthy as news events exempt from

equal opportunities requirements. To do so, we need not reach the question of whether the

candidates are "legally qualified." Moreover, to the extent that MAP believes that reducing the

number of legally qualified candidates will alleviate the necessity for expanding the news

:6 Section 312(a)(7) provides that broadcast stations must provide or make available for sale reasonable amounts

of time to candidates for federal elective office. 47 U.S.C. Section 312(a)(7).

11114

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

exemptions, we note that the definition of "legally qualified candidate" is codified in our rules

(see 47 C.F.R. � 73.1940) and, as such, any change thereto must be considered in the context of

a rule making proceeding.

37. A number of commenters voiced concern that a favorable ruling on the Fox request

would risk a greater potential for broadcaster favoritism at the local level. While the Commission

has speculated that the potential for favoritism may be less in "prominent" elections, particularly

presidential campaigns,27 we have not limited our news exemption rulings only to the presidential

level

ng.

37. A number of commenters voiced concern that a favorable ruling on the Fox request

would risk a greater potential for broadcaster favoritism at the local level. While the Commission

has speculated that the potential for favoritism may be less in "prominent" elections, particularly

presidential campaigns,27 we have not limited our news exemption rulings only to the presidential

level. However, the proposals and the record before us involve coverage only of the presidential

election and thus do not directly implicate other elections. As discussed above, in King the

Commission stated that it would review future requests, on a case-by-case basis, to determine

whether particular formats in particular contexts are consistent with the statute. Accordingly,

should requests for exemptions regarding elections below the presidency be made, each will be

considered consistent with the principles set out in today'-s decision, taking account of differences

in context, as appropriate.

V. CONCLUSION

38. We believe that our decision today implements Congress's intent in enacting the

news exemptions by allowing broadcasters to inform the public about election-related news while

ensuring that candidates are treated fairly. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the programming

proposals presented to the Commission by Fox, PBS and ABC ARE DECLARED EXEMPT

under Section 315(a)(4) of the Communications Act from the equal opportunities requirements.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Caton

Acting Secretary

:7 In Aspen, for example, the Commission stated that "realistically the likelihood of broadcaster abuse is remote

in the coverage of more prominent political users . . . ." 55 FCC 2d at 707. The Commission in King similarly

reasoned that [wjhere both of the major opposing candidates for President are interviewed pursuant to an unbiased

format, the potential for favoritism in coverage is even more remote." Id. at 5000, quoting the Commission in

Aspen

ically the likelihood of broadcaster abuse is remote

in the coverage of more prominent political users . . . ." 55 FCC 2d at 707. The Commission in King similarly

reasoned that [wjhere both of the major opposing candidates for President are interviewed pursuant to an unbiased

format, the potential for favoritism in coverage is even more remote." Id. at 5000, quoting the Commission in

Aspen.

11115

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

APPENDIX A

LIST OF COMMENTERS

Benjamin Barber, Director of the Walt Whitman Center for the Culture and Politics of

Democracy, Rutgers University

The Benton Foundation

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. ("ABC")

CBS Inc.

Committee for the Study of the American Electorate ("CASE")

Common Cause

Jan Crawford Communications

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Charles T. Manatt

Henry Geller

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - Healthy Nations Program

Committee to Reverse the Accelerating Global Economic and Strategic Crisis: A LaRouche

Exploratory Committee ("The LaRouche Committee')

Media Access Project ("MAP")

Michael Meyerson, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law

National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB")

National Broadcasting Company ("NBC")

US Department of Commerce/NTIA (as delivered by Larry Irving, the Assistant Secretary for

Communications and Information) ("NTIA")

Natural Law Party

Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute

People for the American Way

Public Broadcasting Service ("PBS")

Paul Taylor, The Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition

Daniel Walker

Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University

Workers World Party Presidential Campaign Committee

Window To The World Communications, Inc. ("WTTW")

11116

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANTS IN JUNE 25, 1995 EN BANC HEARING

United States Senators Bill Bradley and John McCain appeared and made statements

TV for Straight Talk Coalition

Daniel Walker

Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University

Workers World Party Presidential Campaign Committee

Window To The World Communications, Inc. ("WTTW")

11116

Federal Communications Commission FCC 96-355

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANTS IN JUNE 25, 1995 EN BANC HEARING

United States Senators Bill Bradley and John McCain appeared and made statements.

The following witnesses appeared and participated on the panel:

Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, Fox Broadcasting Company

Paul Taylor, Executive Director, The Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition

Timothy B. Dyk, Jones Day Reavis & Pogue (on behalf of Natl. Assn. of Broadcasters)

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., Former Chairman, Republican National Committee

Charles T. Manatt, Former Chairman, Democratic National Committee

Dr. John Hagelin, Presidential Candidate, Natural Law Party

Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Andrew J. Schwartzman, Executive Director, Media Access Project

John K. Andrews, Jr., Managing Director, TCI News

Michael I. Meyerson, Professor, Univ. of Baltimore Law School

William J. McCarter, President, WTTW(TV), Chicago, Illinois

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean, Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania

11117