# FCC-96-355: Fox Broadcasting Company, Public Broadcasting Service, and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc (08/21/96): Fox Broadcasting Company, Public Broadcasting Service, and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_96_355

## Section

- **Citation:** FCC-96-355: Fox Broadcasting Company, Public Broadcasting Service, and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc (08/21/96)
- **Heading:** Fox Broadcasting Company, Public Broadcasting Service, and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FCC Declaratory Rulings / Fox Broadcasting Company, Public Broadcasting Service, and Capital Cities/ABC, Inc

## Text

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

## 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_FCC_96_355. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.