FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 55, September 26, 1975 to October 17, 1975 Page: 30
This report is part of the collection entitled: Federal Communications Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
30 Federal Communications Commission Reports
8. In its Menorandumn Opinion and Order dated October 3, 1974,
the Broadcast Bureau stated:
As the government agency responsible for licensing broadcast stations, the
Commission must maintain a ,delicate balance between insuring that licensees
operate in the public interest and reducing to a minimum possible involvement
in the day-to-day operations of those licensees. Therefore the procedure for
enforcement of individual statutory provisions or Commission rules cannot be
considered in a vacuum, but must be evaluated in terms of its effect on this
delicate balance. In fiscal year 1974 the Complaints and Compliance Division
received over fifty thousand complaints. A policy of requiring each licensee to
reply to every complaint filed with the Commission, no matter how vague or
insubstantial, would impose an intolerable burden on the licensees, would take
on the appearance of constant government intervention, and would cast a pall
over the "uninhibited, robust, wide-open" debate (New York Times Co. v. Sul-
livan, 376 U.S. 254, 270) which is the cornerstone of the First Amendment.
Therefore, before the Commission will direct an inquiry to a station as a result
of a complaint by an individual, the Commission requires that the individual
complainant provide sufficient information to constitute a reasonable basis for
the complainant's belief that a violation of the Communications Act or Com-
mission's rules has occurred.
The Broadcast Bureau further stated that in view of the large volume
of complaints filed with the Commission "it would be impossible for
the Commission's staff to inform every licensee of every complaint
received, especially within the two-day time period which WGHN
demands"; that WGIIN failed to provide any reason why the facts
of this case did not warrant the application of the principle that a
licensee's duty to make sponsorship identification announcements, "is
not met merely by instructing the announcers to make the announce-
ments, but by making certain that they actually are made"; and that
sufficient evidence to support a forfeiture was provided by the com-
plainant's allegations supported by the tapes supplied by the com-
plainant, the licensee's failure to contradict the complainant's allega-
tions, and by the licensee's logs which indicated that the licensee's
standard entry for a program's being.' "Announced as Sponsored" was
not made for any broadcast of "Tell It Like It Is."
9. In an Application for Review filed by the licensee on Novem-
ber 15, 1974, the licensee stated that the Broadcast Bureau's "attempted
defense" of the procedure followed in handling complaints (quoted at
length above in paragraph 8) "entirely begs the question"; that the
Bureau based this "self-imposed restraint" upon a "professed desire
to maintain a 'delicate balance between insuring that licensees operate
in the public interest and reducing to a minimum possible involvement
in the day-to-day operations of those licensees' "; that it is "probably
true" that if the Bureau directed "an inquiry" to every licensee as a
result of every complaint received such a procedure "would represent
more massive interference in day-to-day station operations than exists
today," but such would not be the result if, upon receipt of a complaint
"alleging a rule or statutory violation," the Bureau "simply forwards
the complaint without comment and without inquiry"; that because
the Bureau did not inform WGHN of the complaint immediately,
"the Bureau minust have determined that the public interest did not re-
quire these announcements as much as it required continued investiga-
tion"; and that because of the Bureau's delay in notifying the licensee
of the complaint the licensee was "unable to question the employee re-
sponsible for making the sponsorship identification announcements on
55 F.C.C. 2d
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 55, September 26, 1975 to October 17, 1975, report, 1977; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306574/m1/52/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.