WPC  2BJZ Courier3|j2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M 712_1 LPT2tional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ vOX@26'F m Zw3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman ItalicHP LaserJet 4M 712_1 LPT2tional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\ vOXP2< XK[KK(7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP)W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP\*5hC:,2Xh*f9 xr G;XX\X >(#,!h>*f9 xr G;hX"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^#)0<<.<<<<renewal applications for KCNCTV, Channel 4 (CBS), KMGHTV, Channel 7 (ABC), KUSA XQ%- x\TV, Channel 9 (NBC) and KWGNTV, Channel 2 (WBN), Denver, Colorado.Q% X'-ԍ Media Watch states that it is a Colorado notforprofit corporation, and that its Executive Director resides in the Denver area and is a viewer of the four stations. Thus,"(0*0*0*("  X-Media Watch has standing. Maumee Valley Broadcasting, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 3487 (1997);  X{-WDOD of Chattanooga, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 6399 (1997). Group W/CBS"Q%f0*0*0* $"  x0Television Stations Partners (Group W/CBS), McGrawHill Broadcasting Company, Inc.  x(McGrawHill), Gannett Colorado Broadcasting, Inc. (Gannett) and KWGN Inc. (KWGN), the licensees of the four stations, have opposed the petitions, and Media Watch has filed a "Rebuttal."  X-  _xMedia Watch has raised concerns with respect to each of the station's local news  xprogramming. It states that it conducted a series of "content analyses" of the local evening  x-newscasts broadcast on the Denver stations during consecutive fiveday periods in each quarter  X_- x\of 1994,a_f9 Xv -ԍ KWGNTV was not included in the first quarter analysis.a and on January 11, 1995, September 20, 1995 and February 26, 1997. Media Watch  xasserts that its analyses demonstrate that the four Denver stations' local newscasts suffer from  X1- x["Toxic TV News syndrome."@19 X-ԍ Media Watch defines the programming components of "Toxic TV News syndrome" as: (1) excessive and exploitive violence; (2) deficient and inadequate news coverage; (3) racial and gender stereotyping and polarization; and (4) excess commercialization, triviality and manipulation.@ According to Media Watch, during the periods it monitored the  X - xstations, the "Mayhem Index" for the stations, i.e., the percentage of local news devoted to stories  x{about crime, disasters, war and terrorism, ranged from 45 to 55 percent of each newscast.  xBecause the news was dominated by violent topics, other vital issues such as the environment,  xarts, science, education, poverty, AIDS, children and local election coverage, were allegedly  xignored by the stations. Media Watch also claims that "people of color are often stereotyped as  x=perpetrators of crime in newscasts, presenting a negative role model to viewers [while] women  xand minorities are underrepresented on newscasts as authorities, experts and leaders." In support,  xMedia Watch provides a tabulation of combined data for the four stations, which, it asserts, tallies  xthe number of appearances of men, women and persons from different racial groups as news  x=anchors, reporters, news sources, crime perpetrators and victims on an unidentified number of  xjlocal newscasts broadcast in the Summer and Fall of 1994. According to the tabulation, during  xthe monitored newscasts, white males dominated as news anchors, reporters and sources, while  xblack males comprised the largest percentage of perpetrators of crime and white females were  x-most often portrayed as victims. Finally, Media Watch alleges that the stations devoted a higher  xportion of their evening newscast airtime to commercial messages than the average television  X- xstation, and that there was onethird as much "fluff," i.e., banter, chitchat, teases, soft news and celebrity stories, as news.   xMedia Watch contends that "[a]lthough the Fairness doctrine [has been repealed], the  Xi- xneeds it addressed, namely ensuring that television stations effectively dealt with controversial"i 0*(("  X- xissues and issues of importance, remain selfevident," 9 Xy-ԍ The fairness doctrine, as developed by the Commission, imposed a twoprong obligation upon broadcast licensees to cover vitally important controversial issues of interest to their community and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting  X4-viewpoints on those controversial issues of public importance that are covered.  In Syracuse  X-Peace Council v. WTVH(TV), 2 FCC Rcd 5043 (1987), aff'd, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989),  X -cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 717 (1990), which involved an alleged failure to afford reasonable opportunity for contrasting viewpoints, the Commission decided to cease enforcement of the doctrine after concluding that it no longer served the public interest. This conclusion was  X -based, in large part, on two core findings in the 1985 Fairness Report, 102 FCC 2d 145 (1985) that: (1) the doctrine had often operated to chill broadcaster speech on controversial issues; and (2) the increases in the diversity of available media outlets undercut the need for  X -the doctrine. See Arkansas AFLCIO v. KARKTV, 7 FCC Rcd 541 (1992). and that the issues raised by the newscasts'  xexcessive violence go far beyond "bad journalism." Health and educational organizations have  xcriticized the cumulative effect of media violence on children's learning, aggression and empathy,  x>and Media Watch asserts that media violence negatively impacts adults as well, promoting  xicynicism, violent behavior, excessive fearfulness, ignorance and racial polarization. Media Watch  xcalls for the Commission to "send a strong message to the local TV news industry," and condition  xMgrant of the renewal applications on the requirement that the stations: (1) air public service  xannouncements alerting the public about "TV news' unbalanced and unhealthy diet of  xkinformation"; (2) teach "media literacy" on primetime television; (3) conduct education and  xsensitivity training for the stations' news staff regarding media violence effects; and (4) develop and publicize a plan for improving local news coverage of local elections.   lxIn response, the licensees assert that Media Watch presents no legally cognizable issue  x=with respect to the pending renewal applications, but instead, impermissibly seeks to have the  xCommission intervene into matters relating to the licensees' good faith news judgment, in  x#violation of both the First Amendment of the Constitution and Section 326 of the  X- xyCommunications Act. In addition, all of the licensees deny that the stations engage in racial or  x gender stereotyping. KWGN and Group W/CBS also assert that the studies submitted by  xpetitioner in support of its allegations regarding the stations' newscasts are deficient in that they  xyexamine only a handful of the stations' local broadcasts and fail to conform in basic respects to  xrudimentary principles of scientific research. Accordingly, they contend that the studies cannot  xLbe taken as a reliable indicator of the amount or type of coverage presented by the stations on  xMparticular subjects. McGrawHill and Group W/CBS also identify numerous programs aired  xduring their renewal term which, they claim, address many of the issues which petitioner asserts  xare ignored by the stations. Finally, Group W/CBS asserts that Commission imposition of Media Watch's proposed remedies would violate the First Amendment. " 0*(("Ԍ X-  ]xIn its "Rebuttal,"9 Xy-ԍ While the caption of the rebuttal refers only to the pending renewal application of station KMGHTV, the arguments and discussion therein appear to apply equally to all of the stations. Media Watch reiterates its concerns about excessive violence in local  xjtelevision newscasts, and cites to numerous studies which quantify the violent nature of news  xprogramming in various television markets or study the negative effects of excessive television  xviolence on viewers. In response to the criticism of its content studies, petitioner states that its  X- x["findings have been published in a peer reviewed journal . . . and are similar to results found in  xLother content analyses of local TV news by journalists and academics across the U.S." Media  xWatch also contends that "programming content is not totally off limits to FCC purview," citing  xto pornography and its assertion that the Commission requires television stations to air three hours  XH- xa week of educational programming as a condition of licensing. HK9 XD -ԍ This is apparently a reference to the threehour processing guideline adopted by the Commission in connection with its enforcement of the Children's Television Act of 1990  X-(CTA). See Report and Order, Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television  X-Programming, 11 FCC Rcd 10660 (1996). Under the processing guideline, the Mass Media Bureau is authorized to approve the CTA portions of a broadcaster's renewal application where the broadcaster has aired three hours per week (averaged over a six month period) of educational and informational programming that has as a significant purpose serving the  X-educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under. The Report and Order further provides that "[r]enewal applications which do not meet this guideline will be referred to the Commission, where the applicant will have a full opportunity to demonstrate  Xd-compliance with the CTA . . . . " Id. at 10719. In adopting the processing guideline, the  XO-Commission emphasized that it was not imposing a minimum amount criteria.  Id. at 10722. Accordingly, petitioner's assertion in this regard is incorrect. According to petitioner, the  xkCommission may prohibit stations from airing programming if such material is detrimental to  xlpublic health and interest. Media Watch also disputes Group W/CBS' assertion that the Commission lacks authority to require its proposed remedies to "Toxic TV News syndrome." /DISCUSSION   xIn assessing the merits of a petition to deny, a twostep process is required under Section  xM309(d)(1) and (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1), (2).  Xy- xSee Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The first test is  xwhether the petition demonstrates by specific allegations of fact that grant of the application  XM- xwould be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. If such  X8- xa prima facie case is alleged, the second test is whether on the basis of the application, the  xpleadings, or other matters of which the Commission may take official notice a substantial and material question of fact is presented to warrant further inquiry in a hearing.   xPetitioner argues primarily that the stations' news programming contains too much"0*((T"  X- xviolence, and that, as a result of this emphasis on violent programming, other news important to  X- xthe community is not being covered.j Xb-ԍ Media Watch does not seem to argue that the news programming has been either  XK-falsified or distorted, nor do we find evidence of such distortion apparent in this case. The Commission has repeatedly held that absent extrinsic evidence that a licensee has intentionally staged news events or deliberately distorted news programming, "the Commission will not  X-review the licensee's news judgments." American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 83 FCC 2d 302, 305 (1980). To the extent that the allegation of "racial and gender stereotyping and polarization" could be construed as an allegation that the stations engaged in news distortion,  X -Media Watch has failed to meet its pleading burden. As the Commission stated in WGPRTV,  X -10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8147 (1995), appeal pending sub nom. Alexander J. Serafyn v. FCC, No. 951385 (D.C. Cir.), "in balancing First Amendment and public interest concerns, the Commission will not attempt to draw inferences of distortion from the content of a broadcast, but it will investigate where allegations of news distortion are supported by substantial extrinsic evidence that the licensee has deliberately distorted its news report. Extrinsic evidence, that is, evidence outside the broadcast itself, includes written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery." (citations omitted.) Thus, Media Watch's allegation that "people of color are often stereotyped as perpetrators of crime in newscasts" does not, standing alone, constitute the required "evidence of intent of the licensee  X-to distort . . . ."  Id.   Upon examination of the record before us, we conclude  X- xKthat Media Watch has failed to establish a prima facie case that grant of the renewal applications  xwould disserve the public interest. As discussed below, for reasons rooted in the First  xKAmendment and the no censorship provision of Section 326 of the Communications Act, editorial  xkjudgments regarding news programs are committed to a broadcaster's good faith discretion.  xMoreover, while violence in television programming is a legitimate public concern, the alleged  xpredominance of violence in these stations' local news does not present a basis for Commission  xzaction. We likewise find no merit to Media Watch's other allegations regarding coverage of community issues, overcommercialization, stereotyping and compliance with our EEO rules.    xWith certain limited exceptions not applicable here, licensees are afforded broad discretion  x-in the scheduling, selection and presentation of programs aired on their stations, and Section 326  xof the Communications Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibit any  xCommission actions which would improperly interfere with the programming decisions of  X - xlicensees..v 9 XV!-ԍ The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. Section 325 of the Communications Act of 1934 specifically provides that "Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship . . . and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication." 47 U.S.C.  326.. Because journalistic or editorial discretion in the presentation of news and public  xinformation is the core concept of the First Amendment's Free Press guarantee, licensees are"80*((L"  X- xKentitled to the widest latitude of journalistic discretion in this regard. See National Broadcasting  X- xCompany v. FCC, 515 F.2d 1101, 11121113, 11191120, 1172 (1974), vacated as moot, id. at  X- x/1180, cert. denied, 424 U.S. 910 (1976); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic  X- x0National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 124 (1973); Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d 143, 15051  x(1969). Thus, with regard to news programming in particular, the Commission has repeatedly $O   x $O recognized that "[t]he choice of what is or is not to be covered in the presentation of broadcast  x.news is a matter committed to the licensee's good faith discretion," and that, "the Commission  Xg- xwill not review the licensee's news judgments." American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 83  XR-FCC 2d 302, 305 (1980).  X;-   x The Commission recognizes that violence in television programming is a legitimate public  xconcern. In enacting Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act, Congress made specific  xjfindings with respect to the impact of violence upon children. With regard to the development  xof a voluntary rating code, however, Congress also acknowledged the importance of journalistic  xdiscretion, recognizing the danger of rating political programming, which is often an integral  X - xjelement of news programming.  9 X*-ԍ  See Section 551(b)(1) (". . . nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize any rating of video programming on the basis of its political or religious content . . . .") In response to Section 551, the industry developed voluntary  x[rating guidelines that will work with the vchip to block programs of a certain rating from being  xaired in the home, and consistent with its historical deference to journalistic discretion in the  xypresentation of news, the Commission found it reasonable that the industry and public interest  XU- x\groups involved in developing the rating system chose not to rate news programming. See  X@- xImplementation of Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 9835 (released  X+- x]March 13, 1998) at  21. Thus, although we believe that Media Watch's views regarding  xviolence in news programming are legitimate matters for discussion within the Denver  x=community, the alleged predominance of violence in the stations' local evening news does not  xNpresent a basis for intervention by the Commission in connection with a license renewal  X- xapplication. See Democratic National Convention Television Coverage, 16 FCC 2d 650, 658  x(1969) (the Commission "[does] not pass[] judgment on the quality of the networks' coverage.  xIt is the role of the public, critics, and students of the mass media, either to comment or to be  X- xcritical with regard to such matters . . . ."); AntiDefamation League of B'nai B'rith, 4 FCC 2d  x190, 19192 (1966) ("The Commission has long held that its function is not to judge the merit,  xwisdom or accuracy of any broadcast discussion or commentary . . . . Any other position would  XI-stifle discussion and destroy broadcasting as a medium of free speech.) __Id9 X^!-ԍ When it enacted Section 551, Congress also enacted Section 204 of the Act to require that "[e]ach applicant for the renewal of a commercial or noncommercial television license shall attach as an exhibit to the application a summary of written comments and suggestions received from the public and maintained by the licensee (in accordance with Commission regulations) that comment on the applicant's programming, if any, and that are characterized by the commenter as constituting violent programming." 47 U.S.C.  308(d) (as amended by Section 204(b) of the 1996 Act, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). All of the stations"& 0*((&" submitted brief summaries of the written comments and suggestions they received from the public regarding violent programming. KMGHTV and KUSATV reported that they received two and four violencerelated letters, respectively. While KCNCTV and KWGNTV received slightly more viewer correspondence regarding violent programming, the amount of correspondence does not appear disproportionate to that typically reported by television stations in major markets, nor does it appear to raise a substantial and material question of fact going to these licensees' basic qualifications. "I 0*((]"Ԍ   xTo the extent that the petitions allege that the stations have failed to meet their public  xKinterest obligations to present programming which is responsive to the needs and interests of the  X- xDenver community, Commercial TV Stations, 98 FCC 2d 1075, 109192 (1984), we find that  X- xiMedia Watch has failed to make a prima facie case. With respect to the general issueresponsive  x.programming obligation, the Commission has granted licensees broad discretion to choose, in  xmgood faith, which issues are of concern to the community and to choose the types of  xprogramming to address those issues. The Commission will defer to the broadcaster's judgment  xregarding its issueresponsive programming absent a showing that "the broadcaster was  xunreasonable or discriminatory in its selection of issues or that the licensee has offered such  x=nominal levels of responsive programming as to have effectively defaulted on its obligation to  X - xcontribute to the discussion of issues facing its community." License Renewal Applications of  X - xCertain Commercial Television Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 5 FCC Rcd 3847,  x[3848 (1990). Thus, petitioner has a heavy burden to show that the licensees have abused their  X - xdiscretion, a burden which Media Watch has failed to meet here.  The "content analyses" which  x<constitute the basis for the petitions to deny examined only a small sampling of the stations' local  X- xxnews broadcasts over the license term. 9 X8-ԍ It is not entirely clear which newscasts were studied. While one of the studies indicates that the 10 p.m. news broadcasts were analyzed, the other studies state only that the "evening newscasts" of the surveyed stations were reviewed. Moreover, fewer than 15 hours of programming aired on each station over its five year renewal term was monitored.  Based upon this paucity of information, we cannot judge  xwhether the analyzed local newscasts can be deemed inclusive or representative of the stations'  xoverall efforts to address issues of importance to their community. The studies also did not  XS- xaddress all of the licensees' local news broadcasts, S[ 9 X_-ԍ According to Group W/CBS, KCNC-TV broadcasts six other local news broadcasts, ranging in duration from 30 minutes to two and a half hours. and excluded all network and syndicated  xprogramming, and all locally produced programming that was not related to the local evening  xZnewscasts. Thus, without more, the content analyses submitted in support of the petition cannot  xsupport an allegation that any individual station "has offered such nominal levels of responsive  xprogramming as to have effectively defaulted on its obligation to contribute to the discussion of" 0*((s"  X-issues facing its community." 9 Xy-ԍ In addition, the licensees criticize the Media Watch content analyses as incomplete, conclusory, and subjective. However, we need not address these contentions in view of our conclusion based upon the limited scope of the analyses.   xMedia Watch also asserts that the monitored newscasts contained excessive commercial  xmessages, which further detract from the time available to report on issues which Media Watch  x1deems important to the community. In 1984, however, the Commission eliminated its  x/commercial guidelines for television stations, finding that commercial levels would be more  Xv- xeffectively regulated by audience selection and market forces. Commercial TV Stations, 98 FCC  Xa- x2d at 11021105. Thus, with the exception of children's programming, aK9 X] -ԍ In the Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101437, 104 Stat. 9961000, codified at 47 U.S.C.  303a, 303b and 394, Congress directed the Commission to adopt  X/-rules, inter alia, limiting the number of minutes of commercial matter that television stations may air during children's programming, and to consider in its review of television license  X-renewals the extent to which the licensee has complied with such commercial limits. See also 47 C.F.R.  73.670. KWGNTV certified in its renewal application that it failed to comply with the limitations on commercial matter in children's programming. After evaluating the commercial time overages involved, we determined that admonishment was the appropriate  X-remedy for the reported violations of Section 73.670 of our rules. See Letter from Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Services Division, dated April 23, 1998, to KWGN Inc. the Commission no  xjlonger considers allegations of overcommercialization in connection with renewal applications.  xjWith respect to the allegation that minorities and women are underrepresented on the stations'  xlocal newscasts as anchors and reporters, the EEO rules do not impose any requirements  xregarding the hiring of women and minorities, but only that stations engage in good faith  X - xrecruitment efforts. In addition, we have reviewed the stations' recruitment efforts in connection  xjwith their renewal applications, and conclude that they have complied with our rules. We note  xthat the United States Court of Appeals recently found the Commission's equal employment  X - x<opportunity regulations to be unconstitutional, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod v. FCC, Case  xNo. 971116 (D.C. Cir. April 14, 1998), but the Court's mandate has not yet issued. Finally,  X}- xybecause of the result reached here, we need not, and do not, consider whether the Commission  Xf-has the authority to impose the specific remedies proposed by Media Watch.  h,CONCLUSION   mxHaving reviewed all matters presented, we conclude that there are no substantial and  xmaterial questions of fact and that grant of the renewal applications would be consistent with  xSection 309(k) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 309(k). Thus, because the  x/licensees are otherwise qualified, grant of the applications will serve the public interest. 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2). "30*(("Ԍ  xIn view of the foregoing, the Petitions to Deny filed by Rocky Mountain Media Watch  xARE DENIED, and the license renewal applications for stations KCNCTV (BRCT971126KH),  x1KMGHTV (BRCT971125KK), KUSATV (BRCT971123KP) and KWGNTV (BRCT971201LS) ARE GRANTED.   !xA copy of this decision will be sent Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Rocky Mountain Media Watch. x` `  hh@hppSincerely, x` `  hh@hppBarbara A. Kreisman x` `  hh@hppChief, Video Services Division x` `  hh@hppMass Media Bureau  X -