August 11, 1997

                                           STATEMENT OF 
                      COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS
                             REGARDING
                           RTNDA PETITION
                                  
                                  
     Unfortunately, despite considerable efforts, the  Commission has
not yet been able to forge agreement on any course of action affecting the
personal attack and political editorial rules.  

     With an unprecedented 80% turnover in Commission membership
expected this Fall, one of our first major responsibilities will be to review
the public interest responsibilities of broadcasters in the digital world.  In
that context, or separately and simultaneously, our review of the personal
attack and political editorial rules should be completed.  I hope that the
Court of Appeals will give the Commission the latitude to proceed in this
fashion.

     In my judgment, the record at this time does not support repeal of
the personal attack and political editorial rules or provide sufficient
information upon which to make final judgments about ways in which they
might be modified.  Indeed, the record before us does not reflect
developments such as two major Supreme Court cases casting light on the
relationship of broadcasting to the First Amendment, the issuance of three
Commission orders enabling television broadcasting to be transformed by
the use of digital transmission technologies, and the President's creation of
a blue-ribbon committee to evaluate the public interest responsibilities of
broadcasters in a digital environment. 

     The increasing ownership concentration of the broadcast
marketplace and the rapidly changing technological and competitive
conditions make it timely to reexamine the personal attack and political
editorial rules within the context of the overall public interest requirements
of broadcasters.  In our Digital Television proceeding, we committed to
conducting an examination of the public interest of broadcasters in a digital
environment.  Together with the work of the President's advisory
committee and any related hearings that may be conducted by the
Congress, there will ample opportunity for a robust public debate on these
fundamental issues.

      In light of these developments, I would have preferred that we
seek additional public comment on both the personal attack and political
editorial rules.  I believe we should have sought specific comment on the
extent to which the purposes of each of these rules remain valid and
whether the specific requirements that are part of these rules might be
simplified or eliminated.   But this proposal, like others that were
considered, did not secure support from a majority of the Commissioners.

     Ever since the Radio Act of 1927, the Congress has required
broadcast licensees to serve the public interest.  This trusteeship is critical
to the vitality of our democracy because all Americans, not just those who
choose to subscribe, are able to receive free, over-the-air radio and
television broadcasts.  Contrary to some suggestions and to our ill-founded
dictum regarding spectrum scarcity in Syracuse Peace Council (1987),
broadcasting has not lost its special character -- with unique privileges and
powers and unique responsibilities as well.  This is apparent from the
Supreme Court decisions this very term on must-carry (Turner, 1997) and
the Internet (ACLU v. Reno, 1997).  Moreover, Congress recently and
specifically determined that public interest responsibilities shall continue as
television broadcasters transition to a digital environment.  47 U.S.C. Sec.
336(d) ("Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving a television
broadcasting station from its obligation to serve the public interest,
convenience, and necessity"). 
 
     Regrettably, debates concerning the public interest obligations of
broadcasters have too often been cast in extreme terms.  On the one hand,
the First Amendment can be invoked as an excuse to keep the public
interest responsibilities of broadcasters as vague, unenforceable, and
unaccountable as possible.  On the other, concern for the public interest
can be invoked to justify an activist government role that seems insensitive
to the First Amendment protections that are the birthright of all American
citizens, including broadcasters.  But, when the debate is carried on in this
manner, real progress on concrete issues is hindered.  At the end of the
day, our decisions must serve First Amendment values and the public
interest responsibilities that are inherent in broadcasting.

     I hope that our future consideration of these issues demonstrates
that polar characterizations of both the First Amendment and the public
interest present a false choice.  The First Amendment is in the public
interest.  And the public interest can be well-served, and advanced, without
impinging upon the values served by the First Amendment.  

     I look forward to working with my new colleagues on the
Commission to resolve these issues.