Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
Click here for joint statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein and Commissioner Michael J. Copps

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )   File No. EB-06-IH-3489   
     In the Matter of                                                        
                                                )   NAL/Acct. No.            
     SONSHINE FAMILY TELEVISION, INC.               200832080001             
                                                )                            
     Licensee of Station WBPH-TV                    Facility ID No. 60850    
                                                )                            
     Bethlehem, Pennsylvania                        FRN: 0006620066          
                                                )                            
     SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.                 File No. EB-06-IH-3486   
                                                )                            
     Licensee of Stations WABM(TV),                 NAL/Acct. No.            
     Birmingham, Alabama, WVTV(TV),             )   200832080003             
     Milwaukee, Wisconsin, WUXP-TV,                                          
     Nashville, Tennessee, KOCB(TV), WEAR-TV,   )   Facility ID Nos. 16820,  
     Pensacola, Florida, WPMY(TV),                  74174, 9971, 50170,      
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, KABB(TV), San    )   71363, 73907, 56528,     
     Antonio, Texas, WTWC-TV, Tallahassee,          66908, and 33336         
     Florida, and former licensee of KSMO-TV,   )                            
     Kansas City, Missouri                          FRN: 0004331096          
                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )                            



                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: August 27,  2007 Released: October 18, 2007

   By the Commission: Commissioners Adelstein and Copps issuing a joint
   statement.

   I. Introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Sonshine
       Family Television, Inc. ("Sonshine"), licensee of Station WBPH-TV,
       Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
       amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for willfully and
       repeatedly violating Section 317(a)(1) of the Communications Act of
       1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's
       rules. These provisions generally require a licensee to make
       sponsorship identification announcements whenever its station
       broadcasts matter in return for money, service, or other valuable
       consideration. We find that Sonshine, in exchange for consideration,
       broadcast five episodes of the program "The Right Side with Armstrong
       Williams" ("RSAW") on a total of ten occasions during the period
       January 4, 2004, through July 5, 2004, without airing the required
       sponsorship identification announcements.

    2. We also find Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair"), ultimate
       parent of the licensees of Stations WABM(TV), Birmingham, Alabama,
       KSMO-TV, Kansas City, Missouri, WVTV(TV), Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
       WUXP-TV, Nashville, Tennessee, KOCB(TV), WEAR-TV, Pensacola, Florida,
       WPMY(TV), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, KABB(TV), San Antonio, Texas, and
       WTWC-TV, Tallahassee, Florida, apparently liable for a forfeiture in
       the amount of thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000) for willfully and
       repeatedly violating Section 73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules.
       That section provides that whenever a licensee is furnished with "any
       film, record, transcription, talent, script or other material or
       service . . ." for use in connection with the broadcast of political
       matter or the discussion of a controversial issue of public
       importance, the licensee must make sponsorship announcements
       identifying the party or parties furnishing the materials or services.
       We find that the above-captioned Sinclair stations broadcast an
       episode of the program "America's Black Forum," ("ABF") entitled "2004
       Election Countdown," on September 11 or 12, 2004, without airing the
       sponsorship identification announcements required by this section.

   II. BACKGROUND

   A. Sponsorship Identification Law

    3. Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the
       Commission's rules establish the general obligation of a broadcast
       station to air sponsorship identification announcements whenever any
       "money, service or other valuable consideration" is paid or promised
       to the station for the broadcast of program material. Specifically,
       Section 317(a)(1) provides:

   All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money, service or
   other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised
   to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any
   person, shall, at the time the same is so broadcast, be announced as paid
   for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person: Provided, That
   "service or other valuable consideration" shall not include any service or
   property furnished without charge or at a nominal charge for use on, or in
   connection with, a broadcast unless it is so furnished in consideration
   for an identification in a broadcast of any person, product, service,
   trademark, or brand name beyond an identification which is reasonably
   related to the use of such service or property on the broadcast.

    4. Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules implements Section
       317(a)(1) of the Act. Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules
       states:

   When a broadcast station transmits any matter for which money, service, or
   other valuable consideration is either directly or indirectly paid or
   promised to, or charged or accepted by such station, the station, at the
   time of the broadcast, shall announce:

   (1) That such matter is sponsored, paid for, or furnished, either in whole
   or in part, and

   (2) By whom or on whose behalf such consideration was supplied: Provided,
   however, That "service or other valuable consideration" shall not include
   any service or property furnished without or at a nominal charge for use
   on, or in connection with, a broadcast unless it is so furnished in
   consideration for an identification of any person, product, service,
   trademark, or brand name beyond an identification reasonably related to
   the use of such service or property on the broadcast.

   The proviso components of Section 73.1212(a)(2) and of Section 317(a)(1)
   of the Act exempt stations from making sponsorship announcements in
   certain circumstances, but these provisos do not apply when the
   consideration paid or promised to a station is in the form of "money." The
   Commission has noted that the sponsorship identification rules are
   "grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know
   who seeks to persuade them" and has warned that it would take enforcement
   action against broadcast stations and cable operators that did not comply
   with its rules.

    5. The sponsorship identification rules impose upon broadcast licensees a
       greater obligation of disclosure in connection with political material
       and program matter treating controversial issues. The Commission has
       noted that, particularly in the case of such programming, audience
       members are "entitled to know when the program ends and the
       advertisement begins." Thus, while the provisos to Section 317(a)(1)
       of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of our rules provide generally that
       no sponsorship identification announcement is necessary if
       broadcast-related materials or services are supplied to a station free
       of charge or at a nominal charge, Section 317(a)(2) authorizes the
       Commission to require sponsorship announcements for any materials or
       services that are furnished for use in political or controversial
       issue programming without regard to whether they were provided at no
       charge or at a nominal charge. The Commission has exercised this
       authority in adopting Section 73.1212(d), which provides:

   In the case of any political broadcast matter or any broadcast matter
   involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance for
   which any film, record, transcription, talent, script, or other material
   or service of any kind is furnished, either directly or indirectly, to a
   station as an inducement for broadcasting such matter, an announcement
   shall be made both at the beginning and conclusion of such broadcast on
   which such material or service is used that such film, record,
   transcription, talent, script, or other material or service has been
   furnished to such station in connection with the transmission of such
   broadcast matter: Provided, however, That in the case of any broadcast of
   5 minutes' duration or less, only one such announcement need be made
   either at the beginning or conclusion of the broadcast. 

    6. The Commission applies the same standard for determining whether a
       broadcast matter involves "a controversial issue of public importance"
       as it applied under the fairness doctrine. "[G]iven the limitless
       number of potential controversial issues and the varying circumstances
       in which they might arise," the Commission approaches this
       determination on a case-by-case basis. Consistent with the First
       Amendment, the Commission relies heavily on licensees' editorial
       judgment, and the scope of its review is limited to determining
       whether a licensee has acted reasonably and in good faith in
       determining whether material is or is not subject to the special
       disclosure rule for matter involving controversial issues of public
       importance. The inducement component of the rule is satisfied whenever
       material is provided to a broadcaster at no or nominal charge.

   B. Free Press Complaint and Investigations

    7. In early January 2005, Free Press and several thousand other
       complainants wrote requesting that the Commission investigate alleged
       payola violations involving Armstrong Williams ("Williams"). The
       complaints, citing national news reports, contended that Williams was
       paid by the Department of Education ("DoEd") to promote the No Child
       Left Behind Act ("NCLB") in broadcast programming that he produced or
       in which he appeared without disclosing that fact to viewers or to the
       stations involved. Many of the complaints identified numerous
       broadcast stations reported to have aired such NCLB-related
       programming, which included the show "The Right Side with Armstrong
       Williams."

    8. On February 14, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") issued letters
       of inquiry to Armstrong Williams' media company, Graham Williams Group
       ("GWG"), and to public-relations firm Ketchum, Inc. ("Ketchum").
       Ketchum was the prime contractor with DoEd in connection with that
       department's campaign to promote NCLB and GWG was a subcontractor of
       Ketchum's in that endeavor. The LOIs directed the respondents to
       answer a number of questions and produce a variety of documents
       relevant to matters raised in the complaints. In their responses, GWG
       and Ketchum provided documentary and other evidence that included more
       than one-hundred hours of recorded programs containing NCLB
       advertisements or discussion and commentary concerning NCLB during
       episodes of RSAW, hosted by Williams, and during the program
       "America's Black Forum" ("ABF"), on which Williams appeared as a
       guest.

    9. After reviewing this evidence, the Bureau identified those episodes in
       which discussions of NCLB topics took place during the programs, but
       no sponsorship disclosures appeared to have been made. The Bureau
       thereafter issued further letters of inquiry to licensees named in the
       complaints or identified by Williams to determine, among other things,
       whether their stations aired such NCLB-related programming, as
       alleged, and if so, whether the stations disclosed the identity of the
       sponsor of such programming during their broadcasts. Sonshine and
       Sinclair were among the owners to which the Bureau directed a further
       LOI.

   10. In its response, Sonshine denies that Station WBPH-TV aired ABF but
       acknowledges that the station aired five different episodes of RSAW
       entitled "What is Faith," "Year End Review," "Young Americans in
       Government," "National Security," and "On Point with Rod Paige," on a
       total of ten occasions during the period January 4, 2004, through July
       5, 2004. During these episodes Williams discussed the NCLB program.
       Based on its inability to "produce actual records concerning these
       particular programs," Sonshine opines that "in all likelihood" its
       station aired them without including any sponsorship identification,
       because it believed no identification was necessary. Sonshine
       acknowledges, however, that its agreement with Williams "call[ed] for
       payment of a nominal fee of $100 to [it] for each broadcast," which
       Sonshine implies is not cognizable due to the allegedly modest amount
       involved. Sonshine further claims that it was neither informed by GWG
       nor made aware that anyone else received or was promised consideration
       for the inclusion of any message intended for broadcast. Thus,
       Sonshine argues that it had no basis on which to conclude that a
       sponsorship announcement was required for the programming. Finally,
       Sonshine contends that the broadcast presentations as a whole make
       clear that GWG was the material's sponsor in each case, and that its
       failure to include specific disclosures announcing that the program
       was "paid for" and/or "sponsored" by GWG was harmless.

   11. In its response, Sinclair denies that any of its stations aired RSAW
       but acknowledges that nine of its stations aired an episode of ABF
       entitled "2004 Election Countdown," taped September 8, 2004, during
       which Williams discussed the NCLB program. Sinclair admitted that
       these stations aired this episode of ABF without including any
       sponsorship identification. Sinclair argues, however, that no such
       identification was required. In this regard, Sinclair states that it
       neither received nor was promised any consideration for the material's
       broadcast. Rather, it states that its staff's decision to air such
       material reflected its own "independent and uncompensated decision."
       Moreover, Sinclair asserts that it had no actual knowledge or any
       reason to believe that anyone had received or been promised
       consideration for inclusion of material in the program that it aired.
       Sinclair concludes that "it simply did not know, and had no reason to
       know, that the program required any identification . . . ."

   III. Discussion

   12. Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a monetary
       forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the
       Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, and the person
       against whom the notice has been issued must have an opportunity to
       show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.
       The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a
       preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or
       a Commission rule. We conclude under this standard that Sonshine is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture for its willful and repeated
       violation of Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of
       the Commission's rules and that Sinclair is apparently liable for a
       forfeiture for its willful and repeated violation of Section
       73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules.

   13. Sonshine. Both Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of
       the Commission's rules expressly provide that broadcast stations must
       identify the sponsor of material whenever they accept "money, service
       or other valuable consideration" to air the material. Sonshine
       concedes that it received money in exchange for the broadcast of the
       five RSAW episodes identified above, but implies that the nominal
       amount of the payment - $100 per broadcast - excuses it from making a
       sponsorship announcement. To the extent Sonshine takes this position,
       it is unavailing. The duty to provide a sponsorship announcement where
       money is exchanged for airtime is part of the primary obligation
       stated in Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the
       Commission's rules. The provisos to these sections, which afford a
       limited exception to the announcement duty, operate by excluding
       certain classes of "service or other valuable consideration" from
       triggering the obligation. Specifically, they provide that the terms
       "service or other valuable consideration" as used in these sections
       "shall not include any service or property furnished without charge or
       at a nominal charge...." Notably, the term "money," which is named as
       a form of consideration that would oblige a station to air a
       sponsorship announcement, is not mentioned in the provisos. Moreover,
       unlike the provisos, the primary obligation stated in Section
       317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules
       recognizes no exception for "nominal" monetary payments. On the
       contrary, the statute requires sponsorship identification where a
       broadcaster is paid "any money, service or other valuable
       consideration." We conclude that the receipt of money in exchange for
       the broadcast of material requires a sponsorship announcement
       regardless of whether the amount could be considered nominal or not.

   14. Moreover, we do not agree that the overall presentations of the RSAW
       episodes obviated the need for Sonshine to provide identification
       announcements in the form specified under the rules. A sponsorship
       identification announcement must state in language understandable to a
       majority of the audience that the station has received consideration
       for the matter broadcast and from whom that consideration was
       received.

   15. According to Section 73.1212(a)(1), the station shall announce "[t]hat
       such matter is sponsored, paid for or furnished, in whole or in part."
       In addition under Section 73.1212(a)(2)(i): "For the purposes of this
       section, the term `sponsored' shall be deemed to have the same meaning
       as `paid for.'" Thus, the Commission has found that the phrase
       "sponsored by" may be used in place of "paid for," but no other
       substitute words or phrases have been specifically allowed. In
       addition, the term "presented by" is subject to differing
       interpretations which could lead to public confusion or
       misunderstanding. Thus, the term "presented by" does not clearly
       inform the audience that it is hearing or viewing matter which has
       been paid for. Moreover, the Commission has ruled that use of
       "promotional fees furnished by" is not sufficient. Thus, due to the
       potential confusion and harm caused by alternative types of
       identification, the permissible forms of identification are narrowly
       drawn. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit to Sonshine's
       argument that the programs' overall presentations, which included
       identification of the program title, participants, and production
       company, made clear to viewers that those entities were also the
       material's sponsors. Consequently, we find that the broadcasts in
       question lacked appropriate sponsorship identification.

   16. We conclude that Sonshine willfully and repeatedly violated Section
       317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules
       by airing the RSAW episodes "What is Faith," "Year End Review," "Young
       Americans in Government," "National Security," and "On Point with Rod
       Paige," over Station WBPH-TV without airing the proper sponsorship
       identification. The imposition of a monetary forfeiture to redress of
       these failures is appropriate.

   17. Sinclair. As noted above, Section 73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules
       makes clear that broadcast stations must identify the sponsor of any
       materials or services furnished for use in connection with "any
       political broadcast matter or any broadcast matter involving the
       discussion of a controversial issue of public importance . . . ." In
       this case, Williams and GWG provided Sinclair with a complete program
       for broadcast on its stations and that program, entitled "2004
       Election Countdown," consisted, in substantial part, of partisan
       representatives and commentators analyzing and debating various issues
       central to the presidential campaign then underway, as well as clips
       of the candidates themselves making political statements at their
       respective parties' conventions. Based on these characteristics, we
       find that this program material was furnished for use in connection
       with "political broadcast matter" within the meaning of Section
       73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, during each
       broadcast, Sinclair was obliged to air announcements indicating that
       the program was furnished by Williams, irrespective of whether it was
       provided to Sinclair without charge. We conclude that Sinclair
       willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1212(d) of the
       Commission's rules by airing the ABF episode "2004 Election Countdown"
       over its stations on the respective dates noted above without airing
       proper sponsorship identification and that the imposition of a
       monetary forfeiture in redress of these failures is appropriate. In
       this regard, we observe that the Commission has placed particular
       importance on a licensee's obligation to identify to its viewers any
       and all sponsors of politically related messages.

   18. Forfeitures. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement sets a base
       forfeiture amount of $4,000 for sponsorship identification violations.
       After considering the record and all of the factors contained in
       Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), and the
       Forfeiture Policy Statement, we believe a forfeiture of $40,000 is
       appropriate for Sonshine's violations. This represents the base amount
       for each of the ten broadcasts by WBPH-TV of the referenced RSAW
       episodes. After similar consideration, we believe a $36,000 forfeiture
       is appropriate for Sinclair's violations. This represents the base
       amount for the single broadcast of the ABF program over each of the
       nine above-captioned Sinclair stations on September 11 or 12, 2004.

   I. Ordering clauses

   19. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
       1.80 of the Commission's rules, Sonshine is hereby NOTIFIED of its
       APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Forty Thousand
       Dollars ($40,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
       317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the Commission's rules.

   20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and
       1.80 of the Commission's rules, Sinclair is hereby NOTIFIED of its
       APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand
       Dollars ($36,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section
       73.1212(d) of the Commission's rules.

   21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
       Commission's rules, within thirty days of the release of this Notice,
       Sonshine and Sinclair SHALL EACH PAY to the United States the full
       amount of the proposed forfeitures or SHALL EACH FILE a written
       statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeitures.

   22. Payment of the forfeitures must be made by mailing check or similar
       instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
       Commission. The payment MUST INCLUDE the respective FCC Registration
       Number ("FRN") and the NAL/Account Number for the payor specified in
       the caption of this NAL. Payment by check or money order may be mailed
       to Federal Communications Commission P.O. Box 358340 Pittsburgh, PA
       15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Bank/LB
       358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment
       by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank
       Mellon Pittsburgh, and account number BNF: FCC/ACV--9116229.

   23. Each response, if any, must be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief,
       Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W, Room 4-C330,
       Washington, D.C. 20554 and MUST INCLUDE the respective NAL/Acct. No.
       for the responding party referenced above.

   24. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
       response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent submits:
       (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
       financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
       accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and
       objective documentation that accurately reflects the respondent's
       current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
       specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
       financial documentation submitted.

   25. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
       installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
       Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington,
       D.C. 20554.

   26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Notice SHALL BE SENT, by
       Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Sonshine Family
       Television, Inc., 813 N. Fenwick Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania
       18109, and to its counsel, J. Geoffrey Bentley, Esq., 2700 Copper
       Creek Road, Oak Hill, Virginia 20171, and to Sinclair Broadcast Group,
       Inc., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, N.W.,
       Washington, D.C. 20037-1128, and to its counsel, Kathryn R.
       Schmeltzer, Esq., and Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., at the same address.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                               JOINT STATEMENT OF

      COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN AND COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

   In the Matter of Sonshine Family Television, Inc, and Sinclair Broadcast
   Group, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture

   Growing abuses of the public trust in recent years are shaking Americans'
   confidence in the press. When pundits are paid to promote a corporate or
   government agenda while the public is never told, all commenters and
   journalists become suspect. The repeated revelations of advertisers paying
   their way onto news programming without disclosure undercut the
   credibility of all journalists. When budget cuts in newsrooms lead
   broadcasters to substitute advertisements disguised by slick public
   relations firms as news instead of paying for their own work, viewers and
   listener wonder what they can believe. When newsrooms are too strapped or
   sloppy to perform their due diligence and provide disclosure
   announcements, as required by law, it leads to a crisis of confidence.

   So we now face a crisis in American journalism. That is why today's action
   by the Commission is so important. It sends a clear message that the
   public has a right to know who is trying to persuade them so they can make
   up their own minds about what is presented to them.

   While some will try to turn this into a First Amendment issue, sponsorship
   identification in no way requires anyone to limit anything they
   communicate. On the contrary, it requires more speech, not less. The only
   reason it can be construed as limiting expression is because broadcasters
   and cable operators are too embarrassed to reveal who paid to produce or
   espouse material they are pretending is their own product. In fact,
   established ethical guidelines, which are routinely ignored, call for just
   such disclosure. The reticence to disclose, or to otherwise refrain from
   using material paid for by a sponsor, is not a restraint upon free
   expression.

   Today, with the release of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, the Commission again puts broadcasters and cable operators on
   notice that the public deserves a clear statement on whether or not the
   programming they are watching is sponsored by a government or corporate
   interest.

   This Forfeiture Notice reinforces the rule that the Commission's
   disclosure obligations do not only apply to broadcasters. Rather, the
   Commission is serious about applying the rules to everyone up and down the
   chain of production and distribution. Today, the Commission places
   broadcasters, producers and distributors on notice. Each and every
   individual has a duty to report the real source of any programming on
   television or radio. Employers and employees must ensure the audience
   knows where the programming they are watching originated or who paid for
   it. The argument that the overall presentation of the material obviates
   the need to provide sponsorship identification announcements is
   unavailing. Under our clear rules, any consideration must be revealed to
   the audience.

   Failure to disclose Armstrong Williams was paid by the Department of
   Education to promote an agenda on the air by itself violates Federal law.
   On top of that, without making a positive or negative judgment of the
   content aired, we find that in the instant case a licensee could not, in
   good faith, consider the material to be "anything but political." The
   Commission has already concluded that electoral issues are presumptively
   controversial and of public importance. In fact, we both struggle to find
   an issue more important to many parents than their child's education. We
   feel it is not too much of a stretch for programmers to understand what is
   a political issue and what is not. Broadcasters should strive to present
   independent and honest broadcasting, and should ethically desire to be
   forthcoming and open about where its programming is coming from.

   The integrity of the press is of paramount importance to any democracy. As
   the Commission has clearly warned, audience members must be able to tell
   where the program they are watching ends and the paid advertisement
   begins. Today's Forfeiture Notice reaffirms the affirmative legal
   obligation of broadcasters to alert the public to any payola punditry and
   places the industry on notice that the Commission will act to ensure the
   public is protected from special interest groups who attempt to trick the
   public.

   While this action is overdue, we are pleased the Commission takes this
   issue seriously. This Forfeiture Notice demonstrates how important it is
   for broadcast stations to clearly announce any sponsors furnishing
   material or services, particularly for use in connection with the
   broadcast of political material or discussion of a controversial issue of
   public importance. Accordingly, we speak in a unanimous voice.

   47 U.S.C. S: 317(a)(1).

   47 C.F.R. S: 73.1212(a).

   Sinclair is the ultimate parent of the respective television station
   licensees Birmingham (WABM-TV) Licensee, Inc; WVTV Licensee, Inc; WUXP
   Licensee, LLC; KOCB Licensee, LLC; WEAR Licensee, LLC; WCWB Licensee, LLC;
   KABB Licensee, LLC; and WTWC Licensee, LLC. KSMO-TV was licensed to a
   Sinclair-controlled entity at the time of the relevant broadcasts.

   47 C.F.R. S: 73.1212(d).

   47 U.S.C. S: 317(a)(1).

   47 C.F.R. S: 73.1212. The Commission's rules also contain additional
   requirements designed to implement and provide greater specificity for the
   other requirements in Section 317. Section 76.1615 establishes many of
   these requirements for cable operators under certain circumstances.

   See, e.g., Commission Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable Operators and
   Others of Requirements Applicable to Video News Releases and Seeks Comment
   on the Use of Video News Releases by Broadcast Licensees and Cable
   Operators, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 8593-94 (2005) ("2005 Public
   Notice").

   See Richard Kielbowicz and Linda Lawson, "Unmasking Hidden Commercials in
   Broadcasting: Origins of the Sponsorship Identification Regulations,
   1927-1963," 56 Fed. Comm. L. J. 329 at 344 n.80 (2004), citing FCC, Public
   Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees, 47 (1946); Commission
   Reminds Broadcast Licensees, Cable Operators and Others of Requirements
   Applicable to Video News Releases and Seeks Comment on the Use of Video
   News Releases by Broadcast Licensees and Cable Operators, Public Notice,
   20 FCC Rcd 8593 (2005) ("2005 Public Notice").

   See paras. 3-4, supra.

   Section 317(a)(2), 47 U.S.C. S: 317(a)(2), provides that:

   Nothing in this section shall preclude the Commission from requiring that
   an appropriate announcement shall be made at the time of the broadcast in
   the case of any political program or any program involving the discussion
   of any controversial issue for which any films, records, transcriptions,
   talent, scripts, or other material or service of any kind have been
   furnished, without charge or at a nominal charge, directly or indirectly,
   as an inducement to the broadcast of such program.

   47 C.F.R. S: 73.1212(d). The Commission's rules also contain additional
   requirements designed to implement and provide greater specificity for the
   other requirements in Section 317. Section 76.1615 establishes many of
   these requirements for cable operators under certain circumstances.

   Amendment of Commission's Sponsorship Identification Rules, 52 FCC 2d 701,
   710 (1975).

   The Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public
   Interest Standards of the Communications Act, 48 FCC 2d 1, 11-12
   (1974)("1974 Fairness Report").

   Id. at 11.

   Westinghouse B'casting Co., 40 FCC  28, 29 (1958) ("it is obvious that the
   material furnished by the [program's producer], at considerable cost to it
   and no cost to the stations, was made available by that association with
   the expectation or hope that it would be presented by the stations to
   which it was supplied, ...--i.e., as an inducement to the stations to
   present this particular material. Conversely, the station was induced to
   present portions of the particular material by the fact that it was made
   available gratis."); Gaylord B'casting Co., 67 FCC 2d 25 (1977). See also
   Announcement of Sponsored Programs, 28 Fed. Reg. 4707, 4715 (May 10, 1963)
   (rejecting contention that proposed case illustration 35(c) "was
   misleading in that it permits the conclusion that whenever material
   involving controversial issues of public importance is supplied to a
   station free of charge, the use of any portion of such material in a news
   program would require an announcement as to its source").

   See Letters from William Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Sinclair and Ketchum, dated February 14,
   2005 ("February 14th LOIs").

   See Letter from GWG to Kenneth M. Scheibel, Jr., Attorney, Investigations
   & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated April 6, 2005 ("GWG
   Response"), and Letter from Ketchum to William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief,
   Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated April 13,
   2005 ("Ketchum Response").

   See Letters from Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr., Deputy Chief, Investigations &
   Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Sonshine, dated November 7,
   2006, and January 31, 2007 ("November 7th LOI" and "January 31st LOI");
   Letter from Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr., Deputy Chief, Investigations &
   Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Sinclair, dated November 7, 2006
   ("November 7th LOI"). By actions dated January 31, June 29, and July 23,
   2007, the Bureau terminated its investigations of other stations,
   including certain of those owned by Sinclair, based on the licensees'
   denials, and the absence of any independent evidence disputing their
   denials, that they had aired any of the program material at issue on such
   stations.

   This episode was referred to in our LOI to Sonshine as entitled "Young
   Americans in Government," but that title actually describes only the
   second segment of the episode. The first segment was denominated "Profile
   of a Candidate." The title appearing at the beginning of the whole episode
   - "Profile of Candidate/Americans" - appears to be a composite of both
   segments' titles.

   Specifically, Sonshine acknowledges that it aired the following episodes
   of RSAW over Station WBPH-TV: "What is Faith" aired on January 6, March 4,
   March 8, and April 30, 2004; "Year End Review" aired on January 4, 2004;
   "Young Americans in Government" aired on January 5, 2004; "National
   Security" aired on April 23, 2004; and "On Point with Rod Paige" aired on
   March 19, April 12 and July 5, 2004. See Letters from Sonshine to Benigno
   E. Bartolome, Jr., Deputy Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, dated December 22, 2006, March 2, 2007 and March 23,
   2007 ("Sonshine December 22nd Response," "Sonshine's March 2nd Response,"
   and "Sonshine's March 23rd Response," respectively).

   See March 23rd Response at 2.

   See id.

   See id. at  4-5.

   See March 23rd Response at 2-3.

   See Letter from Sinclair to Benigno E. Bartolome, Jr., Deputy Chief,
   Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated December 22,
   2006 ("Sinclair Response").

   Specifically, Sinclair acknowledges that its stations aired the episode
   over its stations on the following respective dates: on September 11,
   2004, on WABM(TV), WUXP-TV, WEAR-TV, KABB(TV), and KOCB(TV); and on
   September 12, 2004, on KSMO-TV, WVTV(TV), WPMY(TV) and WTWC-TV. See id. at
   3-4.

   Id. at 4.

   See id.

   Id. at 5. Sinclair explains that it likened this donated program material
   to other "syndicated programming, such as reruns of shows like `Seinfeld'
   and `Friends,'" which are instances, it impliedly suggests, that do not
   trigger the rule's identification requirements. Id. at 4 n.8.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(1); see also 47 U.S.C. S:
   503(b)(1)(D) (forfeitures for violation of 14 U.S.C. S: 1464). Section
   312(f)(1) of the Act defines willful as "the conscious and deliberate
   commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to
   violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history to
   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
   applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
   97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
   term in the Section 503(b) context. See, e.g., Southern California
   Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388
   (1991) ("Southern California Broadcasting Co."). The Commission may also
   assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not
   willful. See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a
   Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter alia, a cable television
   operator's repeated signal leakage). "Repeated" merely means that the act
   was committed or omitted more than once, or lasts more than one day.
   Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, P: 5; Callais
   Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd  at 1362, P:9.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591, P: 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

   47 U.S.C. S: 317(a)(1) (emphasis added).

   See Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993) ("where
   Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but
   omits it in another ... , it is generally presumed that Congress acts
   intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion."),
   quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983).

   Sonshine argues that the overall presentations, which included
   introductory visual identification of the program title "Right Side with
   Armstrong Williams," similar aural identifications given at program
   breaks, and the closing display of production credits indicating that the
   program is owned by GWG, should be deemed to provide sufficient
   identification to viewers that GWG was the material's sponsor. See
   Response at 2-3.

   See Application of Sponsorship Identification Rules to Political
   Broadcasts, Teaser Announcements, Governmental Entities and other
   Organizations, Public Notice, 66 FCC 2d 302 (1977) ("1977 Public Notice").

   Substantially similar language, applicable to origination cablecasting, is
   set forth at 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1615(a).

   Same language set forth at 47 C.F.R. S: 76.1615(a), applicable to
   origination cablecasting.

   See 1977 Public Notice, 66 FCC 2d at 302. See, e.g., Dallas Media
   Investors Corporation (Licensee of Station KDFI-TV), Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, 8 FCC Rcd 3597 (Mass Med. Bur. 1993) (words
   "presentation," "copyright," and other words used to indicated the source
   of the sponsored material or ownership rights of the program's creator are
   not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 317 of the Act and
   the Commission's sponsorship identification rules); Channel 36 Licensee
   Corporation (Licensee of Station WATL(TV)), Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 7 FCC Rcd 6541 (Mass Med. Bur. 1992) (announcements
   stating that the program has been paid for "by the distributor" do not
   identify the sponsor, and are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements
   of Section 317 of the Act and the Commission's sponsorship identification
   rules and visual display of "Coral Ridge Report" with aural announcement
   "Coral Ridge Ministries presents the Coral Ridge Report with Doctor D.
   James Kennedy..." does not comply with sponsorship identification
   requirements); Midwest Radio-Television, Inc. (Licensee of Stations
   WCCO(AM)), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 512 (1974) (Forfeiture
   assessed against licensee for violation of Section 317 of the Act and
   Commission's sponsorship identification rule. "This is Jack Douglas
   speaking for the Minnesota School Boards Association," is not sufficient
   as there was no indication that the announcement was sponsored or paid for
   by the association); and Lamar A. Newcomb, 1 FCC 2d 1395 (1965) (program
   sponsored by Reverend Dale Crowley identified by announcement of the words
   "Dale Crowley" not sufficient because there was no indication that the
   Reverend Crowley was sponsoring or paying for the program).

   Id.

   See National Broadcasting Company, Letter By Direction of the Commission,
   27 FCC 2d 75 (1970).

   See n.19, supra.

   Given our conclusion that Sonshine violated 47 U.S.C. S: 317(a)(1) and 47
   C.F.R. S: 73.1212(a), we decline to address the issue of whether any of
   the programming that Sonshine aired included political matter or any
   matter involving a discussion of a controversial issue of public
   importance and, if so, whether Sonshine also violated Section 73.1212(d)
   of the Commission's rules.

   See para. 5, supra.

   Although the Commission has not specifically defined the term "political"
   for purposes of evaluating a licensee's duties under 47 C.F.R. S:
   73.1212(d), that fact should not deter licensees from making good faith
   determinations in this area. Given the nature of the ABF episode,
   including its title, we do not believe that a licensee could, in good
   faith, consider this material anything but political. In any event, the
   Commission has previously concluded that issues pertaining to "elections,"
   which the ABF episode clearly addresses, are presumptively controversial
   and of public importance. See Primer, Political Broadcasting, 100 FCC 2d
   1476, 1536-37 (1984) (staff report suggesting that term reaches material
   that deals "with political subjects"); Gary M. Sukow, 36 FCC 2d 668 (1972)
   (suggestion that term applies to any interview with a political
   officeholder, whether or not in connection with present election). The
   same sponsorship announcement requirements apply to broadcast matter
   involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance as
   to political broadcast matter. We note that Sinclair does not maintain
   that this material is non-political for purposes of our sponsorship
   identification regulations, nor does it maintain that it acted reasonably
   and in good faith in determining that this material is non-political.
   Indeed, the record does not reflect that Sinclair considered the issue.

   The subject program exceeded five minutes in length. Under the terms of
   Section 72.1212(d), sponsorship announcements were therefore required at
   both the beginning and end of the program.

   The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17114 (1997), recons. denied
   15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b).

   See n.20, supra.

   See n.26, supra.

   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

   Id.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   See Letters from Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Graham Williams Group and
   Ketchum, Inc., File No. EB-05-IH-0031 (July 23, 2007).

   Section 507 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, codified at 47
   U.S.C. S: 508. See Letter from Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Graham Williams
   Group, Inc., File No. EB-05-IH-0031 (July 23, 2007)("[T]he record
   established that Williams and GWG [the Graham Williams Group] received
   more than nominal consideration from DoED [Department of Education] to
   include particular material in programming supplied to and intended for
   transmission by broadcast stations and that the material was, in fact,
   aired by various broadcast stations. In these circumstances, Williams and
   GWG were obligated under Section 507 to disclose to the licensees
   reviewing the programming that the NCLB-related broadcast material was
   sponsored by DoED. The record also established that such disclosure was
   not provided by either Williams or GWG. We conclude that WGB and Williams
   violated Section 507 of the Communications Act.").

   Forfeiture Notice at footnote 45.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

                                 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-152

   3

                                       2

                                 Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-152