° ' ' ‘ "\“" ‘ ‘ " ’ "“ ‘~"‘" “ \' ‘ “"' ' “' “' ' 'N‘.‘ ‘ ' ‘ ' *.'.\V‘t\'~\\\awa'nat “‘f’v-QQQSKQW‘IWW~4QQOV“‘W , m '3‘

BLACKSIN BROADCASTING; ,
MINORITY ACCESS T01   -
PROGRAMMINGAND Emmy/HEM 5

Thesis far the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
PAMELAS. ESCI'I
1971

-----

  

.I .12:
ITI3:I.I.-'

 

_....s 1.

t, ‘x'
\HESB‘! LIBRAR E
Michigan State '

University ,r '

‘ t
7-. ——---.-‘._ ‘. I)
.’ .w‘w—

 

w‘fl;‘ ~IW

I ,- amoma av ‘7 g
I III)“ & SUNS' i
i‘ 30th DIME“ INC. a

LIBRARY BINDERS I

ABSTRACT

BLACKS IN BROADCASTING:
MINORITY ACCESS TO PROGRAMMING AND EMPLOYMENT

A critical historical survey of the beginnings

of citizen involvement in broadcasting during
the period March, l968--January, 1971.

BY
Pamela S. Esch

This study surveys the history of citizen involvement
to open access for blacks to broadcast programming and
employment. The study focuses on the three-year period from
March, 1968 through January, 1971.

The development of citizen groups seeking to open
avenues for black access to the broadcast media is traced.
The organization and methods of these groups are analyzed.
The precedent setting efforts made by these citizen groups
to eliminate discriminatory broadcast practices are cited
and their ramifications explained. Landmark actions result—
ing in the clarification of the obligations and responsi-
bilities of broadcasters are also explained. Particular
attention is given to the organization of the Racial Justice
in Broadcasting project of the Office of Communication of
the United Church of Christ and the project's work in chal-

lenging broadcast license renewals.

Pamela S. Esch

The reactions of the Federal Communications Commission
and the broadcast industry to the active involvement of the
citizen groups are discussed to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the present status of the movement to end dis-
criminatory broadcast practices. An assessment is made of

the outlook for future citizen involvement in broadcasting.

BLACKS IN BROADCASTING:

MINORITY ACCESS TO PROGRAMMING AND EMPLOYMENT

A critical historical survey of the beginnings
of citizen involvement in broadcasting during
the period March, 1968--January, 1971.

BY

Pamela SeIEsch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Television and Radio

1971

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Television and Radio, College of Communication Arts,
Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the Master of Arts degree.

%M%/£gzi\

Director of'Thesis

ii

CHAPTER

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE FIRST STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landmark: WLBT-TV. . . . . . . . . . .
Equal Employment. . . . . . . . . . . .
Fairness Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . .

RACIAL JUSTICE IN BROADCASTING PROJECT. . .

Statement of Policy . . . . . . . . . .
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KTAL-TV: Another Precedent . . . . . .
Step-up in Actions. . . . . . . . . . .
Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .

Citizens Communication Center . . . . .
Black Efforts for Soul in Television. .
National Citizen's Committee for Broad-

casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BROADCAST INDUSTRY AND FCC REACTIONS. . . .

Initial Involvement . . . . . . . . . .
Fairness and Negotiated Agreements. . .
Pastore Bill--Renewa1 Standards . . . .
Ascertainment of Needs Issue. . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Achievements. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ramifications . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

moxowt-I

14

21

21
23
27
31

33
38

38
41

43
44

45
46
48
50
53

54
54

55
59

TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT RULES. . . . . . . . . . . 65
B. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
(FCC Form 395). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
C. TELEVISION OBSERVING--A STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
D. KTAL-TV AGREEMENT AND POLICY STATEMENT. . . 88
E. LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS. . . . . . . . . . 91

iv

INTRODUCTION

Television and radio are the leading channels of communi—
cation today. Without access to these media, no minority
group can hope to communicate its needs and desires to the
larger society and serve its own interests.

The violent civil disorders of the 1960's forced broad—
casters and the public to recognize the failure of the
broadcast industry to bridge the communications gap between
the black community and white society. In the report of the
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, a main con-
cern expressed by the Commission was the media's failure to
communicate the problems of the black ghetto and race rela-
tions prior to the violent outbreaks. The media had served
to "increase black alienation" and "contributed to the black—

1 The greatest impact of commercial

white schism in America."
broadcasting had been to reflect already existing majority
attitudes and to exalt white middle-class consumerism.
Broadcasting raised the materialistic expectations of the

audience, but did little to help the black man come closer to

 

1National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report
on Civil Disorders (The New York Times Company, Bantam Books,
1968). P. 383.

achievement of these goals.2 Broadcasting effectively set
the stage for black frustration on a massive scale.

Although the reasons for the broadcast industry's
failure to portray blacks as members of the society may be
understandable, broadcasters cannot be excused. The media
are required by law to broadcast in "the public convenience,
interest or necessity."3 It has become difficult in our
splintered society to separate public interest from the
white majority interests.

The dilemma, in brief, is how to take the dis-
parate interests of the majority and the minority

and reveal to the former that the fulfillment of the

latter's needs and desires is an essential precondi-

tion of the all encompassing public interest.

Violent racial disturbances and the continuing tensions
between the black urban ghetto and the golden ghetto of
white suburbia demonstrate that the aspirations of over 20
million black Americans cannot be evaluated as a minority
issue concerning only a small percentage of the population.

The absence of black faces and activities in the broad-

cast media has distorted the reality of the black community

 

2Herbert I. Schiller, Mass Communications and American
Empire (New York: Augustus M. Kelly, Publishers, 1969),
p. 29.

3U. S. Congress, Communications Act of 1934, Title III,
Section 307, June 19, 1934 (Amended December, 1964).

4Herbert I. Schiller, "The Mass Media and the Public
Interest," Television Today; The End of Communication and
the Death of Community (Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Policy Studies, 1969), p. 62.

for the black man and white society. But the blame does
not rest on the broadcasters alone. The public stood by,
silently watching and listening, while racial tensions grew
more explosive. Audiences did not accept their responsi-
bility to demand the type of local broadcast service to
which they are entitled.

Groups of citizens, both black and white, were aware
of the crucial role that the broadcast media must play for
blacks seeking to make their views known to the public.

Many local stations, through programming and employment
practices, were actively supporting racial discrimination,
thereby, undermining attempts by citizens to meet with all
segments of the community to discuss the issues. The dif-
ference between the ideal public interest oriented broadcast
service described by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and the reality of the business of broadcasting was
alarming.

Civic organizations and church groups realized the
dangers inherent in a situation where the best channels of
communication were closed to the black community. Most of
these groups were disorganized and uneducated about their
rights and responsibilities with respect to broadcast station
operations. They were not familiar with the structure and
procedures of the FCC, but they did know that the FCC, short
of funds and staff, could not realistically be expected to

guarantee that the public interest was being served in every

locality. They did not know what channels of action were
open to them to combat discrimination at local broadcast
outlets.

This study will explore the beginnings of citizen in-
volvement in eliminating discriminatory broadcasting during
the period March 1968 through January 1971. It is not
intended as a complete history of all the incidents of
broadcast discrimination or of citizen actions against each
individual station. The precedent setting examples in com-
batting discrimination are cited and their ramifications
explained. Landmark actions resulting in the clarification
of the obligations and responsibilities of broadcasters are
also included.

The study makes no attempt to separate the television
and radio media in terms of standards of fairness and equal
opportunity employment. However, television, by virtue of
its immediate relevance to the black community, has been the
target of most group action. As stated by Ed Dowling in
The New Republic, "Only commercial TV, the great addiction
of the ghetto, far more extensive than booze, or heroin, or
cocaine, can reach the ghetto. . . ."5

Educational or non-commercial broadcasting will not be

discussed. Lionel Monagus, National Association of

 

5Ed Dowling, "Color Us Black," The New Republic, CLVIII,
No. 23 (June 8, 1968), p. 43.

Educational Broadcasters Director of Minority Affairs, is
currently compiling research on discriminatory practices

in non-commercial broadcasting.6

 

6Conversation with Robert Smith, Executive Director,
Northern Virginia Educational Television Association,
Annandale, Virginia, January, 1971.

CHAPTER I

THE FIRST STEPS

Background

It was not by chance that the clergy were among the
first groups to recognize the problems of gaining access
to local broadcast stations. The clergy were in a unique
position because of their education, their direct contact
with all segments of the public and their own experience in
religious broadcasting.

Vocal dissatisfaction over broadcast practices began as
early as 1938, when the Federal Council of Churches con-
ducted a study on the influences of radio on American society.
The Council concluded that the community should participate
in local broadcasting by involving itself in licensing
procedures. Their report stated:

The community itself should have ways of seeing
that the broadcasting privilege is exercised by agencies
that have the greatest proved capacity and willingness
to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.

The churches did not believe that local broadcasters were

giving the public the type of programming they needed or

desired.

 

1Office of Communication, United Church of Christ,
In Defense of Fairness, New York, 1969, p. 2.

6

United church organizations formally supported freedom
of access to the media, even when atheists were involved.

In 1948, the Joint Religious Radio Committee, despite con-
demnation from some clergymen and public criticism, supported
the FCC Scott Decision declaring that any minority group had
the right to speak and be heard.2

In its July 19, 1946 decision, the FCC denied Robert
Scott's petition to revoke the licenses of three radio sta—
tions for refusing to make broadcast time available to him.
But the FCC did support Scott's right to be heard. The
decision stated:

The criterion of public interest in the field of broad—

casting clearly precludes a policy of making radio

wholly unavailable as a medium for the expression of

any view which falls within the scope of the constitu-

tional guarantee of free speech.3
The Joint Religious Radio Committee and the FCC were in agree:
ment with respect to the rights of minorities.

In 1957, the Office of Communication of the United Church
of Christ (hereafter, referred to simply as the Office of
Communication) issued a policy statement urging churchmen to
aid in alerting broadcasters and the public to the disastrous

results that could follow the misuse of radio and television

stations.4 In pursuit of this policy, the National Council

 

2Ibid.

3Frank J. Kahn, ed., Documents offAmerican Broadcasting,
Scott Decision, 11 FCC 372 (New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1968), p. 360.

4Office of Communication, In Defense of Fairness, loc.
cit., p. 3.

of the Churches of Christ undertook a study of television
and radio programming to determine where action was needed.
As a result of this study, the Council accepted their
share of responsibility for programming they found to be
manifest of a growing moral crisis in our society. The
Council decided that it was not enough to merely express
their concern over specific program practices. They must
take a course of direct action to help individuals or groups
who shared their concerns to improve the substance of broad-

cast programming.

Landmark : WLBT -TV

The Communications Act of 1934 predicated a three party
participation in the American broadcasting system: the
public as owners of the airwaves, the government and the
licensee. The government's”agent, the Federal Communications
Commission, was created to enforce the Act. Certain limita—
tions on the FCC's authority were cited in the Act to insure
a system of checks and balanées for the broadcast industry
and the public.5 Any FCC decision or order could be appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals.

The FCC established procedures by which individuals or
groups could register complaints concerning station broadcast

practices. In 1963, when the Office of Communication began

 

5Kahn, pp, cit. (Communications Act of 1934, Titles III
and IV), pp. 64-88.

to investigate the treatment of blacks by radio and tele-
vision, few people were familiar with these procedures.

No widespread attempts had been made, either by the FCC or
the broadcast industry, to acquaint the average citizen
with the workings of the FCC. Citizen participation in the
WLBT-TV, Jackson, Mississippi, case set a precedent for
future public involvement in FCC license renewal proceedings
and served to awaken many pe0ple to their rights concerning”
broadcast service.

The office of Communication entered into the WLBT case
at the request of local Jackson residents. Since 1955,
members of the local NAACP had been filing complaints with
the FCC against the racial discrimination evidenced by the
station's programming policies.6 The FCC's procedure had
been to make these complaints known to WLBT and to request
the station to comment on them. The station, owned by Lamar
Life Broadcasting Company, denied the complaints and no
further action was taken. The discriminatory practices con-
tinued.

In June, 1964, the Office of Communication and local
residents filed a petition with the FCC to deny the renewal
of WLBT's license on the grounds that the station had not
served the public's needs and interests by consistently

discriminating against the substantial black population of

 

6FCC, Lamar Life Broadcasting Company for renewal of
WLBT-TV license, FCC Reports, Vol. 14, 2nd Series (June 27,
1968). p. 434.

10

Jackson. (The black population was quoted as being from
45 to 50 per cent by different sources. In the FCC decision
of June 27, 1968, "nearly 50 per cent" is used.)7 The
petition charged that WLBT was acting as a mouthpiece for
segregationist views and refusing Opposing views the oppor—
tunity to respond. The group claimed that the station's
record over the preceding ten years proved that blacks had
been systematically excluded from access to the station's
facilities. The petition cited many examples of past pro-
gramming as evidence.8

The FCC ordered the station to cease its discriminatory
practices and granted a one-year renewal. The petitioners
were not granted a hearing on the WLBT renewal application
because the FCC ruled that the group did not have legal
standing to intervene in licensing procedures. The FCC
previously granted this standing only to those parties having
technical or economic interests in a station.9

Based on the past record of WLBT's response to their
complaints, the group was not satisfied that the station
would heed the Commission's order. They were also eager to

assert their right as a public body to be granted standing

 

7Ibid., pp. 431—442.

8Richard Meyer, "Blacks and Broadcasting," Broadcasting
and Bargaining: Labor Relations in Radig and Televisipp,
Allen Koenig, ed. (Madison: ’University of Wisconsin Press,
1970), p. 209.

9Office of Communication, United Church of Christ, How
to Protect Citizen Rights in Radio and Television, New York,
1969, p. 11.

11

by the FCC. Therefore, they appealed the FCC action to the
United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia
requesting that they be granted legal standing in a hearing'
on the WLBT renewal application. In March, 1966, the Court
ruled that the FCC had erred in its decision and ordered the
Commission to hold a hearing on the WLBT renewal in which
the Office of Communication and the citizens would legally
take part.10 The Court went further in this precedent
setting decision. The decision assured that the public would
have the right to be heard in any renewal proceeding. The
decision stated:
Experience demonstrates consumers are generally

among the best vindicators of the public interest.

In order to safeguard the public interest in broad-

casting, therefore, we hold that some audience partici—

pation must be allowed in license renewal proceedings.11
The general public now had a legal voice in determining
whether a station had fulfilled its obligations to serve the
public interest.

Public hearings were held in Jackson in May, 1967.
Finally, in June, 1968, the FCC voted to grant WLBT a full.'

three—year renewal.12 The Commission majority concurred

with the hearing examiner's opinion that the intervenor's

 

10Meyer, op. cit., p. 210.

11Office of Communication, In Defense of Fairness,
10C. Cit., p. 3.

12FCC, op. cit. (WLBT-TV license renewal decision),
pp. 431-442.

12

charges had not been proved and found the station's per-

formance, "although not exemplary,‘ was satisfactory.
However, Commissioners Cox and Johnson in their scathing
dissenting statement accused the majority of ignoring the
station's past record and manipulating procedures to favor-
the licensee. They called the decision "a serious piece of
obstruction to participatory democracy and the government's
efforts to establish confidence among Negroes and other
citizens who have been victimized by discrimination."13
They were appalled by the majority's selection of criteria
for determining the quality of WLBT's performance and their
negative attitudes towards the intervenors. They believed
the decision would cause an even greater breakdown of com-'
munication between the public and broadcasters and would
shatter any public faith in the FCC's role in eliminating
discrimination. The dissenting Commissioners expressed their
Opinion in the following: “
The only way in which members of the public can
prevent renewal of an unworthy station's license is to
steal the document from the wall of the station's
studios in the dead of night, or hope that the courts
will do more than merely remand cases to the FCC with
instructions that may be ignored.1

The Office of Communication hoped that the courts would

do more. Their attorneys had registered over 100 objections'I

 

13"Fcc Gives WLBT-TV Full Renewal," Broadcasting, Lxxv,
No. 1 (July 1, 1968), p. 9.

14Robert L. Shayon, "FCC on the Carpet," Saturday Review,
Vol. LI (August 24, 1968). PP. 54—55.

13

to the hearing examiner's decision and they were not alto—
gether‘surprised by the FCC decision. The Court of Appeals
had maintained its jurisdiction over the case, leaving the
door Open for another appeal. The Office of Communication
placed their case before the Court again.

In June, 1969, the Court of Appeals reversed the FCC
decision and ordered that the WLBT-TV license be revoked and
new applications considered.15 The decision concurred with‘
the Cox-Johnson statement that the Commission had treated
the intervenors as opponents rather than allies seeking to
guard the public interest. The Court believed that the
burden of proof that a renewal would be in the public interest
should rest on the licensee, not on the public. If a broad-
caster is granted the use of a valuable part of the public
domain, he must accept that his license carries certain
enforceable public obligations.

Public attention afforded the WLBT case prompted many
pleas from individuals and groups for aid to counter
discriminatory station practices in their respective communi-
ties. The Office of Communication responded to this need for
an organization to aid citizen groups on March 7,1968, by
launching a two-year program for racial justice in broad-
casting. This program will be discussed in detail in

Chapter II.

 

15U. S. Court of Appeals, Office of Communication et al.
vs FCC Case No. 19,409, June 20, 1969.

14

Equal Employment

 

An important side effect of the WLBT case was the
action initiated by the Office of Communication to eliminate
discriminatory hiring practices at broadcast stations. The
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section VII, had forced the federal”
government into taking action against employment discrimi-

nation.16

The law required businesses holding government
contracts to furnish proof of fair employment practices.

The FCC had no such requirement for licensees, so the law had
no great effect on broadcasters.

The WLBT case litigations made the Office of Communica-
tion acutely aware of the problems inherent in discriminatory
hiring practices in broadcasting. Although station program-
ming provided the most Obvious available guage for viewers
to determine discriminatory practices aimed at the black
community, the Office of Communication found that a broad-
caster's ability to communicate with the black community was
limited by his hesitance to employ blacks or by his refusal
to place them in positions where programming decisions are
made. How could a broadcaster program to meet the needs and"
interests of a substantial minority p0pulation if he had no
employees with direct knowledge and experience of the prob-'

lems of the minority? HOw could a licensee meet his obli-

gations as outlined by the 1960 FCC Policy Statement on

 

16Art Peters, "What the Negro Wants from TV," Television:
Selections from TV Guide Magazine, Barry G. Cole, ed. The
Free Press (New York: Macmillan Co., 1970), pp. 262-263.

15

Program Service if the black community had no representation

?17 And most important,

in the station's programming policies
why should a government agency (the FCC) that regularly
granted valuable licenses to television and radio stationS'
allow violations of equal employment regulations to continue?
Were not these licenses similar to government contracts,
requiring similar attention?'

In April, 1967, the Office of Communication and the
church's Commission for Racial Justice filed a petition with
the FCC asking them to issue a rule banning employment dise

crimination by broadcast‘stations.18

The petition also
requested that stations be instructed to conduct positive
programs to recruit blacks and other minority employees and
to report annually on their policies and practices.

In July, 1968, the FCC recognized the parallel between
the licensing procedure and the awarding of government con—
tracts in its decision on the petition. The FCC stated that
a station practicing discrimination in employment was not
functioning in the public interest and announced proposed
rulemaking to insure fair employment standards and the

development of positive recruitment programs of minority

employees. These rules were adopted and became effective in

 

17Office of Communication, How to Protect Citizen Rights
in Television and Radio, loc. cit., Appendix A (FCC Statement”
of Program Service, July 29, 1960), p. 14.

 

18Office of CommunicatiOn, How to Protect Citgen Right;
in Television and Radip, loc. cit., p. 8.

16

July, 1969.19 A copy of the 1969 rules is provided in
Appendix A.

Although these rules made it clear that a broadcaster
who denied equal opportunities in employment could be subject
to careful investigation when his station applied for renewal,
they did not require the broadcaster to report annually on ‘
his compliance. The FCC acknowledged the drawbacks of rely-
ing solely on individual complaints to protect the public
interest in employment practices. In a separate action, the
FCC prOposed a set of rules, whereby, stations would report
each year on their policies and practices. In May, 1970, the
FCC adopted this rule requiring broadcasters to file an annual
statistical report on FCC Form 395, with the first report due
before May 31, 1971.2° In addition to Form 395, the FCC
revised sections of the appropriate applications for initial
licenses, renewals and transfers calling for exhibits delin-
eating specific equal opportunity employment programs.

Form 395 utilizes the same job categories listed on the
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission Report Form #1.
These categories cover general job families, but do not list
specific positions. The Office of Communication did not
believe these classifications were ideal since the EEOC

categories did not meet the Special needs for jobs available

 

19Peters, op. cit. (Notes on Chapter), p. 282.

20"Non-discriminatiOn--New FCC Rules,” Broadcast Manage—
ment and Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 12 (December, 1970), pp.
10, 36.

17

in commercial broadcasting. In July, 1970, the Office of
Communication resubmitted its original petition, calling
for job categories tailored to broadcasting. In September,
1970, the FCC responded. The petition was denied because
the Commissioners believed the suggestions from the Office
of Communication did not warrant a complete change of the
report form. However, the Commission did revise certain
categories to allow for broadcast specialties, i.e.,

21

”on—air—talent". See Appendix B for a COpy of the re-

vised FCC Form 395 and instructions.

Fairness Doctripp

The most frequent citizen complaints about broadcasting‘
concerned stations where it was alleged only one side of
controversial issues were aired and blacks were denied oppor-
tunities to present their views. Many people had sent their
complaints to the FCC, only to be confused and discouraged
when they received form-letter replies citing the provisions
of the Communications Act (Section 326) which forbid censor-
ship by the FCC. The complaintants did not understand the
provisions of the Fairness Doctrine and were unsure of its
function, however, they were not alone in their uncertainty.

The Fairness Doctrine was issued by the FCC in 1949 to

clarify the provisions of the Communications Act regarding

 

21FCC, Reprint of Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket
No. 18244 RM—ll44, September 28, 1970.

18

the broadcasting of controversial issues and to explain the

22 The Doctrine

Commission's 1941, "Mayflower Decision".
stipulates that a broadcaster has the responsibility to
provide coverage of all significant viewpoints on any con-
troversial issue. He cannot use a station solely to advance
his own views. A ”personal attack" provision further requires
a broadcaster to notify any individual or group whose char—
acter has been attacked in a broadcast and to provide them

with adequate air-time for reply.23

(This provision should'
not be confused with Section 315, the equal-time provision,
of the Communications Act.) These stipulations do not,
however, prohibit a broadcaster from editorializing, so long
as he provides reasonable opportunities for Opposing views
to be presented.

The Commission's effort to provide this basis for ethical
broadcasting of controversy has been a continuing matter of
contention between broadcasters and the FCC. There is no
blanket definition to cover all aspects of "fairness", there-
fore, the Doctrine is an abstract principle. Broadcasters
have had to look to the interpretations evidenced in various

'FCC decisions for guidance in the practical application of

the Fairness Doctrine.

 

22Edith Efron, "Is Speech on Television Really Free?"
Televipion: Selections from TV Guide Magazine, Barry G.
Cole, ed., The Free Pre§§.(New York, 1970), p. 304.

23Kahn, op. cit., pp. 361-376.

19

In 1968, the Fairness Doctrine was strongly supported
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its
decision to uphold the FCC ruling requiring station WGCB,’
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, to grant time for a "personal attack"

4 This decision renewed broadcasters' fears that

reply.2
strict adherence to the Fairness Doctrine would result in
ineffective coverage of controversial issues through self-
censorship by stations.

The FCC guidelines under the Fairness Doctrine came under
attack again when CBS, NBC and the Radio-Television News
Directors Association filed suit against the ECC in the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in 1968.25 The
broadcasters claimed that the Fairness Doctrine was unconsti—
tutional in that it violated their right of free speech under
the First Amendment.

The Office of Communication joined the FCC in its posi—
tion maintaining that the Fairness Doctrine was necessary to
protect the public's right of access to broadcast facilities.
The staff prepared an "amicus curiae" brief to the Court
holding that the public's First Amendment right of free speech,
exercised over the publicly-owned broadcast frequencies,
should take precedence over the interests of "the possessor

of a scarce and highly lucrative broadcasting franchise."26

 

24Office of Communication, In Defenge of Fairnesg,
loc. cit., p. 13. ’

25Ibid.

26Ibid.

20

The Court of Appeals decided in favor of the broad-
casters, but the United States Supreme Court, having noted
the similarities in the Red Lion and Chicago cases, decided

to review both cases.27

The Office of Communication pre-

pared another "amicus" brief covering both cases and sub-

mitted it to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General con-

sidered this brief to be an excellent statement of the

government's position in the case and suggested that it

could be substituted for the FCC brief.28
On June 9, 1969, the Shpreme Court unanimously voted

to uphold the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine.

The decision stated, in part:

It is the right of the viewers and listeners not

the right of the broadcasters which is paramount. . . .
In view of the prevalence of scarcity of broadcast fre-
quencies, the Government's role in allocating those
frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable
without governmental assistance to gain access to those ‘
frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the
regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized
by statute and constitutional. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in
RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings
consistent with the opinion.29

Thus, the provisions of the Fairness Doctrine remained a vital

force to aid in the protection of citizen rights in broadcast‘

service.

 

27William Small, To Kill a Mepgenger, Communication Arts
Books (New York: Hastings House, 1970), pp. 268-269.

28Office of Communications, In Defenpe of Fairnegg,
loc. cit., p. 13.

290. S. Supreme Court, Reprint of Opinion by Justice
Byron White in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. et al. vs FCC et al.;
United States at al. vs Radio Television News Directors
Association at al., June 9, 1969.

CHAPTER II

RACIAL JUSTICE IN BROADCASTING PROJECT

Statement of Policy

The Office of Communication project to combat racial
discrimination by broadcast licensees through programming
and employment practices was created March 7, 1968, with
the aid of an initial $160,000 grant from the Ford Founda-
tion to carry the operations for a two-year period.1 Since
then the Ford Foundation has made an additional $100,000
grant to carry the project through Spring, 1972.2 Reverend
Dr. Everett C. Parker, director of the Office of Communica-
tion, became the head of the five-member project staff.

According to Dr. Parker, their purpose was to "make
sure that Negroes will no longer be discriminated against

3

or be humiliated on the public airwaves." To avoid any

misinterpretation of the goals of the project, the Office of

1Office of Communication, United Church of Christ,
Racial Justice in Broadcasting, New York, 1970, p. 1.

2"Ford Funds for BIack Radio-TV Interests,"
B_roadcasting, Vol. LXXI, No. 1 (July 6, 1970), p. 23.

3"UCC Agency Protests Ruling on TV Station," Chrigtian
Century, Vol. LXXXV (January 24, 1968), p. 126.

21

22

Communication, at the outset, issued a statement of policy
setting criteria for their involvement with citizen groups.
The project would work to combat two widespread discrimina—
tory practices: (1) the non-employment of blacks, and
(2) the failure of stations to provide black access to
their facilities and to provide programming to satisfy the
needs and tastes of the black community. In no case would
the project approach a community and suggest that action be
taken against a station. The project was not created to
serve as an instigator in broadcaster—community disputes.
The project would provide aid to any responsible citizen
group seeking a balance and fairness in local broadcasting,
but would not participate in any activity that sought to
deny freedom of speech to any person or group.4

The Office of Communication recognized that many blacks,
unable to attract the media's attention to their problems,
had been forced to challenge the status quo through illegal,
sometimes violent, action in the streets. The Racial
Justice in Broadcasting project was their attempt to substi-
tute reasonable legal alternatives for these peOple.

The project was flooded with requests for help. One of
its first activities was to commission a survey to determine
the scope and pattern of discriminatory broadcasting to

enable the project staff to select the areas most in need of

 

4Cf., Office of Communication, Racial Ju§tice in Broad-
casting, loc. cit., pp. 4—5; In Defense of Fairness, loc. cit.,
pp. 4-5 0

23

assistance. On the basis of this survey, the Office of

Communication concentrated its attention on requests from
groups in the West and South, but also provided counseling
for communities in the East and the Mid—West. The project

initially planned programs in 11 Southern cities.s

Methods

The project staff was sensitive to its position as an
"outside" force entering a community. Although the project's
function was primarily to work with blacks on their particu-
lar problems, the staff made conscious efforts to get blacks
and whites to work together. The project required members
of each city's group to be broadly representative of the
black community, and where possible, of the total community.
If the group represented only one segment, for example, one
particular church organization, they were advised to make
additional contacts.

Further, the project staff maintained that any group
seeking to evaluate station performance must first be familiar
with the obligations and limitations of the responsibilities
of the broadcast licensee. The staff found that most of
the literature discussing American broadcasting was too
technical or too sophisticated to reach the average citizen.
To help in educating the public, the Office of Communication

published two instructional pamphlets directed at the

 

.—

5Office of Communication, Racial Justice in Broadcasting,
loc. cit., p. 4.

24

consumer. The first, How to Protect Citiggn Rithg in
Televisipn and Radio, explained the FCC regulation procedures
and the legal obligations of the licensee. A second booklet,
A Guide to Understanding Broadcast License Applications, was
written to help the public interpret the information required
in license renewal applications. These documents, distributed
free On request to the Office of Communication, have been

the major source of information for citizen groups requesting
aid.

When a group became familiar with these procedures, the
project staff set up a period for formal observation of the
prOgramming of stations in question.] The Office of Communi-
cation had learned in the WLBT case litigations that definite
formal procedures were necessary for the data to be accepted
as legal evidence should the citizens desire to pursue legal
action. Group members were given specific viewing assign-
ments and provided with instructions for observing and report
sheets. See Appendix C for a sample of this Observation Kit.
In some instances, tape recorders were made available to
record programs for groups discussion and evaluation. The
group then collected and analyzed their findings and prepared
a report on station practices needing changes and improve-
ments.

"As the members of the project staff gained experience
working with citizen groups, the research methods were revised
and improved. Descriptive, objective information reported

on observation forms was analyzed with the aid of a computer

25

at the main office in New York. Subjective observations
were carefully scrutinized by the entire group. Efforts to
have observers work in racially mixed teams of three or more
were initiated to insure that perception reactions to pro-
gram content were not racially biased.6

The group was then directed to compare its findings
with the station's promises stated in data furnished to the
FCC on its license renewal application. If the group decided
to act on the basis of this analysis, the project staff
helped them plan their approach to the station management.
The staff believed that friendly consultation with the sta—
tion was the most desirable course of action. They made it
clear to the groups that meetings with the station's manage-
ment to discuss the problems and seek viable solutions were
the best means for accomplishing their goals. The costly
and complicated process of filing charges with the FCC should
be considered only if all attempts at negotiation failed.
The group would be solely responsible for any petition filed
with the FCC, although the project would make legal counsel
available if possibleu

The Office of Communication attempted to keep the
project flexible to meet the needs of each individual com-

munityflfi Not all of the groups in the original 11 cities

0

were ready to commit themselves to the extensive work neces-

sary to present their suggestions for constructive changes

 

6Ibid., p. 6.

26

to the stations. As exigent problems arose in other cities,
the Office of Communication did not have the funds or

desire to work in a community where the citizens were not
'willing to complete the project program. Thus, if community
participation dwindled or charges were unfounded, the pro-
gram was dropped in favor of a new area where the prospects
for success seemed better. Most of the project's work gravi-
tated toward the schedule of license renewals set by the FCC.
The staff and local citizens found stations more likely to
cooperate in arranging meetings at renewal time. No broad—
caster was anxious to encounter opposition when his renewal
application came before the FCC.

The structure of the renewal application itself is
conducive to community action. Each station is required to
conduct a survey to ascertain community needs and interests
and to report its proposals for meeting these needs during
the next licensing period. The station must consult with
community leaders to determine what issues are of importance
to the community. How could a station ignore a unified
broadly representative group that has reviewed the station's
performance, found it lacking and has provided suggestions
for improvement?

The period immediately prior to a station's request
for license renewal proved to be the most productive time
to establish a relationship between a station and the com-

munity.

27

KTAL-TV: Another Precedent

The first concrete evidence that well—organized repre-
sentative citizen groups could obtain meaningful changes
through negotiations with local broadcasters was the agree-
ment reached between several community groups and station
KTAL-TV, Texarkana, Texas. Texarkana was not one of the
original cities selected for the Office of Communication
project, but urgent pleas from area church leaders brought
the aid of the project staff.

The entire community was concerned over the move of
KTAL's main studios and offices from Texarkana to Shreveport,
Louisiana, some 70 miles away.7 Residents believed the
station's move to a larger market area would result in a
lack of effort by the station to provide local Texarkana
service. The black community of Texarkana complained that
the station had consistently ignored their needs and inter—
ests and that the move would certainly complicate their
problems of access to the station.

The project staff urged the various groups to ally
themselves to evaluate the situation and propose goals for
negotiating with the station. A coalition of 12 black
organizations with a white minority representation was
formed. The groups monitored KTAL and made an analysis of
its program service. The Texarkana Junior Chamber of Com—

merce, a predominately white conservative organization,

 

7Ibid., p. 8.

28

had attempted to meet with the KTAL management for discus—
sions and failed. After several attempts at negotiation,
the coalition determined that the station would not respond
to any community organization, black or white.8

Both groups followed a course of legal action. The
Jaycees and the coalition filed separate petitions with the
FCC to deny the renewal of the station's license. The coali—
tion stated three specific charges concerning the black
community:

1. The failure of KTAL to carry programs of special

interest to blacks.

2. The failure of KTAL to consult with black leaders in
their ascertainment of community needs and interests
survey.

3. The exclusion of blacks from newscasts and programs
featuring local residents, thereby, failing to pro-
vide adequate coverage of local news and public
affairs.

The management of KTAL denied these charges. They
claimed their program service included black viewers and
that their tolerance on local racial issues had often of-
fended their more conservative viewers. In response to the
specific charge of excluding blacks from programming and
news, KTAL argued that news is never directed to any one
segment of the community and that to allege that KTAL did

not program news of interest to blacks was, in effect, to

charge that KTAL ignored its entire audience. It would seem

 

8Ibid.

9"Accord is Reached on KTAL-TV Renewal," Broadcasting,
V01. LXXVI, NO. 24 (June 16, 1969), p. 42.

29

that by responding only to the coalition charges, KTAL
ignored the complaints of white citizens (the Jaycees) who
also believed that local coverage was inadequate.10

KTAL made the point that the station did not keep a
record of the race of participants on local programs. By
stating this policy, KTAL assumed that it would logically
follow that racial considerations were not involved in the
selection of guests for local programs. However, the coali-
tion believed this conclusion could not be supported since
their monitoring showed there had been almost no black
guests on KTAL local programs.11

Despite KTAL's continued denials, the coalition stood
firm’in its demands. The Jaycees dropped their petition,
but the coalition incorporated the Jaycee objectives for a
toll—free telephone line to the Shreveport studios and color
facilities for the Texarkana studios into their negotiations.
After six months, KTAL agreed to meet with the coalition in
an intensive negotiation session. Agreement was reached in
June, 1969.12 Both parties signed a legal agreement, whereby,
the coalition would drop its petition upon the addition of a
lB—point policy statement from KTAL as an amendment to its

renewal application. Sections of the policy statement called

 

1°"K.TAL Says Service Includes Black Viewers," Broadcast-
ing, Vol. LXXVI, No. 9 (March 3, 1969), p. 56.

11Office of Communication, Racial Jupticepin Broad—
casting, loc. cit., p. 8.

12Ibid., p. 9.

30

for hiring of blacks and on-the-job training, greater cover—
age of controversial issues including blacks, the inclusion
of blacks in regular local programming, and monthly meetings
with community leaders to discuss current issues. A copy of
the complete text of this policy statement is furnished in
Appendix D. The policy statement was read over the air and
published in the local Texarkana newspapers.

The coalition had succeeded in Obtaining a legally bind-
ing agreement, that if violated would provide grounds for
the revocation of KTAL's license. When the renewal applica-
tion came before the FCC, KTAL was granted a full three-year
renewal. In a letter to the station, the FCC said its
decision was based on the KTAL-coalition agreement. The FCC,
in a precedent setting policy statement, endorsed the negoti-
ations and agreement as a superior method for a station to
fulfill its obligations to confer with the community to
ascertain its needs and interests. The letter stated, in
part:

We believe that this Commission should encourage
licensees to meet with the community oriented groups to
settle complaints of local broadcast service. Such co-
operation at the community level should prove to be

more effective in improving local service than would be
the imposition of strict guidelines by the Commission.1

 

13"Passing Marks Are Given KTAL—TV," Broadcagting, Vol.
LKXVII, No. 5 (August 4, 1969), p. 76; see also, Office of
Communication, Racial Justice in Broadcasting, loc. cit.,
p. 8.

31

Steprup in Actions

The success of the KTAL agreement renewed the enthu-
siasm of many project groups who had been facing indifference
or strong opposition in their struggles for negotiations.
Most of the groups had hoped that productive relationships
could be established with broadcasters without the threat
of legal action, but they realized that such a threat made a
strong bargaining point. This alternative provided strong
incentive for station cooperation. Activities accelerated

and renewal challenges were instigated in several areas.

Atlanta

Work on the Atlanta, Georgia, project had begun in
April, 1968, but little progress was made until early 1970.
The citizen groups in the city remained autonomous and broad-
casters were unimpressed by the attempts of these separate
organizations, competing with each other to secure agreements
with the stations. When the black community realized that
the city's 28 radio and television stations were scheduled
for renewal in the near future, 20 of the black organizations
united to form the Community Coalition on Broadcasting.14
The goal of the Coalition was to negotiate a KTAL-type agree—
ment with the local stations.

The Office of Communication staff brought the leaders

of the Coalition to Washington, D. C., to consult with

 

14Office of Communication, Racial Juptice in Broadcast-
ing, loc. cit., p. 10.

32

communications attorneys and to familiarize themselves with
legal procedures. While in Washington, the Atlanta group
enlisted the aid of Albert Kramer, executive director of
the recently organized Citizens Communication Center. (The
CCC will be discussed in Chapter III.)

As the March 1, 1970, deadline for filing actions on
renewal applications approached, the Coalition realized they
did not have enough time to complete their negotiations.

With Kramer's help, the Coalition petitioned the FCC to
reserve action on the renewal applications until their negoti-
ations were completed. The broadcasters indicated their
willingness to discuss the issues and most of them were
anxious to avoid a blanket challenge covering all the

Atlanta licenses.15

In another unprecedented action, the FCC granted the
petitioners a 30-day extension of the renewal period. In
the decision, the Commission stated:

In view of the representation that you . . . and
the Atlanta licensees are currently engaged in good
faith negotiations regarding the tastes, needs and de-
sires of the Atlanta Black Community, the Commission has
determined that a grant of your request would be in the
public interest. YOu are therefore given until March
30, 1970 within which to file any formal pleadings re-
lated to the pending applications for renewal of
Atlanta broadcast stations.1

The extension period proved fruitful. The Coalition

reached agreements with 22 stations, including the three

 

33

network television affiliates. The agreements varied in
scope, but all of them called for increased hiring of
blacks and more comprehensive programming on controversial
issues. Kramer remained in constant contact with the Coali-
tion during the extension period to provide legal advice
should it become necessary. At the end of the 30 days,
petitions to deny renewal were filed against only four of
the stations (WJRS-TV, WGUH(AM), WTHJ(AM), WAVO(AM)).17

The settlements reached demonstrated that broadcasters
and representatives of unified black community interests
could make mutually satisfactory changes that guaranteed
specific benefits to blacks. Although many of the Atlanta
broadcasters initially interpreted the extension period as
a threat to their security as licensees, the time granted
had prevented the Coalition from being forced into filing a
blanket challenge. Each station had the opportunity to con—
sider the suggestions of the Coalition and to avoid becoming

involved in a complex legal battle.18

Memphis

The Office of Communication had welcomed the help of
other organizations from the start of its involvement in

citizen—broadcaster affairs. The NAACP had been closely

 

17Ibid., p. 11.

18"Plan Renewal Objections," Broadcasting, Vol. LXXVIII,
No. 13 (March 30, 1970), p. 10.

34

associated with several of their projects beginning with
the WLBT case. In February, 1970, the NAACP Legal Defense
and Education Fund announced its intention to pool its staff
with the Office of Communication project staff to work on
problems of black access to local broadcasting.19

In July, 1970, the staff joined Memphis blacks in their
efforts to provide a better balance in their local broad-

° The Memphis project demonstrates both the

cast service.2
technicality of the rules governing the renewal process and
the broadcaster's ability to fight against charges he be-
lieves are unfounded.

The FCC denied a petition from the Memphis Coalition
for Better Broadcasting asking for an extension of the
renewal period because the group had made no serious attempts
at negotiations prior to late June.21 In effect, the FCC was
willing to aid citizen groups by granting extra time if they
felt there had been a continuing period of efforts to nego-
tiate with stations. But the Commission would not allow
citizens to use the extension precedent as a "last ditch"
threat to insure quick agreements with licensees. If the

broadcasters were willing to stand on their past records, they

were prOtected from "11th hour" harassment.

 

19Office of Communication, Racial Jugtice in Broadcast-
ing, loc. cit., p. 12.

20"Protest Time Extended," Broadcapting, Vol. LXXIX, No.
1 (July 6, 1970), p. 10.

21"Memphis Stations Are Challenged—-Anyway, " Broadcast-
ing, Vol. LXXIX, No. 2 (July 13, 1970), p. 34.

35

The citizens, however, still had legal recourse. The
day before the July lst deadline for filing, the Coalition
drew up petitions to deny renewal of the licenses of sta-
tions WREC-TV and WHBQ—TV. The petitions charged the sta-
tions with failing to serve the needs and interests of the
community by ignoring Memphis blacks (39% of the population)
in their programming and by practicing discriminatory hir-
ing.22

The Coalition's petition against WHBQ-TV was dropped at
the conclusion of a negotiated agreement calling for monthly
meetings with black leaders and the systematic inclusion of

blacks into local programming.23

Another agreement was
reached with WREC-TV resulting in an l8-point policy state—
ment in which the station agreed to accelerate steps to
recruit and train minority employees at all levels of
responsibility.24

The Coalition did not file a petition against a third
station, WMC-TV, at the same time because they determined
that their negotiations were going well and they believed

that WMC's renewal application had been filed late, thereby,

lengthening the period for them to take action.

 

22Ibid.

23"Memphis: What Color is Fairness," Broadcasting, Vol.
LXXIX, No. 3 (July 20, 1970), pp. 40—41.

24”Second Memphis TV-Group Settles with Blacks," Broad—
casting, Vol. LXXIX, No. 7 (August 17, 1970), p. 38.

36

Allen Black, regional director of the NAACP Legal
Defense and Education Fund and spokesman for the Coalition,
was distressed by WMC's position. The station seemed willing
to accept their suggestions, but would not incorporate them
into its renewal application. The Coalition wanted the
assurance of a legally binding agreement, not oral promises.

The vice-president and general manager of WMC-TV,

Max E. Greiner, Jr., reflected the attitude of increasing
numbers of broadcasters in his response to the Coalition's
demands and their threat of alternative legal action. Greiner
said he was willing to negotiate on all the issues, "but we'll
get along better without threats."25 The Coalition decided

to take action and filed a belated petition to deny renewal

of the WMC license with the FCC.

The FCC already had hundreds of letters from Memphis
residents pertaining to WMC-TV performance. These letters
were the result of a controversy that began the previous
winter when Greiner had publicly denounced the Ku Klux Klan
and the Memphis White Citizens Council. Most of the letters
were favorable to the renewal of the station's license, but
a white "backlash" was beginning to be voiced. Some of the
letters claimed WMC was pro-black to the exclusion of white

conservatism.26

 

 

25"Memphis Stations Challenged--Anyway," Broadcasting.
Vol. LXXIX, No. 2 (July 13, 1970), p. 34.
26"Memphis: What Color is Fairness," BrQEQEEEEEESI

V01. LXXIX, No. 3 (July 20, 1970), p. 40.

37

The renewal application for WMC-TV is still pending
with the FCC.27 The renewal application for WMC—TV was
submitted prior to the deadline, therefore, the Coalition's
late petition may possibly be regarded as an informal pro-
test. The management of WMC believes that its past record
of minority prOgramming and employment is sufficient evidence
to prove that the station has served the public interest.
WMC-TV has remained firm in its refusal "to enter any agree-
ment to modify, share or delegate its responsibilities as a
broadcast licensee or to submit to a program of forced

hiring."28

 

27Conversation with Robert G. Weston, Office of FCC
Commissioner Robert E. Lee, January, 1971.

28"WMC—TV Counters Black Charges," Broadcasting, Vol.
LXXIX, No. 5 (August 3, 1970), p. 36.

CHAPTER III

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

As public awareness of the possibilities of improving
local broadcast service grew, many communities formed
special committees and coalitions to study local broadcast—
ing problems. Until 1969, the Office of Communication
project was the only nationally operative organization geared,
specifically to furnish aid to these groups. The Office of
Communication was limited by other concerns, however, and
could not devote its entire staff and time to the Racial
Justice in Broadcasting project. There was a desparate need
for other nationally-oriented professional organizations
equipped to help local citizen groups.

As previously stated in Chapter II, the NAACP joined
forces with the Office of Communication enabling them to
reach more groups, but the volume of work could not be
handled by them alone. Several other organizations were
founded to deal with citizen broadcast access and to provide

legal aid to citizen groups.

Citizens Communication Center
In mid-August, 1969, the Citizens Communication Center

(CCC) was organized in Washington, D. C., with the aid of

38

39

grants from Gordon Sherman, president of the Midas Inter-
national Corporation, and several others.1 The CCC was

established to fill the need for a full-time professional
resource outlet for local and national citizen groups con-

cerned with the caliber of broadcast service. In its

"Statement of Purpose,’ the goals of the Center were listed

as follows:

1. It will prepare and distribute basic factual manuals
on citizen's rights to access to the media and in FCC
procedures.

2. It will provide complaintants with rudimentary legal
and strategic advice and counsel in the initial stages
of their proceedings.

3. It will refer complaintants to lawyers, other pro-
fessional services and interested local groups or
national organizations.

4. It will undertake to provide research and perform
other services on behalf of citizen groups at the FCC
or in basic sources of published information.

5. It will offer coordinating functions such as refer—
rals, conferences and training institutes, and news—
letters.
6. It will serve as an information center to provide
local groups with information regarding legislative,
judicial and administrative proceedings that may affect
broadcasting in general and specific areas in particular.2
The CCC has worked as a non-profit organization with Albert
Kramer, the executive director, as its only full-time

employee. Despite their tremendous work load, Kramer and

 

1Citizens Communication Center, A Progress Report, March
15, 1970, Washington, D. C., p. 9.

2Citizens Communication Center, "Statement of Purpose,"
1969, Washington, D. C., p. 3.

40

his staff, consisting of part-time secretaries, lawyer
and student volunteers, have made considerable progress in
achieving these goals.

Although the scope of the CCC's activities includes
all citizens' complaints, the Center has been especially
active in protecting the rights of black groups in broad-
casting by serving as a supportive legal facility for these
groups in their relations with the FCC. Kramer's legal
assistance to the Atlanta Coalition was instrumental in
gaining the extension period precedent. Kramer has also
worked closely with the Southern Christian Leadership Confer—
ence in its efforts to prevent personal attacks against
blacks on Southern stations. At present the CCC is involved
in an action to deny the renewal of the license of WMAL-TV,
Washington, D. C., on the grounds of its failure to meet
the needs of the black community.3

In addition to its activities in procedural legal aid,
the CCC has researched and prepared a detailed handbook for
citizens on their rights and strategies for working with
broadcasters and the FCC. The handbook is due for publica-
tion in April, 1971.4 The CCC has also worked in close
association with another washington-based organization,

Black Efforts for Soul in Television, to instigate actions

 

3Citizens Communication Center, A Progress Report,
10C. Cito, Pp. 4-8.

4Conversation with Bob Stein, staff member of CCC,
February, 1971.

41

with the FCC to provide greater access to the Commission

itself. These actions will be discussed in detail in

Chapter IV.

Black Efforts for Soul in Televipion

The(idformation of Black Efforts for Soul in Television
(BEST) in 1969, came as a result of Washington area black
residents' increasing discontent with local television pro-
gramming practices. William wright, director of Unity House
(a Unitarian Church center for community improvements), and
several other individuals organized BEST to assert a positive
force for the articulation of black needs in television. The
organization had three main objectives:

1. To educate the black public of their rights pertain-
ing to television service.

2. To offer help to black citizens in arranging negoti-
ations with stations.

3. To help blacks file petitions to deny license re-

newals or "strike" applications if blacks wanted to

acquire a license themselves.5

In one of its first actions, BEST, along with the CCC,
the Black United Front and several others, filed a petition
to deny the license renewal of station WMAL-TV for its
failure to serve the public interest by discriminating

against the city's 70 per cent black population in its pro—

gramming and employment practices. The petition claimed

 

5Unity House, Newsletter, VOl. II, March, 1970,
Washington, D. C.

42

that WMAL "misrepresented blacks and the idea of blackness

in a derogatory and insulting manner.”6

In early February,
1971, the WMAL license renewal was granted by the FCC.
However, BEST is preparing to file for further actions to
challenge the renewal by appealing the decision in the
courts.7

Although BEST began as a Washington area concern, the
organization recognized its uniqueness as the only group
dedicated solely to educating the black public and protect-
ing their rights. BEST sought to use its experience in the
WMAL-TV case as a basis for forming a national network of
offices, and has since been active in other locations.
Absalom Jordan, national chairman of BEST, says the primary
emphasis of the national movement is to inform blacks of
the steps they can take to get local programming more rele-
vant to them.8

BEST also recognized the opportunities for action
inherent in its Washington location. BEST was in a position
to work directly with the FCC and Congress. The group
actively campaigned for a black replacement when Commissioner

Cox retired from the FCC, claiming that a qualified black

should be appointed to the Commission to provide minority

 

6Reprint of Petition to Deny Renewal of Broadcast
License--WMAL-TV, August, 1969, p. 5.

7"New Challenges from Every Side, Broadcasting, Vol.
LXXVII, No. 10 (September 8, 1969), p. 28.

8Ibid., p. 27.

43

representation.9 BEST members also lobbied against the
controversial Pastore bill and worked with the CCC to open

FCC proceedings to the public. (See Chapter IV.)

National Citizen's Committee for Broadcasting
The National Citizen's Committee for Broadcasting (NCCB),
a New York-based organization, was originally founded in
1967, as the National Citizens Committee for Public Broad—

0 Its primary function was to support public

casting.1
broadcasting as an alternative to low-quality commercial
broadcasting. The group had many internal organization prob-
lems and financial troubles, but is now actively supporting
citizen involvement in commercial broadcasting. The NCCB
has plans to develop a national clearing-house for informa-
tion on local citizen groups and their activities.11
A listing of the names and addresses of the organiza-
tions which have furnished legal aid and other services to
black citizen groups is provided in Appendix E. The names
and addresses of several other organizations which have

contributed research findings to citizen groups are also

included in the Appendix.

 

9"BEST Pushes for Black FCC Appointee," Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXIX, No. 1 (July 6, 1970), p. 30.

1°Richard K. Doan, "Who Speaks for the Viewer?"
Television: Selections from TV Guide Magazine, Barry G. Cole,
ed., The Free Press (New York: Macmillan Company, 1970), pp.
427-431.

11Conversation with Bob Stein, staff member of CCC,
February, 1971.

CHAPTER IV

BROADCAST INDUSTRY AND FCC REACTIONS

The reactions of the broadcast industry and the FCC to
active citizen participation to open access for blacks in
broadcasting have undergone marked changes since the initial
attempt made by citizens in the WLBT—TV case. Both broad-
casters and the FCC have been forced to recognize their
tremendous responsibilities in serving the public interest
and to assure the public that they will meet their obliga-
tions to provide service truly in the public interest.

The reality of active citizen participation in broad—
casting affairs was not easily accepted. Broadcasters felt
their position as lucrative commercial concerns threatened
by the "sudden" intervention of citizens who had previously
allowed them to conduct their business without interference.
The FCC had confined itself primarily to overseeing com-
pliance to the many technicalities of the business—oriented
provisos of the Communications Act. The advent of citizen
action made it necessary for broadcasters and the Commission
to further review the often quoted, but ambiguous term,

"public interest."

44

45

Initial Involvement
Broadcasters were elated when the FCC first refused
standing to the Office of Communication in the WLBT case.
An editorial in Broadcasting magazine expressed many broad-
casters' belief that the citizens had no right to challenge
a station's license on the basis of its programming policies.
The editorial exclaimed, "The United Church of Christ was
given a lesson last week in the real meaning of fairness . . .
a word it has loosely used to abuse broadcast stations that
run counter to its own prejudices. . . ."1
The WLBT actions added fire to the growing dissension
among the FCC Commissioners. In 1968, Commissioners Cox
and Johnson decried the role of the Commission in renewal
proceedings. In reference to the renewal review procedure,
they said:
The process of review remains. But i: is a
ritual in which no actual review takes place. . . .
This entire ritual, which is a burden on broadcasters
and a boon to the Washington, D. C., communications
bar, has no real point. It is a sham. . . . Program-
ming deficiencies, even the most flagrant indifference
to the local service obligations imposed by the Com-
munications Act, raised no eyebrows.2
Their reaction was even stronger when the Commission voted

to grant the full three-year renewal to WLBT—TV. Their 76—

page dissenting statement severely criticized the other

 

l"Editorial," Broadcasting, Vol. LXXIII, No. 17 (October
3, 1967). P. 110.

2Commissioners Cox and Johnson, "Broadcasting in
America and the FCC's License Renewal Process: An Oklahoma
Case Study" (June, 1968). Reprint in Televigion Today,
Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D. C., 1969, p. 57.

46

Commissioners for their hostile treatment of the citizen
group.3

Many other television and radio critics joined the
cause and agreed with Maurine ChristOpher of The Nation when
she chastised the FCC for its failure to admit how non-
integrated broadcasting really was.4 The actions of the
FCC were no longer subject to only esoteric criticism.
The public was being made aware of its function through
many channels: magazines, newspapers, community meetings
and other public forums. Broadcasters and the FCC began to
realize that the black movement on local stations was not
a passing "craze", but an issue of lasting concern to black
citizens in all parts of the country. Their efforts to gain
local access would not cease, even if they met strong opposi-

tion from broadcasters and the FCC.

Fairness and Negotiated Agreements
The FCC policies ad0pted for equal employment and in
the fairness issues of the Red Lion—RTNDA cases made broad—‘
casters more defensive. They had always been wary of "too
much" governmental control of the media and had sought to
avoid strict government regulation by formulating guides for

self-regulation in the National Association of Broadcasters.

 

3See generally Dissenting Statement of Commissioners
Cox and Johnson, FCC Reportp, Vol. 14 (2nd series), June 27,
1968, pp. 442-474.

4Maurine Christopher, "Television," The Nation, Vol.
CCVII (August 5, 1968). PP. 93-94.

47

But the NAB Television and Radio Codes called for voluntary
compliance. Stations were not required to recognize them.
An NAB spokesman indicated that all "responsible“ stations
welcomed citizen suggestions, but resented the more mili-
tant groups who were anxious for immediate changes.5 The
actual politicizing of the audience was met "by less than
delight" from most broadcasters. Regardless of broad-
casters' preferences for handling citizen complaints, those
who did not respond to community concerns were in for
trouble with local residents and the FCC.

Many broadcasters agreed with CBS/Broadcast Group
president Ralph Jencks' opinion that agreements made with
citizen groups were tantamount to broadcast regulation "by
private contract."6 They opposed the FCC's satisfaction
with group-station negotiations, claiming the FCC was dele—
gating its authority because it was either unable or afraid
to accept the responsibility for making the controversial
decisions that were bound to arise in these renewal actions.

The broadcasters' fears were intensified when KTAL—TV
and the Office of Communication made arrangements for KTAL
to reimburse the Texarkana citizen group for the legal fees
incurred during their negotiations. The settlement was

submitted to the FCC for approval in July, 1970.

 

5"A Look at Those Broadcast Reformers," Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXVI, No. 18 (May 5, 1969), p. 42.

6"Jencks: Leave Regulation to FCC," Broadcasting, Vol.
LXXX, No. 4 (January 25, 1971), p. 32.

48

Broadcasting reflected the majority industry reaction to

this bargain in an article titled, "Rubbing It In".7 The
broadcasters felt this type of agreement added insult to
injury. The citizen groups could not only attack a station's
license, but, if the FCC approved the KTAL "deal", they
could make the station pay for it. But the broadcasters'
fears were alleviated when, in September, the FCC refused

to sanction the $15,000 settlement, thereby, avoiding this

undesirable precedent.8

Ppptore Bill--Renewaintandards
In 1969, broadcasters rallied to support the contro-
versial “Pastore Bill", S. 2004, to amend the Communications
Act. The introduction of the bill came as a response to
the FCC decision revoking the license of station WHDH—TV,
Boston, in favor of a challenging application filed by a

9 Broadcasters believed the bill,

group of local businessmen.
calling for a change in the system of comparative hearings
when a competing application is filed for a license scheduled

for renewal, would give them the protection they needed.

 

7"Rubbing It In," Broadcasting, Vol. LXXIX. No. 3 (July
20, 1970), p. 5.

8"KTAL—TV Forbidden to Repay Church," Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXIX, No. 13 (September 28, 1970), p. 28.

9Citizens Communication Center, A PrOgress Report,
loc. cit. (March 15, 1970), p. 3.

4

49

The law, if passed, would prevent the FCC from reviewing
competing applications until it revoked the incumbent's
license. Even when the FCC decided to drop the WHDH
decision as a renewal precedent, the broadcasters still
favored the Pastore bill which would take policy out of
the ever—changing regulation of the FCC.10

The Citizens Communication Center and BEST joined in
Opposition to the bill, calling it a "backdoor" to racism;
a law that would serve to perpetuate the "white establish—
ment" in broadcasting.11

Initially, the passage of the bill seemed imminent,
but as public awareness and concern about the bill grew,
many congressmen turned against it. The broadcasters turned
to the FCC for help. On January 15, 1970, the FCC issued
a Statement of Policy on comparative hearings which en—
couraged "good fait " competing applications, but provided
a sanctuary for broadcasters willing to stand on their past
record of performance.12 The statement cited the FCC's
intent to favor the incumbent licensee if the station had
been making substantial efforts to serve community needs.
This policy nullified the assumed need for the Pastore

legislation.

 

10"FCC Dumps WHDH as Renewal Precedent," Broadcapting,
Vol. LXXVIII, No. 3 (January 19, 1970), p. 21.
11"New Challenges from Every Side," Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXVII, No. 10 (September 8, 1969), p. 25.

12"FCC--Interpreting the Rules and Regulations,"
Broadcast Management and Engineering (March 1970), p. 12.

50

BEST and the CCC believed this policy would lead to
virtually automatic renewal and immediately filed several
legal actions with the FCC and the courts. They believed
the FCC had no legal right to issue a policy of such public
importance without prior public notice and consultation.13
Their petitions were dismissed by the FCC and their attempts
to gain a temporary restraining order on the policy failed,
but they continued their efforts to block the policy.
Finally after months of litigation, the Department of
Justice stated its support of the FCC policy in January,

1971.14

Ascertainment of Needs Issue

While the Pastore bill controversy raged, the FCC was
caught in still another citizen group-broadcasters dilemma.
The Commission's policy of encouraging citizen involvement
at renewal time made the methods used for ascertaining the
community's needs and interests a crucial topic. Black
citizens' license challenges revolved around the alleged
failure of stations to adequately meet the needs of the
community and their failure to consult with black leaders

in their ascertainment surveys. Broadcasters demanded that

 

13Citizens Communication Center, A Progress Report,
1°C. Cite, pp. 3-40

14"FCC, Justice Are in Harmony on Renewals,"
Broadcasting, Vol. LXXX, No. 4 (January 25, 1971), p. 30.

51

the FCC clarify their obligations in determining what com-
munity needs and interests were.

The FCC made plans to prOpose a primer to provide
guidelines for licensees to follow in surveying their
communities' needs and interests. The CCC and BEST learned
of the Commission's plans and petitioned the FCC to allow
representatives of the public to enter the discussions on

such proposed rules.15

They were refused admittance on the
Commission meetings, but their subsequent efforts to secure
the right of public inclusion before passage of the primer
succeeded. In December, 1969, the FCC issued the prOposed
Primer on Ascertainment of Community Problemg (22 FCC 880,
1969) for public comment.16

The 38 question-answer format Primer met mixed reaction
from the public and broadcasters. No one was entirely
satisfied with the guidelines which stated that stations
could use "any valid method" of survey that represented

"17 The Primer

"good faith efforts and sound principles.
brought one important innovation, however. The determination
of "community needs and interests" was made synonymous with

the ascertainment of "community problems."

 

15Citizens Communication Center, A Progress Report,
loc. cit., p. 2.

16"How to Guage Community," Broadcasting, Vol. LXXVII,
No. 25 (December 22, 1969), p. 10.

17Ibid.

52

So much discussion ensued that the FCC extended the
deadline for comment on the Primer from January 30 to April
13, 1970.18 Meanwhile, so many citizen groups had come to
the front to challenge licensees that in March, the FCC
called a halt to proceedings on issues concerning stations'
methods of surveying the community until the ascertainment
problem was resolved. The FCC Hearing Examiner was in-
structed to stay all proceedings involving ascertainment
complaints. Stations were permitted to file amendments to
their renewal applications containing any additional infor-
mation called for in the Primer.19

By December, 1970, the problem of determining whether
a station had adequately surveyed its community resulted in
the delay of granting renewals to over 60 licensees.20 The
Primer has undergone revisions and has been formally adopted.
In recent months the FCC has moved quickly to clear its
backlog of pending renewals. 'The Commission moved to renew
many of these licenses on the basis of the amendments to
renewal applications following the proposed Primer. Even
Broadcasting admitted licenses were not in je0pardy in cases
where stations could demonstrate that they were trying to

consult all segments of the community to determine local

 

18"Doubts Expressed on Primer," Broadcasting, Vol.
LXXVIII, No. 5 (February 2, 1970), p. 10.

19"Primer May Prolong Cases at FCC," Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXVIII, No. 13 (March 30, 1970), p. 60.

2°"Industry News," Broadcast Management and Engineering
(January, 1971), p. 6.

53

problems and to develop programming in accord with their

findings.21

Summary

The FCC has gradually reversed its policies concerning
public participation in broadcasting. It has progressed
from treating citizens as "outsiders" to welcoming their
help in preserving public rights. Broadcasters, unfortunately,
have not come as far. There are many, such as Ralph Jencks,
who still look upon citizen involvement as a kind of
"Old West vigilantism" which must necessarily lead to racial
separatism.22 But most broadcasters have admitted that the
best course of action is to humor these citizen groups by
submitting to economically feasible suggestions for station
improvement. As Broadcasting put it:

Somewhere there will have to be a legal confrontation

between the broadcaster and those who would thrust

upon him obligations that he cannot carry out. Mean-

while, the wise broadcaster will make every reasonable

effort to find, hire and promote minority personnel

and to provide responsible reportage of minority acts
and causes.23

 

21"Up the Establishment: How to Play a New Game,"
Broadcasting, Vol. Lxxx, No. 2 (January 11, 1971), p. 20.

22"Jencks: Leave Regulation to FCC," Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXX, No. 4 (January 25, 1971), p. 32.

23"Overload," Broadcagting, Vol. LXXVIII, No. 10
(March 9, 1970), p. 82.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Achievements

 

The initial three-year period (1968-1970) of organiza-
tion and action by citizen groups seeking to open avenues
for black access to local broadcasting resulted in several
significant achievements. Members of the black minority,
especially in the South, have demonstrated to broadcasters
that their needs and desires are an integral part of the
public interest. Black citizens, serving as the much-
needed catalyst in slow-moving FCC procedures, proved that
broadcasters could no longer ignore citizen rights. They
succeeded in bringing into effect FCC rules banning racial
discrimination in broadcast hiring and programming practices.
They have established legal precedents which are influencing
the entire broadcast industry.

Private agencies, like the Office of Communication,
recognized and succeeded in filling the need for counseling
services to educate and advise these citizen groups. Their
methods have shown that an understanding of the problems of
broadcast regulation and public rights is not beyond the

grasp of the average citizen.

54

55

These groups helped black groups develop legally de—
fensible procedures for gathering information on local
broadcast service; procedures that can be followed by any
citizen group to collect data. They helped the black citi-
zen groups prove that effort at reform could be instigated
without recourse to expensive legal action, i.e., that
individual agreements could be secured with local broad-
casters. But these agencies also stood ready to offer legal
assistance if it became necessary. Blacks did not have to
remain a powerless minority simply because they could not

financially afford to take action.:

Ramifications
William Wright of BEST described the rationale for their
methods of securing broadcast reform in this manner:

Blacks are proceeding in a responsible way.
Responsibility is the key word. They (the white media)
have been shoving law and order down our throats and
we're going to accomplish our goals in a legal way.
We're going to shove law and order down their throats.
We're using Federal Communications law.1

The rage and indignation of blacks stifled by "white faced"
media combined with their determination to use legal means
to achieve their purpose is evident in this statement.
Broadcasters may abhor the "shove it down their throats"

militant attitude, but surely this form of responsible legal

action is preferable to violence. We know from experience

 

1"New Challgnges from Every Side," Broadcasting. V01-
LXXVII, No. 10 (September 8, 1969). P. 28.

56

that a powerless minority, denied access to information
channels, will resort to violence in an effort to express
its frustrations. Broadcasters are in a unique position to
lessen the racial tensions in America. They have the
facility to provide a constantly flowing dialOg between
blacks and whites.

Perhaps the most valid concern of broadcasters,
resentful of citizen involvement, is that pressure from the
black community might result in even greater racial separa-
tion through over-compensation in efforts to develop local
service for the black community. This apprehension could be
supported by the reactions of a minority of white conserva—
tives. The FCC letters from members of the Memphis White
Citizens Council, cited in Chapter II, demonstrate this type
of ”backlash". Another group of white citizens in St. Louis
have accused the FCC of adOpting a double standard in their
programming and employment policies which discriminates
against whites.2 However, I believe if broadcasters compound
the problem of racial separatism by allowing overcompensation,
they have only themselves to blame.

The FCC has merely echoed the federal government in its
minority employment policies. Its programming and community
"problem” policies of the past three years have only re-

flected the cumulative national reactions of the American

 

2"FCC Policies Biased Against Whites?" Broadcasting,
Vol. LXXX, No. 4 (January 25, 1971), p. 30.

57

public to our racial crisis as described in the Kerner
Commission Report.

Broadcasters need have no fear of being forced to
succumb to unreasonable demands. The Fairness Doctrine pro-
tects both the public and the broadcaster by insuring
diversity of expression on any controversial issue. In
essence, a broadcaster who is not violating public trust is
secure. As Senator Pastore stated in TV Guide:

The Fairness Doctrine affords the broadcaster the
flexibility he needs to move ahead with daring, imagi—
nation and integrity in these crucial times. . . .

The challenge--and the choice--is his.3
I believe that if a broadcaster is willing to stand on his
record of programming and employment policies and practices,
he need not hesitate to put his case before the FCC, the
public or the courts. The history of decisions in the past
three years proves that only a broadcaster Who does not meet
his obligations is in danger of losing his license.

In the past, many people become indifferent to the
standards of local broadcasting because they did not know
their rights and were, therefore, powerless to bring about
changes. In my opinion, the most significant result of the
movement for black access to the broadcast media has been the

proof that any citizen has the capacity to overcome the power—

ful interests of a profit-motivated commercial broadcaster.

 

3Senator John Pastore, "Is Speech on Television Really
Free?" Tpievision: Selections from TV Gpide Magggine,
Barry G. Cole, ed., The Free Pre§g_(New York: Macmillan Co.)
1970), p. 315.

 

58

Criticism of local broadcasting was long overdue.
By their silence and indifference, blacks and whites alike,
allowed broadcasters to ignore their responsibilities to
serve the public interest at the community level. I agree
with Fred Friendly's observation:

The stock answer (of broadcasters) . . . for the
current television schedules is, 'We give them what
they want,‘ but what has actually happened is that
those viewers who have been brainwashed select their
own brand of pOpcorn, while those of more discerning
tastes simply give up watching and listening.4

Friendly was, of course, discussing network television opera-
tion, but his statement applies equally to local broadcasters.
In effect, broadcasters excused themselves for worthless
programming by placing the blame on the public for watching
and listening to it.

~ Unfortunately, it look the public years to respond.
Black citizens united to protest that broadcasters were not
giving them what they wanted, but were trying to sell a
product which increasing numbers of blacks were no longer
willing to "buy". By standing firm in their cause to reform
local service to open broadcasting to the black community,
these black citizen groups have opened the door for all
citizens seeking reform. The success of their efforts has
shown all minorities that the broadcast media must be respon-

sive to the needs and interests of the community and that

broadcasters can be forced, if necessary, to comply with

 

4Fred Friendly, Due to Circumstances Beyond Our Control
(New York: Random House, Inc., Vintage Books, 1967), pp.
273-274.

59

their needs for adequate local service.

Outlook

Thus, the validity of the need for public access to the
broadcast media has been proved. Black access to local
stations is increasing, but the process of equalizing Oppor—
tunities cannot be accomplished in two or three years.
Change is always slow and unsteady under a democratic govern-
ment where every opinion is entitled to a hearing. Efforts
to guard citizen rights in broadcasting must continue. The
public must be willing to follow the example of the black
community in remaining constant in their participation and
interest in local stations.

The ultimate result of continuing citizen involvement
in local broadcasting will be a better informed, more tolerant
community and a broadcast system ever responsive to the

public interest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Clark, Kenneth. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper and Row,
1965.

Cole, Barry G., ed. Television: Selections irom TV Guide
Magazine, The Free Pregg. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1970.

Friendly, Fred W. Due to Circumstances Beyond Our Control.
New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1967.

Johnson, Nicholas. How to Talk Back to Your Tgievipion Set.
Boston: Little, Brown, 1970.

Kahn, Frank J. Documenpp;ofiAmerican Broadcasting. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

Koenig, Allen E., ed. Broadcasting and Bargaining: Labor
Relations in Television and Radio. Madison, Wisconsin:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1970.

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report on
Civil Disorderg. New York: The New York Times Company,
Bantam Books, 1968.

 

Nelson, Harold L. and Teeter, Dwight L. Law of Mass Communi-
cations, 5th edition. Mineola, New York: Foundation
Press, 1969.

Schiller, Herbert 1. Mass Communicationg and American
Empire. New York: A. M. Kelly Publishers, 1969.

 

Shayon, Robert Lewis. Interaction: Television Public Affairs
Programming at the Communitprevei. New York: Tele—
vision Information Office, 1960.

Small, William. To Kill a Meggenger. New York: Hastings
House, Communication Arts Book, 1970.

60

61

Articles and Periodicai§_

"Accord is Reached on KTAL-TV." Broadcasting. June 16,
1969. Vol. LXXVI, No. 24.

"A Look at Those Broadcast Reformers." Broadcasting.
May 5, 1969. Vol. LXXVI, No. 18.

"Any Way to Get Fairness Under Control." Broadcasting.
September 14, 1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 11.

"BEST Gets Pink Slip on Fairness Charge." Broadcasting.
August 3, 1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 5.

"BEST Pushes for Black FCC Appointee." Broadcasting.
July 6, 1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. l.

"Blacks Demand Greater Coverage." Broadcasting. July 1,
1968. Vol. LXXV, No. l.

"Broadcasting Fried Southern Style." Broadcasting. March
16, 1970. Vol. LXXVIII, No. 11.

"Broadcast Industry News." Broadcast Management and
Engineering. January 1971. Vol. VII, No. 1.

Christopher, Maurine. "Television." The Nation. August 5,
1968. Vol. CVII.

"Double Trouble on Minorities." Broadcasting. March 2,
1970. Vol. LXXVIII, No. 9.

"Doubts Expressed on Primer." Broadcasting. February 2,
1970. Vol. LXXVIII, No. 5.

Dowling, Ed. "Color Us Black." New Republic. June 8,
1968. Vol. CLVIII, NO. 23.

"FCC Dumps WHDH as Renewal Precedent." Broadcasting.
January 19, 1970. Vol. LXXVIII, No. 3.

"FCC Gives WLBT-TV Full Renewal.“ Broadcasting. July 1,
1968. Vol. LXXV, No. l.

"FCC--Interpreting the Rules and Regulations." Broadcast
Managemgnt and Engineering. March, 1970. Vol. VI,
No. 3.

"FCC, Justice Are in Harmony on Renewal." Broadcasting,
January 25, 1971. Vol. LXXX, No. 4.

62

"FCC Policies Biased Against Whites." Broadcasting.
January 25, 1971. Vol. LXXX, No. 4.

"FCC Rest Survey Job with Stations." Broadcasting.
December 15, 1969. Vol. LXXVII, No. 24.

"Ford Funds for Black TV-Radio Interests." Broadcasting.
July 6, 1970. Vol. LXXI, No. 1.

"How to Guage Community." Broadcasting. December 22, 1969.
V01. LXXVII, No. 25.

"Jencks: Leave Regulation to FCC." Broadcasting. January
25, 1971. V01. LXXX, No. 4.

"KTAL-TV Forbidden to Repay Church." Broadcagting.
September 28, 1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 13.

"KTAL-TV License is Target." Broadcasting. January 13,
1969. V01. LXXV, No. 3.

"KTAL-TV Renewal in Sight." Broadcasting. July 28, 1969.
V01. LXXVII, No. 4.

 

"KTAL-TV Says Service Includes Negro Viewers." Broadcastim.
March 3, 1969. Vol. LXXVI, No. 9.

"Memphis Stations are Challenged--Anyway." Broadcagting.
July 13, 1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 2.

”Memphis: What Color is Fairness?" Broadcagting. July 20,
1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 3.

"New Challenges from Every Side." Broadcasting. September
8, 1969. Vol. LXXVII, No. 10.

"Overload." Broadcasting. March 9, 1970. Vol. LXXVIII,
No. 10.

"Passing Marks are Given KTAL-TV." Broadcasting. August 4,
1969. Vol. LXXVII, No. 5.

"Primer May Prolong Cases at FCC." Broadcasting. March 30,
1970. Vol. LXXVIII, No. 13.

"Protest Time Extended." Broadcagting. July 6, 1970.
Vol. LXXIX, No. 1.

"Rubbing It In." Broadcasting. July 20, 1970. Vol. LXXIX,
No. 3.

"Second Memphis TV-Group Settles with Blacks." Broadcasting.
August 17, 1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 7.

63

Shayon, Robert Lewis. "Clout Bout." Saturday Review.
February 28, 1970. Vol. LIII.

Shayon, Robert Lewis. "Taking Sides." Saturday Review.
November 15, 1969. Vol. LII.

"Special Report: Black Radio." Broadcasting. August 31,
1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 9.

"U.C.C. Agency Protests Ruling on TV Station." Christian
Century. January 24, 1968. Vol. LXXXV.

"Up the Establishment: How to Play a New Game." Broad—
casting. January 11, 1971. Vol. LXXX, No. 2.

"What Now for Carl McIntire?" Broadcasting. July 13, 1970.
Vol. LXXIX, No. 2.

"WMC-TV Counters Black Charges." Broadcasting. August 3,
1970. Vol. LXXIX, No. 5.

Pupiic Documents

Commissioners Kenneth Cox and Nicholas Johnson, Dissenting
Opinion re WLBT-TV License Renewal, FCC Reportp, Vol.
14 (Zn series), June 27, 1968, 442—474.

FCC. Decision re Lamar Life Broadcasting Company applica—
tion for renewal of broadcast license for WLBT-TV,
FCC Reports, Vol. 14 (2nd series), June 27, 1968,
431-442.

FCC. Initial Report of Hearing Examiner Jay A. Kyle,
FCC 67D-54, October 13, 1967, FCC Rgports, Vol. 14
(2nd series), 495-556.

FCC. Reprint of Memorandum Opinion and Order re Petition
for rule making to require broadcast licensees to show
non-discrimination in their employment practices,
goiket No. 18244, File No. RM-ll44, September 28, 1970,

U. S. Court of Appeals. Reprint of decision in Office of
Communication et al. vs FCC. Case No. 19,409, June
20, 1969.

U. S. Supreme Court. Reprint of Opinion by Justice Byron
White in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. et al. vs FCC et al.;
United States et al. vs. Radio Television News Directors
Aesociation et al., June 9, 1969, October term.

64

Other

Citizens Communication Center. A Progresg Report.
Washington, D. C., March 15, 1970.

Citizens Communication Center. "Statement of Purpose."
Washington, D. C., 1969.

Institute for Policy Studies. Television Today: The End
of Communication and the Death of Community. Washington,

D. C., 1969.

Office of Communication. United Church of Christ. How to
Protect Citizen Rights in Television and Radig.
New York, 1969.

Office of Communication. United Church of Christ.
In Defense of Fairness. New York, 1969.

Office of Communication. United Church of Christ. Racial
Justice in Broadcasting. New York, 1970.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT RULES

In part 73, 73.125, 73.301, 73.599, 73.680, and 73.793,
all to read identically, are added as follows:

73.-—Equa1 Employment Opportunities.

(a) General Policy.--Equal opportunity in employment
shall be afforded by all licensees or permittees of commer-
cially or non—commercially operated standard FM, television
or international broadcast stations (as defined in this part)
to all qualified persons, and no person shall be discriminated
against in employment because of race, color, religion or
national origin.

(b) Equal Employment Opportunity Program.--Each station
shall establish, maintain, and carry out, a positive continu-
ing program of specific practices designed to assure equal
opportunity in every aspect of station employment policy and
practice. Under the terms of its program, a station shall:

(1) Define the responsibility of each level of manage-

ment to insure a positive application and vigorous

enforcement of the policy of equal opportunity, and
establish a procedure to review and control managerial

and supervisory performance.

65

66

(2) Inform its employees and recognized employee
organizations of the positive equal employment oppor—

tunity policy and program and enlist their cooperation.

(3) Communicate the station's equal employment oppor-
tunity program and policy and its employment needs to
sources of qualified applicants without regard to race,
color, religion or national origin, and solicit their

recruitment assistance on a continuing basis.

(4) Conduct a continuing campaign to exclude every form I
of prejudice or discrimination based upon race, color,
religion or national origin from the station's per-

sonnel policies and practices and working conditions.

(5) Conduct continuing review of job structure and
employment practices and adopt positive recruitment,
training, job design, and other measures needed in
order to insure genuine equality of opportunity to
participate fully in all organizational units, occupa-

tions and levels of responsibility in the station.

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
(FCC Form 395)
1. Who must file.
All licensees and permittees of commercial and non-
commercial AM, FM, Television and International Broadcast
Station with five or more full—time employees must file the

Annual Employment Report on FCC Form 395.

2. When and Where to Fiig.

A single copy of each Annual Employment Report required
under these instructions must be filed with the Federal
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D. C. 20554, no later than May Blst each year.

3. Reporting Period.
The employment data filed on FCC Form 395 must reflect
the employment figures from any one payroll period in

January, February, or March.

4. Reportinngnits.

A separate Annual Employment Report (FCC Form 395) must
be filed:

(a) For pgpp_AM, FM, TV and International Broadcast

Station, whether commercial or noncommercial;

67

68

except that a combined report may be filed for

an Am and an FM station, both of which are:

(1) under common ownership, Eng

(2) assigned to the same principal city or to dif-
ferent cities within the same standard metro-
politan statistical area.

(b) For pggn Headquarters Office of a multiple station
owner at which the employees perform duties solely
related to the Operation of more than one broadcast
station (A separate Form 395 need not be filed to
cover headquarters employees whose duties relate
to the operation of an AM and an FM station covered
in a combined AM-FM report under Instruction 4 (a),
if all such employees are included in such combined
AM—FM Report).

(c) As a Consolidated Report, covering all station and
headquarters employees covered in the separate
reports which a multiple station owner must file

under Instructions 4 (a) and 4 (b).

5. Job Categories.

The "job category definitions" used by the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission in its Instructions for completing
its EEO-l Form are the definitions which should be used in
completing the FCC Form. These are:

Qiiicials and Managers—-Occupations requiring adminis—

trative personnel who set broad policies, exercise over-all

69

responsibility for execution of these policies, and direct
individual departments or special phases of a firm's opera-
tions. Includes: officials, executives, middle management,
plant managers, department managers and superintendents,
salaried foremen who are members of management, purchasing
agents and buyers, and kindred workers.

Profaneional--Occupations requiring either college
graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to provide
a comparable background. Includes: accountants and auditors,
airplane pilots and navigators, architects, artists, chemists,
designers, dietitians, editors, engineers, lawyers, librarians,
mathematicians, natural scientists, registered professional
nurses, personnel and labor relations workers, physical
scientists, physicians, social scientists, teachers and
kindred workers.

Techniciangr-Occupations requiring a combination of basic

 

scientific knowledge and manual skill which can be obtained
through about 2 years of post high school education, such

as is offered in many technical institutes and junior col-
leges, or through equivalent on—the-job training. Includes:
computer programmers and operators, draftsmen, engineering
aides, junior engineers, mathematical aides, licensed,
practical or vocational nurses, photographers, radio operators,
scientific assistants, surveyors, technical illustrators,
technicians (medical, dental, electronic, physical sciences),‘

and kindred workers.

70

§nipp——Occupations engaging wholly or primarily in
direct selling. Includes: adVertising agents and salesmen,
insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents and brokers,
stock and bond salesmen, demonstrators, salesmen and sales
clerks, grocery clerks and cashier-checkers, and kindred
workers.

Office and Clerical--Includes all clerical—type work
regardless of level of difficulty, where the activities are
predominantly nonmanual though some manual work not directly
involved with altering or transporting the products is in-
cluded. Includes: bookkeepers, cashiers, collectors (bills
and accounts), messengers and office boys, office machine
operators, shipping and receiving clerks, stenographers,
typists and secretaries, telegraph and telephone operators,
and kindred workers.

Craftgmen (skiiied)-—Manual workers of relatively high
skill level having a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of
the process involved in their work. Exercise considerable
independent judgment and uSually receive an extensive period
of training. Includes: the building trades, hourly paid
foreman and leadmen who are not members of management,
mechanics and repairmen, skilled machining occupations,
compositors and typesetters, electricians, engravers, job
setters (metal), motion picture projectionists, pattern and
model makers, stationary engineers, tailors and tailoresses,

and kindred workers.

71

Operatives (semiskilled)-—Workers who operate machine
or processing equipment or perform other factory-type duties
of intermediate skill level which can be mastered in a few
weeks and require only limited training. Includes: appren-
tices (auto mechanics, bricklayers, carpenters, electricians,
machinists, mechanics, plumbers, building trades, metalwork—
ing trades, printing trades, etc.), operatives, attendants
(auto service and parking), blasters, chauffeurs, delivery-
men and routemen, dressmakers and seamstresses (except factory),
dyers, furnacemen, heaters (metal), laundry and dry cleaning
Operatives, milliners, mine operatives and laborers, motor-
men, oilers and greasers (except auto), painters (except
construction and maintenance), photographic process workers,
stationary firemen, truck and tractor drivers, weavers
(textile), welders, and flamecutters, and kindred workers.

Laborers (unskilled)--Workers in manual occupations
which generally require no special training. Perform ele—
mentary duties that may be learned in a few days and require
the application of little or no independent judgment.
Includes; garage laborers, car washers and greasers, gar-
deners (except farm) and groundskeepers, longshoremen and
stevedores, lumbermen, raftsmen and wood choppers, laborers
performing lifting, digging, mixing, loading and pulling
operations, and kindred workers.

Service Workers-—Workers in both protective and non-
protective service occupations. Includes: attendants

(hospital and other institution, professional and personal

72

service, including nurses aides, and orderlies), barbers,
charwomen and cleaners, cooks (except household), counter
and fountain workers, elevator Operators, firemen and fire
protection, guards and watchmen and doorkeepers, stewards,
janitors, policemen and detectives, porters, waiters and
waitresses, and kindred workers.

Apprentices--Persons employed in a program including

 

work training and related instruction to learn a trade or
craft which is traditionally considered an apprenticeship,
regardless of whether the prOgram is registered with a
Federal or State agency.

On-the-job Trainees:

Production--Persons engaged in formal training for
craftsmen--when not trained under apprenticeship program—-
operative, laborer, and service occupations.

White Collar—-Persons engaged in formal training, for
official, managerial, professional, technical, sales, office
and clerical occupations}

* 'k *

For FCC purposes "on—the-air" personnel are to be listed
in the "Professional" job category. A "comboman" is to be
listed in the job category which represents the most important
work done by that person. A "comboman" is to be listed only
once.

For FCC purposes, "white collar" workers include those
employees in the following job categories: Officials and

managers; Professionals; Technicians; Sales; Office and

73

Clerical. "Production" workers include those employees
in the following job categories: Craftsmen (Skilled;
Operatives (Semiskilled); Laborers (Unskilled); Service

Workers; Apprentices.

6. "All Employees".

Include in this column gii_employees in the Reporting
Unit covered in the individual FCC Form 395, not just the
total employees falling within the four categories of

"Minority Group Employees".

7. Minority Group Identification.

 

(a) Minority group information necessary for this
section may be obtained either by visual surveys of
the work force, or from post-employment records as
to the identity of employees. An employee may be
included in the minority group to which he or she
appears to belong, or is regarded in the community
as belonging.

(b) Since visual surveys are permitted, the fact that
minority group identifications are not present on
company records is not an excuse for failure to
provide the data called for.

(c) Conducting a visual survey and keeping post-employment
records of the race or ethnic origin of employees
is legal in all jurisdictions and under all Federal

and State laws. State laws prohibiting inquiries

74

and record-keeping as to race, etc., relate only
to applicants for jobs, not to employees.

(d) FCC Form 395 provides for reporting Negroes,
American Indians, Orientals, and Spanish Surnamed
Americans, wherever such persons are employed.

For purposes of this report, the term Spanish Sur-
named Americans is deemed to include all persons of
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Spanish origin.
Identification may be made by inspection of records
bearing the employees' names, by visual survey, by
employees' use of the Spanish language, or other
indications that they belong to this group. The
following States are among those having large con-
centrations of Spanish Surnamed Americans: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York and Texas. Large concentrations
of Spanish Surnamed Americans are found in particular
localities in other States. In Alaska, include

Eskimos and Aleuts with "American Indian."

8. Licensees who Operate statewide, regional or national
networks file separate "Headquarters" reports for personnel
assigned directly and primarily to the network operation.
In cases where there are network offices and staffs in more
than one city, a "Headquarters" report is to be filed for

each city.

75

FCC Form 395 Section I

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT REPORT
(Please see instructions)

1. Check one, to indicate type of Reporting Unit(s) covered
in this Report:

[ ] Station [ ] Headquarters [ ] Consolidated

2. Identity of Reporting Unit(s) covered in this Report.
(Answer A, B pp_C.)

 

 

 

 

 

A. If a Station Report:
(1) Check one: [ ] AM [ ] FM [ ] AM-FM Combination
[ ] TV [ ] International
(2) Give station call letters and location:
(3) Check if station is noncommercial. [ ]
B. If a Headquarters Report:

 

List here (or in an appendix, if this space is insuffi—
cient) the Headquarters Office or Offices covered in
this Report.

Name of Head- Location(s) of Stations Supervised
quarters Headquarters by Listed Head-
Office(s) Office(s) gnarters Office(s)

 

 

 

 

If a Consolidated Report:

List here (or in an appendix if this space is insuffi-
cient) the Headguarters and Stations covered in this‘
Consolidated Report.

Headquarters Offices Stations
Names and Locations Call Letter§ and Locations

76

(The data below shall also be included in the figures for
the appropriate occupational categories in Sections II

and III)

 

On-the-job trainees l /
White collar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

1 / Report only employees enrolled in formal on-the-job
training programs.

 

 

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

(This report must be certified: by licensee or permittee,

if an individual; by partner of licensee or permittee, if a
partnership; by an officer of licensee or permittee, if a
corporation or association; or by an attorney of licensee

or permittee in case of physical disability of licensee or
permittee or his absence from the Continental United States.)

I certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief, all statements contained in this report are true and

correct.

Signed ............................ Title... .................

Date ....................... 19 ..... Name of Company ..........

77

=.cme©cH GMUHHmE<s

suflz mu5ma¢ can moEwumm mpsaocfi

.mxmmss re.

 

3cm «.3 uuoflm H
mDOH>OHm Eoum
pcmeonme amuOB

 

Houoe

 

mumxuo3 mow>umm

 

AUmHHHMmCDV
mumnonmq

 

«omaaexmlesmwm.
mm>flumummo

 

ACOHHmeV
cmEmuwmuu

 

Hmoeumso
ppm moaeeo

 

mumxuo3 mmamw

 

memeowcflome

 

WHMCOHmmOMOHm

 

muvmwcmz
6cm mameoflmmo

 

AAHV

CMUHHOE¢
Umemcusm
flmflcmmm

 

lose
sneeze

CMUH
Inofifl

 

RU
Hmu
Icmwuo

 

amt
oummz

«at

aboflumad
UwEmcusm

*CMHUGH

 

nmflcmmm

on.

cove

 

-HmE¢

mu
amp
ICMHHO

 

3;

oummz

 

mafizmm

 

MA¢E

:3
was:

amv Lav

mamemm
.HOUV

 

 

Am+m

HmuOB

mmeuomwpmu
flop

 

mmmwoqmzm mbomw VBHmOZHE

 

mmmwoqmzm Aflfi

 

 

mauflu Ham mo GOMHOGOHQNG Mom hence Hm>oo Op Hummm

.haco mmo>OHme_pwmm

.mcowuocsm

.oseuueesm mo museum

HH

=.QMMOQH GOUflHmE<s

ruse assess one moseumm message

.mxmmafl cHe

 

«New way DHOQOH
msoH>mHm EOHM
ucmsmonEw Hmuoe

 

Hmuoe

 

mHOxHOS m0fl>umm

 

,AdmaaflxmcD%
mnmuonmq

 

Apmaawxmlwemmv
mm>Humummo

 

78

(somasaxmv
cmEmummuo

 

amusemeo
one moaeeo

 

mumxuoz mwamm

 

menacecsome

 

mascowmmmmoum

 

mumgmcmz
6cm mamaoemmo

 

AHHO
amoeuw84

memcusm
smflcmmm

sweets

 

doaq

CMOH
lumee

 

Amy
Hep

Icmfiuo

 

«mm

oummz

Cu

CMUAHOE¢
Umemcusm

«CMHCCH

 

on.

save
these

 

Amy
Hap

ICOHHO

 

Aev

oummz

 

mqfizmm

 

Qmflcmmm

MA<Z

mu

mamewm

 

Ame
mam:

 

:3
Am+m
.Hoov
sauce

mmfluommumu
non

 

mmmwoanW mbomw MBHMOZHE

 

mmmwoqmzm QA¢

 

 

maven Has no cowyocsamxm How mmuoc Hm>oo on Hmwmm

.mdco mmmwoamaw pawn

.mcowuocsm
.QEHOIHHMQ mo msumum
HHH

APPENDIX C

TELEVISION OBSERVING
A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Communication is a key factor in solving the racial
crisis gripping America today. Among the mass media,
television broadcasting provides a universal and pervasive
force. Television also has a special obligation to function
in the public interest of all of our citizens. Members of
your community must cooperate if black Americans are to

receive equal, fair, and necessary television service.

Six Steps for Community Action

Each community project will involve six major steps:

1. Broadcasting and Your Community. The first step is
to gain an understanding and appreciation of the potentials
of broadcast communication in your community. What are the
special qualities of television that can help the black man
in his fight for equality? How do these possibilities apply
to the needs of your community?

2. Your Rights and Responsibilities. You must under-
stand your rights and responsibilities under the American
system of broadcasting. A booklet, How To Protect Citiggn
Rightg in Television and Ragig, has been prepared to help

you.

79

8O

3. The Stations in Your Community. You must be familiar
with the actual function of the television stations in your
community. This acquaintance is accomplished through a
process called "observation." You will be critically watch—
ing selected television programs and filling out Observers'
Report Forms on each of the programs you see. Some members
of the group will be asked to record the sound portion of
some broadcasts. Careful analysis will be made of the infor-
mation collected during the observing period.

4. Evaluation of Service. Based upon the information
gathered during the observation period, some conclusions
will be made about the strengths and weaknesses of local
television service as it pertains to the black citizen and
the racial problems of your community. Are there positive
elements in this service that should be encouraged? Are
there areas of programming in which the black is ignored or
forgotten? Does bias appear to be purposeful or merely neg-
lectful? Is coverage of significant issues in the black
community superficial or seemingly only a token gesture?

5. Goals for Improvement. It will be necessary to define
goals for improvement of television in your community. Has
each station lived up to the promises it made to obtain its
license to broadcast? Has each station properly ascertained
the needs of the blacks reached by its signal? Specifically,
what changes are required of each of the stations you have

Observed?

81

6. A Plan of Action. A course of action must be
developed and implemented to bring about desired change.

In most cases we will bring recommendations to the station
managers. It is entirely possible that your ideas will be
welcomed. The citizen's group will be able to show the

need for programming changes and perhaps demonstrate why
blacks must participate in the determination of community
needs, both as members of the public and as station employees.
The station may agree.

Unfortunately, it is also possible that your recom-
mendations will be rejected. If this happens, your group
and the Office of Communication, will consider next steps up
to and including a petition to the Federal Communications

Commission.

What are we looking for?

Service to blacks is only one of many issues which may
concern you when you consider the influence of television
on your family and community. However, for the moment, we
ask that you concentrate your attention on this aspect of
television service. It is our primary goal to ascertain
(1) whether or not blacks receive treatment equal to that
accorded to whites in television services, (2) whether or
not blacks are treated fairly, and (3) whether or not blacks
receive television service sufficient to meet their particu4

lar tastes, needs, and desires.

82

1. Do blacks receive treatment equal to that accorded
whitep in television service? It will be necessary to gain
a general knowledge of the whole programming service of a
station to answer this question. However, attention will be
concentrated on programs the station produces to serve the
local community and the public affairs and news programs
reaching the community from a network or other sources.

Information such as the following will be gathered:

What types of programs does the station broadcast and
when are they on the air?

Are these programs produced locally by the station or
do they come from a network or recording from outside the
community?

In its local programming, what is the extent and fre-
quency of appearance of blacks?

Are programs concerning civil rights and racial problems
regularly carried from the station's network affiliation?

The participation of blacks in programs will then be
compared quantitatively with the exposure accorded whites
on the station.

2. Are blacks treated iairly in televipion service?
Within that portion of the station's service that treats
blacks and that deals with racial issues, are persons and
issues dealt with fairly and Objectively? Are blacks accorded
the same courtesy as whites? Is the black point of view

presented? Do black spokesmen have the opportunity to

83

present their views? Are blacks singled out for unfair
identification? Do blacks, their practices, or their leaders
come under attack? Are blacks freely mingled with whites
and do they have a role as important as do whites?

3. Do biacks receive television gppyice sufiicient to

t a d d i s? In part,

this information will be supplied by data covering the first
two points. However, black and other minority groups are
faced with unique and compelling problems in America.
Beyond equal and fair treatment of minority groups in report-
ing news which involves them, what efforts are broadcasters
making to meet the needs of these people?

Are the lives and problems of blacks portrayed with depth
and meaning so the whole community can understand their hopes,
desires, background, habits, customs, and acts? Are blacks
and whites given an opportunity to see and hear black leaders
and to understand their ideas and plans? Are programs broad-
cast to help meet the educational needs of the ghetto areas?
Are programs presented that show the talents and ideas of

blacks?

84

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING OBSERVER'S REPORT FORM

Before beginning your television observation, please read
these instructions carefully and examine the Observer's
Report Form. You should also read the other materials you
have been given: the pamphlet, HOW TO PROTECT CITIZEN RIGHTS
IN TELEVISION AND RADIO, and the mineographed sheets titled
"Television Observing: A Statement of Purpose" and "A Tele-
vision Program Service: What Are Its Elements?"

You will report all information concerning each program you
view on an Observer's Report Form. Note that the form covers
both sides of the sheet. Complete the bottom part of the
first side while you watch the assigned program. Complete
the back side after the program is over. -

It is easiest to do observing if you will sit in a comfort—
able chair with a table either in front of you or at your
immediate side on which to write on the report form. Be sure
to have several pencils at hand, or if you use a pen have a
spare in case you run out of ink. Also, be sure to have a
good electric clock or watch on which the minutes are clearly
marked and which has a sweep second hand. Timing is very
important, so be sure you have the correct time.

Completing the Form

Front Side

1. Your Assignment.’ Notice that the front side of the
form is divided into three boxes. The upper box, marked
"Viewing Assignment," has been filled in for you. This is
the program you are to watch.

2. Observer Information. Directly below your assignment
is a box in which we ask some important questions about you.
We ask your name, address, and phone number in case we need
more information on the program you viewed. We also ask your
age, sex, education and race. This information will be used
statistically to see if differences in people have any effect
on the way they react to a program.

 

3. Qppcription. The box that fills the bottom half of
the front side of the form is for you to describe the pro—
gram. Be sure to report each instance when a racial issue
is discussed or when a black person appears. Number each
incident you describe in the "Item No." column. Using your
watch or clock, carefully note the length of each incident
and mark the "Time" column. If no black person appears or
or there is no treatment of race, please note that fact.

85

Describe the progress objectively and accurately. Tell it
so that someone else will know exactly what happened.
Remember, your opportunity to react to the incidents will
come after the program is over. First report what you see
and hear.

Back Side

 

4. Your Reactions. When the program is over, turn the
form over. Here is your opportunity to present your reac—
tions to what you have seen. Answer each of the first three
questions by checking one of the choices and then explain ‘
the reason for your opinion. (If you offer specific comments
on any of the items on the first side, note its number in
your response.) Question four gives you the chance to tell
how a program of the type you have just seen could better
serve the needs of black people. If you have further comments
which do not fit into the other questions, place them under
question five.

Returning Your Forms

At the end of each week of observing, place your completed
forms in one of the envelopes provided and mail them imme-
diately.

86

OBSERVER'S REPORT FORM

 

Viewing Assignment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Station Channel Location
Program Title Source Type
Broadcast Date Time Program Begins

 

Time Program Ends

 

 

 

Observer Information
Observer's Name Phone
Street City State Zip
Sex: (Circle) Male Female Race: (Circle) Black White
Age: (Circle) 15-20 21—30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61—70 Over 70

Highest Grade In School Completed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll
12 l3 14 15 16 16+

 

 

Description

DIRECTIONS: Complete this box while you watch the assigned
program. Be objective and accurate. Describe each incident
where a racial issue is treated or where a black person
appears. Pay close attention to the visual as well as the
sound portion of the program. Note the length of each
incident. "

 

Item
No. Time Description

 

 

 

 

 

 

After the program is over, turn to side 2.

 

87

OBSERVER'S REPORT FORM—-Side 2

After the program is over answer the following questions.
Here we seek your thoughtful reactions to what you have
seen. Be sure you explain your answers.

 

1. If racial issues were discussed, were they treated fairly?
Yes No Don't Know Explain below.

2. If blacks appeared, were they accorded the same treatment
as whites?

Yes No Don't Know Explain below.

3. Do you feel that this program adequately treated the in—
terests of the black community?

Yes No Don't Know Explain below.

4. How could this program have better served the black com—
munity?

5. If you have further comments about this program, please
give them in the space below.

 

Return this form to: Office of Communication,
United Church of Christ,
289 Park Avenue South
New YOrk, New York 10010

All data and materials that are gathered will become part
of the permanent files of this project and cannot be
returned.

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

KTAL-TV AGREEMENT AND POLICY STATEMENT

Agreement

KCMC, Inc., licensee of KTAL-TV, and all parties to the
petition to deny and to the reply filed with respect to KCMC,
Inc's application for renewal of its television broadcast
license, being hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Petitioners," agree as follows:

1. KCMC, Inc., will broadcast on prime time the state-
ment of policy attached hereto. This agreement and this
statement will also be filed with the Federal Communications
Commission as an amendment to the pending renewal application.
Any material variance from said statement shall be deemed to
be a failure to operate substantially as set forth in the
license.

2. Simultaneously with the filing of said statement,
petitioners will join and hereby join in requesting the
Federal Communications Commission to give no further consider—
ation to the pleadings filed by petitioners, or any of them,
with respect to KTAL-TV. Petitioners also join in requesting
the Federal Communications Commission to renew KTAL-TV's
television broadcast license for a full term.

3. This agreement and the attached statement contain
the complete agreement of the parties, and there are no other
promises or undertakings, express or implied.

Statement of Policy

KTAL—TV, having in mind its duty to serve equally all
segments of the public, makes the following statement of
policy:

1. KTAL will continue to observe all laws and Federal
policies requiring equal employment practices and will take
affirmative action to recruit and train a staff which is
broadly representative of all groups in the community. As
part of this policy, KTAL will employ a minimum of two full-
time Negro reporters, one for Texarkana and one for Shreveport.
These reporters will appear regularly on camera. In addition,
KTAL will designate one person on its program staff to be

88

89

responsible for developing local public affairs programs of
the type described later in this statement and for Obtaining
syndicated or other programs to serve similar needs.

2. KTAL will continue to maintain and will publicize a
toll-free telephone line from Texarkana to its studios in
Shreveport. A person will be available in Shreveport to
receive requests for news coverage and inquiries about public
service announcements. KTAL will give adequate coverage to
events in the State capitols of Texas and Arkansas, as well
as those of Louisiana and Oklahoma.

3. KTAL recognizes its continuing obligation to maintain
appropriate facilities in Texarkana, its city of assignment.
To this end, it will assign to its main studios in Texarkana
a color television camera.

4. KTAL recognizes its obligations to present regular
programs for the discussion of controversial issues, includ—
ing, of course, both black and white participants. The
station will not avoid issues that may be controversial or
divisive, but will encourage the airing of all sides of these
issues.

5. Poverty is a primary problem in KTAL's service area.
KTAL is obligated to try to help solve this problem by pub-
licizing the rights of poor persons to obtain services and
the methods by which they may do so. KTAL will also help
inform public Opinion abOut the problem of poverty and the
steps that are being taken to alleviate it. An aggregate of
at least one-half hour of programming will be devoted to this
subject each month.

6. KTAL religious programming should cover the entire
range of religious thought. As part of its continuing effort
to meet this obligation, KTAL will carry the religious pro-
grams presented by NBC representing the three primary American
faiths. A discussion program will also be presented, to
explore current religious issues, at least monthly. KTAL
will regularly present ministers of all races on local relig-
ious programs. These ministers will be regularly rotated,
in an effort to represent fairly all religious groups.

7. Network programs of particular interest to any sub-
stantial groups in the service area will not be preempted
without appropriate advance consultation with representatives
of the group.

8. KTAL is obligated to discuss programming regularly
with all segments of the public. In particular, a station
employee with authority to act will meet once a month with a
committee designated by the parties of the petition to deny
KTAL's TV application for license renewal. Similar efforts

90

will be made to consult with groups representing other seg—
ments of the public.

9. KTAL will regularly announce on the air that the
station will consult with all substantial groups in the com-
munity regarding community taste and needs and will accept
suggestions on how best to render this service. This announce-
ment will be broadcast once a week, on a weekday, between 7
and 11 p.m.

10. KTAL reaffirms its existing policy to make no un-
essential references to the race of a person. In cases where
such references are made, the same practice shall be and
will be followed for blacks as for whites. KTAL will con—
tinue to use courtesy titles for all women, without regard
for race.

11. KTAL will endeavor to develop and present at least
monthly, in prime time, a regular local magazine-type program,
including not only discussion, but also local talent, and
seeking participation from the entire service area.

12. KTAL will solicit public service announcements from
local groups and organizations. Sound on film will be used
more extensively in covering local news. In covering demon—
strations, picketing, and similar events, KTAL will seek to
present the diverse views which gave rise to the event.

13. KTAL-TV's undertakings are subject to all valid laws,
rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commis-
sion and to KTAL's primary Obligations as a broadcast licensee
to use its own good faith and judgment to serve all members
of the viewing public. It is recognized that needs and
circumstances change, that events may compel departure from
these undertakings. However, KTAL-TV will not depart from
these undertakings without advance consultation with the
affected groups in the service area and advance notice to
the Federal Communications Commission stating the reasons for
the departure. In such instances KTAL will seek to adhere
to the objectives of this statement by alternative action.

APPENDIX E

LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS

American Civil Liberties Union
156 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10010

Black Efforts for Soul in Television
1015 North Carolina Avenue, SE
Washington, D. C. 20003

Broadcasting and Film Commission

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A.
475 Riverside Drive

New York, New York 10027

Citizens Communication Center
Suite 103, 1816 Jefferson Place, NW
Washington, D. C. 20036

Institute for American Democracy
Suite 101, 1330 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D. C. 20005

National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting
609 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10017

Office of Communication
United Church of Christ
289 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010

Office of Mass Media
National Presbyterian Center
4125 Nebraska Avenue, NW
Washington, D. C. 20016

91

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII“