Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force
Excerpts from the
Broadcast Litigation Project
Petition to Deny License renewal Applications
Of Commercial and Non-Commercial Broadcasters
Philadelphia, PA 1989-1996
Addessa Notes from the Field for Publication and Archives

Abstract

Broadcast deregulation, inclusive of the recently enacted Telecommunications Act, enables and encourages the increasing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few multinational corporations; corporations which enjoy near-monopoly power in defining and shaping the public agenda unrestrained by public interest and public accountability standards.

Background: The Political Context

In contradiction of our nation’s commitment to the principles of free speech, of diversity, and of pluralism, the Federal Communications Commission’s deregulatory fevor has resulted in the elimination of public interest and public accountability standards and regulations designed to: (1) promote news and information programming; (2) encourage race and gender parity in employment; (3) require the broadcast of controversial issues and diverse viewpoints; (4) require quarterly programming reports accessible to the public; (5) limit corporate ownership of television and radio stations and the ownership of newspapers and broadcast licensees in the same market or in the markets with significant overlap; (6) limit corporate courage owners to reach no more than 25% of all U.S. households; (7) encourage minority ownership; (8) minimize non-USA corporate ownership interest; and (9) limit "trafficking" in the transfer (i.e. sale) of broadcast assignments. The Commission rationalized the wholesale elimination of these and other standards through a twisted logic that equated the "public interest" with unbridled capitalism and private corporate interests.

Review and Commentary: Public Participation vs. Media Monopoly

As the Commission pursued its deregulatory course, the Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force embarked on an ambitious litigation project to challenge broadcaster’s increasing failure to address issues of public concern in general and of particular concern to women and minorities. In 1989 and in 1991, the Task Force commissioned extensive studies of news and information programming and EEO performance, a study based on each station’s public files. (footnote 1) Over the 1989 through 1996 period, the Task Force spearheaded a community-wide effort to challenge broadcasters; an effort buttressed by solid statistical analysis and the affidavits of organizational leaders who represented many diverse communities.

In July 1989, we filed a marketwide Petition to Deny Relicensure against all Philadelphia, PA commercial television stations. In response, the Commission granted unconditional renewal to each of the six challenged stations and, in tandem, codified a new public interest standard April 18, 1990 released June 29, 1990). The Commission determined that fifteen minutes a day of issue responsive programming was adequate to meet broadcasters’ public interest obligation and to maintain broadcasters’ monopoly license to operate the public airwaves. In July 1991, the Commission reaffirmed its view in its dismissal of a Petition for Reconsideration filed in July, 1990.

In July 1991 and 1994, we again filed marketwide Petitions to Deny radio and television relicensure applications, respectively (13 radio programming petitions; 6 radio EEO petitions; and 6 television EEO petitions). (footnote 2)  In response, the Commission again granted renewal, in this case, to each of the 24 challenged licenses. Over the 1992-1996 period, the Commission granted unconditional license renewal in 21 of 24 challenges and granted conditional renewal in 3 of 6 EEO challenges. Conditions included increased reporting requirements and the levy of fines between $12,000 and $14,000 each (Westinghouse WMMR FM, Beasley Broadcast WXTU FM, and Spectator WIP AM). (Please see summary grid, attachment 1) Not unexpectedly, the community-based attempts to halt corporate license transfers in 1995-6 failed (e.g. locally, the transfer of Paramount Communications to Fox re: WTXF TV and the Westinghouse/CBS partnership merger).

In sum, the Communications Act’s promise of citizen participation in the license renewal process remains empty rhetoric. The Commission’s decisions over the 1990-1996 period have rejected extensive documentation of and community-based opposition to broadcasters’ neglect of its public trusteeship role and failure to protect and promote the public interest; has signaled its contempt for the substantive concerns, needs, and issues facing local communities; and has undermined our nation’s commitment to free and robust debate, diversity and pluralism.

 Closure:

In 1996, the U.S. Congress’ hasty adoption of the Telecommunications Act has now cemented the deregulatory process. In tandem with the U.S. Department of Justice’s failure to initiate anti-trust suits against unprecedented media mergers/partnerships between and among U.S. based multinational corporations, the Act will promote the increasing concentration of wealth, power, and information control in the hands of a few corporate elite with no public interest quid pro quo. (footnote 3)The Act’s wholesale abandonment of the public interest portends a communications environment that will increasingly restrict the range, depth, and scope of public debate and an environment that will increasingly contain or silence thoughtful, critical voices of dissent.

Absent public outcry, uncensored public discourse by objective and critical journalists, and full debate, multinational corporations will increasingly control what we will see and hear, what we will think about, and how we will think. The principles that we hold so dear – democracy, freedom, critical speech and inquiry, protest and dissent, informed participation, and civic duty, each will be a distant memory in the land of media monopoly.

 

The Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force Broadcast Media Litigation Project: A Review Petitions to Deny the License Removal Applications of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Commercial and Non-Commercial Television and Radio Stations: 1989-1996 and Federal Communications Commission Decisions
Station Call Letters At time of filing	July 1989 Television Programming (2)	July 1991 Radio Programming (3)	July 1991 Radio EEO (4)	July 12, 1994 Television EEO (5)
KYW TV – 3	UCR	-----	-----	UCR (17)
WPVI TV – 6	UCR	-----		UCR (18)
WCAU TV – 10	UCR	-----	-----	UCR (6)
WHYY TV – 12	-----	-----	-----	UCR (7)
WPHL TV – 17	UCR	-----	-----	UCR (8)
WTXF TV – 29	UCR (9)	-----	-----	UCR (10)
WGBS TV – 57	RR	-----	-----	UCR (11)
WEAZ AM/FM (WBEB)	-----	UCR (12)	-----	-----
WHYY FM	-----	-----	UCR (13)	-----
WIOQ FM	-----	UCR	-----	-----
WIP AM (14)	-----	UCR	RR & F: $12,500	-----
WJJZ FM (WEGX	-----	UCR	RR	-----
WMGK FM / WPEN FM	-----	UCR	-----	-----
WMMR FM	-----	UCR (15)	RR & F: $14,000 (16)	-----
WOGL AM/FM	-----	UCR	-----
WUSL FM	-----	UCR	-----	-----
WXTU FM	-----	UCR	RR & F: $12,000 (16)
WYSP FM	-----	UCR	RR	-----

CODES: UCR = Unconditional renewal RR = Reporting Requirements

F = Forfeiture (fine) ----- = Not Applicable

1- Each Petition to Deny was based on the findings of the following Task Force commissioned studies: Whose Public Interest?: A Study of Attention to Women, Minorities, and AIDS in Issue-Responsive Commercial Television Programming: 1986-1988 [Gross, Hank and Addessa] and Women, Minorities and AIDS: An Analysis of Issue-Responsive Programming Among Philadelphia, PA Commercial Radio Stations: 1989-1990 [Johnson with Weerakkody et al.] An analysis of stations’ equal employment data was conducted by Rita Addessa with the support of the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law School Clinic under the direction of Angela Campbell, Esq.

2- As we conducted the 1991 radio study and prepared Petitions to deny, the Task Force with community leaders attempted to negotiate with media owners. Over a six month period, we engaged twelve of twenty selected media chiefs in extended conversations focused on the study’s preliminary findings and policy recommendations for their adoption. Of the twelve chiefs, four signed citizens agreements which adopted the policy recommendations in part. One station, with reminder, awarded a $52,000 scholarship fund for women and minority communications students at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, a contract now threatened by new owners.

3- Some advocates’ ressurected call for "auctioning" the public spectrum as a quid pro quo begs the question and is contradictory on its face. Auctioning the public airwaves, like the sale of public lands or national forests, represents an irrevocable give way of public resources, intended to serve the common good, to corporate interests focused on private gain.

Endnotes:

1. The Task Force organized a number of coalitions to file marketplace Petitions to Deny the License Renewals Applications of various television and radio broadcasters serving the Philadelphia market, the fourth largest market in the country. In 1989, we filed petitions against six television stations on programming grounds alone. In 1991, we filed programming petitions against thirteen individual broadcast stations (some of which were AM/FM licenses) and an EEO Petitions to Deny against five of these thirteen commercial radio stations. In addition, we filed an EEO Petition to Deny against WHYY-FM, public radio. Given the Commission’s 1990 establishment of a fifteen minutes per day news and public affairs standard, we filed, singularly, EEO Petitions to Deny against all Philadelphia, PA television stations in 1994.

Each programming petition found that broadcasters, individually and collectively, failed to provide adequate general issue responsive programming as well as issue responsive programming directed to the concerns of women, multiracially, and all racial and ethnic minorities as well as lesbian and gay people. EEO Petitions to Deny were based on broadcasters failure to reach race and gender parity goals overall and in top four as well as the top two job categories.

In each petition, copetitioners established irrefutable documentation of (1) nominal programming; (2) failure to meet public file requirements; (3) a demonstration of lack of candor and character; as well as (4) failure to meet race and gender parity goals. In each decision, the Commission held that copetitioners did not meet prima facie standards and/or did not raise substantial and materials question of fact.

The Task Force’s Study of Women, Minorities, and AIDS in News and Information Programming for the 1984-1989 Period shows that each of the television stations devoted nominal attention to news and public affairs programming overall and no more than one-third of all news and public affairs programming was devoted to issues particularly effecting all women and all minorities.

2. FCC Decision (Commission) June 29, 1990 re: July 1989 Television Programming Petitions. At page 5, footnote 10, the FCC determined that fifteen minutes a day of issue responsive programming is adequate to meet the public interest obligation and to maintain a monopoly license to the public airwaves. The FCC clearly did not read the study in which the marketplace Petition to Deny was based. A reconsideration of the Decision was filed on July 30, 1990, and dismissed on July 5, 1991.

3. FCC Decision (Chief, Mass Media Bureau) August 24, 1993 re: July 1991 Radio Programming Petitions. Citing its earlier opinions, the Commission dismissed eleven of thirteen Petitions to Deny.

4. FCC Decision (Commission) August 1, 1994 re: July 1991 Radio EEO Petitions. The commission dismissed petitions against WHYY-FM, WJJZ-FM, and WYSP-FM. It did not and still has not opined on the Petitions to Deny against Westinghouse/WMMR-FM and Beasley Broadcasting/WXTU-FM. The Commission’s decision found a 50% parity profile adequate and disregarded the station’s inferior recruitment efforts.

5. In assessing race and gender parity for the period 1989 through 1994, the Commission used 1980 employment data.

6. FCC EEO Decision (Chief, Mass Media Bureau) June 22, 1995 re: July 12, 1994 Television EEO Petition. The Commission dismissed Copetitioners EEO Petition to Deny against WCAU-TV. The Commission noted that "Station Partners assumed control of the station on September 23, 1994."

7. FCC Decision (Chief, Mass Media Bureau) July 13, 1995 re: July 12, 1994 Television EEO Petitions. Subsequent to the filing of the 1994 Petitoin, a formal discrimination complaint was filed against WHYY-TV. WHYY reached less then 58% minority parity.

8. FCC Decision (Chief, Mass Media Bureau) July 13, 1995 re: July 12, 1994 Television EEO Petitions. WPHL reached less than 62% minority parity.

9. WTXF-TV created an unreasonable burden (by charging $400 to look at its files). The Commission opined that this and WTXF-TV’s lack of candor to the Commission was insignificant.

10. On November 18, 1994, the Task Force filed a Petition to Deny the license transfer of Viacom/Paramount station WTXF-TV (29) to Fox Television Stations. In March 1995, the Commission dismissed our community’s Paramount/WTXF-TV EEO Petition to Deny (less than 57% parity for minorities overall and about 85% for women overall). In August 1995, Fox obtained the Paramount/WTXF-TV (29) license.

11. FCC Decision April 14, 1995 re: July 12, 1994 Television EEO Petitions against WGBS-TV (57). The Commission’s decision was mailed and postmarked to Copetitioners on June 5, 1995.

12. On May 26, 1993, WEAZ was granted a petition to change its call letters to WBEB. On June 23, 1992, the Commission erroneously granted a renewal application to then WBEB (a.k.a. WEAZ). The Commission, in its August 24, 1993 programming decision (see note 3), acknowledged its error in granting the renewal application and held that it did "not realize that a programming challenge was pending." The Commission characterized its error as "moot" [Page 2, Footnote2].

13. In its August 1, 1994 Decision (see note 4) the Commission failed to even censure WHYY-FM with less than 40% minority parity overall and 0% Hispanic parity.

14. On August 20, 1993, the Commission opined about WIP, singularly, and dismissed both our Programming and our EEO Petitions to Deny against WIP to enable the immediate transfer of WIP from Spectacor to Infinity Broadcasting. At footnote 12 of the decision, the Commission levied a $12,500 fine against WIP for failure to meet EEO standards. The Commission acknowledged the licensee’s incomplete records.

15. In its August 24, 1993 decision (see note 3), despite Copetitioners’ documentation and despite the licensee’s admission, the Commission found (page 11, paragraph 30) that Westinghouse’s false certification of its license renewal application for WMMR-FM "does not raise any question with respect to the licensee’s character qualification or its control over the station" [pages 9-11, paragraphs 27-31, footnotes 7-8].

16. One May 31, 1996, the Commission adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order and notice of apparent liability which it released on July 29, 1996, five years after our Petition to Deny was filed. In this case, as in all others, the Commission acknowledged that we made a prima facie case, however, not atypically found that there were no substantial and material questions of fact. In the absence of EEO documentation, the Commission fined Westinghouse/WMMR $14,000 and Beasley Broadcast/WXTU $12,000 in fines. In addition, the Commission ordered each to submit heightened reporting standards, due April 1997 and April 1998. At the time of the renewals, WMMR reported 35.82% for minorities overall; WXTU FM, 44.74%.

17. The Commission adopted and released its Memorandum Opinion and Order on May 30, 1996 despite Westinghouse/KYW-TV’s failure to improve its employment of women, inclusively, over a five year relicensure term. A formal renewal was not granted at that time due to "pending non-EEO matters." KYW reported 68.17% female parity in full time employment and 55.72% parity in the four top jobs, facts undisputed by Westinghouse.

18. True to form, the Commission dismissed our Petition filed July 12, 1994 against Cap Cities/WPVI-TV on February 7, 1996. Again, like a broken record, the Commission held that even where prima facie evidence existed, there were no substantial and material questions of fact to investigate. Invariably, the Commission found no evidence of employment discrimination. WPVI-TV was at 64.41% parity for women, inclusively, in the top 4 job categories, and 75.02% in full time employment.

Original Release: February 19, 1996

Revised: October 1996. Footnotes 16 through 18 added.

[Addessa. 1mswplgtfmed.lit.96sum.6]

Broadcast Litigation Project: Petition to Deny License Renewal Applications of Philadelphia, PA Commercial and Non-Commercial Broadcasters: 1989-1996.

Summary prepared by Rita Addessa, executive Director, Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force, and Project Organizer in the community-based Petition to Deny Project. For further information, please write us at 1616 Walnut Street, Suite 1005, Philadelphia, PA 19103 or call 215-772-2000, fax 215-772-2004 and e-mail plgtf@op.net