Factual Background

2. Belo proposes that, in each of the areas served by a station licensed to
Belo, n1 the Belo station would, in cooperation with local Public Broadcasting
Service (PBS) affiliates, produce a program or programs featuring candidates for
the U.S. Senate and [*2] House of Representatives, and for Governor. Belo
plans to begin airing these programs in October 1996. With respect to the U.S.
House of Representatives races, Belo will present candidates from districts
within its stations' respective Grade A contours. When more than two legally
qualified candidates are competing for an office, Belo states that it will
select candidates by utilizing "pre-established objective criteria for public
support and credibility appropriate to each jurisdiction involved, such as
significant levels of public support in independent public opinion polls,
numbers of signatures on nominating petitions, receipt of substantial campaign
contributions from varied sources, prior holding of significant public
office(s), or receipt of a substantial level of votes in prior elections for the
same or comparable offices." Each station licensed to Belo will invite the
selected candidates to its studio to "videotape 'live'" their respective
statements. Each program will be introduced by Belo and PBS station officials
and moderated by a newscaster from the local Belo station's news division. The
moderator will ask each candidate in turn to respond to the same question with
five [*3] minutes accorded for the candidates' responses. Once taped, thequestions and the "candidates' unedited five minute responses" will be combined
by Belo news personnel into a one-hour program, with the statements presented
back-to-back and the order of presentation to be determined by coin flip if two
candidates are selected and by a drawing of straws if more than two participate.
The programming would be aired by both the local Belo and PBS stations and will
be broadcast without commercial interruption. n2

n1 Belo is licensed to operate the following stations: WFAA-TV, Dallas, TX;
KHOU-TV, Houston, TX; KIRO-TV, Seattle, WA; KXTV, Sacramento, CA; WWL-TV, New
Orleans,LA; WVEC-TV, Norfolk/Hampton,VA; and KOTV, Tulsa, OK.

n2 To accommodate all candidates in larger markets, Belo states that it may
be necessary to produce "two episodes." Belo maintains, however, that all of the
selected candidates competing for the same office would always appear in the
same broadcast. Belo also states that it will offer the programming to local
cable television systems and radio stations.

3. Belo claims that its proposed format is fully consistent with Commission
precedent, which Belo argues [*4] has held that similar programming
satisfies Congressional intent for exempt bona fide "news event" broadcasts.
Specifically, Belo contends that "the presentation of unedited statements by
Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates on issues central to theircandidacies is, by any reasonable standard, newsworthy, and the Belo proposal is
carefully structured to ensure against favoritism of any particular candidates."
Furthermore, Belo notes in support of its request, that it has received a number
of journalism awards, particularly for its coverage of local news, and that the
proposed programming is in keeping with its concentration on public service by
increasing local news coverage in each of the communities it is licensed to
serve.

Discussion

Legal Background

4. Section 315 of the Act provides that if a broadcaster or origination
cablecaster n3 permits a legally qualified candidate for public office to "use"
a broadcast station or cable television system, n4 it must afford equal
opportunities to all legally qualified opponents for the same office. In 1959,
the Commission ruled that the appearance of the incumbent Mayor of Chicago on a
local newscast during his reelection [*5] campaign triggered equal
opportunities rights for his opponents. In re Telegram to CBS, Inc. (Lar Daly),
18 Rad. Reg. 238, recon. denied, 26 FCC 715 (1959). Congress, fearing that the
ruling would inhibit news coverage of the political arena, within months enacted
four news exemptions to the equal opportunities requirement:1) bona fide newscast;
2) bona fide news interview;
3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental
to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary);
and
4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to
political conventions and activities incidental thereto).


47 U.S.C. Section 315(a)(1)-(4). In Aspen Institute, 55 FCC 2d 697 (1975), aff'd
sub nom., Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S.
890 (1976) ("Aspen"), which granted a news event exemption to candidate debates,
the Commission adopted a two-part test for analyzing whether a program should be
considered bona fide news event programming. n5 First, it determined whether the
format of the program reasonably fit within the news event exemption category
and, second, it assessed [*6] whether the decision to carry a particular
event was the result of good faith news judgment and not based on partisan
purposes.

n3 For purposes of applying the equal opportunities requirement, Section
315(c) defines "broadcasting station" as including cable television systems. 6. More recently, in Fox Broadcasting Company ("Fox"), FCC 96-355 (released
August 21, 1996), the Commission relied on its King decision and granted the
requests of Fox, Capital Cities/ABC and PBS that their respective proposals
for the presentation of the major presidential candidates be deemed exempt as
on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event. In Fox, however, the
Commission noted that its holding was decided in the context of elections at the
presidential level, and that, although it would [*8] utilize the same
principles in considering requests for news exemptions involving candidate
presentations for offices below the presidential level, those cases would be
evaluated in the context of the specific circumstances of future requests. n6

n6 While we recognize that, as a practical matter, broadcasters may seek to
assure that the Commission believes that a proposed format is exempt before it
is broadcast, we note that broadcasters are not required by the statute ornalysis of Belo Request

7. Consistent with the principles set forth in King and Fox, we believe that
Belo's proposed format for the presentation of congressional and gubernatorial
candidates is exempt as "on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events."

8. With respect to the first prong of the Aspen test, we agree with Belo that
back-to-back appearances by major Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates are
reasonably treated as news events. The Commission noted in King that Congress
had concluded generally that the objective of equal opportunities "must [*9]
be balanced against two other objectives no less vital: encouraging maximum
coverage of all news events . . . in order to cultivate a fully informed public,
and preservation of licensees' traditional independent journalistic judgment
with respect to broadcasting such events." Id. (quoting the court in Kennedy for
President Committee (Kennedy), 77 FCC 2d 965, 968-69, aff'd sub nom. Kennedy for
President Committee v. FCC, 636 F.2d 417 (D.C. Cir. 1980).) News coverage of
congressional and gubernatorial candidates is an extremely important element of
local news coverage. n7 Thus, consistent with the Commission's finding in King
and Fox that statements by the major candidates for the Presidency arereasonably viewed as bona fide news events, we conclude that a broadcaster may
reasonably determine that a Congressional or Gubernatorial race, as Belo has
determined, is sufficiently newsworthy to warrant news coverage.

n7 There is no indication in the statute or the legislative history that
Congress intended that the Commission apply any different standards to
congressional or gubernatorial elections.

9. Furthermore, as we noted in King and Fox, the Geller ruling n8 established
that [*10] the "on-the-spot" element of the news event exemption is not lost
when programming is taped and shown at some later date as long as the broadcast
is of a "reasonably recent event." Thus, Belo's proposed programming satisfies
the first prong of our analysis.

n8 See note 5, infra.

10. With respect to the second prong of our analysis -- whether the
broadcaster is exercising good faith judgment that the event is newsworthy -- it
is also clear that Belo has met the guidelines enunciated in King and Fox. There
is no evidence in the record of any intent to advance a particular candidacy.
The structural safeguards outlined by Belo to avoid favoritism are consistent
with the guidelines established in Fox and related case law. The proposedcandidate statements are essentially identical to the back-to-back programming
approved in King and the election eve statements in Fox, with the added
safeguard also present in Fox that each candidate's statement would respond to
the same question. Furthermore, Belo asserts that it will employ objective
criteria in selecting the candidates, considering significant levels of public
support in independent public opinion polls, numbers of signatures on [*11]
nominating petitions, receipt of substantial campaign contributions from varied
sources, prior holding of significant public office(s), or receipt of a
substantial level of votes in prior elections for the same or comparable
offices. As we stated in Fox, a licensee is not required to delegate the
selection of the candidates to a third party as long as its own criteria for
candidate selection are reasonable. We find that the criteria that Belo has
committed to use for candidate selection meets this standard. We also believe
that Belo's commitment to present the statements uninterrupted and unedited
lends an additional assurance that the licensee does not intend to further any
particular candidacies. We conclude, therefore, that Belo's decision to
broadcast the event is not intended to favor one candidate over another.

11. In view of the foregoing, A. H. Belo Corporation's request IS GRANTED.
Staff action is taken pursuant to delegated authority.