ciples. The record does show, however, that, in response to a request of the Commission for details as to the conduct of the station since September 1938, two affidavits were filed with the Commission by John Shepard 3d, president of The Yankee Network, Inc. Apparently conceding the departures from the require ments of public interest by the earlier conduct of the station, these affidavits state, and they are uncontradicted, that no editorials have been broadcast over Station WAAB since September 1938 and that it is not intended to depart from this uninterrupted policy. The station has no editorial policies. In the affidavits there is further a description of the station's procedure for handling news items and the statement is made that since September 1938 "no attempt has ever been or will ever be made to color or editorialize the news received" through usual sources. In response to a question from the bench inquiring whether the Commission should rely on these affidavits in determining whether to renew the licenses, counsel for The Yankee Network, Inc., stated at the second argument. "There are absolutely no reservations whatsoever, or mental reservations of any sort, character, or kind with reference to those affidavits. They mean exactly what they say in this fullest possible amplification that the Commission wants to give to them."

Relying upon these comprehensive and unequivocal representations as to the future conduct of the station and in view of the loss of service to the public involved in the deletion of this station, it has been concluded to grant the applications for renewal. Should any future occasion arise to examine into the conduct of this licensee, however, the Commission will consider the facts developed in this record in its review of the activities as a whole.

One further point must be dealt with in view of certain contentions made in the course of this proceeding. It has been pointed out that The Yankee Network. Inc., is also the licensee of a second regional station in Boston, Station WNAC. and the contention has been made that the applications for renewal for WAAB should, therefore, be denied. This argument raises a serious and troublesome question of policy to which the Commission has given considerable attention and which is presently under consideration in connection with the Commission's investigation into chain broadcasting. The question is peculiarly one which cannot be effectively and fairly dealt with by singling out individual instances for treatment. It should be understood, therefore, that the grant of these applications of The Yankee Network, Inc., for renewal is without consideration of the question of dual ownership. The Commission will reserve its decision on that point until such time as it is prepared to consider a more general policy for application on a country-wide basis.

January 16, 1941
ORDER

At a session of the Federal Communications Commission held at its offices in Washington, D.C., on the 16th day of January 1941;

Upon consideration of the above-described applications, the documents submitted therewith, and the evidence adduced at the hearing thereon, the Commission, being fully advised in the matter, determines that public interest, convenience, and necessity will not be served by a grant of the application of The Mayflower Broadcasting Corporation, and will be served by a grant of the application of The Yankee Network, Inc.

It is ordered that the application of The Mayflower Broadcasting Corporation be, and the same is hereby, denied.

It is further ordered that the application of The Yankee Network, Inc., be. and the same is hereby, granted.

This order shall become effective immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask one question here.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, would you yield a moment?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SRINGER. I would like to ask the Commission ChairmanThe CHAIRMAN. If you would defer, this is from Newsweek, dated March 20, which has not arrived as of yet, but in it there is an article that says:

A Plug For TV Editorials: The Federal Communications Commission has decided to pigeonhole bitter complaints against local TV stations from two oncepowerful politicians. Former Governor Pat Brown of California and ex-Repre

sentative Harold Cooley of North Carolina blamed their defeats last fall in part on what they claimed were unfair broadcast editorials. But the FCC says it cannot "urge stations to become vital community forces by having views of their own, and then be quick to take them to task for what they do. The Commission should stay out *** unless there is a case of genuine abuse."

Are you responsible for this statement?

Mr. HYDE. I don't recognize the exact wording. I do agree in principle that the Commission should not intervene

The CHAIRMAN. Did you give out the news article?

Mr. HYDE. I can't recall it.

The CHAIRMAN. Did anyone on your Commission give it out? Did any member of your staff give it out?

Mr. HYDE. Not to my knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Where did Newsweek get this information if you didn't give it out and your Commission and staff didn't give it out? Were they taken out of thin air?

Mr. HYDE. I would not make such an assertion and it is quite possible that without the formalities of an interview that perhaps in a public statement this viewpoint has been expressed. It might well have been found in the conversation with a member, but as far as I know, no one has spoken

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to know. This is a responsible agency of the Government, an arm of the Government that has the public interest at heart, and they cannot go around and make irresponsible statements. I will not follow this up now, but this question of responsibility is of the utmost importance.

I want to ask you this: Do you know further that the one station that is involved has apologized and agreed not to do these things in the future? Yet if this Commission says they don't have any responsibility and the station says that they were wrong, then this Commission is wrong.

Mr. HYDE. Chairman Staggers, I don't think any member of the Commission would take the position that we don't have some responsibility here. As a matter of fact, as complaints are made to us, particularly during a political campaign, we give them prompt attention recognizing if they are not ruled on before the election, any effort we make might be of no consequence.

Now, the complaints that you have referred to as regards Governor Brown and Congressman Cooley have come in since the election, so they are, in a sense, after the fact, but they have not been pigeonholed. The Commission will rule on them.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this statement is in a very responsible magazine, Newsweek, which is read all across this land, and taken as gospel. Now, I say this: I don't know why if you did, or one of your Commissioners, pointed out these two cases, why they didn't take all the cases in America instead of just picking on these two. There is a reason back of this but I am not going to go any further about it now, but I intend to find the reason.

Who made the statement if you didn't make it? I want to find out who made it on the staff or the Commission. That is a fact, because it just does not come out of thin air, not to such a responsible magazine as Newsweek. They don't do this.

Mr. HYDE. I have not had the opportunity to read the article. I don't know whether the reporter's name is given; I don't know whether

any names of Commissioners are mentioned in it. We will certainly be interested in looking into the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. I have taken more time than I should.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I have talked to a reporter from Newsweek, I think, in the last several weeks, and he was inquiring about the Commission's policy with respect to editorializing on political candidacy. I certainly did not indicate in any way that these two matters have been pigeonholed. In fact, if he inquired and I don't recall that he did I would have said they were under active consideration.

I think I probably indicated, as the article purports to say, that the Commission has pursued a policy of believing that broadcasters are entitled to editorialize with respect to political candidates, but subject to the requirements of the fairness doctrine, which insists that they must give an appropriate opportunity for the representation of opposing views on issues, and in the case of editorials on candidacy, that they must provide an opportunity for a spokesman for the candidate who has been disadvantaged to respond.

The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, they were not putting in the statement you made.

Mr. Cox. I want the record to show I have had contact with Newsweek. I cannot recall exactly when I did discuss this general subject, and I don't recall that precise statement.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not quoting you. Radio, TV, and newspapers have the right of free speech, but they have the responsibility to tell the truth and to tell what is said.

Mr. Cox. I think that is the Commission's position.

Mr. GELLER. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, if you want to be recognized.
Do you want him to have anything to say on this?

Mr. HYDE. We, of course, have many occasions to request the advice of counsel on these very difficult questions. Would you hear Mr. Geller?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Geller.

Mr. GELLER. I simply want to state that we are processing both of those and neither have been presented to Newsweek, so the article is not accurate. The staff has not brought them up because the election is over, but both of them are being actively processed, so the article is inaccurate in that respect. There is a new development in the California one.

The CHAIRMAN. I think every one of the elections are over that you had complaints on. They were decided long ago, and it is up to

you.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SPRINGER. What I would like to find out, the chairman read the pertinent parts of the Mayflower decision. What I would like to ask you gentlemen, does this still apply?

Mr. HYDE. No. It was superseded in 1949 by an opinion entitled "Editorialization by Broadcast Licensees."

Mr. SPRINGER. What case was that?

Mr. HYDE. This was after a general hearing inquiry. There had been a good deal of complaint about the policy known as the Mayflower doctrine in that it denied the broadcaster an opportunity to

express a viewpoint. It was urged upon the Commission that this took some of the vitality that a broadcast service might have.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, in short, this is not the law; is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. The Mayflower doctrine is not Commission policy.
Mr. SPRINGER. It is not Commission policy?

Mr. HYDE. It is not.

Mr. SPRINGER. You say that occurred in 1949 as a result of an extended hearing?

Mr. HYDE. There was a considerable submission in papers. I can't remember how many days of hearings, but there were public hearings on it.

Mr. SPRINGER. Now, Mr. Chairman, if this is not the law, the Mayflower case, and the chairman was under the assumption that it was, would you then please state what the law is today?

Mr. HYDE. The views in this area of policy are expressed in the fairness doctrine, otherwise known as editorialization by broadcast licensees, which was adopted in 1949.

(The fairness doctrine referred to is set forth in the FCC public notice of July 1, 1964, as follows:)

[Federal Communications Commission, Public Notice of July 1, 1964]
[July 25, 1964 issue of the Federal Register]

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION