cause of its unsubstantiated network plans. Tampa TV was given a clear prefrence with respect to the important integration of ownership and management factor. Tampa TV was also given a slight preference on broadcasting experience and careful planning. Comparing Tampa TV against Tampa Times, the Commission found Tampa TV preferred to Tampa Times in proposed programing because of the provision for service to St. Petersburg and its slight superiority with respect to local live programing. Tampa TV was also given a slight edge on the likelihood of carrying out program proposals and the question of continued sensitivity to local needs, because of its advantage on the integration of ownership and management factor, and, to a slighter degree, because of its more careful planning. Also considered by the Commission was the fact that a grant to Tampa TV would serve the Commission's policy of diversification of the media of mass transportation. B. Factors considered by the Commission, classified as to preference awarded to the parties 1. No preference allowed any of the parties as to following factors: (a) Legal, technical, and financial qualifications. (b) Proposed studios, staffing, facilities, and equipment. (c) Establishing feasibility of local live program proposals with groups involved. (d) Local residence or diversification of background of participating stockholders. (e) Civic participation. 2. Preference to Tampa TV : (a) Slight preference to Tampa TV over the other two on basis of programing proposals. (b) Slight preference to Tampa TV over Orange with respect to ability to carry out programing proposals involving certain local live programs. (c) Preference over the other two on integration of ownership with management. (d) Slight preference over the other two for its detailed comprehensive plans with respect to programing, studios and staff. (e) Slight preference over Orange on the basis of broadcast experience. (f) Slight preference over the other two on the likelihood of effectuating program proposals. (g) Preference over Times on principle of diversification of control of mass communications. (h) Slight preference over the other two on the likelihood of continued sensitivity to local needs. 3. Preference to Tampa Times: (a) Slight preference over Orange on basis of broadcast experience. (b) Slight preference over Orange with respect to ability to carry out program proposals. (c) No preference over Tampa TV. 4. Preference to Orange: (a) Slight preference to Orange over Times on basis of programing proposals. (b) Preference over Times on principle of control of mass communications. (c) No preference over Tampa TV. C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification Tampa Times owns an AM and FM station in Tampa and publishes 1 of 2 daily newspapers in Tampa. Two 2.5 percent stockholders of Orange own interests in a TV station in Miami. Principal stockholder in Tampa TV owns an AM station in Tampa which he promises to sell in the event Tampa TV is the successful applicant. I. PROCEEDING In re applications of WKRG-TV, Inc., the Mobile Television Corp., for construction permits for new television stations, Mobile, Ala. II. RESULTS A. Examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to Mobile television. B. The Commission in its final decision granted the application of WKRG-TV (10 RR 225). A. Summary III. COMMISSION DECISION The Commission considered and weighed all relevant factors which might be determinative in a comparative proceeding to determine which of two competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit for construction of a television station. No preferences were granted to either party on the basis of program proposals, staffing, or care in assembling staffing plans, studio, or equipment proposals. Both applicants were found to be financially, legally, and technically qualified. However, WKRG-TV was given preference based on past records, local ownership integrated with management and participation in community activities. On the basis of these preferences WKRG-TV was given preference in regard to the assurance that their program proposals would be effectuated and that they would continue to be sensitive to community needs. WKRG-TV was also granted a preference on the basis of diversification of control of the media of mass communication. B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to the parties 1. No preference allowed either party as to the following factors: (a) Legal, technical, and financial qualifications. (b) Program proposals. (c) Staffing or care in assembling staffing plans. (d) Studio and equipment proposals. 2. Preference given to WKRG-TV: (a) Past record. (b) Local ownership integrated with management. (c) Participation in community activities. (d) Because of the above, preference allowed on likelihood of effectuating program proposals, and (e) Assurance that WKRG-TV would countinue to meet the needs of the community. (f) on basis of diversification of control of the media or mass communication. 3. Preference given to Mobile television: C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification WKRG-TV or its stockholders own or have interest in 1 of 5 AM, and 1 of 2 FM stations in Mobile, Ala., 7 of 25 theaters in that area, an AM station in New Orleans and 1 in St. Louis. Mobile TV or its stockholders own or have an interest in the only 2 daily newspapers in Mobile, 1 or 5 AM stations in Mobile, 1 of 2 FM stations in Mobile, an AM station in New Orleans, an FM station in New Orleans, and a TV station in that city, an AM station in Baton Rouge, and an FM station and a TV station in that city. I. PROCEEDING In re applications of KTBS, Inc., International Broadcasting Corp., for construction permits for new commercial television station (channel 3), Shreveport, La. II. RESULTS A. Examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to KTBS. B. The Commission, in its final decision, granted the application of KTBS (10 RR 811). A. Summary III. COMMISSION DECISION The Commission considered and weighed all relevant factors which might be determinative in a comparative proceeding to determine which of two competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit for construction of a television station. The Commission found the two applicants had satisfactory past records as broadcast licensees giving assurance that their program proposals would be implemented as promised. International's program proposals are neither more realistic, nor is its promise for effectuation more convincing than those of KTBS. Each would provide a well-rounded program service in the public interest and adequate staff and equipment to effectuate its proposal. Although the applicants were found equal in most respects, determinative of our decision KTBS clear superiority as a result of its greater integration of management with local ownership which assumes greater awareness and responsiveness to the needs of the community and continuing supervision of the operation. Further, the Commission found a greater diversification of control of the media of mass communication would result from a grant to KTBS. B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to parties 1. No preference allowed to either party as to following factors: (a) Legal, technical, and financial qualifications. (b) Character of the owners, management of affairs or business practices. (c) Diversified and well-balanced program proposals. (d) Staff and equipment which would indicate greater assurance of effectuating program proposals. (e) Past operations. 2. Preference to KTBS: (a) Preference for greater integration of local ownership with management. (b) Preference with respect to more extensive participation in civic affairs. (c) Preference in regard to the factor of concentration of control in media of mass communications. 3. Preference to International: (a) None. C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification KTBS owns an AM and an FM station in Shreveport. International, its sister corporations and the parent corporation own or control the following: KWKHAM and FM, the AM station being the only 50 kilowatt station in Shreveport; KTHS, the only 50 kilowatt station in Little Rock, Ark.; the larger of 2 daily newspapers in Shreveport, 2 newspapers in Monroe, La.; and KTHV, a TV station in Little Rock. I. PROCEEDING In re applications of Radio Wisconsin, Inc., Badger Television Co., for construction permits for new television broadcast stations (channel 3), Madison,. Wis. II. RESULTS A. The examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to Badger. B. The Commission, in its final decision, granted the application of Radio Wisconsin (10 RR 1224). A. Summary III. COMMISSION DECISION The Commission considered and weighed all relevant factors which might be determinative in a comparative proceeding to determine which of two competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit for construction of a television station. In this case the Commission found that both applicants were substantially equal and no preference was given in all respects except two. Badger Television was given a slight preference over Radio Wisconsin in regard to integration of local ownership with management, although Radio Wisconsin made a "substantial showing" as to this factor rendering the preference of less importance. Radio Wisconsin was given a significant preference as to diversification of control of the media of mass communications because of the localization of Badger's interests in the Madison area. B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to the parties 1. No preference allowed either party as to the following factors: (a) Legal, technical and financial qualifications. (b) Policies or program proposals. (c) Preparation of program proposals. (d) Past broadcast record or experience. (e) Participation in civic activities. (f) Staffing, equipment, studios, and other facilities. 2. Preference given to Badger: 76974-56- -8 (a) Slight preference as to integration of local ownership with management. 3. Preference given to Radio Wisconsin : (a) Determinative preference as to diversification of control of the media of mass communications. C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification Radio Wisconsin or its stockholders control or have interest in an AM-FM station in Madison, 4 newspaper publishing companies outside Madison, 5 AM and 2 FM stations and 3 TV stations outside Madison. Badger or its stockholders control or have interest in an AM and an FM station in Madison, 2 AM stations in Wisconsin and 1 in Michigan, 1 TV station in Wisconsin, and both of the only 2 daily newspapers of general circulation in Madison. I. PROCEEDING In re applications of the Radio Station KFH Co., Taylor Radio & Television Corp., Wichita Television Corp., Inc., for commercial television construction permits (channel 3), Wichita, Kans. II. RESULTS A. Examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to Wichita TV. B. The Commission, in its final decision, granted the application of Wichita TV (11 RR 1). A. Summary III. COMMISSION DECISION The Commission considered and weighed all relevant factors which might be determinative in a comparative proceeding to determine which of the three competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit for construction of a television station. Taylor Radio & Television Corp. was found to be legally and technically, but not financially, qualified. For the purpose of a more complete comparative picture, the Commission assumed that Taylor was financially qualified. A large portion of the Commission's decision was spent in dispatching charges of the other two applicants that the representatives of Wichita TV were unethical and lacking in candor in their contacts and relations with the public in the sale of stock in their corporation and that some of their stockholders acquired stock in an unethical manner. The Commission found these charges completely without foundation and made the grant to Wichita TV. B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to the parties 1. No preference allowed either party as to the following factors: (a) Legal, and technical qualification. (b) KFH and Wichita are financially qualified, but Taylor was found unqualified financially. (For the purpose of a more complete comparative picture, Taylor was assumed to be financially qualified.) (c) KFH and Wichita were found equal on effectuating program proposals and remaining sensitive to local needs. 2. Preference to Wichita TV: (a) Slight preference over KFH because programing proposal more completely fulfills the educational needs of the area. (b) Assuming Taylor is to be compared with Wichita, the latter is given slight preference as to local live programing. (c) Preference over Taylor on likelihood of carrying out proposals. (d) Preference over Taylor as to remaining sensitive to local area's needs. (e) Preference over the other two applicants as to diversification of media of mass communication. 3. Preference to KFH: (a) None. 4. Preference to Taylor: (a) None. C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification Taylor is the licensee of an AM station in Wichita and an AM station in Texas and a stockholder of Taylor owns interest in a TV station in Texas. KFH is the licensee of one AM station in Wichita and the only FM station in Wichita; one of the two daily newspapers in Wichita is a 50 percent owner of KFH. Wichita TV has no interest in any media of mass communication. I. PROCEEDING In re applications of Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc., Radio Station WBIR, Inc., Tennessee TV, Inc., for television construction permit (channel 10), Knoxville, Tenn. II. RESULTS A. The examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to Radio Station WBIR. B. The Commission, in its final decision, granted the application of radio station WBIR. (11 RR 985). A. Summary III. COMMISSION DECISION The Commission considered and weighed all relevant factors which might be determinative in a comparative proceeding to determine which of the three competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit for the construction of a television station. The Commission found that all parties were qualified legally, technically and financially, and gave no preference or basis of studio facilities and equipment, proposed staffs, or the diversification of the background of the applicants' principals. No preference was allowed any party as to the alleged misconduct of the other applicants. (Since the various preferences which were awarded to applicants are complicated and involved, it is suggested that you refer to separate listings below.) B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to the parties 1. No preference allowed the parties as to the following factors: (a) Legal, technical and financial qualifications. (b) Equipment and studio facilities. (c) Proposed staffs. (d) Alleged misconduct of the other applicants. (e) Diversification of background of the applicants principals. 2. Preference to radio station WBIR: (a) Preference over Tennessee TV for more indication of effective implementation of program proposals. (b) Preference over Tennessee TV as to program plans. (c) Preference over the other two applicants as to integration of ownership with management. (d) Preference over Tennessee TV in regard to past performance as a broadcast licensee. (e) Preference over Scripps-Howard as to local ownership. (f) Preference over Tennessee TV in regard to prior radio and TV experience. (g) Preference over Scripps-Howard as to diversification of control of media of mass communication. 3. Preference to Scripps-Howard: (a) Preference over Tennessee TV for more indication of effective implementation of program proposals. (b) Preference over Tennessee TV as to program plans. (c) Preference over Tennessee TV because of past performance as a broadcast licensee. (d) Preference over both other applicants as to prior radio and TV experience. 4. Preference to Tennessee TV: (a) Local ownership and participation in local civic affairs. (b) Preference over Scripps-Howard in regard to integration of ownership with management. (c) Preference over both other applicants as to diversification of control of media of mass ocmmunication. C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification WBIR or its stockholders own or have an interest in an AM and FM station in Knoxville, 3 TV stations, 4 other AM and 4 FM stations and a daily news |