paper. Scripps-Howard (or its parent company) and its subsidiaries own or have an interest in 6 TV stations, an AM station in Knoxville, 22 newspapers (one in Knoxville), 4 other AM stations and 4 FM stations.

I. PROCEEDING

In re applications of Biscayne Television Corp., East Coast Television Corp., South Florida Television Corp., Sunbeam Television Corp., for construction permits for new television broadcast stations (channel 7), Miami, Fla.

II. RESULTS

A. Examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to Biscayne Television Corp.

B. The Commission, in its final decision, granted the application of BiscayneTelevision Corp. (11 RR 1113).

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 four competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit for construction of a television station. The applicants were found and concluded to be substantially equal as to programing, program policies and preparation of proposals, studios, equipment, staffing and civic participation. In local residence East Coast and Sunbeam were found to have made better showings than Biscayne and South Florida; however the showings of the latter two were found to be substantial so that any preference would be minor. Biscayne was found superior to all the others in five major factors, integration of ownership with management, demonstrative civic responsiveness, broadcast experience, effectuation of proposals and past broadcast records. Biscayne was found inferior to all other applicants in regard to diversification of control of the media of mass communication, but this, weighed along with other minor preferences against Biscayne, was found not to be determinative.

B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to the parties

1. No preference allowed any party as to the following factors:

(a) Proposed policies.

(b) Planning.

(c) Proposed programing.

(d) Studios and equipment.

(e) Staffing and personnel.

(f) Civil activities.

2. Preference given to Biscayne:

(a) Past broadcast record as licensee.

(b) Integration of ownership with management.

(c) Likelihood of effectuating proposals.

(d) Past broadcast experience.

(e) Civic responsiveness.

3. Preference given to East Coast:

(a) Minor preference over Biscayne and South Florida with respect to local residence of principals.

(b) Preference over Biscayne as to diversification of background of principals.

(c) Preference over Biscayne as to diversification of control of media of mass communication.

4. Preference given to Sunbeam:

(a) Minor preference over Biscayne and South Florida with respect to local residence of principals.

(b) Preference over Biscayne as to diversification of backgrounds of principals.

(c) Preference over Biscayne as to diversification of control of media of mass communication.

C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification:

Biscayne or its stockholders own or control the two dominant daily newspapers in Miami, a radio station in Miami, an AM and FM station and a TV station in Atlanta, Ga., and the only newspaper in that city, a radio (AM and FM) station, a television station and the only daily newspaper in Dayton, Ohio, the only newspaper in Springfield, Ohio, a 45 percent interest in an AM and FM radio station in Akron, Ohio, a television station and the daily newspaper in Akron, a 42 percent interest in a radio and television station in Chicago and a daily newspaper in that city, and finally, a daily newspaper in Detroit.

I. PROCEEDING

In re application of Richmond Newspapers, Inc., Richmond TV Corp., for construction permit for new television stations (channel 12), Richmond, Va.

II. RESULTS

A. The examiner's initial decision looked toward a grant to Richmond TV. B. The Commission, in its final decision granted the application of Richmond TV (11 R. R. 1234).

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. Both applicants were found to be legally, technically and financially qualified. No preference was given on the basis of proposed staffs, equipment or planning and civic participation. Richmond Newspapers was awarded a minor preference with respect to their studio proposal. All other preferences were given to Richmond TV who was awarded the grant.

B. Factors considered by the Commission classified as to preference awarded to the parties

1. No preference allowed either party as to following factors:

(a) Legal, technical and financial qualifications.

(b) Civic participation.

(c) Proposed staffs, equipment and planning.

2. Preference to Richmond TV

(a) Slight preference as to proposed programing.

(b) Past broadcasting records.

(c) Minor preference as to local ownership.

(d) Integration of ownership with management.

(e) Broadcast experience.

(f) Diversification of control of media of mass communication. 3. Preference to Richmond Newspapers:

(a) Minor preference as to studio proposals.

C. Factual basis for conclusion as to diversification

Richmond TV owns an AM and FM station in Richmond, an FM station in Norfolk and several theaters in the Richmond area. Richmond Newspapers controls the only daily newspaper in Richmond, owns AM and FM stations in Richmond. Substantial stockholders in Richmond Newspapers control the only daily newspapers in two other Virginia cities, control AM, FM and TV stations in Norfolk, control publisher of newspaper in Tampa, Fla., control licensee of AM and FM stations and permittee of TV stations in Tampa.

Mr. HESELTON. You are familiar with the Clarksburg case, June 5, 1955 of last year.

Mr. BAKER. I certainly am, sir.

Mr. HESELTON. That was an applicant, a newspaper-connected applicant, was it not?

Mr. BAKER. It was.

Mr. HESELTON. And other applicants had withdrawn when the matter came up for a decision to the Commission?

Mr. BAKER. That is correct.

Mr. HESELTON. What did the Commission order in that case? Mr. BAKER. The Commission ordered a grant to the newspaper applicant.

Mr. HESELTON. After what?

Mr. BAKER. Without a hearing, sir.

Mr. HESELTON. Without a hearing?

Mr. BAKER. And that grant was then protested, and the Commission after an oral argument denied the protest.

Mr. HESELTON. And no full hearing was required in that instance? Mr. BAKER. That was the Commission's view. The court of appeals differed with the Commission.

Mr. HESELTON. What reason did the Commission give for no hearing?

Mr. BAKER. The Commission found no reason to find the applicant disqualified; found that with respect to the newspaper interest there was no reason to conclude that the newspaper interest of the applicant should disqualify the applicant. That was appealed to the court of appeals, and the court of appeals reversed the Commission, saying the Commission should have looked into various factors through a hearing.

Mr. HESELTON. If I understood you correctly at the outset, you said you would determine whether any dissent has been expressed with respect to these comments. Now, just to be certain about it, will you file the substance of any dissent, if one was expressed?

Mr. BAKER. Certainly. The minutes of the meeting will show who voted for it, and if there were any who voted against it the minutes would show either that they asked their comments to be sent, in which case they would have been here, or just that they merely were opposed to it. I will give you an actual copy of what those were.

Mr. HESELTON. What I would be interested in seeing is the substance of what dissent, if any, was expressed. Can that be furnished?

Mr. BAKER. If there was a dissent, it certainly will be furnished. Mr. HESELTON. How many cases are now pending before the Commission involving newspaper applicants?

Mr. BAKER. I cannot tell you, sir. I know that there are in the vicinity of 30 cases pending. I would have to look. I know that a number of them do involve newspaper applicants. To be accurate, I would prefer to supply that information.

Mr. HESELTON. Will you do so?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

The following is a list of comparative TV proceedings involving applicants with newspaper interest. Since the Commission did not write a final decision (either because no exceptions were filed to the examiner's initial decision or the proceeding has not yet progressed to that stage) they have not been analyzed. Appalachian Broadcasting Corp., Tri Cities Television Corp., Bristol, Tenn. and Va. (11 R. R. 1327).

Southern Tier Radio Service, Inc., Ottaway Stations, Inc., Binghamton, Endicott, N. Y. (11 R. R. 143).

Brush-Moore Newspaper, Stark Telecasting, Tri-Cities Telecasting, Canton, Ohio (11 R. R. 641).

Cowles Broadcasting Co., Murphy Broadcasting Co., Des Moines, Iowa (10 R. R. 1289).

KFAB Broadcasting Co., Herald Corp., Omaha, Nebr., (12 R. R. 317).

Kendrick Broadcasting Co., Rossmayne Corp., Harrisburg, Pa. (9 R. R. 425).

Loyola University, the Times-Picayune Publishing Co., James A. Noe & Co., New Orleans, La., (12 R. R. 1017).

Northwestern Indiana Broadcasting Co., News-Sentinel Broadcasting Co., Fort Wayne, Ind., (9 R. R. 261).

The overwhelming majority of the Commission's comparative TV cases involve applicants having radio or TV interests. To expedite the forwarding of the information requested, I have taken three representative cases which will demonstrate Commission policy in regard to diversification where the radio and TV interests of applicants have been a factor.

IN RE APPLICATIONS OF ALLADIN RADIO & TELEVISION, INC., DENVER TELEVISION Co., FOR COMMERCIAL TELEVISION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, DENVER, COLO. (9 R. R. 1)

I. SUMMARY

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. Both applicants were found to be legally, technically, and financially qualified and were found to meet the requirements from an engineering standpoint.

In all other comparative factors (except one) where there was a difference between the applicants, Alladin demonstrated its superiority. The lone exception noted above was a preference granted to Denver on the basis of diversification of control of the media of mass communications.

Alladin had other radio interests, while Denver had none. However, the Commission granted the application of Alladin because its superiority in the other factors clearly outweighed the preference due Denver in regard to diversification.

IN RE APPICATIONS OF WJR, THE GOODWILL STATION, INC., TREBIT CORP., W. S. BUTTERFIELD THEATERS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEW COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS, FLINT, MICH. (9 R. R. 227)

I. SUMMARY

The Commission considered and weighed all relevant factors which might be determinative in a comparative proceeding to determine which of three competing applicants is more qualified to be granted a permit to construct a television station. Each applicant was found to be legally, technically and financially qualified. Trebit or its stockholders and affiliates control 4 AM stations and 2 television stations within the area. WJR is the licensee of a 50-kilowatt clearchannel radio station in Detroit (which also serves Flint), and an FM station in Detroit, and a 50-kilowatt standard broadcast station and an FM station in Cleveland. Butterfield has no broadcast interest, but operates a large number of theaters in the Flint area, including the only theaters in Flint which show firstrun movies. In light of this, the Commission found that WJR and Butterfield were to be preferred over Trebit on the basis of diversification of control of the media of mass communications. The fact that WJR has radio interests in Cleveland and Detroit and Butterfield has the locally concentrated control of theaters were held by the Commission to counterbalance each other in this regard.

WJR's programing proposal was given a preference over the other two, and in comparing WJR to Butterfield this was held to be a determinative preference since WJR's proposal better meets the local need. WJR was given a determinative preference over Trebit because of the diversification factor. The Commission, therefore, granted the application of WJR.

IN RE APPLICATIONS OF RADIO FORT WAYNE, INC., ANTHONY WAYNE BROADCASTING, FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR NEW TELEVISION STATIONS, FORT WAYNE, IND., (9 R. R. 1221)

I. SUMMARY

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 tele

vision station. Both applicants were found to be legally, financially and technically qualified. No significant differences between the applicants was found in regard to the engineering proposals, studios, staffs, and equipment. Anthony Wayne was given a slight but definite preference as to proposed program proposals, and a preference with respect to integration of ownership with management and participation in civic activities.

Radio Fort Wayne has past experience as a radio licensee and would have been given a substantial preference here had it not been for defection in fully performing as promised to the Commission in its previous proceedings for a grant of the radio license.

No overall preference was given either applicant on the basis of diversification of control of the media of mass communication. Anthony Wayne controls 1 of the 2 daily newspapers in Fort Wayne. Radio Wayne owns the smallest of 4 Fort Wayne radio stations and 2 other radio stations and a TV station in other areas. The Commission ruled that Radio Wayne's local preference was offset by its other, more scattered interests, balancing the newspaper interests against the radio interests and allowing no preference to either party. Radio Wayne was awarded the grant because of certain activties of Anthony Wayne's stockholders which were held to be destructive of competition and contrary to the public interest.

Mr. HESELTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. BEAMER. May I ask one more question?

I wonder, Mr. Baker, are you conscious of the fact that the bills submitted at this time, which we are discussing now, are the same wording that were in the original MacFarland bill?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, as the Commission pointed out, these are substantially identical with the language that was there.

Mr. BEAMER. That was the intent, to go back and pick up exactly what the Congress and the committee had wanted to do. And I wondered if you have read the report of the conference committee on that particular occasion.

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BEAMER. May I just read one?

It is the view of the conference committee that under the present law the Commission is not authorized to make or promulgate any rule or regulation the effect of which would be to discriminate against any person because any such person has an interest in or association with a newspaper or other medium for gathering and disseminating information. Also the Commission could not arbitrarily deny any such application solely because of such interest or association. That is from the conference committee report.

Mr. BAKER. That is correct. Those are actually quoted in our comments to the committee.

Mr. HESELTON. I wonder if there have been any cases of discrimination against radio licensees in granting TV authorizations, against present owners of radio licenses.

Mr. BAKER. As I say, it has been the Commission's position that it has not been authorized to discriminate, it has not discriminated, and that to the extent it has taken into account newspapers it has also taken into account other mass media, such as theaters, radios, and television stations also owned by the applicant.

Mr. HESELTON. Are you familiar with any cases of discrimination against radio licensees who applied for TV channels?

Mr. BAKER. As I have said, the Commission itself does not believe it has discriminated. I am familiar with a number of cases in which the fact that you have additional radio and television stations has been a factor which has ultimately weighed against the applicant in favor of someone else.