May 23, 2012
Mark
Berlin, Policy Division (Political Office)
Federal
Communications Commission
445 12th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554
sent
via email to campaignlaw@fcc.gov
Dear
Mr. Berlin,
June
5th, the election commonly known as the Scott Walker Recall will be held in Wisconsin. (The official campaign began May 9th.) This is an urgent complaint for the failure
of Milwaukee
radio stations WISN and WTMJ to comply with the Zapple Doctrine. As we are more than halfway through this
campaign period, time is of the essence in your reply.
I
represent a group of citizens of the greater Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
area, and am writing this complaint on their behalf. I am a former Radio and TV journalist, media
reform filmmaker, and founder of the Media
Action Center. I am not an attorney, and while I am
including all documentation I believe relevant, I ask that, should there be
technical issues with this complaint, like you requiring legal affidavits or
other precise legal issues or terminology, you please contact me and I will
provide such information in a timely manner, rather than dismissing this
complaint for technical reasons.
Starting
May 9th, the first day of what has become known as the Scott Walker recall
campaign, members of the Media Action Center Wisconsin monitored the five local
Talk Radio programs aired in prime day parts in the Milwaukee radio market.
The
shows include those hosted by Mark Belling, Vicki McKenna, and Jay Weber on
WISN, the 50,000 watt radio station licensed to Clear Channel, and
Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner on WTMJ, the 50,000 watt radio station licensed
to Journal Communications. Both stations are called "News
Talk" by their corporate owners. Both reach far beyond the city of
their license, into most of the state of Wisconsin
and beyond.
Methodology:
Five
separate monitors recorded and timed statements made on each of the five
programs. They counted how many minutes per show have been either clearly
pro-Scott Walker and Anti-Tom Barrett, how many minutes have been anti-Scott
Walker and pro-Barrett, and how many minutes have been pro-GOP and anti
Democrat in general, and how many were pro-Democrat and anti-GOP. They
also monitored statements made about the candidates for Lieutenant Governor and
the State Senate. These will be tabulated in the final tally, but are
statistically small; statements about the Governors race and parties in
general, however, are frequent, so this report will focus on those.
The
monitors were instructed to count only those statements which could be clearly
identified as pro- or anti- one candidate or party.
Examples:
“Governor
Walker is going to be on the show. Yay! My governor is a Jedi.”
Tom
Barrett is an idiot. Tom Barrett is a racist.
“when
good people come forward to run for office the Democrats put a hit squad out on
them.” “Literally.”
Results:
(The following statistics are compiled from shows
that aired between May 9th through May 17th.
We are still compiling more recent data, but find it to be following the
same trend as this data suggests.)
1) Time each licensee is devoting to specifically promoting
each major political party and its candidates prior to the June 5th election.
Findings: (5-9 through 5-17 only)
WISN
Pro
Walker/ anti
Barrett
5-9
1:49:28
5-10
42:54
5-11
1:00:08
5-14
49:46
5-15
48:30
5-16
1:00:26
5-17
53:07
sub
7:04:19
daily
average 60 mins
Pro
GOP/ Anti Dem
5-9
8:43
5-10
6:44
5-11
29:04
5-14
35:32
5-15
14:19
5-16
19:02
5-17
30:32
sub
2:23:56
daily
average 20 mins
Pro-Barrett/Anti-Walker
5-9
4:58
5-10
0:00
5-11
0:00
5-14
0:00
5-15
0:00
5-16
:25
5-17
1:06
sub 6:29
daily average: 55 seconds
Pro-Dem/anti GOP
0:00
daily average: 55 seconds
Pro-Dem/anti GOP
0:00
WTMJ
ProWalker/Anti
Barrett total:
5-9
51:30
5-10
58:58
5-11
51:54
5-14
34:34
5-15
40:49
5-16
50:43
5-17
52:25
subtotal
5:40:53
daily
average 49 minutes
Pro
GOP/ Anti Dem total
5-9
0:00
5-10
1:38:14
5-11
46:15
5-14
31:20
5-15
31:18
5-16
30:57
5-17
38:01
sub
4:36:05
Daily
average 39 minutes
Pro
Barrett Anti/Walker total
0:00
Pro
Dem / Anti GOP total
5-9
0:00
5-10
5:29
5-11
0:00
5-14
0:00
5-15
3:81
5:16
:10
5-17
3:37
sub
13:37
Daily
average 2 minutes
Based
on the first seven days of the recall campaign, we are finding that WISN is
airing an average of about 80 minutes, and WTMJ about 88 minutes, per day of
Pro-Walker/ anti-Barrett and pro-GOP anti-Democrat messages. On the pro-
Barrett side, we have identified a total of just six and one-half minutes of
pro-Barrett messaging over the seven days on WISN, and 13 and a half minutes of
pro-Democratic messaging on WTMJ.
Considering
that the programs monitored air for more than 15 hours daily, this represents a
small percentage of total airtime.
However,
should one wish to purchase that much time during a campaign, the cost would be
quite high. It is difficult to precisely say how many dollars such
airtime would cost, as stations charge lower rates to candidates than they do
to supporters of candidates, and they charge different rates to various
supporters. Stations also are reluctant to release what they consider
proprietary information. Based on inspections of the political files our team
conducted of public files at WISN and WTMJ, we can say that one radio
advertising spot costs roughly $100 to $200, depending on the length and the
time of airing, which means that WISN is giving Walker and his GOP supporters
between $16,000 - $32,000 in free airtime every day, and WTMJ is giving Walker
and his GOP supporters between $18,000 to $36,000 in free time daily.
Most
of the time has been given to supporters of Candidate Walker, although the
candidate himself has appeared as a guest on six programs since the race began
May 9th.
2) Imbalance in coverage offered to each political party and
their candidates.
Based
on the data noted above, WISN and WTMJ are clearly both giving GOP candidates
and supporters more than an hour of daily free time on their licensed stations,
while giving Democratic candidates and their supporters almost none.
In
addition, the cadre of guests booked on the five programs shows a clear
imbalance.
The
three programs aired on WISN, Belling, McKenna and Weber, booked fourteen
guests over first eight days of monitoring. Of the fourteen, only one,
J.R. Ross, can be considered independent analysts. The rest are either
Republican candidates, GOP political appointees, or Republican party
appointees, campaign heads, or current officeholders.
On
WTMJ, seven guests appeared on the two shows over the eight days. Of the
seven, only one, Christian Schneider, may be considered an independent
analyst. The rest are either Republican candidates, GOP political
appointees, or Republican party appointees, campaign heads, or current
officeholders.
Current
candidates as guests within the first eight days of the campaign:
WISN:
GOP
Governor and candidate Scott Walker appeared on all three of WISN's
programs: once on Belling, twice on McKenna, and once on Jay Weber.
GOP Lt Gov. and candidate Rebecca Kleefish appeared once on Belling and once on
McKenna. GOP Candidate Sen. Van Wangaard appeared once on McKenna.
In
addition, GOP Senatorial candidate Eric Hovde appeared as a supporter of Scott
Walker twice on WISN, once on the Belling program, once on the McKenna
show.
WTMJ:
GOP
Governor Scott Walker appeared three times on the Sykes show. Eric Hovde
also appeared once on WTMJ's Sykes show. As Hovde's election will
be held in November, his appearance as a candidate is outside the sixty day
prior to elections rule. His appearance
as a supporter of Walker,
however, is significant and should apply to Zapple.
Section
315 (a) of the Communications Act provides for equal opportunities for major
party candidates should their opponent be given or sold time. The
opposing candidates have seven days from the date of a broadcast to make such a
request.
This
author is unaware whether Democratic candidate for Governor Tom Barrett or candidate
for Lt. Governor Mahlon Mitchell made such requests or whether the stations
made opportunities available to Democratic candidates. This author does not represent any
candidates.
Supporters
of Candidates guesting on programs:
WISN
GOP
Rep Robin Voss appeared once on the Belling program, and once on the Weber
program. Brian Schimming , Vice Chair WI GOP is a regular guest on the
McKenna show, appearing four times over eight days. GOP Rep. Bill
Kramer and GOP State Senator Glenn Grothman each appeared once on
McKenna. GOP Milwaukee City Alderman Bob Donavan appeared once on the
Weber program. GOP State Senator Ron Johnson appeared once on the Weber
program, and GOP State Senator Alberta Darling appeared once on the Weber
programs. Walker
political appointee Stephanie Klett appeared once on the McKenna show.
WTMJ
On
WTMJ, GOP Rep. Robin Vos appeared once on Sykes, as did Walker political appointee Cathy Stepp, and
GOP Milwaukee City Alderman Bob Donavan. GOP State Senator Alberta
Darling appeared once on Wagner's show.
All
these guests were clearly supporters of Scott Wallker and/or the other GOP
candidates.
Under
the quasi-equal opportunities doctrine, in the 60 days prior to an election,
stations must provide comparable time for supporters of the opposing party if
they so request it within seven days of a given broadcast.
Supporters
of Tom Barrett did make such requests; WTMJ denied them comparable time;
WISN has not responded to any requests.
3) What is the quasi-equal opportunities rule?
Section
315 (a) of the Communications Act imposes Equal Opportunities for candidates on
broadcast stations.
Section
315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
"(a) If any
licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any
public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal
opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such
broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power
of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this
section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any
licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.
Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(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), or
(4) on-the-spot
coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political
conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a
broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in
the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in
connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news
documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation
imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to
afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues
of public importance."
The
Zapple Doctrine, from 1970, ruled on Nicholas Zapple's questions about requiring
comparable time not just for candidates themselves, but to supporters of candidates.
Commonly known as the quasi-equal opportunities rule, this applies only to
supporters of major party candidates. Attorneys
for broadcasters have interpreted Zapple to mean that if supporters of one
political party receives free time, supporters of the other political party
must also receive free time.
It
is relevant to note that the Wisconsin Broadcasters' Association Political Manual, 2008, (http://www.gklaw.com/resources/documents/2008%20Political%20Broadcasting%20Manual.pdf ) pages five
and six, specifically tells its Wisconsin
radio and TV stations to comply with the quasi-equal opportunities rule:
"In addition to the equal
opportunities rule, there is also a concept known as the 'Quasi-equal opportunities'
doctrine. When a station sells time to supporters of one candidate to support
that candidate or to criticize an opponent, the broadcaster must afford
comparable time to supporters of the candidate's opponent. Nicholas
Zapple, 23 FCC 2d 707 (1970) Commonly known as the 'Zapple Doctrine,'
this requirement does not apply outside campaign periods or to appearances by a
candidate's supporters that are exempt from the equal opportunity rule, such as
those in news programming.
The Zapple doctrine applies only to
broadcasts concerning major party candidates 1st Fairness Report, 36 FCC 2d 40
(1972). It does not require that free time be given to the opposing side
when the first side paid for its broadcast time, nor is time sold to supporters
under the Zapple doctrine subject to lowest unit charge requirements. If
the first side received free time, the Zapple doctrine requires that the other
side also receive free time."
The
Zapple Doctrine decision refers to both the Fairness Doctrine and to section
315 of the Communications Act. Since the
Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, and formally buried in 2011, there is
a question as to whether the Zapple Doctrine is still intact. A full discussion of why Zapple is relevant
absent the Fairness Doctrine will follow.
4) "Bonafide news"exemptions
The
intent of Section 315 is clear: unless a
radio or TV show is a "bonafide news" program, in the narrow period
just preceding an election, equal opportunities for candidates must be afforded
to candidates of both political parties.
According
to the FCC, programs must meet three tests to be considered "bonafide
news." The program must be regularly scheduled, producers must be in
control of guests and content, and the program must be non-partisan, not
supporting any candidates.
All
five programs meet the requirements of being regularly scheduled and having
producers in control of guests and content. The question remains whether
the programs are non-partisan and not supporting candidates. The
monitoring showed that on this test, all five programs failed, some more
spectacularly than others.
As
shown previously, the number and character or guests invited on the five
programs were heavily tilted toward the GOP side.
As
to whether the shows were non-partisan and not being used in support of any
candidates, we have identified many examples of partisanship on all five
programs.
Hosts
and guests routinely identify themselves as supporters of Scott Walker and the
GOP, they urge listeners to vote for Walker, and
we have documented that three of the shows, those on Clear Channel's WISN, are
actively using the publicly owned radio airwaves to recruit volunteers for Walker and the other GOP
candidates.
Examples:
WISN:
Mark
Belling:
|
|
Vicki McKenna:
McKenna
tells listeners to volunteer for Sen. Wangaard
McKenna
routinely refers to the Republican Party as “we,” not “they”
McKenna
openly advertises tickets for the state Republican convention
Guest
Schimming recruits volunteers for Walker
McKenna
recruits volunteers for Walker, Sen. Wangaard, and Lt. Gov. Kleefisch.
Jay Weber:
“I know I’m partisan”
Praised
all four republican senate candidates – “they would all be good”
“Scott
Walker and we supporters of his”
Weber
asks listeners to volunteer for Walker
campaign, gives website to go to
“we
need more volunteers to make those contact calls”
WTMJ:
Charlie Sykes:
Said
that he was going use his program for Conservatives to give their side of the
story.
"If
Bob Bowman is going to call up an talk while we are talking with Bob Donavan,
we are not going to let him on. He had his shot. Bob Donavan will be
able to make his point uninterrupted by Major Tom Barrett's lacky Aldermen
Bob Bowman."
Jeff Wagner:
I
have “genuine passion and support for the governor”
Because
all five of the local Talk Radio programs on WISN and WTMJ in Milwaukee are showing political
intent in their programming, they do not qualify as "bonafide news"
programs.
5) News
Distortion
|
The
FCC also has clear rules against news distortion, so any program which is distorting
facts in any way cannot be considered "bonafide news." Our monitoring
team has found dozens of examples of factual inaccuracies in all five
programs. Some examples:
Belling:
Obama's stimulus "hasn't produced any gain in employment at all"
McKenna
No Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin
does cancer screenings.
Sykes:
Walker
got more votes than Democrats combined
Legally
proving news distortion to the FCC involves proving station management knows
that such misinformation is going out over the air. While we cannot prove that station management
knew of every instance of factual distortion, given the large amount of such
distortion, it is reasonable to assume the station management is willingly
looking the other way. While radio
program hosts have the first amendment right to lie to the public, if they
willingly distorts facts, their shows must not be considered "bonafide
news" programs.
6) Relevancy of the Zapple Doctrine in absence of the
Fairness Doctrine
The Zapple Doctrine
refers many times both to Section 315 (a) of the Communications Act, and to the
application of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine,
which required broadcasters to provide a reasonable opportunity for contrasting
views, was abolished in 1987. It was unwieldy,
difficult to enforce, and applied to all broadcast programs. (Norman Lear, for example, was sued under the
Fairness Doctrine because his fictional character "Maude" had an
abortion on a TV program. Opponents
sued, saying the broadcaster must air a program where a character did not have
an abortion.) Broadcasters complained
that the Fairness Doctrine chilled free speech.
The Commission ultimately decided that the Fairness Doctrine had the effect
of reducing rather than enhancing speech, which they said did not serve the
public interest as required by law, and abolished it.
Unlike the Fairness
Doctrine, Zapple does not impose blanket rules on stations 365 days a year
concerning issues or topics. It merely,
in the critical 60 days prior to an election, provides that both major
political parties have a comparable opportunity to express their own freedom of
speech on our public airwaves, therefore keeping with the intent of the
Communications Act
to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance, elements that
remain the law today.
The Personal Attack and Political Editorial rules were also related to the
Fairness Doctrine. These rules are not
now considered to not be in effect, although they were never formally repealed.
The NAB and RTNDA sued to relinquish these rules, and asked the United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to throw them out. The court sent the rules back to the FCC,
giving the agency a chance to justify their existence. The FCC responded by
suspending the rules for 60 days to gather new information. The court said the FCC had many opportunities
over years to gather more facts and develop a legal justification for the
rules. So the court threw the rules but because the FCC
took too long to act to justify them -
but not because they were found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the FCC has the power to revive
the rules in a new rulemaking proceeding.
The Personal Attack rule dealt specifically with broadcasters to give notice and free response time to individuals or groups whose "honesty, character or integrity" was attacked in a broadcast. Statements made by legally qualified candidates or their spokespersons during the course of a political campaign were exempted, as were bona fide news programs, which is precisely the intent of Section 315. The Personal Attack rule, like the Fairness Doctrine, was applicable year round, and dealt with narrow statements which could be challenged, thereby chilling free speech.
The narrow interpretation of Zapple is not to identify brief statements for challenge, but to give both major political parties access to the airwaves to make any attacks they wish during the course of an election, thereby enhancing speech.
In addition, as bonafide news programs were exempt, and as statements made by candidates and spokespersons during the course of a political campaign were also exempt, as in 315, and as Zapple deals only with the 60 days prior to a political campaign, the abolition of this rule has no bearing on Zapple.
The Political Editorial Rule required broadcasters endorsing or opposing a political candidate in an editorial to notify and give free rebuttal time to that candidate's political rival. Broadcasters said they were discouraged from airing editorials concerning political races, again chilling free speech. Broadcasters argued this rule prevented station ownership from exercising its free speech right to editorialize.
Zapple does not prevent stations from editorializing. If station management goes on the air promoting or opposing a candidate, saying "these are the views of this station," we do not argue that their station is in violation. Stations may argue that anytime one of their hosts go on the air, they are also representing the views of the station. We challenge this assertion. Station management does not typically know what their hosts will say on the air, so how can it sanction every candidate promotion made by a host? In addition, guests and callers clearly cannot represent station viewpoints, as they are not employed by the stations.
In short, the Zapple
Doctrine differs from the Fairness Doctrine and the Personal Attack Rule and
the Political Editorial rules. Zapple
seeks to enhance free speech, and guards against reducing it, in the critical
60 day period before an election.
The Zapple decision says
"when supporters of candidate A have purchased time, it is our view that
it would be inappropriate to require licensees to in effect subsidize the
campaign of an opposing candidate by providing candidate B's supporters with
free time." We agree with this
logic. However, our data indicates that
WISN and WTMJ are each giving one major political party time valued between
$16,000 to $36,000 every day, and virtually nothing to the opposing party. These stations are clearly subsidizing one
party's candidates over the other, grossly violating the intent of Section 315.
315
also makes clear broadcasters' responsibilities to "operate in the public
interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting
views of issues of public importance."
So although the Fairness Doctrine is gone, broadcasters' responsibility
to the public interest is the law of the land.
It cannot be argued that such extreme political imbalance in the days
just prior to an election is serving the interest of the public in Wisconsin.
7) Effects of Media Consolidation
When the Communications
Act was written, when Zapple was adopted, no one could have foreseen the rise
of Talk Radio, which was created by unlimited radio ownership limits provided
by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
All the Talk Radio in Milwaukee is
"Conservative," following a national trend. According to the 2007 Free Press/ Center for
American Progress report, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk
Radio, (http://www.freepress.net/files/talk_radio.pdf) more than 90% of
communities across the country have no access to any commercial radio which is
not "Conservative."
WISN and WTMJ are self
described "Conservative" Talk radio stations. There are no self-described
"Progressive" or "Liberal" Talk radio stations in
Milwaukee, despite the communities' continuing requests to Clear Channel (which
owns six stations there) to provide one.
There is only one self described "progressive" station in the
entire state of Wisconsin, in Madison.
While the FCC cannot
change ownership rules, it must balance the intent of Section 315 and Zapple
with the needs of individual communities like Milwaukee which have no other radio source of
daily political information during political campaigns other than the
"Conservative" Talk stations to get complete and balanced political
coverage. WISN's signal reaches 200
miles from its station, and WTMJ's signal reaches 300 miles from its station,
so people in communities all across Wisconsin
have no options for "NewsTalk" on their radio dials other than these
two stations. Their ability to influence
voters reaches far beyond their community of license. In contrast, the lonely progressive station
in Madison only
reaches 40 miles. Madison
also has a 2,000 watt Community radio station which also reaches about 40
miles. (NPR stations are found in Wisconsin,
and provide very small amounts of balanced local political information, in
between national programs which cover the rise of the ant population in the Sub
Sahara and the like.)
This is especially
important during a statewide election like the Scott Walker recall. Because there are no viable alternatives for
people in Wisconsin
to turn to on their radio dials, this makes the intent of 315 and its
relationship to Zapple during campaign periods even more relevant.
8) Scarcity
Therefore, part of what
the Commissioners must consider is what is known as "physical scarcity"
in broadcasting.
Because there are only a
limited number of frequencies available for broadcast in one community, they
are considered physically scarce. The
question arises in this modern age of cable TV and the internet whether
physical scarcity in broadcasting really matters any more. Luckily, in 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals answered that
question in Prometheus Radio v FCC. "Deregulatory Petitioners" including
Clear Channel (owner of WISN) argued that scarcity is no longer relevant. The court ruled:
"Deregulatory Petitioners ask us to overturn the scarcity
doctrine. That doctrine establishes that - In light of [their] physical
scarcity, Government allocation and regulation of broadcast frequencies are
essential ... We continue to decline [Deregulatory Petitioners'] invitation to
disregard precedent ... The abundance of non-broadcast media does not render
the broadcast spectrum any less scarce. The Supreme Court's justification for
the scarcity doctrine remains as true today as it was in 2004 --- indeed, in
1975 --- many more people would like to access the [broadcast spectrum] than
can be accommodated.
We agree with the FCC that the rules do not violate the First Amendment
because they are rationally related to substantial government interests in
promoting competition and protecting viewpoint diversity."
In addition, contrary to
popular opinion, according to Arbitron, “Radio Today: How America Listens to
Radio, 2007 edition:
"radio has the greatest penetration of any media (print,
broadcast, or digital,) reaching 90 percent of Americans each week."
And in 2011, Katz Media
Group (a subsidiary of Clear Channel) President Mark Gray said,
"The weekly reach of radio is higher now than it was three decades
ago -- yet the power of radio to reach and influence consumers unfortunately
remains a bit of a well-kept secret."
So there is no question
that the Commission needs to concern itself with the public interest in radio
now and for many years to come.
9) Private Censorship
What we are seeing in
today's radio climate, however, is "Private Censorship." We commonly think of censorship as government
dictating what a person, or in this case a radio station, may or may not say, and I think we all agree
that is not the role of government.
However, the Supreme
Court ruled in Red Lion v FCC that
"the First Amendment does not protect private censorship by
broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which
is denied to others."
Private Censorship is
exactly the problem in Milwaukee.
Clear Channel, which has
licenses for six large stations in Milwaukee,
uses its largest 50,000 watt frequency to broadcast "Conservative News
Talk" to listeners within hundreds of miles, as does Journal
Communications' WTMJ. In the 60 days
prior to an election, we have demonstrated that these stations are
intentionally promoting one political party, while willfully ignoring requests
from supporters of the other political party comparable time. Because of scarcity, these supporters can't
just walk across the street and get on a different 50,000 watt station to air
their views; they must rely on the "NewsTalk"
broadcasters which dominate their market to provide them access, which they
have refuse to do.
Zapple narrowly protects
supporters of candidates, only during campaign periods, from private censorship
by broadcasters who may be serving their own political agendas to the exclusion
of any other local political views.
10) Standing
In
order for the quasi-equal opportunities Doctrine to be triggered, supporters of
candidates must request comparable time from the station within seven days of
an imbalanced broadcast.
Several
Tom Barrett supporters have complied with this rule. WTMJ has written
them back, denying them time; WISN has not responded to the dozens of
requests sent to them. I am forwarding
copies of some of those emails to you in separate emails, and will provide them
all upon request.
11) Plea for
intervention
We ask the Commission to
look closely at the intent behind both Section 315 and the Zapple Doctrine and
to require WISN and WTMJ to immediately require WISN and WTMJ to provide comparable
time to both major political parties in this statewide race with national
implications. In the letter adopted by
the Commission in Zapple, Commissioner Nicholas Johnson wrote, "I see no
legal reason why the Commission could not rule that Section 315 (a) encompasses
spokespersons for or supporters of political candidates as a logical extension
of congressional intent."
We ask the Commission to
understand that Zapple is enforceable even absent the Fairness Doctrine, that
WISN and WTMJ are violating the intent of Section 315(a), and to find in the 60
days prior to an election, stations may not intentionally censor speech by
denying those who need to access the public airwaves during critical campaign
periods.
12) Time is of the essence
We
are now in day 16 of the 28 day Scott Walker recall campaign. On behalf of the citizens of Milwaukee, I ask the Commission to rule
immediately so that supporters of the major political party which have been
shut out of the debate on the radio airwaves may have their say now, while the
campaign is ongoing.
Respectfully,
Sue Wilson
Sue
Wilson
Founder,
Media Action Center
cc:
FCC
Chairman
Julius Genachowski
Commissioner
Robert McDowell
Commissioner
Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner
Jessica Rosenworcel
Commissioner
Ajit Pai
Hope
Cooper, Media Bureau
Jerry
Bott, WISN
Jeff
Tyler, WISN
Joe
Scialfa, WTMJ
Steve
Wexler, WTMJ
