Back to Index

 

 

 

 

 

In Re Application for RENEWAL OF STANDARD BROADCAST AND TELEVISION LICENSES FOR

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA

 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

 

21 F.C.C.2d 35 (1969)

 

SEPTEMBER 24, 1969.

 


 

ACTION: 

 

APPLICATION

 

[*35]  The Commission by Commissioners Hyde, Chairman; Bartley, Robert E. Lee, Cox, Wadsworth, and Johnson, with H. Rex Lee absent and with Commissioners Cox and Johnson dissenting and issuing the following statement, noted the staff report on actions it proposed to take on renewal applications for the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia for the renewal period beginning October 1, 1969.

 

Renewal Standards: The District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia License Renewals (October 1, 1969)

 

A STATEMENT OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONERS KENNETH A. COX AND NICHOLAS JOHNSON

 

A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful, which God has implanted in the human soul.

 

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

OK.

 

Now that we know the public will watch anything, let's show them something worth watching.

 

OK?

 

Mason Williams.

 

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

 

Once every 3d year, the licenses of broadcasters come up for renewal before this Commission.  On October 1, 1969, the broadcast licenses for Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia were before us.  With very little inquiry into the performance of the licensees, the Commission renewed these broadcasters' leases on the public's airwaves.  As the two of us have done in the past, we dissent to the wholesale renewal of these licenses, and have again attempted to provide some minimum, basic standards by which the FCC could judge its licensees.

 

Our first effort in the development of programming criteria was to single out those broadcasters performing below certain minimum levels.  In dissent, we urged that these licensees be asked to explain how  [*36]  their performance justified renewal of their licenses.  See, e.g., "Renewal of Standard Broadcast and Television Licenses," 11 F.C.C. 2d 809, 810 (1968) (Iowa and Missouri).  Realizing that this measure of performance was crude, we next did an in-depth study of broadcasting in a single renewal area -- Oklahoma.  This study was an analysis of media ownership, and broadcast performance and responsibility to the local communities of the State.  We attempted to ascertain in a rough way the needs and desires of the individual communities, and then to set down the results of the broadcasters' performance to see if these needs and desires were met.  See "Broadcasting in America and the FCC's License Renewal Process: An Oklahoma Case Study," 14 F.C.C. 2d 1 (1968). Though in many cases the performance was obviously below what every citizen has a right to expect, our colleagues renewed the licenses without an inquiry into the reasons for the deficiencies.

 

Our last effort in developing criteria to judge licensees in the renewal process was an analysis of the 24 commercial television stations in New York State.  The stations were ranked against each other in tables dealing with approximately 20 categories.  There also was a composite ranking.  Though the statistical method may have been far from precise, it is to our knowledge the first effort that has ever been made to judge quantitatively the performance of broadcasters.  For all its shortcomings, it was at least an effort to create something more than the FCC's current rubber stamp renewal of licenses every 3 years.  But again our colleagues were unimpressed and refused to modify their license processing.  See "New York State License Renewals," 18 F.C.C. 2d 268, 169 (1969).

 

In this current study we analyzed the broadcasters of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia in much the same way as was done in the New York study.  We used the same criteria and the same methods in compiling the tables.  We have decided, however, not to print our statistical findings here.  Subsequent to our preparation of this report, there was made available to the FCC, a bound, 336-page document entitled "Television Today: The End of Communication and the Death of Community" (1969).  The report contains five articles, a report of a black teenage conference, interviews with black leaders in Washington, an appendix of relevant documents, and an analysis and statistics on "Television in the Mid-Atlantic Region." The statistical analysis in this final chapter is similar to what we did in the New York renewals opinion, and what we had originally contemplated using here.  But it is much more than either of these reports.  For example, the study contains comparative data in many categories for 1963, 1966, and 1969.  Due to limitations of staff and time, our report only contained data for 1969.  The study also has tables not included in our report.  For example, it contains data comparing each of the network affiliates in the top-50 markets on the basis of such factors as news and public affairs.

 

In our opinion on the New York renewals we recognized that, with the present makeup of the FCC, our attempts at developing programming standards were likely to remain more in the nature of an attempt at thoughtful analysis than probable future FCC policy.  In that opinion we urged the professional and academic communities to  [*37]  contribute improved versions of studies similar to ours.  We recognized that our report had statistical flaws, but we urged others to make an attempt to build on and improve our attempt.  The analysis in "Television in the Mid-Atlantic Region" is the response of one such group.  It is certainly the most thoughtful and thorough evaluation of a group of license renewals ever filed by a citizens group.  We cannot, of course, guarantee its accuracy, although the results generally accord with our own analysis.  We do not represent that the FCC should act upon such a citizens' group report -- granting some license renewals and denying others -- without independent analysis of its findings.  Were our colleagues willing to take the license renewal process seriously we would urge such an independent analysis here.  Given the present state of affairs, we have merely decided to reprint it as appendix A to our study instead of our own statistical report, because of its completeness and the advance over our New York approach.

 

For this study we have developed two parts that were not included in our previous efforts.  We have analyzed the ownership data of the broadcasters in this renewal area.  We have attempted to determine exactly who owns the broadcast facilities and their relationship to the communities they serve.  Both the prevention of concentration of control and the encouragement of local ownership have been expressed as desirable goals by this Commission.  The data on ownership show how far we are from the realization of either of these goals.

 

A second innovation in this study is an examination of citizens' complaints against the licensees.  Every letter from a viewer, after being acted upon, is filed in a station's file.  These letters are ostensibly to be considered when a determination is made as to whether the broadcaster's license should be renewed.  But, as far as we know, they have seldom played a meaningful role in the Commission's renewal process.  If they were read by the staff of the Renewal and Transfer Division, no information derived in the process has been reported to the Commissioners.  We have read all complaints in two market areas (Washington and Clarksburg-Fairmont, W. Va.).  This may be the first time that all the complaints in a market have been read and considered by Commissioners before action is taken on the license renewals.

 

As in our previous studies and opinions concerning the renewal process, we wish to anticipate and dispose of the inevitable charges by the industry that we are imposing censorship upon the programming decisions of the broadcasters.  The FCC is prohibited by law from censorship of broadcasters, 47 U.S.C. 326 (1964), and we have personally expressed our distaste for all censorship many times.  See, e.g., Johnson, "The Silent Screen," TV Guide, July 5, 1969, at 6; CBS Complaint, F.C.C. 69-1135, October 17, 1969; WBBM Complaint, 18 F.C.C. 2d 124, 140, 142 (1969); WBAI Complaints, 17 F.C.C. 2d 204, 210 (1969). This survey of programming, as the New York survey, is not undertaken with the idea that any given program, subject matter, ideology or mix of programming, is best -- or is even minimally required for a license renewal.  These decisions are left to the broadcaster and his local community.  However, the FCC has often been  [*38]  concerned with the quality, responsiveness, and responsibility of programming in general.  See, e.g., "Ascertainment of Community Needs by Broadcast Applicants," F.C.C.  Public Notice 19880, August 22, 1968; Programming Policy, 20 P. & F. Radio Reg. 1901 (1960); Public Service Responsibility of Broadcast Licensees, Report by Federal Communications Commission, March 7, 1946.  We have recognized that in a democratic society -- especially when broadcasters are using public property for private profit -- there is a need for news, public affairs, and local programming.  There is a need for journalism which, while it is free, serves the community that supports it.  To be a responsible broadcaster in modern society there is a need to do more than televise network reruns and old movies, interspersed with innumerable appeals to the viewer's pocketbook.

 

In other words, the basic idea of this study is to ascertain how well the broadcasters in this renewal area have served the public interest.  This is the duty charged to this Commission by Congress.  (47 U.S.C. 309(a) (1964).) That a consideration of programming performance is a part of this duty is obvious from legislative history.  See, e.g., material cited in Rosenbloom, "Authority of the Federal Communications Commission," Freedom and Responsibility in Broadcasting 96 (Coons ed. 1961).  It is obvious that we have failed to perform our responsibility to renew licenses in the public interest.  Our failure is shown not by the fact that the sense of responsibility of the broadcasting industry is worse than that of any other business, but by the fact that despite over 30 years of FCC regulation it is no better; that as McGeorge Bundy has said, broadcasters still think of themselves as an industry when they are necessarily so much more.

 

Until the FCC can agree to develop and apply some criteria for judging the performance of the broadcasters who ask for license renewal, the two of us will continue to dissent to this automatic renewal of licenses to use the public's airwaves.

As always, we have attempted to minimize error within the bounds of the resources available to us.  Nonetheless, mistakes are bound to creep into a project of this size.  We have not generally attempted to update the report beyond information available in late August 1969.  Thus, for example, license renewal hearings since then are not taken into account.  The sheer administrative burden of putting a report together dictated some arbitrary cut off.

 

Finally, we wish to note our special debt and appreciation to two summer interns who, with our permanent staff assistants, worked with us on this project with abundant cheer, energy and imagination: Charles Rosenberg, a 2d year student at Harvard Law School, and Jeneen Sheeban, a 4th year student at American University majoring in communications.

 

A.  OWNERSHIP ANALYSIS

 

Analysis of data

 

There are 350 commercial broadcast facilities in the renewal area (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia).  Of these, 33 are television stations, 82 are FM radio stations (not including subcarrier operations on which commercial background music,  [*39]  like Muzak, is played), and 235 are AM radio stations.  As a result of the common ownership of many of these facilities, there are fewer than 250 owners.  In fact, the effective concentration is perhaps better revealed by the statistic that the television stations of the four largest corporate owners in the area -- 12.5 percent of the television stations -- earned 37 percent of the broadcast revenues and 40 percent of the broadcast operating income in 1968.  The stations of the six owners whom we have designated independent -- 18 percent of the stations -- earned less than 7 percent of the broadcast revenues and less than 4 percent of the broadcast operating income.

 

Common ownership appears in varying combinations.  There are 76 AM-FM combinations, 14 TV-AM-FM combinations, five TV-AM combinations, and three TV-FM combinations, we well as two sets of TV stations in different cities with common ownership.

We have analyzed the ownership of 34 television stations in the license renewal area.  This includes the 33 whose licenses expire on October 1, plus WSTV-TV in Steubenville, Ohio, whose license is renewed with the Ohio renewals but whose signal is an important part of the Wheeling, W. Va., television market.

 

The television owners in this area seem to fall naturally into five categories:

 

(1) Conglomerates. -- Nationally, there are a few giants among TV station owners.  Three of them -- RCA, Metromedia, and Westinghouse -- own stations in the renewal area.  Each is a national conglomerate corporation of some prominence, and is a multimedia owner as well (mixing networks, stations, program ownership, publishing, cable television, films, records, and so forth).

 

(2) National multimedia group. -- A number of licensees are also major publishers.  These include the Hearst holdings, the smaller, but growing and influential, Post-Newsweek group, and Capital Cities, which has only recently become a national publishing influence through its acquisition of Fairchild Publications.

 

(3) Regional multimedia group. -- These licensees are not as large and influential on the national scene as Post-Newsweek or Hearst, but do exercise control over a substantial number of television stations and newspapers.  Some dominate one or two cities, some a State, some a region.  Included are Evening Star Broadcasting, Baltimore Sun Stations, Forward Communications, Landmark Communications, Times-World Corp., and the Daily Telegraph & Printing Co.

 

(4) Multiple-station owners. -- These licensees have no direct publishing interests, nor are they as large as the conglomerates.  Each, however, owns a number of radio and television stations; many are technically conglomerates (though small ones) in that they engage in significant other businesses in addition to their broadcast interests.

Included are LIN, Reeves, Rollins, Gilmore, Roy H. Park, Jefferson Pilot, United Broadcasting, Nationwide Communications, Christian Broadcasting, and Broadcast Industries.

 

(5) Independents. -- Only six of the 34 television station owners can be considered independent, and even they are often affiliated with a radio station in the same town.  These include Shenandoah Life, Appalachian Broadcasting, Robert, R. Thomas, Jr., R.L. Drake, Peninsula  [*40]  Radio, and Roanoke Telecasting.  Even some of these single television station independents are involved with substantial banking or insurance company interests.

 

Each of the 34 owners is described below in some detail.  Some analyses are less complete than others, primarily because information is more readily available for those which are publicly held corporations.  Some owners have failed, moreover, to give full and adequate answers to questions on the FCC's renewal form, making our task more difficult.

 

Conglomerates

 

Radio Corp. of America: WRC-TV, Washington, D.C.

 

WRC-TV in Washington, D.C., is owned by the National Broadcasting Co. (NBC), which is, in turn, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Radio Corp. of America (RCA).  WRC, as the Washington NBC affiliate, is one of the most profitable stations in the Nation's eighth largest market.  RCA also owns WRC-AM and WRC-FM in Washington.

 

The principal influence of RCA-NBC comes, of course, from its network television programming service to approximately 200 affiliates throughout the country.  But RCA is also well entrenched in ownership of stations in the most profitable markets.  It has television stations in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago -- the country's three largest and most profitable markets -- and a radio station in each of these cities except Los Angeles.  The lack of radio outlet in Los Angeles, however, is compensated in California by RCA's ownership of a powerful 50,000-w.  AM station in San Francisco, RCA also owns television and radio stations in Cleveland, Ohio, the Nation's eighth largest market.

 

Thus, all RCA's television stations are in the profitable, populous, and influential "top 50" markets.  Altogether, there are 30,305,000 people within the markets covered by RCA's owned television outlets -- about 15 percent of the national population n1 -- virtually the entire national population is within the coverage area of NBC affiliates. 

 

n1 This population figure is derived from an estimate made in connection with the filing of a transfer application.  See transfer applications for WCKY-AM and WLBW-TV (BALCT 385: BAL-6643) attachment 2, 1969.

 

RCA also owns cable television (CATV) systems in Kingston, N.Y.; Saugus-Newhall, Calif.; and Seattle and Bellevue, Wash.  Outside the country, it has small interests -- 10 to 20 percent -- in television stations and networks in Australia, Venezuela, and Hong Kong.

 

In addition to its television and radio interests, RCA is involved in the performing arts.  In its own words: "From time to time, [RCA] * * * has and will continue to have interests in Broadway theatrical productions." n2 In a related medium, RCA has recently purchased Random House, which publishes books under many labels, including Random House, Alfred A. Knopf, Borzoi, Pantheon, and Modern Library.  Random House also includes L. W. Singer Co., Inc., which publishes elementary and high school textbooks. 

 

n2 Exhibit No. I-3, renewal application for WRC-TV, July 1969.

 

 [*41]  Besides its media holdings, RCA is a major corporate manufacturer of broadcasting equipment and components.  Its products, manufactured through a large number of branches and subsidiaries, include stereos, color television, transmitters, tape recorders, and other electronic components of many kinds.

 

RCA is a senior member of the military-industrial complex, manufacturing a large array of defense products, from radar to guided missile equipment.  Indeed, nearly 20 percent of RCA's business in 1967 was from Government defense contracts.  RCA owns an international common carrier (RCAC, Inc.) and maintains a large sales organization (RCA Distributing Co.) to distribute its products.  It also maintains branches for training personnel (RCA Institutes, Inc.) and for the development of new products (RCA Laboratories).

 

In recent years, RCA has moved into still other areas.  It recently purchased Hertz Rent-A-Car, which has 4,500 locations in 765 cities and owns 64,000 automobile, 29,000 trucks, and approximately 230 parking locations.  And on November 5, 1969, RCA announced its agreement to purchase F. M. Stamper Co., a frozen-food producer, for $140.6 million of common stock.

 

Perhaps the most impressive fact about RCA, however, is not its diversification, but its size.  It is the 20th largest U.S. corporation, with total assets of $2.5 billion and total sales of over $3 billion.  RCA recently attempted to merge with the St. Regis Paper Co., the Nation's 127th largest corporation, but the merger was called off.  Had this merger been consummated, RCA would have become the Nation's 13th largest corporation, and the RCA publishing subsidiaries would have had a ready source of below-cost paper supply.

 

 [*42]  [SEE GRAPHIC IN ORIGINAL]

 

 [*43]  Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.: WJZ-TV, Baltimore

 

The Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Westinghouse Electric Corp., owns and operates WJZ-TV in Baltimore.  One of three network stations in Baltimore, this ABC affiliate is one of the most profitable in the renewal area.

 

Although Westinghouse Broadcasting owns no other stations in the renewal area, it does have large broadcasting interests which includes important television stations in Philadelphia (market rank 4), Boston (market rank 5), San Francisco (market rank 7), and Pittsburgh (market rank 10).

 

Westinghouse also owns radio stations in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, Chicago, and Los Angeles.  Five of the seven Westinghouse radio stations are 50,000-w. stations, the highest power authorized by the Commission.  Westinghouse has CATV's, operating or franchised, at Cairo and Dublin (area), Ga.; Panama City and Tallahassee, Fla.; and the Bronx, N.Y.  It also owns Micro-Relay, Inc.

 

The parent company, Westinghouse Electric Corp., is a conglomerate whose holdings stretch from Germany to the Philippines.  Its total assets are well over $2 billion and its sales over $3 billion, ranking it 17th nationally.  Its product and service line is so diversified that Moody's is required to devote 58 lines merely to a summary description of its basic products.  It also lists 93 subsidiary companies that are wholly or predominantly owned.

 

Indeed, the company's products are so many and its holdings so widespread, that the average person runs the risk of being touched everyday by some Westinghouse product or service.  The average American may awake in the morning to a clock-radio made by Westinghouse, whose power comes from a nuclear generating station made by Westinghouse.  After brushing his teeth with a Westinghouse electric toothbrush and shaving in a mirror lighted by a Westinghouse fluorescent bulb, he can put on clothes laundered in a Westinghouse washer.  He may then ascend to his office in a Westinghouse elevator, in a building cooled by a Westinghouse air-conditioning system, and begin the day's work with a series of business reports compiled by a Westinghouse computer system.  In many cities when he goes home in the evening he can watch a Westinghouse television station on his Westinghouse television set.  The evening news may show a great deal of Westinghouse equipment, from missile launching equipment to airborne weapon control systems.  This giant company, of which its media holdings are a very small but powerful part, has the ability to affect and influence much of American life.

 

 [*44]  [SEE GRAPHIC IN ORIGINAL]

 

 [*45]  Metromedia, Inc.: WTTG-TV, Washington, D.C.

 

Metromedia, Inc., is the owner of television station WTTG in Washington, D.C., one of the most profitable in the renewal area.  Metromedia also owns two radio stations in the area -- WASH-FM in Washington and WCBM-AM in Baltimore.

Elsewhere in the Nation, the company owns television stations in the first (New York, WNEW), the second (Los Angeles, KTTV) and the seventh (San Francisco, KNEW) national markets.  Washington is the eighth largest market, Metromedia also owns a television station in Kansas City, Mo. (KMBC), which ranks 23d.

 

Metromedia's radio stations tend to be in the same high population areas.  It has radio stations in all but one of the cities (Kansas City) in which it has television stations as well as two stations in Philadelphia and two in Cleveland.  Two of its radio stations are 50,000-watt facilities, blanketing large areas of the east coast at night and substantial areas even during the day.

Metromedia plans to grow larger in the near future.  As of this writing, it has an application pending for the assignment of a new television station (WFLD-TV) in Chicago.

 

Although Metromedia is not a conglomerate in the traditional sense, it might well be called a "media conglomerate," or multimedia combine.  With its far-flung broadcasting activities, Metromedia seems to have the potential for reaching vast numbers of Americans everyday with some sort of message.

 

Its television facilities are well spaced across the county -- two on the east coast, one in the Midwest, two on the west coast.  Its Metro Transit Advertising Division has franchises to put advertisements in the buses and subways of 10 large cities -- Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.  By Metromedia's estimate, 21,000 vehicles are involved.

 

Through its Foster & Kleiser Division, Metromedia runs a substantial outdoor advertising operation, encompassing 29,000 billboards.  Through its Metromail Group, Metromedia reaches into people's homes via a mail marketing operation.  It also owns Playbill Magazine -- distributed free to patrons of 1,884 theaters around the country -- and Metromedia Producers Corp., makes and distributes films.  The Ice Capades is also a Metromedia subsidiary.

Thus, through many media -- television and radio, bus and subway advertising, direct mail and theater magazines, films and outdoor advertising -- Metromedia blankets the major population centers with its product.  Its message is its product.

 

  [*46]  [SEE GRAPHIC IN ORIGINAL]

 

 [*47]  National multimedia group

 

Post-Newsweek Stations: WTOP-TV, Washington, D.C.

 

WTOP-TV in Washington, D.C., is owned and operated by Post-Newsweek Stations.  In addition to this profitable TV facility, Post-Newsweek owns WTOP-AM and WTOP-FM in Washington as well as WJXT-TV in Jacksonville, Fla.  And the Commission on September 24, 1969, approved the additional acquisitions of WLBW-TV, Miami, Fla., and WCKY-AM, Cincinnati, Ohio.

The parent company, the 100-percent owner of Post-Newsweek, is the Washington Post Co., which publishes the Washington Post, the only morning paper in the Nation's Capital.  The Washington Post, with a circulation of 479,00, has about 48 percent of the daily newspaper circulation in this three-newspaper city.  The Post's influence is not to be measured by its circulation alone; it is read by, and influences, national leaders from the White House to Capitol Hill.

 

The Washington Post Co. is not restricted in its media ownership to local television, radio, and newspapers.  It also owns an extremely potent force on the national scene -- Newsweek magazine -- one of the three major newsweeklies.  With a circulation of over 2 million copies per week, Newsweek reaches into practically every city and town in America, bringing to many people the only thorough presentation of national news that they receive on a systematic basis.

 

Through subsidiaries, the Washington Post Co. also publishes Art News, a low circulation art magazine; owns the majority of stock in a warehouse, terminal, and storage facility in Arlington, Va. (Robinson Terminal Warehouse Corp.); publishes Book World, which appears in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post; and owns a half-interest in the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service -- a national newswire service of substantial reach and influence.

 

The Post also owns 30 percent of the International Herald Tribune, published in Paris and distributed all over Western Europe.  Another Post possession is TV Channels, a magazine of articles and television schedules that appears in Sunday newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press, the Dallas News, the Baltimore News American and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  Finally, the Post owns 49 percent of a newsprint mill in Canada (Bowaters Mercy Paper Co.).

 

Because the Washington Post Co. is a closely held family-dominated corporation, it is difficult to obtain an exact accounting of its financial worth.  Figures are available for Post-Newsweek stations alone, however, which show them to have total assets of just over $31 million.  n1 When the assets of Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the other interest are added, the Washington Post Co. is a substantial media influence, notwithstanding its relatively small number of television stations. 

 

n1 Computed before the addition of the two stations on Sept. 24, 1969.

 

Like other rapidly growing media conglomerates, the Post has acquired much of its broadcast and other property within the last decade and seems to be on an expanding course, witnessed by its recently granted application to purchase a radio station in Cincinnati  [*48]  and a television station in Miami.  These moves will, by the Post's own estimate, add a million people to its potential audience.

 

The Hearst Corp.: WBAL-TV, Baltimore

 

William Randolph Hearst, an almost legendary figure in American history, has been dead for over 30 years.  He is hardly gone.  His influence lives on through an intertwined system of family, foundations, newspapers, magazines, and trusts.  All converge in one way or another on the Hearst Corp., with offices on Eighth Avenue in New York and assets of $229 million.

 

The Hearst Corp. is the owner of WBAL-TV-AM-FM in Baltimore, as well as WTAE-TV-AM-FM in Pittsburgh, WISN-TV-AM-FM in Milwaukee, and WAPA-AM in Puerto Rico.  The heart of the Hearst empire, however, is neither in WBAL nor in broadcasting, but in the eight newspapers and 19 magazines that it publishes.

 

In Baltimore -- the same city in which WBAL-TV-AM-FM is located -- Hearst owns the largest newspaper in town, the News American (daily circulation: 217,000), with 51 percent of the market.

 

Hearst also owns papers in several other large cities.  On the west coast its Herald Examiner (circulation: 721,000) captures 32 percent of the circulation in Los Angeles, while in San Francisco, the Sunday and evening Examiner (circulation: 220,372 daily; 701,185 Sunday) is the only evening paper in town; on Sunday it is published jointly with the Chronicle, the only morning paper.

On the east coast, the Hearst Corp. has three papers: the Baltimore News American and a Sunday and daily paper in Boston.  The Boston Record American (circulation: 433,372) is the largest paper in the city, with 39 percent of the daily circulation, while the Advertiser (circulation: 432,963) has 33 percent of the Sunday circulation in Boston.

 

Hearst also owns papers in several smaller cities.  In Albany, N.Y., it owns the Times Union (circulation: 71,000 morning; 145,000 Sunday) and the Knickbocker News (evening circulation: 56,000).  Since there are no other newspapers in Albany, Hearst has a monopoly of the newspaper market in the capital of the Nation's second largest state.

 

In San Antonio, Tex., Hearst owns the Light (circulation: 116,000), with 45 percent of the daily newspaper sold.  In the Pacific Northwest, Hearst owns the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (daily circulation: 206,000), with 45 percent of the daily newspaper circulation in Seattle.  Altogether, there are 1,820,000 Hearst papers sold in this country everyday except Sunday.

 

The Hearst Corp.'s monthly magazines represent 19 different publications in fields ranging from brides and cars to sports and science.  Hearst magazines come rolling off the presses at the rate of 11 million copies per month.  They include:

 

House Beautiful (circulation: 981,168 per month).

Good Housekeeping (circulation: 5,030,641 per month).

Cosmopolitan (circulation: 889,175 per month).

Motor (circulation: 140,465 per month).

Motor Boating (circulation: 109,308 per month).

Town and Country (circulation: 110,083 per month).

 [*49]  Harper's Bazaar (circulation: 427,064 per month).

Bride and Home (circulation: 180,414 every 3 months).

Sports Afield (circulation: 1,361,443 per month).

Popular Mechanics (circulation: 1,630,212 per month).

American Druggist (circulation: 1,771 paid, 65,900 distributed free every 2 weeks).

Science Digest (circulation: 146,908 per month).

 

In addition to its American publications, Hearst publishes seven magazines -- House Beautiful, The Connoisseur, Harper's Bazaar, Vanity Fair, She, Studio International and Small Car -- through a British subsidiary, the National Magazine Co., Ltd.  The Omega Publishing Corp. of Miami, another subsidiary, puts out a Spanish language edition of Good Housekeeping.

 

In its most recent application, Hearst for the first time revealed some of its interest other than newspapers, magazines, and broadcasting. 

 

First, Hearst is the owner of Avon Books, a book publisher. 

 

Second, Hearst owns the publisher's Service Bureau, Inc., a magazine sales and subscription business. 

 

Third, Hearst has music and film interests. interests.  Through a subsidiary, Features Music Corp. of New York, it owns the rights to music connected with film features.  Through another subsidiary, King Features Television Productions, Inc. (New York), it is engaged in a joint venture producing television cartoon films.  Hearst also owns a one-half interest in Hearst Metrotone News, Inc., a producer of movie news features. 

 

Fourth, Hearst is in the interconnected businesses of waterpower, newsprint, paper, and printing.  These businesses are carried on through the Androscoggin Waterpower Co. (dams and waterpower sites); Halifax Power & Pulp Co. (newsprint); Arthur Schroeder Paper Co., Inc. (paper products); and the Hesco Supply Co. (printing machinery and equipment).  Fifth, Hearst is in the advertising market.  Key Market Advertising Representatives, Inc., of New York, a wholly owned Hearst subsidiary, sells advertising in newspapers.

 

Hearst also has a few nonproprietary, ownership interests, including a 5-percent interest in United Press International -- one of the two American news wire services serving this Nation's newspapers, television, and radio stations.  In addition, several members of the Hearst family control companies independent of the Hearst Corp.  For example, R. A. Hearst is a 60-percent owner of EFL, Inc., a selling organization for lighting equipment, and William R. Hearst, Jr., through a directorship and over 30,000 shares of stock in Twentieth-Century Fox, has an ownership interest in television station KMSP in St. Paul Minn.

Unlike most of the large broadcasting corporations in America, Hearst is not a public stock corporation.  Rather it is a tightly controlled, family corporation.  As best as can be determined, its stock is held by only 14 individuals and two charitable foundations -- the Hearst Foundation of New York and the William Randolph Hearst Foundation of California.  Control of the corporation is exercised  [*50]  under a voting trust.  The trustees are directors of the Hearst Corp., its subsidiaries, the foundation and often all three.  n1

 

n1 For example, W. R. Hearst, Jr., is editor-in-chief, Hearst Newspapers, and a director of the Hearst Foundation and the W. R. Hearst Foundation.  He also serves on the board of directors of the San Luis Mining Co., Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corp., and United Press International.

 

Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp.: WSAZ-TV, Huntington, W. Va.

 

WSAZ-TV in Huntington, W. Va., is owned by Capital Cities Broadcasting Corp., as is WSAZ-AM in the same city.  Capital Cities is a broadcast-publishing corporation with headquarters in Albany, N.Y.

 

Capital's broadcasting interests consist of five television stations, one UHF satellite, seven AM radio stations and five FM radio stations.  Of these 18 properties, three are in the corporation's home city of Albany, and five are in the State of New York.

Capital also owns a subsidiary called WTVD Cablevision, Inc., whose purpose is to explore the possible development of CATV systems.  Capital states that this subsidiary is dormant with no plans for use in the immediate future.

 

While most of the big newspaper-broadcasting empires have started out as newspapers and moved into broadcasting, Capital has gone the other way.  It started out as a broadcast group and only recently entered the newspaper field by its 1968 purchase of Fairchild Publications.

 

Fairchild publishes a large number of newspapers in the trade-press field.  While not generally well known to the public, these specialized journals are extremely influential in the fields that they cover.

 

Thus, Capital, through Fairchild, is now in the business of supplying information to the garment industry (Women's Wear Daily, circulation: 63,618; Men's Wear Magazine, circulation: 28,451 semimonthly); the home furnishing industry (Home Furnishings Daily, circulation: 38,227); the metal industry (Metal working News, circulation: 58,742 per week); and the textile industry (Daily News Record, circulation: 24,821).

 

In addition to its newspaper, Capital-Fairchild publishes books, 35-mm. slides, and trade directories and lists.  It supplies a research service to its specialized fields and through Fairchild News Service, it supplies information in the areas covered by its publications.

 

Capital Cities Broadcasting is growth oriented.  Over the last decade it has acquired nine broadcast properties, a major publishing firm (Fairchild), a 40-percent interest in a New York City advertising company that sells advertising space in the New York subway system (New York Subways Advertising, Inc.), a 16-percent interest in Laser Link Corp., which seeks to develop new technology for over the air television transmission, and a 3-percent interest in BMI, a music licensing firm.

 

Capital's growth is shown in its financial statistics.  Its total assets in 1969 were almost $80 million, whereas in 1964 they were only $52 million.  In a 7-year period (1960-67) Capital's broadcast revenues alone increased from $8 million to $34,700,000.  Although the details are unclear, it appears that a large part of the financing for this rapid growth came from banks and investment funds.  For example, Capital  [*51]  has a substantial loan from Chemical Bank New York Trust Co., and from 20 to 25 percent of Capital's stock is controlled, directly, or indirectly, by the following financial institutions: U.S. Trust Co., Investment Co. of America, Keystone S-4 Fund, Television Electronics Fund, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Bankers Trust Co., Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., Putnam Management, Hamilton Fund, Inc., First National City Bank, Bank of American, and American Growth Fund, Ltd.

 

Capital is also tied to financial institutions through its board of directors.  Daniel Burke is an organizer of the First Independence National Bank of Detroit, and will serve on the board of directors if a Federal charter is issued.  William S. Lasdon is also a director of the Eberstadt Fund, Inc., George Litzko is executive vice president of the Society National Bank of Cleveland, vice president of the Society Corp. (a bank holding company), and director and vice president of both the Society for Savings Co. and the Capital Funds Corp. James P. Arcara, a vice president of Capital, is also the vice president of Budzo, Inc., a business investment firm.

 

Through its board of directors and officers, Capital also has numerous ties to real estate companies, publishing firms, law firms, and insurance companies.  It also has substantial ties to other media interests.  For example, Lowell Thomas, a director of Capital, is a director and stockholder of Odyssey Productions, which makes television documentaries, and Frederick D. Custer, vice president of Capital, is an 18.2-percent owner and general manager of Coast Television Broadcasting Corp., the licensee of UHF station KWHY-TV in Los Angeles.  Similarly, Willard E. Walbridge, a vice president of Capital, owns 10 percent of the stock in the Rust Corp., the licensee of KTRH-AM-FM, Houston.

 

Regional multimedia group

 

Forward Teleproductions, Inc.: WTRF-TV, Wheeling, W. Va.

 

WTRF-TV-FM in Wheeling, W. Va., is owned by Forward Teleproductions, Inc., which is, in turn, a wholly owned subsidiary of Forward Communications, Inc., whose total assets approach $8 million.  n1 The transfer of these stations to Forward was approved by the Commission on February 28, 1969. 

 

n1 It should be noted that the asset figures in all these analyses are not depreciated assets.  As such they are primarily bookkeeping figures with little real importance.  For example, unless a station was acquired by transfer, the figure will not contain the value of the license -- the broadcaster's most valuable asset.

 

Forward Communications has other broadcast interests as well.  In Iowa, through Forward of Iowa, Inc., it owns KCAU-TV in Sioux City, Iowa.  Through still another subsidiary it owns WSAU-TV-AM-FM in Wausau, Wis., WMTV in Madison, Wis., and WKAU-AM-FM in Kaukauna, Wis.

 

Forward also owns a newspaper in the same area in which it owns a TV-AM-FM complex.  Forward's Marshfield News Herald (circulation: 12,874 daily) is the only newspaper in Marshfield, Wis., a town just 30 miles from Wausau where Forward has its corporate headquarters.

 

 [*52]  Forward is predominately owned by several newspapers in Wisconsin whose editors or publishers sit on the board of directors or are officers of Forward.  The Wausau Record Herald (circulation: 12,874 daily) is the only paper in Wausau.  It owns 29.72 percent of Forward and is represented at Forward by its publisher and president, John C. Sturtevant.  The Wisconsin Rapids Tribune (circulation: 10,521 daily) is the only daily newspaper in Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., a town about 40 miles from Wausau.  It owns 14.86 percent of Forward and is represented by its publisher, William F. Huffman.  A subsidiary of the Rapids Tribune, William F. Huffman Radio, Inc., owns radio stations WFHR-AM and WWRW-FM, the only stations in Wisconsin Rapids.  The Merrill Herald (circulation: 4,729 daily) is the only daily paper in Merrill, Wis., about 20 miles from Wausau.  It owns 9.5 percent of Forward and is represented there by the paper's general manager and director, Joe P. Chilsen.

 

Until a few years ago, the Rhinelander Daily News (circulation: 5,647), the only daily paper in Rhinelander, Wis., about 60 miles from Wausau, was the owner of 9.88 percent of Forward, and represented by its publisher and owner, Clifford D. Ferris.  Mr. Ferris, though still on Forward's board of directors, sold the paper in 1968.  Its relationship to Forward at the moment is unclear.  The members of Forward's board also have real estate and farming interests in central Wisconsin.

 

A. S. Abell Co.: WMAR-TV, Baltimore, Md.; WBOC-TV, Salisbury, Md.

 

WMAR-TV and WMAR-FM in Baltimore, Md., are owned by the Baltimore Sun Paper Stations, which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the A. S. Abell Co. Abell owns the Baltimore Sun (circulation: 180,000), one of two evening papers in Baltimore, which captures 47 percent of the newspaper market in that city.

 

Abell also has extensive broadcast interests outside Baltimore.  Directly, Abell is the owner of WBOC-TV, the only television station in Salisbury, Md. Indirectly, Abell is connected to Landmark Securities, Inc., which has substantial newspaper, broadcasting, and CATV interests in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and West Virginia.  (Landmark's exact holdings are set out in ownership chart No. 1.) Abell is connected to Landmark through stock held in Landmark by one of Abell's stockholders and one of its directors.

 

Who owns the A. S. Abell Co.?  Sixty-four percent of it is owned by members of five families -- Abell, Black, Garrett, Keyser, and Memcken.  However, many of these family members are merely the beneficiaries of trusts held by various banks.  For example, the Maryland National Bank has been a trustee since 1932 of about 3 percent of A. S. Abell's stock, while the Merchantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. is a trustee under various wills and trusts, of about 23 percent of the stock.  Another 18 percent of the stock is owned by the A. S. Abell Co. Foundation, Inc.

 

Evening Star Broadcasting Co.: WMAL-TV, Washington, D.C., WLVA-TV, Roanoke, Va.

 

The Evening Star Broadcasting Co. owns two television stations in the renewal area -- WMAL-TV in Washington and WLVA-TV in  [*53]  Roanoke, Va. Evening Star also owns WMAL-AM-FM in Washington and WCIV-TV in Charleston, S.C. Evening Star Broadcasting Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the company which publishes the Washington Evening Star (circulation: 318,000), which has about 30 percent of the Washington circulation.

 

The Evening Star Broadcasting Co. has assets of $4.3 million.  The assets of the entire Evening Star operations have not been disclosed; nor have its nonbroadcast interests.

 

Times-World Corp.: WDBJ-TV, Roanoke, Va.

 

At the first writing of this opinion, WDBJ-AM-FM-TV in Roanoke, Va., was licensed to the Times-World Corp., which also publishes the Roanoke Times and the Roanoke World News, the only two daily newspapers in Roanoke (combined circulation: 110,000).  Although WDBJ was controlled by the officers of the Times-World Corp., the actual owner of the station was the First National Exchange Bank of Virginia (Roanoke), which holds 64 percent of the corporation's stock in a series of trust arrangements.  A transfer application was granted on October 29, 1969, allowing the sale of the broadcast interests to other parties.  The reason given for the sale was to create greater liquidity in the trust accounts in order to pay Federal estate taxes which might arise.

 

The purchaser of the TV station (but not of the radio stations) is the South Bend Tribune Co., of South Bend, Ind. South Bend Tribune Co. is not a newcomer to either broadcasting or newspaper ownership.  It is a small newspaper-broadcasting owner (total assets: $13,500,000).  Nevertheless, it is larger than the transferor, Times-World Corp. (total assets: $9,100,000).  Its owners also own the South Bend Tribune (circulation: 120,000), the only daily newspaper in South Bend, Ind., as well as WSBT-TV-AM-FM in South Bend.  The owners also have substantial interests in Maryland, where they own the Hagerstown Herald and Mail (combined circulation: 40,365), as well as the Antietam Cable TV Co., which owns the CATV system in Hagerstown.

In Indiana, South Bend's owners have two newspapers: in Bloomington, Ind., the evening Herald Telephone and the Sunday Herald Times (circulation: 19,000 evening, 31,000 Sunday) and a newspaper in nearby Bedford, Ind. (the evening Times Mail, circulation: 12,000).  In 1966 the independent Courier and Tribune was established to circulate in both these towns but its circulation, at 7,000, is only about 18 percent of the circulation in the two cities.

 

South Bend's owners also own Associated Desert Newspapers, Inc. which publishes newspapers in Indio, El Centro, and Brawley, Calif., and maintains Entertainment Media, Ltd., a Los Angeles lecture bureau.

 

Finally, to complete the discussion of the ownership of WDBJ, mention should be made of the Virginia National Bank of Norfolk.  The bank owns about 25 percent of Landmark Securities stock in trust (Landmark owns WTAR-TV in Norfolk), and some of the bank's directors are also directors of the Peninsula Radio Corp. (Peninsula owns WVEC-TV/ in Norfolk).  The bank also agreed to lend South Bend Tribune $6.3 of the $8.2 million required to purchase WDBJ-TV,  [*54]  only 150 miles from Norfolk.  (The details of the bank's multiple broadcast interests are set out in ownership table No. 2.)

 

Landmark Communication Stations: WTAR-TV, Norfolk, Va.

 

WTAR-TV in Norfolk is owned by Landmark Communication Stations, which is, in turn, a wholly owned subsidiary of Landmark Securities.  Landmark Securities owns other broadcast properties as well as substantial CATV facilities and a number of newspapers, including the only daily papers in Norfolk, Va. (Landmark's holdings are set out in detail in ownership table No. 1.)

Several of Landmark's stockholders and directors own substantial stock in a corporation called Media General, which has broadcast and newspaper interests in Richmond, Va. and Tampa, Fla. (The details of this interlocking ownership and control are set forth in ownership table No. 1.)

 

Media General is not the only other broadcast owner to which Landmark has ties.  As discussed in the ownership analysis of the A.S. Abell Co., Landmark and A.S. Abell have common stockholders, and as described in the ownership report for the Times-World Corp. (WDBJ-TV, Roanoke), the Virginia National Bank of Norfolk holds a substantial part of Landmark stock in trust as well as having ties to Peninsula Radio, which owns WVEC-TV in Norfolk, and to the purchaser of WDBJ-TV in Roanoke.  (See ownership table No. 2.)

 

Thus, Landmark seems to be part of an interrelated group which controls or will control, directly or indirectly, eight televisions stations, at least 10 radio stations, and at least 15 newspapers.

 

Daily Telegraph & Printing Co.: WHIS-TV, Bluefield, W. Va.

 

WHIS-TV-AM-FM in Bluefiled, W. Va., is owned by the same individuals who own the Daily Telegraph & Printing Co., which owns the only two newspapers in Bluefield, the Sunset News Observer and the Telegraph (combined circulation: 32.320).  Also the Employees Pension Trust Fund for the Daily Telegraph & Printing Co. owns a 17-percent interest in the broadcast properties.

 

Elsewhere, the printing company owns WBTW-TV in Florence, S.C.

 

Fortnightly Corp.: WBOY-TV, Clarksburg, W. Va.

 

WBOY-TV in Clarksburg, W. Va., is owned by the Fortnightly Corp., the publisher of the now defunct Reporter magazine.  Fortnightly also owns WBOY-AM in Clarksburg.  The only nonbroadcast company in which Fortnightly lists a greater than 25 percent interest is the Check Chart Corp. of Chicago, which engages in industrial publishing.

 

Marion R. Ascoli, a vice president, director, and shareholder of Fortnightly, is also an owner of the Starwood Corp., New York investment advisers.  C. Howard Hardesty, Jr., secretary and director of Fortnightly, has an interest in the Constructor's Machine Design Co., of Fairmont, W. Va.

 

 [*55]  Multiple station owners

 

(Details as to assets and stations of these owners is set out in ownership table No. 3.)

 

Rollins Inc.: WCHS-TV, Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.

 

Rollins, the largest of this group of owners, with assets of over $97 million, owns WCHS-TV-AM in Charleston-Huntington, W. Va., as well as seven radio and two TV stations elsewhere in the country.  Rollins' stations are not concentrated in any one geographic area.

 

Rollins is also in the pest control business, the decorating business, and the outdoor billboard advertising business.  It grows citrus fruit on a 1,000-acre grove located on a 10,000-acre ranch on Okeechobee County, Fla.

 

LIN Stations: WAVY-TV, Norfolk, Va.

 

LIN Stations owns WAVY-TV in Norfolk, Va.  It has 11 other broadcast stations in various parts of the country -- from New York to Texas.  Although LIN has one more station than Rollins, its assets are about one-half those of Rollins.  This is possibly due to Rollins' greater involvement with nonbroadcast industries, although LIN has a growing share of these.  For example, it has recently purchased a telephone answering service in New York City as well as a mail order and direct sales company there.

 

United Broadcasting Co.; WFAN-TV, Washington, D.C.; WMET-TV, Baltimore, Md.

 

United Broadcasting Co. owns WFAN-TV in Washington, and WMET-TV in Baltimore through a subsidiary, United TV Co. of Eastern Maryland.  United Broadcasting also has other broadcast interests, including WOOK-AM and WFAN-FM in Washington, WSID-AM-FM in Baltimore and WINX in Rockville, Md.

 

Richard Eaton, the controlling stockholder of United Broadcasting, is also the owner of Unity Realty Co. and U.B.C. Sales, a company which represents many of Eaton's broadcast stations in the sale of broadcast time.  Mr. Eaton is also the owner (through Friendly Broadcasting Co.) of United Cable of New Hampshire, Inc., which operates a CATV system in Manchester,

Bedford, and Goffstown, N.H.

 

Reeves Telecom Corp.: WHTN-TV, Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.

 

Reeves Telecom Corp. is the owner of WHTN-TV and WKEE-AM in Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.  It also owns another radio station in the renewal area, WITH-AM-FM in Baltimore.

 

Reeves has six broadcast stations which are primarily in one geographic area -- the border States plus South Carolina.  However, Reeves has CATV facilities which are scattered.  These include 100 percent ownership of CATV's in Gadsen, Ala.; South Shore-Fullerton, Ky.; Caribou, Fort Fairfield, and Presque Isle, Maine; Portsmouth, Ohio; Enid, Okla,; Bennettsville-McColl, S.C/.; Grundy, Richlands, and Tazewell, Va.; as well as an interest in the Aiken, S.C., system.

 

Reeves also has extensive business interests outside the broadcasting industry.  Through divisions and subsidiaries, Reeves Telecom engages in sound and film recording and film developing (Reeves Sound  [*56]  Studios, New York), real estate development (Boiling Spring Lakes, Southport, N.C., among others), computer information services (Realtron Corp., Detroit), computer terminal leasing (Reporting Terminals, Inc., New York), and a promotional and public relations service (Reeves Communications Techniques, Inc., New York).

 

Allen L. Lindley, a director of Reeves, is executive vice president of the Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York.  Financial institutions in fact seem to own a significant part of Reeves stock.  For example. Great Lakes Title Agency of Detroit, Inc., owns 7.05 percent; and Tepe & Co. owns 1.84 percent.  Several Wall Street firms also own Reeves stock (e.g., Blush & Co., 1.10 percen; and Walston & Co., 1.15 percent).

 

Reeves is also involved with financial institutions in that it has borrowed from them to finance its rapid expansion.  For example, in May of 1969 Reeves entered into a revolving credit loan with a group of unnamed banks, under which the banks agreed to make available up to $6 million for capital expenditures and working capital.  This represents about 20 percent of Reeves total assets.

 

Rust Craft Broadcasting: WSTV-TV, Steubenville, Ohio

 

WSTV-TV-AM-FM in Steubenville, Ohio, which serves the Wheeling, W. Va., market is owned by Rust Craft Broadcasting, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rust Craft Greeting Cards.

 

Rust Craft was previously United Printers and Publishers.  It changed to its present name in 1962.  With assets of $47 million,

Rust Craft is substantially involved in broadcasting as well as greeting cards, color printing of many kinds, and production of gift wrap and party goods.  Since the late 1950's it has been quite aggressive in buying our other broadcasters and greeting card companies.

 

James S. Gilmore, Jr., Stations: WSVA-TV Harrisonburg, Va.

 

James S. Gilmore, Jr., Stations owns WSVA-TV-AM-FM in Harrisonburg, Va. James S. Gilmore, Jr., owns 100 percent of this and the other three Gilmore stations.

 

Gilmore has other extensive interests.  For example, he is the owner of:

 

Gilmore Enterprises, Kalamazoo, Mich. (diversified investment);

Jim Gilmore Cadillac-Pontiac, Inc., Kalamazoo;

Gilmore Advertising, Inc., Kalamazoo (99 percent);

J. G. Enterprises Corp., Kalamazoo (National Car Rental Franchise);

Michigan Carton Co., Battle Creek, Mich. (paper container manufacturer) (less than 25 percent);

Fabri-Kal Corp., Kalamazoo (plastics fabricating) (less than 25 percent); and

Hubbard State Bank, Bad Axe, Mich. (25.5 percent).

 

The connections between Mr. Gilmore's other businesses and his broadcast interest is perhaps illuminated by the reasons given for his transfer in 1968 of KGUN-TV in Tuscon, Ariz., to another owner: "Mr. Gilmore's financial commitment make it desirable to have greater liquidity and hence he has determined to dispose of KGUN-TV.  * * *"  [*57]  Yet recently, Gilmore requested and received Commission approval of the assignment to him of WREX-TV in Rockford, Ill.

 

Roy H. Park Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc.: WTVR, Richmond, Va.; WSLS-TV, Roanoke, Va.

 

Through Roy H. Park Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc., Roy H. Park of Ithaca, N.Y., the sole owner of Roy H. Park Broadcasting, owns WTVR-TV and WTVR-AM-FM in Richmond, Va. And on September 10, 1969, the Commission approved the transfer to him of WSLS-TV, Roanoke, Va. Through other subsidiary corporations, he owns WNCT-TV-AM-FM in Greenville, N.C.; WDEF-TV-AM-FM in Chattanooga, Tenn.; WJHL-TV, Johnson City, Tenn.; KRSI-AM-FM in St. Louis Park, Minn.; WEBC-AM in Duluth, Minn.; and WNAX-FM in Yankton, S. Dak.

 

Roy H. Park's other media interests are in outdoor advertising: Park Outdoor Advertising, Inc., of Ithaca, N.Y., and Park Outdoor Advertising of Scranton-Wilkes Barre, Inc., also of Ithaca, N.Y. Outside the media field, Mr. Park also has extensive interests.  These include the citrus industry (Avalon Citrus Associates, Inc., Orlando, Fla., 52 percent of the stock), financial (director of Occidental Life Insurance Co. of North Carolina, owner of less than 1 percent of the stock; and director of the First National Bank & Trust Co. of Ithaca, N.Y., owner of less than 2 percent of the stock), and construction (Cobb House of Rock Hill, Inc. -- a high rise apartment -- owner of 100 percent of the stock).  Mr. Park is also the president and director of the Park Foundation, Inc., of Ithaca, N.Y. (a nonprofit organization).

 

Several of the persons who serve as directors and officers of Roy H. Park's various broadcasting corporations are engaged in other areas of business.  John B. Babcock, for example, is a director and has a 20-percent ownership interest in Rumsey Ithaca, a sand and gravel company in Ithaca, N.Y., and T.B. Maxfiled is a director of the Ithaca Gun Co., Inc., of Ithaca, N.Y.

 

Nationwide Communications, Inc.: WXEX-TV, Petersburg, Va.

 

WXEX-TV in Petersburg, Va., is owned by Nationwide Communications, Inc., which is, in turn, a wholly owned subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus, Ohio, Nationwide also owns WNCI-TV-FM and WRFD-AM in Columbus-Worthington, Ohio, WGAR-AM-FM in Cleveland, Ohio; and WATE-TV-AM in Knoxville, Tenn.  Because Nationwide Mutual is a mutual insurance company, it does not have stockholders as distinct from its policyholders.  In fact, the company is run by a proxy committee consisting of three officers; George H. Dunlap, Paul D. Grady, and L. E. Woodcock.

Nationwide Mutual has not submitted any detailed information on its holdings or assets apart from its broadcasting interests.

 

Jefferson Pilot Corp.: WWBT-TV, Richmond, Va.

 

WWBT-TV in Richmond, Va., is owned by Jefferson Pilot Corp. through a subsidiary.  Jefferson Pilot also owns stations in Charlotte, N.C., and Greensboro, N.C. (see ownership table No. 3 for details).

 

Jefferson Pilot Corp. owns 50 percent of the Jefferson-Carolina Corp., which owns a controlling interest in CATV facilities in Sanford, Dunn, Lenoir, Erwin, Ayden, Belmont, Bessemer City, Chadbourn,  [*58] Charlott, Clayton, Greensboro, Hamlet, Kenly, Louisburg, Lowell, McAdeniville, Mount Holly, Ranle, Rockingham, Scotland Neck, Smithfield, Swansboro, Tarboro, Wake Forest, Whiteville, and Raleigh, N.C., and Cheraw, S.C.  The corporation also has an interest in the CATV systems in Boger City, Drexel, and Lincolnston, N.C., as well as Gaffney and Union, S.C.  The other 50 percent of the Jefferson-Carolina Corp. is owned by the Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co.

 

Jefferson Pilot Corp. owns a 25-percent (or greater) interest in a number of insurance companies, including the Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. and the Pilot Life Insurance Co.  It also has greater than 25-percent interest in J-P Investment, Inc.

 

Mr. J. R. Preston, the area vice president of Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co. of Virginia, a subsidiary of Jefferson Pilot, has a one-third residuary interest in two trust funds which hold a total of about 10 percent of the licensee of WRVA-AM-FM in Richmond, Va. Mr. Preston now has applications pending before the Commission to dispose of these interests.

 

About 15 percent of the stock of Jefferson Pilot is owned by insurance companies, banks, and investment funds.  For example, the Durham Life Insurance Co. of Raleigh, N.C., owns 3.4 percent of Jefferson's stock.

 

At the last stockholder's meeting this stock was voted by the president of Durham Life, who is the owner of 99.2 percent of the stock of the licensee of WPTF-AM-FM in Raleigh, N.C.

 

Broadcast Industries: WDTV-TV, Charksburg, W. Va.

 

WDTV-TV in Clarksburg, W. Va., is owned by Broadcast Industries, a Delaware corporation.  Broadcast Industries has two other wholly owned subsidiaries.  One, the General Marketing Corp., is engaged in the licensing of franchises for varied businesses. The second, Franchise Enterprises, Inc., owns the franchising rights to computer service businesses in seven States.  Broadcast Industries also owns about 4 percent of the shares of Wriking Food/Beverages Systems, Inc., which franchises various food and beverage operations.

 

Several of the officers, directors, and stockholders of Broadcast Industries are stockholders or directors of the American Leisure Corp. of New York, which owns and distributes motion picture films for television.

According to Television Factbook, Broadcast Industries also owns 7 percent of LIN Broadcasting.

 

Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc.: WYAH-TV, Norfolk, Va.

 

WYAH-TV in Norfolk, Va., is owned by the Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., a nonprofit, nonstock corporation.  Christian Broadcasting also owns another television station -- WHAE-TV in Atlanta, Ga. -- and six FM radio stations, all but one in New York State.  (See ownership table No. 3 for details.)

 

Although Christian Broadcasting has total assets of $2.6 million, it states that "very few of its programs have commercial sponsorship." Presumably most of Christian's operating revenue comes from contributions.

 

 [*59]  Superior Tube Co.: WDCA-TV, Washington, D.C.

 

Superior Tube, the owner of WDCA-TV in Washington, D.C., is a relative newcomer to the broadcasting industry.  It acquired its first television station -- WDCA -- on May 7, 1969.

 

Superior Tube has substantial interests, however, outside the broadcasting industry.  It has interests in companies which produce metal tubing and pipe, metal wire, liquid propane, and related industrial products.  Superior's principals also have interests in various companies which produce precision instruments and fork lift trucks, as well as interests in real estate and commercial horse breeding.

 

Cross & Co., the nominee of the First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co., owns 32 percent of Superior Tube's stock under a trust arrangement.  At the last stockholders meeting, Cross' proxy was given to Clarence A. Warden, Jr., who is a director and stockholder of the First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. and the chairman and director of Superior Tube.

 

R. L. Drake Co.: WTAP-TV, Parkersburg, W. Va.

 

R. L. Drake Co. owns WTAP-TV in Parkersburg, W. Va., as well as WTAP-AM-FM in Parkersburg.  The company is entirely owned by Robert L. Drake, the vice president of the company.  This company may only be classified as independent for a short time more since R. L. Drake has filed an application to buy WGLM-FM in Richmond, Ind.

 

Roanoke Telecasting Corp.: WRFT-TV, Roanoke-Lynchburg, Va.

 

WRFT-TV in Roanoke, Va., is owned by Roanoke Telecasting.  Roanoke Telecasting, with assets of $269,000 is primarily controlled by three men: Alexander N. Apostolou (the owner of all the voting stock), Peter N. Apostolou, and James Hart.  Frank Tirico, the former president of the company, no longer has an interest in it.  Alexander Apostolou is an attorney and a one-third owner of JACCO, Inc., which has a pitch and putt golf course in Roanoke.  Peter Apostolou owns and operates the Roanoke Sports Club. James Hart is an attorney and owns most of the stock of Jaro, Ltd., a Roanoke real estate holding company.

 

Peninsula Broadcasting Co.: WVEC-TV, Norfolk, Va.

 

Peninsula Broadcasting Co. of Hampton, Va., is the owner of WVEC-TV in Norfolk as well as WVEC-AM-FM.  It has assets of

$2.8 million.  The owners of Peninsula Radio also own most of Peninsula Cabel Corp., which owns a CATV system in Hampton, Va., and a franchise for a CATV system in Williamsburg, Va. Several of Peninsula's directors are also directors of the Virginia National Bank, which has other broadcast interests.  (See ownership report for Times-World and ownership table No. 2.)

 

Robert R. Thomas, Jr.: WOAY-TV, Oak Hill, W. Va.

 

WOAY-TV-AM-FM in Oak Hill, W. Va., is owned by Robert R. Thomas, Jr.  The corporation's total assets in 1969 were $174,000.

 [*60]  Shenandoah Life Stations: WSLS-TV, Roanoke, Va.

 

At the time this report was first written WSLS-TV-AM-FM in Roanoke, Va., was owned by Shenandoah Life Stations, which is, in turn, 100-percent owned by Shenandoah Life Insurance Co. of Roanoke.  As discussed above, it has been transferred to Roy H. Park.  Shenandoah Life is a small insurance company.  Licensed in 19 States, it has 140 employees and about $1 billion of insurance in force.

 

Appalachian Broadcasting Corp.: WCYB-TV, Bristol, Va.

 

Appalachian Broadcasting Corp. is the owner of WCYB in Bristol, Va.  The station also serves the cities of Kingsport and Johnson City, Tenn.

 

With assets of $856,000, it appears that the station has little or no connection with other broadcasting or industrial interests.  The station's president, Charles M. g/ore, is a member of the local law firm of Gore, Gore & Ladd.

 

 [*61]  Ownership Chart No. 1 [ GRAPHIC IN ORIGINAL]

 

 [*62]  Ownership Chart #2 [SEE GRAPHIC IN ORIGINAL]

 

 [*63]  Ownership Chart No. 3

 

Company

Total broadcast assets

Number of broadcast stations

Location

 

Rollins Stations

$97,000,000

 

 

 

11 (8 radio, 3 TV)

WCHS-AM-TV, Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WAMS-AM, Wilmington, Del.

 

 

 

WNJR-AM, Newark, N.J. n1

 

 

 

WBEE-AM, Harvey, Ill.

 

 

 

WRAP-AM, Norfolk, Va.

 

 

 

WGEE-AM-FM, Indianapolis, Ind.

 

 

 

WEAR-TV, Pensacola, Fla.

 

 

 

KDAY-AM, Santa Monica, Calif.

 

 

 

WPTZ-TV, Plattsburg, N.Y.

LIN Broadcasting Stations.

$41,000,000

12 (10 radio, 2 TV)

 

 

 

WAKY-AM, Louisville, Ky.

 

 

 

KEEL-AM-FM, Shreveport, La.

 

 

 

 

KAAY-AM, Little Rock, Ark.

 

 

 

 

WAND-TV, Decatur, Ill.

 

 

 

 

WBBF-AM-FM, Rochester, N.Y.

 

 

 

 

WIL-AM-FM, St. Louis, Mo.

 

 

 

 

KILT-AM, Houston, Tex.

 

 

 

 

KOLT-FM, Houston, Tex.

 

 

 

 

WAVY-TV, Norfolk, Va.

 

Reeves Stations

$31,900,000

6 (3 radio, 3 TV)

 

 

 

 

WHTN-TV, Charleston-Huntington, W. Va.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WKEE-AM, Huntington, W. Va.

 

 

 

 

WITH-AM-FM, Baltimore, Md.

 

 

 

 

WUSN-TV, Charleston, S.C.

 

 

 

 

WLBG-TV, Lexington, Ky.

 

Nationwide Communi cation Stations.

$16,300,000

9 (6 radio, 3 TV)

 

 

 

WXEX-TV, Petersburg-Richmond, Va.

 

 

 

WLEE-AM, Richmond, Va.

 

 

 

 

WRFD-AM, Columbus, Ohio.

 

 

 

 

WNCI-FM-TV, Columbus, Ohio.  n2

 

 

 

 

WGAR-AM-FM, Cleveland, Ohio.

 

 

 

 

WATE-AM-TV, Knoxville, Tenn.

 

United Broadcasting Co.

Not available

in the aggregate

 

17 (11 radio, 6 TV)

 

 

WOOK-AM, Washington, D.C.

 

 

WFAN-FM, Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

WFAN-TV, Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

 

WJMY-AM, Allen Park-Detroit, Mich.

 

 

 

 

WFAB-AM, Miami, Fla.

 

 

 

 

WSID-AM, Baltimore, Md.

 

 

 

 

WSID-FM, Baltimore, Md.

 

 

 

 

WMET-TV, Baltimore, Md.

 

 

 

 

WBNX-AM, New York, N.Y.

 

 

 

 

WINX-AM, Rockville, Md.

 

 

 

 

KALI-AM, San Gabriel, Calif.

 

 

 

 

KECC-TV, El Centro, Calif.

 

 

 

 

KVEZ-TV, San Mateo, Calif.

 

 

 

 

WMUR-TV, Manchester, N.H.

 

 

 

 

WJMO-AM, Cleveland, Ohio.

 

 

 

 

WCUY-FM, Cleveland, Ohio.

 

 

 

 

KIKU-TV, Hanover.

 

James S. Gilmore, Jr., Stations.

$5,600,000

7 (3 radio, 4 TV)

 

 

 

WREX-TV, Rockford, Ill.

 

 

 

WEHT-TV, Evansville, Ind.

 

 

 

 

WSVA-AM-FM-TV, Harrisonburg, Va.

 

 

 

 

KODE-AM-TV, Joplin, Mo.

 

Jefferson Pilot Stations

 

 

Not available

5 (3 radio, 2 TV)

 

 

 

 

WWBT-TV, Richmond, Va.

 

 

 

 

WBT-AM-FM, Charlotte, N.C.

 

 

 

 

WBTV-TV, Charlotte, N.C.

 

 

 

 

WBIG-AM, Greensboro, N.C.

 

Roy H. Park Stations

Not available

 

 

 

14 (10 radio, 4 TV)

 

 

 

 

WTVR-AM-FM-TV, Richmond, Va.

 

 

 

 

WNCT-AM-FM-TV, Greenville, N.C.

 

 

 

 

WDEF-AM-FM-TV, Chattanooga, Tenn.

 

 

 

 

WJHL-TV, Johnson City, Tenn.

 

 

 

 

KRSI-AM-FM, St. Louis Park, Minn.

 

 

 

 

WEBC-AM, Duluth, Minn.

 

 

 

 

WNAX-AM, Yankton, S. Dak.

 

 

 

 

CP for Channel 20, Utica, N.Y.

 

 

 

 

WSLS-AM-FM-TV, Roanoke, Va. n3

 

 

n1 The Commission has denied WNJR's renewal application.

 

n2 WNCI-TV is ot yet on the air.

 

n3 Ordered to divest AM and FM -- seeking reconsideration.

 

 [*64]  B.  CITIZEN COMPLAINTS ANALYSIS

 

Analysis of data

 

Complaint files data

 

Throughout the 3-year period preceding the license renewal date, complaints directed at the licensee's performance are received and collected by the Commission.  Usually the complaints are filed and the sender dispatched a form letter assuring him that his letter has been associated with the licensee's file and will be considered when it comes time to review the performance of the licensee.  Traditionally that time has seldom come in any effective sense.  The complaints are ignored by everyone except for those employees assigned the job of compiling the complaint files.  Although the letters may be perused by someone before the license renewal formality, the complaints and the replies from the licensees are seldom considered by the Commissioners themselves, although they are charged with the evaluation of licensee performance against the standard of public interest.

 

It would, of course, be impossible for each Commissioner to read all the complaints against all the stations applying for license renewal.  Nevertheless, we feel that the accumulated complaints might be put to use at renewal time.  They could be used, not to indicate a breach of duty which would justify license revocation or nonrenewal, but rather to impose a duty on the licensee to explain what he is doing to better serve the public interest in the areas called into question by the complaints in the aggregate.  Even granted that many of the complaints have little substance, it hardly seems a serious burden to require the tenants of the public's airwaves to explain their performance every 3 years.

 

Techniques of the study

 

In studying possible ways that the complaint files could be used in evaluating licensee's performance, we have read the complaint files for the VHF television stations in Washington, D.C., and Clarksburg-Fairmont, W. Va.  The study was limited to these two communities because of time limitations and the likelihood that the files of other stations would produce similar results.  Since the purpose of the study was simply to determine if the files could be of any value in renewal proceedings, a more in-depth study would probably have been superfluous.  These particular communities were chosen for study because they are the largest and smallest markets in the study area with two or more stations.  We have grouped the complaint letters into broad classifications, and the data are set forth in complaint table No. 1.

 

Data interpretation

 

Bad taste, obscenity, and violence (A. 1, A. 2, and A. 3). -- The complaints of obscenity and violence are self-explanatory.  Bad taste, in general, refers to those complaints in which the viewer felt offended by the content of the program but did not feel that the program was violent or obscene.  Examples would be rudeness of the interviewer, remarks the viewer found to be sacrilegious, etc.  Of course, section 326 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 326 (1964)) limits the Commission's  [*65]  power to deal with complaints of this sort.  Nevertheless, it would be appropriate during the license renewal procedure for the Commission, if the complaints are serious or numerous, to inquire into what is being done by the licensee to remain responsive to significant complaints by its viewers.  The licensee is required to describe in section IV-B, question 1D, of his renewal application, the procedures used for the consideration and disposition of complaints.

 

Program interference (A. 4). -- Complaints under the category of program interference means that something -- whether technical difficulty or program rescheduling -- interfered with the normal routine viewers.  Common examples of this complaint are that the signal was not maintained at an adequate level to reach the viewer in a constant manner (the basis of the three complaints against the Clarksburg stations) or that a program was cancelled or interrupted or cut short without notice or without adequate reason.  Another frequently mentioned interference was increased sound volume when a commercial began.  Most of the nine complaints received against station WRC in this category were of this type.  When asked about this practice by the Commission, WRC responded with a form letter denying in each instance that the sound increased and alleging their employment of adequate safeguards.  If WRC's assertion is true, which we have no reason to doubt, the question remains why a significantly greater number of viewers made this complaint to WRC than to any other station.  The licensee would not be harmed if this Commission made a deeper inquiry, and the public interest might truly be served.

 

Excessive commercials (A. 5). -- The complaint that the stations are airing too many commercials is common.  The Commission does not limit the amount of time devoted to commercials, but has said it will inquire if television licensees exceed 16 minutes per hour in their proposals or practice.

 

Lack of concern with news (A. 6). -- The complaints alleging lack of concern with the news are ambiguous and without a clarifying inquiry they will remain so.  Station WTOP has many more complaints than the other licensees.  But whether this results because the viewers of WTOP watch that station primarily for news and expect better performance than from other stations, or because the complaining viewers believe it to be giving inferior performance, is not known.

 

Better use needs to be made of data dealing with ratings, viewing habits, and demographic and psychological characteristics of the television audience.  We also need to know more about the makeup of the group of viewers who express their views through complaints.  One suspects that they may not be representative of the general viewing public.  But the Commission must have determined that they are of some significance, because the complaints are answered and saved, and the Commission promises to consider them at renewal time.

 

Other (A.7). -- The category of other complaints contains mainly complaints of specific program content.

 

Deception or distortion (B. 1 and B. 2). -- Complaints alleging deception or distortion usually seem to have little substance and are in most cases adequately answered by the licensee.  But too frequently only a form letter containing an evasive response is received from the licensee  [*66]  in reply to a Commission inquiry.  Renewal time is the time for the Commission to consider these complaints and require adequate responses to them before renewing a licensee's authorization to use the public's property.

 

Equal time, fairness, personal attack (C. 1). -- These complaints are normally dealt with satisfactorily by the licensees when a prominent figure complains, especially when the problem is a precise question of equal time or personal attack.  When the issue is fairness and the complainant lacks substantial power, however, the licensee usually denies the time to the party, claiming that time has already been given to opposing views.

 

Political commercials (C. 2). -- These complaints are usually minor matters dealing with the failure of the licensee to announce that a political commercial has been paid for and is not an editorial position.

 

Letters in praise (D). -- Letters to the Commission in praise of the licensees are usually general and come at renewal time after the station has invited interested parties to write.

 

Total. -- The aggregate number of complaints has an ambiguous meaning.  The Washington, D.C., market is 10 times the size of the Clarksburg market.  But even adjusting for the market size the complaints against the Washington stations are still greater, although perhaps not significantly so.  The difference in aggregate complaints may result because the audience is of a different composition in a large city than in a more rural market.  Washington viewers, especially when they can call in their complaints, may be more inclined to complain.  Or perhaps the Clarksburg stations give better service to their viewers.  Or perhaps the people in Clarksburg and the surrounding area do not view their stations as local operations to which they can complain.  Whatever the case, all viewers should be made aware that their views on licensee performance are welcomed in the renewal proceedings and the FCC should make a real effort to give weight to their letters.

 

Conclusions on the complaints analysis

 

The data accumulated from the complaint files are often ambiguous and inconclusive, but this does not mean that they should be disregarded.  The Commission has encouraged the public to express its opinions on the operations carried on over their airwaves.  Rather than ignore the data from the complaint files, the Commission should require licensees to explain serious complaints with more than a form letter.  An unusual grouping of complaints -- such as the loudness complaints against station WRC -- should be the subject of a specific, more detailed inquiry.  Certainly that is a small price for the recipients of great public assets to pay.  We are not suggesting that the licensee lose his broadcast rights because viewers find the Joe Pyne Show offensive (as approximately 20 did).  We are only asking that once every 3 years the licensee be required to demonstrate that he is serving the public interest as he is required by law to do.

 

Of course the biggest complaint could come from those people who have long ago shut off their television sets, refusing to watch the mass appeal fare offered under the guise of entertainment.  These people write few letters.  They may not realize the potentialities of television, and so do not feel that anything has been taken from  [*67]  them.  But the Commission should serve these members of the public, as well as those who do watch television regularly.  Television cannot be content to appeal only to those who now watch.  It must seek, by providing some reasonable measure of service of their needs, to bring back those who have written it off as another scientific achievement which, in their opinion, has degenerated into a highly commercialized, overly mass-oriented medium which seldom offers anything of value to them.

 

As a final conclusion, we note that if the complaint files are designed to call to the attention of the Commission specific failures by licensees to abide by the law, then they may be adequate.  After the complaints are received, if the licensees have not adequately explained their failures, remedial action is sometimes taken.  If, however, the complaints are intended to be used by the Commission to assess overall audience reaction to the licensee's performance, then they are not adequate.  For a period of 3 years, a collection of the reactions of some 250 television homes out of a market of 1,800,000 homes is hardly statistically significant.  Perhaps the Commission should consider the use of surveys as a means of getting viewers' reaction to the performance of their licensees.

 

Complaints (July 1, 1966 to July 15, 1969) -- Complaint table 1

 

WTOP --Wash.,D.C.,CBS 9

WMAL --Wash.,D.C.,ABC 7

WRC --Wash.,D.C.,NBC 4

WTTG -- Wash., D.C., Independent 5

WBOY --Clarksburg,

W. Va., NBC-ABC 12

WDTV --Clarksburg,

W.Va.,

CBS 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.  Programming:

 

 

1.  Bad taste, in general

9

5

7

24

 

 

2.  Obscenity

3

5

4

11

 

 

3.  Violence

2

3

3

2

 

 

4.  Program interference

16

3

9

7

1

2

 

5.  Excessive commercials

4

2

10

4

 

 

6.  Lack of concern with news

7

1

1

 

 

7.  Other

3

2

1

4

 

 

B.  Deception or distortion:

 

 

1.  Programming

8

8

5

8

 

 

2.  Advertising

9

1

2

7

 

 

C.  Political broadcasting:

 

 

1.  Equal time, fairness, personal attack

 

16

11

9

12

 

 

2.  Misconduct with political commercials

 

 

3

1

6

 

 

D.  Letters praising licensee

2

2

3

4

 

 

Total

79

46

55

89

1

2

 

 

RENEWALS STUDY CONCLUSIONS

 

Following the methods we developed in the New York study, see 18 F.C.C.2d 268, 269 (1969), and assuming that the report, "Television in the Mid-Atlantic Region," (appendix A) is reasonably accurate, we find that the range of licensees' performance is remarkably similar to that we found in New York.  Most of the big-city, network-affiliated stations have done quite well, but there are exceptions.  The lower half of the rankings contain primarily small-town, low-income broadcasters -- but we are often pleasantly surprised.

 

 [*68]  We were sure statisticians would find some problems with these tables.  (Appendix B does contain an example of the criticism received.) Objective standards are always going to have drawbacks.  We welcome criticism and suggestions for improvements in future studies from people outside of the Commission.  More than that we urge our Commission colleagues, if they find our analysis objectionable and cannot join in our conclusions, to develop criteria of their own so that license renewals can become more than an automatic procedure every 3 years.  The present practice benefits no one but the Washington legal profession, and the licensee whose renewal might have been questioned as the result of a more serious scrutiny.  We repeat again that we do not urge Commission action based on the data in appendix A.  What we do urge is for the Commission to use tables, such as ours in the New York renewals opinion or those in appendix A, as a starting point for the development of an independent analysis.  Our conclusions below are based on our findings, and on the data in appendix A.  Since we realize that this outside report is susceptible to challenges, our conclusions are tentative pending further rebuttal, such as appendix B.  We do, however, feel that it is worthwhile to indicate how we would vote if the data in appendix A were unchallenged.

 

We dissent in general to the wholesale renewal of these licenses without an analysis being made of the broadcasters' performances.  In particular, we would single out the following stations for further inquiry.  We think that they should be asked to justify their performances in light of the position of public trust that they are seeking to retain for another 3 years.

 

WMAL (7, ABC, Washington). -- Owned by a large newspaper, the low performance of this licensee, especially with regard to news and local service, needs to be explained.  This is a financially prosperous station in the Nation's Capital yet it stands low in the rankings, below stations in much smaller markets.

 

WHTN (13, ABC, Charleston-Huntington). -- This station, owned by a large group broadcaster, the Reeves Telecom Corp., ranked last in West Virginia, and next-to-last overall.  As a network-affiliated VHF station in the 48th largest national market, it appears not to be performing up to its resources.

 

WVEC (13, ABC, Norfolk). -- In the 53d largest market, this stations ranked last of all the stations in the renewal area.

 

WSLS (10, NBC, Roanoke-Lynchburg). -- Despite a network affiliation in the 67th market nationally, this station ranked very low.  It should be noted, however, that it has been recently transferred and the ranking does not effect the input of the new owner.

WRFT (27, ABC, Ranoke-Lynchburg) might also have been included as a station from which an explanation is needed, except for the fact that it is a new UHF with no, or only a partial, network affiliation.

 

We recognize that a petition to deny has been filed against the renewal application of one of these stations, and that a competing application has been filed against another.  Since our only conclusion here -- and a tentative one at that -- is that these stations' records should be examined further, we have, of course, formed no final judgment as to whether these renewal applications should be granted after the further study which is called for by the filings noted above.

 


 

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS KENNETH A. COX AND NICHOLAS JOHNSON

 

In addition to the specific objections to certain television stations discussed in our longer statement, issued in conjunction with this statement, we dissent to the renewal of the licenses of the following stations in the October 1, 1969 renewal group.

 

Because they propose less than 5-percent news programming: WDCA-TV, WMET-TV, WRFT-TV, and WTTG (TV).

 

Because they propose less than 1-percent public affairs programming: WMNA, WJMA, WKLP, WMSG, WRIC, WTZE, WDDY, WEIF, WHEE, WKBY, WTAR, WVAR, WXGI, and WYSR.

 

Because they propose less than 5-percent public affairs and other programming: WCPK, WCST, WMSG, WCVU, WEER, WINX, WMAL, WNOR, WPGC, WTAR, WTRI, WEAM, WEIR, WCAW, WHRN, WPAR, WXIT, WITH, and WLVA-TV.

 [*140]  (It will be noted that some stations are included on two grounds.  Some may already have been renewed under staff delegations, and others will be so renewed when other collateral matters have been resolved.)

 

We have many times previously stated our grounds for objecting to the renewal of station licenses on the less than satisfactory showings advanced by these applicants, and we shall not repeat such views here.  We will might be willing to grant renewal for some of these stations if we had received more information relative to the basis for their programming judgments, but we cannot concur in such action on the record now before us.

 

We note that 14 -- or approximately 6 percent of the 234 standard broadcast stations included in this renewal group (District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia) proposes less than 1-percent public affairs programming.  This includes WMNA, Gretna, Va., which proposes (and previously proposed) no public affairs programming whatsoever -- although in fairness we recognize that it carried 0.8 percent of such programming during the composite week.  Four other stations -- WKLP, WRIC, WTZE, and WMSG -- proposed 0.3 percent of public affairs programming, or slightly over 2 minutes per 12-hour day.  And in a thriving city like Norfolk, Va., WTAR proposes 0.9 percent such programming, not quite 10 minutes in a 12-hour day.  Certainly the listening public is entitled to more than a faint dab from the brush of public issues in the communities served by the stations hereinabove listed.

 


 

APPENDIX A

 

TELEVISION IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION: AN ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL ACCOUNT

(Copyright, 1969, by Ralph L. Stavens.  Reprinted by permission)

 

INTRODUCTION: STATISTICAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION

 

PART I: THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION

 

The statistical section which follows includes the research data for the commercial television stations of the mid-Atlantic region.  Tables 1 and 2 serve as an introduction to the mid-Atlantic region and include all commercial stations, both VHF and UHF, in the three-State area of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia.  The stations are in order of ARB market size.  Network affiliation and owners or licensees are also indicated.

 

Two stations in the region are not included in the research data: WDCA, which applied for a license in a previous license period, and WFAN, which is under challenge and has no application available at the present time.

 

Tables 3 and 4 are summary tables showing a composite ranking for stations according to their standing in 1969 and their comparative performances from 1963 to 1969 and 1966 to 1969.  These important tables will be discussed in depth in the summary at the end of the chapter.

 

Tables 5 to 12 deal with news programming in 1963, 1966, and 1969 in terms of percentage of total programming and actual time allotted during the composite week.  This information is taken directly from each station's application for renewal of a broadcast station license.  The stations are ranked from best performance (highest percentage) to worst (lowest percentage) in terms of quantity of news programming.

 

Although the data was taken directly from the applications, figures for 1963 and 1966 are not directly comparable to figures for 1969, as the 1963 and 1966 figures include commercials during news broadcasts while 1969 figures do not.  The application format was changed by the FCC in 1967 to exclude commercial time.

 

In the 1961 Kord decision, the FCC ruled that a licensee cannot drastically curtail his news and public affairs programming and/or increase his advertising and entertainment content without demonstrating a corresponding change in community needs.  n1 Our report attempts, in light of the Kord decision, to compare the licensee's promise in 1966 with his actual performance, as shown in the 1969 application.  However, due to the changes in application forms initiated by the FCC and the difficulty of developing a method of adjustment that would be sufficiently accurate to allow meaningful direct comparisons between the figures, investigators had no way of specifically determining whether a particular applicant had fulfilled the FCC requirements. 

 

Therefore, because the data for all stations is comparable within a single application period, we have used the changing rank of a station, in terms of the content of its programming, to give an indication of comparative performance. 

 

n1 See exhibit No. 3, appendix.

 

Tables 8 and 9 have been arranged to show the number of positions a station has gained or lost in the periods 1963 to 1969, and 1966 to 1969, each station's rank having been shown in tables 5, 6, and 7.  The stations which have a higher or lower rank have shown, respectively, positive or negative comparative performance.  Although this data cannot give conclusive proof of failure to fulfill promise, it does show which stations have experienced serious relative declines.  In light of these findings the FCC would be well-advised to initiate hearings in order to determine first, whether drastic divergences between promise and performance occurred and, second, how such declines could be explained.  Such a determination could be made through a thoroughgoing analysis of past and present logs.

 

As the tables indicate, the percentage of news programming in 1969 ranges from a high of 12.9 percent (WSTV) to a low of 2.9 percent (WRFT).  The FCC, it has been suggested by individual commissioners, has an obligation to investigate stations providing less than 5 percent news programming, or at least require the licensee to explain why he believes this programming schedule serves the particular needs of his community.  Four stations failed to meet this 5-percent minimum in 1969: WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.), WRFT (independent, Roanoke, Va.), WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.) and WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.).  We suggest that the FCC instigate proceedings to further inquire into such poor performance.

 

Over the 6-year period, two stations -- WTOP and WTVR -- showed outstanding improvement, moving up 18 and 14 positions respectively.  Stations experiencing significant declines in rank include WXEX, down 11; WJZ, down 15; WOAY, down 18; WMAL, down 22.  During the recent 3-year license period, three stations made large increases in their news programming: WSTV, WWBT, and WDTV, with WTOP maintaining its high position and WTVR continuing its previous improvement.  WTAR, WDBJ, WXEX, and WOAY showed significant declines in this category.  Furthermore, a comparative study of tables 8 and 9 indicates that, among the four stations with low performance in the 1963 to 1969 period, only one licensee, WJZ, halted its downward trend in the 1966 to 1969 period, while the other three, WMAL, WXEX, and WOAY, continued to decline in rank during this time.  This persisting downward trend might well be construed as a failure on the part of the licensee to fulfill his promise of not substantially changing news programming.

 

Time and percentage of programming devoted to public affairs, based upon data from the 1969 station renewal applications, is indicated, by rank, in tables 13 to 17.  As previous applications did not use a public affairs category, no direct comparisons are possible.  However, indicative comparisons can be drawn by applying the following method of correction:

 

(1) Using TV Guide and daily newspapers as references, compile a list of programs which appear to fall into the public affairs category for each station during the composite week for 1966.

 

(2) Compare the exhibits in each station's renewal application with this list, deleting from it all programs allocated to categories other than public affairs; i.e., entertainment, news, etc., in the application.

 

(3) Compile the total time consumed by the programs on the revised list, deducting 20 percent for commercials and public service announcements.  (Although the 20-percent figure varies, we feel this estimate best reflects actual programming practices.)

 

(4) Divide the final public affairs programming figure by the total broadcasting hours (indicated on the application) to find the actual percentage of programming in this category, a figure comparable to those listed in the 1969 application.

 

It should be noted that the ability to make meaningful comparisons with regard to promise versus performance and programming during a license period is an integral part of the renewal process.  However, with the introduction of new categories in the license renewal application by the FCC, the investigator is left without a way of making direct comparisons between application periods.  This discrepancy should be compensated for by retaining the former categories for an additional license period, thus allowing for statistical continuity.

 

One can easily see that public affairs programming is a small part of the broadcast day: in 1966, no station devoted more than 3 percent of its time for public affairs; in 1969 only three stations gave more than one-twentieth of their time for public affairs.  The range in these tables is from very low (a maximum 6.3 percent) to virtually nonexistent (0.2 percent) with a difference of little more than 1 or 2 percent between most stations.

 

Tables 18-22 deal with programming of entertainment and sports over the last three application periods.  This data, based upon the composite week programming for the application period, was computed by adding the percentages of programming devoted to categories other than entertainment and sports, then subtracting this total from 100 percent, leaving the balance of programming for this category.  In the 1963 and 1966 applications, the data includes the commercials and public service announcements that accompany each category of programs while the 1969 application, due to a change in format by the FCC, indicates time and percentage only of actual programming.  Thus, it is impossible to directly test the FCC requirement of promise in 1966 versus performance in 1969.

 

In the course of this investigation, we have developed a method of adjustment which makes the 1969 figures comparable to previous ones.  Having estimated the average time expended by commercials and public service announcements to be 20 percent of total programming time, we were able to adjust the 1969 figures to show reasonable consistency with those of past applications.  The process of calculation involved (1) computing total programming figures for all categories other than entertainment and sports; (2) adding 20 percent -- the previously computed commercial time allotment -- of this total, thus approximating a correlation with previous figures; (3) subtracting this revised total from 100 percent of all programming, leaving the investigator with the percentage of entertainment and sports programming including commercials, etc. for 1969.  Although the 20-percent commercial figures may vary considerably among different stations, the computation involved taking 20 percent of a figure between 10 percent and 30 percent (the nonentertainment and sport portions of total programming) thus leaving a margin of error of approximately 1 percent.  This 1-percent error could change a station's rank by one or two positions, but large changes would retain their significance.

 

We have ranked the stations from best (those with least entertainment and sports programming) to worst (most entertainment and sports).  In the comparative tables, those stations which had the largest reduction in percentage of entertainment and sports were ranked best and vice versa.  Note that these comparisons are based upon percentage changes in terms of entertainment and sports as a proportion of total programming rather than in relation to previous entertainment and sports figures.  That is to say, a 5-percent change indicates an increase from 10 to 15 percent, not from 10 to 10.5 percent.  An overview of these tables shows significant variation in the programming of the mid-Atlantic stations.  Although entertainment and sports constitutes the major programming category for all stations, some have offered the public as heavy a concentration as 88.8 percent entertainment and sports (WRFT) while others provide a distinctly varied schedule including only 50.7 percent of total programming in this category (WYAH).

 

This investigation suggests that if a station is to truly serve the public interest it should devote no more than two-thirds of its broadcast time to entertainment and sports, leaving one-third of its schedule to be devoted to varying proportions of other types of programming.  Assuming this alternative definition of public interest, only two stations, WYAH and WRC, meet these criteria; the other 30 stations must significantly improve their programming to achieve the 33 1/2 percent service category.

 

An examination of the changes in percentage of total entertainment and sports over both the 1963 to 1969 and 1966 to 1969 periods provides the investigator with definite trends in performance.  In nearly all applications, licensees indicated no mention of substantially changing their future performance: thus, a substantial decline indicates the strong possibility of the station's failure to fulfill its promise.  If left unregulated, a continuation of these downward trends might well be seriously damaging to the public interest.

 

During the past 6-year period, three stations have shown outstanding improvement: WTOP trimmed its entertainment and sports time by 15.3 percent; WTVR, 14 percent; and WSTV, 9 percent.  Six stations have shown serious decline in performance during the same period: WHEN, WDTV, WSLS, WSVA, WCYB, and WMAL.  Most notable in the list is WMAL which, while showing the worst decline, n2 is in the largest market, with the highest advertising rate, and was ranked first as recently as 1963.  Six years later, as they apply for renewal of their license, they ranked 22d out of 28 stations, exhibiting marked declines in the last two license periods.  Furthermore, WMAL experienced a concurrent large decrease in news programming. 

 

n2 Examination of WMAL's logs for the composite week shows a change in classification for two programs, "Clare and Coco" and "Here's Barbara" from entertainment to other without giving an explanation -- about one-half of the former is cartoons.  This unexplained shift adds to other from entertainment 7 hours and 6 minutes, or about 5.5 percent.  Without the adjustment, WMAL has 86.5 percent entertainment and sports and slips from 22d to 28th place in 1969 and on the comparative table from 24 to 28.

 

During the most recent license period, 15 stations showed marked declines in performance; that is, a minimum of 5-percent entertainment and sports programming was added to the overall programming schedule.  This, of course, involves subtracting directly from other areas such as news and public affairs.  There stations should be required to justify an increase of this proportion in entertainment and sports by demonstrating a corresponding change in the needs of the community.  Historically, the FCC has held that an important part of a station's service to the public is its local programming.  The theory behind the licensing of thousands of stations across the country involves the assumption that individual stations would be more responsive to local community needs than a large impersonal network.  Local programming is defined as programming other than network, syndicated, or feature films.  This means that such programming is originated and/or produced by the station, employing live talent no less than 50 percent of the time.  An examination of the station's application, showing the percentage of locally originated programming during the composite week, gives a quantitative measure of achievement.

 

Tables 23 and 24 rank the percentage of locally originated programming in 1966 and 1969.  The top six or seven stations program over 15 percent of their time locally, while the bottom few stations claim to meet their communities' needs with less than 5-percent locally originated programs.  Examining trends between 1966 and 1969, table 25, it can be seen that most stations maintained about the same percentage level of locally originated programs as a proportion of total time.  About half the stations added or subtracted an insignificant amount (less than 2 percent) of local programs to the programming mix.  Three stations added more than 5 percent to their local programming: WTVR, 7.03 percent; WTTG, 6.76 percent; WSTV, 5.29 percent.  Three stations drastically cut local programming: WSVA, 6.42 percent less; WSAZ, 12.6 percent less; WRFT, 33.56 percent less.

 

Because locally originated programs directly serve the interests of the community, such programs are most beneficial when shown during peak viewing hours.  An excellent show for the community at 8 a.m. Sunday morning does not have nearly the same impact as that same show at 8 p.m. Sunday night.  Tables 26 and 27 indicate how many hours individual stations have devoted to local programming during the composite week's 35 hours of prime time programming (6 p.m. to 11 p.m.) during 1966 and 1969.  It must be said that most stations felt a modest obligation to specially produce shows for local needs.  However, the amount of prime time allocated to such programming is hardly over-whelming: in 1966, 22 stations used less than one-seventh or 14 percent of their prime time for local programming; only the top eight gave more than one-seventh of their time in 1969; two independent stations, WYAH and WMET, gave over 20 percent of their time -- 19 1/2 and 7 hours respectively; nine stations devoted only 2 1/2 hours or less, with one station, WWBT, giving no time.

 

Table 28 compares performance in this category between 1966 and 1969, showing the number of hours added to or subtracted from each station's total of locally originated prime time shows.  Fourteen stations showed no substantial change (less than 1 hour); two stations, WLVA and WTTG, added more than 4 hours of their own programs; while three stations, WMAL, WDTV and WRFT, cut down 3 or more hours.

 

Because local and regional news provides another index of service to community needs, each station is required to estimate their percentage of such news as part of their total news programming.  (See table 29.) These figures, although most are educated guesses by the stations and do not refer to specific quantitative data, do give an indication of service.  In 1969, the range is from 85 percent local and regional news to 28 percent with most stations falling in the 40-to 60-percent range.

 

Tables 30 and 31 list the news employees in 1966 and 1969.  Obviously, the number of news employees depends greatly upon the resources of the station; thus tables 32 and 33, titled "News Employees as a Percentage of Total Employees," are a fairer standard of judgment.  There may be some margin of discrepancy in the reporting of these figures: For example, WRC's high proportion may be ascribed to the fact that NBC's network Washington correspondents work out of WRC.  However, these figures do give a rough indication of the percentage of the stations resources devoted to news.

 

In 1969, the top quarter of the mid-Atlantic stations devoted over 25 percent of their staff to news, while the bottom quarter devoted 12 percent or less.  Only two stations used one-third of their human resources for news and public affairs, the percentage recommended by this report as a minimum criterion for serving the public interest.

 

The number of public service announcements during the composite week is another rough indicator of service.  The gross number obviously doesn't consider the quality or relevance of the spots, nor does it indicate the time when aired.  Tables 35 and 36 show the public service announcements for 1966 and 1969, indicating a range from 59 to 287 in 1966, and 64 to 267 in 1969.  Stations in the top 25 percent give over 200 spots; those in the bottom 25 percent, less than 100 spots.  Table 37, which compares the change in number of spots for the stations, indicates that the number varies considerably from year to year.

 

Table 38 shows the percentage of programming hours which contain 12 or more minutes of commercials, 12 minutes of commercials meaning that 20 percent of broadcasting time is taken up by ads; 21 stations expect the viewer to watch 20 percent commercials in 1 out of 5 hours; eight of those stations have 1 hour out of 4 filled with 12 minutes of commercials; and two or them (WTAP and WBAL) expect us to watch over 1 out of 3 hours filled with 12 minutes of ads!  No wonder the shows don't make sense!  Who can remember a story line when interrupted on the average of 1 minute out of every 5! We pay for free TV by the insulting assaults on our senses called commercials.

 

PART II: NETWORK DATA

 

Although the FCC and the courts have consistently maintained that responsibility for selection and presentation of broadcast material ultimately rests with the individual station licensee, network affiliation exerts considerable influence on the quality of a station's performance.  In this section, we gathered data for the three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, in the top 25 markets in the country.  In addition, we researched the five Metromedia stations.  The first five tables introduce the 25 ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates used in the study along with the five Metromedia stations.  They are ranked by ARB market size and ownership is listed.  It is interesting to note that, of these 80 large stations, 79 are owned by conglomerates, newspapers, or multiple owners.

 

The following three sets, each containing four tables, rank each affiliate in terms of percentage of news and public affairs, locally originated programming, and entertainment and sports.  These tables supply a great deal of useful information: The mid-Atlantic stations in the top 25 markets, i.e., Washington, ninth and Baltimore, 11th, can be compared to their counterparts in the top 25 markets, holding the network factor constant for each station.  We have compared the market rank, within a network, of these stations, with performance in the three areas of programming mentioned above.  Where performance within a network falls beneath market rank, the affiliate had performed below its potential.

 

The last column indicates the date of the station's renewal application, the dates ranging from late 1966 to 1969.  Since the applications are the only sources of this information, it is necessary to use data from different time bases.  In some cases, where indicated, the data is derived from proposed programming rather than past performance, and the sources and methods for arriving at this data are the same as those used in the similar categories in the mid-Atlantic region tables.  Again, it should be mentioned that, when changes in the application are introduced, the old categories should be retained for 3 years in order to insure statistical comparability.

 

The networks varied widely in the percentage of programming for news and public affairs.  NBC's 25 largest market stations had an average of 13.05 percent, CBS, 11.47 percent, Metromedia, 11.09 percent and ABC had the lowest, 8.25 percent.  Comparing the Baltimore and Washington stations to their fellow network affiliates, ABC's Baltimore WJZ ranked fourth, seven places above its market rank, while D.C.'s WMAL ranked 20th, 11 places below its market rank and nearly 20 percent below ABC's network average; WTOP ranked very well, second among CBS affiliates, but WMAR ranked a low 20th; WRC ranked a strong fourth among all NBC affiliates, but WBAL ranked 16th, five places below its market rank; WTTG was third among five Metromedia stations.

 

Tables 47 to 51 indicate locally originated programs for each network and the Metromedia stations.  Each network of affiliates has an average of about 15 percent locally originated programs; 17.71 percent for Metromedia, 14.99 percent for NBC, 14.28 percent for ABC, and 13.8 percent for CBS.  ABC's Washington and Baltimore stations rank exactly or nearly at their market rank: WMAL is the ninth largest station and the ninth highest ABC producer of local shows; WJZ is the 12th best, with a market size of 11th.  The same is true for CBS's mid-Atlantic affiliates: WMAR 10th ranked, WTOP 12th ranked NBC's WRC does exactly as expected: Ninth market, ninth position; but WBAL does very well: 11th market rank, but third in production of local shows.  WTTG is third of five Metromedia stations, producing 23 percent of its own programs.

 

The final set of tables is a comparative ranking of entertainment and sports per network.  CBS, NBC, and Metromedia average 75 percent while ABC is above 80 percent. ABC's WMAL does about average for an ABC affiliate, 10th lowest in entertainment and sports programming.  WJZ does seventh best, four higher than its market rank.  CBS's WTOP does well, ranked fourth, but WMAR is 14th.  NBC's WRC gives only two-thirds time for entertainment and sports and is the third best within the network.  WBAL is 12th, about where expected.  WTTG is the best Metromedia station in this category, better than the stations in the two largest markets.

 

In summary, it is possible to eliminate the advantage or disadvantage inherent in varying network affiliations by comparing stations only within their own network.  A ranking system by points has been developed giving +1 for placing four positions or more above the market rank, 0 for ranking about the same, and -1 for ranking four or more positions below the market rank.  Below we have constructed a table ranking performance, standardized for network affiliation.

 

Standardized network performance

 

News and public affairs

Locally originated program

Entertainment and sports

Total points

Station

 

WTOP

1

0

1

+2

WJZ

1

0

1

+2

WRC

1

0

1

+2

WTTG

0

0

1

+1

WBAL

-1

1

0

0

WMAL

-1

0

0

-1

WMAR

-1

0

-1

-2

 

WTOP, WJZ, WRC, and WTTG did better than their market rank; WMAL and WMAR did worse, and WBAL ranked the same.

 

PART III: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES OF THE FOUR WASHINGTON STATIONS

 

The four VHF stations serving the Washington area are located in the Dictrict of Columbia, an area which is 75 percent black.  Because of the traditional discrimination found in the employment of black people, a study was made to ascertain the extent and capacity in which these stations have employed members of Washington's black community.  This study was made with two factors in mind: (1) That the residents of the District should have a fair share of these jobs, in compliance with equal employment opportunities laws; and (2) that a proportional number of black policymakers is extremely important, as they are better equipped to select and understand programming which will serve the needs of the black community and present it in a manner which will be relevant and meaningful to this large segment of the viewing audience.

 

Television stations with over 100 employees, like all businesses, must report their minority employment figures to the U.S. Government's Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, but these figures are withheld from the public.  The FCC is considering requiring similar reports, and we encourage either the FCC or the EEOC to collect this data and, above all, make it public on a station by station basis.  This report's data for the four D.C. stations was furnished by each station's management. 

 

We thank them for their cooperation.

 

WRC rated highest in employment of blacks, with 43 people, or 15.1 percent, of their staff.  WTOP and WTTG employ 17 blacks, 10 percent and 9.6 percent respectively.  WMAL employs 12 blacks, for a low of 6.3 percent.  Furthermore, WRC and WTOP employ over half of their blacks in production and technical jobs, while over half of WTTG's and WMAL's black employees work in non-production, blue collar or supportive services.  There is a grand total of only three black policymakers in all of Washington's VHF television stations.

 

PART IV: OPINION SURVEY

 

In order to determine their attitudes on what stations best served the needs and interests of the black community, an opinion survey of the black residents of the District of Columbia was made.  This poll was not a scientific survey based on a random sample, but was a straw poll of 352 citizens in four different neighborhoods throughout the city.  The results are by no means scientific; yet they do offer some evidence of the feelings of the black community in the District of Columbia.

 

The most common opinion, constituting 37 percent of the replies, was that the stations are "all no good." An almost equal share said that they had no opinion.  Those who did express an opinion with regard to ranking the four VHF stations, gave WTOP the most first-place votes, followed by WRC, WTTG, and WMAL.  When the overall results were weighted and computed (using a system giving three points for a first place vote, two points or second place, etc.), WTOP ranked first; WTTG, although lower than WRC in first-place votes, was second: WRC was third; and WMAL, with only four first-place votes, was ranked lowest.

 

PART V: COMMERCIALIZATION

 

If one is to have a full picture of its programming, it is important to have an accurate knowledge of the extent of commercialization of a station.  By examining the programming logs for the composite weeks in 1966 and 1969 and computing the time allocated to commercials in minutes and seconds for each day, this report was able to arrive at an exact figure for total commercial time during each composite week.  It should be pointed out that, because the FCC does not retain the analytic logs, the compilation of this data is an extremely time-consuming process involving visiting the individual stations to examine their logs.  Were such data generally available for the entire mid-Atlantic region, permitting a wide survey, it would have represented a most valuable index of a station's public performance.

 

This segment is based upon data gathered from three of Washington's VHF stations, WTOP, WRC, and WMAL -- the fourth station, WTTG, not having made their logs available in time to include them.  The results were as follows: In 1966, WTOP presented the most commercial time, over 16 hours and 30 minutes per week; WRC was second with 9 hours and 48 minutes; and WMAL had the least, 8 hours and 55 minutes.  In 1969, WTOP reduced the number of hours slightly to 15 hours, 9 minutes; WMAL added 2 hours and 24 minutes to commercials; and WRC made a tremendous jump to 23 hours and 43 minutes -- up nearly 14 hours.

 

The figures for commercials as a percent of broadcast time show that WRC went from a low 7.2 percent to the highest saturation of 17.7 percent of all air time devoted to commercials; WTOP remained about the same, 11.9 percent in 1966 to 11.0 percent in 1969; WMAL had the lowest in 1966, 7.3 percent, but went up to 8.8 percent in 1969.

 

PART VI: SUMMARY

 

Listed below are the six separate criteria developed by this report by which to judge a station's performance: (1) A comparative ranking of stations in the mid-Atlantic region on their quantitative performance in nine areas of programming practices in 1969; (2) An adjusted ranking compensating for the size and resources of each station, of the quantitative performance ranked in number 1; (3) A trends analysis of station's performance over the last 3 and 6 years.  This area shows the direction, i.e., improvement or decline, of a station over time; (4) A network comparison examining the performance of the large mid-Atlantic network affiliates with relation to other large affiliates of the same network; (5) An examination of the extent and nature of black employment; (6) A community survey ranking stations as to how well they serve the needs and interests of the black community.

 

The first two criteria were applied to all mid-Atlantic stations, the first being shown in table 3 and the second in graph 1.  The trend comparison is available for the 28 stations in operation from 1963 through 1969 (see table 4).  The network comparison based on the data in tables 30 to 54, applies only to the six network affiliates and Metromedia in Baltimore and Washington.  The fifth and sixth criteria, tables 55 to 57, are only for the four VHF stations for Washington, D.C.  We wish to emphasize that each criterion is in itself important; however, no one criteria, nor a composite of two or more, can serve as a single index of overall performance.  A station must achieve satisfactory performance in each of the six areas to serve the public interest.  It must be noted that this study and these rankings are based upon a current definition of the public interest as approved by Congress and the FCC, viz., serving the needs of the local community and acting as a medium for public information.

 

The balance of this chapter discusses tables 3 and 4, the graph, and the performance of each of the 32 stations in the mid-Atlantic States.  Tables 3 and 4 are attempts to collect and summarize the data presented in tables 5 to 38: Table 3 summarizes the rankings from the nine tables that quantified performance in 1969 -- i.e., a station rank for news programming from table 7 is transferred to column 4 in table 3, etc.; table 4 compiles the eight comparative tables to show trends in performance from 1963 to 1969 and 1966 to 1969, with the exception that the comparative table for public affairs was not included in the composite table because it was felt that the rankings were based on slight numerical differences that might have been caused by statistical variations.  The last column in both tables 3 and 4 is the raw score -- the sum of the rankings in the other columns.  A perfect score would be nine for table 3 and eight for table 4; that is, first in each category.  The lower the raw score, the better the performance.  This raw score was then divided into the perfect score to obtain a percentile figure for each station, the highest percentage indicating the best performance.  These figures are ranked in column 3.  Thus, table 3 ranks performance, from best to worst, in 1969.  This unadjusted figure must be adjusted for the station's size and resources as discussed in the explanation of the graph.  Table 4 lists the stations in terms of their improvement or decline over time.

 

What effect does a station's size and resources have on its performance?  Can a station serving 200,000 people be compared fairly with a station serving 2 million?  Graph 1 is an attempt to determine the impact of a station's size on performance, the best indicator of size and resources being each station's figures for profits or revenues.  Although the stations report this data to the FCC, the figures are not made public.  Thus, the investigator has to look for the next best indicator.  We have chosen the average 30-minute advertising rate as published in the "1969 Television Factbook," a figure which increases with the size and audience of a station, and which gives an indication of a station's income.

 

Graph 1 plots performance, the vertical axis, as determined by the percentage of composite rank from table 3, against station size, the horizontal axis, as determined by the 30-minute advertising rates.  The results show a scatter of stations across the graph in rough patterns which indicate certain relationships.  The graph breaks naturally into two categories along the horizontal axis: (1) The small stations below a $700 advertising rate, and (2) those above $700.  A low position along the vertical axis indicates low performance; a high position indicates high performance.  Thus, for reference, a station in the upper left quadrant would be a small, high performing station; a station in the upper right would be large, high performing station; a station in the lower left would be a small, low performing station; and a station in the lower right would be a large, low performing station.

Graph 1, which ranks performance in 1969 against size, indicates that there is a linear relationship between increased size and increased performance.  Almost half the stations fall within the lines drawn across the graph, indicating that for each $100 increase in advertising rate, there is roughly a 2 1/2 percent corresponding increase in performance.  The diagonal lines bisecting the quadrants show expected performance.  The distance from these lines, on a vertical axis, shows the degree of performance, positive or negative, with relation to expectations.

 

PART VII: THE STATION SUMMARY

 

Washington, D.C, market

 

Washington, the Ninth largest market area in the country, has four commercial VHF stations.

 

WTTG, Independent, ranks No. 1 in the Mid-Atlantic region with a performance level of 76 percent in 1969.  Although it leads in no categories, its consistently good scores gave it the best average; however, it ranks a poor 22d in news.  Ranking WTTG against size, it does what is expected of a large station.  In the composite of improvement, WTTG ranks second highest, showing outstanding improvements with a decrease in entertainment and sports and an increase in locally originated programming.  WTTG ranked third in the District of Columbia in employment of blacks, and in the straw poll among black people in the District it was considered second best.

 

WTOP, CBS, ranks second best in performance in 1969, showing strength in news, entertainment and sports, and local and regional news.  However, it suffered from high commercialization and low public service announcements.  It seems that in order to watch the most news, one has to watch the most commercials, too.  WTOP does what is expected according to its size.  In trends, it ranks seventh best, indicating that it is maintaining its high level.  It also performs better than its market rank when compared to other network affiliates.  WTOP ranks second in black employment and blacks rank it the best of the four D.C. stations.  Under present standards, WTOP is doing a very good job.

 

WRC, NBC, third best in raw score, gives excellent performances in entertainment and sports, public affairs and percentage of news employees, but does poorly in commercialization and public service announcements.  WRC has maintained its high position in trends and stands better than its market rank when compared to other NBC affiliates.  It does well, as expected, by its large size.  Its 15 percent black employment rate is highest among the four D.C. stations, although the black community ranks it the third most responsive to their needs.

 

WMAL, ABC, in the total unadjusted raw score for performance in 1969 received 43 percent of the total possible points.  It ranked 25th out of all 32 stations.  In the individual categories, WMAL ranked 23d in percentage of news programs, 24th in percentage of public affairs programming, 22d in percentage of entertainment and sports, 24th in the amount of locally produced prime-time programming, and 27th in percentage of local and regional news.  Overall, only six stations did worse.  WMAL performed nearly 85 percent below what a station with its large size and resources could do.  When adjusted for market size, WMAL finished last in the mid-Atlantic region.

 

In the trends table, WMAL ranked 27th of the 28 stations ranked.  In the individual categories, WMAL ranked last in comparisons of news programming from 1963 to 1969; 20th in news comparison from 1966 to 1969; last in comparison of entertainment and sports, 1966 to 1969; 17th in comparison of percentage of news employees, 1966 to 1969; 18th in comparison of public service announcements, 1966 to 1969; and last in comparison of locally originated prime-time programming, 1966 to 1969.  WMAL performance has continued to go down, drastically down.

 

Comparisons were made between network affiliates in Baltimore and Washington with affiliates in the same network in the top 25 markets nationwide.  By this method, the network factor could be held constant.  WMAL performed below its market rank in comparative news programming, and the same as its market rank in two other categories.  Four of the five other large-market network affiliates in the mid-Atlantic region did better.

 

In the comparison of employment of blacks in the four Washington, D.C. stations, WMAL ranked last, having only 6.3 percent black employees, or 12 out of a staff of 190.  Of these 12 black employees, six hold custodial positions.  WMAL gave no other breakdown of employee position.  In a city that is 75 percent black, no more than 3 percent of WMAL's production and technical staff are black.  Black people in the District of Columbia were asked to rank the four VHF stations as to how well each station served the needs and interests of the black community.  Although this poll was not drawn from a scientific random sample, it was a straw vote done on the streets in different neighborhoods across the city.  Of the 95 first-place votes, WMAL got four.  Giving three points for first place, two for second, etc., the leading station polled 181 votes, while WMAL received 95, placing it at the bottom in the District of Columbia according to the black population.

 

Baltimore, Md. market

 

The Baltimore market is made up of four stations: Three VHF and one UHF (WMET), and is rated the 11th largest market in the country.

 

WJZ, ABC, is the fifth ranked station in performance in 1969, providing average programming generally, but leadership in public service announcements and fifth in commercialization.  Considering its large size, it does as expected, but in trends it is declining, having a rank of 21.  Of the six network stations compared, it does by far the best, performing above its market rank.

 

WBAL, NBC, is ranked sixth, doing well in entertainment and sports and local programming, but poorly, 30th, in commercials.  Its performance is in line with expectation according to its size.  Its 65 percent in trends shows it is improving its position.

 

WMAR, CBS, gives a very average performance, ranking 16th overall, with no outstanding performances and showing weakness in percentage of news employees and commercials.  Ranked for size, WMAR does below expectancy, falling about 10 percentage points below its expected performance.  In trends, WMAR is 14th, indicating that it has been doing about the same over the past 3 years.  Its network performance is the worst of the six large network stations in the mid-Atlantic region.  WMAR's weakness, when ranked by size and with other network affiliates, indicates certain questions about its overall performance.

 

WMET, Independent, is the smallest Baltimore station and the only UHF channel.  It ranks 25th in the unadjusted composite score.  Because it is an independent station, it ranks well in locally originated programming, but low in percentage of news employees.  It has a low level of saturation commercialization.  When adjusted for size, it scores just below the line of expectancy.

 

Charleston and Huntington, W. Va. market

 

The Charleston and Huntington, W. Va., market has three VHF stations serving around 1/2 million viewers' homes in the 48th largest market.

 

WSAZ, NBC, Huntington, W. Va., achieved 62 percent, or No. 8. Compared to its relatively high advertising rate, it does about what is expected.  In trends, it ranked a modest 18th, showing the worst performance in public service announcements and second worst in locally originated programs.  This is a bad trend for an otherwise adequate station.

 

WCHS, CBS, Charleston, W. Va., achieves 51 percent based on 1969 performance for a ranking of 18th.  Six of its ranks are in the high teens or low twenties.  When the advantage of its size is compensated for, WCHS does considerably below expectation.  For its size, it should be scoring about 62 percent rather than its actual 51 percent.  Although two categories of data for this station are unavailable, its trends in the other six give it a score of 14th.  WCHS should be asked to justify why its performance is below what can be expected from a larger station.

 

WHTN, ABC, Huntington, W. Va., does poorly.  In performance it ranked 31st, scoring a high performance only in percentage of news employees, but ranking 31st in five other categories.  WHTN, despite its apparently large news staff, has only 3.09 percent news programming.  Commissioners Johnson and Cox have stated that any station programming less than 5 percent news should be asked to justify how such programming serves the needs of the local community.  Not only does WHTN score poorly in news programming, but it is also low in public affairs and locally originated programming, while rich in entertainment and sports.  This is a pattern that may maximize profits, but the public has the right to ask how this serves their interest.

 

Taking into account the fact that WHTN is a smaller station, it nevertheless performs far below expectancy; 28 percent instead of around 50 percent.  In trends, WHTN shows the greatest decline: It is 28th of 28.  Its news is dropping; its entertainment and sports is climbing.  Its trends, if unregulated, indicate increasing failure to meet the needs and interests of the public.  This report feels that a general complaint against WHTN is justified by their overall low performance, particularly in news, and by their downward trends.

 

Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Va. market

 

The Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Hampton, Va. market is the largest Virginia market and has four stations; three VHF and one UHF.

 

WAVY, NBC, Portsmouth, Va., is an outstanding No. 3, achieving 73 percent, with a high ranking in news, public affairs, and entertainment and sports.  However, a high percentage of its broadcast hours are filled with more than 12 minutes of commercials.  When its size is compensated for, it performs the highest above expectation of any station.  This makes it the station doing the best job in 1969 in the mid-Atlantic region.  In trends, it is among the stations improving, ranking No. 8.

 

WYAH, Independent, Hampton, Va., is a very small independent station and does a very respectable job.  In 1969 performance, it is tied for No. 9.  It shows the least entertainment and sports and the most locally originated programming.  With its small advertising charge of $150 per hour, it does very well, showing a performance level of 61 percent when expectations would be about 40 percent.  No trends are available for WYAH because it began operation after 1966.  For such a young station, its performance is quite remarkable.

 

WTAR, CBS, Norfolk, Va., does an above-average job, ranking 12th overall in 1969.  No area is outstandingly weak and no area shows outstanding strength.  For its size, it does just about as expected.  In trends, it is declining, ranking 22d.  The declines are pretty much across the board.

 

WVEC, ABC, Hampton, Va., ranks 32d out of 32 stations in overall performance.  It has less than the suggested minimum of 5 percent news programming, with consistently low rankings elsewhere.  Although one could expect a score of around 50 percent for a station of its size, its scores only 21 percent.  It is 17th in trends, suggesting that it is maintaining its very low level of performance.  This low achievement deserves investigation by the FCC.

 

Richmond, Va., market

 

Richmond, Va., is the 66th largest national market, and has three VHF stations.

 

WTVR, CBS, ranks a respectable No. 7 overall, with high achievements for a network station in locally originated shows and local prime-time shows.  It performs about 12 percentage points above expectancy.  Accolades for most improved station go to

WTVR. CBS's Richmond affiliate is indeed performing well.

 

WXEX, ABC, is two ranks behind WTVR, tied for No. 9, and scores 10 percentage points higher than expectancy.  However, its trends are downward, ranking 22d and showing a particularly severe decline in news performance.

 

WWBT, NBC, performs slightly below average, with a 19th rank.  It is above average in news, public affairs, and entertainment and sports, but at the bottom for prime time, locally produced programming.  For its size, it is doing what is expected.  In trends, it is a rapidly climbing No. 3.

 

Roanoke and Lynchburg, Va., market

 

The Roanoke and Lynchburg, Va., market has four stations; three network VHF, and one independent UHF channel.

 

WLVA, ABC, Lynchburg, Va., ranks a modest 20th, but that is above expectancy for a station of its size.  Slight improvement is noticeable with a composite rank of 11th in trends.

 

WSLS, NBC, Roanoke, Va., hits a low 29th, worst in public affairs and low ranking in entertainment and sports.  Its achievement is 17 points below expectancy.  In trends it is downward, ranking 26th and showing steep declines in news and entertainment and sports.  WSLS should be asked to justify its low achievement and its sharp decline before it is renewed for another 3 years.

 

WDBJ, CBS, Roanoke, Va., achieves a low 27th place ranking.  This is 10 points below expectancy.  WDBJ is not included in the trends table because it began operation after 1963.

 

WRFT, Independent, Roanoke, Va., is a poor 29th.  Even as an independent, it is poor in local programming, 29th in prime-time programming.  It has the most entertainment and sports and the least news -- below the 5-percent minimum.  It scores 13 points below expectancy.  No trends are available because WRFT started operation after 1963.  Although WRFT is a new station, its pattern of programming and poverty of news should make it subject to an FCC hearing to determine if, in fact, it is serving its community's needs.

 

The remaining eight stations are in small markets, ranking 102d or more.  Six of these stations are the only local station in their area.  The Weston and Clarksburg, W. Va., area has two stations.

 

WCYB, ABC, and NBC, Bristol, Va., ranks 15th overall and has the least concentration of commercials.  It achieves about seven points above expectancy, but in trends it is declining to 24th place.

 

WHIS, NBC, Bluefield, W. Va., ranks 14th, with adequate programming.  It performs 12 points above expectancy for a high position.  In trends it is tied for the third most improved station.  By the three indices, WHIS is doing a very good job.

 

WOAY, ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va., ranks a low 28th.  It has less than the suggested 5-percent minimum standard of news.  Even considering its small size, it scores about eight points below expectancy.  In trends it is a modest 18th.  The FCC should inquire of WOAY as to why it has such a low percentage of news and is not achieving in accordance with its size.

 

WSVA, ABC, CBS, and NBC, Harrisonburg, Va., ties for 29th ranking, does what it expected when compared by size, and ranks 20th in trends.

 

WDTV, CBS, Weston, W. Va., scores a respectable 13th ranking.  For its small size, it is 15 percentage points above expectancy.  Yet, in trends it is declining, tied for 24th position.

 

WBOY, ABC, and NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va., ranks only 20th, but does what is expected when its small size is taken into consideration.  In trends it is maintaining its position.

 

WBOC, ABC, CBS, and NBC, Salisbury, Md., in the 194th market, achieves 17th overall, nearly 10 points above expectancy.  In trends it is maintaining its position.

 

WTAP, ABC, and NBC, Salisbury, Md., in the 194th market, achieves 17th overall, nearly 10 points above expectancy.  In trends it is maintaining its position.

 

WTAP, ABC, and NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va., is ranked 23d, but it does about what is expected from its small size.  It is modestly improving its position.

 

PART VIII: CONCLUSION

 

After a careful study of the comparative performance of the mid-Atlantic stations and an analysis of each station's performance, we conclude that the following stations deserve investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, and

 

We recommend:

 

(1) WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.), be denied its license.  Its low overall performance, its drastic failure to achieve a level of performance anywhere near its potential in size and resources, its stagnant downward trends over the last 6 years, its low comparative network performance, its extremely low employment of black people and its low esteem in the black community spell disaster.  Six separate criteria add up to the lowest performance in the region and the Disrict.  Our indices lead us to conclude that WMAL has failed to serve the public interest.

 

(2) General complaints be filed against:

 

(a) WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.), for its poor current performances, especially in light of its 3.1 percent news performance and very high percentage of entertainment and sports -- a performance seriously below expectation for its size and its serious decline over the past 6 years.

 

(b) WVEC (ABC, Hamption, Va.), for the lowest overall performance in 1969, its low score compared to its size and potential and for having less than 5 percent news programming.

 

(c) WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.), for its low performance in 1969 and its sharp decline since 1966.

 

(d) WRFT (Independent, Roanoke, Va.), for its low performance in 1969, well below expectation, and for its programming practices of less than 5 percent news, few locally produced shows and the highest percentage of entertainment and sports.

 

(3) Investigations be made into:

 

(a) WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.), for its low performance considering its large size.

 

(b) WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.), for its low overall performance and for having less than 5 percent news programming.

 

TABLE 1. -- The Mid-Atlantic stations, 1967

 

Market area

Market ranking

Call letters

TV homes

Channel

Network affiliation

 

 

 

Washington, D.C

 

9

WTTG

1,941,900

5

Independent

 

Do

9

WRC

1,707,000

4

NBC

 

Do

9

WMAL

1,693,200

7

ABC

 

Do

9

WTOP

1,687,200

9

CBS

 

Do

9

WDCA

1,402,500

20

Independent

 

Do

9

WFAN

287,000

14

Independent

 

Baltimore, Md

11

WJZ

2,107,400

13

ABC

 

Do

11

WMAR

2,063,000

2

CBS

 

Do

11

WBAL

1,936,400

11

NBC

 

Do

11

WMET

NA

24

Independent

 

Wheeling, W. Va.,

 

Steubenville, Ohio

 

37

WSTV

1,390,100

9

ABC, CBS

 

Do

37

WTRF

1,291,700

7

NBS

 

Charleston, Huntington, W. Va

 

 

48

WSAZ

531,500

3

NBC

 

Do

48

WHTN

520,800

13

ABC

 

Do

48

WCHS

519,700

8

CBS

 

Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Va

 

 

53

WTAR

477,800

3

CBS

 

Do

53

WAVY

418,500

10

NBC

 

Do

53

WVEC

386,700

13

ABC

 

Do

53

WYAH

NA

27

Independent

 

Richmond, Va

66

WXEX

543,900

8

ABC

 

Do

66

WTVR

413,200

6

CBS

 

Do

66

WWBT

359,200

12

NBC

 

Roanoke, Lynchburg, Va

 

67

WSLS

581,800

10

NBC

 

Do

67

WDBJ

543,900

7

CBS

 

Do

67

WLVA

326,200

13

ABC

 

Do

67

WRFT

326,200

27

Independent

 

Bristol, Va

102

WCYB

321,600

5

NBC-ABC

 

Bluefield, W. Va

 

144

WHIS

214,000

6

NBC

 

Oak Hill, Beckely, W. Va

 

167

WOAY

210,000

4

ABC

 

Harrisonburg, Va

 

174

WSVA

497,800

3

ABC-NBC-CBS

 

Weston, Clarksburg, W. Va

 

 

175

WDTV

170,000

5

CBS

 

Do

175

WBOY

125,000

12

ABC-NBC

 

Salisbury, Md

194

WBOC

64,500

16

ABC-NBC-CBS

 

Parkersburg, W. Va

 

207

WTAP

58,200

15

ABC-NBC

 

 

 

Owner

Owned by conglomerate, newspaper, or multiple owner

Market area

 

 

Washington, D.C.

Metromedia

Yes.

Do

NBC

Yes.

Do

Evening Star Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Post Newsweek Co

Yes.

Do

M. Grant (president)

Yes.

Do

United TV Co

Yes.

Baltimore, Md

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

A. S. Abell Co

Yes.

DoHearst Corp

Yes.

 

Do

United Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Wheeling, W. Va., Steubenville, Ohio

Rust Craft Corp

Yes.

Do

ADIX, Ferguson

Yes.

Charleston, Huntington, W. Va

Capital Cities Corp

Yes.

Do

Reeves Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Rollins, Inc

Yes.

Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Va

WTAR-Radio-TV Corp

Yes.

Do

Hunter C. Phelan

Yes.

Do

Thomas P. Chisman

Yes.

Do

M. G. Robertson

Yes.

Richmond, Va

Nationwide Communications

Yes.

Do

Part Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Jefferson Pilot

Yes.

Roanoke, Lynchburg, Va

Shenandoah Life Insurance

Yes.

Do

Times-World Corp

Yes.

Do

Evening-Star Newspaper

Yes.

Do

Frank Tirico (president)

Yes.

Bristol, Va

Robert H. Smith (president)

Yes.

Bluefield, W. Va

Daily Telegraph

Yes.

Oak Hill, Beckley, W. Va

Robert R. Thomas

Yes.

Harrisonburg, Va

James S. Gilmore

Yes.

Weston, Clarksburg, W. Va

Broadcast Independent Corp

Yes.

Do

Fortnightly Corp

Yes.

Salisbury, Md

WBOC-Radio-TV Inc

Yes.

Parkersburg, W. Va

Zanesville Broadcasting Co

Yes.

 

TABLE 2. -- The Mid-Atlantic stations, 1968

 

Market area

Market ranking

Call letters

TV homes

Channel

Network affiliation

 

 

 

Washington,

 

 

D.C.

8

WTTG

2,312,800

5

Independent

 

Do

8

WRC

1,991,00

4

NBC

 

Do

8

WMAL

1,995,700

7

ABC

 

Do

8

WTOP

1,984,500

9

CBS

 

do

8

WDCA

1,718,200

20

Independent

 

Do

8

WFAN

751,000

14

Independent

 

Baltimore, Md

11

WMAR

2,581,700

2

CBS

 

Do

11

WJZ

2,407,800

13

ABC

 

Do

11

WBAL

2,307,500

11

NBC

 

Do

11

WMET

611,600

24

Independent

 

Wheeling, W. Va., Steubenville,

 

Ohio

28

WSTV

1,851,800

9

CBS-ABC

 

Do

28

WTRF

1,820,000

7

NBC

 

Charleston, Huntington, W. Va

 

 

49

WSAZ

606,600

3

NBC

 

Do

49

WHTN

574,500

13

ABC

 

Do

49

WCHS

571,200

8

CBS

 

Norfolk, Portsomuth, Hampton, Va

 

 

53

WAVY

641,000

10

NBC

 

Do

53

WTAR

523,700

3

CBS

 

Do

53

WVEC

458,500

13

ABC

 

Do

53

WYAH

NA

27

Independent

 

Roanoke, Lynchburg, Va

 

62

WDBJ

766,800

7

CBS

 

Do

62

WSLS

746,700

10

NBC

 

Do

62

WLVA

427,200

13

ABC

 

Do

62

WRFT

114,100

27

Independent

 

Richmond, Va

65

WXEX

580,300

8

ABC

 

Do

65

WTVR

547,000

6

CBS

 

Do

65

WWBT

489,700

12

NBC

 

Bristol, Va

101

WCYB

631,400

5

NBC-ABC

 

Bluefield, W. Va

 

149

WHIS

427,700

6

NBC

 

Oak Hill, Beckley, W. Va

 

 

164

WOAY

340,500

4

ABC

 

Harrisonburg, Va

 

176

WSVA

294,800

3

ABC-NBC-CBS

 

Weston, Clarksburg,W. Va

 

 

174

WDTV

634,500

5

CBS

 

Do

174

WBOY

502,000

12

ABC-NBC

 

Salisbury, Md

194

WBOC

192,400

16

ABC-NBC-CBS

 

Parkersburg, W. Va

 

208

WTAP

62,300

15

ABC-NBC

 

 

Market area

Owner

Owned by Congolomerate, newspaper, or multiple owner

Washington, D.C

Metromedia

Yes.

Do

NBC

Yes.

Do

Evening Star Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Post Newsweek

Yes.

Do

M. Grant (president)

Yes.

Do

United TV Co

Yes.

Baltimore, Md

A. S. Abell Co

Yes.

Do

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Hearst Corp

Yes.

Do

United Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Wheeling, W. Va., Steubenville, Ohio

Rust Craft Broadcasting

 

 

Co

Yes.

Do

ADIX, Ferguson

Yes.

Charleston, Huntington, W. Va

Capital Cities Corp

Yes.

Do

Reeves Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Rollins, Inc

Yes.

Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Va

Hunter C. Phelan

Yes.

Do

WTAR-Radio-TV Corp

Yes.

Do

Thomas P.Chisman

Yes.

Do

M. G. Robertson

Yes.

Roanoke, Lynchburg, Va

Times-World Corp

Yes.

Do

Shenandoah Life Insurance

Yes.

Do

Evening-Star Newspaper

Yes.

Do

Frank Tirico (president)

Yes.

Richmond, Va

Nationwide Communications

Yes.

Do

Park Broadcasting Co

Yes.

Do

Jefferson Pilot

Yes.

Bristol, Va

Robert H. Smith (president)

Yes.

Bluefield, W. Va

Daily Telegraph Printing

Yes.

Oak Hill, Beckely, W. Va

Robert R. Thomas

Yes.

Harrisonburg, Va

James S. Gilmore

Yes.

Weston, Clarksburg, W. Va

Broadcast Independent Corp

Yes.

Do

Frotnightly Corp

Yes.

Salisbury, Md

WBOC-Radio-TV, Inc

Yes.

Parkersburg, W. Va

Zanesville, Broadcasting Co

Yes.

 

TABLE 3. -- Composite performance in 1969

 

 

 

Percent ranking

News programming

Public affairs

Entertainment

Rank

Call letters

 

 

 

And sports

 

 

1

WTTG (IND., Washington, D.C.)

76

22

4

7

2WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

74

2

7

3

 

3

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

73

6

1

2

3

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

73

3

2

4

5

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

70

18

6

19

6

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

68

8

11

6

7

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

66

7

8

8

8

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

62

4

5

14

9

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

n1 61

1

17

11

9

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

61

20

3

13

9

WYAH (IND., Hampton, Va.)

61

26

11

1

12

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

59

13

14

12

13

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

58

12

16

21

14

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

57

5

22

5

15

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

55

21

18

25

16

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

54

17

20

15

17

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

52

14

30

17

18

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

51

19

22

23

19

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

50

9

9

9

20

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

46

11

19

18

20

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

46

27

26

27

20

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

46

23

31

26

23

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

45

15

10

20

24

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

44

9

20

16

25

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

43

23

24

22

25

WMET (IND., Baltimore, Md.)

43

27

27

29

27

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

40

16

25

10

28

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

26

29

15

24

29

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

33

23

32

28

30

WRFT (IND., Roanoke, Va.)

29

32

11

32

31

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

28

31

28

31

32

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

21

30

29

30

 

 

Locally Call letters programming

Prime originated programming

Local time regional

Percent and employees news

 

Rank

news

 

 

 

 

1

WTTG (IND., Washington, D.C.)

4

4

12

14

2

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

14

6

4

5

3

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

5

7

12

1

3

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

13

11

2

10

5

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

12

13

9

11

6

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

2

3

22

15

7

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

3

7

4

24

8

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

8

24

12

3

9

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

22

18

4

20

9

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

18

18

7

17

9

WYAH (IND., Hampton, Va.)

1

1

22

30

12

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

26

15

21

7

13

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

27

17

3

9

14

WHIS (NBC, Bluefild, W. Va.)

16

18

27

21

15

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

11

9

1

24

16

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

9

14

17

27

17

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

7

11

8

26

18

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

15

24

12

8

19

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

19

32

31

19

20

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

24

24

20

23

20

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

25

9

12

16

20

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

30

30

9

4

23

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

23

5

22

32

24

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

21

18

22

18

25

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

6

24

27

13

25

WMET (IND., Baltimore, Md.)

10

2

22

31

27

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

17

18

17

27

28

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

29

18

29

6

29

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

20

15

30

25

30

WRFT (IND., Roanoke, Va.)

32

29

32

29

31

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

31

31

11

2

32

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

28

24

19

22

 

Rank

Call letters

Public Service announcements

Commercials

 

Raw score total

1

WTTG (IND., Washington, D.C.)

3

8

78

2

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

22

22

85

3

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

23

29

86

3

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

16

25

86

5

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

1

5

94

6

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

5

30

102

7

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

24

17

106

8

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

27

21

118

9

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

12

NA

105

9

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

2

23

121

9

WYAH (IND., Hampton, Va.)

29

1

122

12

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

7

11

126

13

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

25

1

131

14

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

6

12

132

15

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

30

1

140

16

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

26

26

141

17

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

32

1

146

18

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

8

18

149

19

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

9

16

153

20

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

13

13

165

20

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

15

9

166

20

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

3

10

166

23

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

10

31

168

24

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

18

28

170

25

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

21

14

174

25

WMET (IND., Baltimore, Md.)

19

7

174

27

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

26

26

182

28

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

20

24

194

29

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

14

11

202

30

WRFT (IND., Roanoke, Va.)

11

4

214

31

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

31

19

215

32

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

28

27

237

 

n1 WSTV's raw score is divided by 8.

[SEE GRAPHIC IN ORIGINAL]

 

TABLE 4. -- Composite table of stations in trends 1963-69 and 1966-69

 

 

Call letters

Percent ranking

Comparison of news rank

1963-69

Comparison of news rank 1966-69

Comparison of entertainment

 

Summary

rank

 

and sports

1963-69

1

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

82

2

6

2

 

2

WTTG (Independent, Washington,D.C.)

 

 

 

75

4

5

8

 

3

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

67

3

2

7

 

3

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

67

6

10

17

 

5

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

65

22

4

9

 

5

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

 

 

 

65

6

1

3

 

7

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

63

1

15

1

 

8

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

62

6

10

19

 

9

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

62

4

20

4

 

10

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

 

 

 

54

10

6

10

 

11

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

53

18

10

20

 

12

WBOC (ABC, NBC, CBS, Salisbury, Md.)

 

 

 

51

10

8

18

 

13

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

49

17

15

16

 

14

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

 

 

 

49

15

18

15

 

14

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

47

12

22

13

 

14

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

47

18

24

5

 

17

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

46

21

19

14

 

18

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

46

12

8

11

 

19

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

44

27

29h24

 

 

20

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

 

 

 

43

12

14

26

 

21

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

39

26

10

22

 

22

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

37

23

25

6

 

22

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

37

25

29

12

 

24

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

32

24

25

27

 

24

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

32

6

3

24

 

26

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

 

16

25

25

 

27

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

24

30

20

28

 

28

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

23

30

15

23

 

 

Summary rank

Comparison

Comparison of percent of news employees,

 

 

of public service announce

1966-69

 

Call letters

 

 

 

 

ments,

 

1966-69

1

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

2

14

9

2

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

 

 

1

NA

22

3

WWBY (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

4

9

3

3

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

12

6

15

5

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

4

22

7

5

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

 

 

6

NA

21

7

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

2

11

26

8

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

7

8

28

9

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

13

10

6

10

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

 

 

9

23

2

11

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

27

13

4

12

WBOC (ABC, NBC, CBS, Salisbury, Md.)

 

 

11

20

29

13

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

17

1

20

14

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

 

 

23

2

19

14

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

16

NA

11

14

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

10

21

24

17

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

20

12

17

18

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

15

3

27

19

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

18

5

12

20

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

 

 

26

4

5

21

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

22

7

13

22

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

14

16

23

22

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

21

NA

16

24

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

19

18

30

24

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

29

15

14

26

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

28

NA

8

27

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

24

17

18

28

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

25

19

25

 

Summary

rank

 

Comparison of locally originated programming, 1966-69

Comparison

of locally originated prime time programming, 1966-69

 

 

Total raw score

Call letters

 

 

 

 

 

1

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

1

3

39

2

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

 

 

2

2

n1 44

3

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

21

26

75

3

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

4

5

75

5

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

6

6

80

5

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

 

 

3

25

n1 65

7

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

16

12

84

8

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

5

4

87

9

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

15

16

88

10

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

 

 

22

23

105

11

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

14

1

107

12

WBOC (ABC, NBC, CBS, Salisbury, Md.)

 

 

9

8

113

13

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)h19

13

118

 

14

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

 

 

13

18

123

14

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

NA

19

n2 93

14

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

10

11

123

17

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

11

10

n1 124

18

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

28

22

126

19

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

8

7

130

20

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va)

 

 

27

17

131

21

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

20

21

141

22

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

17

23

147

22

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

7

4

n1 124

24

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

18

29

157

24

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

24

9

157

26

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

23

14

n1 139

27

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

12

28

175

28

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

25

27

179

 

n1 One column of data available.

n2 Two columns of data available.

 

TABLE 5. -- News programming during composite week

 

 [Percentage, 1963]

Rank

Call letters

Percent

1

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

9.8

2

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

8.8

3

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

8.4

4

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

8.1

5

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

8.06

6

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

n1 8.04

7

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

7.97

 

 

(over 7.9)

8

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

7.9

9

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

7.6

10

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

7.38

11

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

7.2

12

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

6.9

13

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

6.76

14

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

6.59

 

 

(6.59-7.9)

15

WTRF (NBC, Whelling, W. Va.)

6.4

16

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

5.8

17

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

5.7

18

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

5.4

19

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

5.32

20

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

5.3

21

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

5.2

 

 

(5.2-6.4)

22

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

5.03

23

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

5.0

24

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

4.7

25

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

4.6

26

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

4.4

27

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

4.35

28

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

3.27

 

 

(under 5.03)

 

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

n(2)

 

WRFT (Independent, Roanoke, Va.)

n(3)

 

WMET (Independent, Baltimore, Md.)

n(3)

 

WYAH (Independent, Hampton, Va.)

n(3)

 

n1 License period 1964.

n2 Not available.

n3 Not in operation.

 

TABLE 6. -- News programming during composite week

 

[Percentage, 1966]

Rank

Call letters

Percent

1

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

16.7

2

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

12.43

3

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

12.4

4

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

11.0

5

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

10.4

6

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

10.11

7

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

10.0

 

 

(over 9.9)

8

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

9.82

9

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

9.81

10

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

9.67

11

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

9.56

12

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

9.23

13

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

9.2

14

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

9.0

14

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

9.0

 

 

(9.0-9.82)

16

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

8.8

17

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

8.7

18

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

8.47

19

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

7.9

20

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

7.6

21

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

n1 7.27

22

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

6.78

23

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

6.6

 

 

(6.6-8.8)

24

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

6.5

25

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

5.6

25

WRET (Independent, Roanoke, Va.)

5.6

27

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

5.1

28

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

4.6

29

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

4.26

30

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

3.8

 

(under 6.5)

 

 

WMET (Independent, Baltimore, Md.)

n(2)

 

WYAH (Independent, Hampton, Va.)

n(2)

 

n1 License period 1967.

n(2) Not in operation.

 

TABLE 7. -- News programming during composite week

 

[Percentage, 1969]

Rank

Call letters

Percent

1

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

n1 12.9

2

WTOP

CBS, Washington, D.C.)

12.4

 

3

WAVY (NBC, Norfolk, Va.)

11.86

4

WSAZ (NBC8, Huntington, W.Va)

11.03

5

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

10.83

6

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

10.5

7

WTVR CBS, Richmond, Va.)

9.9

8

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

9.7

 

 

(over 9.6)

9

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

9.6

9

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

9.6

11

WBOY (NBC, ABC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

9.09

12

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

7.89

13

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

7,87

14

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

7.8

15

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W.v/a.)

7.37

16

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

7.36

 

 

(7.36-9.6)

17

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

7.1

18

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

7.0

19

WCHS (CBS, Charlestown, W. Va.)

6.78

20

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

6.7

21

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

6.69

22

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

5.97

23

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

5.7

23

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

5.7

23

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

5.7

 

 

(5.7-7.1)

26

WYAH (Independent, Hampton, Va.)

5.1

27

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

5.02

27

WMET (Independent, Baltimore, Md.)

5.02

29

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

5.0

30

WVEC (ABC, Hampton. Va.)

4.3

31

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

3.09

32

WRFT (Independent, Roanoke Va.)

2.9

 

 

(under 5.1)

 

n1 License application 1967 proposed.

 

TABLE 8. -- Comparison of programming of news composite week from 1963-69

Rank

Call letters

Number of places changed

1

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

+18

2

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

+14

3

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

+7

4

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

+6

4

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

+6

6

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.

+5

6

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

+5

6

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

+5

6

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

+5

10

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

+4

10

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

+4

12

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

+3

12

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

+3

12

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

+3

15

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

+2

16

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

+0

17

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

-2

18

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

-3

18

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

-3

20

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

-4

21

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

-5

22

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

-6

23

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

-8

24

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

-9

25

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

-11

26

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

-15

27

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

-18

28

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

-22

 

TABLE 9. -- Comparison of programming of news composite week from 1966-69

                  

Rank

Call letters

Number of places changed

1

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

+20

2

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

+18

3

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

+12

4

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

+10

5

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

+8

6

WTAP (ABC, NBC, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

+7

6

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

+7

8

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

+6

8

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

+6

10

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

+1

10

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

+1

10

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

+1

10

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

+1

14

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

+0

15

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

-2

15

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

-2

15

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

-2

18

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

-3

19

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

-5

20

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

-6

20

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

-6

22

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

-7

22

WRFT (Independent, Roanoke, Va.)

-7

24

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

-8

25

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

-10

25

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

-10

27

WTAR (NBC, Norfolk, Va.)

-11

27

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

-11

29

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

-13

29

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

-13

 

TABLE 10. -- News programming during composite week

 

Rank

Call letters

Hours

1

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

11:39

2

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

11:31

3

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

11:12

4

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)h10:57

 

5

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

10:27

6

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

10:25

7

WSTV (ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

n1 10:03

 

 

(over 9:57)

8

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

9:57

9

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

9:47

10

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

9:17

11

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

9:00

12

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

8:33

13

WOAY (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

8:27

14

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

8:12

 

 

(8:12-9:57)

15

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

7:25

16

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

6:48

17

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

6:36

18

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

6:31

19

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

6:23

20

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

6:09

21

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

5:45

 

 

(5:45-7:25)

22

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

5:41

23

WTAP (CBS, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

5:36

24

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

5:15

25

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

5:11

26

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, h/arrisonburg, Va.)

4:41

27

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

4:34

28

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

3:56

 

 

(under 5:41)

 

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

n(2)

 

WRFT (Independent, Roanoke, Va.)

n(3)

 

WYAH (Independent, Hampton, Va.)

n(3)

 

WMET (Independent, Baltimore, Md.)

n(3)

 

n1 License application 1964.

n(2) Not available.

n(3) Not in operation.

 

TABLE 11. -- News programming during composite week

[Time, 1966]

 

Rank

Call letters

Hour

1

WTOP (CBS, Washington, D.C.)

23:02

2

WTAR (CBS, Norfolk, Va.)

16:01

3

WTRF (NBC, Wheeling, W. Va.)

15:02

4

WRC (NBC, Washington, D.C.)

15:00

5

WDBJ (CBS, Roanoke, Va.)

13:29

6

WMAR (CBS, Baltimore, Md.)

13:10

7

WXEX (ABC, Richmond, Va.)

12:59

 

 

(Over 12:38)

8

WHIS (NBC, Bluefield, W. Va.)

12:38

9

WBOY (ABC, NBC, Clarksburg, W. Va.)

12:24

10

WTVR (CBS, Richmond, Va.)

12:15

11

WBAL (NBC, Baltimore, Md.)

12:01

12

WCYB (ABC, NBC, Bristol, Va.)

11:57

13

WSAZ (NBC, Huntington, W. Va.)

11:54

14

WJZ (ABC, Baltimore, Md.)

11:08

 

 

(11:08-12:38)

15

WSLS (NBC, Roanoke, Va.)

11:02

16

WAVY (NBC, Portsmouth, Va.)

10:52

17

WMAL (ABC, Washington, D.C.)

10:36

18

WCHS (CBS, Charleston, W. Va.)

10:08

19

Woay/ (ABC, Oak Hill, W. Va.)

10:05

20

WSTV ABC, CBS, Steubenville, Ohio)

n1 9:29

21

WBOC (ABC, CBS, NBC, Salisbury, Md.)

8:28

 

 

(8:28-11:02)

22

WSVA (ABC, CBS, NBC, Harrisonburg, Va.)

7:26

23

WVEC (ABC, Hampton, Va.)

7:05

24

WTAP (CBS, Parkersburg, W. Va.)

6:43

25

WDTV (CBS, Weston, W. Va.)

6:24

26

WWBT (NBC, Richmond, Va.)

6:19

27

WHTN (ABC, Huntington, W. Va.)

5:12

28

WTTG (Independent, Washington, D.C.)

4:53

29

WLVA (ABC, Lynchburg, Va.)

4:37

30

WRFT (Independent, Roanoke, Va.)

1:20

 

 

(under 7:26)

 

WYAH (Independent, Hampton, Va.)