from the Department of Agriculture that it has bought air time to explain to farmers its land retirement, crop limitation, and marketing quota programs. The resolution would express the sense of Congress that all Government agencies be prohibited from purchasing broadcast advertising of this type. That concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you very much, Commissioner Bartley. I have only one question and I don't know if you have the answer to it or not. That is on page 3 of your statement, as you point out, perhaps there is some sort of precedent for this, for the Government using public funds to promote the public interests. Do you know if any of these purchases that you referred to by the Department of Agriculture or the tourist agency were ever bought in prime time? Mr. BARTLEY. I really don't know and most of this is an accumulation of-just based on information over the years, and the staff has the Agriculture information, I think, fairly recently. I can check on it. Mr. MACDONALD. Would you please. (The agency was unable to supply the information requested.) Mr. BARTLEY. The other, as far as I know, goes back in time but it certainly has a precedent. Mr. William Ray, Chief of our Complaints and Compliance Division, says it was some time ago, too. But it has happened and that was the only purpose of indicating it. Whether any are doing it now, I don't have knowledge. Mr. MACDONALD. Does anyone know whether it will prove to be a smart move? Did it really do what the Agriculture people wanted it to do? In other words, was it successful? Does anyone know about that? Mr. RAY. I have no information on it. I point this out merely to indicate that other areas may be explored to find out what their accomplishment or how extensive it is, rather, and maybe how effective it was. But we don't have that information. These were just indications of what they could suggest. Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, that is all. Mr. Van Deerlin. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. To what extent did the Army or Army recruiting service consult the FCC before it undertook the advertising campaign on radio and television? Mr. BARTLEY. I think not at all, but subsequent to the time it was started, there was contact because we had had some queries from broadcasters as to the identification announcement, whether or not it was adequate. I am not personally familiar. That was staff action and, Mr. Ray, as I mentioned a minute ago, can give you details. Mr. MACDONALD. Excuse me, Mr. Van Deerlin, but why not have Mr. Ray do it? He is Chief of the Complaints and Compliance Division of the FCC. Mr. RAY. Yes, sir. What happened was we received an inquiry or I received an inquiry by telephone from a member of the staff of the National Association of Broadcasters on this score. I don't know whether at this time the announcements had already been distributed to the station and orders had been placed for the purchase of time from them or not. The inquiry related to sponsorship identification of the announcement. Shortly thereafter I received a telephone call from a representative of the Department of the Army on the same score and he and two other representatives came to my office and we had a meeting to discuss the question of sponsorship identification on the announcements. That was the only-or those two instances plus the followup on the sponsorship identification-were the only instances in which we were contacted on this thing. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we shall shortly be seeing some of the television spots as they were prepared by the agency and they will contain this tag line and we will see what it contains. I gather that the question was whether these should be viewed in the same light as political announcements, as far as who paid for them and so forth? Mr. RAY. Yes, sir, whether they complied with the requirements of section 317, that any matter which is paid for shall be so identified and by whom, and whether the announcements as they originally were made carried sufficient identification of that kind. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. It was the Army you dealt with, wasn't it? Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Was your advice to them that they should identify the sponsor in precisely the same manner as a political advertiser would do? Mr. RAY. Well, as any advertiser, I might say, Mr. Van Deerlin, that it was our opinion that the spots required a more specific identification than it apparently had when originally produced by the advertising agency. Thereafter, the Army notified us that it had taken steps to assure this. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Commissioner Bartley, in judging the public service performance of broadcast licensees, does the Commission measure merely the mass of time and public service that the licensee provides or is there any weight given to the desirability of the time in which the public service announcements are carried? Mr. BARTLEY. I believe not up until this time, sir. As a matter of fact, we may be moving in the other direction, because for a period of time the renewal forms asked for information concerning the spots before 6 o'clock in the evening and after 6 and that was dropped from the renewal forms sometime back. I would say we pay practically no attention to it. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. So the public service announcements relegated, as Art Buchwald put it, to just before the Star-Spangled Banner at 1 o'clock in the morning would satisfy the Commissioner as to discharge of public responsibility by the licensee? Mr. BARTLEY. As much as I enjoy Buchwald, I seem to hear it some other times than that, too. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Did the Commission, and I put the question to you, did you give the Army any advice as to the implications for the relicensing process of stations who now sell time that has traditionally been provided as public service or should it enter into the discussion? Mr. BARTLEY. I should be willing to say definitely "No." Mr. VAN DEERLIN. What would be the attitude of the Commission or at least one Commissioner for whom you can speak toward licensees, who, finding that it is now possible to be paid for a service that has previously been provided gratis, in turn refuse to carry free further announcements either of recruiting by the Army or public service spots that might similarly be undertaken on behalf of the Marine Corps, Air Force, or Navy? Mr. BARTLEY. I would be perfectly willing to answer that question personally, but not for the Commission. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Obviously. Mr. BARTLEY. But, I have the unfortunate background of having been a broadcaster, so I think I know a little bit about how he would feel. I think if they started to buy an ad, I think that was enough. I think I would be particularly upset if I saw my competitor receiving pay for a commercial and my carrying public service spots for nothing. This would create a problem. This, I think, would be a problem to them. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Well, the question, of course, would turn on a station which had not received a contract and might then decide "If others are being paid, I don't see why my time should be made available on a public service basis." Mr. BARTLEY. Getting back to being a Commissioner, I have a good deal of trouble, frankly, in giving them a bad mark for that. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Bartley, it is nice to see you. I am very glad we have gotten into this subject thanks to the resolution Mr. Van Deerlin has introduced. I regret I am the ranking Republican present this morning, but Mr. Keith had to go to Massachusetts because his wife is undergoing surgery today and he regrets he is not able to be here for this presentation. He is very much interested in it, too, but hopefully he will be able to be back tomorrow with good news. I think Mr. Van Deerlin's line of questioning touched on a number of things that I am specifically interested in. It occurs to me that there are problems with even public service announcements, because some of the public service announcements are in areas that may be or have some philosophic disagreement in this country. Now, does the Commission have any position on what is a public service announcement or does it have any control over the public service announcements as they are prepared by the various agencies of the Federal Government? Mr. BARTLEY. No, sir. Mr. BROWN. The Peace Corps, savings bonds, programs by the Defense Department which are available free, is there any definition of a public service announcement per se? Mr. BARTLEY. There is a definition for purposes of logging the announcements. They are to be logged. I think there is a definition for a public service announcement and I can get it, but I don't have it. Mr. BROWN. If you have it, it will be helpful. (The information referred to follows:) DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT A public service announcement (PSA) is any announcement (including network) for which no charge is made and which promotes programs, activities, or services of federal, state, or local governments (e.g., recruiting, sales of bonds, etc.) or the programs, activities or services of non-profit organizations (e.g., UGF, Red Cross blood donations, etc.), and other announcements regarded as serving community interests, excluding time signals, routine weather announcements and promotional announcements. Mr. BROWN. I happen to be a supporter of the Peace Corps, but I know there are people in this country who perhaps are not. What if somebody who was anti-Peace Corps decided they wanted to have equal time to respond to a recruiting announcement for the Peace Corps? Mr. BARTLEY. Well, we have had this in two or three different areas. We have had groups come in wanting to discuss matters on actually, I think, the draft and we have had them on pollution and any number of other things, and we have had rulings, but those we consider are under the fairness doctrine and we have not extended, relating to commercial broadcasting, not public service announcements. I don't believe we have had requests for countering those unless it is recruiting announcements. Well, I suppose these are public service announcements. I can get you those. We have ruled on those. Mr. BROWN. Are you telling me you have never had a request for fairness time based on a public service announcement. Mr. BARTLEY. I think I was wrong if I did say that. I think one of them was on the recruiting announcements, Peace Corps. And we have issued a ruling on that. Mr. BROWN. Could we get a copy of that ruling? Mr. BARTLEY. Yes, sir, I can supply that. Mr. BROWN. Also we want that information for the record because I think it would be helpful. (Copy of ruling and correspondence relating thereto follows:) Mr. ALAN F. NECKRITZ, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, DEAR MR. NECKRITZ: This letter is written in response to your complaint received on March 9, 1970, in which you allege that station KFRC, San Francisco, California, has violated the fairness doctrine by airing "public service broadcasts" on behalf of the United States Army, Navy and Air Force and denying broadcast time for the presentation of "opposing" viewpoints. The basis of your complaint is that the armed forces recruitment broadcasts constitute the presentation of one side of a controversial issue of public importance. In support of your complaint you assert that the "values represented by the present 'peacetime' armed services" are subject to dispute, as are the benefits and advisability of military enlistment. You state that between January 26 and March 1, 1970, station KFRC devoted 405 minutes 30 seconds of air time to armed forces public service announcements, in the form of musical programs presented on behalf of branches of the armed forces which were interlaced with recruitment messages and separate public service spot announcements. You state that "when such a large segment of our population [is] vehemently opposed to our military involvement in Vietnam and the foreign policy that it represents, the advocacy of the benefits and advisability of 'volunteering' or 'enlisting' in the military as opposed to seeking a deferment or exemption definitely constitutes a controversial issue of public importance." Thus, it would appear that you believe recruitment messages to represent a controversial issue of public importance because of the controversy surrounding the participation of the United States armed forces in Vietnam. You further appear to consider that enlistment has been presented as an alternative to selective service draft and state that deferment from military service represents another alternative to the question of discharging one's military obligation. As precedent for your request you cite the Commission's application of the fairness doctrine to cigarette commercials (FCC 67-641). Station KFRC refused your request for air time (for you or other representatives of your viewpoint) to present material opposing the merits of service in the Armed Forces. In denying your request the station stated that armed forces recruitment messages did not raise the issue of the war in Vietnam nor did it support military involvement in foreign countries. Further, that the recruitment messages advocate only voluntary enlistment and therefore do not raise the issue of selective service draft and do not claim that military enlistment is the sole source of technical training or future success. First, we do note, as we stated in the letter to Mr. Kramer issued this day (copy enclosed), that on the draft issue, “. . non-military and honorable alternatives to service in the military are certainly of substantial interest to the public and, in coverage of this issue, constitute a facet of a controversial issue of public importance to which a licensee should afford broadcast opportunity, as a part of his obligation to inform the public." However, that is not the issue raised by the recruitment announcements before us. We have reviewed the arguments advanced in support of your complaint and conclude that station KFRC did not act in contravention of the fairness doctrine in denying opportunity for the presentation of views opposing the military recruitment announcements. Under the fairness doctrine licensees are obliged in the first instance to determine whether one side of a controversial issue of public importance has been broadcast. The Commission will not substitute its judgment, if the licensee acts reasonably and in good faith. See letters to David Tillson, 19 FCC 2d 511 (1959); and Mrs. Madalyn Murray, 40 FCC 647 (1965). In the present situation, station KFRG has clearly set forth the reasons for its refusal and they are not, in our opinion, unreasonable. The question of whether Armed Forces recruitment announcements constitute a controversial issue of public importance has recently been the subject of a letter to Mr. Donald Jelinek. In that letter, it is concluded that recruitment announcements, in and of themselves, do not constitute the presentation of one side of a controversial issue of public importance. Since we rely here upon the reasons set forth in that letter, a copy of the letter is enclosed. In view of the foregoing, no further Commission action is warranted. Commissioner Johnson dissented and issued the attached statement (letter to Mr. Jelinek). By direction of the Commission. Mr. ALBERT A. KRAMER, BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, DEAR MR. KRAMER: The Commission is in receipt of a complaint filed March 23, 1970, on behalf of Professor David C. Green, individually and as Chairman of the Peace Committee of the Baltimore Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Complainant), against television stations WRC and WMAL, Washington, D.C. The complaint states that the stations continually grant air time for announcements sponsored by the Armed Forces which are designed to |