Страница 235 из 340
consider whether any other error was sufficiently obvious and
egregious to contribute to an inference about CBS's intent,
and therefore to qualify as "extrinsic evidence."
CONTENTS:
Title Page
I. Background
II. News Distortion
A. Evidentiary standard
B. Licensee's policy on distortion
C. Nature of particular evidence
1. Extrinsic evidence
(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich
(b) The viewer letters
(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk
2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies
D. Misrepresentation
III. Conclusion
D. Misrepresentation
In Stockholders of CBS, Inc. Serafyn argued that CBS
made a misrepresentation to the Commission by misleading
WUSA about its treatment of the viewer letters and thereby
causing the affiliate to transmit that erroneous information to
the Commission. The Commission responded that "[m]isrep
resentation is composed of two elements: a material false
statement made to the Commission and an intent to make
such a statement." 11 FCC Rcd at 3753. The Commission
then held Serafyn had neither alleged that CBS had made its
representation directly to the Commission nor "provided
[any] evidence that CBS [had] intended to convey false infor
mation to the Commission through its affiliate." Id.
In reviewing the Commission's conclusion that CBS did not
make a misrepresentation we ask only whether the Commis
sion was "cognizant of the issue raised and, upon the record,
reasonably resolve[d] that issue." WEBR, Inc. v. FCC, 420
F.2d 158, 164 (D.C. Cir. 1969). In this case the answer to
both questions is yes.
There is no dispute that CBS did not make its false
statement directly to the Commission. Serafyn argues, how
ever, that directness has never been required, that "CBS was
aware of Appellants' complaint against WUSA-TV," and that
CBS's misrepresentations to WUSA therefore should "be
taken as seriously as if made directly to the Commission."
The Commission responds first that there is no evidence that
CBS intended to make any misrepresentation--"the most
that was shown in the record below was that one official of
CBS was careless or negligent in providing information to
[WUSA]"--and second that it will sanction only a misrepre
sentation made directly to the Commission or intended to be
passed on to the Commission.
The Commission reasonably found Serafyn had not alleged
that CBS intended to make any representation either directly
or indirectly "to the Commission." Assuming for the sake of
the argument that CBS could be sanctioned for making a
misrepresentation through WUSA, we agree with the Com
mission that Serafyn did not substantiate his claim that CBS
knew about the complaint pending before the agency when it
made the two misrepresentations to WUSA. Serafyn's only
evidence is that the UACN had sent CBS's counsel a copy of
the complaint, but that was after WUSA had received the
misinformation and relayed it to the Commission. Absent
any allegation that CBS knew that the first two versions of
the incident it provided to WUSA would make their way to
the Commission, the agency reasonably decided not to sanc
tion CBS for misrepresentation.
CONTENTS:
Title Page
I. Background
II. News Distortion
A. Evidentiary standard
B. Licensee's policy on distortion
C. Nature of particular evidence
1. Extrinsic evidence
(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich
(b) The viewer letters
(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk
2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies
D. Misrepresentation
III. Conclusion
III. Conclusion
The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deny
ing Serafyn's petition without analyzing more precisely the
evidence he presented. On the other hand, the Commission
reasonably held that CBS did not make a misrepresentation
to the Commission. We therefore vacate and remand the
Commission's decision in WGPR and affirm its decision in
Stockholders of CBS Inc.
So ordered.
HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES 738 hits since 12Aug98
Jea
Serafyn had asked the FCC to turn down CBS' license request for
WGPR-TV in Detroit - now WWJ-TV - arguing that the network was not
fit to receive the license because it had aired a distorted news program.
The Associated Press article below provides a brief introduction to the
full United States Court of Appeals decision which is available on the
Ukrainian Archive. The original of the Associated Press article was
provided by Yahoo, more specifically at Jea
Wednesday August 12 2:58 AM EDT
FCC To Look at '60 Minutes' Segment
JEANNINE AVERSA Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to a federal appeals court decision,
government TV regulators will take a new look at whether CBS' "60
Minutes" intentionally distorted the news in a 1994 segment on the
Ukraine.
A Federal Communications Commission ruling against CBS on the matter
could call into question the network's fitness to hold all or some of its
broadcast licenses, said attorneys for the agency and for Alexander
Serafyn, who led the court case against the "60 Minutes" report.
But CBS attorneys, speaking on condition of anonymity, disagreed. They
said only WWJ-TV in Detroit - the station involved in the present
challenge - could be affected.
On Tuesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
concluded that the FCC didn't sufficiently explain why it decided not to
hold a hearing on the allegations involving the "60 Minutes" segment.
Given the court's ruling, the commission will re-examine the entire
record, including Serafyn's allegations that the segment was
intentionally distorted, an FCC attorney said.
Serafyn had asked the FCC to turn down CBS' license request for WGPR-TV
in Detroit - now WWJ-TV - arguing that the network was not fit to receive
the license because it had aired a distorted news program.
Serafyn, an American of Ukrainian ancestry who is retired and living in
Detroit, had submitted evidence to the FCC involving his allegation about
the broadcast, entitled, "The Ugly Face of Freedom." The FCC denied
Serafyn's petition for a hearing, saying it would not investigate an
allegation of news distortion without "substantial extrinsic evidence."
The court said the FCC misapplied its standard for holding a hearing
because it required Serafyn to demonstrate that CBS intended to distort
the news rather than merely requiring that he "raise a substantial and
material question of fact" - a less demanding test.
CBS attorneys asserted there was no evidence the network intentionally
distorted the segment. In addition, they said the FCC has never revoked
a broadcast license on such grounds.
The broadcast angered some viewers who believed that parts had been
designed to give the impression that all Ukrainians harbor a strongly
negative attitude toward Jews, the court said.
"This is basically an effort on the part of the Ukrainian community,"
said Arthur Belendiuk, Serafyn's attorney. "The case is not so much
about Mr. Serafyn as it is about a community that felt horribly maligned
by what was said."
After the FCC revisits the case, the commission has several options: It