MEMO TO WILLIAM CASEY FROM STANLEY SPORKIN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87M01152R000300340033-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 26, 2010
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: January 10, 1985
• Content Type: MEMO

 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1 ~
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Complaint of
Central Intelligence Agency
against
Amerlcan Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
Staff Ruling
Released: JAN 1 0 1985
1. The Commission has under consideration a November 21, 1984,
complaint against the American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), filed by
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), alleging intentional news distortion,
and violation of both the Fairness Doctrine and the Personal Attack Rule. 1/
2. The complaint is directed to material contained in broadcasts of
the "ABC World Newe Tonight" aired September 19, 20, 26, and November 21,
1984. During this programming ABC presented segments concerning the CIA's
alleged participation in plots to assassinate American citizens, and other
questionable and illegal acts. At the heart of the complaint is the CIA's
contention that ABC aired these broadcasts without any attempt to verify the
accuracy of the allegations and with the knowledge that many of the
1/ On November 30 the CIA supplemented its complaint by letter and provided
video tape excerpts of the relevant "ABC World News Tonight" broadcasts. On
December 11 the Media Access Project (MAP) filed its opposition to the
complaint. On December 12 the Radio-Television News Directors Association
(RTNDA) also filed an opposition. On December 14 the American Legal
Foundation (ALF) filed a statement opposing any consideration of MAP's
opposition. Because of our determination herein, it is not necessary to
consider these pleadings in detail. However, one argument does necessitate
comment. MAP contends that, as a government agency, the CIA has no standing
to file its complaint. We disagree. Neither our news distortion policy nor
the Fairness Doctrine limits the filing of complaints to any specific entities
or individuals.
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
2.
allegations were untrue. 2/ The CIA argues that ABC compounded the seriousness
of these alleged misdeeds by failing to take arty r?edial action after the CIA
had lodged a complaint with the network and had met with network officials on
three occasions. The CIA contends it has furnished "compelling extrinsic
evidence" demonstrating ABC's suppression of known facts and its repeated
2 More specifically, the c?plaint claims that ABC:
(1) relied solely on the unverified statements of a
source who had been discredited and proven to be
unreliable;
(2) suppressed all contrary evidence;
(3) presented statements that were facially absurd and
patently false, and,
(4) knowingly produced a program which was replete with
numerous false statements and allegations about the
CIA, the moat outrageous being that the CIA conspired,
and set in motion a plan, to assassinate Ronald Rewald,
and a claimed threat to shoot a United States citizen
through the hear[ and make his death look like a heart
attack.
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
? _ 3.
refusal to repudiate its previous news broadcasts wheh these facts were
brought to Sts attention. 3/
3. The CIA asserts that ABC's news coverage concerned a
controversial issue of public importance identified as "the participation by
the Central Intelligence Agency in illegal acts, including assassination." As
such, the CIA urges [hat the Fairness Doctrine and [he Personal Attack Rule
are applicable. Regarding the Fairness Doctrine generally, the complaint
states that "[ABC's] entire programming has presented what manifestly is only
one side of the issue -- a side predetermined by ABC and a presentation
engineered to support that aide." With respect to the Personal Attack Rule,
complainant argues that ABC's charges, including "conspiracy to commit murder"
3/ The following appears to be the extent of the complaint's "extrinsic
evidence." With respect to its allegation that ABC failed to verify certain
claims and disregarded repudiations by high CIA officials, particularly
concerning assassination plots, the complaint states:
In 1982, ABC terminated the production of a news
broadcast, also involving assassinations and based in
part on the stateuents of Barnes [Scott Barnes, who
during the broadcasts addressed by this complaint
claimed he was asked by the CIA to kill Ronald Rewald],
when ABC became aware of his unreliability.
On 12 Sept?ber 1984, one week prior to airing
[he news broadcasts which are the subject of this
complaint, the CIA specifically and categorically
denied to ABC that [he CIA ever "let a contract" or
otherwise att?pted to assassinate Ronald Rewald.
With respect to its allegation that ABC failed to include or suppressed
information contained in public records, the complaint states:
Further, the public official most familiar with the
Rewald matter, the court-appointed Bankruptcy Trustee,
has repudiated each and every allegation made by ABC of
which he had personal knowledge. Specifically, he
found (a) no substantial link or mayor financial
transactions between the CIA and Rewald, and (b) no
evidence to indicate that any of the "missing"
$20 million went to the CIA or airy CIA project. A
summary of the Trustee's findings ie provided herewith
as Exhibit 4. Significantly, other members of the
media took the trouble to look into and report the
findings of the Trustee. See article from the Honolulu
Star Bulletin of 21 May 1984, provided herewith as
Exhibit 5.
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
4.
clearly suffice as attacks upon moral turpitude intended to be covered by the
Personal Attack Rule. Complainant also contends that as an "investigative
report" the attacks should not be insulated by the bona fide newscast
exemption to the rule, but rather more appropriately should be treated as
attacks contained in nonexempt bona fide news documentaries.
Discussion
4. The CIA's complaint provides no basis for Commission action
because the allegations fail to establish prima facie complaints sufficient to
initiate a Commission icq airy or sanctions.
5. It ie well settled that the Commission is not the national
arbiter of the "truth" of news programming. Nor is the Commission prepared to
judge the wisdom, accuracy, or adequacy with which particular news coverage
may have been handled on the sir. The Commission does act appropriately to
protect the public interest where it receives extrinsic evidence of deliberate
distortion of news programming. Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d 143, 150
(1969). This kind of evidence includes testimony, in writing or othetwiae,
from "insiders" or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an
intentional falsification of the Haas. The Commission has emphasized it ie
particularly concerned with extrinsic evidence which reveals orders to falsify
the news by a licensee, its top management, or its news management. In a
democracy, dependent upon the fundamental rights of speech and the press, the
Commission cannot authenticate the news that is broadcast nor should it try to
do so.
6. The complaint certainly demonstrates the CIA's strong
disagreement with the accuracy of ABC's news coverage. However, no extrinsic f~/
evidence demonatraticg that ABC knowingly distorted news programming has been ``
provided. As emphasized above, action in this area is warranted only when the
Commission is furnished with extrinsic evidence that demonstrates that a
broadcaster knew elements of a news story were false or distorted, but,
nevertheless, proceeded to air such programming. We have not been provided
with material showing that any ABC personnel deliberately falsified or
distorted the content of broadcasts addressed by this complaint. The fact
that officials of the CIA repudiated claims made by ABC both before and
subsequent to the subject broadcasts, and that various public records might
contradict aspects of ABC's news coverage do not in and of themselves
demonstrate the requisite intent by ABC to deceive its audience. The
Commission will not infer such intent. In The Selling of the Pentagon, 30 FCC
2d 150, 152 (1971), the Canmiasion stated:
Lacking extrinsic evidence or documents that on their
face reflect deliberate distortion, we believe that
this government licensing agency cannot properly
intervene. It would be unwise and probably impossible
for the Commission to lay down some precise line of
factual accuracy -- dependent always on journalistic
judgment -- across which broadcasters must not stray.
[Emphasis added.)
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
~.
If the existence of contradictory information concerning news programming
would suffice for imposition of Commission icq airy and possible sanctions,
news programming would surely be severely inhibited. Anything short of this
threshold burden of showing deliberateness would jeopardize critical First
Amendment rights so important to free and robust news coverage.
7. The Fairness Doctrine requires broadcasters to inform the public
by broadcasting discussions of controversial issues of public importance and,
having presented one aide of such an issue, to afford a reasonable opportunity
for the presentation of contracting points of view. 4/ It is the
responsibility of the broadcaster to determine whether a controversial issue
of public importance has been presented and, if so, how best to present
contrasting views on the issue in its overall programming. Decisions as to
what type of programming to present as well ae the appropriate spokespersons
to present a particular viewpoint are left to the journalistic discretion of
the licensee.
8. The Commission will rwiew complaints, based on a broadcaster's
alleged failure to present programming on controversial issues of public
importance or its failure to provide opportunities for the presentation of
contrasting vi ewe, to determine whether the broadcaster acted reasonably and
in good faith. Because sensitive First Amendment rights are at stake, the
Commission has formulated the required elements of a prima facie Fairness
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
? ~ 6.
Doctrine complaint, 5/ to ensure that broadcasters will not be burdened with
having to respond to frivolous or insufficiently documented and defined
complaints.
9. The CIA's complaint ie deficient in several respects. Assuming
there can be no doubt as to the public importance of "the participation by the
Central Intelligence Agency in illegal acts, including assassination," the CIA ~
has still failed to submit evidence concerning the controversiality of that
issue. In brief, to be "controversial," an issue moat be "the subject of
vigorous debate with substantial elements of the community in opposition to
one another." 6/
10. The complainant also fails to describe its viewing habits
sufficiently to support its conclusion that ABC did not present contrasting
viewpoints in its overall programming. Indeed, it appears that the CIA has
focused exclusively upon the four broadcast segments of "ABC World News
Tonight" for its contention that only one side of the issue has been aired.
In making this showing a complainant moat indicate those time periods when a
particular station or network's programming was viewed or listened to,
including the frequency and length of time. This requirement for viewing
5 Where a complaint is made to the Commission, the Commission expects a
complainant to submit specific information including:
(1) the broadcaster (station or network) Swolved;
(2) the specific issue of a controversial nature broadcast
(complainant should inc]ude an accurate summary of the views
broadcast);
(3) the date and time when the issue was broadcast;
(4) the basis for the claim that the issue was controversial and of
public importance;
(5) reasonable grounds for the claim that the station or network
broadcast only one side of the issue in its overall programming
(Such claim might be based on an assertion that the complainant ie
a regular listener or viewer; that is, a person who consistently or
as a matter of routine listens to the news, public affairs and
other nonentertainment programs carried by the broadcaster
im.olved. This does not require that the complainant listen to or
view the station 24 hours a day, seven days a week);
(6) copies of correspondence between the complainant and the
broadcaster; and
(7) whether the broadcaster has afforded, or has expressed an
intention to afford, reasonable opportunity for the presentation of
contrasting viewpoints on that issue.
Procedure Manual, 39 Fed. Reg. 32288, 32290 (1974); Fairneae Report, 48 FCC 2d
1, 17 (1974).
6/ For a fuller discussion of the relevant criteria for whether an issue is
"controversial," see Fairneae Report, at 11-12.
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
7.
habit specificity serves to allow a broadcaster, and ultimately the
Commission, to determine whether the complainant has established that a
licensee's overall programming complied with the Fairness Doctrine. 7/
11. In addition, before seeking Commission action, complainants are
zequired to provide a broadcaster with all of the elements of a prima facie
fairness complaint. 8/ This allows the Commission to consider the
reasonableness of the broadcaster's determinations as a part of its
consideration of the other requisite elements of a complaint. While the CIA
has apparently informed ABC of its views concerning the subject news coverage,
it is not clear whether the required information was ever provided the
network. Even if the CIA had shown the controversiality of the issue, and had
sufficiently specified its viewing habits, the Commission would still be
unable to ascertain the reasonableness of ABC's position. We reiterate that
the Commission will not burden the broadcaster with inquiry until the
complainant has satisfied its procedural burdens.
12. If a broadcaster airs an attack upon the honesty, character,
integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group during
the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, it is
the duty of the broadcaster to notify the person or group attacked, to send a
transcript or an accurate summary of the broadcast, and to afford an
We do not believe this requirement [regarding the
necessary showing for overall programming] to be unduly
burdensome, as contrasted to the heavy burden we would
place on all stations if we required them to provide
evidence of compliance with the Fairness Doctrine based
on complaints which assert that one program [or a
limited series of programs] has presented only one side
of an issue.
If you bell eve that a broadcaster (station or network)
is not meeting its obligation to the public under the
fairness doctrine, you should complain first to the
broadcaster. If you believe that a point of view Sa
not being presented and wish to act as spokesman for
that point of view, you should first notify the
broadcaster. Barring unusual circumstances, complaints
should not be made to the Commission without affording
the broadcaster an opportunity to rectify the
situation, comply with your request, or explain its
position. [Id. at 32290 (emphasis added).]
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/15: CIA-R DP87M01152R000300340033-1
' 8.
opportuaity for response. 9/ Rowever, and especially relevant here, bona fide
newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of bona fide
news events are exempt from the Personal Attack Rule. 10/ Moreover, even if
the newscast exemption did not apply, the CIA's failure to show that the
broadcasts it identified involved discussion of a controversial issue of
public importance would preclude any consideration of their personal attack
arguments.
13. In light of the foregoing, no further action is warranted, and
the complaint of the CIA IS DENIED.
9/ We note the CIA uses the term "libel" several instances in its
complaint. We wish to underscore here that the Personal Attack Rule is
intended to inform the public concerning controversial public issues, not to
serve as an administrative law substitute for adjudicating private party
claims of defamation.
10/ We disagree with canplainant's suggestion that as an "investigative
report" this news story lost its exempt status as part of a bona fide
newscast. The Commission exempted bona fide newscasts, bona fide news
interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events from the
Personal Attack Rule to prevent airy possible inhibiting effect it might have
upon robust, unfettered news journalism. Rona fide news documentaries were
not exempted because the Commission recognized that they are assembled over
long periods of time during which the broadcaster has sufficient opportunity
to seek out contrasting points of view, particularly those of the person or
group attacked. See In re Amendment of Rules, 12 FCC 2d 254, 252 (1968).
This does not mean, however, that airy news story contained in an otherwise
exempt category which may have involved investigation, or somehow lacked total
spontaneity, must be treated like a news documentary. If this were the case a
broadcaster would have to apply some hypothetical yardstick to every news
story and reach a determination of whether it should be labeled bona fide
newscast or documentary material. Clearly, absent a showing of bad faith or
unreasonableness, the inhibiting implications upon news coverage implicit in
the CIA's argument would remove the benefits intended by the news exemptions
in the first place. This reasoning ie consistent with the Commission's
previous treatment of the news exemptions to Section 315. In Citizens for
Rea an, 58 FCC 2d 925, 927 (1976), the Commission stated:
The inclusion of an interview within a newscast, which
if broadcast outside the newscast would not be exempt,
is within a station's Sournalistic discretion and, in
and of Itself, would not preclude the interview from
exempt status pursuant to Section 315(a)(1) unless it
has been shown that such a decision is clearly
unreasonable or in bad faith.
 14. Staff action is taken here under delegated authority.
Application for Review by the full Commission may be requested within thirty
days of the date of public notice of this document (aee Commission Rule
1.4(b) [47 C.F.R. ? 1.4(b)]) by writiug the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, stating the factors warranting
consideration and, if mailed, should be sent by certified mail. Copies
must be sent to the parties to the complaint. See Commission Rule 1.115
(47 C.F.R. ? 1.115).