Tobacco Documents Online

that it will take "'a1l appropriate action consistent with that Act (The Labeling Act) to prohibit cigarette advertisi:ng that violates the Federal Trade Commission Act."' The Corunission's ruling, omits any mention of this aspect of the Congressional action,,which delineates the problem raised by Mr. _B'anzhaf's complaint in a considerably different light. If the com.mercials of vrhich: Mr. Banzhaf complains, or cigarette commercials p~er se, violate the strictures expressed by the Congress and the Federal Trade Commission then a serious questionlof an entirely different nature might be presented, but we do not believe that the commercial announcements broad- cast by WCBS-TV are defective in this manner. In.vieti-riof the express concern of the Congress with the possibility that advertising for cigarettes could'be so conducted as to undermine the effectiveness of the cigarette package warning label, and in view of'the Congress' adoptionn of specific measures to meet this concern, it i~s reasonablee to think that had~the Congress wished more to be done in this area, by way of educational campaigns or otherwise,, the legis- lative history would so indicate. We are not clear whether the Commission's letter to WCBS!-TV is intended to represent any kind of'order ti•rith respect to the licensee's programming. The letter concludes that "the question remains whether in the circumstances a sufficient amount of time is being allocated each week to cover the viewpoint of' the health hazard!posed by smoking." It then states that in the light of the letter the licensee "may, make the judgment whether suff icient time is being alloicated' each week in this area." For the reasons set forth ab~ove, it is our opinion as licensee that we are fully and responsibly discharging our obliigation: to present both sides of controversial issues,, including,the health hazard posed by ciga'i°ette smoking. We further believe that our performance in discharging this obligation must be measured primarily by the content of'our programs, and not by any arbitrary counting of'minutes, measure of frequency, or any similar standard. We see no need for changing our present policy and do not interpret your letter as an order, d!emandi or suggestion that we do so. ~ Federal Trade Commission, Order, "Vacation of j•larniin g Requirements in Trade Reg}alation R'u1eConcerning Advertising and' Labeling of Cigarettes," 30 Fed. Reg. 91IS11-9485 (1965).

_12- We believe that the question of'whether a licensee is responsibly complying with the fairness doctrine cannot be resolved by per se guidelines, ratios or other rigid rules, and':that any eff ort to dolso would raise serious constitutional as well as practical issues. 11e believe such ques.ti.ons can only be resolvedion a case--by-case basis after a detai].ed analysis of the licensee's performance. We believe that the performance of td'C;3S-TV as to cigarette smo?cing, as well a.s other controversial issues, will vrithstandsuch an examination. Very truly yours, ~ Leon R'I. £iroo~l:s