ГУЛаг Палестины

had forgotten to have any actual response letters sent out.

Nos. 95-1385, 1440. Alexander Serafyn, an American of

Ukrainian ancestry, petitioned the Commission to deny or to

set for hearing the application of CBS to be assigned the

licenses of two stations, arguing that the "60 Minutes" broad

cast showed that CBS had distorted the news and therefore

failed to serve the public interest. In support of his petition,

Serafyn submitted the broadcast itself, outtakes of interviews

with Rabbi Bleich, viewer letters, a dictionary supporting his

claim about the mistranslation of "zhyd," historical informa

tion about the Galicia Division, information showing that CBS

had rebuffed the offer of a professor of Ukrainian history to

help CBS understand the subject, and seven other items of

evidence.

Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no

policy against news distortion and indeed that management

considered some distortion acceptable. For example, accord

ing to the Washington Post, Mike Wallace, a longtime report

er for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You don't like to

baldly lie, but I have." Colman McCarthy, The TV Whisper,

Wash. Post, Jan. 7, 1995, at A21. Don Hewitt, the executive

producer of "60 Minutes," is quoted in the same article as

saying that some deception is permissible because "[i]t's the

small crime vs. the greater good," and elsewhere as saying

that "I wouldn't make Hitler look bad on the air if I could get

a good story." Richard Jerome, Don Hewitt, People, Apr. 24,

1995, at 85, 90.

CBS, taking the position that any official investigation into

its news broadcasting "offends the protections of a free

press," did not submit any evidence. Nonetheless, the Com

mission denied the petition without a hearing. See WGPR,

Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8146-48 (1995). Explaining that it

would not investigate an allegation of news distortion without

"substantial extrinsic evidence" thereof, the Commission de

termined that only three of Serafyn's items of evidence were

extrinsic to the broadcast itself: the viewer letters, the

outtakes of interviews with Rabbi Bleich, and CBS's refusal

to use the services of the history professor. All the other

evidence, according to the Commission, either concerned "dis

putes as to the truth of the event ... or embellishments

concerning peripheral aspects of news reports or attempts at

window dressing which concerned the manner of presenting

the news." Id. at 8147 (emphasis in original, citations omit

ted). The Commission then held that the three items it

regarded as extrinsic evidence "in total ... do[ ] not satisfy

the standard for demonstrating intent to distort." Id. at

8148. Serafyn had therefore failed to show that CBS had not

met its public interest obligations and had "failed to present a

substantial and material issue of fact that the grant of the

application ... would be inconsistent with the public inter

est." Id. at 8149.

Serafyn and Oleg Nikolyszyn, another viewer who com

plained to the Commission and whose appeal we consolidated

with Serafyn's, argue that the Commission violated its own

standard in concluding that no hearing was necessary.

Serafyn implicitly objects also to the standard itself insofar as

he argues that it "imposed an impossible burden" upon him

by requiring that he present extrinsic evidence sufficient to

prove his claim without the benefit of discovery, and that the

"objective" evidence he offered should be deemed adequate to

warrant a hearing upon the public interest question.

No. 95-1608. Serafyn and the Ukrainian Congress Com

mittee of America also petitioned the Commission to revoke

or set for a revocation hearing all of the broadcast licenses

owned by CBS, arguing that CBS had made misrepresenta

tions to the Commission regarding its treatment of the viewer

letters. The Commission denied the petition on the grounds

that Serafyn had neither alleged that CBS made a false

statement to the Commission (as opposed to WUSA) nor

proved that CBS intended to make a false statement. With

respect to the latter point the Commission relied solely upon

Fiola's affidavit; it did not consider Serafyn's allegations

that CBS intentionally misrepresented the facts because they

were "not supported by an affidavit from a person with

personal knowledge thereof" and therefore did not meet the

threshold requirement of s 309(d). See Stockholders of CBS

Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 3733 (1995).

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

II. News Distortion

With regard to the Commission's requirement that he

prove by extrinsic evidence that CBS intended to distort the

news, Serafyn argues that the Commission "has never articu

lated a precise definition of 'extrinsic evidence' " and that its