Buckley-Jaeger Broadcasting Corp. v. F.C.C

3 Citing cases

  1. Citizens Committee to Save WEFM v. Federal Communications Commission

    506 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1973)   Cited 21 times
    In FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, we observed that a reviewing court applying this standard "`is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.'"

    See cases cited Jorgensen, Schwartz Woods, Programming Diversity in Proposals for New Broadcast Licenses, 32 Geo.Wash.L. Rev. 769, 796-98 nn. 111, 113-14 (1964); Irion, FCC Criteria for Evaluating Competing Applicants, 43 Minn.L.Rev. 479, 489-96 (1959); Note, supra note 45 at 702. See also Buckley-Jaeger Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 397 F.2d 651 (1968).See Moline Television Corp., 31 F.C.C.2d 263, 272-73 (1971), discussing Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, F.C.C.2d 393, 397 (1965).

  2. Citizens Committee v. F.C.C

    436 F.2d 263 (D.C. Cir. 1970)   Cited 11 times
    In Atlanta, for example, a public interest issue was raised when 16% of the listeners in an area served by 20 radio channels preferred the "classical" format available in only one of such channels.

    The Commission refers in its brief to a number of pronouncements by it and by the courts of its incapacity to be a "national arbiter of taste." Palmetto Broadcasting Co. (WDKD), 33 F.C.C. 250, 257 (1962), reconsideration denied, 34 F.C.C. 101 (1963), affirmed sub nom. Robinson v. F.C.C., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 334 F.2d 534 (1964); and see Buckley Jaeger Broadcasting Corp. v. F.C.C., 130 U.S. App.D.C. 90, 93, 397 F.2d 651, 654 (1968). But, as the Commission goes on quickly to acknowledge in these words, "[T]his is not to say that a transferee may make wholly indiscriminate program changes."

  3. National Ass'n of Theatre Owners v. F.C.C

    420 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 27 times
    Affirming FCC's authority to approve subscription television service

    We are convinced that the Commission acted within these limits in promulgating its rules for subscription television. See, e.g., Black Hills Video Corp. v. FCC, 399 F.2d 65 (8th Cir. 1968); Buckley-Jaeger Broadcasting Corp. of California v. FCC, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 397 F.2d 651 (1968); Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 262, 387 F.2d 220 (1967); Bay State Beacon, Inc. v. FCC, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 216, 171 F.2d 826 (1948). In Banzhaf v. FCC, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 33-35, 405 F.2d 1082, 1101-1103 (1968), we established several tests which can aid in determining whether Commission rulings and orders are in conflict with the first amendment. The first consideration mentioned in Banzhaf is whether the rulings ban speech, and, as the petitioners point out, the STV restrictions prevent subscription licenses from broadcasting certain kinds of programs.