The United States government agency responsible for overseeing television and radio broadcasting, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), had an early history of addressing only the concerns of parties with an economic interest in broadcasting—chiefly broadcasting companies. The rights of viewers and listeners were not recognized by the FCC, which regarded them merely as members of the public. Unless citizens’ groups were applying for broadcasting licenses, citizens did not have the standing necessary to voice their views at an FCC hearing. Consequently, the FCC appeared to be exclusively at the service of the broadcasting industry.

A landmark case changed the course of that history. In 1964, a local television station in Jackson, Mississippi was applying for a renewal of its broadcasting license. The United Church of Christ, representing Jackson’s African American population, petitioned the FCC for a hearing about the broadcasting policies of that station. The church charged that the station advocated racial segregation to the point of excluding news and programs supporting integration. Arguing that the church lacked the level of economic interest required for a hearing, the FCC rejected the petition, though it attempted to mollify the church by granting only a short-term, probationary renewal to the station. Further, the FCC claimed that since it accepted the church’s contentions with regard to misconduct on the part of the broadcasters, no hearing was necessary. However, that decision raised a question: If the contentions concerning the station were accepted, why was its license renewed at all? The real reason for denying the church a hearing was more likely the prospect that citizens’ groups representing community preferences would begin to enter the closed worlds of government and industry.

The church appealed the FCC’s decision in court, and in 1967 was granted the right to a public hearing on the station’s request for a long-term license. The hearing was to little avail: the FCC dismissed much of the public input and granted a full renewal to the station. The church appealed again, and this time the judge took the unprecedented step of revoking the station’s license without remand to the FCC, ruling that the church members were performing a public service in voicing the legitimate concerns of the community and, as such, should be accorded the right to challenge the renewal of the station’s broadcasting license.

The case established a formidable precedent for opening up to the public the world of broadcasting. Subsequent rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees before the FCC at renewal time every three years. Along with racial issues, a range of other matters—from the quality of children’s programming and the portrayal of violence to equal time for opposing political viewpoints—are now discussed at licensing proceedings because of the church’s intervention.

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) Because of the efforts of a church group in challenging an FCC decision, public input is now considered in broadcast licensing proceedings.
(B) Court rulings have forced the FCC to abandon policies that appeared to encourage biased coverage of public issues.
(C) The history of the FCC is important because it explains why government agencies are now forced to respond to public input.
(D) Because it has begun to serve the interests of the public, the FCC is less responsive to the broadcasting industry.
(E) In response to pressure from citizens’ groups, the FCC has decided to open its license renewal hearings to the public.


2. The author mentions some additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings (Text in red) primarily in order to

(A) support the author’s claim that the case helped to open up to the public the world of broadcasting
(B) suggest the level of vigilance that citizens’ groups must maintain with regard to broadcasters
(C) provide an explanation of why the public is allowed to question the performance of broadcasters on such a frequent basis
(D) illustrate other areas of misconduct with which the station discussed in the passage was charged
(E) demonstrate that the station discussed in the passage was not the only one to fall short of its obligation to the public


3. Which one of the following statements is affirmed by the passage?

(A) The broadcasting industry’s economic goals can be met most easily by minimizing the attention given to the interests of viewers and listeners.
(B) The FCC was advised by broadcasters to bar groups with no economic interest in broadcasting from hearings concerning the broadcasting industry.
(C) The court ruled in the case brought by the United Church of Christ that the FCC had the ultimate authority to decide whether to renew a broadcaster’s license.
(D) Before the United Church of Christ won its case, the FCC would not allow citizens’ groups to speak as members of the public at FCC hearings.
(E) The case brought by the United Church of Christ represents the first time a citizens’ group was successful in getting its concerns about government agencies addressed to its satisfaction.


4. Based on information presented in the passage, with which one of the following statements would the author be most likely to agree?

(A) If the United Church of Christ had not pursued its case, the FCC would not have been aware of the television station’s broadcasting policies.
(B) By their very nature, industrial and business interests are opposed to public interests.
(C) The recourse of a citizens’ group to the courts represents an effective means of protecting public interests.
(D) Governmental regulation cannot safeguard against individual businesses acting contrary to public interests.
(E) The government cannot be trusted to favor the rights of the public over broadcasters’ economic interests.


5. The passage suggests that which one of the following has been established by the case discussed in the third paragraph ?

(A) Broadcasters are legally obligated to hold regular meetings at which the public can voice its concerns about broadcasting policies.
(B) Broadcasters are now required by the FCC to consult citizens’ groups when making programming decisions.
(C) Except in cases involving clear misconduct by a broadcaster, the FCC need not seek public input in licensing hearings.
(D) When evaluating the performance of a broadcaster applying for a license renewal, the FCC must obtain information about the preferences of the public.
(E) In FCC licensing proceedings, parties representing community preferences should be granted standing along with those with an economic interest in broadcasting.