Back to Index








For Assignment of Licenses of Stations KTRG-TV and KUT-67, Honolulu, Hawaii

Docket No. 16889


5 F.C.C.2d 71, 8 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 797


September 28, 1966 Adopted    

BY THE COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN HYDE DISSENTING; COMMISSIONER LEE ABSENT; COMMISSIONER JOHNSON CONCURRING AND ISSUING A STATEMENT.  At a session of the Federal Communications Commission held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 28th day of September 1966;

 1. The Commission has before it the above application as amended. It requests the assignment of the license of station KTRG-TV, Honolulu, Hawaii, from the Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp. to the Friendly Broadcasting Co.

 2. Examination of the application indicates that the assignee proposes a major change in the program format to that of a substantial amount of Japanese programming with a limited amount of other foreign language programming. This proposal raises a number of substantial and material questions of fact to be resolved by the hearing which we are ordering. Some of these questions are: (1) The adequacy of the assignee's survey to support the proposed programming; (2) the need and interest of the station's principal community and service area for the proposed programming.

 3. There are other questions to be resolved at the hearing. Such an application presents difficult problems of control and supervision. In this regard, we note that the Eaton stations have a history of rule violations, and that this history raises a question of the adequacy of the supervision and control of the operation of the Eaton stations.

 4. In light of this past history and of the proposed programming at KTRG and of the distance of the facility from Eaton's principal business address (Washington, D.C.), substantial and material questions of fact remain as to the assignee's proposals for control and supervision of the KTRG television facilities.

 5. The Commission finds that except as indicated by the issues specified below, the assignee is legally, technically, and financially qualified to operate station KTRG as proposed. However, in view of the outstanding substantial and material questions of fact previously mentioned, the Commission is unable to find that a grant of the aforementioned application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity and is of the opinion that the application must be designated for hearing on the issues set forth below.

 6. Accordingly, It is ordered, That pursuant to section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the application is designated for hearing at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent order upon the following issues:

 1. To determine the adequacy of the assignee's survey of needs and whether this survey of needs supports the assignee's proposed programming.

 2. To determine the adequacy of assignee's proposed measures for control and supervision at KTRG.

 3. To determine whether a grant of the above application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

 It is further ordered, That, to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard, the applicants herein, pursuant to section 1.221(c) of the Commission rules, in person or by attorney, shall, within 20 days of the mailing of this order, file with the Commission, in triplicate, a written appearance stating an intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in this order.

 It is further ordered, That the applicants herein shall, pursuant to section 311(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 1.594 of the Commission's rules, give notice of the hearing, either individually or, if feasible and consistent with the rules, jointly, within the time and in the manner prescribed in such rules, and shall advise the Commission of the publication of such notice as required by section 1.594(g) of the rules.



The questions regarding the merit of foreign language programming, potentially involved in issue 1, raise for me weighty questions of national policy and public interest. To require the applicant to answer these questions in the absence of any rationally articulated guiding statement of general policy from the Commission seems to me highly inequitable if not, indeed, impossible.

Moreover, even if the burden could be met in this case, the questions seem to me of a nature more appropriate to general consideration than to case-by-case adjudication.

Foreign language programming may provide a major (or the only) source of news and information to large groups of people. It may encourage community awareness, and acceptance, of minority language groups. On the other hand, it may tend toward disintegration within a nation substantially bound by a common language -- a possible result of any minority group programming. These are but illustrative of many relevant and conflicting considerations now subject more to instinct than empirical analysis.

Should the Commission (a) encourage, (b) tolerate or (c) discourage stations  (or programming) designed to serve minority racial, ethnic, religious, or foreign language groups?

Until the relevant underlying considerations posed by that question have been adequately defined, analyzed, researched, and the consequences of alternative courses clearly charted for the Commission, it seems to me unrealistic to expect anyone -- Commission or applicant -- to address the foreign language issues in this case.

Meanwhile, it seems to me useful for the disposition of this application, and consideration of the more basic issues referred to earlier, to review the adequacy of assignee's survey of local needs.

  Back to Top                           Back to Index