MEDIA

MEMO To: The Editor

FROM: John Merwin, associate editor

SUBJECT: Channel 8 licensing hearings

As you ordered, I spent seven working days covering the Federal Communications Commission’s hearing on Channel 8’s licensing challenge. It was the first challenge ever and if Channel 8 management loses, they’ve lost not only an estimated $50 million business but the power that comes with operating a television station.

While we might think such a challenge is newsworthy, we apparently are the only ones. Although the four top executives of the Belo Corp. (owners of both The Dallas Morning News and Channel 8) sat through the entire hearing, the News saw fit to cover only the first hours of the opening day. So far as I know, no reporter from The Dallas Times Herald ever set foot in the hearing room.

But, to fill you in, here’s the situation on the hearing. The Belo Corp. naturally wants to continue operating Channel 8. WADECO, a company organized by former State Sen. Jim Wade, questions whether the station’s programming is serving the needs of the community. Wade wants the Channel 8 license.

Frankly, chief, I doubt our readers care who operates Channel 8 so long as it is done tastefully and intelligently. But there is one thread woven through the evidence presented at the hearing which I think we ought to pull. It tells a lot about Dallas power.

Like an incumbent officeholder, Channel 8’s management has power and power means favors. These favors can take the form of free public service time to promote a myriad of charitable organizations, for example, or guest spots in which an official explains some policy or a politician makes a pitch.

There comes a time to call in those favors and I think how the calls were made and who made them is interesting.

To develop material for his challenge, Wade contacted a number of civic leaders for a survey of the city’s most pressing problems as they perceive them. Wade contends that at the time of the survey he was thinking of seeking a TV license but he did not know which one. Therefore, he said, he couldn’t tell respondents he planned specifically to challenge Channel 8.

Testimony concerning the gathering of these data was pretty dull, but the Belo response was far from it. Look at the way Belo mobilized its own employees to go out and get letters and affidavits supporting Channel 8, some from the same people who had answered Wade’s survey:

● Publisher Joe Dealey obtained affidavits from former State Rep. Joe Golman (who once enjoyed the News’ editorial endorsements) and Judge Claude Williams (a member of Dealey’s Masonic lodge). Dealey also dropped by retired City Mgr. Scott McDonald’s home seeking an affidavit, which he got.

●Belo Vice President Jim Moroneycontacted Jesuit Prep School for a letter commending Channel 8 for freeair time given the school. (Moroneysits on Jesuit’s fund raising board.)

●The station’s news star at thetime, Murphy Martin, secured lettersfrom Mayor Pro Tern George Allenand former Police Chief Frank Dyson.(Both Dyson and Allen appeared several times on Martin’s prestigious 30-minute solo interview program, Faceto Face.)

●The station’s then news director,Travis Linn, obtained an affidavitfrom Bill Haines, an executive assistant to former Cong. Graham Purcell,and a letter from State Sen. OscarMauzy, both friend

● Gene McIntyre, the station’s lia-sion to the black community, obtained an affidavit from social workerJuanita Craft. Under oath, however,Mrs. Craft backed down on her affidavit and admitted to signing it becauseshe “was worried about Gene Mc-Intyre’s safety.” (His job safety if Beloshould lose the Channel 8 license.)

● WFAA-News Farm Director Murray Cox secured an affidavit from aTarrant County agriculture extension agent, who testified that disseminating agricultural news is difficult.(Murray Cox can help there.)



All of these leaders were cooperative with WFAA when various Belo employees asked them to write letters and affidavits commending WFAA for giving them air time. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with helping out friends.



But in testimony those same community leaders indicated they wouldn’t have helped Wade if they “had known what he was doing.” Wade was required by the FCC to survey community leaders, asking each one what he thought the community’s problems were. One such leader was Judge Williams, who appeared at Dealey’s request, and testified that he didn’t remember talking to Wade. The judge said that if he had known why Wade was asking the questions, he certainly wouldn’t have answered them. In other words, he was willing to swear out an affidavit for Belo, but not answer public survey questions for Wade.



The point is this: How can anybody, no matter how sincere or civic minded, mount a challenge against any TV license holder if some community leaders refuse to answer such non-partisan questions as what’s Dallas’ most pressing problem?



In any case, the hearing here has been moved to Washington (a normal procedure) and we won’t have a decision until next year.