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: