Reading Comprehension

PT129 · S4 · P1 · Q4 The FCC and Public Interest

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

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.

Topic

The 1960s United Church of Christ case that forced the FCC to give the public standing in broadcasting license proceedings.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author tells the story of a closed regulatory system being opened up by a citizens' group, with clear approval of the result.

Main Point

The FCC originally only listened to broadcasters' economic interests, but the United Church of Christ's persistent legal challenge — culminating in a court revoking a Mississippi station's license — established that citizens' groups speaking for community concerns have standing to challenge license renewals, opening broadcasting to public input.

P1: The closed FCC

The FCC originally addressed only parties with economic interests in broadcasting. Citizens couldn't speak at hearings unless they were applying for a license, so the FCC effectively served the industry alone.

P2: The Jackson station case

In 1964 the United Church of Christ — representing Jackson, Mississippi's African American population — petitioned for a hearing about a local station accused of advocating segregation and excluding integration coverage. The FCC denied a hearing on the grounds that the church lacked the required economic interest, accepted the misconduct claims, and granted a short probationary renewal anyway. The author suggests the real reason was to keep citizens' groups out of FCC proceedings.

P3: The court overrules the FCC

The church appealed and won a 1967 hearing, but the FCC dismissed public input and granted a full renewal. On the church's second appeal, a judge revoked the station's license without remand, ruling that the church's members were performing a public service and should have the right to challenge the renewal.

4.

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

  1. If the United Church of

    Unsupported

    Based on the final sentence of the passage, the author would probably agree that "if the UCC hadn't pursued its case, we wouldn't have the range of discussions we have at licensing proceedings". But that's different from "wouldn't have been aware of a station's policies".

    5% picked this

  2. By their very nature, industrial

    Too Strong

    The author criticizes the FCC's industry-only approach but never makes the sweeping claim that by their very nature business interests oppose public interests. The author's view is more specific: in this case, the FCC's structure systematically excluded the public, and a court ruling fixed that.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    The recourse of a citizens'

    Why this is right

    This is a very soft claim, saying "one way to effectively protect public interests is for a citizens' group to petition the courts for help". The story told in this passage is an example of that. The church kept failing at the FCC; only when it went to court did it succeed. The court's ruling in turn created the precedent that has let citizens' groups raise issues at every renewal since (P4). The public wasn't recognized to have standing until the citizens group petitioned the courts and know they are recognized to have standing (which helps the public protect its interests).

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    86% picked this

  4. Governmental regulation cannot safeguard against

    Too Strong

    This is pessimistically saying that regulation can't keep individual businesses from acting against the public. Where would we get that from the passage? Initially the broadcasting businesses weren't accountable to the public and then regulations were changed so that the public does have a say at license renewals. So maybe that is a safeguard against anti-social behavior by the business.

    4% picked this

  5. The government cannot be trusted

    Too Strong

    The passage criticizes the FCC's early posture but doesn't conclude that government can't be trusted to balance public versus broadcaster interests. The successful precedent in P4 shows the system can correct itself. The author's view is critical of one chapter, not cynical about government as a whole.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free