Reading Comprehension

PT129 · S4 · P1 · Q5 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.

5.

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

  1. Broadcasters are legally obligated to

    Out of Scope

    It's the FCC that now has to hold regular meetings with the public, not the broadcasters themselves. And by "regular meetings", we mean once every three years, so does that qualify as a regular meeting? This isn't describing the license renewal hearing, once every three years.

    8% picked this

  2. Broadcasters are now required by

    Too Strong

    The case gave citizens' groups the right to be heard at FCC proceedings, once every three years. It didn't require broadcasters to consult citizens' groups whenever they're making programming decisions.

    2% picked this

  3. Except in cases involving clear

    Opposite

    The case did the opposite of giving the FCC discretion to skip public input; it established that citizens' groups must be heard. The court ruling expanded public participation at FCC hearings, not narrowed it.

    1% picked this

  4. When evaluating the performance of

    Too Strong

    The case gave citizens' groups the right to participate in license hearings once every three years, not a separate FCC duty to obtain information about public preferences.

    13% picked this

  5. Correct

    In FCC licensing proceedings, parties

    Why this is right

    This is a fancy way of saying that the public is now allowed to show up at license renewal hearings, once every three years. The public are "parties representing community preferences", such as the church group that was saying, "Hey, our community prefers it when you don't prevent integrationist content from being spread and only peddle segregationist content." The language of this answer harkens back to the beginning of the passage. PRIOR to this case, courts didn't think that the public had standing in these hearings; only the broadcasters themselves (the ones with economic interest) were granted standing. So when they finally decide that the public has "the right to challenge the renewal of the license", they are granting the public standing. This correct answer takes the simple detail we were asked to look up (the result of the case was that the public can now speak at license renewal hearings) and uses Term Swaps from elsewhere in the passage to test our awareness of the meaning connections throughout the passage.

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

    76% 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