#3 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[lsacgals101]

Could you help me understand why answer D) is correct?

I was considering answer D), but chose a different answer because it answer D) says "before the UCC won its case, the FCC would not allow citizens' groups to speak as members of the public at FCC hearings." yet, at the beginning of paragraph 3, it says that the church was granted a hearing. but this was BEFORE the church had won the case. Hence my hesitation about answer D).

Could you help me understand?

[Adam Tyson]

Happy to oblige, lsacgals101! The passage never says that the UCC got to speak in public at an FCC hearing before winning their case. It said they petitioned for a hearing, and that petition was denied! The church had to go to court - not to a public FCC hearing - to get their case heard, and it was only after they won in court that the public got the chance to be heard at those FCC renewal hearings. The hearing they attended that is mentioned in Paragraph 3 happened AFTER the 1967 court decision that granted them that right.

I hope that clears it up!

[KG!]

Hi! I'm still a bit confused on why the answer choice is D over E. I think I understand why answer choice E is wrong, but it still seems like the better choice over D. I now see that with answer choice E the passage doesn't confirm whether this was the "first time...a group was successful." However, I'm confused as to why/where does it say that, "the FCC would not allow citizens' groups to speak as member of the public at FCC hearings." I know in the first paragraph it states that the rights of viewers were not recognized, but it seems like a stretch to conclude that they wouldn't allow citizens group to speak as a member of the public FCC hearings. Or was this the exact inference I was supposed to make?

Thanks in advance!

[Beth Hayden]

Hi KG,

You can see support for answer choice D in the first paragraph, particularly lines 8-11. There it says that citizens who did not have an economic interest in broadcasting did not have standing to voice their views at an FCC hearing. Of course, for that to make sense you have to know what they are talking about when they say "standing," which is not a common word we use in everyday language!

In the law, you have to have standing to be able to challenge something in court. The author is using that word in a similar manner here but in the context of FCC hearings, saying that citizens didn't have the ability to voice their views (i.e., speak up) at the hearings.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[KG!]

Hi KG,

You can see support for answer choice D in the first paragraph, particularly lines 8-11. There it says that citizens who did not have an economic interest in broadcasting did not have standing to voice their views at an FCC hearing. Of course, for that to make sense you have to know what they are talking about when they say "standing," which is not a common word we use in everyday language!

In the law, you have to have standing to be able to challenge something in court. The author is using that word in a similar manner here but in the context of FCC hearings, saying that citizens didn't have the ability to voice their views (i.e., speak up) at the hearings.

Hope that helps!
Beth

Great Explanation! Thank you

[Fizzai]

hi, can you please explain why it's not C? Lines 51 to 54 say that "rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance .... at renewal times" meaning they can question it in front of FCC because ultimately they decide whether it gets renewed or not.

[katehos]

Hi Fizzai!

While the text definitely seems to insinuate that the FCC generally has final approval over renewals, the text actually contains information contrary to answer choice (C). Answer choice (C) states that the ruling in the United Church of Christ case was that the FCC had ultimate authority, however, the text states that "the judge... revok[ed] the station's license without remand to the FCC" (lines 43-44). So, not only do we have evidence that the court did not rule the FCC had ultimate authority in this specific case, but we also have some evidence that the court itself can potentially make final decisions regarding renewals.

I hope this helps
Kate