WPCm 2MB'RK Z3|aTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Italic6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) 614 Lpt:2l)HL4MPCAD.PRSXN\  P\$\oXP2DKH<#XN\  P9XP#!Aӊ-  -@Њ#&a\  P6G;&P##Xj\  P6G;9XP#"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\Times New RomanTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold:2a=5,&a\  P6G;&Pk(N1+,N\  P6G;P:2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P Grey PashGrey Pash 2] ZD 0R U XXN\  PXP#XN\  PXP#AӊЫXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX&G\  P&P\ `&3|x2pK K /yK%"i~'^+2;II{r222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII))RRRAjaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[2)2CI2AIAIA2II))I)rIIII28)IIjIIAFFO2&OC222&22222222I)jAjAjAjAjA_aA[A[A[A[A2)2)2)2)jIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjAjIjHjIjIjIRIjAjAjAaAaAaOaAj\[A[A[A[AjIjIjIjOjIjOjI2)2I222IgROOjI[)[;[2[2[)jIWjIjIjIjIja2a2a2R8R8R8RO[>[)[CjIjIjIjIjIjIjjO[A[A[AjI[2jIR8[2jI\&II11WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5CI2AIIIII)/ooI,/ooIo,22AAI22XIIZo5XX5WzzRR2AI{,"aaaaooIoXUOIRXXI"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>jaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[X%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2ZKKG97jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP:2a=5,&a\  P6G;&Pk(N1+,N\  P6G;P:2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P\;0_=5,&_*f9 xr G;&X<2e=5,'&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72K\k"i~'^#)0<of 'extrinsic evidence' " and that its prior decisions suggest it is merely seeking "objective evidence from   outside the broadcast which demonstrates, without any need for the Commission to second-guess a   licensee's journalistic judgment or for the Commission to make credibility findings, that the licensee has   ~distorted a news program." He then argues that the Commission misapplied the extrinsic evidence   standard by mischaracterizing some evidence as non-extrinsic, failing to discuss other evidence he   presented, analyzing each piece of extrinsic evidence separately rather than cumulatively, and requiring him to prove his case rather than simply to raise a material question. "&0*0*0*%"Ԍ LjThe Commission stands by its characterization of the evidence based upon its definition of   "extrinsic evidence, which it says " 'is evidence outside the broadcast itself,' such as evi-dence of written   or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery." Further, the Com-mission   explains that its investigation properly "focuse[d] on evidence of intent of the licensee to distort   [deliberately], not on the petitioner's claim that the true facts of the incident are different from those   Hpresented," because "[e]xtrinsic evidence [must] demonstrate[ ] that a broadcaster knew elements of a news story were false or distorted, but nevertheless, proceeded to air such programming."  S* LTWe review the Commission's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard. See Astroline,   857 F.2d at 1562. We will uphold the decision if it is "reasonable and supported by the evidence before   Hit," but "will not 'hesitate to intervene where the agency decision appears unreasonable or bears inadequate  SJ *  zrelation to the facts on which it is purportedly based.' " Beaumont Branch of the NAACP v. FCC, 854  S$ *  F.2d 501, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 752 F.2d 670,   P675 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). Analyzing the Commission's decision under this standard, we conclude that the   agency has failed adequately to explain its decision not to set the application of CBS for a hearing. We   therefore vacate the decision of the Commission and remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. A. Evidentiary standard  L.At the outset, we note that the Commission never explained under which step of the inquiry it   ,resolved this case. It began by stating that Serafyn "must satisfy the threshold extrinsic evidence standard   in order to elevate [his] allegations to the level of 'substantial and material' "; but then said that Serafyn   Zhad not "demonstrate[d]" that CBS intended to distort the news; and finally concluded that because his   hallegations concerned only one show "such an isolated instance ... cannot[ ] rise to the level of a 'pattern  S*  of prejudice,' the burden required of a petitioner who seeks to make a prima facie case." WGPR, 10 FCC   Rcd at 8148. The Commission's muddled discussion suggests that it not only conflated the first and second steps but also applied the wrong standard in judging the sufficiency of the evidence.  LbAs we have explained, the appropriate questions for the Commission to ask at the threshold stage   "are first, whether the petitioner's allegations make out a prima facie case, and second, whether they raise   4a substantial and material question of fact regarding the licensee's ability to serve the public interest.   ZInstead, the Commission apparently asked whether Serafyn's evidence proved CBS's intent to distort the news, for it concluded by saying:   XX` ` [W]e find, in sum, that the outtakes of the rabbi's interview fail to demonstrate CBS's intent to distort....x` X(#  .XX` `  The two remaining pieces of evidence ... fall[ ] far short of   Jdemonstrating intent to distort.... Serafyn's extrinsic evidence in total, therefore, does not satisfy the standard for demonstrating intent to distort.x` X(#  Sx#*  Id. at 8147, 8148. In requiring Serafyn to "demonstrate" that CBS intended to distort the news rather than   merely to "raise a substantial and material question of fact" about the licensee's intent, the Commission  S*%*  has misapplied its standard in a way reminiscent of the problem in Citizens for Jazz: "The statute in effect   says that the Commission must look into the possible existence of a fire only when it is shown a good deal   zof smoke; the Commission has said that it will look into the possible existence of a fire only when it is   Bshown the existence of a fire." 775 F.2d at 397. For this reason alone we must remand the case to the   vagency. Although we do not propose to determine just how much evidence the Commission may require"(0*0*0*`'"   or whether Serafyn has produced it, which are matters for the Commission itself to determine in the first   Hinstance, we can safely say that the quantum of evidence needed to raise a substantial question is less than  S*  that required to prove a case. See id. (" '[P]rima facie sufficiency' means the degree of evidence  S*  necessary to make, not a fully persuasive case, but rather what a reasonable factfinder might view as a   hpersuasive case"the quantum, in other words, that would induce a trial judge to let a case go to the jury even though he himself would (if nothing more were known) find against the plaintiff").  LWe are also concerned about the Commission's method of analyzing the various pieces of   evidence that Serafyn presented. In making its decision the Commission must consider together all the  S*  evidence it has.  See Gencom, 832 F.2d at 181; Citizens for Jazz, 775 F.2d at 395 . The decision under   ,review, however, suggests (though not conclusively) that the Commission analyzed each piece of evidence  SN *  in isolation only to determine, not surprisingly, that no item by itself crossed the threshold. See WGPR,   10 FCC Rcd at 814748. Because we must remand this matter in any case, we need not determine   whether the Commission in fact erred in this regard. We simply note that upon remand the Commission   hmust consider all the evidence together before deciding whether it is sufficient to make a prima facie case or to raise a substantial and material question of fact. B. Licensee's policy on distortion  LIn addition to holding that Serafyn presented insufficient evidence to "demonstrate" that CBS had   Pintentionally distorted the "60 Minutes" episode about Ukraine, the Commission's denial of Serafyn's   petition also rested upon the alternative ground that he had not alleged a general pattern of distortion   bextending beyond that one episode. Upon appeal Serafyn argues"and the Commission does not   dispute"that he did present evidence regarding CBS's general policy about distortion, namely the   ^comments of Wallace and Hewitt quoted above, and that the Commission failed to discuss or even to   mention this evidence. Both Wallace's comment ("you don't like to baldly lie, but I have") and Hewitt's   ("it's the small crime vs. the greater good") are, to say the least, suggestive. Furthermore, both Wallace   (as the most senior reporter and commentator for "60 Minutes") and Hewitt (as the producer of the series)   are likely members of the "news management" whose decisions can fairly be attributed to the licensee.  S*  Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d at 150. The Commission's failure to discuss Serafyn's allegation relating   zto CBS's policy on veracity is therefore troubling. Indeed, because of the importance the Commission   placed upon the supposed lack of such evidence, its presence in the record casts the Commission's alternative ground into doubt. The Commission must consider these allegations upon remand. C. Nature of particular evidence  LThe Commission gave illogical or incomplete reasons for finding non-probative two of the three   Ppieces of evidence it determined were "extrinsic." It also failed to discuss individually certain alleged   factual inaccuracies that Serafyn brought to its attention. Before discussing the Commission's opinion in detail, however, we set out a brief excerpt from the transcript of the broadcast.   XX` ` MORLEY SAFER, co-host: ... [T]he west [of Ukraine], where we go   *tonight, is on a binge of ethnic nationalism. "Ukraine for the Ukrainians"   can have a frightening ring to those not ethnically correct, especially in a nation that barely acknowledges its part in Hitler's final solution.x` XX` ` (#`   XX` ` ... [J]ust about every day of the week, the sounds of freedom can be   fheard, men and women giving voice to their particular view of how the   new independent Ukraine should be governed. They disagree about"(0*0*0*`'"   plenty, but do have two things in common: their old enemy, Russian communism, and their old, old enemy, the Jews.x` XX` ` (#`   XX` ` Unidentified Man # 1: (Through Translator) We Ukrainians not have to rely on American [sic] and kikes.x`   XX` ` SAFER: Yacoov [sic] Bleich left the United States five years ago to take over as the chief rabbi for the Ukraine.x` XX` ` (#`   XX` ` Rabbi YACOOV [sic] BLEICH: There is, obviously, a lot of hatred in   pthese people that are"that are expound-ing these things and saying, you   know"obviously if someone, you know, screams, "Let's drown the Russians in Jewish blood," there isn't much love lost there.x` XX` ` (#` XX` ` ...(#` XX` ` (#`   DXX` ` SAFER: ... In western Ukraine at least, Hitler's dream had been   \realized. It was juden-frei, free of Jews. In the 50 years since, Jews   have drifted in from other parts of the old Soviet Union, about 7,000 now in [Lviv]. For some Ukrainians, that's 7,000 too many.x` XX` ` (#`   xXX` ` Rabbi BLEICH: Yeah. Well, that's not a secret. They're saying that they want the Jews out.x` XX` ` ...(#` XX` ` (#`   XX` ` SAFER: The western Ukraine is fertile ground for hatred.   Independence only underlined its backwardness: uneducated peasants,   deeply superstitious, in possession of this bizarre anomaly: nuclear   weapons....Western Ukraine also has a long, dark history of blaming its poverty, its troubles, on others.x` XX` ` (#`   XX` ` [Unidentified] Man # 2: (Through Translator) Kikes have better chances here than even the original population.x` XX` ` (#` XX` ` SAFER: Than the Ukrainians.x` XX` ` (#` XX` ` Man # 2: (Through Translator) Yes.x` XX` ` (#` XX` ` ...x` XX` ` (#`   XX` ` SAFER: The church and government of Ukraine have tried to ease   Xpeople's fears, suggesting that things are not as serious as they might   appear; that Ukrainians, despite the allegations, are not genetically   anti-Semitic. But to a Jew living here ... such statements are little # %KR XX#comfort....x` XX` ` (#` Transcript, Joint Appendix at 9296. 1. Extrinsic evidence"X)0*0*0*2("Ԍ LԙWe discuss first the Commission's analysis of the three pieces of evidence it found were   "extrinsic." The Commission has the responsibility to determine the weight of such evidence. The reasons it gives for doing so, however, must be reasonable and not unfounded.  Q`*(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich  LThe outtakes show that all of Rabbi Bleich's quoted comments were made in response to questions   about radical nationalists. Serafyn argued to the Commission that CBS had misrepresented Bleich's views   when it broadcast his statements without making clear the context in which they were spoken and without   including the qualifications and positive statements that accompanied them. The Commission found that   >the outtakes could indeed "properly serve as circumstantial evidence of intent," but went on to find that they did not demonstrate an intent to distort the news because:   XX` ` Rabbi Bleich's latter, allegedly misleading comments immediately   `followed ... Safer's statement ... that only "some Ukrainians" are   anti-Semitic.... Indeed, that the focus of the "60 Minutes" program was   upon only a certain sector of the Ukrainian population is evident from at   bleast three other express references by Safer to "Ukrainian ultranationalist   parties," "the Social Nationalists," and other apparently isolated groups of   Ukrainians. Thus, rather than constitute a distortion, Rabbi Bleich's   negative comments about Ukrainians as utilized can rightly be viewed as   limited to only a segment of the Ukrainian population.... Nor do we find   intent to distort because CBS did not include in its episode positive   statements about Ukraine made by Rabbi Bleich.... [T]he determination   of what to include and exclude from a given interview constitutes the   legitimate "journalistic judgment" of a broadcaster, a matter beyond the Commission's "proper area of concern."x` X(#  S*WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147.  LSerafyn argues upon appeal that the Commission erred in failing to find the outtakes persuasive   &evidence of CBS's intent to distort. The Commission was not unreasonable, however, in finding that   Safer's phrase "some Ukrainians" and his other references to extremist groups effectively limited the scope  S*of Bleich's comments to "a segment of the Ukrainian population." Id.  Q*(b) The viewer letters  LThe Commission held that the letters CBS received from viewers were extrinsic evidence because  S * &Bthey were "external to the program." Id. at 8148. In the Commission's view, however, the letters were not probative because the letter writers were not  <XX` ` "insiders," that is, employees or members of management of CBS. Nor   are they persons with direct personal knowledge of intent to falsify....  And letters sent by viewers subsequent to the broadcast [are] evidence  clearly incapable of going to intent, because intent is a state of  %KR Xmind accompanying an act, not following it.x` X(#  Q'*Id. "( 0*0*0*`'"Ԍ #The Commission's reasoning here is flawed in two respects. First, a person need not have "direct"  &personal knowledge of intent in order to have relevant information that constitutes circumstantial evidence  S* &Labout such intent. See CrawfordEl v. Britton, 93 F.3d 813, 818 (1996) ("[T]he distinction between direct  S* &0and circumstantial evidence has no direct correlation with the strength of the plaintiff's case"); CPBF v.  Sd* &FCC, 752 F.2d at 679 ("Intent [may] be inferred from the subsidiary fact of [a broadcaster's] statements  &to third parties"). Second, evidence that sheds light upon one's intent is relevant whether it was prepared  &before or after the incident under investigation; consider, for example, a letter written after but recounting words or actions before an event.  #XUpon remand, therefore, the Commission may wish to consider separately two types of letters.  &4First, there may be letters that convey direct information about the producers' state of mind while the  &show was in production. For example, Cardinal Lubachivsky charged that the producers misled him as  &to the nature of the show. Second, there are letters that point out factual inaccuracies in the show. For  &example, Rabbi Lincoln, a viewer, wrote in about the mistranslation of "zhyd." Although letters of this  &type may not have independent significance, they may yet be probative in determining whether an error  S * &&was obvious or egregious, and if so whether it bespeaks an intent to distort the facts. See Part II.C.2 below.  Q8*(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk  #Serafyn asserted that CBS's refusal to consult Professor Luciuk demonstrated its intent to distort  &the news because only someone with no intention to broadcast the truth would refuse to use the services  & of an expert. The Commission found that evidence of the broadcaster's decision was extrinsic to the  &program but that it "falls far short of demonstrating intent to distort the ... program" because the  &"[d]etermination[ ] as to which experts to utilize is a decision solely within the province of the  S * & broadcaster." WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8148. Once again, the agency's reasoning is too loose. Serafyn  &raises no question about the broadcaster's discretion to decide whom, if anyone, to employ; it is only  &because the broadcaster has such discretion that its ultimate decision may be probative on the issue of  &lintent. Before the Commission may reject this evidence, therefore, it must explain why CBS's decision  &to employ one expert over another"or not to employ one at all"is not probative on the issue of its intent to distort. 2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies  #tIn describing what evidence it would accept to substantiate Serafyn's claim of news distortion,  &the Commission stated that it has "long ruled that it will not attempt to judge the accuracy of broadcast  Sj* &news reports or to determine whether a reporter should have included additional facts." WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147. In "balancing First Amendment and public interest concerns," it explained, the Commission  XX` ` will not attempt to draw inferences of distortion from the content of a  broadcast, but it will investigate where allegations of news distortion are   xsupported by "substantial extrinsic evidence" that the licensee has  S|#* deliberately distorted its news report. Mrs. J.R. Paul, 26 FCC 2d at 592.   @"Extrinsic evidence," that is, evidence outside the broadcast itself,   includes written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes,  S&*  @or evidence of bribery. Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d at 151. Our  assessment of allegations of news distortion, in sum, focuses on evidence  tof intent of the licensee to distort, not on the petitioner's claim that the true facts of the incident are different from those presented.x` "( 0*0*0*`'"ԌX(#  S*WGPR, 10 FCC Rcd at 8147.  #*Serafyn argues that the definition quoted above does not purport to be all-inclusive, and that the  &Commission acted unreasonably in holding that the evidence he submitted is not also extrinsic. In his  &view the agency should inquire "whether the licensee has distorted a news program" and the Commission  v,can make this inquiry"without becoming a national arbiter of truth"by relying upon "objective" evidence  vto disprove assertions made in a news show. Intervenor CBS argues that the "objective" nature of  vevidence has never been considered in determining whether it is extrinsic. The Commission responds that  vhowever one defines "extrinsic evidence," it does not include that which goes only to the truth of a matter stated in the broadcast.  The Commission has not so much defined extrinsic evidence as provided examples of the genre  vand what lies outside it. While the Commission certainly may focus upon evidence relevant to intent and  v exclude all else, the problem is"as the Commission's past decisions show"that the inaccuracy of a  S * vLbroadcast can sometimes be indicative of the broadcaster's intent. See Application of WMJX, 85 FCC 2d  vF251 (1981) (station denied intent to mislead public but admitted it knew news broadcast was false;  v"Commission implicitly concluded from broadcaster's knowledge of falsity that it had intended to mislead  S4* v0public); see also Hunger in America, 20 FCC 2d at 147 (Commission may intervene "in the unusual case where the [truth of the] matter can be readily and definitely resolved").  ~Here, Serafyn argues that CBS got its facts so wrong that its decision to broadcast them gives rise  vto the inference that CBS intentionally distorted the news. Without deciding whether Serafyn's arguments  vabout individual facts are correct, or even specifying what standard the Commission should use when   0analyzing claims of factual inaccuracy, we must point out that an egregious or obvious error may indeed   Hsuggest that the station intended to mislead. This is not to say that the Commission must investigate every   allegation of factual inaccuracy; if the broadcaster had to do historical research or to weigh the credibility   Tof interviewees, for example, then any alleged inaccuracy is almost certainly neither egregious nor   0obvious. Our point is only that as an analytical matter a factual inaccuracy can, in some circum-stances,   raise an inference of such intent. The Commission therefore erred insofar as it categorically eliminated  SV*factual inaccuracies from consideration as part of its determination of intent.Vp X*ԍCounsel for the Commission was unable to say at oral argument whether the agency simply did not believe that such evidence could ever be probative"which would be a mistake"or understood the point we are making but chose to exclude such evidence for prudential reasons"which would be an exercise of judgment within its discretion if not unreasonable.  LThe chief example we have in mind is the apparent mistranslation of "zhyd" as "kike." Such a   highly-charged word is surely not used lightly. Of course, translation is a tricky business, and it is   axiomatic that one can never translate perfectly. Nonetheless, a mistranslation that "affect[s] the basic  S*accuracy" of the speaker is problematic under the Commission's standard. Galloway, 778 F.2d at 20.  LTranslating can be compared to editing a long interview down to a few questions and answers.  S *  PIn The Selling of the Pentagon, the Commission addressed an interviewee's allegation that CBS's "60   rMinutes" had "so edited and rearranged [his answers to questions posed] as to misrepresent their content."   30 FCC 2d 150, 150 (1971). Although it decided in that case that the interviewee had not been so badly   misrepresented as to require action by the Commission, the agency allowed that it "can conceive of"" 0*0*0*!"   situations where the documentary evidence of deliberate distortion would be sufficiently strong to require   zan inquiry"e.g., where a 'yes' answer to one question was used to replace a 'no' answer to an entirely  S*  &different question." Id. Changing "Jew" to "kike" may be as blatant a distortion as changing a "no"   answer to a "yes," so greatly does it alter the sense of the speaker's statement; if so, then the basic   accuracy of the report is affected. Further, when the word chosen by the translator is an inflammatory   term such as "kike," the licensee could be expected to assure itself of the accuracy of the translation; if   it does not do so, the Commission may appropriately consider that fact in reaching a conclusion about the   0broadcaster's intent to distort the news. The Commission was therefore unreasonable in dismissing this charge without an explanation.  LWe need not discuss here each of the other factual inaccuracies raised by Serafyn. On remand   the Commission should consider whether any other error was sufficiently obvious and egregious to contribute to an inference about CBS's intent, and therefore to qualify as "extrinsic evidence." D. Misrepresentation  S * L In Stockholders of CBS, Inc. Serafyn argued that CBS made a misrepresentation to the   Commission by misleading WUSA about its treatment of the viewer letters and thereby causing the   affiliate to transmit that erroneous information to the Commission. The Commission responded that   "[m]isrepresentation is composed of two elements: a material false statement made to the Commission   and an intent to make such a statement." 11 FCC Rcd at 3753. The Commission then held Serafyn had   neither alleged that CBS had made its representation directly to the Commission nor "provided [any]   evidence that CBS [had] intended to convey false information to the Commission through its affiliate."  Ql*Id.  LTIn reviewing the Commission's conclusion that CBS did not make a misrepresentation we ask only   0whether the Commission was "cognizant of the issue raised and, upon the record, reasonably resolve[d]  S*  Tthat issue." WEBR, Inc. v. FCC, 420 F.2d 158, 164 (D.C. Cir. 1969). In this case the answer to both questions is yes.  LTThere is no dispute that CBS did not make its false statement directly to the Commission. Serafyn   Largues, however, that directness has never been required, that "CBS was aware of Appellants' complaint   against WUSATV," and that CBS's misrepresentations to WUSA therefore should "be taken as seriously   ^as if made directly to the Commission." The Commission responds first that there is no evidence that   CBS intended to make any misrepresentation""the most that was shown in the record below was that one   official of CBS was careless or negligent in providing information to [WUSA]""and second that it will   sanction only a misrepresentation made directly to the Commission or intended to be passed on to the Commission.  L\The Commission reasonably found Serafyn had not alleged that CBS intended to make any   representation either directly or indirectly "to the Commission." Assuming for the sake of the argument   that CBS could be sanctioned for making a misrepresentation through WUSA, we agree with the   Commission that Serafyn did not substantiate his claim that CBS knew about the complaint pending before   the agency when it made the two misrepresentations to WUSA. Serafyn's only evidence is that the UACN   had sent CBS's counsel a copy of the complaint, but that was after WUSA had received the   Zmisinformation and relayed it to the Commission. Absent any allegation that CBS knew that the first two   versions of the incident it provided to WUSA would make their way to the Commission, the agency reasonably decided not to sanction CBS for misrepresentation. "( 0*0*0*`'"Ԍ`III. Conclusion  LpThe Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Serafyn's petition without analyzing   Zmore precisely the evidence he presented. On the other hand, the Commission reasonably held that CBS   Zdid not make a misrepresentation to the Commission. We therefore vacate and remand the Commission's  S8*decision in WGPR and affirm its decision in Stockholders of CBS Inc. %KR   S* %KR `(#uSo ordered.ă