Federal Communications Commission  DA 08-524
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc.
Licensee of Station
WMGO(AM), Canton, Mississippi
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-05-IH-0120
NAL Account No. 200732080019 
FRN No. 0008130353
Facility ID No. 73259 
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  March 6, 2008  Released:  March 6, 2008
By the Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order, we assess a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $6,400 against 
WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc. (“WMGO” or the “Licensee”), licensee of Station WMGO(AM), 
Canton, Mississippi (the “Station”), for violating Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules by willfully 
recording and broadcasting a telephone conversation without first informing the other party to the 
conversation of its intention to do so.1
II. BACKGROUND 
2. On January 7, 2005, the Commission received a complaint (“Complaint”) from Mr. Luke 
Gordon alleging that Mr. Jerry Lousteau, the owner of Station WMGO and the host of its morning news 
show, telephoned Mr. Gordon on January 6, 2005, to discuss a matter involving Mr. Gordon’s personal 
life.2 According to the Complaint, when Mr. Gordon returned the phone call to the Station, Mr. Lousteau 
failed to notify Mr. Gordon that the conversation was being recorded or that it would be broadcast on the 
news program the next morning.3
3. On June 29, 2005, the Enforcement Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) to the 
Licensee regarding the alleged telephone broadcast.4 In its response (“LOI Response”), WMGO stated 
that although it had placed a phone call to Mr. Gordon around January 6, 2005, it was unsuccessful in 
contacting him.5
  
1 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
2 See E-mail message from Luke Gordon to Tom Hutton, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated January 7, and 12, 2005 (“Complaint”).
3 See Complaint at 1.  Mr. Gordon also alleged that the Station later broadcast excerpts of the recorded telephone 
conversation on January 7, 10, and 11, 2005.
4 See Letter from William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission to WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc., dated June 29, 2005 (“LOI”).
5 See Letter from Jerry Lousteau to David Brown, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 18, 2005 at 1 (“LOI Response”).
Federal Communications Commission                                DA 08-524
2
4. Shortly after the Commission received the Licensee’s LOI Response, the complainant,
Mr. Gordon, sent the Commission an audiotape recording containing part of the telephone conversation 
that was aired by the Station.6 In light of this evidence, a follow-up LOI (“Second LOI”) was sent to the 
Licensee directing it to confirm the authenticity of the audiotape recording and to provide the identities of 
the voices on the tape.7 In its Second LOI Response, the Licensee confirmed that the audio recording was 
a telephone conversation between Mr. Lousteau and Mr. Gordon.8 The Licensee argued that, despite this 
evidence, there is no violation of Section 73.1206 because it was not required to inform the caller that the 
conversation would be recorded and broadcast since it was Mr. Gordon that placed the call, and not the 
Station.9 The Licensee added that Mr. Gordon had participated in previous interviews with the Station 
and “has always been aware of the taping for broadcast.”10
5. On March 2, 2007, we issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (“NAL”) for $8,000.11 We 
rejected the Licensee’s argument that it had no responsibility under the rule to inform Mr. Gordon of the 
Station’s intention to record and broadcast the conversation because it was Mr. Gordon who called the 
Station, albeit to return the Licensee’s call to him.  As we determined, the record did not reflect that the 
caller, Mr. Gordon, had knowledge as contemplated by our rules of the Licensee’s intent to record the call 
for broadcast merely because he was returning Mr. Lousteau’s call.  As we stated in the NAL, “[i]n 
returning the phone call, the Complainant was contacting Mr. Lousteau, and not a live call-in or ‘open 
mike’ show, where he could expect to have his discussion broadcast and/or simultaneously recorded.”12  
We therefore concluded that the Licensee recorded and broadcast the conversation without providing the 
required notice to Mr. Gordon, in apparent violation of Section 73.1206.13 Although the Commission’s 
forfeiture guidelines establish a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast of a 
telephone conversation, the proposed forfeiture amount in the NAL was adjusted to $8,000 because the 
Licensee was found to have aired the conversation on at least three separate occasions (i.e., January 7, 10, 
and 11, 2005).14  
6. On March 23, 2007, WMGO filed a response to the NAL (“NAL Response”).15 WMGO 
states that it does not dispute the findings in the NAL, but nevertheless urges that we cancel or reduce the 
  
6 See Letter from Luke Gordon to David Brown, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 20, 2005.
7 See Letter from William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission to WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc., dated January 17, 2006 (“Second LOI”).  
We also instructed the Licensee to review its initial LOI Response and make any revisions that it believed were 
necessary.
8 See Letter from Jerry Lousteau to Tom Hutton, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated February 3, 2006 (“Second LOI Response”).
9 See id.
10 Id.
11 See WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 4217 (Enf. Bur., Investigations & 
Hearings Div. March 2, 2007) (“NAL”).
12 Id., 22 FCC Rcd at 4220 ¶ 9.  
13 See id.
14 See id., 22 FCC Rcd at 4221 at ¶ 10.
15 See Letter from Jerry Lousteau to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations And Hearing Divisions, Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission dated March 23, 2007, at 1 (“NAL Response”).
Federal Communications Commission                                DA 08-524
3
proposed $8,000 forfeiture.16 In support of its request, the Licensee notes that it has “a long history of 
broadcasting responsible and unbiased news for the local community.”17 It also states that payment of the 
fine would force the Station to raise advertising rates and “cause damage to this station and to the 
community.”18 Finally, WMGO requests that the Commission consider the Station’s “overall record of 
broadcast compliance and reduce the fine accordingly.”19
III.       DISCUSSION
7. WMGO does not dispute the merits of our apparent finding in the NAL that it violated 
Section 73.1206 of the Commission’s rules and we therefore affirm that holding.  Nevertheless, WMGO 
contends that we should cancel or reduce the forfeiture.  The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act,20 Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s Rules,21 and the Commission’s forfeiture guidelines set forth in its Forfeiture Policy 
Statement.22 In assessing forfeitures, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that we take into account the 
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and with respect to the violator, the degree of 
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters as justice may require.23 As 
discussed further below, we have examined WMGO’s response to the NAL pursuant to the 
aforementioned statutory factors, our rules, and the Forfeiture Policy Statement, and find no basis for 
cancellation of the forfeiture.  We find, however, that a reduction of the forfeiture amount from $8,000 to 
$6,400 based on WMGO’s prior history of compliance with the Commission’s rules is appropriate.
8. WMGO argues the forfeiture would negatively impact the station’s financial situation 
and specifically that it “would almost certainly force us to raise our [advertising] rates.”24 This argument 
is not sufficient to cause the Commission to reduce the forfeiture based on the Station’s inability to pay.  
In making any financial hardship claim, WMGO was specifically directed in the NAL to submit 
documentation, such as tax returns, to corroborate its financial status.25 WMGO failed to do so.26  
  
16 See id. at 1.  (“[T]he purpose of this letter is not to dispute the facts of the case, nor is it to dispute the findings of 
the Commission.  Instead, I humbly and respectfully ask the Commission [to] eliminate or reduce the $8,000 fine 
proposed . . . .”).
17 Id. As an example, WMGO points to local newscasts that have saved its community of license “millions of 
dollars over the years by exposing corruption and reckless spending.”  Id. at 2.
18 Id. at 2-3.
19 Id. at 2.   The Licensee has also filed a letter in support of its request to reduce or eliminate the proposed forfeiture 
from Matthew Wesolowski of Station WYAB(FM), Flora, Mississippi.  See Letter from Matthew Wesolowski, 
Chief Executive Officer, SSR Communications, Inc. to Gordon J. Lousteau, President, WMGO Broadcasting 
Company, dated March 23, 2007.  In that letter, Mr. Wesolowski praises WMGO’s news coverage and its 
commitment to local broadcasting.  He also argues that imposition of the fine would negatively impact the listening 
public in Madison County as well as the local broadcasting community, creating “an aura of uncertainty as to what 
the Commission is truly seeking from radio station operators.”  Id. at 3.
20 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
21 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
22 See The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recons. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) 
(“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).
23 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
24 See NAL Response at 2.
25 See NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 4221 ¶ 15.
Federal Communications Commission                                DA 08-524
4
Therefore, we find no basis for cancelling or reducing the total forfeiture amount on these grounds.  
9. WMGO also asks that we consider reducing the forfeiture amount based on its “overall 
record of broadcast compliance” with the Commission’s Rules.27 We have reviewed our records and note 
no other violations against the Licensee.  Under similar circumstances, we have reduced proposed 
forfeitures, and find that doing so in this case is appropriate.28 Consequently, we reduce WMGO’s 
forfeiture amount from $8,000 to $6,400.
IV.     ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act29 and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules,30 WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc., IS 
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $6,400 for willful violation of Section 
73.1206 of the Commission’s Rules.31
11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Rules within 30 days of the release of this Forfeiture Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid within the period 
specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) 
of the Act.32  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order 
of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and 
FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. 
Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account 
number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A 
(payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief 
  
(...continued from previous page)
26 See Webnet Communications, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 6870, 6878 ¶ 16 (2003) (rejecting request to 
reduce forfeiture based on inability to pay because licensee failed to provide relevant financial documentation); 
Commonwealth License Subsidiary, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 20483, 20486 ¶ 10 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (same). 
Compare KM Television of Flagstaff, L.L.C., Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5027, 5029 ¶ 8 (Enf. Bur., Western Region, Los 
Angeles Office, 2007) (cancelling proposed forfeiture based on financial hardship is warranted where licensee 
submitted three years of financial data showing its inability to pay).
27 See NAL Response at 2.
28 See, e.g., KOFI, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17886 (Enf. Bur., Investigations & Hearings Div. 2005) 
(proposed forfeiture for violation of telephone broadcast rule, Section 73.1206, reduced from $6,000 to $4,000 
because of Station’s prior record of overall compliance with FCC rules); Max Media of Montana, L.L.C., Forfeiture 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 21375, 21379 ¶ 14 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (reducing proposed forfeiture from $11,000 to $8,800 in 
light of unblemished history of compliance with Commission regulations); South Central Communications Corp.,
Forfeiture Order, 18 FCC Rcd 700, 702 ¶ 9 (Enf. Bur. 2003) (reducing proposed forfeiture from $10,000 to $8,000 
due to licensee history of compliance with Commission rules).
29 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
30 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
31 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.
32 See 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
Federal Communications Commission                                DA 08-524
5
Financial Officer – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.
20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email:  
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent, by First 
Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to WMGO Broadcasting Corp., Inc., 360 
Northern Liberty Street, Canton, Mississippi 39046, and to Mr. Luke Gordon, 257 Glenfield, Canton, 
Mississippi 39046.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Benigno E. Bartolome
 Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division
 Enforcement Bureau