ABC Accuses FCC of 'Attempted Censorship' (politico.com) 62
ABC accused FCC Chair Brendan Carr of "attempted censorship," arguing that an early review of its eight broadcast licenses is politically motivated retaliation over the network's coverage and could chill the entire media industry. "The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration's view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price," the Disney-owned television network wrote. Politico reports: "Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers," ABC's lawyers added in the 119-page filing. "The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely."
Carr has repeatedly rejected accusations of censorship while defending his efforts to rein in what he calls abusive, politically motivated behavior by licensed TV broadcasters. "I don't view the FCC as the speech police," he told POLITICO this week for an upcoming episode of the podcast "The Conversation."
In its filing, ABC pointed to an outpouring of support it has received in more than 152,000 comments in the agency's license review, as well as recent warnings from conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and various pro-free-market organizations about the dangers of a politically motivated FCC. Those include letters from a bipartisan group of former FCC leaders, community and advocacy groups and lawmakers of both parties. "The Commission's attempted censorship of ABC has attracted condemnation across the political aisle," the network wrote.
Carr has repeatedly rejected accusations of censorship while defending his efforts to rein in what he calls abusive, politically motivated behavior by licensed TV broadcasters. "I don't view the FCC as the speech police," he told POLITICO this week for an upcoming episode of the podcast "The Conversation."
In its filing, ABC pointed to an outpouring of support it has received in more than 152,000 comments in the agency's license review, as well as recent warnings from conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and various pro-free-market organizations about the dangers of a politically motivated FCC. Those include letters from a bipartisan group of former FCC leaders, community and advocacy groups and lawmakers of both parties. "The Commission's attempted censorship of ABC has attracted condemnation across the political aisle," the network wrote.
This accusation is a lie! (Score:3, Funny)
Our strong and rose-scented leader signed an executive order that restored freedom of speech: https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre... [whitehouse.gov]
Re:This accusation is a lie! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ad when has any member of this Sadministration bothered to comply with the Constitution, the law, or an executive order? They do whatever they feel will please the Orangutan in Chief so that he can direct some of the graft their way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and most of that was put in place by Democrats.
They also invented salmonella and body odor.
Fortunately God decided it was necessary to intervene and created his own political party to protect us from drag queens and people who take that "liberty and justice for all" kind of crap seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Since Lincoln was a Republican, you're admitted it started with the Republicans?
Re: This accusation is a lie! (Score:3)
Whover actually wrote that thing is probably still chuckling about the insanity of saying both that nobody in the federal government will restrict the free expression of speech, and also that this order explicitly doesn't provide any redress of grievances in the event this order is not followed.
Here's the thing (Score:5, Insightful)
If an adversarial ruling from the Supreme Court allows the FCC to yank licenses, then these networks better have a backup plan of "broadcasting" from the Internet. The current regulatory structure of the FCC doesn't allow them to regulate content on the Internet. That'd take an act of congress if constitutional procedure is properly followed
Of course if the current regime pulls out all the stops and does something like put out an Executive Order requiring licenses for "broadcasting" content on the Internet, and the Supreme Court sides with the regime, then you have to have yet another backup like posting content from other countries.
At that point we might be looking at the implementation of the Great American Firewall, and the United States would no longer be a representative democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anyone here with a straight face state they truly believe "The View" is a newscast?
Re: Here's the thing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business
Re: Here's the thing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business
Fox is technically not a broadcaster. I'm not defending them or anything like that, but they get away with their biased shenanigans because they're a cable network. Disney could do the same thing if they wanted to surrender their broadcast licenses and just go with entirely cable/online distribution, but somewhere around 19%-20% of American households still watch OTA TV.
Yeah, I was kind of surprised it was that many, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fox is technically not a broadcaster.
What are you jibbering about? Fox Corporation owns nearly 30 broadcast licenses for corporate owned stations. Hell, IIRC, their legal name is Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC.
Re: Here's the thing (Score:4, Informative)
It's obvious the OP was referring to Fox News, the cable network. If they weren't, they're always free to jump back in and clarify.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's obvious the OP was referring to Fox News, the cable network.
If that were the case, they should have said Fox News, the cable network and not just "Fox". So no, it really wasn't obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
It's obvious the OP was referring to Fox News, the cable network.
If that were the case, they should have said Fox News, the cable network and not just "Fox". So no, it really wasn't obvious.
Let me quote them : "because they're a cable network"
within a context of a specific reply about a segment from Fox News called "The View", furthermore talking about newscasting.
Let me guess, you're the kind of person who when a woman drags you into the bedroom and starts undressing in front of you while looking at her seductively says "I'm not really sure what she wants from me" right?
Re: (Score:1)
Let me quote them: "Fox is . . ."
This conflicts with "because they're a cable network"
Words matter, especially when they're missing.
Re: (Score:2)
Context matters far more than words. It is the reason why everyone knew what they were talking about except for you. Focus less on words, and more on context. It will help you become a far better communicator.
Re: Here's the thing (Score:2)
Re: Here's the thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the argument is that radio frequency is a limited resource and therefore the Feds must ensure it's used to the public benefit. So magically the First Amendment doesn't apply.
This ends up meaning that stations which support whatever the current government is can do what they want and station which oppose risk losing their license. Regardless of who is in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the argument is that radio frequency is a limited resource and therefore the Feds must ensure it's used to the public benefit. So magically the First Amendment doesn't apply.
It does, of course, but no constitutional right is absolute. They're just difficult to restrain, being subject to what SCOTUS calls "strict scrutiny." [cornell.edu].
That regulating use of finite radio frequencies is a compelling government interest is long established.
(That politics gets involved in all SCOTUS decisions is even longer established, since SCOTUS is, in fact, a political body, not a legal one, by design.)
Re: (Score:2)
Wolfman Jack would like a word...
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question.
Can anyone here with a straight face state they truly believe "The View" is a newscast?
What difference does that make? The FCC is not threatening the license of "The View", it is threatening the licenses of the American Broadcast Corporation.
FYI, "The View" bills itself as a daytime talk show -NOT A NEWSCAST.
Re:Here's the thing (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, "The View" bills itself as a daytime talk show -NOT A NEWSCAST.
Similarly for many/most Fox News evening shows with the added irony that the network literally has "News" in the name. Then again , they tend to says things the Trump administration likes to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again , they tend to says things the Trump administration likes to hear.
Not at all. They, like The View, and all other television programs (but especially "news" programs) say things they believe the target demographics of their advertisers want to hear.
Any "news" organization that cares about anything other than drawing in eyeballs to sell to advertisers has already gone out of business.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI, "The View" bills itself as a daytime talk show -NOT A NEWSCAST.
Officially, perhaps, but ABC is fighting tooth and nail to claim it is a "bona fide news program" [bloomberg.com] to maintain the exemption from equal-time regulations.
They want it both ways. Which is to say, they don't want to play by the same rules as they expect the other side to play by.
Re: (Score:2)
Officially, perhaps, but ABC is fighting tooth and nail to claim it is a "bona fide news program" [bloomberg.com] to maintain the exemption from equal-time regulations.
Well, that is a dumb argument for them to make. I googled it and they publicize it as "daytime talk show". They can't have it both ways.
They want it both ways. Which is to say, they don't want to play by the same rules as they expect the other side to play by.
Yes, I know Fox claimed in court that its "Fox News" program was entertainment and that "no reasonable person would believe" what was said on air. That was also bullshit.
I do not accept that just because one corp does dumb shit another should also do dumb shit. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
"Talk radio isn't a target of FCC's 'equal time' notice, Brendan Carr says"
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This whole thing is ironic, since it has been the Republicans that have done the most to push back against equal time rules since at least the Reagan administration, including interpreting the rule in such a way that news shows, talk shows, and entertainment shows could feature politicians without the need for providing "equal time".
Re:Here's the thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Use the same argument Fox did when they had to pay Dominion.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29... [npr.org]
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
Re: (Score:2)
Who said it was a newscast? It's named "The View", which basically states that it is opinion. Last time I checked, opinion is protected free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If an adversarial ruling from the Supreme Court allows the FCC to yank licenses, then these networks better have a backup plan of "broadcasting" from the Internet.
They already do. The majority of the popular entertainment content their studios put out has been moved behind the paywall of their online streaming services. Google says roughly 22.75 million U.S. household still watch OTA TV, though (spoiler alert: they're mostly poor people).
Re: (Score:2)
At that point we might be looking at the implementation of the Great American Firewall, and the United States would no longer be a representative democracy.
The USA is already NOT a representative democracy. I am uncertain why you think it still is. When Citizens United was decided, representative democracy was condemned. We have seen the results.
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely moronic. "Your apples are green, not red, you don't have apples!"
Go home.
How Did They Piss Off Trump? (Score:1)
Did the call him Mango in Chief?
Re:How Did They Piss Off Trump? (Score:4, Informative)
They kept airing The View, and resumed airing Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Both shows may at some point have called him Mango in Chief, but they've said worse about him.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It turns out the "fuck your feelings" crowd has the most fragile feelings of all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You talking about the left or the right? Or both? Cuz that certainly applies to both.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Compile error. When one specific group has "the most fragile feelings of all" then it can't apply to both.
Are you a programmer at Microsoft by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
You're pretending you don't know which group says, "fuck your feelings?"
Found the "shy nazi."
Re: (Score:1)
I know you are, but what am I?
Re:Two sides to every argument (Score:4, Insightful)
These questions seem to reflect fundamental misunderstandings about free speech and the first amendment.
"Should a journalist be able to walk into a church during service and interrupt the proceedings, and not be held accountable because he's a journalist? "
Interrupting proceedings in this nature would potentially be trespassing, and could be sanctioned as such. That isn't a free speech issue. What WOULD be a free speech issue is if the government tells a journalist they can't report what they've seen or their opinion of what they've seen.
" Should a major news outlet be able to report something without at least a cursory check to see if it's accurate?"
Absolutely, at least as far as the GOVERNMENT is concerned. It's not the government's job to decide if a media outlet was good enough with its fact checking. However, slander/libel law may be allow a private party to sanction a media outlet reporting falsehoods (though the bar is quite high if concerning a public figure).
"Should an interview answer be swapped with the answer from a different question?"
Is that ethical journalism? No. But again, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S job to enforce journalistic standards. Because once you make that the government's job, then low journalistic standards become those of any outlet saying something the government doesn't like.
Re: (Score:1)
This would be a good time to point out that every political argument has two sides and two points of view.
You mean, like, a good one and a bad one?
Re: (Score:3)
This would be a good time to point out that every political argument has two sides and two points of view.
I don't even stop watching cat videos to join a political argument unless it has at least three sides / points of view. Part of the problem with today's politics is the lack of nuance that has everyone defending turf rather than discussing ideas, concessions, and compromises. The "two sides" assumption feeds that monster.
Re:Two sides to every argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Find out what the administration is complaining about, and see if you can fault their logic.
Admittedly, I have not been following this very closely because the internet has essentially become the new town square and this comes across as a bunch of old men squabbling over where to tie up their horses at a Walmart parking lot. I was a bit surprised to discover somewhere around 19%-20% of American households actually still watch OTA TV.
I Googled it and it basically boils down to this:
1. Disney/ABC's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
2. "The View" and equal-time concerns.
3. Jimmy Kimmel's monologues.
While I personally disagree with this administration's handling of DEI policies, it is what the American public voted for. My initial thoughts were that this should be outside of the FCC's jurisdiction, there are instances at the state level where liquor licenses are revoked from businesses for infractions unrelated to serving liquor, so it's not entirely without precedent. Threatening revocation of their licenses, however, does seem excessively punitive. The usual penalty is typically fines.
Regarding the equal-time concerns, typically that's been handled in the past by requiring broadcasters to give opposing candidates who request it, an opportunity to utilize the time they are due. Again, the FCC's actions here seem intended more to intimidate than to address a perceived wrong.
Lastly, we get to Jimmy Kimmel, which is clearly an entertainment program. Political jokes and mockery of political figures during a comedy talk show is protected 1A speech, no two ways about it. The FCC doesn't have a leg to stand on here, and the fact the president couldn't keep his yap shut on social media about how much he disliked Jimmy Kimmel, does nothing but strengthen ABC's case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Overall, good points, but...
While I personally disagree with this administration's handling of DEI policies, it is what the American public voted for.
No. Their handling of DEI policies may have been supported by some, but that's certainly not what motivated the majority of those who voted for trump.
If it were really something the voters wanted, then put the issue on the ballot, or at least have our representatives in congress vote on a bill regarding it (for example, S.382 - Dismantle DEI Act of 2025, introduced in Feb. 2025 and not voted on at all yet). Instead, it was pushed through by executive order.
It's a looooong stretch
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, very few political arguments are limited to only two sides and only two points of view.
ABC accuses FCC (Score:1)
ABC accuses FCC. NBC reports. The FBI investigates. WTF. OMG.
Re: (Score:2)
ABC accuses FCC. NBC reports. The FBI investigates. WTF. OMG.
You missed the granddady of all those: TLA.
Re: (Score:2)
Orwell would like a word with you, Brendan (Score:1)
"I don't view the FCC as the speech police," he (Carr) told POLITICO this week
I'm sure what Carr said there is the truth. I'm also sure that if he substituted "thought" for "speech" he'd be lying through his teeth.
The biggest shock of all (Score:3)
The biggest shock of all is finding Ted Cruz on the right side. I wonder if it's just "a stopped clock is right twice a day" in action.
Re: The biggest shock of all (Score:2)
I guess the rest of MAGA politicians are just banking on the hope that democracy will be sufficiently extinguished in time so that "the other side" won't be a concern.
Trump's UnAmerican Views and Methods (Score:2)