FCC Reforms Target Blatant Bias Of Broadcasting Networks

Reporters are exercising more due diligence and balance when writing stories on the Trump administration, according to Federal Communications Commissioner Anna Gomez. In a recent interview with left-leaning journalist Oliver Darcy at Status, the Democrat appointee to the regulatory agency said, “I’ve already heard from broadcasters who are telling their reporters to be careful about the way the[y] cover this administration.” Gomez said the change “concern[ed]” her.

But these broadcast television stations owe a legal duty to the public to provide serious news coverage, so I for one am celebrating the report that newsrooms are now making more of an effort to ensure their journalism is accurate and includes both sides of the story. Hopefully, this will mean an end to the relentless and reckless attacks on President Trump with one-sided hatchet jobs masquerading as news reports.

Commissioner Gomez’s interview was part of her self-styled “First Amendment Tour,” meant to raise her concerns about the supposed attacks on media independence. But wrapping her rhetoric in the First Amendment skips over two basic points.

First, the First Amendment does not protect broadcaster bad behavior like defamation. ABC — a broadcast news network — recently settled a lawsuit with President Trump for $16 million because its anchor said something inaccurate about Trump on air. Holding ABC accountable for broadcasting inaccurate statements is not an attack on free speech; it’s a defense of truth.

Second, the First Amendment operates differently for broadcasters than it does for other types of media outlets. The public owns the airwaves. On the public’s behalf, the FCC licenses radio and television stations to use the airwaves. When a station applies for a license, it voluntarily assumes certain responsibilities to the public, because it is using the public’s airwaves. And as a result, broadcasters have different speech restrictions than other media outlets do.  

Take a simple example — George Carlin’s (in)famous “words you can’t say” monologue. The First Amendment protects his right to share his “comedy” on the stage of a nightclub with adult customers. But he cannot share the same litany of dirty language on a broadcast radio station because children may be tuned in.

In the same way, The Nation or National Review, left- and right-leaning news and opinion magazines, have no duty to be fair and balanced in their news coverage. Nor, for that matter, do Fox News and MSNBC, which are cable stations that are not licensed by the FCC. But ABC, NBC, CBS, and their local affiliates have different rights and responsibilities because they use the public airwaves. And one of their responsibilities is fair and accurate news reporting.

Commissioner Gomez blows past all of this in her rush to condemn her colleague, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who is the first agency head in recent history to take an interest in these issues. In her mind, holding stations and networks accountable to the commission’s long-standing public-interest standard is an assault on the First Amendment.

Far from it. Chairman Carr is finally speaking up for media integrity and standing up to the New York-Hollywood industrial complex that dominates too much of our media landscape. Consumers consistently say they want more content that is family-friendly, faith-inspired, and patriotic. The entertainment industry, including the broadcast networks, keeps serving up the same DEI-driven drivel. Consumers say they don’t trust the broadcast networks. Chairman Carr is insisting that the networks treat that like a real problem and take steps to fix it.

In the Status interview, Commissioner Gomez directed particular criticism at Chairman Carr’s approach to the pending Paramount transaction, where my nonprofit law firm, as a media watchdog, has called for the FCC to promote accurate news from CBS, end Paramount’s unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion practices (DEI), and prevent malign influence from an investor designated as a Chinese military company. She calls these “dangerous merger conditions that would further erode our fundamental right to free expression” and “a dangerous form of regulatory retaliation.”

Again, far from dangerous, merger conditions are a common-sense step to protect the public during a transaction affecting a licensed broadcaster. That’s why not only my law firm but also the Teamsters Hollywood union, the CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, and a Latino-led independent content producer (Fuse.tv) are asking for conditions. The commission frequently uses conditions to ensure that a licensee recognizes and complies with its legal obligations.

There is nothing untoward about ensuring the Communist Chinese government does not influence American broadcast news or making a government-licensed company comply with civil rights laws like Title VII and the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. And specific to the newsroom, all we want is what consumers expect and deserve: fair and accurate reporting.

The chairman is absolutely right to champion consumers, especially those who have been ignored and ill-served for far too long. Commissioner Gomez can continue her tour of university campuses, NPR stations, and lefty websites, but it won’t change the fact that Chairman Carr is the one delivering what the American people want.

Daniel Suhr is president of the Center for American Rights, a nonprofit media watchdog and public-interest litigation firm.