I agree with this perspective. The position of the FCC is more regulatory and less policy making. Carr’s carrying a Presidential agenda which I do not find appropriate.
We are all going to die. It isn’t going out on a limb to statistically suggest a morbidly obese, older man with atrocious dietary habits might be closer to that stage of the circle of life than his considerably younger “wife.” Again, your issue is not with the subject matter, as jokes about older men shuffling off this mortal coil and their younger companions have abounded for years.
Ted knows how to take a joke regarding the death of a President, like when Trump said his father killed JFK.
Ted Cruz Rips FCC Over ABC Broadcast License Review Following Kimmel Joke: ‘It Is Not Government’s Job to Censor Speech’
Ted Cruz thinks the FCC stepped over the line in ordering Disney's ABC to file for an accelerated renewal of broadcast licenses of its eight local TV stations -- seemingly in response to a joke Jimmy Kimmel told about Melania Trump on late-night television.variety.com
Several dozen like-minded people who can’t take a joke does not justify the government using its power to seek retribution. And perhaps maybe one of those dozens of people could point to anywhere someone encouraged an actual action. Hint: they didn’t.
Yes, because the historically accurate analogies are more offensive than the actual actions. Great, be offended. Boycott. You are not bestowed with some extra level of judgement about what is or isn’t accurate.
www.ftvlive.com
Uniformity, Inequity and ExclusionThe part about this however is that the administration has made a crime out of DEI, which is an extension of Equal Opportunity rules. For example, if you apply for a job at an ABC TV station, there is this disclaimer at the bottom of the job listing:
On the surface that looks fine. But this administration doesn't like the last two categories, even though they are part of the law.
He says the station can't discriminate on the basis of race or gender. What he means by the is the station can't hire blacks or gays. But that's not what the law says. This is a case where the administration is pushing its own agenda without actually having a legal basis. ABC doesn't have a director of DEI and they don't use DEI in hiring. They're simply following EOE rules. But Carr wants to make a big deal out of nothing, and he's managed to do that here.
DEI itself isn't illegal, and the government admits that. However, following the president's EO, government agencies, including the FCC and even EEOC have policies about how DEI can be done:
EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination
WASHINGTON -- Today, the U.S.www.eeoc.gov
This gets into that area of interpreting vague rules by agencies. This is about using civil rights laws to benefit white people. So far none of these agency campaigns against DEI have been challenged in the courts. Perhaps this time it will. We know under the Chevron decision, they will lose in court.
good job to ABC for putting their legal foot down and telling Nexstar and Sinclaire to stop pre-empting their programing just because they do not like what the host says.
Why Nexstar and Sinclair Have Gone Silent This Time — FTVLive
Hmmm? Why have these guys gone silent this time?
Something we had to repeat in the past few months between the first amendment and due process whenever the FCC goes after Disney and Kimmel.
I know this isn't really broadcasting related, but this comment about Trump loving and then hating people reminded me of the MTG (Marjorie Taylor Greene) kerfuffle that happened toward the end of last year. Up to that point, she was the hard right "firebrand", and as such, she said and did some very controversial things that really pleased Trump.
That’s pretty much what all of the administration does, no matter how inconsistent that may be. That’s not to say the chairman doesn’t have an agenda; he clearly does. It’s just that the more visible actions, and public fights, are appeasement for the temper tantrums.
True and whenever Chairman Carr said "Public Interest Obligations" in the past month it meant to control the press corp/press pool in the Pentagon and White House because Pete Hegseth and Trump said its for "National Security Reasons" about Iran. It contained some missing parts such as how are publications like Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, AP and Reuters fall under FCC requirements plus due process and 1st amendment too were included here.More from Chairman Carr:
First Disney, Now Carr Warns Radio Broadcaster Could Face Early License Review.
The FCC is preparing to scrutinize a radio broadcaster’s license under public interest standards, signaling that the approach used against Disney TV stations will extend to radio. Chair Brendan Carrwww.insideradio.com
He appears to be referring to the Fox fleeting expletive case from 2009. That went to the supreme court. It didn't really address the first amendment issue. They referred it back to the lower courts. The Red Lion case dealt with public interest and first amendment, but the decision was based on the scarcity of media concept. The FCC itself is now disputing that concept in its statements about loosening ownership rules.
But once again, what does he mean by "public interest obligations." In that same conversation, Carr said the situation with ABC isn't about Kimmel but DEI. That hasn't really been addressed by the courts either.
Whatever he wants it to mean in a given context to justify the end goal.
They have enough of a sense of where SCOTUS is falling on broader diversity issues. It’s beyond unlikely a court that just destroyed the landmark Voting Rights Act is going to stop an action predicated, however falsely, on DEI.
that doesn't make sence as those are newspapers, not in broadcasting.
True too. The FCC does not regulate newspapers or wire services. But it was about Chairman Carr wanting to control the press pool to meet whatever demands Hegseth and Trump issued at the White House and Pentagon press corps.
www.nbcnews.com
apnews.com
True I agree with that too. Its just the Chairman has a history of inserting himself in issues he had no business in all because he had to do whatever the White House wanted him to do.
www.nbcnews.com
