NERW: The FCC in Authoritarian Times

[cc333]

There are times when I work with white men who have no clue about their job. So what?

It's been my experience that Hispanic (or Latino, not sure which is "PC" anymore) workers (men, in particular) work much harder and take a greater pride in their workmanship than most white workers I've met. Particularly farm work, landscaping, and other things of that nature. And they are also quite friendly and are relatively happy and easy going, being thankful for anything they get.

And yet, the current administration calls them all criminals? Yes, it's a crime to cross the border illegally, but it's not like they're trying to break the law or anything? they're otherwise quite law abiding, and their only wish is to get themselves and their families to safety. They don't necessarily understand the implications of crossing the border without proper documentation, and if they do understand, they don't care because they're in survival mode.

I'm not making excuses, of course, nor am I saying that I necessarily agree. I'm just pointing out that I understand why.

But, once again, I'm in California, so I suppose that predisposes me to such thinking to an extent.

We are drifting VERY far from broadcasting here.

Agreed! Such seems to be inevitable once politics become involved.

c

 

[TheBigA]

WaPo just put out a summary piece on all of the investigations begun by Brendan Carr in just his first few weeks as FCC Chairman:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2025/02/13/fcc-brendan-carr-nbc-cbs-investigation/

Ishan Mehta, who serves as director of the media and democracy program at Common Cause, pointed out that Carr chose not to reinstate a complaint that had been filed against a Fox station in Philadelphia, arguing that the station should lose its license over Fox News’s coverage of the 2020 election and revelations that stemmed from a defamation suit filed against the network by Dominion Voting Systems. “There is no even attempt to make it seem objective at this point,” Mehta said. “That is the appalling part.”

This quote came from Michael Copps, who was famously anti-corporate during his time at the FCC:

Michael J. Copps, who served as an FCC commissioner between 2001 and 2011, put his criticism more bluntly: “The new FCC scares the hell out of me. I’m not saying that the FCC has never been political, but at no time in my experience of it has it been nearly as political and as directed by anti-government ideology as it is right now,” Copps added.

Here's a version of the story on MSN:

MSN

 

[yeoldeschool]

Ishan Mehta, who serves as director of the media and democracy program at Common Cause, pointed out that Carr chose not to reinstate a complaint that had been filed against a Fox station in Philadelphia, arguing that the station should lose its license over Fox News’s coverage of the 2020 election and revelations that stemmed from a defamation suit filed against the network by Dominion Voting Systems. “There is no even attempt to make it seem objective at this point,” Mehta said. “That is the appalling part.”

I'm reminded of when a US appeals court found that a Fox affiliate could not be liable for violating Florida whistleblower laws (in a case brought by two former reporters it ordered to self-censor) because "it was not illegal to falsify the news." See 1:15:16 through 1:26:15 in:

 

[Rusty Muck]

So you want something like the Fairness doctrine?

Which would be worthless if cable television and the internet are not a part of, and the FCC was heretofore not authorized to regulate the content of either. Fox News would have been launched with or without the Fairness Doctrine.

I cannot see how reactivating such a doctrine would work especially with linear news media already being in a very precarious position, unless the goal is to make it unworkable against their partisan nonlinear competition.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Which would be worthless if cable television and the internet are not a part of, and the FCC was heretofore not authorized to regulate the content of either. Fox News would have been launched with or without the Fairness Doctrine.

I cannot see how reactivating such a doctrine would work especially with linear news media already being in a very precarious position, unless the goal is to make it unworkable against their partisan nonlinear competition.

Never rule out that possibility. No tool, no matter how arcane or disparate relative to other forms of media, should be considered off the table either as a reality or a threat to bludgeon outlets into subservience.

But all is not lost. With the indiscriminate firing of hundreds of people tasked with safeguarding the nuclear arsenal, it may become a moot point sooner rather than later. That will level the field between new and old media. And everything else, of course.

 

[Rusty Muck]

... it might be an appropriate time to close the thread tbh

 

[kevtronics]

That's the new version of Godwin's Law: when the discussion turns to prediction of nuclear armageddon, it's done.

 

[TheBigA]

A group of dem senators have sent a letter to the FCC complaining about the "weaponization" of the agency, basically pointing out everything we've been talking about in this thread:

Senators send letter to FCC chair over ‘weaponization’ of commission

The letter cited FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s own letter asking the commission’s Enforcement Bureau to open an investigation into NPR and PBS member stations.

current.org

Trio Of U.S. Senate Assail FCC ‘Weaponization’ | Radio & Television Business Report

It's a word FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gómez used in early February to describe the actions of Chairman Brendan Carr's leadership and controversial actions taken in the days since he took over the agency: "weaponization." Now, three Democratic Senators are using the word as they condemn the Carr...

rbr.com

Senators Markey, Luján, Peters Condemn Weaponization of Federal Communications Commission Against Broadcasters and Public Media | U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts

Letter Text (PDF) Washington (February 13, 2025) - Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Ben Ray...

www.markey.senate.gov

Under normal circumstances, the chairman of the FCC would be brought in to testify in front of congress and defend his actions. But the minority party can't hold hearings. So this is the best they can do.

 

[cc333]

"They" did not ban the AP. They did not admit them to one press conference, likely to make a point.

They did. You don’t just not bring in the leading wire service and pretend that’s normal protocol for a press avail. And the point was to beat others into obedience.

And now it's official: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/medi...rce-one-oval-office-gulf-of-mexico/index.html

Apparently after the impromptu "ban" the other day, someone at the WH decided to formalize said "ban" using the AP as an example, again probably to, as @AbrahamJSimpson aptly puts it, beat the other outlets into obedience ("if you don't do as we say, you'll be banned!")

In my humble opinion, anyone who isn't alarmed by this is part of the problem.

c

 

[TheBigA]

Apparently after the impromptu "ban" the other day, someone at the WH decided to formalize said "ban" using the AP as an example, again probably to, as @AbrahamJSimpson aptly puts it, beat the other outlets into obedience ("if you don't do as we say, you'll be banned!")

This is the exact behavior they complained about when they were banned from social media sites. This is the exact behavior Carr will be focusing on when he "reins in big tech." When they talk about free speech, it only means for people they agree with. We went through this in the first admin, when he banned Jim Acosta. Just the other day during a presser, he said to the CNN reporter: "Nobody watches your network because you have no credibility." If anyone said something like that to him, they'd be banned.

Trump tells CNN reporter 'nobody watches' her network because it has 'no credibility'

As he spoke to the press on Thursday about ending the war between Ukraine and Russia, President Donald Trump mocked CNN for its ratings and overall credibility.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Delete My Account]

Having fits of hysterical laughter over the following, where the FCC denies a complaint lodged against the transfer of WDAY in Fargo to Scott Hennen.

"As the Commission has stated, licensees have broad discretion based on their First Amendment right to free speech to choose, in good faith, the programming they believe serves the needs and interests of their communities. Indeed, the Commission does not interfere with the programming decisions of licensees, nor does it consider issues of programming choice when reviewing an application for the assignment or transfer of a broadcast license.”

Someone should inform their Chairman.

 

[TheBigA]

Someone should inform their Chairman.

I saw that too. That quote is coming from one of the career civil servants in the FCC Audio Division, not the chairman. I saw that and thought of the NPR stations that choose on their own to carry NPR programming. They don't do it because of some forced mandate, like iHeart stations running Clay Travis. They have other options. They choose the right programming for the community that attracts local sponsorships and memberships.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-127A1.pdf

I've been thinking about those civil servants when I see the Enforcement Bureau getting these investigations. I can imagine them saying these are sham investigations, and then getting fired.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Having fits of hysterical laughter over the following, where the FCC denies a complaint lodged against the transfer of WDAY in Fargo to Scott Hennen.

I saw that too. That quote is coming from one of the career civil servants in the FCC, not the chairman.

As discussed in post #184 yesterday: https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/nerw-the-fcc-in-authoritarian-times.775181/post-6791551

I saw that and thought of the NPR stations that choose on their own to carry NPR programming. They don't do it because of some forced mandate, like iHeart stations running Clay Travis. They have other options. They choose the right programming for the community that attracts local sponsorships and memberships.

That's the beauty of our at-times fragmented approach to public radio. There's no combined central administration/programming source comparable to, say, the CBC in Canada or the ABC in Australia. Decisions are made at the community level.

 

[cc333]

This is the exact behavior they complained about when they were banned from social media sites.

Exactly.

This is classic hypocrisy.

As for Musk being a "free speech absolutist," in my opinion he's the ultimate hypocrite, for in his mind (for example, on X), only his speech and that of a few trusted allies (such as Trump) is truly free in the sense delineated in the 1st Amendment and the roughly 250 years of precedent based upon it (indeed, Musk reconfigured the algorithms to artificially elevate his posts to the top of everyone's feeds, so they have no choice but to see everything he says).

Everyone else, especially those who don't submit to MAGA propaganda, such as anyone who is even close to center (even moderate right leaners aren't safe: they're called out as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) are lumped in with liberals and progressives) is subject to censorship via intimidation and harassment. I can see what it means to be an "absolutist," (basically, giving all sides equal weight, and let them all say what they want with no restrictions), but how is that true in this case?

What a bunch of bull...

c

 

[TheBigA]

That's the beauty of our at-times fragmented approach to public radio. There's no combined central administration/programming source comparable to, say, the CBC in Canada or the ABC in Australia. Decisions are made at the community level.

The politicians in DC don't understand that. We already went through this battle years ago. Public radio isn't a top-down federal bureaucracy. It's run by the local stations. They get the funding, they decide how to spend it, they run NPR, they pick the CEO, and they decide NPR policy. Not the other way around. So the politicians instead want to force their way on local stations. Exactly the opposite of the federalist system they claim to love.

It's also very different from commercial radio, which is mostly top-down corporate run, with programming decisions being made from NY or other places. Public radio stations are all locally owned and operated, by people in the community. That's what's under fire from these politicians in DC.

 

[tall_guy1]

This is the exact behavior they complained about when they were banned from social media sites. This is the exact behavior Carr will be focusing on when he "reins in big tech." When they talk about free speech, it only means for people they agree with. We went through this in the first admin, when he banned Jim Acosta. Just the other day during a presser, he said to the CNN reporter: "Nobody watches your network because you have no credibility." If anyone said something like that to him, they'd be banned.

Trump tells CNN reporter 'nobody watches' her network because it has 'no credibility'

As he spoke to the press on Thursday about ending the war between Ukraine and Russia, President Donald Trump mocked CNN for its ratings and overall credibility.

www.foxnews.com

CNN isn't very good for any audience and that reporter used to work for Tucker Carlson before there. I think she even parroted lines about George Soros on Fox years ago but her colleague laughed it off saying she's not very political. Along with Scott Jennings and Bill Maher on there, it's not very good at all.

 

[Rusty Muck]

Exactly.

This is classic hypocrisy.

As for Musk being a "free speech absolutist," in my opinion he's the ultimate hypocrite, for in his mind (for example, on X), only his speech and that of a few trusted allies (such as Trump) is truly free in the sense delineated in the 1st Amendment and the roughly 250 years of precedent based upon it (indeed, Musk reconfigured the algorithms to artificially elevate his posts to the top of everyone's feeds, so they have no choice but to see everything he says).

Much of the right-wing is centered around hypocrisy and disingenuousness. It's to the point where it is utterly meaningless to call them out, because where's the embarrassment in it?

It applies to Musk as much as it applies to Carr.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Much of the right-wing is centered around hypocrisy and disingenuousness. It's to the point where it is utterly meaningless to call them out on it. It applies to Musk as much as it applies to Carr.

Regardless whether it happens from the left, right, or center, the problem is that accusations of hypocrisy stick only occasionally, and require the alleged hypocrite to have a sense of shame, which is not something you can count on. I still think hypocrisy should still be called out, but with managed expectations and a realization that the alleged hypocritical actions may well continue.

As for social media platforms, remember that all of them (including this one) is owned by somebody, giving that somebody the right to establish the terms and conditions for participation. Those platforms aren't considered a public utility. There is no Fairness Doctrine. There are no norms or conventions regarding impartiality and acceptance of public input as there have been for newspapers and other journalistic organizations, imperfect though those norms and conventions may have been. You have to evaluate the suitability of a platform for yourself; there's no licensing organization to rely upon. If you don't like how a platform is run, your option is to avoid it. That's it.

 

[TheBigA]

Those platforms aren't considered a public utility.

It depends on who you ask. The party in power thinks they are. That's why they want to repeal Section 230 and rein in big tech.

The other side thinks they're like newspapers, and owners have the right to control the content. We'll see which side wins.

But the chairman of the FCC has already told us which side he's on.

 

[Mark Roberts]

It depends on who you ask. The party in power thinks they are. That's why they want to repeal Section 230 and rein in big tech.

No doubt with carveouts and exceptions for those who bent the knee and kissed the ring. Zuckerberg is a particularly notable example of a fear-based response. As if he and his cohort didn't have enough already.

The other side thinks they're like newspapers, and owners have the right to control the content. We'll see which side wins.

But the chairman of the FCC has already told us which side he's on.

The winners will be lawyers. While the First Amendment is not absolute, it's pretty strong. The real issue, then, is whether constitutionalism will prevail.