Since when has that stopped them?They would have to repeal the first amendment.
c
Since when has that stopped them?They would have to repeal the first amendment.
True too all the White House would do is copy the same press pool policy the Pentagon recently had and replace the Press pool with major media outlets to propagandists. Yes that means the Trump Administration can do the same stuff such as decide who goes in the press pool or not. Yes this includes ABC and NBC News being removed from press pools.With the current administration, "process" is a speed bump. Legally, they can't just completely shutter federal agencies like the Department of Education, but they're doing it anyway by executive order/fiat.
The aging entitled elitist who needs sedation and warm milk might be dismissed if he didn't have a cadre of Cabinet-level sycophants who race each other to jump up and implement Dear Leader's missives. In a sane world, the President couldn't revoke NBC's licenses over a late night host making fun of him, but we're no longer in a sane world.
Not surprising and congrats to Mary Bruce in this position. But the uncertainty here is the next move by the FCC how they would react to stuff like this. The Network Owned stations are going to have to spend more time with the legal team of their parent company on what to do when the President and FCC interferes with the First Amendment as we seen here. As mentioned here we have an idea which Disney Owned stations are getting targeted the most by the FCC and yes it’s includes KABC-TV given that the headquarters of Disney is in Burbank. They can make Disney owned stations streaming only on Hulu and Disney+ if they want to do that but this is yet to be seen here given it comes off as the White House wanting to censor certain media outlets as seen in the press briefing in the White House.More reaction to president's comments about ABC News:
![]()
News Media Shows Support for ABC News' Mary Bruce After Sparring with President Donald Trump
Colleagues came to the support of Mary Bruce, calling her courageous for asking the question, and also standing up for her by stating she's a fantastic reporter.barrettmedia.com
ABC doesn’t itself maintain a license, though its parent company, Disney, does.
Disney also is no stranger to the administration’s ire. The company drew Carr’s scrutiny earlier this year over comments made by the late night host Jimmy Kimmel about the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, leading briefly to Kimmel’s suspension from the network. Carr also openly pondered reviewing whether ABC’s daytime talk show “The View” should qualify as a news program.
Neither Disney nor ABC News immediately responded to a request for comment.
Who did that? I haven't heard of Fallon getting in trouble.In a sane world, the President couldn't revoke NBC's licenses over a late night host making fun of him, but we're no longer in a sane world.
WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - A Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission said on Thursday that calls by President Donald Trump to urge the agency to rescind licenses held by ABC stations would fail in court.
Trump on Tuesday said broadcasting licenses used by affiliates of Walt Disney's (DIS.N), opens new tab ABC should be "taken away" after the Republican president objected to a question posed by a reporter for the network. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said any effort to revoke licenses over a reporter's question would not pass legal muster.
The FCC is powerless to truly retaliate against a news network. National networks do not have broadcast licenses, the stations they own do, but none of these licenses is up for renewal anytime soon," Gomez said.
Asked how he would respond to Trump's call to pull ABC station licenses, Republican FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on Thursday reiterated his view of the need to reinvigorate public interest standards for broadcasters, adding: "We are always open minded."
Who did that? I haven't heard of Fallon getting in trouble.
I think I do recall Seth being mentioned.
Agreed that the FCC can't revoke (or even refuse to renew) a broadcast license on the basis of the dotard in the White House objecting to a question that was asked by a reporter. It was never easy for the FCC to revoke/non-renew a license, but the deregulation of the 80s and 90s made it even tougher.The process of revoking a license requires the commission of a crime. Asking a question isn't a crime. It may be an inconvenience. But it's not a crime.
As we've often said, there is no basis for revoking a broadcast license over an inconvenient question. Even this FCC understands that.
These are just the rants of an aging entitled elitist who needs to be sedated and given warm milk.
Agreed that the FCC can't revoke (or even refuse to renew) a broadcast license on the basis of the dotard in the White House objecting to a question that was asked by a reporter. It was never easy for the FCC to revoke/non-renew a license, but the deregulation of the 80s and 90s made it even tougher.
That said, imagine that the current chairman of the FCC tries to do it anyway. I would expect that the impacted licensee would challenge the FCC's actions in court and would prevail. The problem for the licensee is that can be a slow and expensive process -- and while that process is going on, they are not only bleeding money in legal fees, but they're also frozen in many other respects. Until the conflict is resolved, they can't sell the station and they'd probably not be able to buy another station, either. So while they'll eventually win in court, the temptation is to decide it isn't worth the hassle and just to do what the autocrats in power want them to do in order to avoid the fight. And that's really what the Trump administration is hoping for.
Ummm….with this judiciary?That said, imagine that the current chairman of the FCC tries to do it anyway. I would expect that the impacted licensee would challenge the FCC's actions in court and would prevail.
It’s almost like they’re running a mafia-esque protection scheme. Give me what I want or I’ll make you suffer. Totally normal.The problem for the licensee is that can be a slow and expensive process -- and while that process is going on, they are not only bleeding money in legal fees, but they're also frozen in many other respects.
Again….you think laws matter to SCOTUS?Until the conflict is resolved, they can't sell the station and they'd probably not be able to buy another station, either. So while they'll eventually win in court,
Fascism at work.the temptation is to decide it isn't worth the hassle and just to do what the autocrats in power want them to do in order to avoid the fight.
Threats and extortion.And that's really what the Trump administration is hoping for.
I doubt it.Ummm….with this judiciary?
Yup.It’s almost like they’re running a mafia-esque protection scheme. Give me what I want or I’ll make you suffer. Totally normal.
Not too much anymore. For what little it's worth, the law and Constitution still seems to matter to some of the liberal justices (see Justice Sotomyor's (sp?) scathing dissent on the POTUS immunity ruling last year, for example), but since they're outnumbered 2 to 1 (2 conservatives for every one liberal), their impact is rather limited.Again….you think laws matter to SCOTUS?
Sure seems like it.Fascism at work.
Absolutely.Threats and extortion.
Here's a quote from David Letterman that is included in the article that you linked:![]()
Letterman slams 'dictator' Trump for calling for Seth Meyers' firing
David Letterman is standing up for his friend Seth Meyers as President Donald Trump calls for the "Late Night" host to lose his job.www.usatoday.com
David Letterman responds to the latest part of the feud between the White House and Seth Meyers on NBC. Yes it includes the political interference by the White House to demand Comcast to fire Seth Meyers in the article.
I just wanted to note that one of the frequent attacks on today's late night hosts that I hear from the right is how they're so much more political than their predecessors were. Right-wingers frequently cite David Letterman as an example of when they liked late night television.The former late-night host added that Trump's behavior as president is "like 18 times the worst behavior one has witnessed, ever, anywhere. It's worse. Think of the worst thing that you've ever seen humans accomplish. This is so much worse."
True too.Here's a quote from David Letterman that is included in the article that you linked:
I just wanted to note that one of the frequent attacks on today's late night hosts that I hear from the right is how they're so much more political than their predecessors were. Right-wingers frequently cite David Letterman as an example of when they liked late night television.
And I have little doubt that was true during the time when Letterman was a late night host, which was 1982 to 2015. During that time, we had Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the second Bush, and Obama as presidents. All of whom were sane presidents who respected the norms and the dignity of the office. And I suspect that if we had a president (of either party) who was like any of those presidents, we would likely see late night comedy become less political again.
Conversely, if David Letterman were still hosting late night, the implication of his comment is that he likely would be significantly more political than he was in the past. All of which is to say that the problem isn't the late night talk show hosts, it is the current president. Period.