Last week, President Trump, following an embarrassing question asked by an ABC news reporter, said he might get the FCC to punish ABC’s stations. This tactic has also been used by progressive political activists to threaten right-leaning broadcasters. What should really be revoked is the FCC’s power to accuse and punish broadcasters for “broadcast news distortion.” Otherwise, as long as the FCC retains its power to regulate the content of news broadcasts, the possibility that progressives and conservatives will try to use the FCC to censor and suppress each other’s programming and opinions will remain, and freedom of speech for all will be in jeopardy.
President Trump’s latest threat to regulate the broadcast media was made following a news conference at which Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman was present. During the conference, a reporter for ABC News, citing CIA findings linking MBS to the murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, asked both MBS and Trump why MBS should be trusted now. Trump denounced ABC as the purveyor of “fake news,” and later said the FCC should examine the possibility of revoking ABC’s stations’ licenses.
This is not the first time Trump and the FCC have threatened action against broadcast networks. Last summer, of course, the FCC induced ABC to temporarily remove Jimmy Kimmel from its programming after he made a tasteless joke about the death of conservative icon Charlie Kirk. And earlier, CBS was investigated for allegedly editing a televised interview of Kamala Harris to make her sound more coherent than usual.
And in fairness to Trump, progressives have sought to silence conservative broadcasters as well. In 2018, according to The Wall Street Journal, twelve Democratic senators asked the FCC to more closely regulate the right-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns and operates 193 TV stations, reaching 40% of American households. And the Journal also reports that progressive activist Gigi Sohn, an attorney for the FCC whom President Biden nominated to be a commissioner, had agitated for greater government regulation of Fox News, which she has denounced as “state-sponsored propaganda,” while also attacking Sinclair as well and questioning whether its stations should be allowed to retain their licenses. (She withdrew her nomination from Senate consideration when it became clear that the Senate would otherwise vote against confirmation).
Both Trump and his progressive opponents cite the FCC’s “broadcast news distortion” rule as the basis for trying to take action against broadcasters. The purpose of the rule is to enable the FCC to investigate radio and television stations accused or suspected of deliberately distorting the facts in a news report.
The FCC says that news distortion “must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report,” and does not include either errors in reporting or expressions of opinion. The FCC also says that the rule covers ONLY over-the-air broadcasters: “Cable news networks, newspapers or newsletters (whether online or print), social media platforms, online-only streaming outlets, or any other non-broadcast news platform are outside the FCC’s jurisdiction with respect to news distortion.”
The rule is about 50 years old and was enacted when over-the-air broadcasters were the only source of radio and television news reports. With the rise of alternative news outlets, the percentage of people getting their news from over-the-air broadcasters has significantly shrunk. Moreover, the FCC itself has rarely used the rule, and says it’s against censorship.
Nonetheless, the rule should be abolished altogether, either by the FCC itself or by congressional action, as recommended by the Wall Street Journal. Ironically, some of the same progressives who wanted to use the rule to suppress Sinclair and Fox are now spearheading, in the Age of Trump, an attempt to end it. They realize that as long as the rule exists, they can still try to use it against conservative broadcasters, but that the tables can also be turned on them, as Trump is trying to do so now. Hence, it’s better to eliminate the rule rather than be victimized by its application.
And their reasoning makes sense. A better way to combat opinions one dislikes is to fight back with rival opinions. Let each broadcaster, whether over-the-air, or on cable, or online, exercise the sort of freedom of speech envisioned by the First Amendment and already accorded the print media, without fear of license revocation or any other means of government censorship. After all, as long as a means of suppressing anyone’s freedom of expression exists, everyone’s freedom is in jeopardy.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018, and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment