NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE {T} he Federal Communications Commission recently opened a public-comment period about whether the agency should renew the broadcast license of a local Fox television station. The reason? Criticism over how Fox News — the cable company — covered the 2020 election.
Government officials cracking down on news outlets they don’t like is concerning regardless of your opinion of the media’s coverage of certain events.
Calls for censorship started in July, when the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition with the FCC to deny the license renewal of WTXF-TV, a Philadelphia Fox affiliate. It argued that the agency should deny the renewal because of Fox News’ “egregious conduct in willfully broadcasting false news about the 2020 presidential election that contributed to civil unrest in the country, in particular, the events of January 6, 2021.”
Can the agency shut the station down?
The FCC regulates public-broadcast news, or what the public can access via an antenna. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable. It licenses more than 1,700 television stations across the country that provide reporting, commentary, and entertainment to nearly 124 million homes. Before renewing a license, regulators first determine “whether, during the preceding license term, the licensee has served the public interest, has not committed any serious violations of the Communications Act or the FCC’s rules, and has not committed other violations which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse.”
If that sounds like a vague standard, it is. Thankfully, despite calls by interest groups in the past for politically motivated denials of licenses, the FCC has stood firm.
Former commission chairman Ajit Pai (R.) and current chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel (D.) have continued the agency’s legacy of defending First Amendment rights and rejecting calls to get the FCC in the business of punishing stations for disfavored speech. In 2017, Pai stated that “under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content. . . . The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment.” Commenting on the same issue, Rosenworcel reaffirmed that licensing renewals should “not involve the government making editorial decisions about content” and that “doing so would be an affront to our First Amendment tradition.”
Both were responding to then-president Donald Trump’s calling on the FCC to revoke the licenses of news stations that were “so partisan, distorted and fake.”
He’s far from the first U.S. leader to call for censoring media. In 1798, President John Adams signed the Sedition Act, which prohibited Americans to “write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States.” President Woodrow Wilson championed and signed the Sedition Act of 1918, which prohibited speech against the government and specifically against the war effort. President Richard Nixon strategized with his advisers over how his administration could use the FCC to target outlets covering the Watergate scandal. And the Biden administration is accused of coercing tech companies to silence conservative voices on social-media platforms.
You can easily imagine how similar tactics could be weaponized in the future. If you’re comfortable with local Fox affiliates losing their licenses because of Fox News, are you comfortable with your local NBC affiliate losing its license because of coverage on MSNBC or Meet the Press that a given administration or pressure group happens to dislike?
America’s constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. It ensures that what we see on television, hear on the radio, read in print, and interact with on the internet is free from government interference. No politician or bureaucrat has the right to use his power to dictate what news organizations can say.
Don’t take for granted that the FCC will withstand this partisan pressure. Help remind them of the importance of standing strong. Submit comments at the agency’s website. And when you do, here are three points to consider.
First, a free press is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic. The Founders understood the power of the press in America’s fight for independence. Many published articles against the British and, after the war, published articles in support of the Constitution. There’s a reason the First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of the press.
Second, Americans’ trust in institutions is eroding. The perception that an agency is making decisions and penalizing people or groups based on their views reinforces the public’s opinion that the agency can’t be trusted.
Third, media that provide people a diversity of views help promote civil debate, government accountability, and a robust democracy. If the FCC targets the press based on its views, it’ll make our media environment less reflective of the range of opinions and of the people participating in our society.
An idea or story that one person finds objectionable another might see as holding power to account, challenging the status quo, and informing the electorate of vital news. That’s the beauty of democracy. We live in a country where we’re able to encounter a broad and evolving range of people and ideas. That’s also what’s at risk in giving someone the power to decide what’s good journalism and what’s fake news. The last thing we need is the government deciding for us.