The FCC’s Pressure Campaign to Reshape Broadcast TV

Summary

---

On the Media — "The FCC’s Pressure Campaign to Reshape Broadcast TV"

Date: July 10, 2026
Host: Brooke Gladstone (WNYC Studios)
Episode Overview:
This episode examines how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Chairman Brendan Carr, is using seldom-invoked regulations and newly aggressive tactics to pressure mainstream broadcast television to change its political and cultural tone. It covers the revival of old rules like the Equal Time Rule and the public interest standard, the ensuing legal campaigns, backlash from broadcasters and the public, and the ideological shifts underlying these moves. Notably, the episode features conversations with New York Times writer Jim Rutenberg and Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, revealing the strategic legal thinking fueling this effort and its real-world impacts.

---

1. Background & Main Theme

• The FCC, led by Brendan Carr, is leveraging rarely-used rules and pressure tactics to challenge what conservatives see as liberal bias on broadcast TV.
• Focus is particularly on the Equal Time Rule and the "public interest" standard, seeking more conservative representation and accountability from networks.
• The campaign is tactical, involving complaint filings, threats to licensing, and pressure during major corporate deals — shifting enforcement from the courts to agency-level decisions.

---

2. Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Revival and Weaponization of Old Rules

• Brendan Carr's New Approach ([00:00]; [05:05]; [06:38]):

  • Traditionally non-enforced standards like the Equal Time Rule and public interest requirements are being revived as punitive tools against perceived liberal media bias.
  • "Brendan Carr was using the old standards that his party has really not wanted anything to do with for our entire lives to now say we're going to punish these broadcasters who don't follow these old rules that everyone forgot about." (Jim Rutenberg, [00:00])

• Equal Time and Fairness Doctrine Explained ([06:44]; [08:01]):

  • The Fairness Doctrine (abolished in the Reagan era) required balanced discussion of issues; the Equal Time Rule still applies to entertainment, not news shows, around elections.
  • The current tactic is to conflate the two and apply them to programs like "The View" and late-night talk shows, targeting allegedly biased entertainment.

Case Studies: The View, Kimmel, Colbert ([01:52]; [05:21]; [28:25])

• CBS and ABC ran ads and/or preemptively pulled programs to avoid regulatory targeting.
• Stephen Colbert’s interview with a Democrat pulled over Equal Time fears.
• Jimmy Kimmel suspended after FCC threats and online outrage, prompting protests and later reinstatement.

Legal Strategy: The Complaints Campaign

• Daniel Suhr & the Center for American Rights ([11:14]; [13:16]; [14:22]):

  • Filing dozens of complaints to the FCC against major networks alleging lack of balance and news distortion.

  • Suhr pushes a definition of public interest that would demand "fact-based, unbiased news and a diversity of entertainment," ideally opening the door for more conservative or "family-friendly" programming.

  • The overall argument: current media markets are failing conservatives, and the FCC should enforce fairness.

    • “He filed a bunch of complaints right off the bat in the fall against every major network.” (Jim Rutenberg, [13:16])

Business Leverage: Corporate Deals and License Threats

• Example: Paramount’s Skydance Acquisition ([13:36])
  • Legal complaints leveraged to extract concessions and even install a news ombudsman as part of merger conditions.
  • Daniel Suhr instrumental in using regulatory process to push ideological aims.

Conservative Realignment: Rejecting the Free Market ([20:59]; [37:25])

• Conservative activists argue the market has failed to ensure media balance, now seeking administrative intervention.
• “As conservatives, we love the free market, but when it comes to television, the free market is not helping us.” (Daniel Suhr, paraphrased by Jim Rutenberg, [20:59])

Pushback Within the Right & Jawboning Concerns ([18:08]; [19:47])

• Mark Fowler (Reagan-era FCC chair) and others are alarmed, saying using the FCC as a "jawboning" tool is antithetical to both First Amendment values and conservative tradition.
• Ted Cruz and others liken threats to a "mobster" tactic:
  • “It'd be a shame if something happened to it.”
  • “We shouldn't be threatening government power to force him off air. That's a real mistake.” (Ted Cruz, paraphrased [19:47])

End Games: Ownership Caps, Media Consolidation, and a Red-Tilted Broadcast

• Sinclair and Nexstar, two large conservative groups, seek to buy more stations, potentially changing the face of local and national broadcasting ([23:03]; [39:00]).
• The FCC and its allies want to lift national broadcast ownership caps, allowing those who "cooperate" with the administration to influence more of the market.

Legal and Democratic Implications ([22:41]; [26:38])

• Stripping licenses for political reasons is historically rare, legally difficult, but threatening it can create significant "chilling effects."
• Potential to break current business models for broadcast television; could lead to further polarization, or even the collapse of current network structures.

---

3. Conversation Highlights & Notable Quotes

On the FCC’s Enforcement Approach

• “The FCC can threaten to yank the licenses of broadcast stations and that's bad for business. And these days few have the stomach for a fight even if they could win.” (Brooke Gladstone, [03:28])

• “Frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel or you know there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” (Brendan Carr, [05:05])

On Legal Logic and Strategy

• “A lot of these rules are still on the books. The fairness doctor may be gone, but there are all sorts of other provisions that we could try to apply here to bring a complaint.” (Jim Rutenberg on Daniel Suhr’s approach, [11:43])

• “Other than Daniel and Chairman Carr, I've yet to find a legal expert who said this is a really good case here, mind you… you don't find many people giving Daniel Sir a ringing endorsement.” (Rutenberg, [15:40])

Conservative Disagreement & Jawboning

• Mark Fowler: “...the public interest rules had been transformed into a made to order jawboning instrument.” ([18:08])

• Ted Cruz's critique: “He likened Chair McCarr and the 'easy way or hard way' line… to a mobster in the movie Goodfellas… It's fine to say what Jimmy Kimmel said was deplorable. ...But we shouldn't be threatening government power to force him off air. That's a real mistake.” ([19:47])

Media Realignment & Power

• “Daniel Suhr put it this way… we love the free market, but when it comes to television, the free market is not helping us. It's all become liberally biased, which is not fair.” (Rutenberg, [20:59])

• “The importance of the newsroom is, I think, essential… it is broadcast television that has the newsroom resources… the hard news is mostly starting with what we see on broadcast. I think that's why it's so important.” (Daniel Suhr, [31:24])

On Manipulating Local Broadcasting

• “What Daniel's very open about is, I hope that this clears the path for more of that kind of [faith-based, family-friendly] content on tv.” (Rutenberg summarizing Suhr, [21:49])

• Suhr: “I'd be thrilled with that outcome.” (on creating conservative-leaning networks, [40:09])

• “It might mean that their favorite hosts or their most hated hosts could end up not being on the air, but for reasons that have to do with what the government wants.” (Jim Rutenberg, [27:18])

On End Game and DEI

• "My hope is to get back to an actual fair and unbiased presentation of information...And there are certain tools that we have as advocates to push them in the right direction to make that choice." (Daniel Suhr, [44:08])
• "I think the reason though that we have so little trust in media is because...they look at the national news media's failure to cover President Biden's cognitive decline. They look at the Hunter Biden laptop, they look at COVID 19 and they feel lied to..." (Suhr, [45:44])

---

4. Important Timestamps

• [00:00 – 01:52] — Introduction, opening context; debates over reviving old FCC rules
• [01:52 – 03:28] — ABC and CBS run on-air appeals amid FCC pressure
• [03:28 – 04:50] — The Kimmel incident: suspension after FCC threat, protests
• [06:44 – 08:25] — Historical context: public interest, Fairness Doctrine, Equal Time Rule
• [11:14 – 14:22] — Daniel Suhr's campaign: complaints strategy, legal logic
• [17:17 – 18:24] — Regan-era FCCers shocked at today’s tactics
• [19:47 – 21:26] — "Jawboning," conservative split, legislative pushback
• [23:03 – 25:27] — Station group consolidation, network leverage, football as driver
• [28:25 – 50:00] — Daniel Suhr interview: role/push for conservative content, ownership caps, philosophical shifts, and future regulatory battles
• [44:08 – 46:46] — Suhr’s endgame, restoring “trust,” complaints about coverage of Biden, COVID, Hunter laptop
• [50:56 – 51:20] — Looking ahead: regulatory action during election season

---

5. Notable Moments (Quotes with Attribution & Timestamps)

• Brendan Carr's threat to ABC/Jimmy Kimmel:

  “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel or you know there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
  — Brendan Carr ([05:05])

• Ted Cruz on jawboning:

  “We shouldn't be threatening government power to force him off air. That's a real mistake.”
  — Brooke Gladstone recapping Cruz ([19:47])

• Daniel Suhr’s admissions:

  “I'd be thrilled with that outcome.” (in response to the prospect of more conservative network dominance) ([40:09])
  “My hope is to get back to an actual fair and unbiased presentation of information... And there are certain tools that we have as advocates to push them in the right direction to make that choice.” ([44:08])

• Rutenberg on stakes:

  “You have a government effort to change that for ideological reasons and that could change the business. … all of this could sort of break their business models.” ([26:38])

---

6. Conclusion: What’s at Stake and Next Moves

• There is a coordinated campaign to use the FCC’s regulatory powers to pressure broadcast television into ideological realignment, with the threat of license removal and power over media mergers as leverage.
• This is prompting serious resistance, both from within traditional conservative circles alarmed by the precedent and from the networks themselves—but is already shaping programming, hiring, and business structures.
• The next regulatory battles will focus on the upcoming election year, with increased scrutiny of equal time, content fairness, and news “distortion,” as well as moves to further consolidate conservative broadcasting.

---

This thorough exploration, with candid interviews, legal history, and analysis, underscores a tense debate over government power, free speech, and the future landscape of American media.

---

For listeners seeking an in-depth understanding of the current media-power struggle, regulatory tactics, and the ideological realignment driving these efforts, this episode provides historical context, real-world consequences, and a preview of what may come next on America’s airwaves.

Transcript

[A]

Brandon Carr was using the old standards that his party has really not wanted anything to do with for our entire lives to now say we're gonna punish these broadcasters who don't follow these old rules that everyone forgot about.

[B]

FCC chair Brendan Carr is changing the way business is done at his agency. From WNYC in New York, this is ON the media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. Earlier this year, CBS pulled an interview from the Late show with Stephen Colbert for fear of triggering the FCC's rarely used equal time rule.

[A]

We were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers who called us directly that we could not have him on the broadcast.

[B]

Driving this crusade to crush the liberal media is a lawyer on a letter writing mission.

[C]

One of the things that I find frustrating is that apparently we have people who think they are entitled to treat their shows like they're private property rather than being responsive to their corporate management.

[B]

It's all coming up after this

[A]

ON

[B]

the Media is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years. Now, with the name your price tool, you can tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law. From WNYC in New York, this is ON the Media. Michael Ohinger's out this week. I'm Brooke Gladstone. In late June, ABC began running some unusual ads. They were a call to action and they sounded like this.

[A]

The View has welcomed your favorite guests and covered the issues you care about for nearly 30 years. Now the FCC wants to control who is allowed to appear on the show. Viewers, use your voice scan this QR code. You have until July 6th.

[B]

And this Channel 7 has proudly served

[A]

you for more than 75 years. Every day we commit to inform, entertain and serve you. Now the FCC is questioning our commitment to the community. Show your support for WABC tv.

[B]

The FCC has reportedly been inundated with tens of thousands of comments as a result of these ads from audiences who don't want the government meddling in their favorite shows. Where Paramount capitulated when it felt the heat, ABC is doubling down against the multiple investigations launched at it by the FCC. One is the probe into Disney. ABC's policies around diversity, equity and inclusion. Another is about which shows get exempt from an old FCC rule called the Equal Time Rule. That one was invoked when Stephen Colbert had Texas Democrat J. Talarico on his show. At the time, Talarico was in a competitive primary race and CBS pulled the episode off the air, reportedly in fear of the Equal Time Rule being invoked. According to the traditional interpretation of the rule, candidates running for office would not have to appear in the same hour and they themselves would have to request it. But again, the rule hasn't been applied to late night talk shows for decades. Anyway, this is all academic. It's not about the law per se. It's about entertainment shows getting their politics wrong, fueled by the President's primal scream against the skeptics and the jokesters and the losers. It's a power play executed by the FCC and a few deeply motivated conservative lawyers. You'll hear a conversation with one later in the hour who claim that late night shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live and daytime shows like the View are not serving the public interest. They are too one sided, too liberal. And that's gotta be fixed. Not through the courts where they would confront the First Amendment, but by the FCC enforcing the Equal Time Rule and the public interest standard in ways not applied in decades. And it's kind of working because the FCC can threaten to yank the licenses of broadcast stations and that's bad for business. And these days few have the stomach for a fight even if they could win. You remember when Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September, Late night host Jimmy Kimmel

[A]

said, we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang, desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.

[B]

In between the finger the comment was clipped and posted on X by a right leaning media watchdog group and online outrage ensued. Then FCC chairman Brendan Carr on a right wing podcast aired his determination to crush Kimmel.

[A]

Frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly on Kimmel or you know there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.

[B]

The easy way or the hard way. ABC chose the first option, pulling Kimmel off the air indefinitely. But it wasn't so easy after all. After public outcry, even street protests, Kimmel's suspension ultimately only lasted about a week. In February, I spoke to New York Times writer at large Jim Rutenberg who's working on a book about the ideological battle over our airwaves. I asked, is this a long game? Is it an all out war and if so, against TV or all media?

[A]

Well, I would say yes, it's a long war. It happens to have been going on for decades now. It has a lot ahead of it still. So yes to all, but yes, tv. Why? Because TV and your medium, radio, unlike my medium, whatever we call the New York Times these days, is regulated by the federal government under the fcc. The FCC has some power to punish broadcasters, to hold them to certain old fashioned standards known as the public interest standards to be balanced and fair. Brendan Carr was using the old standards that his party has really not wanted anything to do with for our entire lives. To now say we're going to punish these broadcasters who don't follow these old rules that everyone forgot about.

[B]

Right. They haven't been enforced. Exactly. Which rule is he trying to revive?

[A]

It's questionable whether he's properly reviving anything that exists quite the way he says it does. But the public interest standard dates back. I'm sorry to do this to you and your listeners, but we gotta go back to like the 1920s.

[B]

Love that period.

[A]

I do too. Nerd alert. And in that period, the country was grappling with this powerful new form of media, radio. It was like nothing that had come before because it could reach so many millions of people. It had this power to influence that the printed word really couldn't match. And they decided, we're gonna give you licenses to use your frequencies. But in return, we. You have this incredible new power. It needs to be used responsibly. The industry wanted that because it was chaos. Anyone with a setup from the hardware store could get onto radio. So it was a mess. And then over the decades, very, very specific stipulations rose up for what it meant to be serving the public interest. Are you offering certain kinds of news program? Are all sides getting their point of view across on your airwaves? Are you offering children's program, et cetera, et cetera. It moves on to tv. And it's in the Reagan era where the Republicans say, we really don't like this stuff. They get rid of some of the more powerful parts of this. Then after the Reagan era, no FCC commissioner made a habit, certainly not a habit of enforcing these standards.

[B]

Now it was FCC Commissioner Mark Fowler that got rid of the Fairness Doctrine. Right, which is different from equal time. And we often get them confused. But that opened up the way for Rush Limbaugh to Breathe new life into moribund AM radio, start an enormous new industry, and led ultimately to Fox.

[A]

It really enabled the entire conservative infrastructure to blossom. Podcasts would have never fallen under those old standards, but a template was set. You mentioned the equal time rule, which Brendan Carr brings up a lot. There, even to this day, is a rule that if you are a broadcaster, your local station in your town, radio or tv, and you have an entertainment program, not a news program, and you invite the local candidate on who's registered for office, and you're not news, by the way, I'm going to stress entertainment. You have to give the opponent the same amount of time with similar prominence on your station. That's still around.

[B]

But even though that law is still around, it's only around election time that you can even invoke it.

[A]

There is indeed a window. There are broader versions of it that get a little bit outside of elections. He's trying to apply here, but they have different restrictions that make it hard. He's tried to conflate some of this with news distortion, another public interest provision that you can't stage news, you can't fake news. A very hard case to make. You have to prove that a conspiracy goes all the way up to the top of the network and the station. And he's tried to bring that in. So some of these things, you're right, they're really circumscribed. The prescriptions are tighter than he lets on, but he's expanding them to the common sense. What you'd think if you heard it on the street. Well, they're supposed to be fair. That's not fair. It's that kind of way of addressing a much more complicated issue.

[B]

So let's get back to this war against the media or against television here. Trump watches a lot of tv. He's tried all sorts of ways to bring mainstream journalism in general to its knees. But the use of government power is a new twist. You've observed that Nixon tried it but couldn't pull it off because too many people saw the danger there. So Trump picked Brendan Carr to use the FCC to apply power where they can. Right.

[A]

You would see Trump in his first term say, take their license away. Take their license away. And like Nixon before him, he had public servants who weren't willing to do it the way he wanted to because they didn't see a legal path to really do it legitimately, including Trump's own FCC chair, Ajib Pai. Now, Brendan Carr was at the FCC then, worked closely with Pai before he became A commissioner himself as a lawyer. But Brendan Carr is not going after the networks. NBC doesn't have a license, but its stations do. And if you start threatening to pull a license from NBC in a market that's important to it, in a market where it may own the station, that hurts the whole network's revenues, it's disastrous. Whether he can legally really do it is one thing, but the threat itself carried a lot of power.

[B]

You spoke with Daniel Ser, the president of a small legal group called the center for American Rights, or Carr. Like Brendan Carr, only he has an extra R. You laid out how the center for American Rights has been creating the legal logic for Trump's ferocious new FCC since before the 2024 election. And a core tenet is simply, the media is biased, full stop.

[A]

Yes. But interestingly, Daniel Suhr says, hey, I'm a conservative. I've always thought the media is biased. Here comes Trump in the election, and the thing that really caught his ear was there was a debate on ABC News, the only presidential debate between Trump and Harris. The ABC fact checkers interrupted Trump a few times. He made some pretty wild allegations and statements in Springfield. They're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats, they're eating. They're eating the pets of the people that live there. Harris was not fact checked the same way. Trump said afterward. This is three against one, the two moderators and my opponent against me. When you looked at the. The fact that they were correcting everything and not correcting with her. They're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that. Someone take their license away. So Daniel sir looks at these old cases and he says, okay, I see how this could work. A lot of these rules are still on the books. The fairness doctor may be gone, but there are all sorts of other provisions that we could try to apply here to bring a complaint. And it was very eye popping because, you know, I've been writing a book for years about this long fight. And so the minute I saw those complaints get filed, said, wow, this is out of the blue. No one has done this in a really long time in this concerted of a way, because what Daniel sir did was he filed a bunch of complaints right off the bat in the fall against every major network.

[B]

Like what?

[A]

When 60 Minutes interviewed Kamala Harris very close to the end of the campaign

[B]

and Trump complained about the editing, There was an investigation. It turned out there was nothing wrong with the editing. But Paramount, the owner of CBS, gave him $16 million anyway, and that's important.

[A]

But as this was all happening, Paramount was trying to sell itself to Skydance. And while they're pursuing this deal, this complaint against 60 Minutes that doesn't go away with Trump's settlement of that lawsuit is dangling out there. And Brendan Carr says, you know, while that complaint has not been adjudicated, I can take it into account because guess what? I, Brendan Carr, have a say about whether this deal can go through because Paramount owns television stations. So Paramount, I'm going to want some things. Then Daniel sir gets involved in this process as an outside group makes filings declaring, we want a news ombudsman who will judge the network for bias. And so you get a deal. But with these provisions and the new Paramount, the new owners, Ellisons agree to all of them. That is basically unheard of.

[B]

Sir filed this complaint on the basis that anyone with a broadcast license has to serve, quote, the public interest in convenience and necessity. But as you've said, this prescription has never been applied to news or debates before.

[A]

The way that this provision works is government. We don't want to be involved in news. We have a presumption of good faith. This has been kind of codified through legal decisions. But the upshot is we have faith that journalists, when they do the news, they do their jobs responsibly. It might not be perfect, but we as the government really can't get involved here. And what Daniel sir says is they should not be exempt from these rules that apply to entertainment shows. They do not deserve that presumption of good faith.

[B]

Biden's FCC dismissed complaints against abc, CBS and NBC that were filed by Sir. Yes, and there was also a complaint against Fox. The FCC dismissed them as having no merit. Brendan Carr undismiss them. Except of course the one against Fox. What have legal experts told you about the strength of Daniel Sir's legal arguments?

[A]

Other than Daniel and Chairman Carr, I've yet to find a legal expert who said this is a really good case here, mind you, because these things have not been litigated in this way in so long. You're talking to people who haven't even thought about this stuff in like decades. But anyway, regardless, you don't find many people giving Daniel Sir a ringing endorsement outside of the FCC chair and like

[B]

minded individuals coming up, the legal basis for all this may be weak, but for now, one determined lawyer glides from victory to victory on a magic carpet of complaints. This is on the.

[A]

I'm Brian Reed. When I created s town. I looked at how secrets lies and the stories we tell shape a small rural town. Now on my podcast question everything, I'm going bigger. Hi, this message is for Senator Lindsey Graham. I head to Washington to take on a law that gives tech companies sweeping immunity is how these companies have gotten rich. Join me as I go after big tech on question everything from placement theory and KCRW out Thursdays. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

This is onthemedia. I'm Brooke Gladstone. We're listening to the interview I did with the New York Times. Jim Rutenberg earlier this year. In the course of his reporting, he spoke to Mark Fowler, Ronald Reagan's Fairness Doctrine destroying FCC chairman and a Trump supporter. His reaction to what's going on now was surprising.

[A]

Yet Fowler was basically beside himself. And anyone who paid attention at the time or has gone back and studied that period would be shocked at this in general because the Republican Party made such a point of abandoning the Fairness Doctrine when it came to media. It was one of the most foundational things in Republican orthodoxy, and Mark Fowler is the avatar of that. And though the Fairness Doctrine is still gone, these public interest provisions, you know, are being used in the ways that he always opposed. And I said to him, actually, like, well, what about these public interest provisions? Why didn't you get rid of them? And his point was twofold. He said, for one thing, the public interest provisions are in the actual law. The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy. He had power there. But he also said he didn't think that someone would try to use the surviving provisions quite in this way.

[B]

Fowler told you that in Carr's hands, the public interest rules had been transformed into a quote made to order jawboning instrument. That's a term of art that implies government pressure on media.

[A]

Yes, it came up a lot in the Biden years when conservatives complained that the Biden administration was pressuring the social media platforms, which can do whatever they want with content, but was pressuring them to censor conservative speech, especially when it came to Covid or election denialism. The government cannot force the platforms to censor speech. It's not allowed because of the First Amendment. But jawboning coerces the platforms into censoring so that the government gets what it wants regardless where it couldn't legally really ask for it. So when Ted Cruz, who's been talking about jawboning and working up legislation dealing with social media, sees the Jimmy Kimmel imbrolio unfold, he's really bothered by it. He likened Chair McCarr and the Easy wear hard way line. Cruz likened it to a mobster in the movie Goodfellas, a Mafioso coming into a bar going, nice bar you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. It's fine to say what Jimmy Kimmel said was deplorable. It was disgraceful and he should be off air, but we shouldn't be threatening government power to force him off air. That's a real mistake. So what he was doing there was really defining this too as jawboning. And this legislation he had been working up against the platforms, which was very much in keeping with a unified MAGA theory of the case on speech. Now it was applying as well to

[B]

the Trump administration and other people within the GOP stand with him.

[A]

Rand Paul, maybe that should be no surprise. Very Libertarian leaning Republican senator. But John Thune, the leader of the Senate Republicans, was there with him, not nearly as outspoken. And then you even had some podcasters, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, you know, he's kind of his own thing. Yeah, he didn't like it. And part of the argument went, you do this now to a Kimmel and when a Democratic administration's in, they're going to do it to us.

[B]

But it hasn't dissuaded Carr or Trump

[A]

or sir, not in the slightest. As we speak, the FCC has told the show the View that runs on abc, we're watching you for violations of the equal time rules you have candidates on. So they are full steam ahead on this.

[B]

Brendan Carr explained to you that part of this is a broader symptom of a realignment. Republicans, who are close to being what he called fundamentalist libertarian, were in the past, and the future was about government power in the public interest. That's how he put it. And Scher said something very similar. Right.

[A]

Daniel sir put it this way, which was, hey, as conservatives, we love the free market, but when it comes to television, the free market is not helping us. It's all become liberally biased, which is not fair.

[B]

But the free market was supposed to give the people what they want.

[A]

But now the argument is the free market is not. So we are going to use the power of the administrative state. They don't say that, but that's what this is. To correct this imbalance that the market

[B]

has allowed, we did a whole series about Leonard Leo, a leader of the Federalist Society. He was deeply involved in Trump's picks for judges and especially high court justices. Now Leo is deep into a campaign to take back what he considers the liberal capture of American culture. Does he figure into this?

[A]

Daniel Suhr had worked at the Federalist Society. When I asked Daniel about these adjacencies with Leo and Leo's new work on culture, what he said was, yeah, absolutely, I am fully supportive and I'd like to think that my effort helps his. Because what Leonard Leo wants to do ultimately is bring more family friendly, patriotic and faith based programming to television. And in this definition of the public interest, that kind of programming would fit it where Jimmy Kimmel wouldn't. But. And so what Daniel's very open about is I hope that this clears the path for more of that kind of content on tv.

[B]

You wrote that Trump, since his earliest days running for president, has demanded that the FCC punish the networks for his perceived mistreatment by stripping them of their licenses. Is this a realistic threat?

[A]

So much has to happen to take away a license. Even if you look back in history, look at the times when licenses were taken away and politics had anything to do with it, whatever the political charge was of bias or what have you, it was mixed in with serious charges of corruption, lying to the FCC about things, you know, part of the whole kit and caboodle.

[B]

What serves endgame.

[A]

He's very open about his end game. It has to do with media consolidation. We have to go back to the Kimmel situation. If you'll recall. Jimmy Kimmel says his thing, Brendan Carr says his thing. Easywear the hard way. The first suspensions of Kimmel come from two major television station groups. One is called nexstar. They own a lot of stations.

[B]

Let me guess, the other is Sinclair.

[A]

The other is Sinclair. Now, not only are both led by conservatives who are perceived as Trump friendly, but both are also in the market to buy many, many more television stations. And Brandon Carr will be in charge of that. So they want to keep him happy. But their purchase of those television stations new twist would require a change in regulation because of those old rules about what television could do. Both of those companies have caps on how many Americans they're allowed to reach of 39%. The idea is you don't want them owning too many stations. They'll have too much power now. It's very old fashioned now in the Internet era, but it exists still. And they want that cap lifted. Brendan Carr wants to do it. Daniel sir wants it to happen. And why is that? Because if those stations that have shown that they will play along with Brendan Carr and the Trump administration on things like Kimmel, if they're bigger, they can bring more pressure to bear on the big networks. To not show Jimmy Kimmel or to let them suspend more programming that gets them in trouble with the FCC. Maybe it's David Muir's 6:30 newscast, by the way, a very highly watched program in this country.

[B]

It wouldn't be a big stretch for them because they're conservative to begin with. They'd be doing precisely what they want to do. Moreover, we've seen lots of waivers given. There was one given to Rupert Murdoch. A lot of times they can just skirt these laws.

[A]

That's absolutely objectively true. But it gets more complicated than that with the way that their relationships work with abc. They like their ABC affiliation, they like their network affiliations in general. Why? Most of all, believe it or not, football. Football is the driver of all things television. Every station that has football makes a lot of money. Sinclair can't afford right now football on its own.

[B]

It needs the network for it and nexstar can't either.

[A]

Nobody can except for the networks and the streamers. So what the networks can say to a nexstar or a Sinclair is hey, you want football? Well, then you can't preempt these shows because if you preempt too many of these shows, we're losing money on those shows in your market now, we can't afford football. You don't get football, we all go down the tubes. That's the argument. So while all of this can happen without the fcc, the FCC is inserting itself now in these negotiations and. And they give Sinclair and nexstar a little more heft. Hey, the FCC is going to make us do this now. We got to do what the FCC wants. And again, Brendan Carr, he'll say, we think there's an imbalance in these negotiations between the networks and their station groups. We want the station groups. Our people doesn't quite say that, but sometimes he does in different ways. We want our people to have more heft in these negotiations, to do what we want them to do. And as you can see, so much rides on this. And Daniel sir said to me about this, I'd love a day when maybe Sinclair and nextar, they're their own mini networks and they show the Leonard Leo family friendly, patriotic programming that I think red state America is deprived of by these networks.

[B]

So what's at stake here?

[A]

I think a lot's at stake because if you think that broadcast television still has some sway in this country, and I think it does, then you have a government effort to change that for ideological reasons and that could change the business. I don't know if Brendan Carr gets what he wants at the end of the day. I don't know that Daniel sir gets his Leonard Leo looking television at the end of the day. But what the networks say is that all of this could sort of break their business models. It's just a very precarious time for still one of the most important forms of media in this country.

[B]

What does it mean for the viewers and listeners?

[A]

It might mean that their favorite hosts or their most hated hosts could end up not being on the air, but for reasons that have to do with what the government wants.

[B]

Thanks very much, Jim.

[A]

Thank you so much for having me.

[B]

Jim Rutenberg is writer at large for the New York Times. Coming up, Daniel sir in his own words. This is ON the media.

[A]

I'm Brian Reed. When I created s Town, I looked at how secrets lies and the stories we tell shape a small rural town. Now on my podcast question everything, I'm going bigger. Hi, this message is for Senator Lindsey Graham. I'm hoping I head to Washington to take on a law that gives tech companies sweeping immunity is how these companies have gotten rich. Join me as I go after big tech on question everything from placement theory and KCRW out Thursdays. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

This is ON THE media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. So as we heard, Daniel sir, the president of the center for American Rights, has been a driving force behind bringing to account broadcasters who fail to serve. What he sees is the public interest. When I spoke to him in February, it was around the time that CBS had undergone major changes on air and in its leadership.

[C]

Thrilled about that fact over here, by the way.

[B]

In fact, it's largely because of you. You helped craft the decisions that have changed cbs. So congratulations to you. You've been extremely influential.

[C]

Thanks. You're welcome to say that on air. Don't edit that part out.

[B]

If, as you say, half the country feels insulted by late night tv, in fact you say it's why their ratings are in the tank. Anyone insulted by late night TV can find a vast number of alternatives. Even those watching the super bowl could find an alternative halftime show. There's no discussion currently of extending regulation to cable or digital. I know that those are media dominated by the far right. If this is really about fairness, maybe you should be lobbying to have the government imposing rules there too. That is how you would best achieve your aim of fairness and balance. Go in and meddle in all the platforms.

[C]

I do think that broadcast news and broadcast entertainment continue to play incredibly important roles in our culture. And in fact, that I think reflects Two things. One is the decline of newspapers that has created a vacuum that has made broadcast and visual media more important. And then secondly, I think as our culture has evolved over time more and more into a visually driven and a video driven culture that has increased the importance of video based news, which is what we see on broadcast tv.

[B]

Network news is not dominating the national discussion these days. That is happening far more on cable and even more in the digital realm. Podcasts, which have audiences frequently far greater than network news. The top people there too tend to be far right. You've mentioned what a great audience Greg Gutfield has over at Fox. You say, you know, why is it that this guy has such a big audience? It's because people are turned off by the network news. Well, in that case, the network news will die of its own stodgy set of standards that it's lived by all this time. And late night tv, as you've said yourself, don't have great ratings either. So why can't you let the market work as was the Republican ideal in the past?

[C]

The importance of the newsroom is, I think, essential to answering that question. If you look at cable and podcasts and streaming, it's all commentary on the news. And frankly, even the AM radio band is largely commentary on the news. But the hard reporting journalists on the beat in Capitol Hill, in local communities, in state capitals, it is broadcast television that has the newsroom resources to have full time, professional trained journalists out on the ground reporting the news. And then the rest of our media ecosystem, whether that's social media or podcasts and streaming and even to some extent cable, is really commenting on the hard news. And the hard news is mostly starting with what we see on broadcast. I think that's why it's so important.

[B]

Back in 2019, Brendan Carr posted on X, should the government censor speech it doesn't like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the, quote, public interest. Then by November 2024, he's posting, broadcast licenses are not sacred cows. These media companies are required by law to operate in the public interest. If they don't, they're going to be held accountable as the Communications act requires. Then there was his statement about Jimmy Kimmel. We can do this the easy way or the hard. Would you call this jawboning?

[C]

No, I would not call it jawboning. I think what Chairman Carr has said is very similar to what many previous FCC chairs have said from both parties. FCC chairs have always felt a responsibility to talk to the regulated community hear broadcasters about what their responsibilities are under the law and the policy goals and views that the administration has. The best example of that is Newton Minow, who was JFK's chair, gave a sort of famous address where he said, TV is a vast wasteland and you guys have to do better. You can't treat your broadcast licenses like sacred cows. Right. Almost word for word what Chairman Carr has said.

[B]

You sort of have to go back to the 60s to hear the last time that that was said. He said back in 2019, the FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of public interest. Policing speech seems to be what is going on right now.

[C]

Respectfully disagree. Obviously I've been, you know, one who's filed some of the complaints that Chairman Carr has acted on in this regard. What he's done on equal time I see as enforcing the law. You could look to the 90s and many of the things that FCC chairs said at the time about indecency on tv. Right. There was a real concern at the time about violence and sex on television. Frankly, that was bipartisan. Tipper Gore, right out there.

[B]

We're talking about politics now though, I feel like you are changing the subject. Let's stick with politics because that's why people fear the government messing with the media.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a conservative. I fear the government too. Right.

[B]

Not in this case though.

[C]

Well, what I have seen is Democrats, when they have been at the FCC using the powers of the agency to achieve their goals. And now we have a Republican chair.

[B]

Give me an example of that.

[A]

Sure.

[C]

Under the Biden FCC under Chairwoman Rosenwartzel, there was a complaint filed against a Fox affiliate in Philadelphia based on Fox News coverage of the 2020 post election election. Integrity stuff. And the chair kept that complaint open for well over a year and had public comment on it, which is the exact same thing that Chairman Carr has done with my complaint on CBS in 60 Minutes. So to the extent that one says my complaint and his response to it is jawboning, the former chair did the exact same thing to Fox, even though it dealt with material that was broadcast on cable and then they were trying to back end through Fox's common ownership

[B]

of a TV station that was about promoting lies about the 2020 election and it was ultimately dismissed. I'm just wondering about what seems to be a real changing stance in the philosophy of your group. Just a couple of years ago, Republicans claimed the mantle of being the party of free speech. This just feels Like a total divergence from the long term Republican opposition to the administrative state. Are you going to go toe to toe with the more libertarian Republicans who disagree with you?

[C]

Yes, I do. So in my Twitter comments every day, I don't agree with many of my libertarian friends on this. I agree with them on lots of other issues. And I think it's important to remember that there are lots of components to the public interest. One of them is localism. And what some might characterize as speech police. I would say is reinvigorating the viewpoint diversity component of the public interest, which has always been there. And it's not that we're censoring any individual speech, it's that we're saying across the board we need to ensure that companies and networks and programs are giving lots of views a fair airing. And that's not been happening of late.

[B]

But not on AM radio.

[C]

Yes. And we'll have to respectfully disagree on how we think of AM radio.

[B]

So the free market is great except when it isn't, right?

[C]

Well, the free market is great except when there's a breakdown in the market. And that's what we have in broadcasting.

[B]

The free market is great in virtually every area, but the one in which it seems conservative interests are not being well served.

[C]

Yeah. So in the case of broadcast, the market is limited by the amount of spectrum that's available.

[B]

That used to be the only way people communicated. Now it's just one in enormous kaleidoscope of ways people talk to each other, one on one, one to many, many to one.

[C]

Great use of the word kaleidoscope.

[B]

And yes, the FCC was created to deal with the responsible use of a limited resource. And our airwaves are still a limited resource, but they are far from being the sole resource that Americans have access to.

[C]

Yeah, don't disagree. In fact, in many ways, that's why I think we need to address the national TV ownership cap is because broadcasters are competing with streaming and digital for advertising dollars. And though streaming and digital platforms don't have artificial limits that restrict how many households they can reach when they sell their advertising, broadcasters do.

[B]

And you're supportive of lifting national television ownership caps and allowing local broadcast ownership to grow?

[C]

I am.

[B]

Why?

[C]

So I look at the media landscape right now and I see NBC, abc, CBS and I would include PBS as really dominating over their affiliates and especially with the big three corporate national networks that the affiliates are not given a lot of discretion about the program they can carry. They are contractually bound and punished when they preempt programming that they feel like is not in the interests of their community. Really all the power to determine what goes on the airwaves is at the national network level. And the locals are really limited to a couple high school sports games. And the local news.

[B]

Local news is much more influential than national news.

[C]

100% agreed.

[B]

And more highly viewed.

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

But if you're talking about Sinclair and nexstar, the biggest owners of broadcast stations, they're both conservative. So what you're really proposing is the creation of networks that are closer to your own political perspective.

[C]

Yeah, I'd be thrilled with that outcome.

[B]

That seems to be counter to what you've been saying though about fairness and balance in a non ideological way.

[C]

It's exactly what you said, Brooke. Network news has relatively low trust ratings. Local news has very high trust ratings among the American people.

[B]

And the networks, they don't mess with those. So what's the problem?

[C]

I don't think it is a problem. That's why I want more local news stations that are being run effectively by these companies. I think these companies are doing it right.

[B]

These national affiliates ultimately will own more stations than the network have affiliates.

[C]

Yeah, I think they're doing a great job. And companies that do a great job should grow.

[B]

And they would be going into neighborhoods that don't necessarily reflect the political or cultural predilections of the owners. And then you're back where you started. Only this time the leaning would be conservative as opposed to liberal.

[C]

Yeah. And in that world I think it would look a lot more like the AM radio band.

[B]

God forbid the AM radio band is not diverse.

[C]

I think it's a lot more diverse than network news.

[B]

So you say that Sinclair would produce programming that is more reflective of many Americans values than the networks currently provide. Sinclair has certainly been called out for imposing on their own affiliates changes in their news broadcasts. That's happened again and again.

[C]

Yes, I think that's a legitimate point. Right. One of the things that I find frustrating about Colbert is that apparently we have people who think they are entitled to treat their shows like they're private property rather than being responsive to their corporate management. But I would say in general we see these companies producing content that people want and that they have solid trust of the American people. And companies that achieve that I think we should reward and allow to grow.

[B]

Sinclair and Nickstar are always changing places over which is the nation's top broadcaster. But back in 2018 it was Sinclair who was number one and it was forcing its anchors to read a promotional script that warned viewers about Quote, fake news on other stations in media.

[A]

I am Fox San Antonio's Jessica Headley and I'm Ryan Wolf. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities, the El Paso, Las Cruces communities, Eastern Iowa communities, Mid Michigan communities.

[B]

We are extremely proud of the quality,

[A]

balanced journalism that CBS4 News produces. But we are concerned about troublesome, one sided news stories plaguing our country. Plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

[B]

The sharing of biased and false news.

[A]

False news has become all too common on social media. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely.

[B]

Sinclair has often meddled in the news of its own affiliates trying to serve their own local communities. And that's okay with you?

[C]

I don't see that as being particularly different from the way a lot of networks run right now. I would point out that when that last happened in a way that drew national attention, it was Senate Democrats attacking Sinclair for news distortion, which is the same doctrine that I used with CBS and everybody said was antiquated and outdated and unconstitutional when I did it. But everybody seemed okay when Senate Democrats did it to Sinclair.

[B]

And you think it's okay when Sinclair does it, but not when NBC does it.

[C]

I think you have to take each case on its facts.

[B]

What is your end game, Daniel? Is it to entirely remake television according to a particular definition of fairness?

[C]

Yes. My hope is to get back to an actual fair and unbiased presentation of information. I think our democracy gets distorted when news is consistently slanted in one direction, when one party's candidates enjoy overwhelmingly lopsidedly an advantage on entertainment programming. I think our democracy is in danger when most Americans don't trust the national news. And so the question is, how do we move back to a society where we see that kind of trust restored? And one option I think that you laid out is we don't. We just see the networks go the way of the dodo. I don't think that's the way it's going to have to be. With different management, different leadership, the networks could move back to fact based, unbiased news and a diversity of entertainment programming that appeals to all Americans. And if they did that, we would actually restore the American people's trust in, in the news and the networks. It's just a choice the networks have to make. And there are certain tools that we have as advocates to push them in the right direction to make that choice.

[B]

I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what Fact based means.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

And what is the responsibility of journalists to ensure that they aren't engaged in allowing the public to be lied to?

[C]

I think the reason though that we have so little trust in media is because many of what I will call my people, many conservative or Republican or red state people for millions of Americans, they look at the national news media's failure to cover President Biden's cognitive decline. They look at the Hunter Biden laptop, they look at COVID 19 and they feel lied to.

[B]

COVID 19.

[C]

Yeah, I know. Yes, I know it's gonna sound crazy to you, but like they look at how the social media companies and the White House were suppressing their views about the efficacy of masks or about returning children to school at a particular time. They look at that experience and they feel lied to. Maybe they're wrong, but they do. And so they see a pattern where each of what they perceive to be a time that the media lied to them. They always help one political party, and that's why the trust is gone.

[B]

So what's next on your list? The View. Seth Meyers. The attack on Jimmy Kimmel kind of

[C]

fizzled in credit to Seth Meyers. He made an intentional choice not to feature politicians as guests. I will credit him with that. In terms of what's next one, I think our country needs to figure out what the future of NPR and PBS look like after congressional defunding. I think congressional defunding was a statement on the part of the American people's elected representatives that they feel like things are broken at NPR and pbs. I don't get the sense that the leadership at NPR and PBS have received that message and are taking it seriously.

[B]

Will you be bringing complaints against them?

[C]

Potentially, yes. I think one thing that's very true of public broadcasting is that it is often awash in dei.

[B]

What does DEI mean in this context?

[C]

Hiring practices.

[B]

Oh, hiring people to reflect the community.

[C]

If you're using a quota, yes.

[B]

But if there's no quota, I mean, if you want to have programs on that reflect what you think people want more of, maybe more religious programming, more patriotic programming, then why wouldn't minority community have a right to have more correspondence, reflect their views?

[C]

Yeah, no, I'm totally okay with that.

[B]

That's DEI in a nutshell.

[C]

The kind of DEI that I'm concerned about is illegal dei, which includes having either quotas in hiring, having race based internships or fellowships or management track programs, mentoring programs, things like that.

[B]

What is wrong with giving people who have been kept out of a system an opportunity to Enter it.

[C]

I don't think anything's wrong with that. I think it's whether or not you do so based on membership in a class, race, or whether you do so by looking at people as individuals.

[B]

But you're talking about classes of programming that reflect the interests of individuals. Who makes those programs? Who makes the evangelical programs but evangelicals? Who makes the programs that you feel are not being produced now, but people who reflect or embrace those identities?

[C]

Yeah, fair point. And I think if we lived in a world in which all of that happened, I'd feel much more comfortable.

[B]

That's what DEI is for.

[C]

If DEI meant that evangelical people of faith or people from rural communities were getting special treatment for broadcasting on public radio, maybe we'd all feel differently about it.

[B]

So you would feel differently about it, leaving quotas aside, if it were people other than the ones that have in the past been encouraged to enter a system from which they were excluded, that weren't evangelical or rural.

[C]

I'm against treating people differently based on race. If over the course of an interview with an individual, you find that they bring unique experiences, then go ahead and hire them. But don't hire them based on a box they check on a form.

[B]

But when the government goes after DEI hires, they're not interested in the individual. They're just interested in their race. We've seen highly qualified black and female people in the military just get summarily fired for no reason whatsoever just because the assumption was they were hired because of dei.

[C]

I'm not a national security guy, so I don't feel qualified to comment on that. I would say, though, the US Supreme Court spoke pretty clearly in the Students for Fair Admissions case versus Harvard. You can agree or disagree with the decision, but, you know, it's the law now, and that's really what the administration has been trying to apply.

[B]

And so we went off on a little bit of a detour.

[C]

But it's okay. It was a good detour.

[B]

You know, just getting back to the question of who's next on the list.

[C]

We're going to be in an election year, right? And so questions around equal time and around disclosure of conflicts of interest regarding candidates like those are all going to be coming to the fore. They already have, obviously, with both Colbert and the View. And so the other thing that we'll be really active on is monitoring stations compliance with their legal obligations in an election year.

[B]

Well, we'll see.

[C]

We will. It's going to be interesting.

[B]

Thanks for the conversation.

[C]

Thanks so much.

[B]

Daniel Ser is president of the center for American rights. And that's the show. On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender and Candace Wong. Travis Mannon is our video producer. Our technical director is Jennifer Munson with engineering from Jared Paul. Eloise Blondio is our senior producer. And our executive producer is Katya Rogers. On the Media is produced by wnyc. Micah Loewinger will be back next week. I'm Brooke Gladstone.