Surely the people are sheeple! ๐Carr: We're going to back to that era where local TV stations, judging the public interest, get to decide what the American people think…
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 18, 2025
I don’t think this is the last shoe to drop… the consequences will continue to flow. pic.twitter.com/UFErQ9ealK
The standard is the “public interest,” by the way, and the FCC doesn’t determine what that is; the courts do.Carr: If broadcasters don't like that, they can turn their license into the FCC. There are other things we can do with it to serve the national interest… pic.twitter.com/hULjgMJ7Yb
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 18, 2025
In exchange for obtaining a valuable license to operate a broadcast station using the public airwaves, each radio and television licensee is required by law to operate its station in the “public interest, convenience and necessity.” Generally, this means it must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license. To do this, each non-exempt station licensee must identify the needs and problems and then specifically treat these local matters in the news, public affairs, political and other programming that it airsThe death of Charlie Kirk, and commentary on the reaction to it, U.S. not solely a “local concern.”
Broadcasters – not the FCC or any other government agency – are responsible for selecting the material they air. The First Amendment and the Communications Act expressly prohibit the Commission from censoring broadcast matter. Our role in overseeing program content is very limited. We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations that stations have relationships with, such as PBS or NPR, except if those entities are also station licensees. In general, we also do not regulate information provided over the Internet, nor do we intervene in private disputes involving broadcast stations or their licensees. Instead, we usually defer to the parties, courts, or other agencies to resolve these disputes.
a license holder has a property interest in that license, and can defend it against the FCC, if challenged. Given the track record of Trump’s DOJ, that might be worth it to some license holder who isn’t worried about FCC approval of a pending deal.
there are no "local stations"- they all belong to one or another of several large syndicates run by people who either support Trump because he's who they want or have business in front of the government and want its approval
ReplyDeleteWhich means these matters should go to the courts. Which means NextStar and Sinclair should argue with ABC about what ABC provides. Because those syndicates have no programming without the networks. If they abandon them, somebody else picks up that market and becomes ABC in that market. That may be a fight Disney is considering having. It would earn them nothing but goodwill in the country.
DeleteI think I was unclear: Carr and the FCC have no place in these matters. To even hint at affecting a merger, is corruption. There is enough evidence in Carr’s public statements to reverse any adverse decision the FCC might make. But, of course…corruption takes cooperation.
DeleteI think you were plenty clear. I just kinda saw red over that "local decision-making" hooey. I'm sure the Sinclair station in Cedar Rapids takes the same marching orders their affiliates in Florida or Texas or Connecticut do
DeleteSorry. I meant in my comment. Then I thought this was an opportunity for a fight about free speech that would benefit Disney/ABC. The public would be on their side. One can dream, can’t they?
Delete