AfriPulse
Since its inception in the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission has had a broad mandate to act in “the public interest”—the phrase appears dozens of times in the agency’s organic statute. But during the second Trump administration, the commission, which Congress established as a multi-member, independent agency led by Republican and Democratic appointees, has been one of the arms of government that has taken a central role in policing broadcasters, news organizations, and public stations that don’t fall in line with Donald Trump’s worldview and policy priorities.
Under Chairman Brendan Carr’s vision, the public interest is closely tied to Trump’s interests. In their eight months in office, Trump and Carr have gone after public media and private broadcasters alike, including ABC News and CBS News—singling them out to criticize and investigate, while Trump has secured settlements from both organizations. Jimmy Kimmel’s indefinite suspension from the ABC airwaves following a monologue in which he criticized Trumpland’s reaction to the killing of Charlie Kirk is only the latest episode to land in Carr and Trump’s sights, with more targets on the horizon.
Since the early days of the administration, Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic member of the commission, has been one of the loudest voices from within the federal government sounding the alarm about the threats to free press and free expression coming from her own agency. In the wake of the Kimmel controversy, Vanity Fair spoke with the commissioner while she was on an Amtrak train to New York City, where she was scheduled to speak about the importance of broadband access.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Vanity Fair: What do you make of the situation with ABC and Jimmy Kimmel?
Anna Gomez: I am alarmed by this administration’s campaign of censorship and control. While what happened to Charlie Kirk is inexcusable, I’m concerned that we not allow this act of political violence to be used as justification for government censorship and control. And this is the clearest and most alarming attack on the First Amendment and free expression by our government in recent memory. So I am very concerned.
To my knowledge, the FCC has never revoked a license based on disfavored views. What’s your take on these latest threats?
The FCC doesn’t have the authority, the ability, nor the constitutional right to censor disfavored speech. These threats are just that—they are just threats. The FCC would not be able to take action as extreme as revoking a broadcast license just because of, perhaps, an inappropriate joke by a comedian.
Nexstar, the US’s largest owner of TV stations, which is hoping to get FCC approval for a pending $6 billion merger with rival broadcast company Tegna, is choosing not to air Kimmel’s show. All of this is in an apparent effort to get the green light from the agency. What do you make of this? [The merger would likely require the FCC to raise the nationwide cap on the percentage of households a single corporation’s TV stations are allowed to reach, which is currently set at 39%. Nexstar has since denied that its preemption decision was in response to FCC pressure.]
Companies should think twice about capitulating this way. It is up to them, to those companies, to stand up to defend their First Amendment rights instead of capitulating. And you’re right: These companies are going to have business before the commission with their transactions. And so what they are doing is, they are basically self-censoring in advance, in anticipation of what they think that the administration is going to make demands of them—[with respect to] contents of their broadcast. And that is a very dangerous precedent for our country, for our democracy, and our First Amendment values.
Independent of what companies decide to do, what power does the FCC have to condition government action, such as approve a merger or revoke a license, based on these companies’ speech and opinions?
The commission cannot censor broadcast content, either under the First Amendment or under the Communications Act, so it would be wholly inappropriate for the commission to demand some type of censorship in order to grant a license of any kind. But what we have seen, as you saw in the Paramount–Skydance transaction, was the corporation cowardly capitulated in advance—by setting up an ombudsman—what we’re calling the truth ombudsman—to field any complaints about CBS content. And that is the problem with pressuring companies. In and of itself, that is a violation of the First Amendment, if what it drives is self-censorship.
Based on what you’re saying, the principle here seems open and shut: If this were ever litigated in court, there’s no question that the government would lose, and the companies would win.
That is correct. The harassment is the point here—the process is the point. Because the FCC knows that if this was ever litigated, if it ever got to a final decision by the commission and it was appealed, it would be overturned because it’s a violation of the First Amendment. But the pressure campaign is strong, and it’s inappropriate.
Decoding the Messages of Charlie Kirk’s Alleged Killer
Source: VanityFair | Read the Full Story…
