SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
brendan carr
FCC Probe Into NPR, PBS Denounced as 'Attack on the Freedom of the Press'
"The FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege," said one critic.
Jan 31, 2025
U.S. press freedom advocates this week forcefully condemned Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr's investigation into National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service that could lead to stripping them of government funding.
"If they weren't ringing already, alarm bells should be going off loudly," said Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America, in a Thursday statement. "By using its investigatory powers, the FCC chair is clearly undertaking an effort to bully and intimidate independent journalism, which is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes where democracy is under siege."
"The Trump administration is clearly embracing such tactics and putting independent media at risk by undermining accountability of elected leaders and risking a less informed public," Richardson added. "We call on the FCC to dispense with such politically motivated investigations."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, was similarly critical, saying that "the commission should not bring frivolous investigations into media outlets simply because they do not like their coverage. Investigations like this can chill coverage and threaten the independence of the press, making it harder to hold the government accountable and keep us all informed."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens.This “investigation” is a sham and meant to terrorize NPR and PBS. They have *rigorous* oversight on vetting the “this program brought to you by” statements and literally pages of documentation about it that they give to filmmakers like me. Support your local stations, they’re going to need it.
[image or embed]
— Ariel Waldman (@arielwaldman.com) January 30, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "his seat as FCC chairman is barely warm, but Brendan Carr is already abusing his power and harassing public broadcasters with a sham investigation designed to scare journalists into silence. This is all part of Carr's far-right, Project 2025-inspired agenda."
"This bogus investigation is an attack on the freedom of the press and a bungling attempt to bash public broadcasters and further weaken their resolve to question the extremism, corruption, and cruelty of the Trump administration," Aaron warned. "This unjustified investigation isn't based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much advertising on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration."
"Carr may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that he isn't a fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable. In this, as in so many other areas under his purview, Chairman Carr is far out of step with the American public and their needs," he continued. "Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions. In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less."
Aaron added that "in a healthy democracy, we would be investing enough in our public-media system that it wouldn't need to seek any corporate underwriting. Unfortunately, Carr's cronies in Congress and the Big Media barons they serve have instead for decades tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners opposed them."
Carr—whom President Donald Trump first appointed to the FCC in 2017 and recently elevated to chair after he contributed to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025—announced the probe in a Wednesday letter to NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher and PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger.
"I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials," Carr wrote. "I have asked the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, with assistance from the FCC's Media Bureau, to initiate an investigation into the underwriting announcements and related policies of NPR, PBS, and their broadcast member stations."
The chair added:
I will be providing a copy of this letter to relevant members of Congress because I believe this FCC investigation may prove relevant to an ongoing legislative debate. In particular, Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming. For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars.
Some federal lawmakers have already responded on social media. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the letter from Chairman Carr announcing a new FCC investigation into NPR and PBS member stations is baseless. He cites no evidence at all. Instead, this investigation is a dangerous attack on public media and local journalism."
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said that "public television and radio are essential for their local communities. The FCC must not be weaponized to intimidate and silence broadcast media. We should be supporting, not undermining, their contributions to journalism and the marketplace of ideas."
I told @nytimes.com that Carr's claim that NPR and PBS broke sponsorship disclosure rules is an obvious pretext to attack their funding and independence. Carr was appointed to do Trump's censorial bidding. All his moves should be viewed through that lens. www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/b...
[image or embed]
— Seth Stern (@seth-stern.bsky.social) January 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM
The two Democratic members of the FCC have also responded critically to Carr's move. Commissioner Anna Gomez said that "this appears to be yet another administration effort to weaponize the power of the FCC. The FCC has no business intimidating and silencing broadcast media."
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said that "public television and radio stations play a significant role in our media ecosystem.
Any attempt to intimidate these local media outlets is a threat to the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas. The announcement of this investigation gives me serious concern."
Maher said in statement that "NPR programming and underwriting messaging complies with federal regulations, including the FCC guidelines on underwriting messages for noncommercial educational broadcasters, and member stations are expected to be in compliance as well."
"We are confident any review of our programming and underwriting practices will confirm NPR's adherence to these rules," she added. "We have worked for decades with the FCC in support of noncommercial educational broadcasters who provide essential information, educational programming, and emergency alerts to local communities across the United States."
In a statement to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik, who reported on the probe, Kerger said that "PBS is proud of the noncommercial educational programming we provide to all Americans through our member stations... We work diligently to comply with the FCC's underwriting regulations and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the commission."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Big Companies and the Courts Killed Net Neutrality
The powerful telecom industry did what they always do when the FCC does anything good or important on behalf of consumer: They sued to overturn the rules.
Jan 03, 2025
Happy New Year to everyone but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
On Thursday, this federal court in Cincinnati threw out the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules, rejecting the agency’s authority to protect broadband consumers and handing phone and cable companies a major victory just weeks before the Trump administration returns to power.
The ruling against the FCC by three Republican judges isn’t shocking, but their reasoning is shoddy, a mish-mash of tired industry claims paired with a willful misrepresentation of how the internet actually works.
As Matt Wood, an experienced telecommunications attorney and my colleague at Free Press, explains: “Beyond being a disappointing outcome, the 6th Circuit’s opinion is just plainly wrong at every level of analysis. The decision missed the point on everything from its granular textual analysis and understanding of the broader statutory context, to the court’s view of the legislative and agency history, all the way to its conception of Congress’s overarching policy concerns.”
Our job now is to channel the growing outrage over this appalling decision into the long-term changes we need to keep the internet safe, reliable, accessible, affordable and free from unlawful discrimination.
Under the leadership of Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC moved in April 2024 to restore Net Neutrality and the essential consumer protections that rest under Title II of the Communications Act, which had been gutted under the first Trump administration. This was an all-too-rare example in Washington of a government agency doing what it’s supposed to do: Listening to the public and taking their side against the powerful companies that for far too long have captured and called the shots in D.C.
And the phone and cable industry did what they always do when the FCC does anything good or important: They sued to overturn the rules.
This time, however, the lawyers for the biggest phone and cable companies had two things working in their favor. First, they got lucky: They won the forum-shopping lottery and got their case moved outside of Washington, D.C., where previous rounds of the Net Neutrality fight had been decided.
Second, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in June in the Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo case that overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine that gave deference to expert agencies in complex matters like environmental and telecommunications regulations.
Unfortunately, the lawyers representing massive companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon found an eager audience in Cincinnati for their debunked arguments.
Despite extensive legal and economic analysis provided by Free Press and our allies in the case and at oral arguments in October, the court ruled against the FCC and deemed internet access to be an “information service” largely free from FCC oversight.
In a post-Chevron world where courts no longer have to defer to expert agencies, we’ve replaced years of evidence and argument with revelations like this from Judge Griffin: “The existence of a fact or thought in one’s mind is not ‘information’ like 0s and 1s used by computers.”
In the short term, this decision will let the incoming Trump FCC abdicate its responsibility to protect internet users so it can focus on its new priority of threatening TV broadcasters and social-media sites to carry more pro-Trump views.
I’ll spare you the rest. This court’s warped decision scraps the common-sense rules the FCC restored in April. The result is that throughout most of the country, the most essential communications service of this century will be operating without any real government oversight, with no one to step in when companies rip you off or slow down your service.
This ruling is far out of step with the views of the American public, who overwhelmingly support real Net Neutrality and despise the cable companies. They’re tired of paying too much, and they hate being spied on when they surf (or talk, thanks Siri). Now they’ll have even less recourse to deal with unscrupulous and abusive business practices.
Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr and his old boss Ajit Pai, who’s part of the Trump transition team, are crowing everywhere about the decision and cheering this strike against “regulatory overreach.” Of course, Carr and his ilk have never been interested in protecting the public interest, only private profits.
In the short term, this decision will let the incoming Trump FCC abdicate its responsibility to protect internet users so it can focus on its new priority of threatening TV broadcasters and social-media sites to carry more pro-Trump views. The hypocrisy of crushing light-touch regulations while aggressively pursuing government censorship is something to behold.
In the weeks ahead, the FCC, as well as Free Press and the other parties who intervened in the case, will consider our legal options and decide whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In Congress, we’ll start laying the groundwork for a future bill that restores Net Neutrality and FCC authority. Meanwhile, we’ll look to the states to hold the line, with laws like California’s strong Net Neutrality regulations thankfully still on the books.
Our job now is to channel the growing outrage over this appalling decision into the long-term changes we need to keep the internet safe, reliable, accessible, affordable and free from unlawful discrimination.
It may have gotten harder, but the fight for the free and open internet is far from over.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The FCC as Trump's Right-Wing 'Speech Police'
Brendan Carr pretends to be a defender of free-speech rights when it suits his right-wing agenda but disappears into the ether when he should be protecting expression that doesn’t align with Trump’s authoritarian aims.
Dec 06, 2024
President-Elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Federal Communications Commission has an on-again/off-again relationship with the First Amendment.
Brendan Carr pretends to be a defender of free-speech rights when it suits his right-wing agenda but disappears into the ether when he should be protecting expression that doesn’t align with Trump’s authoritarian aims.
His mind-bending inconsistencies on free-speech rights would sound alarms under normal circumstances, especially for someone tapped to lead the federal agency that oversees the media sector. But these aren’t normal times. And Carr’s dodgy doublespeak on government censorship seems designed to please an incoming president who’s intent on undermining the essential freedoms that flow from the First Amendment.
Carr vs. the facts
During a September hearing before the House of Representatives, Carr refused to speak out against Trump’s suggestion that ABC should lose its broadcast licenses because two of its journalists had fact checked the former president during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. Instead he told members of the House Commerce Committee that the law and the First Amendment guide all of his decisions — an assertion that doesn’t withstand even the slightest scrutiny.
Carr has already weaponized his future role as the government’s top media regulator by threatening to shut down the speech of anyone who questions Trump’s leadership.
In an October Fox News interview, Carr came after CBS for airing an edited interview with Harris during 60 Minutes. Editing interviews is a standard practice of television journalism, but Carr suggested that CBS violated the FCC’s seldom-invoked news-distortion policy, adding that the government could punish the network. In particular, he said that the 60 Minutes interview could factor into the agency’s review of the Skydance-Paramount merger (Paramount is CBS’ parent company).
Carr then took to Twitter to attack NBC after Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live, wrongly calling it “a clear and blatant effort to evade the equal time rule” — even though NBC did provide Trump equal time later that same weekend. Carr suggested on a subsequent Fox News appearance that the FCC should “keep every remedy on the table,” including revoking the broadcast licenses of local television stations owned by NBC and Telemundo, subsidiaries of Comcast.
“The FCC traditionally avoids regulating broadcast radio and television content except in extremely narrow circumstances, such as indecency,” Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González wrote in a commentary for The Hill. “ … Carr has shown that he is willing to break with [this] longstanding and bipartisan FCC precedent to punish Trump’s detractors.”
America’s top censor
In November, Carr went on the attack again. In a letter addressed to the CEOs of the world’s largest technology platforms, he argues that they are facilitating “censorship” by allowing fact checking on their sites — something they as private companies have an unambiguous First Amendment right to do. In Carr’s distorted view, however, such fact checking violated Americans’ right to be misinformed.
Carr is “rushing to be America’s top censor,” Mike Masnick, a widely read champion of the First Amendment, wrote at Techdirt. “Threatening to revoke broadcast licenses over unfavorable coverage is a blatant First Amendment violation. The government cannot use its licensing power to control or punish the speech of private actors. Carr surely knows this but doesn’t seem to care.”
It’s hard to comprehend how anyone who’s read the 45 words of the First Amendment could come away with such a blatant misunderstanding of its intent. Carr’s recent actions have made it necessary to repeat the obvious: The First Amendment protects people from government censorship; it does not protect government actors like Trump and Carr from criticism and fact checking.
Turning the FCC into the ‘roving speech police’
Carr has already weaponized his future role as the government’s top media regulator by threatening to shut down the speech of anyone who questions Trump’s leadership.
But it wasn’t long ago that Carr was preaching from a different pulpit, although with the same aim: to silence opposing views and advance his highly partisan agenda.
In March 2020 — as the global pandemic set in — Free Press called on the FCC to offer guidance on its interpretation of the agency’s “broadcast-hoax rule.” At the time a number of licensed broadcasters had aired false and misleading information about the COVID-19 crisis without providing the kinds of context or disclaimers the rule suggests.
Rather than take up Free Press’ good-faith suggestion, Carr went on the attack, making the false claim that our media-democracy organization “want[ed] to turn the FCC into a roving speech police empowered to go after the left’s political opponents” (emphasis added).
In actuality, the Free Press petition merely asks the FCC to issue guidance on the broadcasting of disinformation about COVID-19 at a time when thousands of Americans had already succumbed to the disease.
Violating his First Amendment oath
Carr auditioned for the lead part at the FCC by repeatedly threatening to do what he once falsely accused Free Press of doing: turning the agency into the “roving speech police.” And his anti-free-speech stridency has captured the attention of Elon Musk, who has leveraged his control of X’s algorithms to amplify Carr’s tweets — while positioning his broadband access company Starlink to benefit from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants that flow through the FCC.
As Masnick wrote: “Carr is smart and he knows exactly what he’s doing here. He is couching his extreme censorial desires in the language of free speech, knowing that most people won’t know enough or understand the details and nuances to recognize what he’s doing.”
Free Press is tracking Carr’s First-Amendment flip flops very closely, and exercising our right to call out Trump’s pick to chair the FCC whenever he fails to honor his sworn oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Carr is duty bound to ensure that government forces don’t restrict the speech of private individuals and entities. As the recent past shows, however, he routinely fails to protect free speech with any consistency, preferring to wrap himself in dishonest rhetoric about the First Amendment as he pursues his — and Trump’s — desire to censor others.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular