I don't trust Carr's judgment (or his ability to articulate the scope of the FCC's power), but I wish his critics would be meticulous about the broadcast media context and the "public interest" limitation imposed on licensees.
25 సెప్టెంబర్, 2025
"Driven by the belief that liberal tech and media companies have unfairly silenced viewpoints on the right, [Brendan] Carr is working to transform the F.C.C. from a once sleepy agency..."
"... best known for licensing local TV stations and expanding 5G cellular networks into a protector of conservative speech.... Mr. Carr, who became the F.C.C. chairman in January, has argued in recent days that he has been a consistent champion of the First Amendment and said he was helping protect free speech by weighing in on local TV programming decisions that no longer serve the public interest.... Much of the F.C.C.’s power lies in its control over licenses for stations that lease access to airwaves. A license holder is 'required by law to operate its station in the "public interest, convenience and necessity,"' according to the agency, which has rarely revoked licenses.... '[Local broadcasters] have something special that distinguishes them from lots of other speakers, which is that they have this right to use the federal spectrum, which is a scarce resource,' Mr. Carr said at the public meeting. 'For a lot of years, the F.C.C. walked away from enforcing that public interest obligation.'"
పోస్ట్లు
55 కామెంట్లు:
The Left really hates it when the weapons they forged are used against them.
Yes, there should be more acknowledgment that some media, more or less the old "broadcasters," even though noone broadcasts any more, come under regulation that noone else does. Carr is not insane. On the other hand, this matters a lot less than it did in the 70s, so we don't all have to weigh in on who should be silenced. That's a Twitter or Facebook debate. I'm so old I can remember people saying: don't worry, the internet has so many moving parts, noone can control it. Hah hah hah.
FCC as longtime protector of conservative speech is the biggest lie I’ve read in awhile.
into a protector of conservative speech
...IOW a protector of speech...
Yes. Seeing as how we all learned the Democrats of the previous Congress were spending their days and nights cruising social media looking for content to censor, then sending directives to Twitter et al...
The belief, or the absolute way they have censored the right for years?? It's not just a belief. It is 100%true.
My favorite NYT comment:
“Of course there’s a liberal bias in media. We are the only ones who believe in peer reviewed data, best practices, and reality.“
The Dems took away the RKO General broadcast licenses at a time when the company was aligned with the Republicans. The business practices purportedly at issue were improper billing and the maintenance of slush funds. All of the supposed wrongdoing had simple civil law remedies. One cancellation had a huge deterrent impact, and the thing being deterred was alignment with Republicans.
I reject the idea that because previous administrations ignored and/or took a hands off approach to content that the current administration has no obligation to follow original FCC obligations...
Why do we need the FCC? There's no technical or organizational reason why the broadcast spectrum can't be managed by an independent organization. Internet IP addresses and web domain names for example are governed by ICANN, which remains an independent organization despite attempts by EU, China and Pres. Obama to assert control.
This is great news to me, this distinction of those very few channels that are freely available to everyone. Never heard of it that way, but it reminds me of the wisdom and care of the best late night fellah ever, Johnny Carson. He clearly understood and polished this principle to a delightful shine.
Fallon, Colbert, Seth Meyers, Kimmel et al. are ultimately self-defeating. The government has no legitimate role in suppressing their stuff. I only wish I knew who their advertisers are, so I could stay away from their products.
@Ampersand, as with almost all major media, I'm sure Big-Harma is a sizeable percentage.
The best way for Carr to distance himself from past comments is to create a Disinformation Office and appoint a Czar.
I don't trust Carr's judgment..., but I wish his critics would be meticulous
Bad behavior all around is our normal.
The network propagandists, loss leaders or not, are present at the demand of shareholders like the Finks and State Streets. The current administration has briefly delayed them from establishing formal corporate social credit scores but their influence remains, hence the money losing shows remain...
Did they ever provide details about those earlier "rare" but existent license revocations? Seems relevant.
Of course Carr's mission sounds bad as presented in the NYT narrative, but the actual words quoted here were non-threatening. He is raising the question of enforcing the public interest. The NYT is raising the hypothetical "seeing" of liberal bias by Carr, with no evidence he saw anything.
Republicans pounce. They SAY there's liberal/left bias on TV. But of course, there isn't. LOL!
Its hilarious that little shit Jimmy Kimmel who's applauded and cheered every Republican/Conservative getting "cancelled" has become some sort of martyr for Free speech. Kimmel made "Jokes" about trump being thrown in jail, and laughed at the 1000 J6 protesters being tossed in jail. He loved it when Trump was banned from social media.
He's obviously is a political figure and he's giving us one side. Seems like a violation of broadcast standards. The best thing you can say in Kimmel's favor is that no one watches him. Especially under 55. He's just a political cheeleader for old leftwing boomers.
If you support such regulation, then you have to trust someone.
This is the problem with all regulation, and all government.
Congress can amend the FCC rules, right? Is this some sly way of calling for deregulation?
Here comes the chorus of the Dems favorite song: "There is no evidence..." , which of course always means "please don't bother looking at the abundant evidence."
I mean getting the Democrats to argue for deregulation? Whatever happened to that great Democrat idea to make it easy to sue the Feds when they curb your free speech? Y'know the bill that would pay lawyers to sue for free speech violations. We can get that done bipartisanly if you know what I mean.
I tend to think Carr's "easy way, hard way" comment was about the process Disney would have to go through (e.g., public comment, etc.) before any merger activity. You saw the turnout at the Kirk memorial; there will be a groundswell of organic opposition. Big companies for that reason hate the slightest public controversy. That's what makes it the "hard way."
Disney may have seen the need to placate Hollywood in the short-term by bringing Kimmel back, and hoped the MAGA types would go away. But that's unlikely to happen. Kimmel himself fell short upon his return. In the end, Kimmel will likely be gone, for "business reasons," before any merger process begins.
Carr probably should have maintained his silence on the issue or its likely trajectory. But I don't think he believed the FCC leadership would be needed to spearhead the opposition. In fact, Disney has myriad problems of their own making and timing. Didn't Disney just announce to its customers some form of rate increase?
I'm torn between letting liars lie for all to see and shutting them up. It would be an easy choice if half the country wasn't a lot more below average than they used to be.
Meanwhile, in real lawfare against Trump...
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
Speaking of DC Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui--he just denied Trump DOJ's request to detain Jacob Winkler, who used a red laser against a a Secret Service officer then pointed it at the president's helicopter as he took off from the White House last week.
"The red laser beam hit Officer Santiago’s eyes and briefly disoriented him. At this time, Marine One flew at a relatively low height and directly above Officer Santiago and [Winkler's] location. Marine One was close enough that the rotor noise was loud, and the aircraft appeared large overhead.
Officer Santiago approached [Winkler] after being flashed in the face with the red laser. Upon approach, [Winkler] looked up, oriented the same red laser pointer at the direction of Marine One and activated the red laser beam."
The case has now been assigned to...Beryl Howell.
1:20 PM · Sep 25, 2025
I will happily vote for anyone who will take the licenses to public airwaves away from the giant corporations and set up a system that allows the public to access these rf bands.
""When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
So far Carr has spoken of protecting the public interest, while the networks and the left have consistently shredded the right with lies and innuendo for the bulk of my life. I am okay with you not "trusting" Carr, but we already know that the media itself is beyond trust.
Google, Facebook, the Networks, etc. all caved when Biden put pressure on them to censure Trump, MAGA, and conservative voices. It seems we get "censorship" from the Left, no matter what it says in the Law books. And then we have the ADL which seems to dictate to our Media and Congress what can and cannot be said or allowed on the air.
I"d rather have honest, upright, censorship. In any case, we give TV stations the broadcast rights to use the public airwaves. They aren't "The free market". And they've always been reguluated.
You'll notice that youtube and the other social media are extremely vague about what will get you banned. They could make it crystal clear what can or cannot be said. you cant say X, you can't support Y. etc. But they leave it murky and unclear, because they want to ban whoever they don't like, whenever they feel like it.
Quick--name one "conservative" on network/broadcast TV who pushes conservative or Republican political talking points.
Fox News is on cable, for those of you in Rio Linda.
Policing knowingly false statements made on broadcasts over the Federal Spectrum falls within an appropriate responsibility of the federal government. Jimmy lied. No first amendment right to lie on the federal airwaves.
mccullough perfectly summarizes the Biden speech police policies
I don't think the FCC guy is thinking long term. I disagree with what he did with Kimmel... even tho Kimmel lied. Not just a small lie -a really big lie. Not a joke. Propaganda.
That said - after Kirk was assassinated by a leftist - we are very much done with the corrupt left.
Sadly - if the left ever gain power again - they will use this example to shut everything down and everything will be forced into a MSNBC-democratic party terrorism0only platform .
Just a reminder, Brendan Carr was one of the co-authors of Project 2025 and has made clear he actually wants the FCC to get more involved in policing speech.
It's been less than a week since Google has admitted that, at the direction of the previous administration, they followed explicit instructions to remove online access to thousands of private individuals and also public organizations for no good reason, and lots of bad ones.
And yet, having made this admission grudgingly and only after months of investigation and testimony by Congress, the broadcasters have hardly made mention of the story, much less provided investigatory insights of their own. Where are the news stories? Where is the outrage? We all know the answer: 'It's OK when our side does it.'
So they don't want it known, and they don't want the extent of the offenses comprehended by the general public. That's all the proof I need, having been in the cohort targeted by these activities, to want the FCC to become about 10x more ruthless in shining a light on these kinds of acts. If I need any reminding, all I have to do is pull up NPR and listen to 10 minutes of what was supposedly under dire attack and on their deathbed from defunding a few months ago, yet still seems remarkably unchanged since.
Screw every single one of these biased harpies. It's not that hard to pull together an objective litmus test that characterizes a Bias Quotient for any broadcaster. There are news aggregators that do it already. Shine a light on it, count the stories, evaluate the bias, quantify the extreme nature of the message, and put it up for everybody to see and argue over. Make it official, while not necessarily using it officially, for decision making for deciding on licenses - then it will become a topic of discussion all by itself, hopefully heated and energetic discussion. Make the broadcasters disclose their Bias Quotient on the air, every single day, at the top of every news broadcast. Because that's what the Progressive Left doesn't want more than anything else: People talking about it.
Aggie - right on.
Ron Ward- Tell us all about your feelings re project 2025. FEELINGS. Use actual quotes - not fake ones - actual in context quotes -from Project 2025.
After what Biden did regarding his absolute pressure and threats on Social Media giants to censor speech - We see nothing but silence from the dedicated left minion cult crowd.
Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds, Elvis above the waist, Janet Jackson’s boobie…after that FCC shows remarkable constraint but yah, don’t trust Carr, especially since he might saber rattle over leftie on-air shit posting. I mean, you guys NEED on-air shit posting, don’t you?
Google did admit Biden officials pressured them on content — that’s a legitimate concern worth debating. But turning that into ‘thousands silenced for no reason, media blackout, FCC must get ruthless’ is taking an ant hill and trying to build a mountain. There’s a difference between raising a valid point about government overreach and inflating it into an authoritarian solution of your own.
Sixty stations pulled told ABC they won't carry Kimmel. They still aren't carrying him. ABC pulled him for that reason. Then Iger's wife told him he isn't getting any unless Kimmel gets back on the air. The FCC doesn't need to get involved. The SEC is the agency that needs to get involved. Iger isn't acting in the shareholders best interest. I'm sure the national advertisers are looking for a rebate.
Ron - you just minimized something really huge. What Biden did while he was king - was beyond outrageous. It was criminal.
Peachy, it’s hard to take you seriously when every issue becomes ‘criminal king Biden.’ That’s not debate, it’s performance. If you have evidence of an actual crime, cite it. Otherwise, it’s just more heat without light.
"Iger isn't acting in the shareholders best interest."
That ship has been sailing for a very long time now and he even left and was brought back in to keep sailing it.
Driven by the belief that liberal tech and media companies have unfairly silenced viewpoints on the right
Belief? Like, without evidence?
Is the NYT unaware of the vast evidence proving this? Or do they know, but want their readers to remain ignorant?
Ronald J. Ward said...
Google did admit Biden officials pressured them on content — that’s a legitimate concern worth debating. But turning that into ‘thousands silenced for no reason, media blackout, FCC must get ruthless’ is taking an ant hill and trying to build a mountain. There’s a difference between raising a valid point about government overreach and inflating it into an authoritarian solution of your own.
So you don't care about the first amendment and you only view it as a tool to stop your opponents.
We already knew that.
The Difference between Left and the Right in sports slogans:
Left - Winning isn't everything, its the only thing. Just win baby, just win.
Right - Its not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game.
Achilles, you’ve already admitted constitutional protections no longer apply to those you deem political opponents. We don’t have to imagine or spin your position as you’ve made it adamantly clear.
You don't trust Carr Ann? Do you know him? Likely just doing what the NYT orders
Ronald J. Ward said...
Achilles, you’ve already admitted constitutional protections no longer apply to those you deem political opponents. We don’t have to imagine or spin your position as you’ve made it adamantly clear.
I have no problems entering into a contract with someone like Tulsi Gabbard. I disagree with her on pretty much everything. But we both respect each others rights and will defend each others freedom with our lives.
I will not enter into a contract with people who try to take other peoples first amendment rights away like you have.
You are an evil dishonest piece of shit who supported the Biden Regime's mass censorship for 4 years. The only time you ever believe in the First Amendment is to use it cynically as a weapon to gain power over us so you can take our 1st amendment rights away.
If you have evidence of an actual crime, cite it.
Ward wants "evidence". Very well.
I believe the number of social media sites that have admitted in writing that they silenced dissident American citizens at the behest of the Biden administration is now up to 4 or 5. It is longstanding jurisprudence that the Federal government may not enlist or pressure private parties to engage in a violation of civil rights that the government itself is forbidden to do.
In my view, the admissions these companies made about the Bidenistas and their strong-arm demands for censorship are prima facie evidence for the Federal crime of "Conspiracy Against Rights", 18 USC § 241. Each count is punishable by 10 years in prison, but if such an act results in death, the sentence can be upgraded to the death penalty.
I think the Justice Dept. should haul Biden's censorship czarina Nina Jankowicz into court in Wyoming or Arkansas and charge her with a thousand or so counts of this crime against the citizens of that Federal court district. If she flips for the prosecution, go after whichever superior gave the order, and so on all the way up the chain to whomever answers to Biden and ordered this gross authoritarian oppression against the civil rights of American citizens.
You happy with this cite, Ward? Did I get anything wrong here? Want to defend what these people did?
"I don't trust Carr's judgment (or his ability to articulate the scope of the FCC's power) ..."
Ann, I'm curious - Did you trust Jessica Rosenworcel's judgement? Did you even know who she was?
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.