What Powers Does the FCC Have to Revoke a TV Network's License?

This article explores the implications of President Donald Trump's recent comments suggesting that TV networks critical of him should face licence revocation. It examines the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the ramifications for broadcasting freedom in the US.

Last updated: 15 October 2023 (BST)

Key Takeaways

• Trump's comments raise questions about the FCC's power over broadcasting licences.
• The FCC historically does not regulate content but can influence corporate mergers.
• Recent actions against ABC's Jimmy Kimmel suggest political pressure on broadcasters.
• Commissioners hold varied political affiliations, impacting FCC decisions.
• The Fairness Doctrine, eliminated in 1987, previously required balanced coverage on controversial issues.

The Context of Trump's Remarks

During a recent flight aboard Air Force One, President Trump suggested that television networks which provide him with "bad publicity" should potentially have their broadcasting licences revoked. This statement has raised eyebrows and concerns regarding the administration's authority over the FCC, the body that regulates broadcasting in the United States.

Trump's comments came in the wake of a controversy involving Jimmy Kimmel, a late-night host on ABC, who made remarks regarding a murder suspect linked to right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk. Trump's assertion that networks could be penalised for negative coverage has rekindled debates surrounding press freedom and government overreach.

Understanding the FCC's Role

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established in 1934 with the aim of regulating interstate and international communications. Initially tasked with managing scarce radio frequencies, the FCC's role expanded to include television broadcasting. However, its authority is primarily limited to local TV and radio stations, excluding cable and satellite channels.

The commission does not directly oversee national networks such as NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox. These networks provide programming to local affiliates, which are the entities that hold the actual broadcasting licences. The FCC's responsibilities include establishing rules for content decency and obscenity, as well as ensuring compliance with public interest standards.

Can the FCC Revoke Broadcast Licences?

The question of whether the FCC can revoke broadcasting licences is complex. While the FCC has the authority to deny the transfer of licences during corporate mergers, the actual revocation of a licence requires a formal legal process. This process must demonstrate that a broadcaster has violated specific FCC rules or regulations.

Legal experts, including Daniel Deacon, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan, note that while the FCC can influence corporate mergers by blocking licence transfers, direct action against broadcasters for content is less straightforward. The agency is bound by the First Amendment, which protects free speech and limits government interference.

The Current Composition of the FCC

The FCC is led by five commissioners, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As of now, the commission includes three members: Brendan Carr, a Republican who serves as chairman; Anna Gomez, a Democrat; and Olivia Trusty, a Republican. Two positions remain vacant, following resignations earlier this year.

The political affiliations of the commissioners can significantly impact FCC decisions. For instance, Chairman Carr's recent remarks regarding Jimmy Kimmel suggest an alignment with the current administration's stance on perceived media bias. Critics, including Gomez, have expressed concerns that such political pressure undermines the independence of the FCC.

The Controversy Surrounding Jimmy Kimmel

The situation escalated when FCC Chairman Carr indicated potential regulatory action against Kimmel after the host made comments perceived as disparaging towards Trump supporters. Carr's statement that the FCC could explore "remedies" raised alarms about government overreach and censorship.

Within hours of Carr's remarks, Nexstar and Sinclair, two major companies owning local ABC affiliates, announced they would suspend Kimmel's programme. ABC later confirmed the indefinite suspension, leading to allegations that the decision was influenced by the Trump administration.

Nexstar's president described Kimmel's comments as "offensive and insensitive," yet the company insisted that the decision to suspend the show was made independently of any communication with the FCC or government officials. This highlights the blurred lines between corporate governance and political influence.

The Legacy of the Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was established in 1949 to ensure that broadcasters presented contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. However, the rule was abolished in 1987 during the Reagan administration, leading to a significant shift in how broadcasting content is regulated. Currently, while broadcasters are required to provide equal airtime to political candidates, there is no mandate for balanced coverage on other matters.

Despite the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC retains the authority to regulate aspects of broadcasting content, albeit with significant constraints. Experts warn that the agency's broad powers mean that it can still impose penalties on broadcasters, although these instances have diminished since the 1980s.

Implications for Press Freedom and Broadcasting

The implications of Trump's comments and the FCC's actions extend beyond Kimmel's show. They pose a fundamental question about the balance of power between the government and the media. Critics argue that allowing political considerations to influence broadcasting decisions threatens the independence of the press and undermines the democratic principles that govern free speech.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, points out that broadcasters do not enjoy the same First Amendment protections as other entities. This creates a precarious environment where the government could exert influence over content through regulatory means, raising concerns about censorship and the chilling effect on free expression.

What Happens Next?

As the situation unfolds, the future of broadcasting regulation in the US remains uncertain. The FCC's response to political pressures, alongside the actions of major broadcasting companies, will likely shape the landscape of media freedom. The agency may need to clarify its stance on content regulation and the extent of its authority in light of recent events.

Moreover, as Trump continues to assert that networks critical of him should face consequences, broadcasters may find themselves navigating a landscape fraught with political scrutiny. The implications for press freedom could be profound, potentially leading to self-censorship among media outlets wary of government retribution.

Conclusion

In summary, President Trump's remarks about revoking broadcasting licences highlight critical questions about governmental authority over the media and the implications for press freedom in the United States. As the FCC grapples with its role, the interplay between politics and broadcasting will undoubtedly continue to evolve. The situation raises thought-provoking questions about how far the government should go in regulating content and the importance of maintaining an independent press.

FAQs

What is the FCC's role in regulating broadcasting?

The FCC regulates interstate and international communications, overseeing local radio and television stations. It establishes rules for content decency and public interest broadcasting but does not directly control the national networks.

Can the FCC revoke a broadcaster's licence?

Yes, the FCC has the authority to revoke broadcasting licences, but this requires a formal legal process and evidence of rule violations. It is not a straightforward action and involves significant legal scrutiny.

What was the Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was a rule requiring broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. It was abolished in 1987, leading to a shift in how broadcasting content is regulated, especially regarding political coverage.

How do political affiliations of FCC commissioners affect decisions?

The political affiliations of FCC commissioners can influence regulatory decisions, particularly in politically charged contexts. A majority from one party may lead to policies that align with that party's views and priorities.

What are the potential consequences of government pressure on broadcasters?

Government pressure on broadcasters can lead to self-censorship, a chilling effect on free speech, and a compromised independence of the media. This may limit diverse viewpoints and hinder the role of the press in a democratic society.