A fierce clash over free speech and FCC power has thrust broadcasters into the center of a national storm, with NAB President Curtis LeGeyt, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and President Donald Trump weighing in as Democrats demand FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s resignation.
The controversy erupted after Carr appeared on The Benny Show, a Cumulus Media–distributed podcast, where he said Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! about Charlie Kirk’s assassination were not in the public interest and might warrant fines or license action.
Nexstar Media Group, which has a pending deal that requires FCC approval, and Sinclair Inc. subsequently preempted Jimmy Kimmel Live!, followed by ABC’s indefinite suspension of the program.
On his iHeartMedia-distributed Verdict podcast, Sen. Cruz broke ranks with President Trump, saying, “What [Carr] said there is dangerous as hell,” and compared Carr’s approach to organized crime tactics, saying it was “right outta Goodfellas.” “If the government gets in the business of saying what can’t and can’t say what you, the media have said, we’re going to ban you from the airwaves,” Cruz warned. “If you don’t say what we like, that will end up bad for conservatives.”
At the same time, President Donald Trump defended Carr in the White House on Friday, calling him “a great American patriot” while suggesting that negative coverage violates laws. “They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “See, I think that’s really illegal.”
Trump argued that broadcast licenses should be conditional on favorable coverage, stating, “Personally, you can’t take, you can’t have a free airwave if you’re getting free airwaves from the United States government.” He claimed that because “97 percent of the stories” about him were negative, “that’s no longer free speech. That’s just cheating.”
The dispute has created divisions within the FCC. Commissioner Anna Gomez stated bluntly that “this FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes.”
Perhaps it is fitting that this debate comes the same week as First Amendment Day, an honorary holiday created to commemorate the freedoms ensured to Americans by our Constitution. This was the focus of NAB President LeGeyt’s statement, which emphasized that even perceptions of government pressure damage broadcasters’ relationships with audiences.
“The First Amendment affords our stations — and all Americans — this fundamental right, and the mere perception that broadcasters acted because of undue pressure is a problem for our credibility and the trust we have built with our audiences,” LeGeyt wrote.
The NAB chief acknowledged that efforts to shape broadcast coverage are not new, pointing to examples across both parties and multiple administrations. He warned that political threats against broadcasters set a dangerous precedent. “These attempts were wrong then, and they are wrong now,” he stated.
LeGeyt connected the current clash to broader industry challenges, noting that broadcasters already face steep competition from tech platforms. He cautioned that the risk of political interference in license ownership could further dissuade investment in local journalism.
“NAB is fighting every day in Washington to ensure broadcasters have the scale to compete with national and global behemoths, to invest in newsrooms and local programming, to innovate and deliver freely available content to every American,” LeGeyt said. “But all of that is futile if we cannot fulfill our most sacred responsibility: reporting to our communities without fear of government retribution.”
He closed by calling the debate, “a reminder that the ability of local broadcasters to speak without fear of intimidation or interference is essential for the health of our democracy.”
LeGeyt’s full statement is available via the NAB.
Free speech is one thing, but…there is no “but” in the first amendment.
While the 1st amendment and protection of free speech is something we enjoy in this country, broadcasters should be held to a higher standard. Reporting and broadcasting false information, information that incites riots, assassinations, slanderous information and or information and programming that can be deemed dangerous should not be broadcast. If we are celebrating someone’s murder and broadcasting rhetoric that promotes and encourages unrest or worst, then broadcasters need to be held accountable. Free speech is one thing, but if you are the cause for civil unrest due to the garbage that you broadcast, then your station(s) and networks are about as worthy as someone broadcasting false EAS tones, broadcasting false SOS and Maydays!
Get a grip and tone down the nonsense and there won’t be an issue!
Got it!?!!?!?
Good!
“if you are the cause for civil unrest”
You mean like saying the 2020 election was stolen? When did the FCC come after all the conservative talk stations? Tone down the nonsense.
Comments are closed.