Political activists on the left have initiated a persistent effort to discredit FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. He’s been singled out primarily for his support of small local broadcasters in meeting legal standards, positioning him as a significant adversary to democracy.
Critics of Carr depict him as a censor, conveniently overlooking the more extensive censorship initiatives linked to Joe Biden. However, a closer look reveals that Carr is simply fulfilling a federal obligation to guarantee that public broadcasting caters to the entire American populace, not just select political factions.
It’s essential to recognize that broadcast television differs fundamentally from cable, streaming, or podcasts. Local affiliates of major networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS operate on broadcast frequencies provided free of charge by the FCC—this represents a considerable privilege, akin to the taxpayer funding that supports NPR and PBS.
When Congress established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support NPR and PBS, it mandated a commitment to “strict observance of objectivity and balance in all programming.” The objective was straightforward: taxpayer-funded media should avoid becoming tools for political parties.
However, NPR and PBS did not adhere to this guideline. They accepted federal subsidies, disregarded the stipulated conditions, and claimed censorship when Congress finally pulled back a $1 billion funding package. Ending this taxpayer-supported funding was the only solution to address their ongoing violations.
While most local broadcast affiliates aren’t directly owned by networks, they often face pressure to showcase increasingly partisan network content. Yet, stations from cities like Birmingham to Billings, and even from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Pittsburgh, Kansas, have learned valuable lessons from the experiences of NPR and PBS.
Thankfully, Carr’s FCC has equipped these stations with much-needed clarity and assurance to reject network pressures.
This need became even more apparent during the final months of the 2024 campaign; for instance, ABC’s political reporting was overwhelmingly favorable towards Kamala Harris while being predominantly negative towards Donald Trump. In general, 85% of respondents held unfavorable views of Trump, in contrast to 78% who viewed Harris positively.
Such reporting doesn’t reflect journalistic integrity; it leans more towards a liberal echo chamber disguised with network branding.
Pointing out this imbalance doesn’t call for a shift to conservative programming or a backlash. Instead, it underlines the agreements these broadcasters have entered, which stipulate using public resources responsibly to serve all constituents rather than a select few.
Critics of Carr are quick to cry “censorship,” yet no voices are being stifled. Local stations have always possessed the authority to decline network programming that misrepresents reality or doesn’t align with community values. Carr is merely reminding them of this.
After a misleading suggestion from Kimmel regarding Charlie Kirk’s alleged assailant—who was indeed known for left-leaning extremism—many local stations chose not to air Kimmel’s show. The media headlines that followed condemned Carr, but it wasn’t him who suspended Kimmel; Disney’s CEO Bob Iger likely had a few thoughts on that situation.
Carr simply highlighted that “distortion of the news” might justify FCC intervention. Critics branded him as fostering “right-wing cancel culture,” yet these are the same individuals who endeavored to introduce FCC “monitors” in newsrooms during the Obama era. When that plan failed, they resorted to perfecting cancellation strategies that damaged careers and even led to book bans against dissenters and social ostracism of non-conformists.
Now, when private corporations respond to community feedback by holding entertainers accountable, it becomes “censorship.” But Carr’s interpretation of the law was mandated. Congress granted that authority to the FCC, and the FCC acted as required.
Washington policymakers contemplating the FCC’s future have choices. They can either commend Carr for his balanced methods or dismantle the “public interest” standard and auction off the airwaves. While some might argue for a free-market approach, this doesn’t align with the left’s objectives.
What they seek is significantly more detrimental: a taxpayer-funded, partisan media conglomerate that evades accountability while effectively serving as an extension of the Democratic Party. This runs counter to the intentions of the First Amendment.
If Congress is hesitant about privatizing the spectrum, it should at least enhance protections for local affiliates, clarify their right to refuse non-compliant content, and ensure that the FCC remains an impartial entity rather than a co-opted partner in ideological agendas. If the major networks oppose this, they have the option to relinquish their substantial federal subsidies and divest from local stations.
