My time was a generation ago. I chaired the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the George HW Bush administration. Censorship was not on our priority list. Except: for protecting children from “indecent” content as was required by a law passed by Congress. The focal point was Howard Stern, whose morning show was broadcast by Infinity Broadcasting.
A Stern critic on the West Coast filed numerous complaints against the broadcaster because of Stern’s sometimes indecent repartee with sidekick Robin Quivers. In the end, Infinity was fined and several years after appealing, the fine was paid. And Stern, he ended up behind a subscription pay wall. His retort, he wished me dead in a 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley.
The FCC actions were taken only after all five Commissioners agreed that particular Stern routines were actionable. It took weeks for the five to concur. And while this action consumed hundreds of hours, its priority was relatively low as the Commission was concentrating on a range of radio frequency dependent technology issues that promised new services and a dramatic increase in telecommunication competition.
Now the new Commission chair, Brendan Carr, just appointed by President Trump, has decided to put the Commission in the business of news censorship. His actions are akin to becoming a campaign aide to the President. He has ordered the broadcast news networks to provide the Commission with transcripts and videos so that he can decide whether there was bias in reporting. Yes, the FCC’s Chair wants to be the ultimate editor.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, one of the FCC’s targets is the CBS show 60 Minutes and an interview it did with the Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The FCC is reviewing the 60 Minutes interview with Harris as part of its evaluation of Paramount Global’s proposed $8 million merger with Skydance Media. This scrutiny arises from a $10 billion lawsuit filed by President Trump against CBS alleging that the network deceptively edited the October 7, 2024 interview to favor Harris’s Presidential campaign.
I cannot think of a more egregious use of government power. The constitution guarantees free speech and in the United States we have dozens of news sources and outlets from local to international. In short, no speech is protected from competition. Carr knows this and that is what makes his actions thoughtless— no, cynical. When the Commission I chaired was confronted with Howard Stern’s transcripts, we were acting under a specific law intended to protect children. Carr is acting extra-legally.
Carr also knows that Shari Redstone who controls Paramount wants this action to go away for fear that it will interfere with her merger effort. CBS should have taken legal action to block the Commission’s actions; it hasn’t.
Again, going back to yesteryear, weighing every word of a Howard Stern racy morning show to determine if his words, in context, were indecent was tedious, time consuming and in a larger cultural context fruitless. If the FCC, led by Carr, is to become a news censor, its integrity will be compromised and in the final analysis a more principled broadcast news outlet will contest Carr’s actions. The courts will find them to be unconstitutional. In the meantime the “public interest” standard that defines FCC actions will have been carelessly undermined by subservience to a transient political power.
The right to free speech is not an Executive Order. It is not a vague law open to interpretations. It is constitutional and foundational. It is at its most elevated level of importance during periods of disruption. Maybe the DOGE element of President Trump’s administration should take a look at reducing costs by limiting or eliminating the FCC if they have enough time to perform unconstitutional acts.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
chris kayhoe says
You know nothing about Free speech! Have you even heard about the Hunter Biden Laptop, or Hillary Clinton paid for dossier? What about the democratic led media or the Biden administration that has been lying to the entire world about the dementia riddled ruler of the USA for the last 4 years. Or the big democrat led social media corporations extinguishing and censoring all competition on Biden orders? Is That YOUR free speech YOU SPEAK ABOUT? Please tell us all about it Freely.
Willard T Engelskirchen says
Mr. Kayhoe: Some will take what you wrote seriously I fear. Careful there. Remember the president won by a landslide even though he did not get 50% of the vote.
Paul Rybon says
I agree with Mr. Kayhoe. For instance, during the Biden years, newsman Stepanopoulas was free today, repeatedly that Trump was a convicted rapist without getting slapped by the fcc. Trump finally had to sue. The courts now have become the arbiter of what is free speech.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Funny how with a turn of the worm, Trump opponents are suddenly concerned with free speech, after Biden Administration’s massive effort to curtail speech four ways to Sunday.
darrell parsons says
I’d like to see the research on the “Biden Administration’s massive effort to curtail speech four ways to Sunday.”
P. Ortiz says
I support Mrs. Sikes’ analysis. Winning an election does not give the current administration the power to act in contravention of the Constitution. I am adding my comment to counter the comments posted to date with which I do not agree. I would encourage other readers who concur with Mr. Sykes to voice their agreement.
Kathleen James-Chakraborty says
Really lovely to see this through a link from the New York Times. Congratulations to Mr. Sikes and to the Spy!