David’s view
You’re probably caught up on the Jimmy Kimmel suspension, so I’ll spare you another refresher on Nexstar’s station acquisition bid or Brendan Carr’s victory GIFs.
An underappreciated consequence of this transformative story, though, is what happens to the politics of the FCC from here on out. Democrats benefited from the old media order, which seemed perfectly fair to them; Republicans believe their points of view will get better treatment under Carr’s new one, freed from decades of unfairness.
Under the system that President Donald Trump inherited, the FCC decided which media companies could buy each other, networks decided what went on the air, and viewers decided whether to watch. If citizens wanted to protest a show or a star, they could go right ahead. If they preferred to watch alternative programming, more outlets were popping up every day.
The FCC can fine networks if they air obscenities, though it’s used that power less frequently as the “vulgar wave” has washed through pop culture and viewers got comfortable hearing swears from Dr. House or a Real Housewife. The 2004 “wardrobe malfunction” debacle, ending with a $550,000 fine that CBS never had to pay, revealed how little public support there was for government censors.
Comedy and drama, on the major networks, became more liberal. Kimmel, like Stephen Colbert, went from acting as boorish right-wing caricatures to playing themselves — that is, liberals who dislike Trump and support vaccines. Conservatives built studios in Nashville and Provo to attract audiences who preferred content more in line with their perspectives.
Enter Trump and Carr’s new system, in which the FCC takes a side in what goes on the air. Nearly half of all voters supported Trump last year, and big stars on legacy broadcasters routinely mock their views. Conservatives beat those stars in the ratings, but they lack the major networks’ licenses and prestige.
The president has realized he has power to revoke one of those two assets.
Networks “give me only bad press.” he told Fox News during his visit to the United Kingdom this week. “I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think, maybe, their licenses should be taken away.”
This is the entertainment edition of Trump’s second-term project: using state power to topple “the ruling class.” The comedians, actors, and writers who staff major network shows are largely liberal and overwhelmingly anti-Trump. The owners of big media companies aren’t, nor are their customers.
So the administration has made it clear that the talent’s politics are less likely to get mergers approved.
Democrats like California Rep. Robert Garcia called all of this “an attack on the media and the First Amendment.” What would his party replace it with? The Democrats with an answer to that are the anti-monopolists, last seen battling the “abundance” wing of the party over donors and election messaging.
In the anti-monopolists’ view, media consolidation after the 1996 Telecommunications Act made Carr’s actions inevitable. The best way to neutralize the ability of government jawboning to control what gets aired, they say, is to break up the system.
“Fascism or authoritarianism don’t happen without concentrated markets,” said Reed Showalter, a Democratic antitrust attorney now running for Congress in Chicago. “If you’re a media company with 3% of the market, you can editorialize, but you can’t really censor. That’s how a healthy media market works.”
Democrats are not exactly anti-censorship when it comes to social media. In 2020 and 2021, many endorsed the deplatforming of Covid skeptics and election conspiracy theorists, arguing that there was a public interest in stopping misinformation.
Trump, on Day One of his second term, renounced that — only to support Carr’s campaign to remove Kimmel from the airwaves for spreading misinformation.
Democrats, if they replace Trump in four years, could renounce his approach to handling media mergers. But I doubt they’d return the FCC to the old, hands-off way of doing things. In exile, parties think very hard about what they should have done with their power.
Notable
- In his Big newsletter, Matt Stoller calls for the repeal of the 1996 law, and the passage of something else, “to de-concentrate our media and communications systems and ultimately get rid of the ability of corporate executives or political leaders to easily engage in coercive arbitrary behavior.”
- In The Federalist, Eddie Scarry argues that Democrats aren’t credible when they accuse Carr of attacking free expression. “The left’s priority isn’t free speech. It’s money and influence.”
- In Reason, Jacob Sullum accuses Carr of abusing his powers. “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that federal bureaucrats may not punish private companies for giving a forum to politically disfavored speakers.”