The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a notice that daytime and late-night TV shows are exempt from providing equal airtime to all candidates in elections, but critics say the move is aimed at curtailing free speech.
The rule change stems from a 1934 law requiring broadcasters to provide equal time to candidates running for office. However, over the years, exceptions were made for "bona fide news shows," allowing programs like The View and Saturday Night Live to air without having to give equal time to all opposing candidates. But many argue that these exemptions have become too loose, and the FCC's latest notice is an attempt to tighten up the rules.
Analysts say the move could lead to broadcasters limiting which perspectives are aired and which are not, potentially amounting to censorship. "It costs money to stand up for principle," said Harold Field, senior vice president at Public Knowledge, a left-leaning think tank. The FCC's notice may also be used to drive a wedge between broadcasters and affiliates, pushing them to limit their content.
Critics argue that the move is part of a broader effort by the administration to control the narrative and undermine media independence. "The executive branch getting so powerful and increasing concentration of media ownership in corporate hands have created two forms of power that have colluded in ways that undermine media independence," said Margot Susca, assistant professor of journalism at American University.
Experts point out that this is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a trend seen in countries like Hungary and Russia, where media ownership has been concentrated in the hands of wealthy individuals aligned with politicians. The FCC's move could also push broadcasters to limit their content, as seen with the Paramount Skydance merger being approved only after it settled a lawsuit over Kamala Harris's interview on 60 Minutes.
The shift towards corporate consolidation of media ownership has already led to increased control by powerful corporations. As Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of Press Foundation, noted, "For-profit corporations are not known for their bravery." The move may also be aimed at limiting satire and comedy, as critics argue that this is a key aspect of free speech.
Ultimately, experts warn that the FCC's notice could have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly in the context of increasing corporate control over media. As Sohn said, "I like more speech, not less. Limiting it could be a concerning impact of this."
The rule change stems from a 1934 law requiring broadcasters to provide equal time to candidates running for office. However, over the years, exceptions were made for "bona fide news shows," allowing programs like The View and Saturday Night Live to air without having to give equal time to all opposing candidates. But many argue that these exemptions have become too loose, and the FCC's latest notice is an attempt to tighten up the rules.
Analysts say the move could lead to broadcasters limiting which perspectives are aired and which are not, potentially amounting to censorship. "It costs money to stand up for principle," said Harold Field, senior vice president at Public Knowledge, a left-leaning think tank. The FCC's notice may also be used to drive a wedge between broadcasters and affiliates, pushing them to limit their content.
Critics argue that the move is part of a broader effort by the administration to control the narrative and undermine media independence. "The executive branch getting so powerful and increasing concentration of media ownership in corporate hands have created two forms of power that have colluded in ways that undermine media independence," said Margot Susca, assistant professor of journalism at American University.
Experts point out that this is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a trend seen in countries like Hungary and Russia, where media ownership has been concentrated in the hands of wealthy individuals aligned with politicians. The FCC's move could also push broadcasters to limit their content, as seen with the Paramount Skydance merger being approved only after it settled a lawsuit over Kamala Harris's interview on 60 Minutes.
The shift towards corporate consolidation of media ownership has already led to increased control by powerful corporations. As Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of Press Foundation, noted, "For-profit corporations are not known for their bravery." The move may also be aimed at limiting satire and comedy, as critics argue that this is a key aspect of free speech.
Ultimately, experts warn that the FCC's notice could have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly in the context of increasing corporate control over media. As Sohn said, "I like more speech, not less. Limiting it could be a concerning impact of this."
I'm low-key freaked out about this move by the FCC 
. It's like, what even is the point of having free airtime if you can just cut corners and favor your buddies? 
This exemption for "bona fide news shows" has gotten way too loose, IMHO. I mean, who gets to decide what counts as a "news show" anyway? 
It's like they're trying to stifle dissenting voices and limit satire 
. For-profits are already getting cozy with politicians; now they want to silence opposing views? No thanks 
. This could be the death knell for independent media, and that would be a total loss 
. Can't we just keep things fair and equal? 
what's next gonna be ppl telling you what jokes u can or cant make? i mean we need more free speech, not less 
its like the gov is trying to control whats on our screens and in our heads 
I don't get why the FCC is so strict about equal airtime for TV shows. Can't they just let broadcasters have some freedom to choose who they want to feature? It's not like they're forcing them to run propaganda or anything 
. And what's with all this talk of "censorship" and "media independence"? It feels like people are overthinking this one 
.
.
For-profits trying to squeeze out free speech is not cool at all...
That's not exactly the kind of free speech I'd want to see more of. And let's be real, this whole thing feels a lot like the administration is trying to exert some control over the narrative, which isn't cool at all. 
.
. If we're not careful, we risk losing the very thing that makes our democracy strong: an open and diverse exchange of ideas 
.
anyway back to this fcc stuff...i think we need to be super careful about who we're giving more power to because at the end of the day it's all just a matter of money and influence 
the thought of fcc telling bcasters which angles they can take just feels like it's gonna stifle some really important conversations. 