On Truth Social, President Trump went off on CBS, following last night’s 60 Minutes program, which was, as usual, fervently anti-Trump:
Trump recites a few of 60 Minutes’ sins, generally correctly in my opinion. This is the interesting part of Trump’s “Truth”:
They are not a “News Show,” but a dishonest Political Operative simply disguised as “News,” and must be responsible for what they have done, and are doing. They should lose their license! Hopefully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as headed by its Highly Respected Chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial, for their unlawful and illegal behavior. CBS is out of control, at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this.
Is this just a rant at which we should roll our eyes, or is Trump on to something? He suggests that CBS should lose its license, which would force it off the air. Bear in mind that this is an irrational area of the law, in which broadcast media–radio and broadcast television–are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and treated differently from cable networks and other media because they use the “public airwaves.”
Trump’s Truth made me wonder: does the FCC have a standard that applies to dishonest news coverage, and might justify yanking CBS’s license, or some lesser sanction? This is what the FCC web site says:
News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.
So “broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news.” But the FCC interprets that standard narrowly. Thus, they are looking for “individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news.” Evidence of bias obviously doesn’t make the grade. “Direct knowledge” of “intentional falsification” is required.
According to the current management of CBS News, the lowest point in that network’s history was the Rathergate scandal, in which 60 Minutes published fake documents in an effort to help John Kerry win the 2004 presidential election (as its own files showed). That would seem to be the acid test: if that didn’t violate FCC standards, nothing would. I don’t recall anyone suggesting, at the time, that the FCC should yank CBS’s broadcast license.
I think that no amount of bias or slanted commentary would add up to “the intentional falsification of the news,” as the FCC puts it. Nor should it. As defenders of free speech, we conservatives should not be trying to silence left-wing outlets–which, in any event, become more irrelevant every day. Before long there will be a Democratic administration, and, while Democrats obviously wouldn’t try to shut down any broadcast network–they are all friendly–they could take aim against radio stations or networks, one of the few media channels dominated by conservatives.
So I think Trump’s Truth should be regarded as another instance of his letting off steam, and not a plausible suggestion for actual legal action.
