Biden and Harris Ignoring First Amendment – Sidebar for Their Own Gain?

During his tenure, President Donald Trump staunchly advocated for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider licenses for major American broadcasting stations that he deemed biased. This became evident from his late-night posts on social media wherein he pointed out that major networks such as the Disney-owned ABC and Comcast-owned NBC should have their licenses revoked due to their one-sided and erroneous reporting.

Trump’s belief stemmed from what he saw as the networks’ consistent approach to broadcasting ‘bad stories’ about him. An assertion, he claimed, resonated with many who found their journalistic integrity lacking. He didn’t mince words in expressing his wholehearted support for such a drastic step of license revocation in order to ensure nonpartisan reporting.

The issue at hand involves the eight-year licenses that the FCC, an independent federal agency, grants to individual broadcast stations, not to entire networks. Also stirring the pot is the idea that broadcasters should be held financially accountable for the broadcast spectrum which they utilize, an opinion that Trump openly supported.

This simmering contention in the broadcasting industry saw more fuel added to its blaze when David Sacks, a White House adviser at the time, voiced out in an October briefing that this spectrum could be auctioned. Sacks proposed the revenue from such a concept being directed towards alleviating the national debt.

This topic gained more prominence last month when the FCC, by a narrow vote of 2-1, granted approval for an $8.4-billion merger of CBS parent Paramount Global and Skydance Media. Their mandate for approval extended to Skydance’s pledge to ensure CBS news and its entertainment content upholds neutrality and appoints an ombudsman for a minimum of two years for complaint redressal.

Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez was quick to voice her disapproval of the deal. In her harsh critique, she suggested the FCC was overstepping its authority, implementing controls on the newsroom that hadn’t been seen before. According to her, this violated the revered First Amendment and thus, the law.

Interestingly enough, Trump’s idea of license revocation based on the content was dismissed by then FCC Chair Ajit Pai during Trump’s first term. He declared that FCC’s authority does not extend to cancellation of licenses based on content, as per the law. An assertion which was perceived as direct opposition to Trump’s suggestions.

Pai went further to state unequivocally that under his leadership, the FCC would uphold the First Amendment, reiterating his staunch adherence to the principles of free speech even in the realm of broadcasting. Though whether this stance of his was perceived as a shield for biased news remains a point of contention.

This saga brings forth questions about the limits of governmental power, the role of agencies like the FCC, and the quality and objectivity of news. While bias in news reporting must be combatted, the potential for government interference presents its own concerns – all of which seem to have been ignored by those campaigning against Trump.

In this debate, one cannot ignore the intricacies of media ownership and control of broadcasting spectra. It is critical to ensure fair broadcasting, but one could argue that the systematic ridicule and scrutiny faced by the Trump administration, represented by the likes of ABC and NBC, is far from this ideal.

While always ‘in favor’ of the big corporations meeting their monetary obligations for using public resources, it seems that Trump’s adversaries are oddly silent on this issue. This adds another layer of complexity to the mix, calling into question the ulterior motives of those standing against the former president.

So, the question remains: Is it ethical or even practically feasible to revoke licenses based on perceived bias, as Trump suggests? And who holds the right to define what is biased and what’s not? In his critics’ minds, it seems, the argument is still tilted strongly in favor of the status quo, disregarding Trump’s valid concerns.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the mainstream media, often controlled by large conglomerates, seems unphased by these debates. Their indifference only fuels the narrative of the average American being unrepresented and unheard by the powerful elite.

The arguments raised by this case expand beyond media ethics. They open up a broader conversation about the balance of power, public representation and freedom of speech. These are fundamental issues that unfortunately find themselves being sidelined in the pursuit of political gain.

In an ideal world, the media should exist to speak truth to power, to ensure that everyone has a voice. But as this situation demonstrates, those values seem to be getting lost in the shuffle, sacrificed for a certain political narrative that is resistant to scrutiny, let alone criticism.