Brendan Carr Again Threatens Talk Shows That Refuse To Coddle Republicans
from the lazy-idiots-love-censorship dept
For more than fifty years the U.S. right wing has accused academia, journalism or science of having a “liberal bias” if it reveals absolutely anything the right wing doesn’t like. It’s an easy way to quickly discredit any critics of your worldview without having to engage in thinking, introspection, or debate, and it’s been on display for longer than many of us have been alive:
Media scholars will tell you that U.S. media is, indisputably, center-right and corporatist. As it consolidates, it increasingly serves billionaire and corporate ownership, not the public interest. Layer on fifty years of bullying over nonexistent “liberal bias,” and you get the kind of journalistic fecklessness that was on proud display last election season as the country stared down the barrel of authoritarianism.
A media that routinely coddles Republicans and corporate power and refuses to cover them honestly isn’t enough for folks like FCC boss Brendan Carr, who has been busy trampling the First Amendment during Trump’s second term. Whether it’s his bungled attempt to censor comedians, or his bullying of news outlets that tell the truth, Carr and his ilk demand absolute fealty by the entirety of modern culture and media.
Clearly, Carr is disinterested in learning from his stupid mistakes. In a post to the X right wing propaganda website last week, he took a break from destroying consumer protection standards to once again issue vague and baseless threats against talk shows that refuse to coddle Republicans:
If you can’t read it, Carr is threatening to leverage the “equal time” rule embedded in Section 315 of the Communications Act to take action against talk shows that don’t provide “equal” time to Republican ideology. Carr’s goal isn’t equality; it’s the disproportionate coddling and normalization of an extremist U.S. right wing political movement that’s increasingly despised by the actual public.
The “equal time” rule is a dated relic that would be largely impossible for the Trump court-eviscerated FCC to actually enforce. Republicans like Carr historically despised the equal time rule — an offshoot of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine, a problematic effort to ensure media fairness (specifically on broadcast TV) that Republicans have long complained was unconstitutional.
The rule was originally created to apply specifically to political candidate appearances on broadcast television, since back then, a TV appearance on one of the big three networks could make or break and politician attempting to run for office.
In the years since, the rule has seen numerous exemptions and, with the steady evisceration of the regulatory state by the right wing, is not something viewed as seriously enforceable. Enter Carr, who is distorting this rule to suggest that it needs to apply to every guest a late-night talk show has. It’s a lazy effort by Carr to pretend his censorship effort sits on solid legal footing. It does not.
Late night comedians had, well, thoughts:
It’s worth remembering that the Trump administration has consistently lobotomized FCC and FTC authority over corporations with one hand, at the behest of their corporate paymasters, while pretending agencies like the FCC have unlimited authority over those same companies. So even if Carr filed any sort of complaint against these companies, his lawyers wouldn’t have fun defending it in court.
It’s more broadly designed to warn major networks that they’re subject to costly and pointless legal headaches if they don’t take the more efficient and cost-effective route of kissing the unpopular president’s ass. Which, as we’ve seen with the CBS takeover and their firing of Stephen Colbert, and the bribes ABC has thrown at our mad idiot king, has been embarrassingly effective… so far.
It’s just another example of this administration’s weird hypocrisy when it comes to government power, free speech, and regulatory attempts to shape or stifle speech. But it’s also important to not see this as entirely new; right wing billionaires — often arm in arm with corporate power — have been attempting, with notable success, to dominate U.S. media and befuddle the electorate for generations.
It was that steady media deterioration at the hands of the right wing and corporate power that opened the door to Trump’s buffoonery in the first place. And, without a serious progressive media reform movement (which needs to include publicly funded media, serious media consolidation limits, and creative new funding models for real journalism), it’s only going to continue to get worse.
The obvious end point, if we can’t galvanize some form of reform resistance, will be the sort of state media control we seen in countries like Russia and Hungary. At which point all of the problems we’re seeing now at the hands of our violent, dim autocrats will only get worse.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, brendan carr, censorship, equal time rule, fcc, free speech, jimmy kimmel, media, propaganda, right wing, stephen colbert
Companies: abc, cbs



Comments on “Brendan Carr Again Threatens Talk Shows That Refuse To Coddle Republicans”
THAT’S LIBERAL BIAS!
Ok, let's be fair.
Every bit of time that a talk or satire show spends on a politician is deducted from his airtime before elections.
Equal coverage.
Re:
Would that include political advertising as well?
I dunno what exactly the law Carr cites means – I Am Not A Lawyer and all that – but if that law means what he says it means, then such a law clearly shouldn’t exist in a free country. In a free country, people have every right to be as motivated by purely partisan political purposes as they want to be. And, of course, everyone on the right-wing is motivated by purely ideological political purposes (though their loyalty to specific parties might wax and wane over time), so it’s completely ridiculous that they always act as if they’re uncovered some kind of big scandal every time they think they can show that other people have such motivations, too.
Besides, if we pretend for a moment that there’s an obligation to provide balance, why not have the networks balance their moderately right-leaning stuff with actual far left stuff?
News?
Since when are late night or daytime talk shows claiming to be “news”? Just as Fox News doesn’t claim to be “news”, they’re “entertainment” and thus, Carr’s panties are in a twist over someone making a joke about him and his ilk. Boo Hoo.
Re:
Carr, like every man attached to this regime, is remarkably small for his size.
They’re all tiny, fragile perma-boys who chose to grow mean instead of ever just growing the fuck up.
Re:
Jokes should be balanced, too.
Re: Re:
Right wingers don’t tell jokes. Their humor is just disgust and dehumanization of out groups and implied threats, with a lol as punctuation.
Re: Re: Re:
Then I feel weird for finding it hilarious when they act like they understand how reality works.
Re: Re: Re:2
That tracks. They don’t tell jokes. They are the joke. Unfortunately the killing joke sometimes…
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s not being intentionally funny.
Re: Re: Re:
(short guy walks past)
“Hey Shorty!”
(turns to buddies)
“Ha ha, I called that guy ‘Shorty’! Can you believe it? I’m crying with laughter now! ‘Shorty’! That’s incredible! Ha ha ha!”
Re: Re:
Here’s a balanced joke: A set of scales with Trump’s brain on one plate and a fruit fly’s on the other.
Re: Re: Re:
Starving off fruit flies is animal cruelty.
Re:
The punchline is that at this point comedians are quite frequently a better and more accurate source of information on current events than the self-described ‘news’ organizations.
Re:
Stop that.
A pedant writes...
Ahem. “Uninterested” not “disinterested”. Disinterested means an unbiased interest, like a football referee.
Which is clearly the last thing that springs to mind when talking about Carr.
Re: A further pedant writes...
Ackshually…
Re: Re:
Dodgy American English… 😉
Re: Re: Re:
Reminder that English isn’t a language—it’s a mugger that follows other languages down alleyways, bonks ’em on the head, and sifts through their pockets for loose verbs.
Re:
You know, even if you were right, you’d be derailing the conversation for no good fucking reason, so maybe don’t do that?
Re: Re:
That would suggest anybody reading that comment immediately loses interest in any other comments and all other conversations suffer. That’s not really how commenting works.
Re: Re: Re:
cool
Anyone who appeases him here will just face the same threat next week over a new grievance. And the week after, over yet another new grievance. Ad infinitum.
Same thing the rest of the world is starting to understand regarding the tariff threats. “Kiss the boot or I’ll tariff you. Give me your lunch money or I’ll tariff you. Give me Greenland or I’ll tariff you. Make me king of the world or I’ll tariff you.”
Bully tactics. There’s no payoff or good faith. Just incrementally taking more and more and more.
How do you make forced positive coverage of Trump in any way entertaining? Wacky sound effects over footage of people being murdered in the streets? Playing the Rocky theme as Trump successfully manages to descend a flight of stairs? Superimpose a face and make his mysterious bruise du jour into a wacky character that acts like a racist uncle?
Re:
That’s the neat thing: You don’t.
Re: Re:
Trump supporters in entertainment media have had a decade to figure out how to counter negative comedic coverage of him, and they have utterly failed to do so. Greg Gutfeld is the pinnacle of their achievements, which, oof…
Re:
You’re joking, but for fascists, that’s exactly their idea of entertainment. (Except that they probably wouldn’t want to be reminded of the mystery bruise.)
And before that they called it the global Jewish conspiracy. They changed it to “liberal” when saying the “Jewish” part out loud became unfashionable.
Re:
Much like their strategy for appealing to racists in the south.
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”
Re: Re:
That’s so 1968-2014. They’ve spent the last 11 years going back to the starting point.
Re: Re: Re:
Insofar as there’s a distinction between the Republican establishment and MAGA, I’ve come to think of it as the side that wants to keep saying “tax cuts” and the side that wants to go back to saying the N-word.
Re: Re: Re:2
Some truth in that, but a lot of individual super-rich guys seem to be a lot more unhinged in their own personal beliefs now than they or their predecessors were 20 years ago. To a large extent, they seem to have started buying the stuff themselves that they used to just sell to the right-wing base.
While the Fairness Doctrine may be defunct in a regulatory sense, it’s still in practice today via the incessant “view from nowhere” both sides journalism we see from the mainstream press.
...That is what he's aiming for, right?
I for one look forward to the likes of Fox and OAN being legally required to host and give screen time to a guest that is just as hostile to Trump and his regime as the other guests are friendly, in the name of ‘equal time’ and ‘balance’ of course.
Carr’s idea of ‘equal’ coverage would be one guest that’s gushing with praise for Trump and the regime with every single sentence balanced out with a guest that’s only saying something positive about it every other sentence.
Re:
Carr knows full well that they can’t regulate cable, satellite, or streaming with anything approaching this. If anything, that might be the biggest reason why the regulations should be scrapped altogether.
Ironically, though, this Public Notice would also apply to broadcast radio (even though it apparently wasn’t specifically mentioned). That’s because there’s no real delineation between TV and radio broadcasters within the regulations.
This has been Carr’s deal for years. He lives in his own reality that isn’t even required to be consistent with itself. He’s been on the commission for years and his votes have made fairly clear that he has no idea what his job has ever actually been.
His pre-commissioner tenure was largely him voting no on anything that might benefit the public, usually with an overwordy dissent claiming whatever he’s voting against being some grand conspiracy from the Biden administration.
But he’s willing to just barrel through whatever is going on without much regard for logic or law, so he makes a fine sycophant.