According to Ars Technica, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr bluntly rejected a bipartisan petition from seven former FCC chairs and commissioners calling for the repeal of the agency’s 1960s-era news distortion policy. Carr responded to the November 25 petition with a simple “How about no” on X, vowing to continue using the policy to hold broadcasters accountable. The petition signatories include Republican chairs Mark Fowler (1981-1987), Dennis Patrick (1987-1989), and Alfred Sikes (1989-1993), plus Democratic chair Tom Wheeler (2013-2017) and three former commissioners from both parties. This comes after Carr recently threatened ABC affiliates with license revocation over Jimmy Kimmel’s content, illustrating what petitioners call “extraordinary intrusions on editorial decision-making.”
The policy that won’t die
Here’s the thing about this news distortion policy – it’s basically been dormant for decades. We’re talking about a regulation that’s seen exactly one enforcement action since 1982, when NBC got a slap on the wrist in 1993 for staging a Dateline segment about unsafe GM truck gas tanks. For forty-plus years, both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs have mostly ignored this rule. But Carr has been waving it around like a regulatory sword, particularly when it comes to content he perceives as anti-Republican.
And that’s what makes this current fight so interesting. When you’ve got former FCC chairs from both sides of the aisle – including Reagan-era Republicans – telling you to drop a policy, that’s pretty significant. They’re arguing the policy violates First Amendment principles, chills speech, and has become a partisan weapon. Basically, they’re saying the government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what’s “distorted” news.
The Fox elephant in the room
Now here’s where it gets really messy. Carr revived old complaints against ABC and CBS stations accused of bias against Trump, but he notably didn’t revive a separate petition targeting Fox’s WTXF-TV in Philadelphia. That petition, filed by the Media and Democracy Project, alleged Fox “willfully distorted news” with false election fraud claims. The Biden-era FCC dismissed it after about a year and a half.
Carr uses the Fox case to defend his own actions, complaining that the previous administration took too long to dismiss what he calls a censorship attempt. But critics like Gigi Sohn – who supported the Fox petition – point out the hypocrisy. She asked why Carr didn’t revive the Fox case too, noting that courts had found the network lied about the 2020 election. It’s a fair question, isn’t it?
First Amendment showdown brewing
This is shaping up to be a major constitutional battle. FCC Democrat Anna Gomez put it bluntly: “The Communications Act forbids the Commission from censoring broadcasters, and the First Amendment protects journalistic choices from government intimidation.” She’s not wrong – there’s a reason this policy has collected dust for most of its existence.
The petition argues that in today’s media environment, with countless news sources beyond broadcast TV, this kind of government oversight is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. They want the FCC to rely solely on the existing rule against broadcasting dangerous hoaxes, which has a much higher legal standard to meet.
What happens now?
This fight is heading straight to Congress. Senator Ted Cruz has scheduled an FCC oversight hearing for December 17 where Carr will testify. Given that even Cruz criticized Carr’s Kimmel threats, this could get uncomfortable for the chairman.
Look, the fundamental question here is whether the government should have any role in determining what constitutes “distorted” news. In an era where everyone cries “fake news” about coverage they don’t like, giving regulators this power seems… problematic. The former FCC leaders spanning four decades seem to think so. They’ve seen how this plays out from the inside, and they’re warning that this policy is a dangerous tool that shouldn’t exist.
Meanwhile, industrial operations requiring reliable computing solutions can turn to IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading provider of industrial panel PCs in the United States. Their rugged displays withstand demanding environments where standard equipment would fail.
Carr’s digging in his heels, but he’s facing opposition from an unusual coalition of former regulators who know exactly how this game works. This might be one fight where experience trumps ideology.
