[claytongulick]

My understanding (please correct me if it's incorrect) is that the "worst-case" scenario for a broadcaster is that they may have to upload a record of political air time to a public file.

If an opposing candidate sees this, they can then request equal air time from that broadcaster.

The rule is in place so that one party or viewpoint can't dominate broadcast media. That's a good thing right?

The rule change here is that traditionally "bona fide" news programs have been, by default, issued an exception to the rule. That has spawned a bunch of "pseudo-news" shows that have also been claiming this exception. Here, the FCC is now saying "hey, you don't just automatically get granted an exception to the rule and get to call yourself a bona fide news program if you're not actually one"". That seems completely reasonable to me.

Broadcast media is held to this FCC standard because they are granted a monopoly for a broadcast spectrum, and it isn't physically possible for a competitor to broadcast on the same spectrum. Streaming etc... doesn't need to follow these rules.

I do think it's wrong that talk radio doesn't seem to be held to the same standard, though.

[vharuck]

The worst case scenario now is not limited by process and law. Compliance with politics is taken into consideration for all government business. For examples, see the executive orders blacklisting specific law firms, the withholding of funds to states or areas that vote Democratic, and the threat of investigation into a network after a host said something the President didn't like.

[patmorgan23]

Up until this month, talk show interviews were exempt from the equal time rule.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The worst case scenario for a broadcaster is that the FCC commissioner will fabricate an excuse to illegally yank their license, which both he and his boss have explicitly threatened to do to any broadcaster which won't agree to stop criticizing Donald Trump. I agree that one could imagine a reasonable system of broadcast regulation where opinionated talk shows don't host political candidates, but that's not what's going on here.

[claytongulick]

> but that's not what's going on here.

How?

Everything I've seen is that is specifically what's going on, do you have different information?

The only threat to pulling a license would be if they didn't comply with the FCC rule change, that we've both agreed is reasonable, correct?

Do you have specific examples of the administration threatening to pull a license due to criticism? If that's the case, I'd certainly be vehemently against such action, just as I was when the government illegally acted to suppress and censor alternate viewpoints during covid.

[SpicyLemonZest]

When the FCC chair originally announced he was pursuing this (https://time.com/7318743/abc-kimmel-the-view-brendan-carr-fc...), he was pretty clear that he was doing so in pursuit of the President's directive to punish broadcast channels that say things he doesn't like. Trump himself was pretty explicit that the ultimate goal is pulling their broadcast licenses and his subordinates should fabricate an excuse.

As you say, the FCC has declined to pursue talk radio programs over this issue, even though they're clearly subject to the rule in principle. That's not a mistake, it's because those programs push viewpoints the President favors so he doesn't want to punish them.

[claytongulick]

Thank you for the link and the concrete reference, I hadn't seen that before.

I think the article and the video summaries I've seen of that interview are a little deceptively edited, but the idea appears to be the same.

Apparently, it's illegal to knowingly broadcast false information [1] within certain guidelines, and that can indeed cause a license revocation:

"The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial “public harm” if aired. FCC rules specifically say that the “public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.”

The FCC chair referenced this law in response to Jimmy Kimmel claiming that the Charlie Kirk shooter was "maga":

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”

While this was demonstrably untrue, and it was widely known to be untrue at the time, I agree that it doesn't appear to meet the FCC standard I quoted above.

I actually find the FCC rule itself a bit disturbing, as it seems to position the government as an arbiter of truth.

It isn't a new problem, Jefferson struggled with how to deal with it too [2]

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle"

What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a FCC license? Who gets to determine whether it's false?

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/broadcasting_false_i...

[2] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_sp...

[ImPostingOnHN]

> What do you suggest as a solution? Should false information be ok to broadcast with a ... license?

This seems like begging the question. The issue here obviously isn't truth vs untruth, it is fealty to the regime vs opposition to the regime. All the evidence points in this direction, and there isn't a better case yet made in the opposite.

Witness the example cited above: right-wing talk radio, famous for spreading untruthful info and agreeing with the regime, is let off scot-free. Or how the regime itself spread untruths about Alex Pretti after they killed him. That categorically debunks any purported "truth vs untruth" decision criteria and seems to confirm the fealty vs opposition decision criteria.

Fun thought experiment: re-read this situation, but imagine it took place in russia, by putin's hand. Like seriously, what oppressive regime in modern history HASN'T had some variation of silencing the opposition "for broadcasting 'false information'"?:

> On the morning of March 4, the last remaining independent news outlet in Russia — the award-winning Novaya Gazeta — announced the end of its reporting on the war in Ukraine in response to Russian government demands.

> A new law that bans the “dissemination of knowingly false information” about the Russian armed forces — and carries up to a 15-year penalty — was the final blow. [0]

0: https://niemanreports.org/putin-ukraine-russia-media/

[claytongulick]

There's definitely a "both sides" argument here, but honestly that's boring and doesn't really move a conversation forward.

The problem isn't simple, and there don't seem to be obvious answers - civilizations have been struggling with it since recorded history.

I assume you're not trying to make the point that exceeding authority is a characteristic limited to the current administration are you?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

We've been asking this since at least 1st century Rome.

I think it's more important to evaluate systems, institutions and their effectiveness than specific politicians.