admin
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has made it plain: ABC’s decision not to carry President Trump’s primetime speech will be part of the agency’s review of the network’s broadcast licenses. That one sentence turns what some in the media hoped would be a sleepy licensing matter into a showdown over media bias, public airwaves, and whether major networks can pick and choose which presidential remarks the public gets to see on free TV.
Why Carr’s Statement Changes the Game
Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters the carriage choice “will surface” in the ongoing ABC/Disney license review. In plain English, he means the commission will ask whether a broadcaster that refuses to air the president’s remarks is living up to its duty to serve the public interest on the public airwaves. That is not an abstract question when millions of Americans watch broadcast TV and expect the major networks to carry important national addresses.
ABC and NBC declined to break into their main broadcast programming, opting instead to make the speech available on streaming platforms. Some other outlets did air it live. ABC has formally challenged the FCC’s accelerated review and says it has responded with thousands of pages of documents “under protest.” So this is not a surprise attack. It’s a legal and regulatory fight now playing out on paper and in the press room.
Free Speech vs. Public-Airwaves Responsibility
Commissioner Anna Gomez is right to warn about the dangers of government-compelled speech. Courts have long protected editorial choices by private broadcasters and publishers. But there’s a flip side conservatives should not ignore: broadcast licenses grant the right to use scarce public airwaves. Those airwaves come with obligations. The key question is simple — do networks get to pick and choose when the national interest calls for broad, free-TV carriage, or do they get to hide behind “editorial discretion” whenever they don’t like a speaker?
This fight will play out in filings, petitions, and quite possibly in court. Expect ABC/Disney to press its First Amendment defense hard, and expect Chairman Carr to press for answers about fairness and access. The smarter move for networks would be to stop pretending they are neutral referees and start acting like public stewards — or admit they prefer an audience that fits their editorial tastes. Either way, Americans watching from their living rooms deserve clarity, not editorial dodgeball played with the public airwaves.
