Trump Threatens ABC's Broadcast License After Rocky Debate Performance
Trump's greatest enemy on Tuesday wasn't ABC. It was himself.

Former President Donald Trump gave a floundering, erratic performance in last night's debate. However, he's blaming an unlikely culprit for his uninspiring showing: ABC News.
"ABC took a big hit last night," Trump said during an interview on Fox and Friends Wednesday morning. "I mean, to be honest, they're a news organization. They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that."
According to The Hill, ABC and other large networks don't have or need Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensing. Trump's call to shut down ABC is simply another in a long line of preposterous, dubiously legal, claims that his enemies should face government crackdowns—which, just recently, have ranged from calls to throw in jail everyone from flag-burners to "Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials," who allegedly caused his 2020 defeat.
"It was a three-on-one, and that's okay, I've had worse odds in my life," Trump said. "I've had it before, but never so obvious. A lot of people are very angry about it. You have corrupt news organizations, you have a lot of bad people." Earlier in the interview, Trump called his first, much more successful debate with President Biden a "much more honorably run debate."
While ABC journalists David Muir and Linsey Davis faced backlash from right-wing commentators who argued they tanked Trump's performance, in reality, Trump's greatest enemy on Tuesday night was himself.
While Harris often outright refused to answer tough questions—and did plenty of lying herself—Trump dove headfirst into conspiracy theories and personal grievance, coming out looking unorganized and unhinged.
"Vice President Kamala Harris did not make a good case for herself at last night's presidential debate. But she did get former President Donald Trump to make the case against himself and that was enough," wrote Reason's Christian Britschgi on Wednesday. Britschgi noted that whenever Harris faced a tough question from the moderators, she tended to "offer a rudimentary defense of her record, perhaps engage in some pablum about Americans' hopes and dreams, and then bait Trump into going on extended 'too online' free association that's hard to follow for all but the most dedicated Truth Social users."
Whatever legitimate complaints there may be about mainstream media bias, Trump's performance on Tuesday came down to his own bad judgment. He was ill-prepared to take on a cognitively functional opponent and succumbed to his worst impulses.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That "three-to-one" line has become the house whine. It's everywhere.
There was moderator bias, that is undeniable.
Moderator was fine. The only reason people think there is bias is because they called Trump out for some of his whopper lies.
They ignored her lies.
All one of them compared to the 59 or so Trump lies so far identified.
Ooh , did he say the economy wasn’t great?
Oh, and why don't you list the "lies" here.
The “lies” are limitless!
Dame argument sarc uses all the time to justify his ignorance.
I keep asking this and the best Lying Jeffy could come up with was to pretend direct importing and import brokers don't exist thus Trump "lied" about tariffs penalizing foreigners.
Lol. Act blue doesn't send their best.
They called him a liar when THEY were lying and didn't say a word when Harris made accusations even Snopes has debunked.
An example.
Correction, Sept. 11
The original version of this story mischaracterized as false Donald Trump's statement accusing Kamala Harris of supporting “transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison” As a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris filled out a questionnaire saying she supported taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for detained immigrants.
https://time.com/7019747/harris-trump-debate-cover/
Great find!
Don't two states allow "abortion" of babies accidentally born alive?
ABC lied about that too.
Because it was true? I know you hate any criticism of dem corporate media. What makes you think the moderation was balanced?
That case of TDS has become the asshole whine! It's everywhere.
FOAD, shitstain.
Trump Threatens ABC's Broadcast License After Rocky Debate Performance
If I'm doing late-stage libertarianism right, isn't there where we ignore the threat to ABC and just suggest removing the licensing requirement?
No, no, no. TeenReason libertarianism has moved on from things like deregulation and lower taxes. Boem has penned several articles here on how tax cuts are bad.
Explain to me again how we justify requiring a broadcast license?
The enemies of Section 230 will now EXPLAIN... Ass you would, to a child! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxacATCHrpo
I'm going to regret this, but I'm curious. How does section 230 justify broadcasting licenses, Shillsy?
“Sarris” (the Grasshopper-Monster-Dude of “Galaxy Quest”, asshat in the movie ass shown) is a well-known enemy of Section 230. Sarris is EVIL, yes, no denying that… But he’s NOT a hypocrite! So when HE demands that you “explain”, that means that HE is ALSO willing to explain!
With great humility, I approached Sarris, and asked him to explain this to me… Ass you would, a child!
Parenthetically, I might add, humility is a strange thing which is actually an ASSET that HELPS YOU TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS, and to actually LEARN things! You can NOT add to the vessel which is already full, and-or full of shitself! You can teach NOTHING to those who already know everything! “Humility” is an antidote to the poison of arrogance!
So ass I had expected, Sarris called me stupid, and an evil, leftist demon-crap. Then he blew “Booger Beam” all over me, drenching me in mucus. Then he finally got down to explaining.
“SQRLSY, you worthless piece of slime, you should kill yourself, like the Wise and PervFect people of Reason cummenters tell you, SOOO benevolently, after stealing your ID. Butt here’s the deal: S-230 legal cuntents do NOT matter; only the SECTION LABELS OR HEADINGS MATTER, in the very least!!! And S-230 has a section labelled “Good Samaritan”. Obliviously, for RIGHT-thinking humans and Grasshopper-Monster-Dudes alike, for the Cummon Good, this section heading MUST be changed to “EVIL Samaritan”, and THAT will fix shit ALL, and fix it EVIL!”
The key is in the word "broadcast." A TV station that broadcasts its signal purchases a license for a particular part of the EM spectrum in a particular area. IF that was not the case, then broadcasters might, inadvertently or deliberately, broadcast signals that interfere with each other.
As for what else the FCC does in addition to regulating the signals so that they don't cause problems, there is no doubt plenty of argument against them doing those things.
Yup. Most of our modern communication technology would not work if the EM spectrum was not carefully managed.
Starlink. Fiber optic. Satellite. Telephone lines.
Yeah. No communication at all.
Starlink and other satellites use the PUBLICALLY SHARED EM spectrum, Pervfectly Ignorant Wonder Child!!! Hello?!?!? Is there anyone… IN there?!?!
(Go LEARN something first, and THEN pollute the EM spectrum of the grownups!!!!)
If you are talking on a mobile phone, it needs to use public parts of the EM spectrum to communicate with the towers. If you are watching satellite TV or using Starlink internet, the satellites are sending the signals in public parts of the EM spectrum. If you are using the internet through fiber optic cables in the ground and the servers you are communicating with are also connected only through a fiber optic network, then there might be no use of the public EM spectrum. But that would be hard to determine, and you'd never know if some of the ads you see on a webpage or what other data you are seeing was sent to the internet from a device through a satellite or cell tower. Likewise for wired telephone lines. You might be on a traditional land line, but you'll no doubt be calling numbers that aren't.
You really have to go out of your way to communicate without there being any signal transmitted through the air via EM radiation in the public parts of the spectrum. (Some freq. bands are reserved for government/military use.)
A broadcast license, is sort of the section 230 of the media. Like section 230 is the first amendment of the internet, without a broadcast license, no one in the media would be able to speechify.
"Like section 230 is the first amendment of the internet"
The Good Samaritan clause in 230 is the opposite of first amendment, giving the protections of common carriers but with editorial powers. It's what enabled the FBI and the Administration to pressure the social media outlets to censor speech.
"It’s what enabled the FBI and the Administration to pressure the social media outlets to censor speech."
Pressure consisting of the threat to REMOVE OR IGNORE S-230!!!! And right-wing wrong-nuts and Marxists on BOTH SIDES agree! Tear DOWN S-230, so that we can pussy-grab the "enemy", who will NEVER ever even DREAM of pussy-grabbing us right back!
Bullshit. The FCC does in fact license broadcasters. It's also absurd to believe that ABC's affiliates would or could lose their licenses for political bias against Trump. It's also absurd to say, as the linked Hill article warns, that Trump's statement will lead to violence against "journalists".
HANG the so-called “journalists”!!!!
HANG Mike Pence!!! If we can hang My VEEP (and "My scientists" and "My Gnerals" and "My bankers" and "My lawyers" and "My Spermy Daniels"), then WHY TWAT also HANG "My so-called journalists"?
Trump offers to pay legal bills for violent offender at Trump rally…
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html
Trump’s endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect
Trump agrees with “Hang Mike Pence!”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/donald-trump-january-6-mike-pence-chants/index.html
Trump reacted with approval to ‘hang Mike Pence’ chants from rioters on January 6
You seem to whine more about what some asshole said than about someone planting a pipe bomb near DNC Headquarters by that same day.
Butt, whatabout that them thar whatabouts? Whatabout Hillary? Whatabout OJ Simpson?
How many brain cells does it take to run a socio-political simulation on the following:
Judge and Jury: “Murderer, we find you guilty of murder! 20 years in the hoosegow for YOU! Now OFF with ye!”
Murderer: “But OJ Simpson got off for murder, why not me? We’re all equal, and need to be treated likewise-equal!”
Judge and Jury: “Oh, yes, sure, we forgot about that! You’re free to go! Have a good life, and try not to murder too many MORE people, please! Goodbye!”
Now WHERE does this line of thinking and acting lead to? Think REALLY-REALLY HARD now, please! What ABOUT OJ Simpson, now? Can we make progress towards peace & justice in this fashion?
(Ass for me, I think we should have PUT THE SQUEEZE on OJ!)
Twatabouts are part of the problem, NOT a part of the solution!
https://reason.com/2023/10/10/was-racketeering-trumps-real-crime-in-georgia/?comments=true#comment-10268488
Even when twataboutism isn’t fallacious, Ye Perfect Twat, IT DOES NOT MOVE US FORWARDS towards truth, freedom, benevolence, non-hypocrisy, etc., You Perfectly thick-headed, obtuse Perfect Person!!!!
ADMITTING one’s own sins (and the sins of Our Team), and WORKING ON our OWN sins, is what moves us forwards, Oh Perfectly Obtuse Wonder Child!
...
If those are his only words on the subject, don't you get that he's not talking, at least not seriously, about broadcasting licenses? It's like, "Do you have a license to be a jerk?"
Trump's accusations are right. But he could've mitigated the damages. But then he wouldn't've come thru as Trump. I like Trump for what he does, not what he says, but it's what he says that makes him, him. And he got where he is by being who he is.
He says should not "I would." He is just stating his displeasure. This is another media generated freak out. When did he order the DoJ to go after journalists. Obama and Biden did. Can't recall Trump doing so.
It's so fucking dishonest, but that's been Reason for the last decade. Journalistic ethics be damned.
A license to be a jerk can’t be taken away. A license to broadcast can. It’s clear what he said. It’s the theme of his campaign: retribution. He said it at the very beginning "I will be your retribution."
...
You don't have to be licensed to be a news organization.
Does he know that? Probably not. Because the intended threat is clear.
Are we switching back to ignore what he said look at his record mode? Democrats did it first so it's ok? What he said isn't what he meant?
Or like you and not only ignore but cheer Biden when he raided James OKeefe.
Sarc is a Nazi fag.
Sarc isn't gay, but he's probably sucked a dick or two for drugs or booze in his past.
Sarc's also probably the first person to become a Nazi just to own his enemies on the internet.
He really is a treasure.
It id clear. You interpret as if he said he will. He did not do so.
Live by "Eating Our Doggies", die by "Eating Our Doggies"!
Love how Reason has just glammed onto the corporate media narrative.
Meanwhile actual voters….
CNN panelist states how little in policy Kamala gave: Video: https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1833719053833175515
Reuters panel showed Kamala losing: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/some-undecided-voters-not-convinced-by-harris-after-debate-with-trump/ar-AA1qmVYz
CNN poll shows Trump went up in minds of voters: https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1833733200838856966
And NYT was even forced to write a story about how media pundits and voters probably disagree: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/politics/undecided-voters-react-debate.html
I just don't buy it. Trump, in my opinion, did not do well in the debate. Part of it had to do with the extremely biased moderators, but Trump also did poorly on his own. There were many times I wanted to answer for Trump, because I felt even I could have given a more powerful answer than what he said.
Kamala was lying with abandon during many of her "answers," but regular people who don't pay a great deal of attention to the news might buy the lies. Plus the legacy media will handwave away Kamala's lies. CNN showed a lie count of something like 33 Trump lies to 1 Kamala lie. That's absurd.
I'm hoping that the debate has no effect on the race, but if it does make a difference, it's not going to be in Trump's favor.
Trump was himself. And as you can see by the links above voters didn’t find Kamala detailed or honest.
At best it was a wash.
The moderators probably hurt Kamala with any kind of win. When Muir kept cutting him off.
Sources linked are not right wing sources saying the voters on their panels saying this. Read the Reuters and NYT article.
I read all the links you posted. The Reuters article featured ten people which is just such a small sample size that I don't know if it comes close to representing the so-called undecided voters in this country.
The CNN post-debate poll shown in the X post was just on the economy--though the economy is probably the number one issue.
The NYTimes article has me hoping you are correct.
Kamala told bold lies repeatedly, but she's not going to be held to account for them from friendly legacy media. People who pay attention to the news and politics have almost entirely already made up their minds between Trump and Kamala. The few "undecideds" and "swing-voters" that remain, I argue, and low information voters who don't seek out alternative news sources. The see headlines on social media and make decisions based on that. Those headlines from the legacy media are going to favor Kamala, sometimes significantly.
We'll see by next week the full effect the debate had on the polls (if the polls are even trying to capture an accurate picture of support). Trump had been gaining momentum up to the debate. I hope the debate didn't swing things the other way.
NBC just reported that 330,000 people had used Taylor Swift's website to register to vote.
white women care about one thing and one thing only. Abortion.
They will burn this country to the ground gladly as long as they can abort away at any stage without consequence. It's their singular obsession and you can't reason with them.
Thank the cucks who gave us the 19th amendment.
How are people able to register to vote on Swift's website? Or is it just a link on the site to a legitimate website to register to vote? If it's the latter, I'd like to know what the link traffic has been previously. She's incredibly popular, and likely has millions of website visitors per week, maybe even per day, from all over the world. If that link has been there a while, and the link traffic has consistently been much lower, and now after the endorsement it's millions higher, it's a bad sign for Trump.
Unrelated, I can't stand Taylor Swift. I was already sick of hearing about her and seeing her everywhere. Then the whole Kelce relationship meant I had to see her every few downs on NFL games. Now her endorsement of Kamala.
Or. And hear me out... it is bots spamming a link to create a false signal. We see this often.
If they were waiting on Taylor to endorse before registering they aren't reliable voters.
This is what happened on X after the debate. The platform was suddenly swamped by usernames like @fhr466hd37b praising how well Kamala did.
Basically look at what they accused Russia of doing, if you want to know what they're doing.
They'll be voting by phone too, by Saturday, November 9.
“Text your vote! Rus…”
I was fretting over the young single female cat owner vote. They are lost now.
Pressler has signed up hundreds of thousands.
No one in the US is undecided about who they are going to vote for. People are only undecided about whether they will vote or not.
The dead always vote.
And weirdly, they always vote democrat.
My brother's father-in-law shocked his family when he voted for Biden in 2020. He would have never voted Democrat when he was still alive.
I hear this year he's going to be all in for Kamala. So much so he'll be voting 20-30 times.
You're dismissing a "small sample" while stating the corporate narrative with zero sample size is correct. The CNN polls were not small samples.
I'm saying my own opinion was that Trump lost the debate. That's based on my own analysis. It wasn't a blowout loss, but I think the so called swing voters would not have jumped aboard the MAGA train as a result. Kamala lied her ass off during the debate, and people who are informed probably won't be swayed if they weren't already for Kamala, but uninformed voters might have been.
I have been wrong before and I hope my analysis is wrong here. Of fucking course the legacy media was going to say Kamala won, no matter what happened in the debate. This was based on my own opinion from watching the debate and applying it to what I think an uninformed swing voter would get from the debate.
The upside, though, was that Trump got all of the zingers in the debate to none for Kamala. If Kamala had gotten any, it would be played nonstop from now until election day.
I wanted to answer for him many times too, but even with all his wasting time on minuscule matters, if you were scoring according to amount of actual factual material spoken, Trump was miles ahead.
This actual voter says you're deluded, but at least your Banana Republic ID label fits the candidate you apparently support. Read the post-debate polls of undecideds, which now skew heavily (not unanimously) towards Harris, who needs a majority of them to win. I do agree that nothing either candidate said or did will shake Trump's hard core MAGA base, which on a good day is about a third of American and swing state voters.
Your boss at act blue should feel bad. You probably thought your response was cogent.
I literally gave you links to them. You just push false narratives lol. Can't wait for you to get mad at Nate Silver again.
Trump did so well he got Biden to wear a MAGA hat!
Emma Camp the reality is that the ABC "Moderators" where not moderators but partisan hacks. Personally I can't stand either of them, but the mediocre former president was dealt a raw deal where it was more or less three against one.
It always amazes me the lengths and how low that the anti-Trump crowd and ruling elites will stoop to because they feel threatened by Donald Trump. It also amazes me the level of propaganda that they are willing to spew to prop up the abysmal failure of a vice-president Kamala Harris.
Neither should ever be president, but mediocre former president with the corporate media propaganda machine attacking him at every turn posed less risk to personal freedoms and liberties than the abysmal failure of a vice-president would.
Kamala Harris wants us to believe that she is not tied to the Biden regime, but she has been in power (apparently not as the "Border Czar" even though she was place in charge of aspects of the border - in the words of Joe Biden "Come on Man!")
so you're gonna vote - reluctantly and strategically - for commie Kamala?
There's nothing reluctant about Emma here. She's a hard core progressive and too stupid to have any sense of self awareness about the fact.
Remember, when faced with a poll that young men were conservative and the pollsters worried that that mean they'd all be racist, her response was "Don't worry, they're not really conservative."
She has no business writing for a libertarian magazine. Not that the majority of writers here do, but she's especially bad.
Best line of the night by far was Harris to Trump: "81 million voters fired you in 2020." Argue all you want to about the results, but the last time I looked Joe Biden has been in the White House as President since January 2021 while Trump has been standing outside mournfully looking in.
Last time I looked biden was nowhere to be found and kalamity was the closest thing to incumbent.
Does that number include the 2 million LP vortes for Jo's cowardly antichoice campaign--burdened by the anarcho-communist imbecile boothead?
Best line was "you have plans for the next 4 years, why didn't you implement them the 4 years prior."
Again. Act Blue has the dumbest employees.
Others have quoted that line as well.
If "the left" threatened a media license that's be censorship and suppression of the greatest order.
Trump does it and I think we all know what comes next. That's right.
It's ok because Democrats did it first.
You will be placed in one of the cells formerly occupied by a J6er.
Enjoy!
2 quo que, ergo status quo ante.
The left raided James O'Keefe. Obama put out warrants against journalists. Judges under Biden held them in contempt.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
To be fair, the bias of the “moderators” was pretty obvious, and I was not particularly sympathetic to Trump or his performance. They called him on his lies very directly and went soft on Harris’ lies repeatedly.
Fair moderators would have let his lies slide.
Yeah! Like in Germany in 1932. That worked out just fine. Jesus won, right?
Trump is Jesus! He’s the political prophet who defies evil Democrats and reshaped the Republican Party! He’s going to drain the swamp! He’s going to dismantle alphabet agencies! He’s going to cut regulation! He’s going to shrink government! He’s going to make Mexico pay for the wall! He’s going to make China pay tariffs! He’s not going to cut Medicare or Social Security! He's going to cut taxes! He's going to cut the deficit! He’s Jesus! Listen to what he says but don’t take it seriously! Look at what he did not what he says! He’s the outsider! He’s Jesus!
Standard disclaimer: Democrats are worse, but it’s like choosing between dog shit and cat shit. Throw your vote away on the Libertarian.
Just get it over with and suck big mikes cock.
And one of Jesse's minions is on me before the ink is dry. I'm sure he'll give you a bonus.
Poor sarc. Look like a retarded leftist and think a lying disclaimer doesn't make it true. Lol.
Are you saying I’m not on your precious “mute list?”
"Jesse’s minions"
It's lonely being Jeffy's only minion, isn't it, Sarckles.
Forgot to switch to your sqrsly sock dumdum.
How drunk are you to just go full leftist retard?
Not a democrat guys. Just uses every Democrat talking point. Thanks for the bookmark buddy.
https://x.com/RealSaavedra/status/1833758511542526276
Went through the debate transcript and counted:
Trump was fact-checked 4 times
Harris was fact-checked 0 times
Muir/Davis pressed Trump 6 times for follow-ups
Muir/Davis pressed Harris 0 times for follow-ups
Trump made ≈14 false statements
Harris made ≈16 false statements
Nah, dude, that can't be right. The 50 center that keeps chiming in says Trump lied like 30 something times and Kamala only once.
That must be right, because they say it. Say it enough and it's true!
If you think "They ought to take away their license for the way they did that." is threatening to do any such thing, calling you willfully ignorant would be an insult to the intelligence of the willfully ignorant.
Orange Hitler was ill-prepared to take on a cognitively functional opponent and succumbed to his worst impulses. A brief but accurate description of the girl-bullying lewser's downfall.
That retarded woman didn’t say anything about her own policies.
She promised a shit ton of spending like 25k for new homeowners. Surely that won't inflate markets. Ask sarc.
Sarc will just say that’s a failure of capitalism.
It was signature significance that the moderators did not fact-check harris when she repeated the "very fine people" hoax.
Welcome to the ‘democratic’ [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire.
It’s beginning to look-a-lot like the USSR’s final reign.
Yes; ABC is wildly Nazi. That’s why they ask Nazi-Empire building questions. Trump would indeed do himself a BIG favor to answer those questions like a US Patriot and tell the world Gov-Guns don’t make ?free? lunches. GROW THE F’UP leftard losers.
Trump should uphold the 1st Amendment too. Instead of pointing out Biden's ILLEGAL authoritarian censorship; he's trying to match and defeat. It's the wrong approach. He needs to double-down on Constitutional principles; heck the entire US government needs that more than anything else.
Hey Emma are you going to debate the commenters? Nope, your just going to be a fag retard saying stupid shit.
About 20 years ago the reason writers were able to defend their articles in the comment section. Now they hide from it because the writers have no ability to defend their position under scrutiny. The last writer to do it was baiely, until he did a compleate change on climate catastrophy simping and everyone asked why the sudden change. His responce was I saw new evidence, but he couldn't tell us what he saw. Just that it was new and changed his mind
The writers don’t care what you backwards hillbillies have to say.
Typical, right? When Trump thinks he won a debate, the network and interlocutors are aces with him. If he loses, he denies the fact or blames everybody else. In 2020 he told us, almost in so many words, that if he were to lose the election, there was dirty work afoot. If he had won, he would have called the election the most secure ever. Who's giving odds on what he'll do in November?
Trump's greatest enemy on Tuesday wasn't ABC. It was himself.
I mean, if we're being honest - it was both.
If Trump is suggesting that he should use regulatory powers to punish ABC, the I think that is something the federal government should not have power to do.
On the other hand, ABC’s moderators did behave in an incredibly journalistically unprofessional fashion during the debate, and should be criticized for it, especially the lack of “fact checking” on Harris. Trump vould be bad at debating people whose brains are not oatmeal and the moderators could have eun an unfair debate, these are not mutually exclusive conditions.
Where was this level of hand wringing when Democrats, with authority were calling for Fox News to be banned because they did not like its editorial voice?
What's the odds ABC had a meeting before the debate specifically about how to handle Trump.
ABC has basically become a party propaganda outlet. I'm wondering if that runs afoul regarding licensing rules.
Nevermind.