The FCC's Show Trial Against CBS Is a Political Power Play
The commission’s partisan “news distortion” probe is trampling the First Amendment to pressure the press.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is conducting an unseemly and unconstitutional spectacle, ostensibly to determine whether CBS violated its policy against "news distortion" by editing a 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Its real purpose is to exercise raw partisan power.
The FCC already knows CBS did not violate any rules and merely engaged in everyday journalism. And there is nothing to be learned from the over 8,000 comments and counting that have poured into the commission's inbox. Many simply registered their like or dislike of the network and mainstream media in general, and many others were just unserious quips submitted to troll the regulators.
But judging the merits of the "news distortion" allegation was never the point. The FCC staff already dismissed the complaint—filed by a partisan activist group—as fatally defective back in January. As outgoing FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel explained, "The FCC should not be the President's speech police….The FCC should not be journalism's censor-in-chief." But one of Brendan Carr's first acts as the new FCC chair in Donald Trump's administration was to reinstate the complaint and call for public comments.
Asking members of the public to "vote" on how they feel about a news organization's editorial policies or whether they think the network violated FCC rules is both pointless and constitutionally infirm. In 1943, Justice Robert Jackson wrote that the right to free speech and a free press "may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The FCC's reanimated proceeding lacks any legitimate regulatory rationale. But its realpolitik purpose is sadly transparent. This fishing expedition is designed to exert maximum political leverage on the CBS network at a time when Trump is engaged in preposterous litigation over the same 60 Minutes broadcast, claiming CBS' editing violates a Texas law against fraudulent commercial transactions. Adding to the pressure, Chairman Carr said he will consider the thousands of comments in this proceeding when evaluating whether to approve a merger of Skydance Media and CBS parent company Paramount Global worth billions of dollars.
There is nothing here for the FCC to investigate. The complaint alleges that Harris gave a "word salad" response to a question about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was listening to the Biden administration and that CBS edited it to make her sound more articulate. One part of her responses was aired on 60 Minutes and another part aired on Face the Nation.
In short, CBS stands accused of committing journalism. Every day, from the smallest newspaper to the largest network, reporters and editors must make sense of and condense the information they collect—including quotes from politicians and other newsmakers—to tell their stories concisely and understandably. That task necessarily requires editing, including selecting what quotes to use. If the cockamamie theory underlying this FCC "investigation" had any merit, every newsroom in America would be a crime scene.
That's why the FCC in the past has never defined the editing process as "news distortion." In fact, the commission made quite clear when it first articulated the news distortion policy in 1969 that "we do not mean the type of situation, frequently encountered, where a person quoted on a news program complains that he very clearly said something else." It stressed, "We do not sit to review the broadcaster's news judgment, the quality of his news and public affairs reporting, or his taste."
The commission understood that this very narrow approach is required to respect both the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which denies the FCC "the power of censorship." As the FCC observed, "In this democracy, no Government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so."
There is a name for what the FCC is doing in this proceeding: a show trial. When investigations become a performative exercise designed to further a political purpose, they forfeit any claim to legitimacy. Show trials are intended to send a message, not just to their unfortunate victims, but to other would-be transgressors.
There is a dark and deadly history of such proceedings in authoritarian regimes around the world, ranging from Josef Stalin's purges of perceived political opponents to China's trials of "rioters and counterrevolutionaries" after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Though less extreme in nature, during the Red Scare, the House Committee on Un-American Activities similarly staged show hearings where they pressured witnesses to name names while presuming guilt. The stakes of a sham FCC proceeding may differ, but the tactics and perversion of the rule of law are the same.
Somewhere along the way, the FCC's current leadership abandoned that basic truth in exchange for political expediency. And in doing so, it is ignoring a unanimous holding from the Supreme Court just last term that threatening legal sanctions and other means of coercion to suppress disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.
The commission can begin to recover some dignity only by dropping this show trial immediately.
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
You didn't complain when Democrats did it, so that makes it ok.
Kill yourself. Great instructions posted in the Roundup comments for jeffsarc that you could apply as well.
Sarc didn't complain when the Democrats did it, the little hypocritical fuck.
He's such a fraud.
Hey Ye PERVFECTED (and mind-infected, and neglected) hypocrite!!! Hypocritical "Christian" suicide-Worshitter Ye!
“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!”
USMC fearlessly "defends our freedoms"... But SNOT from Satan and Suicide!!! Servants and Serpents of the Evil One will be... And always have been... Servants and Serpents of the Evil One!!! Go finger shit out!
Conservaturds making friends, gathering votes, and influencing people by... PEDDLING KOOL-AID AND SUICIDE!!! How's it workin' for ya, servant and serpent of the Evil One?
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
He’s truly, completely a necrophiliac,
His brain, squirming toad-like, is REALY, really whack!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
You know, you have a point.
Since the Democrats murdered conservative Americans in their homes for wrong-think at Waco and Ruby Ridge, that makes it ok. Not one democrat (including Lon Horiuchi) was punished for any of it, so it must be 100% justifiable.
Afterall, the dems did it first.
Let’s see Strawcasmic’s answer to that.
THIS is why we must WORSHIT Saint BabbShit!!!
Don’t fear the revolt!
(insurrection)!
All our times have come
Here, but now they’re gone
Seasons don’t fear the revolt
Nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain
(We can be like they are)
Come on, baby
(Don’t fear the revolt)
Baby, take my hand
(Don’t fear the revolt)
We’ll be able to fly
Baby, I’m your man
La, la la, la la
La, la la, la la
Valentine is done
Here but now they’re gone
Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbs
Are together in eternity
(Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbitt)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
Horst and Babbs both wanted to grab political power through violence, and got back, what they were dishing out. Karma is a bitch! Live by the sword, die by the sword!
Refute it, bitch!
Also do SNOT forget to "Hang Mike Pence" and "Execute General Milley", For So Hath Our Pussy-Grabber in Chief Cummanded us, and so thus must shit be done!!! Hallowed Be His Name! All Hail!
The FCC already knows CBS did not violate any rules and merely engaged in everyday journalism.
Phew. Call off the trial. CBS supporters, ACLU-lite, say it's A-OK.
Which shows "everyday journalism" practices to be dishonest and corrupt.
This should be a campaign finance issue.
Do you mean "campaign finance issue" as in "the point of contention over CBS carrying water for Kamala" or "campaign finance issue" as in "The monthly edition of Reason where they and FIRE drum up support for the DNC"?
The FCC should be abolished. Kill it.
Yeah! Along with the communications decency act!
Now show trials are a bad thing.
So dragging CBS before some commission to ask them some hard questions about their content is trampling the 1st amendment, but dragging Facebook in front of some government commission to ask him hard questions is just asking nicely and... AND is in fact itself government free speech activity.
All I'm trying to figure out here... is Reason really for the first amendment in both legal stricture and spirit, or is Reason's DNC alignment so utterly complete that it's now a walking, talking, typing version of Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance?
So dragging CBS before some commission to ask them some hard questions about their content is trampling the 1st amendment, but dragging Facebook in front of some government commission to ask him hard questions is just asking nicely and... AND is in fact itself government free speech activity.
Exactly what I said. Reason didn't complain when Democrats did it first. That makes them hypocrites and excuses whatever Trump does.
Is something a principle when you only hold one side accountable to it?
Is there anything Trump could do that you wouldn't defend with accusations of hypocrisy?
That seems to be the standard defense. Someone says "Trump did x and that's not right" and all you Trump defender shout in unison "You didn't complain when Democrats did it! That makes it ok!" Doesn't matter what x is. It's always the same reflexive reaction.
Sarcjeff arguing at clouds.
Sarc, if not for your double standards, you’d completely lack any standards at all.
"That makes them hypocrites" - Yes.
"That ... excuses whatever Trump does." - No. And pretty much nobody is saying so.
What's the point of screaming "You didn't care when Democrats did it!" at anyone who criticizes Trump if not to excuse what he did by invalidating the criticism? Tu quoque is practically a mating call around here.
For the umpteenth time, it's not "you didn't care" it's you defended them when they did it.
It's not "he didn't care", it's he supports and defends them when they do.
Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
But I'll try one more time. By calling out past hypocrisy, you have a chance at changing their future behavior. Granted, it's a small chance but that's still better than the zero-chance that comes from rewarding the hypocrisy by letting people get away with it.
What a load of crap. I can often find articles that were critical of Democrats when they did the same thing, but they weren't critical enough. Or there weren't enough of them. So they're not acceptable as proof. These accusations are nothing but personal attacks meant to discredit the person and invalidate what they said. And that makes whatever Trump did ok.
If only you knew what a tu quoque argument was.
Pushing back against your attackers while covered in stab wounds, and on behalf of the electorate, is a political power play.
Rosenworcel would have a lot more credibility if she'd said "The FCC should not be the President's speech police" back when it was Biden doing the jawboning. The idea that D politicians could violate norms and never face consequences because they'd "never lose another election" was astonishingly short-sighted and I'm having trouble finding sympathy for them now.
Still, maybe being hoist on their own petard will finally convince those congresscritters to support legislation to cut back executive branch powers.
And again. Not a single mention that the FCC should not have this authority. All it does is whine that the FCC is exercising its authority wrongfully.
Fire KMW.
Get out of DC.
Show some libertarian spine once in a while.
Does freedom of speech teally extend to in-kond contributions to political campaigns?
Yeah, I think it should. Are we in favor of strict campaign finance laws now, too?
I always had a problem with this being enforced Hardee’s r in one direction because of the biases of government entities, but the solution to discrimination is not reverse discrimination. We’d be better off repealing basically of campaign finance laws.
^^This.
One hyphenated fake libertarian deserves another.
This seems to be more an FEC issue.
Using government power to go after News media just because they aired something the President does not like. This is a fascist move. And don’t try to lie and say Ds did it first, because they did not.
Democrats are like the Simpsons. They did everything first.
Just how much straw do you intend to make into strawmen today, Sarc? I want to know so I can go buy futures in straw.
"...Using government power to go after News media just because they aired something the President does not like..."
MG expects someone to buy this bullshit claim.
Fuck off and die, lying pile of lefty shit.
The wrong agency seems to be involved.
What is alleged is violation of campaign finance laws.
It seems the FEC, not the FCC, shpuld ne involved.
Airing an interview does not have anything to do with campaign financing.
One could argue that editing the interview to make Harris look less bad is a contribution to her campaign. Even if it is, the campaign contribution limits and reporting requirements should be repealed. If CBS wants to slant the news, they're a private organization and have freedom of speech and the press, even if I don't like their slant. Either the FCC should be abolished or it should open up the broadcast frequencies to everyone so long as they don't step on others' broadcast frequencies.
Did paying off Stormy Daniels constitute a violation of campaign finance laws?
If you took that position then Fox News would be nothing but Republican campaign material.
And don’t try to lie and say Ds did it first, because they did not.
So what were they doing to Facebook, Google, and Twitter?
"The FCC already knows CBS did not violate any rules and merely engaged in everyday journalism."
Sadly, selectively editing one politician's words to make them better (or less bad) while doing the opposite to Team R has indeed become everyday journalism. One just has to accept that "journalism" now means "propaganda", much like "literally" now means "figuratively". In a related story, fuck millennials.
In a related story, fuck millennials.
Literally?
I wish.
You've Gotta Love Millennials - Micah Taylor
"ROBERT CORN-REVERE"
As a person that also has a silly last name I can empathize with Robert.
Scary is indeed silly.
The FCC's Show Trial Against CBS Is a Political Power Play
What was "Mistakes were made, we declare amnesty for ourselves."?
What was blatantly ignoring the laptop, Ashley's diary, and the tax evasion?
What was the E. Jean Caroll decision? Or the convictions?
What was "20-something Presidential aids have trouble keeping up with Joe?"
What was editing in support of a worthless, (still) babbling candidate who never won an election, even a primary in her own party?
JFC, it's like you don't even know the meaning of the term power play. Nobody fucks with a Biden you retard.
Thanks to Corn-Revere I will lie awake all night worrying about the grave injustice visited on CBS by the evil Trump. And also that crazy ass name. Fun fact: it's possible to change a name to something less crazy ass. Just trying to help here.
Taking a literal retard (who was probably drunk) and distorting everything she said in order to make her seem lucid and intelligent is a bastardization of every ethical rule of the profession.
That is not "everyday journalism." That is State Media. And it's not 1A protected. A FREE press is protected. Not one that is under state coercion.