### FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel Stands Firm Against “Weaponization” of Licensing Authority
In a notable action during the closing days of the Biden administration, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel rejected numerous complaints and a petition aimed at broadcast television stations. These complaints, which encompassed viewpoints from both conservative and liberal factions, aimed to penalize broadcasters based on their content and coverage. Rosenworcel affirmed that the FCC’s purpose is not to operate as a “speech police” or “censor-in-chief,” stressing the critical need to safeguard the First Amendment.
This decision arrives at a crucial juncture, as President-elect Donald Trump and his forthcoming FCC leadership have indicated intentions to investigate and potentially penalize broadcasters perceived as biased against Republicans. Rosenworcel’s actions strive to establish a “bright line” to prevent government interference in press freedoms, a position she deems vital amidst growing political polarization.
—
### The Complaints and Their Consequences
The rejected complaints encompassed cases from both conservative and progressive organizations. From the conservative camp, the Center for American Rights lodged complaints alleging bias in ABC’s fact-checking during a presidential debate, CBS’s editing of a *60 Minutes* interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, and NBC’s choice to feature Harris on *Saturday Night Live*. These allegations resonated with President Trump’s broader critiques of media outlets he feels are unfairly critical of his administration.
On the progressive front, the Media and Democracy Project submitted a petition to deny the license renewal of WTXF-TV, a Fox-owned station in Philadelphia. The group contended that Fox’s spread of false claims regarding the 2020 election, which were subsequently repudiated in court, disqualified the station from maintaining a broadcast license. This matter gained attention due to Fox’s $788 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems related to defamation claims about the same misinformation.
Regardless of the differing political incentives, Rosenworcel remarked that all the complaints shared a central theme: they aimed to “weaponize” the FCC’s licensing power to punish broadcasters for their content. She cautioned that acquiescing to such requests would establish a perilous precedent, fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment.
—
### FCC’s Responsibility and the First Amendment
Rosenworcel’s resolution underscores the fragile equilibrium the FCC must uphold between regulating broadcasters and championing constitutional protections for free speech. The FCC’s licensing authority is designed to ensure that broadcasters serve the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Nevertheless, employing this authority to punish broadcasters for their editorial choices risks encroaching on press freedoms.
“The FCC should not serve as the president’s speech police,” Rosenworcel asserted. “The action we take today clarifies that the government has no role in dictating the content of news coverage.”
This position was mirrored by the media advocacy organization Free Press, which backed the FCC’s decision while recognizing the detrimental impacts of Fox’s false election claims. Free Press argued that the incoming administration’s threats to revoke broadcast licenses posed a more significant threat to press freedoms than the specific cases being reviewed.
—
### Legal and Political Responses
The FCC’s dismissal of the complaints is unlikely to quell the debate. Legal experts, including Jeffrey Westling of the conservative American Action Forum, observed that the FCC is required to address news distortion complaints in accordance with existing legal precedents, such as the *Serafyn v. FCC* case. Westling inferred that the complainants might contest the dismissals in court, potentially compelling the FCC to re-examine the cases.
The Center for American Rights condemned Rosenworcel’s choice as “political and self-serving,” contending that the First Amendment does not safeguard intentional misrepresentation or fraud. In a similar vein, the Media and Democracy Project revealed intentions to appeal the dismissal of its petition against the Fox station, pointing to judicial findings of misconduct by Fox executives.
Gigi Sohn, a former FCC official and advocate for media reform, also voiced dissatisfaction with the decision. Sohn argued that the FCC’s reasoning undermines its obligation to assess broadcasters’ character and responsibilities to the public interest. She cautioned that the ruling could set a precedent for automatic license renewals, irrespective of a broadcaster’s conduct.
—
### Wider Implications for Media Oversight
The FCC’s decision unfolds during a period of intensified political strain regarding the media’s role in shaping public sentiment and holding power accountable. The incoming Trump administration has signaled a more assertive stance on media regulation, with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr pushing for tighter oversight of broadcasters. Carr has indicated that the FCC might revoke licenses for stations that fail to operate in the public interest, an action critics argue could target political adversaries.
Rosenworcel’s actions act as a proactive defense against such initiatives, reaffirming the FCC’s dedication to preserving press freedoms. Nonetheless, the decision also brings to light the challenges of overseeing media in a landscape rife with misinformation and political divisiveness. While the First Amendment protects free speech, it does not exempt broadcasters from their obligation to deliver accurate and fair reporting.
