In another bizarre turn, Protect Democracy, a Washington D.C. based advocacy group, has joined the fray in defending CBS News by submitting a commentary to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), against what it perceives to be unjust profiling. The reproach feels loud and clear: they believe that the FCC is subjugating its role from that of an independent body safeguarding free speech to becoming a ‘personal censor’ for the White House. Fellow skeptics might interpret this as the organization going out on a limb to belittle the current administration, awkwardly shifting the narrative to paint CBS News as a victim stuck in political crossfire.
This accusation came as the FCC continues to review CBS News’ contentious ’60 Minutes’ episode where it seemingly distorted an interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris during the election period. What they’re likely doing, according to the comments filed by Protect Democracy on behalf of former FCC Chairs Alfred Sikes and Tom Wheeler among others, is yielding to the White House’s interference rather than upholding their supposed unbending commitment to fair play. One couldn’t disregard the peculiarity of this stance.
Astonishingly, the advocacy group defends CBS by shifting the blame onto the FCC, alleging that the regulatory body is focusing more on scrutinizing media coverage to ensure it conforms to the President’s outlook, less so on its original objective of promoting unbiased reporting. The growing chorus against the FCC and its purported cooperation with the White House grows louder, with the filing pleading that the Commission revert to their prior unbiased state and terminate any affiliations with partisan interests.
Meanwhile, the Center for American Rights (CAR), a conservative entity, reproached CBS for allegedly slanting the same infamous interview, adding another layer of complexity to this seemingly politically charged environment. The FCC reportedly considered this as a serious claim of news bias in its initial process of approving a highly debated merger. This is yet another example of how media investigations can play out in the public sphere, colored by the spectacle of political theater.
The investigations spurred by these accusations could exert influence and speed up the settlement of the lawsuit, providing a potential benefit for those who initiated the complaint. At the heart of the fiasco is an agreed-upon mediator meant to handle the suit. Could this be an understated triumph for the complainants, or simply another controversial subplot in the larger drama?
Recalling a previous incident, ABC ended up settling an unrelated libel suit by agreeing to pay $1 million for legal fees along with $15 million toward a future presidential library. To the observer, it appears as a loaded homage to free speech. However, CAR challenged ABC’s WPVI in Philadelphia for purported ‘news distortion’ during their live fact-checking of the Presidential Debate. How the FCC chair brushed off these accusations on First Amendment grounds makes you wonder about impartiality here.
This tangled web only gets more intricate. After a new FCC chair took office, all CAR complaints that were initially dismissed were reinstated. These developments point to a disturbing trend where the FCC may be commandeering its authority to intimidate CBS and extract concessions in a barely related case.
The implications of this ongoing legal contention are made more explicit by the actors involved. The contention is that the FCC could be utilizing this investigation as a means to exert threat and pressure on CBS to concede victory to the White House by settling the case early. A cynical interpretation, perhaps, but one that perhaps feels uncomfortably familiar to anyone attuned to the permeating currents of power at play.
As a parallel drama unfolds, a parent company is in the process of seeking FCC approval for a merger. How the FCC appears prepared to exploit the investigation proceeding as leverage during the merger review process might raise eyebrows about the possible infringement of editorial independence in the media landscape.
CAR leveraged these allegations in a separate compliant, thereby drawing explicit ties to the proposed merger conditions. No small number of observers have noted the uncomfortable correlation between these events, amplifying concerns over the Commission’s potential overreach.
In their most recent submission, former FCC Chairs and Commissioners invoked a litany of legal precedents to contest the FCC’s supposed authority to censor news content, arguing instead that the Commission’s power to investigate instances of ‘news distortion’ remains extremely limited.
In an inspiring yet ironic final act, these former Commissioners found their voice, avowing that from their extensive collective experience, they couldn’t stand idly by in silence. The Commission they once served on was independent, they attest, comprised of a bipartisan team of five, advocating policies that transcend political affiliations.
In defending the free press and free speech, they urge for this proceeding to cease, implying that failing to do so would suggest that the FCC has devolved into a tool of speech suppression. Their words echo a familiar tune, yet in this rapidly polarizing climate, the music seems slightly off-key.
The post CBS Plays Victim Card Amid Biden’s FCC Puppet Show appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
