Critics say Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr is ignoring legal precedent as the FCC moves to eliminate rules that effectively limit the number of local TV stations that corporate media conglomerates can own and operate. The FCC controls local TV and radio licenses, and while the telecom regulator is independent and overseen by Congress, advocates say Carr, who was appointed by Donald Trump, is turning the commission into a political weapon for the president.
Recent moves by the FCC to reconsider broadcast ownership limits would unleash a new wave of media consolidation and threaten local TV newsrooms, critics say, which are already facing headwinds due to budget cuts, consolidation, and digital competition, despite their critical role in keeping voters and the general public informed. However, the media watchdog group Free Press says Carr is also working on behalf of the Trump administration to use the FCC’s leverage over broadcast licenses and media mergers “to exert total control over the media,” according to comments the group filed with the FCC on August 3.
“With this proceeding Chairman Carr is placing a for-sale sign on the public airwaves and inviting media companies to monopolize the local news markets as long as they agree to display political fealty to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement,” said S. Derek Turner, the senior economic and policy adviser at Free Press, in a statement.
In 2004, Congress capped the proportion of U.S. households that television stations owned by a single company can collectively reach at 39 percent. This ownership cap limits the size and reach of broadcasting giants such as Fox Corporation, Nexstar, and Sinclair, which already own hundreds of local stations across the country. Broadcasters that take advantage of a certain FCC provision can reach up to 78 percent of the nation without running afoul of the ownership cap, according to the Internet & Television Association (NCTA).
Congress exempted the 39 percent cap from the FCC’s quadrennial review of telecom regulations. In 2017, the FCC sought public comment on whether to keep, modify, or eliminate the cap under the first Trump administration, but ultimately never made a change. With Carr, a Republican and Trump appointee, now leading the commission, the FCC in June reopened the docket and invited fresh public comments on the ownership cap, taking the first step toward changing the rules administratively.
In comments filed with the FCC on August 4, Free Press called the latest proceedings on the audience cap a “farce.” The group alleges that Carr long ago made up his mind to dismantle what’s left of the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules, and is wielding the commission’s authority to help Trump intimidate media companies and shape coverage of his administration. If the audience cap is lifted, media conglomerates would be free to gobble up more local TV stations — as long as the FCC approves the broadcast licenses.
“Media consolidation and deal approvals are now explicitly a way for President Trump to further consolidate his dictatorial power, through explicit loyalty tests and pledges to use the public airwaves as a propaganda tool against the American public,” Free Press wrote to the FCC.
Indeed, the FCC recently approved the $8 billion merger of Paramount and the Hollywood media company Skydance after Paramount subsidiary CBSagreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over an interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, which Trump claimed was edited in a misleading way. Legal experts panned the lawsuit as meritless under the First Amendment, but instead of mounting a defense in the name of press freedom, CBSagreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s presidential library and install an ombudsman to address perceived political bias.
Following the settlement, Paramount also canceled “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” which routinely mocks and criticizes Trump. Paramount has denied accusations by Colbert and others who say the company essentially paid a bribe to complete the merger.
Free speech groups say the settlement sets a dangerous precedent that Trump and Carr are moving to replicate. Armed with a controversial interpretation of the FCC’s explicitly narrow authority under a decades-old broadcast “news distortion” policy, which covers local TV and radio stations licensed by the FCC but not cable networks, Carr has launched investigations into complaints of “bias” in news coverage at NBC, ABC, and CBS.
Lifting the 39 percent ownership cap and opening up local broadcast TV to further consolidation could create new opportunities for the administration to leverage license approvals and merger deals to squeeze concessions out of major news networks that anger Trump.
“The price broadcast companies have to pay for consolidating further is bending the knee, and the line starts outside of the FCC chairman’s office,” Turner said.
Corporate TV station owners have launched a lobbying campaign to remove the ownership cap. In comments to the FCC, the National Association of Broadcasters said removing the rule is an “emergency for TV broadcasting” that must compete with cable television and online streaming services that are not subject to such restrictions, such as YouTube and Netflix. The internet has transformed the video media market, the group wrote, making the ownership cap obsolete.
“It is time — indeed, past time — for the Commission to expeditiously eliminate the national cap to ensure a more level playing field that allows broadcasters to not only survive, but also to thrive,” the group wrote.
However, Free Press argues TV stations remain profitable, and the ownership cap is needed to mitigate market incentives that push media conglomerates to abandon local journalism. In additional comments to the FCC, the organization joined a coalition of 16 press freedom groups, which said there is no evidence that allowing “massive news- and broadcast-media cartels” would inspire investment in local news.
The groups pointed to an analysis of 35 major media companies that identified a pattern of editorial compromise and capitulation as owners of conglomerates seek to curry favor with political leadership, including the highly transactional Trump administration.
The longstanding ownership cap is still needed to support a diversity of voices on local TV broadcasts, the press freedom coalition argues, which remain an important and popular source of news and information — especially in dozens of communities across the U.S. where traditional newspapers have already collapsed. Research suggests that media consolidation can reduce viewpoint diversity when conglomerates replace local journalism with national programming — a major reason why Congress set the 39 percent ownership cap.
Certain industry groups also support the ownership cap as well. The NCTA, which represents broadband and cable companies, filed comments arguing that only Congress has the authority to change the cap, and consumers would be harmed if TV station owners gain additional leverage and raise the cost of sharing programming. The American Television Alliance, a coalition of consumer groups and cable, satellite, and telecom companies, said these higher “retransmission fees” would push more cable subscribers toward streaming services and reduce incentives for conglomerates to invest in local journalism.
A 2019 study found that consolidation of local media ownership is associated with a substantial increase of national news at the expense of local news, as well as a significant rightward shift in the ideological slant of the coverage. This is perhaps most visible at Sinclair, one of the largest owners of local TV stations and a notorious peddler of right-wing, pro-Trump propaganda.
“Handing even more media control to a handful of capitulating conglomerates and billionaires already so dominant in the broadcast space is a wildly dangerous idea under any administration — but especially this one,” Turner said.
Press freedom is under attack
As Trump cracks down on political speech, independent media is increasingly necessary.
Truthout produces reporting you won’t see in the mainstream: journalism from the frontlines of global conflict, interviews with grassroots movement leaders, high-quality legal analysis and more.
Our work is possible thanks to reader support. Help Truthout catalyze change and social justice — make a tax-deductible monthly or one-time donation today.