Strange Bedfellows: FCC’s ‘60 Minutes’ Probe Brings Advocacy Orgs Together to Sound Alarm About First Amendment Threat

by

Amidst the current intense political polarization, there aren’t many topics that can bring Americans and organizations spanning various ideologies together. One such issue seems to be the controversy surrounding CBS and the scrutiny it is receiving from the Federal Communications Commission over an interview aired last fall with Vice President Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes.

A diverse group of organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the United Church of Christ, TechFreedom, People Power United, Common Cause, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have collectively expressed opposition to the commission’s investigation into the political bias allegations against “60 Minutes.” Their stance is based on concerns about potential political motivation in the probe.

The FCC’s investigation, sparked by a complaint lodged by the conservative organization Center for American Rights, mirrors similar legal claims made in a lawsuit filed by former presidential candidate Donald Trump against CBS the previous year. This inquiry occurs as the FCC is considering parts of the $8 billion deal involving Paramount Global (CBS’s parent company) being acquired by Skydance Media and RedBird Capital. The “60 Minutes” program and CBS News have found themselves in a contentious situation, with this case potentially marking a significant moment in history – though it could potentially establish a harmful precedent for journalism.

Robert Corn-Revere, previously chief counsel at the FCC and now serving in the same position for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, shares with EbMaster his viewpoint that leaders within the FCC have often relied on industries to influence their actions in a manner that aligns with the government’s preferred methods.

It’s unexpected that Brendan Carr behaves this way, considering his previous remarks he made. Trump once referred to Carr as an advocate for free speech when he nominated him for the position of FCC chairman, following Carr’s eight-year tenure as a commissioner.

As a movie critic, I found myself reflecting on the past actions of Carr, who frequently underscored instances where the FCC’s behavior seemed to challenge the First Amendment. Now, observing him in the present, one is left searching for a fresh term to describe such blatant hypocrisy.

Matt Mackowiak, a conservative lobbyist who once served in the George W. Bush administration, expresses concern that the political sparring over the “news distortion” issue could negatively impact Republicans. He stated in an article for Townhall this month that it’s concerning for Chairman Carr, a fellow conservative, to potentially penalize CBS for using their editorial freedom under the First Amendment, as this could lead to similar attacks against conservative news outlets in the future. Mackowiak argues that conservatives have spent nearly four decades constructing a thriving alternative to the liberal media establishment, and it’s crucial not to undermine these efforts or infringe upon free speech rights unnecessarily, merely for the sake of gaining an upper hand against liberals.

Over 8,400 comments have been made in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) inquiry into CBS, following their request for public feedback in early February. Concurrently, CBS is seeking to have a federal court in Texas dismiss the civil lawsuit filed by Trump against the network. This lawsuit alleged that the producers of “60 Minutes” manipulated the editing of the Harris interview to portray her more favorably and damage Trump’s election campaign.

Previously, the president made adjustments to raise the potential compensation from $10 billion to $20 billion. He also included a statement expressing being affected in his capacity as a proprietor of a social media company that rivals CBS in terms of audience share.

A whirlwind of legal and regulatory matters concerning CBS and “60 Minutes” has drawn the attention of more than just those who monitor the media. Numerous comments have been posted, many of which use standard phrases that seem to have been disseminated by media watchdog organizations. For instance, some comments argue against using the Federal Communications Commission as a tool to muzzle media outlets, suppress free speech, and target political adversaries.

However, numerous individuals found the investigation unnecessary. A statement attributed to Jules Wang stated: “As a U.S. citizen and a long-term follower of current events and news from networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, and more, I don’t understand why this inquiry should persist. I request that Commissioner Carr step down immediately.

Elise Nappi strongly expresses her disapproval: “Having graduated from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in ’90, I am appalled by the methods used by 60 Minutes and CBS News overall. I earnestly wish that the FCC would take action and impose a penalty on the show that serves as a warning to other activist media outlets and makes it clear to CBS News and 60 Minutes that such deception will no longer be accepted.

In their recent analyses, Corn-Revere and others have pointed out that allegations of “news distortion” at the FCC often stem from content that has caused controversy among politicians and decision-makers. Since 1969, approximately 120 such complaints have been lodged, with one of the earliest being by Henry B. González, a Texas congressman, who criticized CBS for overdramatizing extreme poverty in San Antonio in the 1968 documentary “Hunger in America.” González argued that the network had exaggerated the malnutrition issues among the city’s poor to create a captivating documentary. This complaint was eventually dismissed by the FCC during the Nixon era.

Without a doubt, ‘Hunger in America,’ presented by CBS News icon Charles Kuralt, remains an exceptional piece of work. It serves as a stark reminder of how the focus of broadcast journalism has shifted from public service to financial gain over the past fifty years. For nearly an hour, Kuralt painstakingly illustrates the economic disparities and policy flaws that fueled hunger in America. At the end, he addresses the camera directly with a straightforward statement.

In this nation, it should be guaranteed that everyone has access to the essentials for human life as a fundamental right, Kuralt states straightforwardly.

Imagine such a statement airing today.

Read More

2025-03-19 19:19