Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr on Wednesday defended the FCC’s authority to regulate television stations based on whether they serve the public interest, in the face of senators’ questions on free speech and media competition. He made his defense before the Senate Commerce Committee, where he appeared with Commissioners Anna M. Gomez and Olivia Trusty. The appearance comes some three months after controversial comments about late night host Jimmy Kimmel that seemed to threaten broadcast licenses for stations that continued to air his show after he joked on-air about the reaction to conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death. Committee Democrats questioned those comments and Carr’s commitment to free speech. Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., pressed Carr about whether he regretted making the statement, which Markey noted was condemned by Commerce Chair Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and other prominent Republicans. “My job is to enforce the law as passed by Congress,” Carr said. “That includes a public interest standard, and broadcast TV is fundamentally different than any other media.” Markey responded that Carr’s response was “a refusal to take accountability for your language or your use, your abuse of power.” Trusty, the commission’s other Republican member, echoed similar sentiments to Carr, though she avoided the shouting matches that marked some of his interactions with Democratic senators. “My job is to enforce the law as it relates to broadcasters. Broadcasters have public interest obligations, and it relies on a case-by-case basis. As you know, the FCC does have the authority to revoke licenses and the conditions for which are spelled out in Section 312 of the Communications Act,” Trusty said. Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, expressed concerns about the impact of the FCC’s approach under Carr on its reputation as a “stable, independent, and expert-driven regulatory body.” “Nowhere is that departure more concerning than in its actions to intimidate government critics, pressure media companies and challenge the boundaries of the First Amendment,” Gomez said. First Amendment Markey and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., also called attention to Carr’s previous statements on free speech, including a social media post in which Carr called political satire “one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech.” Klobuchar said, “I believe, too, that there is no place in chilling political satire” and contrasted Carr’s post with his actions in the Kimmel dustup. Carr drew a distinction between satire on social media, which his post was in response to, and speech on broadcast television stations that receive FCC licenses. “Over the years, I think the FCC has walked away from enforcing the public interest standard. I don't think that's a good thing,” Carr said. Cruz did not question Carr about the Kimmel controversy and instead brought up instances in which, Cruz said, Democrats inappropriately pressured the FCC, including over mergers and renewals. “I think you would agree that the FCC public interest standard has been weaponized against conservatives in the past,” Cruz said to Carr. Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., called Cruz’s focus on a 2018 letter from Senate Democrats in regards to Sinclair Broadcasting’s conduct and its merger with Tribune Media Company an attempt to “muddy the waters.” “Chairman Carr's threats to companies he directly regulates are not the same thing as a letter from Congress requesting an agency examine a matter of public concern,” Kim said. Cruz accused Kim and other Democrats of perpetuating a double standard in their criticisms of Carr. “Suddenly Democrats have discovered the First Amendment, and my request would be, maybe remember it when Democrats are in power, that the First Amendment is not simply a one-way . . . license for one team to abuse the power and the other not. Instead we should respect the free speech of all Americans, regardless of party.” Ownership and distortion rule Earlier in the hearing, Cruz suggested that Congress should consider updates to the public interest standard and other key broadcast regulations such as media ownership caps. “The public interest standard and its wretched offspring like the news distortion rule have outlived whatever utility they once had, and it is long past time for Congress to pass reforms,” Cruz said. Media ownership caps currently limit how many television stations one owner can have in a given market and what percentage of the total U.S. market an owner’s stations reach. The FCC is currently accepting comments on its routine process to review ownership rules, including at the local and national levels. Carr indicated that the FCC is still weighing the rules. He also said, in response to a question about the impact on local broadcasters of expanding the caps, that it might give large companies more “ability to invest” in local news. “If we care as a public interest matter about local news and local reporting, I think we have to start to look at policies that can create more incentives for investment there,” he said. The panel’s ranking member, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., criticized what she said is Carr’s support for media consolidation. “How do we now make sure that we continue to have not so much consolidation, because I know Chairman Carr you have supported consolidation, that makes it easier to have influence and to have less competition?" she asked. "Local news and independent voices matter, and consolidation undermines that independence and drives up cost.”
