It was a move that was largely expected, but is nevertheless noteworthy. In one of her final acts as Chairwoman of the FCC, Jessica Rosenworcel — by way of the Acting Media Bureau Chief — has denied four complaints and petitions that she believes “seek to curtail freedom of the press and undermine the First Amendment.”
As such, the license for Fox Television Stations’ WTXF “FOX 29” in Philadelphia will be renewed. Three other matters involving a pair of New York TV stations and a different Philadelphia property are also impacted by the FCC’s decision.
In a statement, Rosenworcel pointed to the quartet of filings that “come from all corners—right and left.”
What they have in common, she asserts, is that “they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.”
Included in these items is a controversial Petition to Deny the broadcast license of WTXF submitted by the Media and Democracy Project — with the assistance of former ABC and Disney executive Preston Padden — on July 3, 2023.
MAD, and Padden, insist that the FCC needs to hold a hearing that would place the license renewal of the local Philadelphia TV station in question. Crux to the petition is MAD’s argument that the airing of FOX News content following the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election on WTXF presented viewers with false and inaccurate information.
Why was WTXF singled out? Padden had explained to RBR+TVBR in an interview that WTXF’s license renewal date came earlier than for other Fox-owned stations.
By late July 2024, the FCC had not acted on the MAD petition, even as it continued to demonstrate why a hearing should take place. With the election of President Trump in the 2024 U.S. presidential race, any chance for a hearing all but evaporated, leaving Padden and the MAD few alternatives. Going to the D.C. federal appeals court is one consideration. But, Padden tells RBR + TVBR, “Since it is a bureau decision, we have to first appeal to the full commission. Below is a personal statement.”
Indeed, while Rosenworcel explained in her statement that the FCC is tossing MAD’s petition on the grounds that it “seeks to have the FCC remove the license of a television station for the character shortcomings of its corporate ownership,” the Commission is using delegated authority to move forward with the license renewal of WTXF. Media Bureau Acting Chief Rosemary Harold — and not former Bureau head Holly Saurer — signed off on the Memorandum Opinion and Order distributed Thursday (1/16) by the Commission. In that MO&O, Harold writes: “[W]e conclude that neither the Petition nor the Informal Objections contain “specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . a grant of the [renewal] application would be prima facie inconsistent with” Section 309(k) of the Act.”
Further, Harold says MAD failed to establish a prima facie case that WTXF ever disseminated false information. Harold explains, “While Petitioners and Objectors assert that WTXF-TV broadcast Fox News Sunday over-the-air every week, they do not list any content aired on Fox News Sunday that they believe warrants a hearing nor do they otherwise provide anything that might support a claim that the false statements disseminated on Fox News were broadcast on WTXF.”
“While Petitioners and Objectors assert that WTXF-TV broadcast Fox News Sunday over-the-air every week, they do not list any content aired on Fox News Sunday that they believe warrants a hearing nor do they otherwise provide anything that might support a claim that the false statements disseminated on Fox News were broadcast on WTXF.” — Media Bureau Acting Chief Rosemary Harold
But, what if the Petitioners and Objectors had listed any content that aired on Fox News Sunday? The FCC would still decline to consider it with respect to the license renewal of a broadcast television station. “Such content review in the context of a renewal application would run afoul of our obligations under the First Amendment and the statutory prohibition on censorship and interference with free speech rights as set forth in Section 326 of the Act,” Harold writes.
Allegations that online public file rule violations were also seen by WTXF were also dismissed by Harold, who concluded, “[T]o the extent Petitioners and Objectors would have the Commission review specific content aired by WXTF or Fox to determine whether it ‘shocks the conscience,’ such content review in the context of a renewal application would run afoul of our obligations under the First Amendment and the statutory prohibition on censorship and interference with free speech rights as set forth in Section 326 of the Act. In light of this precedent, we cannot conclude that the Petitioners and Objectors have put forth a prima facie case that would warrant further inquiry under this standard.”
In a joint statement, Padden and the Media and Democracy Project commented, “We look forward to presenting on appeal the multiple court decisions that raise serious questions about the Murdochs’ and Fox’s character qualifications to remain broadcast licensees.”
They pointed to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, who stated in a FCC filing that “the First Amendment is no bar to Commission action given the facts of this case. Our petition is clearly distinct from the other politically motivated complaints.”
Our Petition to Deny is based on judicial findings that Fox made repeated false statements that undermined the electoral process and resulted in property damage, injury, and death; that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch engaged in a “carefully crafted scheme” in “bad faith” to deprive Lachlan’s siblings of the control to which they are entitled under an irrevocable trust; and that “Murdoch knowingly caused the corporation to violate the law.”
MAD and Padden conclude, “It simply will be wrong if the Murdochs and Fox escape any responsibility for their prominent role for the riot at the Capitol on January 6 [in 2020] and the efforts to overturn the results of a presidential election.”
FCC AXES COMPLAINT LINKED TO HARRIS SNL APPEARANCE
The second order signed off by Harold and endorsed by Rosenworcel dismisses a complaint from the Center for American Rights (CAR) alleging WNBC-TV in New York violated the Commission’s Equal Opportunities Rule when Vice President Kamala Harris appeared in a Saturday Night Live sketch just days before the November election. Later in the program, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who was running for reelection, also appeared. Opposing candidates did not appear.
Harold’s response? “The Commission does not—and cannot and will not—act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism,” denying a violation of the Commission’s equal opportunities rule.
LETTERS TOSSED
Like the Media Bureau, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau now has an Acting Chief, and it came to Peter Hyun to deny a CAR complaint filed on September 24, 2024 regarding WPVI-6 in Philadelphia, the ABC Owned Stations property serving the Delaware Valley.
The issue, as voiced by President-elect Trump, was “news distortion” during the broadcast of the Presidential debate on September 10, 2024.
Hyun labeled the complaint as running contrary to longstanding principles that the Commission “does not – and cannot and will not – act as a self-appointed, freeroving arbiter of truth in journalism.”
Lastly, WCBS-2, the CBS News & Stations property in New York, was the subject of an October 16, 2024 complaint from CAR for its airing of a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Harris. Conservatives took CBS to task for broadcasting a conversation with Harris that appeared to present a different edit or “distortion” of a previously issued teaser promoting her appearance on the program.
REJECTION EXPLAINED
Explaining why the FCC’s Media Bureau and Enforcement Bureau ruled as they did, Rosenworcel explains, “The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. By restricting the government from making laws that impair freedom of speech, the First Amendment preserves our right to express ourselves. The freedom of the press in this country depends on it.
“Over the course of history, our government leaders have clashed with news organizations that cover their efforts. President John Adams, for instance, championed a law that made it illegal to print, utter, or publish malicious statements about the federal government. President Nixon targeted the license renewals of two television stations that were owned by the newspaper investigating his involvement in Watergate. More recently this threat to the First Amendment has taken on new forms, as the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage.
It may seem quaint to draw attention like this to broadcast licenses, in an era when so many of us seek out information we want, when we want it, from where we want it, on any screen handy. But these stations remain a vital source of local and national news. And there is nothing antiquated about the idea that the FCC has a duty to respect the Constitution.”
That is why Rosenworcel has “directed the FCC to take a stand on behalf of the First Amendment” with the delegated authority vested in the agency.
Rosenworcel continues, “We draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference with the free press is needed more than ever. The action we take makes clear two things. First, the FCC should not be the President’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.”
She concludes, “The facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different. But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.”