Donald Trump’s lawsuit against CBS and subsequent FCC investigation, stemming from a *60 Minutes* interview with Kamala Harris, are baseless. The released transcript fully refutes Trump’s claims of “election interference” and journalistic misconduct, revealing his accusations to be a misrepresentation of standard editing practices. CBS’s editing of Harris’s response to a question about Israel involved using a more concise portion of her answer, not replacing it with a fabricated one. The FCC’s consideration of the complaint is a concerning abuse of power, driven by Trump’s personal vendetta and a questionable interpretation of broadcast regulations.
Read More
The FCC’s release of the full transcript and video of Kamala Harris’s ’60 Minutes’ interview has sparked a firestorm of commentary, much of it focusing on the perceived hypocrisy of the situation. The release itself seems, to many, a strange use of agency resources, particularly given the existing concerns about potential news distortion across the media landscape. This isn’t just about the Harris interview; it’s about a broader question of fairness and consistency in how news is scrutinized.
The central controversy revolves around the FCC’s investigation into whether the ’60 Minutes’ interview was edited in a way that constitutes “news distortion.”… Continue reading
Compelled by the FCC chairman, CBS will provide unedited transcripts and camera footage of its Kamala Harris interview. This action stems from a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Donald Trump, alleging deceptive editing to favor Harris. The network maintains its editing practices were standard and denies wrongdoing, while press freedom advocates closely monitor the situation and potential settlement talks. Trump’s continued pursuit of the lawsuit, despite his election win, highlights the ongoing tension between the former president and media outlets. Similar past settlements between Trump and other media organizations have involved substantial financial payouts.
Read More
A Sixth Circuit Court ruling, heavily influenced by the recent Loper Bright Supreme Court decision, blocked the Biden FCC’s attempt to reinstate net neutrality rules. This decision, echoing telecom lobbyist arguments, effectively eliminates significant federal consumer protection for broadband services. The ruling diminishes the FCC’s authority, leveraging a claim of “heavy-handed regulation” despite the modest nature of the rules and their broad public support. This outcome reflects a broader corporate strategy to dismantle federal oversight and leaves states to grapple with creating and enforcing their own consumer protections.
Read More
A US appeals court recently blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to reinstate net neutrality rules. This decision, leveraging the Supreme Court’s overturning of Chevron deference, has sparked significant debate and concern. Many believe this signifies a setback for consumers and a win for large corporations.
The argument that the court’s decision should end efforts to restore net neutrality and shift focus to other consumer concerns like improving internet access and promoting online innovation seems shortsighted. It’s not an either/or proposition; Americans can simultaneously prioritize both net neutrality and improvements in internet access and innovation. The idea of individually tailored internet plans, often presented as a benefit of ending net neutrality, rings hollow.… Continue reading
Brendan Carr, President-elect Trump’s FCC nominee and a long-time critic of Big Tech, advocates for repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This provision shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, a point of contention for Carr who believes it creates an unacceptable power imbalance. Carr’s views, detailed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, align with both Trump’s and Biden’s stated desires to reform or eliminate Section 230, despite differing motivations. Repealing Section 230 enjoys bipartisan support, though legislative progress remains slow.
Read More
In his Project 2025 policy proposal, FCC Commissioner Carr advocated for curbing Big Tech censorship, proposing that content moderation be limited to illegal material, thereby empowering users to select their preferred content filters. This approach aligns with the actions of Elon Musk at X (formerly Twitter), creating an environment receptive to conservative viewpoints. Furthermore, Carr urged a TikTok ban unless ByteDance divested its U.S. operations, citing national security concerns related to the flow of information. These proposals represent a significant shift towards deregulation and user control over online content.
Read More
Under a potential Ajit Pai-esque chairmanship by Brendan Carr, the FCC’s direction would drastically shift. This includes deregulation of internet service providers, potentially at the expense of increased regulation and financial burdens on Big Tech companies. Furthermore, a Carr-led FCC might target news organizations deemed critical of the administration and prioritize funding for projects like Elon Musk’s Starlink, potentially disregarding existing regulatory decisions. The FCC chair’s significant authority, as outlined by Carr himself, underscores the potential for sweeping changes under his leadership.
Read More
FCC Declares AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls are Illegal
I don’t know about you, but I am absolutely tired of receiving those annoying robocalls. You know the ones – the automated messages claiming we’ve won a fabulous prize, or the ones trying to scam us into giving away our personal information. Well, it seems that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally taken a step in the right direction by declaring AI-generated voices in robocalls to be illegal.
Now, you may be asking why it took so long for this to happen. After all, robocalls have been a nuisance for years, and the use of AI to mimic human voices in these calls is nothing new.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood