The National Association of Broadcasters, CBS, the Radio Television Digital News Association and other press organizations are urging the Federal Communications Commission to end its investigation in whether a New York TV station should have its license potentially revoked for a segment on “60 Minutes” that draw the fire of President Trump concerning the editing of an interview with then-Vice President and then-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
The NAB says the review has “significant implications” for radio and TV stations across the country, whether they have a news-talk format or air news and interviews with public officials and candidates, from mayors to Presidents. The trade group says the complaint against WCBS-TV fails to make the case for a violation of the FCC’s news distortion policy, but the raw footage and transcripts released by the network fails to provide any evidence that the editing in question was designed to deliberately mislead viewers. It also says the news distortion policy is “unconstitutionally vague” and closely aligned with the now-ended Fairness Doctrine.
“The same grounds that led the Commission to repudiate the Fairness Doctrine would lead it to the identical conclusion here; namely, the news distortion policy is contrary to the public interest and the Constitution,” the NAB says. It adds that the FCC has never offered a clear definition of what programming it considers to be “news” under the policy.
The RTDNA is also advocating for the case to be closed, saying if it is even allowed to go to a hearing it would “generate a chilling effect” in newsrooms across the U.S. “Any broad application of the news distortion policy in the name of the public interest would prove more dangerous than actual or alleged incidents of distortion,” it tells the FCC. The RTDNA adds that it does not believe the record reflects any evidence of deliberate slanting or rigging of the “60 Minutes” episode at issue in violation of the FCC’s rarely invoked news distortion policy.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which provides pro bono legal representation to media outlets, says it is also worried about the FCC opening the door for more complaints like the one leveled against CBS. It argues the news distortion rule is “especially susceptible to improper use” and complainants could use enforcement actions to suppress news perceived as unfavorable.
For its part, CBS denies any wrongdoing and says the complaint filed against it “envisions a less free world in which the federal government becomes a roving censor” where media outlets could be punished for specific editorial decisions. “Such an unconstitutional policy would chill newsrooms, silence views on broadcast radio and television across the ideological spectrum, depress investment in news, and prevent editing decisions (including for length) that are essential in broadcast journalism,” it says.
The “news distortion” policy dates to the administration of President Harry S. Truman of 1949, which said the scarcity of broadcast outlets required that they played fair. But CBS says in 2025 that reasoning is outdated, with mobile phones and cable news, and the First Amendment leaves “no room” for such a policy.
Just days after Trump was sworn in, the Media Bureau in January revived the license challenges against stations owned by all three of the big networks. Each had been dismissed by the FCC in the final weeks of the Biden administration.
The Center for American Rights, which filed the complaint against WCBS-TV, says the “slice-and-dice editing” may be standard practice, but it sees it raising a fundamental question for the FCC into whether that is in the public interest. “The First Amendment protects that editorial discretion. But the First Amendment does not protect broadcasters when they intentionally manipulate the news in a way that slants, suppresses, or distorts” it says.
More than 8,500 comments have been filed as of Tuesday in the proceeding, many tied to groups on both sides of the debate. FCC Chair Brendan Carr earlier suggested he may take a tougher line on such complaints.
“The reality is, a broadcast license is not a sacred cow,” Carr said in a radio interview in November. “You have an obligation to operate in the public interest. The FCC hasn’t really taken any action on that front in a very long time. But I think we need to reinvigorate that. I think that’d be a good thing.”
Comments