The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering a corporate acquisition that would make a single company 鈥� Sinclair Broadcasting Group 鈥� the largest owner of local TV stations in history.
Americans watch more local news than cable news or network news, making that medium for informing the public about important issues. In a submitted Tuesday, we formally urged the FCC to block the deal. This unprecedented concentration of control, which contradicts the FCC鈥檚 own policies about how wide a broadcasting company鈥檚 reach can be, would stifle the diversity of views in the press that鈥檚 essential for a healthy democracy.
You may have heard of Sinclair before, because it has been exposed for repeatedly injecting politically charged segments into local news, which otherwise typically avoids ideological punditry.
In March, of anchors at Sinclair-owned stations across the country reciting a script about the dangers of 鈥渙ne-sided news鈥� went viral:
%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20id%3D%22media-youtube-fhfgu8omso%22%20width%3D%22576%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22Sinclair%27s%20Soldiers%20in%20Trump%27s%20War%20on%20Media%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F_fHfgU8oMSo%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Benablejsapi%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Bplayerapiid%3Dmedia-youtube-fhfgu8omso%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3EVideo%20of%20Sinclair%26amp%3B%23039%3Bs%20Soldiers%20in%20Trump%26amp%3B%23039%3Bs%20War%20on%20Media%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
In the segment, after declaring their commitment to serve the local interests of their communities, dozens of anchors parroted President Trump鈥檚 lambasting of 鈥渇ake news.鈥� The irony could not be more apparent: local broadcasters being forced by a giant, nationwide conglomerate to convey a political message about 鈥� the importance of apolitical coverage and local control.
Our opposition to the Sinclair merger has nothing to do with where Sinclair sits on the ideological spectrum. The problem is that Sinclair鈥檚 attempt to acquire Tribune Media would give it control over some 200 TV stations, virtually guaranteeing less viewpoint diversity in local news.
The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the FCC should promote viewpoint diversity in the media, , 鈥淚t is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market.鈥� This is why the FCC itself sets limits on the number of stations one company can own.
Since the 1940s, the 老澳门开奖结果 has opposed media consolidation and its potential for diminishing the diversity of views available to the public. And, while we primarily defend civil liberties against government infringement, we have also long held that when it comes to regulating the public airwaves, the government is obligated to stop private companies from interfering with viewpoint diversity.
Unfortunately, the FCC has shown signs of doing the exact opposite. Trump-appointed Chairman Ajit Pai gave the proposed merger a in 2017 by suddenly reinstating a long discredited rule that allows media companies to own a greater number of stations while still falling within ownership limits. Advocacy groups are currently challenging the FCC鈥檚 reinstatement of this rule in court.
The need for the government to block the Sinclair deal is also clear because of the company鈥檚 pattern of forcing local broadcasters to ideological content 鈥� and censor other stories that it deems contrary to its political interests. Among other examples, last year a Sinclair-owned station in Seattle was asked to report on the recruitment of paid protestors at Trump鈥檚 inauguration, a story that was later proven false. In 2004, Sinclair pulled an episode of ABC鈥檚 Nightline in which the names of troops killed in Iraq were read, with the company claiming that it was intended to hurt President Bush. Perhaps most famously, Sinclair imposes 鈥渕ust-run鈥� segments, such as regular editorial pieces by former Trump White House official Boris Epshteyn, on its local stations.
Forcing local broadcasters to engage in political commentary denies viewers the honest coverage they seek 鈥� and this practice will expand with the merger.
In addition to these First Amendment-related factors, we are greatly concerned about the proposed merger because of its potential to disproportionately harm minority communities. Sinclair has not shied away from running pieces that disparage minority groups, such as its recurring 鈥溾�� segment that has equated Islam with terrorism, and its by Sebastian Gorka, who notoriously warned on a Sinclair-produced town hall event that 鈥渂lack Africans鈥� were 鈥渕urdering each other by the bushel鈥� in Chicago.
Overall, the Sinclair deal combines unprecedented market control with a pattern of forcing local broadcasters around the country to run corporate-scripted propaganda. The FCC must protect the principles embodied by the First Amendment and deny the merger.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.