If you went to the Federal Communications Commission website first thing Wednesday morning, you would have read the following:
“An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regulations.”
Note the word: independent.
However, if you went to the FCC website a little bit after noon Eastern time on Wednesday, you would have seen this:
“A U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regulations.”
Notice which word is missing: independent. (Axios’ Sara Fischer was the first to notice that “independent” was scrubbed from the FCC website.)
So what happened? Why did the FCC say it was “independent” one moment and then have that word removed the next? Because FCC chair Brendan Carr, in fiery testimony during a Senate committee hearing, said the FCC was not independent.
It all started Wednesday when Carr testified in an agency oversight hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico) repeatedly asked Carr if the FCC was an independent agency. Carr wouldn’t directly answer the question at first until Luján held up a screenshot of the commission’s website and said, “Just so you know, Brendan, on your website, it just simply says, man, the FCC’s independent. This isn’t a trick question.”
Then Carr stunned everyone by saying, “The FCC is not an independent agency, formally speaking.”
A short time later, the word "independent" was removed from the FCC’s site.
After the meeting, the FCC said in a statement, “With the change in Administration earlier this year, the FCC’s website and materials required updating. That work continues to ensure that they reflect the positions of the agency’s new leadership.”
Luján, however, put out his own statement, saying, “Chairman Carr continues to fail the American people by treating the independent FCC as an extension of the President’s corrupt agenda.”
It was just one part of a much-anticipated and contentious hearing.
The New York Times’ Cecilia Kang wrote, “Democrats grilled Mr. Carr in the hearing over a series of threats he had made to broadcasters about revoking local broadcast licenses for content that is not in the public’s interest.”
Much of this goes back to Carr’s critical comments about Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night ABC show following the shooting death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September. Kimmel had mentioned Kirk in a monologue, leading Carr to say on a conservative podcast, “Look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
A day later, Kimmel’s show was temporarily pulled from the air by Disney, a decision that was criticized on both sides of the aisle — including Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who compared Carr’s threats to something you might see in a mob movie such as “Goodfellas.”
On Wednesday, Carr said his comments back in September were not meant as threats against Kimmel’s show. And Cruz wasn’t tough on Carr. In fact, The Los Angeles Times’ Meg James wrote, “Cruz was conciliatory Wednesday, praising Carr’s work in his first year as FCC chairman.”
However, Cruz has been consistent in warning Republicans that if agencies like the FCC can punish the left for free-speech comments, then someday, when Democrats are in charge, conservatives could see their comments shut down. Cruz said Wednesday during the hearing, “ABC and its affiliates would have been fully within their rights to fire (Kimmel) or simply to no longer air his program, that was their choice. But what the government cannot do is force private entities to take actions that the government cannot take directly. Government officials threatening adverse consequences for disfavored content is an unconstitutional coercion that chills free speech.”
Cruz added, “Democrat or Republican, we cannot have the government arbitrating truth or opinion.”
Meanwhile, James wrote for the Los Angeles Times, “Despite the landmark Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, the agency isn’t exactly independent, Carr and fellow Republican Commissioner Olivia Trusty testified. The two Republicans said because Trump has the power to hire and fire commissioners, the FCC was more akin to other agencies within the federal government.”
Sen. Andy Kim, a Democrat of New Jersey, told Carr, “Trump is not your boss, so the American people are your boss.”
Kim asked Carr, “Would it be appropriate for the president or senior administration officials to give you direction to pressure media companies?”
Carr ducked by saying, “Sorry, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals.”
Then there’s this
In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump complained about an appearance on last week’s “Meet the Press” by Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and ominously said that TV networks “should be properly licensed, and pay significant amounts of money for using this very valuable Public space.”
Idle threat or preview of what Trump has in store?
WBD discourages a sale to Paramount
As expected, Warner Bros. Discovery told its shareholders on Wednesday to reject the hostile takeover bid by Paramount, saying Paramount — led by owners David and Larry Ellison — has “consistently misled” WBD about the financing behind the deal. WBD called the Paramount takeover bid “illusory.”
Earlier this month, Netflix agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — including its film and TV studios, its gaming business, HBO Max and HBO — in a deal worth $83 billion. But, soon after, Paramount announced a hostile takeover bid, offering to pay $30 per share in cash, valuing Warner Bros. Discovery at just more than $108 billion, including debt. Paramount’s bid includes billions of dollars in funding from other backers, including sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. However, Paramount claimed its offer was “backstopped” by the Ellison family, meaning it guaranteed funding should the other investors pull out of the deal.
But WBD doubts that, saying, “It does not, and never has.”
What happens now?
Paramount could sweeten its offer. But for now, the Ellisons are still appealing to the shareholders that their offer is best. Paramount chairman and chief executive David Ellison said Wednesday, “We will continue to move forward to deliver this transaction, which is in the best interest of WBD shareholders, consumers, and the creative industries.”
CNN’s Liam Reilly wrote, “This could turn into a long, drawn-out battle to win over shareholders. WBD board chair Sam DiPiazza told CNBC on Wednesday morning that the shareholder vote won’t happen until the spring or ‘early summer.’”
More Reiner coverage
