Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has signaled a willingness to revoke broadcast licenses from television stations failing to meet the agency’s public interest standards. These remarks were made during an interview with Media Research Center President David Bozell, as posted on YouTube. “I’ve said from the get-go: Broadcast licenses are not sacred cows. If you think there’s nothing you can do to lose a license, then it’s not a license. That’s called a property right,” Carr stated during what was dubbed “Free Speech Week.”
The conversation between Carr and Bozell, whose organization has frequently criticized perceived “liberal bias” in mainstream media, explored familiar topics for both. While the discussion spanned from free speech to the removal of Chinese hardware from U.S. networks via Operation Clean Carts, Carr’s statements regarding the future of broadcast licenses garnered the most attention. He differentiated between national programmers like Disney, Comcast, and Paramount – which the FCC doesn't license – and local broadcast stations that air their content.
Carr emphasized that these local stations hold FCC licenses and could face consequences if they fail to serve the public interest. While recognizing the need for a “whole process,” Carr suggested that some broadcasters “may very well end up losing their licenses.” His framing of the issue highlights potential tensions in applying the public interest standard. Carr told Bozell that licensed broadcasters “can’t run sort of a narrow, partisan circus,” but the definition of "partisan programming" versus legitimate editorial choices remains ambiguous.
Carr referenced the recent Jimmy Kimmel incident, where some ABC affiliates temporarily refused to air the late-night host’s show, as a positive development. He viewed local stations pushing back against network programming for “a week” as “a win for re-empowering those local broadcasters.” However, Carr’s own admission that stations “were never going to be able to hold out forever, just given the balance of power” highlights the limited power affiliates have against major networks. His suggestion about strengthening preemption rights raises questions about potential government intervention in programming decisions.
Carr also noted that the FCC has “walked away from enforcing the public interest standard” in recent decades. Yet his examples of positive change – NPR and PBS defunding, CBS committing to “fact-based journalism” – suggest a specific interpretation of what public interest entails. Carr’s assertion that these changes stem from Donald Trump and organizations like MRC indicates a potential link between regulatory enforcement and political views. This raises concerns about whether public interest determinations could be swayed by ideological factors rather than objective benchmarks.
While Carr mentioned that license revocation would require “a whole process that has to be run,” he didn't specify what violations could trigger such actions or what safeguards would prevent arbitrary enforcement. The broadcast industry has long assumed that license renewal, while not guaranteed, follows established procedures and precedent. The chairman’s suggestion that broadcasters could lose licenses, delivered in an interview rather than through formal FCC channels, could raise procedural questions about implementing such significant regulatory changes.
For broadcast station owners and operators, Carr’s comments create potential uncertainty in the regulatory landscape. The possibility of licenses being at risk based on evolving interpretations of public interest obligations could impact business decisions, programming choices, and the overall value of broadcast properties. The timing of these remarks, early in Carr’s chairmanship, suggests broadcasters may need to prepare for a more assertive enforcement approach.