The Right-wing Press, Alternative Facts, and the FCC

If you look at The New York Time's "Coronavirus World Map" (December 25), you will be surprised to learn the the U.S. has the second worst record of per capita daily cases.  Only Lithuania has a worse record. 

How sad that this great country, home to one of the finest medical systems in the world, is experiencing such devastation. 

And why is this happening?  The answer falls clearly on the shoulders of President Trump.   Through a combination of well-documented early inaction, a disastrous stand on not wearing masks, turning epidemiological controls into attacks on people's Constitutional rights, and lack of a coordinated federal policy, we are approaching 20,000,000 cases and have surpassed 340,000 deaths. 

Why is it that half the country doesn't seem to realize this.   The answer is that they listen to right-wing news media, who have aided and abetted this crime against the nation. 

What is it about the right-wing media?  How could they be so callous about what is happening throughout the country that they continue to support Trump in his dismissal of the virus as something not serious.   This is not a question of free speech, of opinion.   This is a question of using the public air waves to disseminate lies, misinformation in the current parlance, that threaten the well-being of our country.   

Stations, whether radio, TV, or cable, receive a license to broadcast from the Federal Communication Commission.   Station licensees, as the trustees of the public’s airwaves, must use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest.

The FCC gives stations broad leeway in deciding how it serves that interest.  It will generally not intervene in the exercise of journalistic judgment or opinion.   

"However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that 'rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.' "

"The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge (italics supplied) that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene."  This quote is from the FCC manual. 

In the current situation regarding reporting on the pandemic, there has been ample evidence that Fox and other news outlets have done precisely that.   They have intentionally distorted the facts, scientific and other, regarding the pandemic.   Further, I believe that there has been reported direction from management to falsify or distort the news. 

The concept of "alternative facts" that was dreamed up by Kellyanne Conway does not provide cover.   Or at least should not.   Again, this is not a matter of someone having a different opinion on something; something where, as lawyers say, reasonable men may differ.  These are made-up facts; a less-offensive term than falsehoods.

By providing alternative facts to the public, right-wing cable stations are in fact misleading the public, they are distorting the facts on a matter of the gravest national public health interest.   And it is their intention to mislead; they know that they are distorting the facts. 

Obviously with Trump appointees as chair and the majority of the FCC, no complaint regarding this issue would have seen the light of day.   They consider alternative facts, facts. 

But in June 2021, Biden will be able to appoint a Commissioner, giving the Democrats a majority.  With a Democratic chair and majority, hopefully someone will come forward that meets the high bar set by the FCC.   Someone with the required direct personal knowledge, i.e.  a whistle blower possessed of internal documents, and make a well-documented complaint regarding the handling of news of the pandemic.   If proven, the result should be that, at a minimum, a substantial fine should be imposed.   But this case is so egregious that revocation of licenses may be appropriate.

If such a person does not come forward, this travesty that has become news reporting will continue unabated, unchastised.   Another example of the negative impact is the near-fanatacism with which liberals protect free speech.   Whether it's the issue of hate speech or something as gross as the misleading "facts" that have been presented by right-wing media recently, the absolutism of free speech advocates is misplaced.   

As I've stated before in posts, the 1st Amendment right, as with all rights, is not absolute.  There are already various exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court to protect the public from immediate and serious harm, such as false advertising, obscenity, and speech that incites to imminent lawless action.   I agree that the requisite intent to mislead is of critical importance, but there are ways of proving that without a whistle-blower. 

Donald Trump’s Thuggery

In a recent interview with Breitbart, as reported in various mainstream media, although interestingly not The New York Times or the Washington Post, Donald Trump stated the following. “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump. I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

For whom would it be very bad?  The obvious answer is Trump’s opponents.  He’s made this kind of veiled threat before, but never quite this directly.  And as always, he removes himself from threat.  It is these supporters who would vent their anger on his opponents, with no direction from him.  He would hold himself absolutely clean, take no responsibility.

Breitbart has responded to this coverage by saying that there is nothing in this quote, or the context of it, which suggests violence.  It said Trump was talking about getting politically tough.

How disingenuous.  When he said that if his supporters get pushed past their breaking point it will be “very bad, very bad” he is clearly not talking about political revenge, he is talking about physical violence.

This is thuggery.  It may not be a crime.  He is not inciting violence.  But it is a threat; another kind of obstruction of justice.  He is telling the opposition that if he gets impeached or if he is voted out of office in 2020, perhaps even if the impeachment process is formally started or investigations get too close, all hell will break loose. 

We have already had incidents of Trump supporters going after opponents.  And while Trump said in response that “we must never let political violence take root in America,”  he also said, referring to himself, “There’s no blame; there’s no anything.”  And he has never admonished his supporters not to resort to violence in support of him.  

Taken together with Michael Cohen’s sworn testimony that if Trump loses the 2020 election “there will never be a peaceful transition of power,” Trump’s comment must give pause. It must be taken seriously.

This is language we expect from a Hitler, a Mussolini, not from the President of the United States.  Even for Trump this is a new low.  This admittedly does not rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required for impeachment.  But it’s far worse than “conduct unbecoming.”  He may not be inciting violence, as legally defined, which would be a high crime, but he is condoning it and thereby encouraging it.