News commentary

Brendan Carr’s Deregulation Blitz Is a Disaster for TV News

Columbia Journalism Review · Kyle Paoletta · last updated

Last month, when Jimmy Kimmel was briefly taken off ABC as punishment for comments he’d made on air about Charlie Kirk, the move was widely understood to be the outcome of a brazen flex of influence by Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Appearing on a conservative podcast, Carr had delivered an open warning to the television stations that aired Kimmel, saying, “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”  

Carr’s threat had teeth. Under his leadership, the FCC is in the midst of a historic deregulation spree he’s calling “Delete, Delete, Delete.” The campaign is currently reviewing the agency’s “multiple ownership” rules, which prohibit any one company from exerting outsize control over the local television market. A loosening of those rules could prove immensely profitable for the owners of local ABC affiliates, including Nexstar and Sinclair, so those companies seem to have viewed Carr’s desire to punish Kimmel as an opportunity to curry favor with the administration.

Kimmel was reinstated after Carr faced criticism from fellow Republicans for acting like a “mafioso.” Still, the whole affair sent a chill through the local-television business. S. Derek Turner, a policy analyst for the advocacy group Free Press, saw it as a perfect encapsulation of how Carr is using his “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative as a way for the FCC to exert political influence over the companies it’s meant to oversee. “I don’t think it’s much of a surprise that Carr is pushing things as far as he can,” Turner said, noting that Carr wrote the chapter in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document about the agency he currently leads. “What makes what’s going on right now somewhat unique—and I would say corrupt—is the out and open quid pro quo that Carr is effectuating.”

Related Knowledge Center: Democracy and politics

State of Play

News organizations are scrambling to find a coverage approach that adequately informs the American public about the country’s slide from democracy to authoritarian rule.

The White House vs. the press


More informationabout Democracy and politics

Related Knowledge Center: Free speech and public protest

State of Play

The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.

The White House vs. the press  |  Voiceless America 


More informationabout Free speech and public protest

Related Knowledge Center: The White House vs. the press

State of Play

Whether it’s the Des Moines Register’s publication of an unfavorable election poll, a routine edit of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, or the Associated Press’s decision in its authoritative stylebook to continue to use “Gulf of Mexico,” Donald Trump and the White House have used executive authority and legal reprisals in an effort to punish and suppress press coverage that runs contrary to the administration’s preferred narratives.

Democracy and politics | Signalgate | The CBS submission | Voiceless America


More informationabout The White House vs. the press