MAD reply to Fox’s FCC filing exposes critical flaws

On Friday (March 14), the Media and Democracy Project (MAD) filed its reply to Fox Television Stations’ opposition to MAD’s appeal by systematically dismantling Fox’s mischaracterizations of MAD’s position. The filing claims that Fox Television Stations (FTS) dodged key legal and factual assertions while failing to address the misconduct of its leadership and owners.

According to the reply, Fox ignored the core issue at the heart of MAD’s petition — that Judge Eric Davis, in his uncontested summary judgment ruling in the Dominion case, found that Fox corporate leaders knowingly promoted false election narratives that contributed to the January 6 insurrection.

Key highlights: 

• Fox ignores the legal issue: “Nowhere in the Opposition does FTS argue that the First Amendment somehow prevents the Commission from denying the renewal application based on this alleged misconduct.”
• Fox relies on letters instead of facts: “FTS touts the cards and letters it generated on the station’s ‘exemplary record of public service,’ which MAD did not even ‘attempt to contradict.’ MAD had no reason to address these submissions, since it is the misconduct of FTS’ corporate leaders that calls into question the character of the licensee. Instead of soliciting letters, it should have produced the documents MAD requested in its Motion for Production of Documents. FTS’s ultimate corporate parent is in control of these documents and the failure to produce them raises the presumption that if produced the documents would not be favorable to FTS.”
• Fox misinterprets the FCC’s policy on character: “In settling the Dominion litigation, the corporation acknowledged that it made false statements concerning the outcome of the election. It is the consequences of those false statements, and what the fact that they were made in the pursuit of ratings and profit indicates about the character of the individuals who control FTS, that the Bureau failed to examine. Further, had it granted MAD’s document request, it would have had the evidence to evaluate the merits of MAD’s case.”

While it's unlikely FCC Chair Brendan Carr will move quickly to review MAD’s appeal, the group writes in Salon that its petition “is the only way to protect our democracy and the FCC from further weaponization is to establish a bright-line test to provide clear guidance for when an evidentiary hearing is required in a broadcast license renewal.”