The battle over media regulation, political influence and journalistic integrity has reached a new flashpoint as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) faces scrutiny over its selective enforcement of cases involving major networks. At the center of the debate is Fox’s Philadelphia affiliate, WTXF, and whether its parent company should retain its broadcast license given the network's documented history of knowingly spreading falsehoods.
To unpack this issue, former FCC Chairman Al Sikes and longtime media executive Preston Padden — both leaders of the Media and Democracy Project — discussed the implications of the FCC’s actions and the broader stakes for press freedom and democracy. Their conversation highlights deep concerns about regulatory capture, the erosion of media accountability and the consequences of the FCC acting as a political weapon rather than an impartial guardian of the public interest.
The FCC’s selective enforcement and the political pressure at play
At the heart of the controversy is the decision by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to revive complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC while dismissing similar scrutiny of Fox’s Philadelphia station. Padden argues that the FCC’s actions are deeply political and motivated by pressure from President Donald Trump.
“I believe he’s bending precedent to protect Murdoch upon orders of President Trump,” Padden asserted. “The Communications Act very clearly says that the FCC has to evaluate the character of an applicant for a broadcast license. And there are plenty of past FCC cases where, in making that evaluation, the FCC looks at the applicant’s character and activity at the TV or radio station in question and in other aspects of the applicant’s life.
For Padden, the evidence against Fox is overwhelming. The network was found guilty in court of knowingly spreading election falsehoods, and yet the FCC has failed to act on the findings. “This is the first-ever applicant for a broadcast license that was recently found guilty by a court of law of knowingly, intentionally and repeatedly lying to the American people about a presidential election,” he explained. “If that does not trigger a hearing under the character requirement, then I don’t know what would.”
Sikes echoed Padden’s concerns, emphasizing that the lies spread by Fox News were not minor infractions but actions that undermined the democratic process. “Not only the fact of lying, but lying in a grave moment,” Sikes said. “This was about the constitutional framework within which we transfer power. So, this was not about whether Kamala Harris’s interview was inappropriately edited. It is about the transfer of power and, of course, the implications and consequences of that.”
The FCC’s refusal to investigate Fox while aggressively pursuing other networks raises serious concerns about regulatory fairness and political motivations. “It’s almost a Lewis Carroll moment,” Sikes added, referring to the surreal, upside-down world of Alice in Wonderland. “Down is up, up is down. And as they get into their later night shows, which I don’t watch generally, that’s the kind of world that we are brought into.”
The weaponization of the FCC
Beyond the specific case of Fox’s Philadelphia affiliate, the broader issue is whether the FCC is being used as a tool for political retribution. The Trump administration has openly pressured the FCC to target networks that have been critical of the president while shielding Fox from scrutiny. “I think it’s not only a risk that the FCC becomes a vehicle for political vengeance — we’re there,” Padden warned. “Trump has ordered Carr to investigate taking away ABC’s licenses because Trump didn’t like the questions the ABC anchors asked him in the presidential debate. That’s never happened in our country before.”
For Sikes, this represents a dangerous shift in the role of the FCC, which was traditionally seen as an independent regulatory body insulated from political interference. “The censor is in the White House and has his delegated operational guy at the FCC, and that’s a perilous moment,” he said. “A moment that shouldn’t exist.”
Media organizations already struggling with declining revenues now face an additional burden: legal battles that could drain resources and force them into submission. “All of this is happening in the face of a legacy media that is generally not doing very well economically,” Sikes pointed out. “You do not have a lot of surplus cash to be hiring lawyers to litigate. And then, when you get into the conglomerate situation — where Paramount, for example, would like to buy Skydance and that's got to go through a regulatory framework — well, again, you’re faced with the economics of your very existence.”
Using federal agencies as political enforcers rather than neutral regulators threatens individual media companies and the very foundation of a free press.
What can be done?
Faced with these unprecedented challenges, the media industry is left with difficult choices. Should outlets fight back, even at great financial cost, or should they bow to political pressure to avoid legal battles? Padden made his stance clear. “If I were a news person, editor or reporter, I would be advocating to my management as strongly as possible not to cave to Trump and Carr,” he urged. “Fight the good fight, even if it costs money. Because otherwise, we’re going to lose. Our founding fathers created a free media as a check on the power of government. And Trump and Carr are flipping that on its head, where government is now a check on the power of a free media.”
Sikes added that Congress is also responsible for acting, particularly in holding the FCC accountable for its actions. “There’s a congressional responsibility here,” he said. “The first step that should be taken is for Senator Thune to tell the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee to conduct a hearing, with Carr sitting on the other side of the table, answering for his actions.”
But beyond government oversight, Sikes stressed the role journalists and the public must play in demanding media independence. “The insistence — both by the media itself and, preferably, by the audience — should be to stand your ground,” he said. “Yes, stand your ground.”
The next steps will determine whether the press remains a check on power or becomes subject to it.
A defining moment for press freedom
The fight over Fox’s Philadelphia affiliate is about more than just one broadcast license; it is a test case for how far political influence can go in reshaping the regulatory landscape of American media. If the FCC refuses to act against Fox despite a court finding of intentional deception, it sets a dangerous precedent that media companies will be judged not by their adherence to journalistic integrity but by their political loyalties.
“This is a grave moment,” Sikes emphasized. “And the thought that Carr can be a unitary chairman without affecting the broad framework of the FCC is just nonsense.”
Whether the media industry has the resolve — and the resources — to push back remains to be seen. But as Padden warned, the stakes could not be higher. “If we don’t fight this battle now,” he cautioned, “we risk losing everything the First Amendment was designed to protect.”
 |
 |
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here