Carr is one of the many smug aholes in this admin who can't imagine apparently he'll ever experience any negative personal repercussions for his antics. If anything I suspect he thinks his rewards will be tangible and ongoing once he leaves the fcc..
Yet I'd say we must ensure this not the case or we'll never exit this doom loop.
Sonny, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Neither of those is simply true anymore, and this vote is one more brick pulled out of a wall that's already been crumbling for a while. A free press used to be the actual saving grace of American politics, the one institution built to air the dirty laundry in public, refuse to hide behind a mask or a shield, and answer to readers instead of to whoever's currently in power. That's not a nostalgic idea. It was the whole design.
Handing Brendan Carr, or any single regulator, the discretion to decide "case by case" which media transactions serve the public interest isn't oversight. It's a permission slip dressed up as process, and everyone paying attention already knows what it will be used for, because he's shown you already: a victory lap over Kimmel's suspension, an early demand for ABC's broadcast renewal because the president was displeased. That's not viewpoint neutrality being administered. That's a preference being enforced with the language of regulation borrowed to make it look procedural.
You're right that this cuts both ways, and I'd take it further. The moment a government official, whoever occupies the chair, gets to decide which owner passes the smell test, the press stops being free in any meaningful sense and starts being free at the pleasure of whoever's currently holding the pen. Once that door opens, it doesn't matter whether it opens by a friendly FCC chair or a friendly attorney general or a president who simply doesn't like what CNN airs. The mechanism is the same, and once it's built, it doesn't care who's using it next. If the label "land of the free" still means anything, it means an institution that can criticize the government without needing the government's blessing to keep existing. This vote quietly moved that further out of reach, and hardly anyone outside a press-freedom newsletter noticed it happen.
I really need to revisit Miami Vice soon as well. For me, my Farrell breakthrough moment came when I watched Crazy Heart -- a movie I did not like at all -- and realized that Farrell had given a performance that, in about five minutes, out-acted Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Robert Duvall. "Perhaps I should give this guy another look," I thought, and have not regretted it since.
I don't see it as censorship, especially when it comes to broadcasting - there are only so many wavelengths available for TV and radio; they aren't infinite. So there are winners and losers that have to be selected. Now - who should "get" a movie company - again, in the past, there was the idea of avoiding monopolies - so people would be denied the right to buy a movie studio to keep the markets competitive. Again, I don't consider that censorship, but certainly a discussion of whether we still need to prevent monopolies or whether the market is at a point where the barriers to entry are low enough that the government doesn't have to have a role....
Censorship (to me) is if the govt says "Ellison, you can buy CBS but only if you don't air Colbert anymore"....
ah, well, I was referring to the system overall; in this particular case, yeah, it's much more like censorship since other views wouldn't be able to get one of the slots.
Love Sugar!! Farrell is fantastic!
The man who heads the FCC is part of Heritage Foundation and helped write Project 2025. I swear these Heritage Foundation members have a “look”.
Loved Sugar, have yet to watch the all of 2nd season am trying to savor it
Carr is one of the many smug aholes in this admin who can't imagine apparently he'll ever experience any negative personal repercussions for his antics. If anything I suspect he thinks his rewards will be tangible and ongoing once he leaves the fcc..
Yet I'd say we must ensure this not the case or we'll never exit this doom loop.
Sonny, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Neither of those is simply true anymore, and this vote is one more brick pulled out of a wall that's already been crumbling for a while. A free press used to be the actual saving grace of American politics, the one institution built to air the dirty laundry in public, refuse to hide behind a mask or a shield, and answer to readers instead of to whoever's currently in power. That's not a nostalgic idea. It was the whole design.
Handing Brendan Carr, or any single regulator, the discretion to decide "case by case" which media transactions serve the public interest isn't oversight. It's a permission slip dressed up as process, and everyone paying attention already knows what it will be used for, because he's shown you already: a victory lap over Kimmel's suspension, an early demand for ABC's broadcast renewal because the president was displeased. That's not viewpoint neutrality being administered. That's a preference being enforced with the language of regulation borrowed to make it look procedural.
You're right that this cuts both ways, and I'd take it further. The moment a government official, whoever occupies the chair, gets to decide which owner passes the smell test, the press stops being free in any meaningful sense and starts being free at the pleasure of whoever's currently holding the pen. Once that door opens, it doesn't matter whether it opens by a friendly FCC chair or a friendly attorney general or a president who simply doesn't like what CNN airs. The mechanism is the same, and once it's built, it doesn't care who's using it next. If the label "land of the free" still means anything, it means an institution that can criticize the government without needing the government's blessing to keep existing. This vote quietly moved that further out of reach, and hardly anyone outside a press-freedom newsletter noticed it happen.
Excellent and accurate comment
I've started watching "Sugar" but still not sure how much I like it.....
I really need to revisit Miami Vice soon as well. For me, my Farrell breakthrough moment came when I watched Crazy Heart -- a movie I did not like at all -- and realized that Farrell had given a performance that, in about five minutes, out-acted Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Robert Duvall. "Perhaps I should give this guy another look," I thought, and have not regretted it since.
Isn’t picking winners and losers called censorship??
I don't see it as censorship, especially when it comes to broadcasting - there are only so many wavelengths available for TV and radio; they aren't infinite. So there are winners and losers that have to be selected. Now - who should "get" a movie company - again, in the past, there was the idea of avoiding monopolies - so people would be denied the right to buy a movie studio to keep the markets competitive. Again, I don't consider that censorship, but certainly a discussion of whether we still need to prevent monopolies or whether the market is at a point where the barriers to entry are low enough that the government doesn't have to have a role....
Censorship (to me) is if the govt says "Ellison, you can buy CBS but only if you don't air Colbert anymore"....
It is censorship when it's viewpoint discrimination, scarce slots given to supporters of the regime and taken away from critics.
ah, well, I was referring to the system overall; in this particular case, yeah, it's much more like censorship since other views wouldn't be able to get one of the slots.