Affiliates vs Networks: The FCC’s Attempt to Rewind a Broken Tape
The Trump administration has had a mixed approach to date on reforming the broadcasting rules. On one hand, broadcast-ownership reforms have been a key issue this year for Republican appointees at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as they seek to help struggling broadcasters keep pace with their digital rivals. On the other hand, the president has accused the major television networks of being biased against him and pushing “woke” ideology, while urging the FCC to revoke their licenses.
In an effort to balance these concerns, the FCC’s recent focus has been on affiliates’ relationships with the major networks. Independent broadcasters enter into affiliate agreements with networks that allow them to use their broadcast facilities to distribute costly network content, in addition to the local station’s own news and lifestyle programming (and, sometimes, shows purchased from the syndication market).
Because the FCC has authority to regulate these relationships, the commission has explored how to update the chain-broadcasting rules to give affiliates more leverage to pressure the networks to act in ways they (and the administration) would prefer. For example, when Jimmy Kimmel made comments about Charlie Kirk that sparked outrage, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr specifically pressured Sinclair Broadcast Group, Nexstar Media Group, and other independent broadcasters to refuse to air the program.
But as my colleagues and I at the International Center for Law & Economics noted in comments to the commission, it is fruitless to focus on the network-affiliation rules in isolation without taking into account the larger market changes that have disrupted the broadcasting industry. And rather than put its thumb on the scale of private negotiations, the FCC should look to deregulate broadcasters, allowing them to compete on equal footing with other media that are their true rivals.