Is It Time to ‘Delete’ the FCC’s News-Distortion Rule?
TL;DR
Background: An informal but longstanding policy at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) known as the “news distortion” rule allows the agency, under certain conditions, to take action on complaints about the accuracy or bias of news coverage. Many argue the policy is outdated, legally dubious, and harmful to free speech in today’s diverse media environment. As the FCC considers broad deregulation under its “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding, this rule is a prime target for elimination.
But… In February 2025, the FCC opened a docket to investigate claims of news distortion against CBS affiliate WCBS for airing an edited “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. In April, the FCC Chair Brendan Carr also accused Comcast’s “licensed operations” of news distortion regarding the administration’s deportation program.
However… The news-distortion policy emerged when broadcast television and radio were the dominant news sources, and airwaves were considered a scarce public resource. Since then, however, the media landscape has been revolutionized by the internet, cable television, and social media, offering a plethora of news sources, both regulated and unregulated.
In today’s competitive and vibrant news environment, many argue that the news-distortion policy is an anachronism that chills speech and disadvantages traditional broadcasters. The FCC should at least consider arguments for its abolition.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
No Clear Standard of ‘News Distortion’
The news-distortion policy is an informal doctrine and has never been authorized by statute. This lack of a clear legislative mandate raises questions about the FCC’s authority to enforce it.
The FCC has implemented the news-distortion policy for more than 50 years, but it remains uncodified. The lack of specific codified rules makes it difficult for broadcasters to understand what constitutes a violation and can lead to arbitrary enforcement.
The policy grants the commission narrow authority to act on complaints about the accuracy or bias of news in cases where a strict four-part test is passed. But the criteria for determining “deliberate distortion” of a “significant event” are not well-defined. This vagueness is a major concern for broadcasters, who fear potential enforcement actions based on subjective interpretations.
Chilling Effect on the First Amendment
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) calls the news-distortion policy “legally dubious and constitutionally problematic.” They contend that it can have a “chilling effect” on broadcasters’ speech, as stations may self-censor or avoid covering controversial (and important) topics for fear of triggering FCC investigations and potential license challenges.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press, and the government’s ability to regulate news content is highly constrained. The NAB argues that the policy is contrary to Supreme Court precedent that insists on clarity in regulations involving speech. Furthermore, the freedom to choose what to publish or not publish is a core aspect of editorial control protected by the First Amendment.
Unnecessary and Redundant
Many argue that the news-distortion policy is unnecessary and redundant in today’s media environment. With the proliferation of news sources online and through social media, the NAB notes there are “multiple mechanisms to hold news organizations accountable for their reporting without government intervention.”
If a broadcaster presents inaccurate or biased information, viewers can easily turn to other sources, and the station’s credibility can be damaged in the marketplace of ideas. The marketplace itself provides a check on distorted news. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the authority to deal with false or misleading information, making the FCC’s hoax rule (which is often linked to the news-distortion policy) duplicative.
News Is No Longer Scarce
According to the Cato Institute, the news-distortion policy relies on “dubious theories of media outlet scarcity” that no longer hold.
The original justification for some broadcast regulation stemmed from the limited number of available broadcast licenses. But such scarcity has been eliminated in the Digital Age, with countless online news outlets and platforms available to consumers.
In FCC v. Fox Television, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his concurrence that “dramatic technological advances” had “eviscerated the factual assumptions underlying” previous decisions upholding broadcast regulation. “Broadcast spectrum,” he wrote, “is significantly less scarce than it was 40 years ago.”
This abundance of information sources diminishes the need for government intervention to ensure the public receives diverse and accurate news.
A Competitive Disadvantage for Broadcasters
The news-distortion rule applies specifically to FCC-licensed broadcasters, while online news platforms and social media are not subject to the same scrutiny.
This asymmetry puts traditional broadcasters at a competitive disadvantage, as unregulated online competitors can express themselves freely without fear of FCC investigation based on content. For example, a podcaster or a YouTube content creator could air a potentially biased interview nationally without the same regulatory concerns as a broadcast journalist.
Potential for Political Weaponization
Cato’s comments to the FCC argue that the news-distortion rule can be used as a “tempting regulatory weapon for members of the public, activists, and politicians.” That’s because politically motivated complaints can be filed, potentially leading to investigations that burden broadcasters even if no violation is ultimately found.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) explains that the mere threat of an investigation or other oversight from the FCC can have real-world consequences for regulated firms.
Commenters: Delete the News-Distortion Rules
Among the thousands of comments submitted to the FCC in the “Delete, Delete, Delete” matter, nearly every comment regarding the news-distortion rule urged the agency to rescind the policy to provide clarity to broadcasters and the public.
They argue that “deleting” the news-distortion rule would align the regulatory framework with the realities of the modern media marketplace and better protect First Amendment principles.
For more on this issue, see ICLE’s comments to the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding or read the Truth on the Market post “Media-Ownership Regulations in a Streaming World: Time to Change the Channel.”