The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering a corporate acquisition that would make a single company — Sinclair Broadcasting Group — the largest owner of local TV stations in history.
Americans watch more local news than cable news or network news, making that medium for informing the public about important issues. In a submitted Tuesday, we formally urged the FCC to block the deal. This unprecedented concentration of control, which contradicts the FCC’s own policies about how wide a broadcasting company’s reach can be, would stifle the diversity of views in the press that’s essential for a healthy democracy.
You may have heard of Sinclair before, because it has been exposed for repeatedly injecting politically charged segments into local news, which otherwise typically avoids ideological punditry.
In March, of anchors at Sinclair-owned stations across the country reciting a script about the dangers of “one-sided news” went viral:
%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20id%3D%22media-youtube-fhfgu8omso%22%20width%3D%22576%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22Sinclair%27s%20Soldiers%20in%20Trump%27s%20War%20on%20Media%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F_fHfgU8oMSo%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Benablejsapi%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Bplayerapiid%3Dmedia-youtube-fhfgu8omso%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3EVideo%20of%20Sinclair%26amp%3B%23039%3Bs%20Soldiers%20in%20Trump%26amp%3B%23039%3Bs%20War%20on%20Media%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
In the segment, after declaring their commitment to serve the local interests of their communities, dozens of anchors parroted President Trump’s lambasting of “fake news.” The irony could not be more apparent: local broadcasters being forced by a giant, nationwide conglomerate to convey a political message about … the importance of apolitical coverage and local control.
Our opposition to the Sinclair merger has nothing to do with where Sinclair sits on the ideological spectrum. The problem is that Sinclair’s attempt to acquire Tribune Media would give it control over some 200 TV stations, virtually guaranteeing less viewpoint diversity in local news.
The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the FCC should promote viewpoint diversity in the media, , “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market.” This is why the FCC itself sets limits on the number of stations one company can own.
Since the 1940s, the ACLU has opposed media consolidation and its potential for diminishing the diversity of views available to the public. And, while we primarily defend civil liberties against government infringement, we have also long held that when it comes to regulating the public airwaves, the government is obligated to stop private companies from interfering with viewpoint diversity.
Unfortunately, the FCC has shown signs of doing the exact opposite. Trump-appointed Chairman Ajit Pai gave the proposed merger a in 2017 by suddenly reinstating a long discredited rule that allows media companies to own a greater number of stations while still falling within ownership limits. Advocacy groups are currently challenging the FCC’s reinstatement of this rule in court.
The need for the government to block the Sinclair deal is also clear because of the company’s pattern of forcing local broadcasters to ideological content — and censor other stories that it deems contrary to its political interests. Among other examples, last year a Sinclair-owned station in Seattle was asked to report on the recruitment of paid protestors at Trump’s inauguration, a story that was later proven false. In 2004, Sinclair pulled an episode of ABC’s Nightline in which the names of troops killed in Iraq were read, with the company claiming that it was intended to hurt President Bush. Perhaps most famously, Sinclair imposes “must-run” segments, such as regular editorial pieces by former Trump White House official Boris Epshteyn, on its local stations.
Forcing local broadcasters to engage in political commentary denies viewers the honest coverage they seek — and this practice will expand with the merger.
In addition to these First Amendment-related factors, we are greatly concerned about the proposed merger because of its potential to disproportionately harm minority communities. Sinclair has not shied away from running pieces that disparage minority groups, such as its recurring “” segment that has equated Islam with terrorism, and its by Sebastian Gorka, who notoriously warned on a Sinclair-produced town hall event that “black Africans” were “murdering each other by the bushel” in Chicago.
Overall, the Sinclair deal combines unprecedented market control with a pattern of forcing local broadcasters around the country to run corporate-scripted propaganda. The FCC must protect the principles embodied by the First Amendment and deny the merger.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.