When the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger Thursday, one commissioner blasted the decision, calling it an act of “cowardly capitulation” on behalf of Paramount and warning that this could lead to a further “erosion of our First Amendment protections.”
The commissioner, Anna M. Gomez, is one of three leaders at the FCC, in addition to Chairman Brendan Carr and fellow commissioner Olivia Trusty, and is the only Democrat on the commission. She was a Biden nominee and appointed to the post in 2023.
The commissioners voted 2-1 Thursday to approve the Paramount-Skydance deal, with Gomez dissenting and condemning the “unprecedented moves” by the “once-independent FCC” used to broker the deal, including the elimination of DEI programs and putting controls on newsroom decisions at CBS, including agreeing to appoint an ombudsman to evaluate complaints of bias.
Her dissenting vote was largely related to those issues, rather than the merger itself, as well as Paramount’s $16 million settlement to resolve the lawsuit filed by President Trump against 60 Minutes, which was largely seen as paving the way for the merger with Skydance.
“The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage. It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America,” Gomez wrote in her initial statement.
Gomez, who has also been raising the alarm across the country in what she’s calling a “First Amendment tour,” spoke with The Hollywood Reporter Friday about what’s been happening at the FCC and what she’s urging the public to do.
In your statement, you say you moved this from what you call a backroom deal to a full commission vote. Can you talk about why you pushed for the full commission vote?
What the commission has been doing with these transactions is adopting them at the bureau level, so they’re not done with a full commission vote. And what’s happening is these companies are being pressured to agree to alter their practices in order to get approval of a transaction, and these practices that they’re being pressured on are completely unrelated to the transaction themselves. When we approve a transaction, a license transfer, which is what was at issue with Paramount we determine whether it is in the public interest. We look at the benefits and we look at the harms caused by the transaction. Very often, if there are harms that are transaction specific, the parties will seek to mitigate the commission’s concerns by committing to certain actions.
In this case, and in other cases, what we have seen is the commission is demanding, not through votes, but through backroom deals, companies to give up, for example, any diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Now those are completely unrelated to any harms by the transaction, and in this case, they committed to basically imposing controls over newsroom decisions and editorial decisions, again, completely unrelated to the harms and benefits of the transaction.
So the benefit of pulling this up to the commission level and having it as a vote is you take it from being a backroom deal to something more transparent. Something that the commission itself has to determine is, is this really in the public interest? Is the commission going to stand on the side of the First Amendment, or is it going to itself capitulate to this administration’s demands related to controlling the media and diversity, equity and inclusion practices, which are, in and of themselves, also First Amendment protected practices?
Can you characterize the conversations you were having with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty about this deal?
The commissioners all talked about the importance of bringing this up to the commission level, and they all agreed.
We always talk about transactions, but I don’t want to share private conversations.
What kinds of other deals could this set a precedent for?
We have seen that the commission has demanded other parties to transactions before the commission to also capitulate on, for example, eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. For example, the commission approved the Verizon-Frontier transaction, which was a $20 billion transaction after a backroom deal in which Verizon agreed to eliminate its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Same with T-Mobile. So what this does is it opens the door for future abuse on any company coming before the FCC for regulatory approval. This is a dangerous thing. We cannot allow this perversion of our authority to continue.
You’ve asked for companies, journalists and citizens to stand up and speak out about this. What does that look like in your mind?
I have been working to shine a light on the abuses of this administration and the erosion of our First Amendment freedoms. I think that anyone who can shine a light and push back is helping protect our democracy.
What do you see the FCC’s role in that moving forward?
What I would like to see is the FCC go back to its core mission and stop interfering with the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of all of us. I’ve been on this first amendment tour where I am raising my concerns and educating the public about the importance of the First Amendment and protecting our freedoms. And I would hope that people would demand accountability from those in power and push companies to find their courage to stand up for their rights and all of our rights and protect our democracy as they’re doing so.
Can you talk more about what you see as the repercussions of this merger approval?
What I’m concerned is that what we are seeing is corporate parents capitulating in a cowardly way in order to advance their commercial interests. I am hopeful that will not happen. I think courage breeds courage. We’ve seen examples where parties will push back, and when they do so, it helps others to also gain that courage. All of these attacks are not grounded in anything other than abuse of authority. The facts, the law and the truth are behind us. All it takes is for enough people and entities to push back.
Source link
https://findsuperdeals.shop
