Commissioner Gomez Criticizes FCC’s News Distortion Policy
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez releases a critique of what she is calling the Commission’s “improper use of the News Distortion policy.” She says, “The FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to go after broadcasters for their news content. The Communications Act forbids the Commission from censoring broadcasters, and the First
Amendment protects journalistic choices from government intimidation. Nevertheless, this FCC has deployed a vague and ineffective News Distortion policy as a weapon to stretch its licensing authority and pressure newsrooms. The First Amendment is a pillar of our democracy. As federal regulators, we must respect the rule of law, uphold the Constitution, and ensure that a free press is never subjected to regulatory interference by the FCC.” The FCC’s News Distortion Policy was created in 1949 and has been criticized from time to time over the years. It has rarely been invoked until now. A Petition for Special Relief before the FCC signed by 11 people, including former FCC Chairman Thomas E. Wheeler, asks that the Commission repeal the news distortion policy. They cite case law, saying, “In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court, applying the First Amendment, reaffirmed that the government has no role in ‘un-biasing’ the media. In direct contradiction to that decision, the news distortion policy seeks to mold the speech of private broadcasters to the FCC’s own view of what is correct, complete, and accurate news. The First Amendment forbids the government from embarking on such a project.”
Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a statement criticizing the Commission’s threats against ABC that, in part, led to the suspension of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” program. Her statement is as follows: “We cannot allow an inexcusable act of political violence to be twisted into ajustification for government censorship and control. First, an ABC reporter was told that his coverage amounted to hate speech and that he should be prosecuted simply for doing his job. Then, the FCC threatened to go after this same network, seizing on a late-night comedian’s inopportune joke as a pretext to punish speech it disliked. That led to a shameful show of cowardly corporate capitulation by ABC that has put the foundation of the First Amendment in danger.
pursuit of pure profit. It embraced this Administration’s radical notion that discriminatory behavior should be tolerated and even embraced, while efforts to expand opportunity for everyone should be rejected.
defund, or threaten news outlets that support the government’s views, and there’s a reason for that. This has never been about saving money. It’s about silencing those who report the news accurately, without fear or favor. The true cost of this one-sided attack on free speech will be felt most by small and rural communities across the country. Much like the disappearance of local newspapers, cutting off support for public stations could create a new kind of ‘news desert.’ In many hard-to-reach areas, these stations may be the only source for the public to receive emergency alerts, traffic updates, and information about local events and ways to stay engaged in their own neighborhoods. Defunding them strips away these essential services and further isolates the very communities these stations seek to serve. The FCC is playing a dangerous game with its own baseless attacks on public broadcast stations. Its role should be to protect and expand the public’s access to timely, accurate news that is free from political interference. I will continue fighting this FCC’s politically motivated efforts to investigate and harass these stations.” 
move to appease the Administration and secure regulatory approval of a major transaction currently pending before the FCC. For months, it has been clear that this lawsuit was entirely meritless, just like the complaint now before the Commission. The transcript and video of the 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Harris show no evidence of wrongdoing, only the standard editorial judgments used across the news industry to ensure clarity and brevity. Had Paramount chosen to fight this in court, they would have prevailed on the facts and the law. But instead of standing on principle, Paramount opted for a payout. That decision now casts a long shadow over the integrity of the transaction pending before the FCC. Given the extraordinary public interest in this deal, the novel legal questions raised by the lawsuit and its resolution, and the repeated calls from lawmakers for transparency, I once again urge the FCC to bring this matter before the full Commission for a vote. Approving this transaction behind closed doors and under the cover of bureaucratic process would be a shameful outcome that denies the American people the transparency and accountability they deserve, especially when press freedom is at stake.”
provide cultural, social, and political commentary across all FOX News Media platforms. Cooper launched her podcast, “The Brett Cooper Show” in January 2025. From 2022-2024, Cooper hosted “The Comments Section,” a video podcast on The Daily Wire.
Free Press for the very first stop of our First Amendment Tour outside of Washington. Together, we must continue to stand up for free expression and push back against the Administration’s growing campaign of censorship and control.” Gomez’s office says that as part of her tour, Gomez is partnering with consumer and civil society organizations across the ideological spectrum to participate in speaking engagements and listening sessions focused on protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. Most recently, she held an event in partnership with the Center for Democracy and Technology, spoke at the Media Institute, and participated in a workshop held by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and TechFreedom.
making companies think twice about the way they describe internal diversity programs. They’re afraid the government may retaliate against them simply because of actions that are responsive to how consumers use their services or choose to buy their products. Sadly, the hard-fought lessons of the civil rights movement are being erased – or worse, distorted – to claim that fairness for all requires discrimination against some. That could not be further from the truth.” Gomez says she’s concerned about the Commission weaponizing “its regulatory authority to enforce government mandates that seek to eliminate voluntary efforts by private companies to increase fair and equal employment opportunities.”