Recent public statements suggesting that broadcast licenses could be at risk if stations do not “fairly” cover the ongoing Iran war have raised serious concerns across the media and communications law community.
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unquestionably has authority over broadcast licensing, that authority has limits. It does not extend to directing editorial content. Even the Supreme Court decision most often cited in support of broadcast regulation, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, does not justify government control over newsroom decisions.
A closer look at the legal framework makes that clear.
Broadcast stations operate under licenses issued by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934. These licenses are granted and renewed based on whether the station serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
However, the FCC has historically exercised significant restraint when it comes to editorial judgment. Enforcement actions affecting licenses have typically involved:
They have not been based on disagreements over how news is reported.
Using licensing authority to influence or pressure coverage of a war would represent a major departure from long-standing regulatory practice and would raise serious constitutional concerns.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC is frequently cited in discussions about broadcast regulation.
In that case, the Court upheld the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues. The ruling relied on the concept of spectrum scarcity, recognizing that limited broadcast frequencies justified certain obligations on licensees.
The scope of Red Lion is often misunderstood.
The decision did not authorize the government to:
Instead, it addressed rules designed to expand access to speech, not restrict or control it.
That distinction matters. Encouraging diverse viewpoints is fundamentally different from threatening license consequences based on whether coverage is deemed sufficiently fair.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions reinforce the limits on government involvement in journalism.
In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, the Court struck down a Florida law requiring newspapers to publish responses from political candidates. The ruling made clear that forcing publication of specific content violates the First Amendment.
While broadcast media has historically been subject to somewhat greater regulation than print, the underlying principle remains the same.
The government cannot dictate editorial judgment.
Importantly, the regulatory framework underlying Red Lion no longer exists.
In Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s decision to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine. The Commission concluded that the policy:
This marked a significant shift away from government involvement in balancing viewpoints and toward greater protection of editorial independence.
In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law prohibiting editorializing by public broadcasters receiving federal funds.
The Court held that even in the context of government funding or licensing, content-based restrictions on speech are unconstitutional.
This reinforces a key principle. Government authority over broadcasting does not include control over what journalists say.
Against this legal backdrop, suggestions that licenses could be impacted based on war coverage raise multiple constitutional concerns.
The FCC has broad authority to allocate spectrum and regulate broadcast licensing. That authority has clear limits.
It does not include directing how journalists cover major public events, including war.
Even under Red Lion, the government’s role was limited to encouraging access to diverse viewpoints, not shaping the substance of reporting.
Editorial judgment remains firmly protected by the First Amendment.
Carrie Ward is an attorney at Earp Cohn focusing on communications and media law. She advises clients on FCC regulatory matters, broadcast licensing, and First Amendment issues affecting news organizations and content providers. Carrie previously worked in the legal departments of ABC, Inc. and Entercom Communications Corp., where she advised on FCC compliance and broadcast regulatory matters. She works with media companies, broadcasters, and businesses navigating complex regulatory requirements, with a particular emphasis on protecting editorial independence and aligning with evolving federal policy.
