Does the FCC have a “non-discretionary obligation” to act on an Application for Review filed on March 4, 2025 by an advocacy group that believes a FOX Television Stations property serving the Philadelphia market aired false and misleading information during newscasts some 5 1/2 years ago, at the height of 2020 U.S. Presidential Election results debate?
Six individuals including Preston Padden, former FCC Republican-aligned Chairman Al Sikes, and ex-PBS President Ervin Duggan insist that is the case.
With William Kristol and William Reyner listed as co-signees, The Media and Democracy Project‘s co-founder, Dr. Milo Vasallo, wrote to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on Wednesday with one clear message — “You can no longer ‘hide the ball’ from the Court. You must act on the MAD Application for Review. It is regrettable that you are choosing to defy a clear and direct order of the Court of Appeals and thereby exposing yourself to the fallout that could follow, including maintaining your license to practice law.”
The plea for action from MAD comes as a D.C. federal appeals court hears a case filed against the FCC by a group of consumer advocacy groups seeking to negate Nexstar Media Group’s rule-busting merger with TEGNA. In the Commission’s view, there is a jurisdictional issue at play, as the Media Bureau’s approval of the transaction and granting of waivers necessary to get the Nexstar-TEGNA deal to the finish line is not the final say-so. Rather, it is up to the FCC to consider an Application for Review and have a full Commission vote — something the Carr Commission’s legal counsel indicates would happen “this year.”
If that’s the case, MAD argues it’s AFR should fall under the same scrutiny and reconsider its Petition to Deny the application of “Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch and Fox” for the license renewal of WTXF “FOX 29” in Philadelphia. Why? During the combative period following the November 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, FOX News Channel content aired on the station suggesting voter fraud and reporting that suggested Joe Biden did not rightfully win the race against President Trump.
To boost its argument, MAD says its petition is unlike those from the Daniel Suhr-led conservative Center for American Rights.
“Unlike other petitions floating around the Commission, the MAD Petition is not based on political differences about speech,” MAD says. “The MAD Petition is based on a Court ruling and on conduct by the Murdochs/Fox that violated any remotely reasonable interpretation of good character.”
What the Republican majority at the Commission may think about the subject of the petition from MAD is irrelevant here, too, the Media and Democracy Project claims. “You may agree or disagree with the MAD Petition, but the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has told you that you have a ‘non-discretionary obligation’ to render a decision by the full Commission,” it tells Chairman Carr. “After the full Commission renders a decision, the undersigned will have the opportunity to present the relevant facts and law to the U.S. Court of Appeals. And the Court will have the opportunity under the [Loper Bright] decision to render its own independent judgment about whether repeatedly and knowingly lying to the American people about the results of a presidential election and materially contributing to an insurrection in the United States Capitol, constitute good character.”
