Brendan Carr loves a good luggage metaphor.
During the early 2000s, while studying law at Catholic University, Carr attended a lecture given by Michael Powell, who was then the head of the FCC during George W. Bush’s presidency. Powell said to the crowd, “When opportunity comes, many people aren’t prepared.” This statement inspired Carr so much that he adopted it as his personal rallying cry and still shares it with law students he addresses today.
Recently, the 46-year-old individual has been shedding a considerable amount of responsibilities or obligations. This shift began when Donald Trump appointed Carr as the head of the FCC in November, following his initial term where he was named a commissioner. Since then, Carr has taken a firm stance against various sectors including media, entertainment, and tech corporations, showing a calm intensity while threatening their profit margins and, according to critics, attempting to intimidate them into presenting more positive coverage of the president.
The 46-year-old has been shedding significant burdens lately. This change started when Donald Trump promoted Carr to the position of FCC chairman in November (having previously named him a commissioner during his first term). Since then, Carr has been criticizing and confronting large corporations within media, entertainment, and technology sectors, showing a cool determination while posing threats to their business models. Critics argue that he is attempting to coerce them into providing more favorable news coverage of the president.
He stated in a December letter to Bob Iger that Americans no longer believe national news media provides complete, truthful, and impartial reporting. ABC’s actions have undoubtedly played a role in this decline of public trust in the media. He hinted at closely watching the results of separate financial discussions with the network’s affiliate stations.
Historically known for dealing with issues such as broadcast licenses and station fines, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may not appear to be at the heart of a significant media censorship movement. Additionally, a conservative attorney who has spent his entire adult life in Washington D.C., and who was fiercely critical of the Obama administration’s relatively minor intervention on net neutrality, expressing concerns about “government control over [Americans’] lives,” might not seem like the person to lead such an organization.
Nonetheless, Carr has managed to accomplish this, interpreting signs from a critic of the media, Donald Trump, and relentlessly executing his wishes in methods that perhaps even the president himself may not have envisioned.
Victor Pickard, a professor of media policy and political economy at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication and a longtime observer of the FCC, agrees with the phrase ‘unrestricted,'” suggests his statement.
Carroll is insisting that top managers provide justifications in private discussions, cautioning media firms against emphasizing the recruitment or advancement of diverse personnel, and voicing disapproval over their content choices. He has implied the possibility of contentious public hearings and, indeed, intimidated executives with the prospect of rigorous investigations into their transactions.
Almost every major player in contemporary broadcast media, whether they’re publicly funded like NPR and PBS or privately owned such as Disney, Comcast, Google, and others, has faced criticism from writer Nicholas Carr. His office, which might seem ordinary to some, has transformed into a weapon he uses against media companies. According to many experts, this critique extends beyond the companies themselves and seems to pose a threat to the freedom of the press.
If Carr’s plans come to fruition, we can expect a decline in many moderate, centrist, and left-leaning media outlets, while Fox News and other conservative media continue their long-term growth.
In a statement made on March 13, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, described Carr’s actions as “unprecedented, invasive investigations of the media, conducted without clear justification or reason.
***
For the majority of its 90-year history, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has generally acted cautiously. Established during a period when radio stations and a limited number of television networks controlled the nation’s airwaves, the FCC, as an independent agency not accountable to the White House but to Congress, has been free from political pressures. As a result, it has been hesitant to establish bold policies or involve itself in contentious issues. Even its most notable modern instance of drawing attention – imposing fines amounting to $550,000 on CBS and its affiliates for the 2004 Super Bowl “Nipplegate” incident – had a rather ordinary feel to it (the fines were later overturned on appeal).
This commission consists of five members who serve terms lasting five years, with potential extensions. The system is carefully designed to promote caution: Each party is ensured of having at least two representatives on the commission at all times. The president selects new commissioners, and any policy decisions require approval from the chair and the entire commission. Following Trump’s nomination, Republican Olivia Trusty for the fifth seat, it is highly likely that the GOP will have a majority once she is confirmed by the Senate.
Over the past few months since taking up his position, Carr has boldly stepped away from traditional cautiousness. He initiated an investigation into Comcast regarding their DEI policies (alleged discriminatory practices in DEI), sent a letter to Verizon urging them to hasten the dismantling of their own, and reinstated complaints that were previously dismissed by his predecessor, Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel. These include complaints against CBS for allegedly manipulating its Kamala Harris 60 Minutes interview in accordance with a Trump lawsuit, against ABC for moderation issues during a presidential debate, and against NBC for booking Harris on SNL. Notably, he has not yet reopened the dismissed complaint against Fox News concerning their post-2020 election misinformation.
Carrier examined publicly-funded broadcasters NPR and PBS, apparently aiming to challenge or criticize them, as legally phrased, their liberal agendas.
However, it’s not just Joe Pesci-style machismo that’s at play here. Each of these individual bullying incidents could potentially accumulate to something far more serious and tangible: reshaping the media landscape into a clearly conservative domain with minimal room for opposition. It’s no surprise that Comcast, often criticized by Carr, owns MSNBC, a frequent critic of MAGA ideologies.
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of Free Press, a D.C.-based progressive organization advocating for media regulation reform, suggests that Brendan Carr’s goals might not be dissimilar to those of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. In her view, there appears to be a larger strategy aimed at curtailing the autonomy of media systems. These attempts seem to be effective, according to González, as evidenced by ABC News paying $15 million to settle a libel lawsuit against George Stephanopoulos and reports she’s received about local news stations avoiding Trump-related stories following correspondence from Carr.
In his extensive 922-page manifesto for Project 2025, Carr outlined seven main goals, including one to “advocate for free speech.” This point has been frequently interpreted as a veiled strategy for amplifying conservative viewpoints, a move that critics argue significantly deviates from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) true mission. The FCC’s mandate, as defined by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is to make “affordable and equal access to rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide communication services” available to all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, or gender.
In my perspective as a gamer, Carr’s essay paints an ambitious picture of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), proposing its role expand beyond traditional boundaries. He suggests the FCC could potentially intervene in various areas, such as curbing the advancement of Chinese AI or supporting Elon Musk’s Starlink project.
Carr expresses a wish to reinvigorate local broadcasters, giving them the autonomy to cater to their communities. Interestingly, he seems to overlook national media, hinting at a less than favorable view towards it.
With a lean build and closely trimmed white beard, Carr has not shied away from taking action against parties that might seem unexpected. However, it’s important to note that tech companies are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This agency is responsible for regulating traditional communication methods only. As a result, Carr lacks the authority to address a longstanding concern of his: allegations that social media platforms are suppressing conservative viewpoints.
The former attorney is accusing Google’s YouTube TV of being biased towards faith-based programming, as he has launched an investigation into the technology giant over allegations that it is limiting the exposure of a new faith-focused channel, Great American Network, on their platform.
In a letter sent earlier this March, Carr expressed his concern about whether YouTube TV has any rules or habits that show bias towards religious channels. He made reference to Section 230, a law that shields tech companies from certain liabilities, which he has criticized in the past.
A private company’s decision about which channels to broadcast falls outside the scope of a regulatory agency’s responsibilities. However, Great American Network operates a well-liked channel on YouTube, its affiliated platform. In conclusion, Carr instructed YouTube executives to get in touch with his office for a discussion, which he referred to as a “briefing.
Two days following Carr’s X post on March 7 stating that “he has received complaints about YouTubeTV allegedly discriminating against faith-based programming,” Donald Trump Jr. re-shared this message and modified it to say, “Is it shocking that Google might be bias towards Christian faith-based content?” The post gathered around 14,000 likes from users.
A representative from Carr declined multiple invitations for an interview concerning this article. At a recent media event held by online platform Semafor in Washington, Carr stated that his actions were analogous to what a Democrat-led FCC was doing during the Biden era, and he intended to enforce the law impartially regardless of political affiliation.
However, former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairs from both political parties have voiced concerns about his actions, with Republican Alfred Sikes from the George H.W. Bush era expressing that the First Amendment should serve as a fundamental principle not just in the Constitution but also in the FCC’s actions. This criticism aligns with that of chairs from the Clinton and Obama administrations regarding Carr.
Carr shows an almost Musk-like enthusiasm when faced with criticism, even from fellow Republicans. In a statement to Darcy, Carr expressed sympathy towards Sikes and the two Democrats, stating, “I can’t help but feel sorry for all three of them. I assume it must be tough as their careers are coming to an end.
When Sheryl Crow announced she was giving away the earnings from selling her Tesla to support NPR instead of DOGE, Carr subtly challenged her on platform X: “I admire Sheryl Crow for expressing her viewpoint, even without using words directly. She’s advocating that our government should not compel taxpayers to fund NPR with her actions, rather than through spoken or written words.
Additionally, he occasionally brings up theories that seem to hint at a connection between the FCC during the Biden era and George Soros. Furthermore, he often appears on Fox News to extol Trump’s virtues and herald a new era of greatness. After the inauguration, Carr appeared on the network claiming that Trump’s return to Washington made “patriotic Americans feel as if the sense of decay, the feeling of malaise that has pervaded the country for the past four years is coming to an end.”
OR:
He sometimes suggests theories linking the FCC during Biden’s term with George Soros. Regularly appearing on Fox News, he promotes Trump’s greatness and speaks of a new golden age post-inauguration. Carr stated that Trump’s return to Washington gave “patriotic Americans the feeling that the sense of decline, the malaise that has affected the country for the last four years is over.
***
Grew up as the son of a lawyer in bustling Washington, D.C. My old man, Tom, juggled his own education at Georgetown University during the 60s while working in the mailroom at Dirksen Senate Office Building. He later obtained a law degree from the University of Virginia. Tom Carr’s legal career spanned various cases in D.C., and at one point, he even stood for the defense of Richard Nixon.
Brendan Carr, the sole child of Tom and Barbara, grew up in the Washington D.C. region throughout his entire childhood, eventually choosing to pursue a similar career path as his father at Georgetown. Politics leaning towards conservatism were a consistent aspect of his professional background. At age 29, he landed a job as a clerk for appellate judge Dennis Shedd, who was once the chief counsel for conservative Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina.
Throughout his career, communications were a significant part of Carr’s professional journey. During his law studies, he interned at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Upon graduating in 2005, he joined Wiley Rein, a law firm co-founded by Dick Wiley, who was the chair of the FCC under Nixon and Ford and advocated for deregulation. During his seven years at the firm, Carr handled appeals of FCC orders and provided clients with guidance on securing FCC approval.
When Carr departed from the firm in 2012, at just 33 years old, to advise the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it was almost expected that he would rise to become the Chair, given his subsequent work with the unconventional Republican commissioner and future chair Ajit Pai. A different outcome would have been an unusual twist in the story.
His tendency towards activism, both online and within the corridors of the FCC’s L Street headquarters, has caused concern among scholars who have dedicated their careers to understanding the Federal Communications Commission.
Kim Zarkin, who chairs the communication department at Westminster University in Utah and authored a book titled ‘The Federal Communications Commission: Front Line in the Culture and Regulation Wars’, finds this to be remarkably distinct from how the agency usually operates. She has not encountered anything like it before.
In the realm of my admiration, I’d like to point out that certain past commissioners have effectively propelled ideological agendas. One such individual, Mark Fowler during Reagan’s tenure in the 1980s, was a champion for deregulation and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. This move, in retrospect, seems to have contributed significantly to the polarization of media we witness today.
There have been instances where the influence of an FCC chair, through a stern address or subtle hints, can lead broadcasters to make significant changes. For example, during the early ’70s, when Nixon’s FCC chair Dean Burch criticized the emerging concept of “topless radio” – where women would share explicit details about their personal lives on air – his harsh words prompted many stations to abandon this format, effectively ending it.
Previously, no FCC chair has ever made attempts to control news outlets. However, Brendan Carr’s actions are seen as deviating from the norm, and not favorably so, according to Zarkin.
Those who’ve sat in Carr’s seat also express disbelief at what’s happening.
Michael Copps, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as serving as acting chair for a time, expresses significant concern about the FCC’s future to THR. He describes Ajit Pai, the current chairman, as the most ideological and political among the 35 previous chairs of the FCC.
***
In regulatory circles, there’s ongoing debate about whether Carr is truly an ideological zealot or just a opportunist leveraging the rising ideology for attention. Those who support the latter point out that before authoring Project 2025, Carr seldom expressed many hardline conservative views. However, if gaining Trump and Musk’s admiration was his aim, he has certainly succeeded. Carr has been invited to Mar-a-Lago at least four times.
Regardless of growing up in the affluent area of McLean, Virginia, or spending time at an exclusive law firm, Carr has made efforts to project a down-to-earth persona. He is often spotted wearing cowboy boots at FCC meetings and occasionally dons a hard hat for lift rides to the summit of broadcast towers during photo opportunities, such as his visit to Alabama in February.
Carr expressed it was consistently enjoyable to ascend into the sky and work alongside a tower team,” (at that time).
In professional settings, Carr’s populist actions might seem unusual to those familiar with him. A person acquainted with him from his early career describes Carr as a lawyer who exuded a calculated self-assurance in capital’s boardrooms. “He is usually the most astute legal mind present,” this individual notes, “and he doesn’t shy away from letting others know that he is.” The source requested anonymity to avoid compromising a potential relationship with him.
According to The Free Press’ González, Carr poses a greater threat than Trump or Musk. He argues that while Trump and Musk are external figures, Carr, having been within the system, understands administrative procedures better than anyone else.
Experts are apprehensive about Carr’s links with the new ruling class, as Fritz Messere expresses his concerns: “To me, Carr appears to be a follower of Musk, and I find that connection troubling.” Messere served as an assistant to Republican FCC commissioner Mimi Dawson during the Reagan era, and he shares his reservations with THR, particularly since Carr had previously criticized the agency’s decision to reject Musk’s $900 million rural broadband subsidy proposal for Starlink, as well as future decisions that could potentially benefit Musk.
As a fervent admirer, I’ve often imagined the possibility of Julian Carr venturing into Musk’s domain post his tenure at the FCC. The rumors swirling around have occasionally painted a picture of him joining forces with the visionary entrepreneur.
When Carr made a sacred visit to SpaceX’s base in Boca Chica, Texas, and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Musk, he extolled the business magnate’s accomplishments as having the potential to “revolutionize government efficiency and ignite a fresh wave of American ingenuity.”
Musk himself has openly endorsed Carr’s disagreement with the FCC’s Starlink verdict.
A key aspect of Carr’s public image involves seeking the attention of influential figures worldwide. Photos of him with personalities like British far-right politician Nigel Farage are not uncommon. This practice serves two purposes: it reinforces Carr’s conservative reputation and portrays him as a significant player on the global stage.
Despite his frequent criticisms of the press, Carr appears open and sometimes eager to interact with established journalists. He even conversed with several of them during a gathering following the Semafor conference, possibly understanding that while he doubts the national media can be relied upon for comprehensive, accurate, and impartial reporting, they can aid in boosting a bureaucrat’s professional standing.
***
Despite his strong support for “Make America Great Again” policies, Carr hasn’t always agreed with Trump’s views, preferring to keep this discrepancy low-key. As commissioner, he often spoke about the potential dangers of TikTok, stating in 2022 that he saw no viable alternative other than a ban. However, his stance on the issue became notably muted when Trump temporarily spared ByteDance from such measures shortly after taking office. It’s worth noting that Carr has consistently shown a firm stance against China, even displaying a photo of a Hong Kong protester resisting Chinese rule for many years.
Besides his outspoken criticism towards Section 230, this stance places him in direct opposition to the tech magnates who have aligned themselves with Trump.
Simultaneously, Carr’s spouse, Machalagh Carr (formerly a chief of staff to ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who often clashed with Trump), established a consulting firm focused on minimal government principles together with Bill Barr, Trump’s former attorney general and current critic who stated that due to January 6th, Trump “should no longer be near the Oval Office.” However, as is common among many Republicans who initially disapproved of Trump, these partnerships are not often mentioned. As of February, Machalagh Carr works for Palantir Technologies, a clandestine data-mining company that’s aggressively expanding within the U.S. government, which has sparked concerns among activists.
The movement challenging Carr’s Trump-inspired policies is starting to gain traction, although it’s uncertain how effective it will be in the long run. Sen. Blumenthal has submitted an inquiry to two internal FCC departments, essentially asking them to scrutinize their own agency. However, whether they have the independence or motivation to go against Carr’s leadership is yet to be determined.
Commissioner Anna Gomez has emerged as the Democratic voice of opposition within the FCC, acting as a counterpart to Carr’s pro-Trump stance, despite the uncertainty surrounding her long-term influence. In response to the Comcast inquiry, she asserted that it is not the role of the FCC to fan partisan culture wars. Furthermore, when the complaints were reinstated, she emphasized that we must not let our licensing power be used to suppress freedom of the press.
Corporate media doesn’t usually back down easily. For instance, on March 10, CBS resisted a complaint that accompanied a $20 million Trump lawsuit over editing of his Harris interview on 60 Minutes. In a document submitted to the FCC, they argued that the complaint proposes a world with less freedom where the government acts as a censor. Negotiations about a possible settlement, which had been under consideration internally, have now subsided. CBS appears ready to fight it out, even though the FCC is reviewing parent company Paramount’s sale to Skydance and Carr may seek concessions.
1. Option A: Carr’s actions may be restricted by mandate. A significant ideological bugbear for him, the abolition of Section 230, can only be altered through a legislative act from Congress. Although he can undoubtedly annoy media corporations, the FCC holds relatively modest power over large enterprises not requesting merger approval, which presently includes everyone except Paramount. In most instances, his strongest course of action would be to delay them with extensive hearings. If any of these companies were to take legal action, they’d probably prevail in court.
2. Option B: Carr’s actions could be subject to certain limitations due to mandate. A recurring ideological irritant for him, the elimination of Section 230, can only transpire via a congressional act. He might indeed make life hard for media companies, but the FCC has limited authority over corporations that don’t need merger approval, such as Paramount being the only exception. Often, his main tactic would involve prolonging hearings. If any of these firms were to take legal action, they have a good chance of winning their case in court.
3. Option C: Carr’s actions may be confined by mandate. One of his persistent ideological annoyances, the repeal of Section 230, can only be accomplished through congressional action. While he could certainly create problems for media companies, the FCC holds restricted power over significant businesses not seeking merger approval; this category presently encompasses everyone but Paramount. Generally speaking, his strongest recourse would be to stall them with lengthy hearings. If any of these entities were to file a lawsuit, they’d likely emerge victorious in court.
4. Option D: Carr’s actions could potentially be constrained by mandate. A recurring ideological grievance for him, the revocation of Section 230, can only occur via congressional action. He might indeed cause difficulties for media companies, but the FCC has limited control over corporations not requesting merger approval, a group that currently comprises everyone except Paramount. In most cases, his primary response would be to tie them up in lengthy hearings. If any of these firms were to initiate legal action, they’d likely succeed in their court proceedings.
Yet experts warn Carr doesn’t need to be practically or legally effective to blunt the media.
According to Pickard, an expert from Annenberg, the concern about being involved in something costly is what deters them. He explains that merely having the potential to draw focus is enough to keep them submissive and unwilling to ask challenging questions. It maintains their timidity.
“I think,” he added, “we should be very scared.”
Alex Weprin contributed to this report.
You can find this tale in the March 19th edition of The Hollywood Reporter periodical. To stay updated, consider subscribing.
Read More
- Cookie Run Kingdom Town Square Vault password
- Cookie Run Kingdom: Shadow Milk Cookie Toppings and Beascuits guide
- Wizardry Variants Daphne tier list and a reroll guide
- Maiden Academy tier list
- I Just Found Out How Many Days Of Work Vanna White Actually Puts In For Her $10 Million Salary, And Da-a-ang
- BONE PREDICTION. BONE cryptocurrency
- MSNBC’s Rebecca Kutler Takes Over as President
- Shakira Hospitalized, Cancels Peru Show Due to “Abdominal Issue”
- Ethereum’s Descent: A Tragicomedy of Crypto Misfortunes! 😂💔
- Chhaava OTT release: Where is Vicky Kaushal and Rashmika Mandanna’s film expected to stream after theatrical run? Find out
2025-03-19 16:26