Disney Finds Its Spine

By Lizzie O’Leary

In normal times, in a normal Federal Communications Commission, Anna M. Gomez’s job might be described as wonky. But now is not that time.

“A large part of my role is to call out this administration’s abuses of the First Amendment, particularly when it chooses to weaponize the FCC in trying to shut down any voices that it doesn’t like,” said Gomez. “And we see this constantly, there is a constant infringement on the free press and on the First Amendment and on the rights of viewers and listeners to see and hear what they want to see.”

Gomez is the sole Democrat on the commission. Her term is set to end on June 30. Normally, there would be five commissioners at the FCC, but right now, there are only three. Two resigned last year, and the Trump administration has not nominated their replacements. Gomez is on a First Amendment tour of sorts—telling Americans that the actions of the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, are egregious. Disney seems to agree. Unlike other media companies, it’s lawyered up to fight against the FCC’s latest demands.

On a recent episode of What Next: TBD, host Lizzie O’Leary spoke to Gomez about the FCC and why ABC isn’t folding like CBS did. This transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Lizzie O’Leary: How do broadcast affiliates work?

Anna M. Gomez: Although Disney owns and operates only eight stations nationwide, there are hundreds of ABC affiliates because there are hundreds of markets all over this country. They are owned independently by other broadcasters. Some of those broadcasters are quite large, and some of them are very small.

The FCC manufactured a complaint against a Disney station in Texas that carried The View. And although multiple ABC stations carried that particular program, it had the Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico on it.

There were tons of other ABC affiliates that also could have had this complaint lodged against them. But the FCC went to the nonowned affiliates in the market and said to them: “We want you to file with us, and we’re not going to hold it against you because of this alleged violation.” They didn’t go to Disney.

The FCC then used the fact that other affiliates filed as a reason to initiate this investigation against the one Disney-owned station. That to me is a setup. Some would call that entrapment. It’s where the FCC manufactures an issue and coordinates with the other stations so that only the Disney-owned station is the outlier. And this is why it is so egregious what this FCC is doing, because it is clearly targeting Disney in retaliation for its viewpoints.

How is that legal? 

It’s not. It’s absolutely unlawful. Not only is it unlawful, it is also unconstitutional. The FCC is challenging the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters, the talent, the press, through all of these actions. We are explicitly prohibited from censoring broadcasters, but this is censorship.

This feels like a shakedown. This feels like the emperor doesn’t like these comedians, whether it’s Jimmy Kimmel or Joy Behar, and if you don’t do something, we’re going to take away your affiliate licenses. Is that a fair reading? 

Absolutely. This administration cannot tolerate anything that is critical of it, that doesn’t mention its worldview. And it is weaponizing any tool in its toolbox, whether it’s the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Defense, in order to go after the press and to go after the media.

It is clear that this is absolute harassment in order to get Disney to capitulate. The good news is that Disney is not capitulating. It has actually shown courage. It has decided to stand up for its First Amendment rights and to push back. And if this gets carried out to its conclusion, and by that I mean it goes to court, the FCC will lose.

Is Disney finding a spine, or can Disney read a poll? 

Disney has, in fact, found its spine. Part of that, of course, is that we saw Disney capitulate very early on when it settled the case against ABC because of the George Stephanopoulos interview. And legal scholars said there is no basis for this case, but it went ahead and settled it. And that opened the door to all of these future actions against the media. I think what Disney learned is that capitulation doesn’t buy you protection; it might buy you some time, but they will keep coming back and coming back for more because what they demand is absolute allegiance to this administration and nothing else.

I’m curious about where this impacts TV. How much of this campaign is about pressuring tech platforms? 

There’s an absolute campaign by this administration to censor and control any media outlet using whatever levers it has at its power. Look at social media. The Federal Trade Commission used the fact that there were two ad agencies merging to force them to carry ads on Twitter, which they had stopped doing because of some of the content that they found to be harmful to their clients’ interests. And that is forced speech. That is a First Amendment violation.

I do believe that this administration is sending a signal. We have seen media companies win time and time again against this administration when they go to court. But litigation and regulatory investigations are costly, and a lot of companies, corporate parents, make the decision that it is actually less painful to settle and to capitulate than it is to fight. So the process is the point, the pain is the point, the threat is the point. They don’t want this to be carried out to its fruition. They want it to just force the companies enough pain so that they will capitulate. Now, I think this is a signal to every part of the media that they would do this to them, whether it’s to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, universities, law firms, or broadcasters. They will go after anyone who speaks out against them.