Something called Nexstar, which owns a subset of ABC whatevers was maybe first? I stopped trying to understand it after a while; notably, the yahoo article which (I skimmed/searched before I came to HN) doesn't mention this I guess?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fcc-jimmy-kimme...

So yes, seems there was a middle step between Brendan Carr on a podcast, and top level ABC decision making.

▲

acdha 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The key thing is that Nexstar’s owners are hoping to make a lot of money from a merger which the FCC is currently ruling on. That makes threats from the FCC considerably more real:

https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2025/nexstar-tegna-fcc...

▲

magicalist 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In fact, the affiliates are exactly who Brendan Carr threatened:

> “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

> Carr suggested that the FCC could pursue news distortion allegations against local licensees.

> “Frankly I think it’s past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney, and say ’We are going to preempt — we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out,’” he said. “It’s time for them to step up and say this garbage — to the extent that that’s what comes down the pipe in the future — isn’t something that serves the needs of our local communities.”

(for those that don't know, ABC doesn't have an FCC license, broadcasting stations (affiliates) do, so that's exactly who he's using his unconstitutional leverage over)

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-...

▲

lovich 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cool, so did the FCC apply pressure using government power in the attempt to achieve this situation?

Yes or no?

You don’t need to answer as that’s rhetorical. It’s obvious the answer is yes. Democratic governments try to avoid making public statements like that because the general public cannot tell if it was because of the government or a happy coincidence that the party being pressured just happened to comply. Because it can’t be discerned even the appearance of using government power like that degrades the rule of law

▲

kcplate 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Carr is not “the FCC”. He’s the chairman, but he can’t act unilaterally to remove an affiliate broadcast license.

So “the FCC” did not apply pressure, the chairman did. He has a lot of influence and can set the agenda for the commission but he needs a majority of the commissioners to revoke a broadcast license. That is a super rare occurrence and would be unlikely.

▲

rezonant 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So if Trump does the same, that's not the government saying it, because he also can't act unilaterally for the government, right?

And in fact, no individual politician should be capable of acting unilaterally for the government, so I guess they are all off scott free.

	▲	kcplate 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Trump is different. He is the executive branch. He has the ability to EO change without anyone else having to agree before the fact. The FCC operates as a commission. The chairman might set the agenda, but the commission has to agree by majority. You could argue that he has great influence within the FCC, but he is not the FCC. When you make the leap from Carr to “the FCC” it’s roughly like if Sen. John Thune said something and you attributed his words to “the senate”.

▲

disgruntledphd2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't this the same FCC where Trump fired all the minority party commissioners?

▲

gertlex 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok, seems I rubbed the wrong way there; I was not trying to take away from that key point of your post.